2024 Election thread
Comments
-
Lee Anderson, a fat old guy with a big nose.
Quote from me, a fat old guy with a big nose.
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Also, Richard Tice trying to explain what Anderson wants back is hilarious.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
He needs to sue nature as that is what has made him look fat and old with a big nose. It's interesting that he is happy with the portrayal of him being a thug though.
0 -
To be fair to him, after clicking on the link and seeing his comment on a previous cartoon, I think he is actually joking. On the previous cartoon of him he is naked, fat and covered with all sorts of slogans but he's moaning about how they've portrayed his ear lobe.
0 -
It would be more than a little amusing to hear 30p Lee essentially saying that all caricature is libellous.
0 -
-
People changing parties is vaguely juicy political gossip surely?
Plus everyone likes a stereotype, and he certainly fits a few.
0 -
Good lord, it was pretty clear he was joking.
He may be a tw@t, but seriously the hobby horse is blocking the view for some.
2 -
It's a very large hobby horse.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Given how unhappy he was about answering questions about his behaviour at that press conference, are you absolutely sure?
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Is the hobby horse not wanting shit politicians?
0 -
-
Reform forming an electoral alliance with the TUV (Traditional Unionist Voice) in NI.
Presumably the logic to use NI to put pressure on the Tory right to stamp on any EU alignment 'backsliding'
The TUV are the hard NO side of Unionism and are vehemently Anti-Protocol and Anti-Windsor Framework
It's amusing as every big name in Reform voted for the Withdrawal Agreement including the Protocol when they were Brexit Party MEPs and their only MP voted for the Windsor Framework as a Tory
Things rarely make sense.
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
-
Lol. 2p off NIC though
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
I'm increasingly of the opinion that (some?) Tories are actually happy to see everything failing. The further to the right they go, the more chaos is seen as a good thing, not least as there are massive profits to be made from disaster, and the more likely it is that cherished institutions (including the Civil Service) that help society function and cohere will disappear.
0 -
Not PFI ones
0 -
Catchphrase from the contracting game, chaos creates cash.
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
For every defender of PFI you have to mention 1MBD and a shittone of Malaysian embezzlement scandals.
aka it’s good in theory, harder to execute in practice.
0 -
I don't think I do.
0 -
if the nhs wasn't being bled dry by pfi, it'd have more money to spend on maintenance/replacement
my bike - faster than god's and twice as shiny0 -
Devils advocate ... But without the new PFI hospital buildings they'd have much older buildings to maintain.
I'm not really sure whether PFI was just a terrible idea, a good idea executed poorly or just over used. I'm guessing it fits into the too complex for simple analysis bucket. I think the key is that both sides can use it as a stick to beat the other with, on one hand it's a Tory invention, but on the other Blair oversaw it's overuse.
0 -
It’s hard to get the pfi balanced to be attractive enough for private capital but not so attractive the govt gets fleeced.
0 -
the government could've done it with public money and avoided subsequent decades of taxpayers' money funding pfi investors instead of the nhs
my bike - faster than god's and twice as shiny0 -
It's public money and private contractors either way. The NHS doesn't have an in house building contractor nor a maintenance contractor. Nor should they. Buildings aren't one off investments. They always require ongoing maintenance, especially highly serviced buildings like hospitals.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Why shouldn't they have maintenance contractors if they are in need of constant maintenance?
0 -
it's a trade off, right? Sometimes the borrowing or political constraints for a government make it tricky, or the risk profile isn't appropriate for the sate to stump up the money for much needed infrastructure, especially if they don't have the expertise for the kind of building they need.
So you get the private capital in who is happy to take on that risk. They obviously need a return and incentive to do so. In theory, it's win win. They stump up the capital and take the risk and the private enterprise gets the reward for doing so if it goes well.
The challenge is getting the balance right.
If say, the investor for a motorway can keep the tolls for the first 40 years before handing it over to the state - it may well be that after 20 years the motorway has paid for itself so the investor gets 20 years free tolls - that's a badly arranged deal for the state etc.
Furthermore, it's very easy to arrange those kinds of deals for your political mates - especially if you're quite sophisticated in burying where the profits really come from in the detail.
0 -
pfi is an unnecessary structure that enables investors to extract high returns at taxpayers' expense
paying contractors direct without the pfi overhead will always be cheaper
my bike - faster than god's and twice as shiny0 -
Yes, this is what I mean about it being hard to get the balance right and it is inncumbent on the people arranging the PFI to arrange it in an appropriate way.
The private sector must take the risk for the return.
0 -
If capitalism is equally as efficient as public sector investment, then shouldn't we try communism?
1
