Another socialist ........hypocrite

Bodgitnscarper said:
No, I'm suggesting the country would be ruined if the Labour Party came to power.
Click to expand...

It would be interesting to know which of their policies (rather than slurs and rumours circulated by enemies) you disagree with.

Which of the following?

Policies2017.png

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...d-by-majority-of-british-public-a7685016.html

And are you among the 57% or the 30% here?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-cap-bosses-salaries-poll-finds-a7527381.html
 
Sponsored Links
Bodgitnscarper said:
Click to expand...

You need to analyse the neo liberal policies of the governments and their effects. This is the main reason why people have rejected capitalism and are looking at more socialist policies.

The journalist on that video is a libertarian nutter who has been blogging and now is a journalist at a website that is the Brazilian equivalent of Breitbart.

The fact that he lumps any government decision making as socialism and ergo bad shows just how warped his thinking is.

Look at the policies and their implementation.
 
JohnD said:
there was also a reference to a contract being dumped back on the NHS because it was not sufficiently profitable.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-31104003
Click to expand...


Ok, so that's one point of view, we can see the BBC's take on the story.
But there are two sides to every story.
So, I would now urge you to consider the comments made here-that the only NHS contender withdrew their bid for the contract.
Also that the decision to privatise it in the first place was that of Labour's Andy Burnham.

https://biasedbbc.org/?s=NHS+Cambridgeshire+
 
Sponsored Links
I don't believe that multi-million government contracts, for work to be carried out in Britain for the British government, for British Citizens and paid for by British taxpayers, should be given to companies that don't pay British tax.

Virgin Health, based (like Branson) in the tax-haven of the Virgin Islands, is another example.
 
"This process started in 2009. At that time, Hinchingbrooke was failing financially and was the most indebted trust in the NHS, having built up debts of £40 million (almost half of the hospital’s £100 million turnover). This led to a decision by the East of England Strategic Health Authority (SHA) and then Health Secretary Andy Burnham to put the hospital out to tender and allow another organisation to take it over, a decision enabled by legislation passed in 2001 and 2006. After several NHS trusts dropped their bids during the process, by February 2010 only two private providers remained in the running – the Circle Health Partnership and Serco Health. Circle’s bid beat Serco’s in the final stages of the process and the contract was handed to Circle in November 2011, "


Source link

http://civitas.org.uk/2013/02/25/all-eyes-on-hinchingbrooke/
 
JohnD said:
I don't believe that multi-million government contracts, for work to be carried out in Britain for the British government, for British Citizens and paid for by British taxpayers, should be given to companies that don't pay British tax.

Virgin Health, based (like Branson) in the tax-haven of the Virgin Islands, is another example.
Click to expand...


But in the case above the hospital was £40 million in debt when it was taken over.
 
I don't have the figures for how much taxpayers' money was shovelled into the pockets of the foreign contractor. Can you find them?
 
JohnD said:
It would be interesting to know which of their policies (rather than slurs and rumours circulated by enemies) you disagree with.
Click to expand...

It's sad to read in
Journalistic*Representations*of*Jeremy*Corbyn*in*the*British*press
http://www.lse.ac.uk/media@lse/research/pdf/JeremyCorbyn/Cobyn-Report-FINAL.pdf

that that only a paltry 11% of all newspaper articles about him bothered to accurately state a single one of his actual policies. In the hard-wing Daily Mail and Express that figure was 0%.

Given this lack of unbiased political coverage it's not difficult to understand why so many people are so unfamiliar with Jeremy Corbyn's actual policies, and tend to judge him as if politics is some kind of vapid personality contest.

