Unravel_Morrison
Well-known member
Fantastic from Ritchie and I got 4/1
Kerching Now to win the next election...
Fantastic from Ritchie and I got 4/1
Kerching Now to win the next election...
Of course it is. There is profit to be made, a lot of profit, enough for the US LLC's and the PM that delivers it.It's genuinely scary when you look at how much they've underfunded it compared to historically. The money is there as well; it's an ideolgical choice not to properly fund it.
Aye, I know, but they peddle the line that the per capita spend has gone up, but it's where that's going which is the problem. I wouldn't be bothered if they used private companies if they were more efficient with that money, and if it was still free to the user, but the service we're getting is worse (again that's Tories for ya).It's not that funding hasnt kept up with inflation Andy, its that it has gone down in absolute and real terms. A huge proportion of the "NHS" funding goes to private companies. This isn't funding the NHS it's funding the private healthcare sector.
That's why I say it isn't fudging numbers, it's lying. It is a straight out lie.
Funding has gone up. It might not have matched inflation but it has increased. The biggest problem is the total funding for NHS & Social care has massively gone down resulting in more peopl needing A&E/GPs etc and more people sat in beds with nowhere to go. Social care is preventative as well as restorative. Pointless having the most efficiently run NHS service in the middle (even if that was the case) of an entirely inefficient/underfunded system.Aye, I know, but they peddle the line that the per capita spend has gone up, but it's where that's going which is the problem. I wouldn't be bothered if they used private companies if they were more efficient with that money, and if it was still free to the user, but the service we're getting is worse (again that's Tories for ya).
Nano that isn't true. In absolute terms and in real terms funding has been reduced. The increased funding is going solely to private contractors, not the NHS. Year on year funding has been slashed.Funding has gone up. It might not have matched inflation but it has increased. The biggest problem is the total funding for NHS & Social care has massively gone down resulting in more peopl needing A&E/GPs etc and more people sat in beds with nowhere to go. Social care is preventative as well as restorative. Pointless having the most efficiently run NHS service in the middle (even if that was the case) of an entirely inefficient/underfunded system.
Interestingly, in the 77 years since the end of the Second World War, the UK government has only made a net repayment of debt in 11 of those years. Of those 11 occasions, 7 occurred under Labour governments, despite the fact that they were only in power for 25 of the 77 years in question.According to Richard Murphy ( Tax research uk) nearly 3/4 of UKās national debt has been borrowed by the Tories.
Interestingly, in the 77 years since the end of the Second World War, the UK government has only made a net repayment of debt in 11 of those years. Of those 11 occasions, 7 occurred under Labour governments, despite the fact that they were only in power for 25 of the 77 years in question.
.
Still, the Tories are the party of sound money and prudent economic management and all thatā¦
This is where it gets complicated BUT the current Chancellor knows he's telling lies when he trots out the household debt argument (unless he's utterly incompetent).Yes, he mentioned that. The Tories have only paid down four times in that period. Frightening to think the Tories have held power for that amount of time.
I know Murphyās talked a lot about to whom the money is owed if most of it is actually āCreatedā money, printed under instruction from the government. Can it in that case be technically considered as debt? Or as other people describe itā¦a con that government insist that ācreatedā money is a debt that must be paid back.
I could have started another political thread but didn't want to get told off by the fmttm-is-for-football purists.Didn't take too long for an anti-Starmer post to crop up on a thread discussing Sunak and Truss...
That woman won't be voting Tory anyway so I'm not sure what the issue is. Some people who loved Corbyn will never like Starmer. So what.
I'm not sure that treating the public like idiots is better in any way than expecting them to be adults and telling the truth about how state finances work.I think he was just dumbing things down a little (with regards tot the deficit), which I can kind of understand, as most of the public won't understand anyway.
They all fudge the numbers about funding public services, but as we know, there are may ways to lie using statistics, or bending numbers to suit your argument. They're still both Tories, so either way those services are getting cut, in real terms. Or if they keep one funded in line with inflation they'll shout it from the roof top, but then cut another three which they won't talk about.
The guests were terrible.
I could have started another political thread but didn't want to get told off by the fmttm-is-for-football purists.
She probably won't vote Tory but Starmer is making no headway as Labour leader and needs to go whilst there's still time to bed-in someone with either charisma or an ideology (preferably both).
The fact the latest polls show Starmer coming last in the "who would you prefer as PM" question is hugely damning of the whole Tory-lite project.
He made no attempt to even engage. There was plenty of opportunity.That woman spoke for the whole of Liverpool did she? She can certainly rant. The anger and frustration is understandable but she didnāt allow him to respond or debate with her.
Infrastructure or personal offshore accounts.
No headway as Labour leader... OK mate.
View attachment 41969
(Source https://www.politico.eu/europe-poll-of-polls/united-kingdom/)
I think the majority of the debt is traditional, in that it was existing money in the money supply that was borrowed by the government from financial institutions and foreign governments. Depending on whether you're a proponent of MMT or not would determine whether you think that element of the national debt really needs to be repaid.Yes, he mentioned that. The Tories have only paid down four times in that period. Frightening to think the Tories have held power for that amount of time.
I know Murphyās talked a lot about to whom the money is owed if most of it is actually āCreatedā money, printed under instruction from the government. Can it in that case be technically considered as debt? Or as other people describe itā¦a con that government insist that ācreatedā money is a debt that must be paid back.
Thats nonsense Scrote. Which poll? And by the way even if you were right he isnt doing too bad in the polls that point to who wins the next GEI could have started another political thread but didn't want to get told off by the fmttm-is-for-football purists.
She probably won't vote Tory but Starmer is making no headway as Labour leader and needs to go whilst there's still time to bed-in someone with either charisma or an ideology (preferably both).
The fact the latest polls show Starmer coming last in the "who would you prefer as PM" question is hugely damning of the whole Tory-lite project.
Hang on. Give more context with that poll. Who of? This is Savanta's poll for Scotland from just last week
I can't find that poll posted by Scrote from Savanta on their Twitter feed - its a screenshot but from where I don't know. In any case all the polls I have seen certainly do not have KS in "last place"Hang on. Give more context with that poll. Who of? This is Savanta's poll for Scotland from just last week