The report analysed hundreds of articles about Jeremy Corbyn in the mainstream newspapers and identified three main delegitimisation propaganda tactics used to attack Jeremy Corbyn.
  • Ignoring Jeremy Corbyn's words/policies, or actively misrepresenting them
  • Using Scorn, ridicule and personal attacks
  • Smear by association tactics
These are some of the specific findings in the report:
  • Almost three quarters of all stories failed to accurately report Jeremy Corbyn's actual views on subjects.
  • 52% of all newspaper articles didn't mention Corbyn's actual views at all, while another 22% misrepresented his views or took them out of context.
  • Only one in five Daily Telegraph articles about Jeremy Corbyn even bothered to quote anything he had said whatever.
  • The worst offenders at misrepresenting Jeremy Corbyn's views/policies were the Evening Standard (39% of articles), Express (37%) and Telegraph (29%).
  • In the period between September 1st and his election as Labour leader on September 12th an astonishing 42% of all newspaper articles attempted to frame him as a communist.
  • 0% of Daily Mail and Express articles presented Jeremy Corbyn's views/policies without alteration. The average across all newspapers was just 11%.
  • 22% of all newspaper articles designated Jeremy Corbyn as "dangerous", rising to 50% of articles in the Telegraph and 63% of articles in the Express.
  • All newspapers ran significantly more critical articles than positive ones, including the supposedly left-liberal Guardian, Mirror and Independent. On average over 50% of articles about Corbyn were negative or highly critical, while less than 10% adopted a positive tone.
  • 80% of Daily Express articles about Jeremy Corbyn used ridicule and scorn to delegitimise him. The other worst offenders at using ridicule tactics were the Daily Mail (54%), Evening Standard (47%) and Sun (45%).
  • The worst offenders at publishing personal attacks were the Express (40% of all articles) and the Evening Standard (26%).
  • The supposedly left-liberal Daily Mirror and Independent newspapers were far more likely to include quotes from anti-Corbyn Labour politicians, than quotes from those who support him.
It's almost as if there was some kind of conspiracy.

I can understand some of it

MediaOwners.jpg
 
Ah John, The law of unintended consequences.

Increase the minimum wage to £10 per hour. That puts up the staff and NI costs in the NHS and Schools etc, resulting in staff being laid off.

Raise the top tax to 45p, and you might just get a bit more tax revenues, but you'll also encourage tax evasion.

Add VAT on to private school fees. Then some parents can't afford them any longer, so those children have to go into the state system, thereby increasing the overcrowding in the schools, and as there are less children in private schools as a result in the price hike, then tax take then goes down.

Difficult to set up an investement bank with £350bn of government money, when Labour admitted that they'd struggle to fund the £100bn needed to wipe out student fees.

Still, it's nice to dream isn't it.
 
I would agree with this comment attached to the "independant " link you posted, John...

168 days ago
grindelow
Individual policies say little about electability. If you asked voters if they agreed that they should pay no tax and that the rich should pay 99% tax many would agree on the simple basis they win or they lose nothing.
A far more challenging question is which party to vote for because many issues and fears are involved and not just individual policies.
If you dislike one candidate or party you are more likely to vote for the other.
Emotional reactions to the financial crisis has driven voters from Labour see http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/anger-and-fear-how-do-they-shape-our-vote/

Hence we have a situation where a large percentage of voters agree with individual Labour policies but at the same time would overwhelmingly vote Conservative not Labour.
 
Bodgitnscarper said:
Ok, so that's one point of view, we can see the BBC's take on the story.
But there are two sides to every story.
So, I would now urge you to consider the comments made here-that the only NHS contender withdrew their bid for the contract.
Also that the decision to privatise it in the first place was that of Labour's Andy Burnham.

https://biasedbbc.org/?s=NHS+Cambridgeshire+
Click to expand...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/lifestyle/11392213/Hinchingbrooke-what-else-did-they-expect.html

It was a mistake from the beginning.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Sponsored Links

Similar threads

gasbanni
Has France got this right ?
2 3
Replies
34
Views
3K
JBR
JBR
fillyboy
Good old Littlejohn
2
Replies
29
Views
2K
Vinty
Vinty
Back
Top