General Erection - 12th December 2019

[Bycarsbill]

17 hours ago, TheSage said:

I'm not saying that Labour haven't kept the likes of Abbott and Cooper away from public view. They clearly hthat was my point. ave.

But you know as well as I do why the Tories chose Sunday to launch their manifesto and why it was deliberately short and vague. It was to get it out asap with the minimum of scrutiny and the less detail, the less pointed questions they face. It was crystal clear why they did that. No other party did it. A Sunday afternoon. Come on! It's no conspiracy but a fact. Tell me when other governing parties have published their manifesto last, on a quiet Sunday, and it was as short as that one. Never.

Of course parties plan their visits but Johnson deliberately avoided Neill and you know that as well - he avoided the rottweiler because his aids feared for his responses. He avoided C4. He avoided Newsnight. He refused to attend the important climate change debate. He sent his dad! He often turns up out of the blue and has had to cancel walkabouts because he's scared. All parties stage manage it to some extent, of course, but not like he's done. Blimey, anyone can do a comfy tete a tete on afternoon TV or a selfie with Holly.

But he's run away from scrutiny because he's a buffoon and Cummings knows it. Damage limitation. Steer clear of the public. Look what a shambles he's made of visiting Yorkshire after the floods and going to hospitals and ignoring sick children.

The facts are that Johnson has spent nearly all his time in safe Tory seats. Corbyn has spent his time equally split but slightly more in Tory seats in the last week. Ponder those facts.

Don't believe everything you read in the Times. It's owned by Murdoch who bankrolls the Tory Party.

What a load of tosh & drivel--not worth responding to such billious tripe.  As you admit, all parties stage manage an election campaign--that was my point. I used to enjoy a bit of cut & thrust with you because I thought you more sensible than a lot on here. After this load of rubbish and your even sillier comments in another post about spending on the NHS being only 0.6% of GDP, I can only conclude that you've fallen hook, line & sinker for the promises by Corbyn of a land of socialist milk & honey!  Sorry but I'm afraid you're now off the Christmas card list.  Happy New Year--hopefully not under our Marxist friends.

[Bycarsbill]

18 hours ago, Heatwave said:

I shouldn't worry Bill, if Corbyn gets in all the PFIs will be nationalised. 

I suspect you meant that as a joke. However, with Corbyn & McDonnell you may have hit the nail on the head--except of course, even in their fantasy world of marxist economics the cost would be absurdly impossible to come up with!

[For Us All]

21 minutes ago, Bycarsbill said:

I suspect you meant that as a joke. However, with Corbyn & McDonnell you may have hit the nail on the head--except of course, even in their fantasy world of marxist economics the cost would be absurdly impossible to come up with!

Didn't the last Labour goverment sell off most of our gold reserves on the cheap?

[Regal Beagle]

1 hour ago, tommytunstall said:

We can't afford to leave the EU with a no deal, it will cost us millions, that is a proven fact, not as you deal in proven facts. But that is where the Buffoon is taking us.

It simply is not a proven fact. 

[Regal Beagle]

3 hours ago, TheSage said:

On average we spent around 3.3% GDP on the NHS since its inception - forties, fifties, sixties, seventies, eighties, nineties, noughties, good times, bad times. 

Over the last few years under the Tories it's been 0.6%. How difficult is it to understand that? 

We can't afford not to prevent 5500 people dying on trolleys since 2016, or patients facing record waiting times for cancer treatment or queuing up for hours at A&E!! Blimey, what kind of a country do we live in?

We are the 5th-6th richest country in the world. 

 

Where is the money coming from Sage? It has to come from the budgets for other programs. 

 

[For Us All]

15 hours ago, Jacko51 said:

A lot cheaper than 

It is a lot cheaper but you can't watch Sky unless you've got a BBC licence.Well,you can but it's illegal!

[Heatwave]

50 minutes ago, Bycarsbill said:

I suspect you meant that as a joke. However, with Corbyn & McDonnell you may have hit the nail on the head--except of course, even in their fantasy world of marxist economics the cost would be absurdly impossible to come up with!

 

27 minutes ago, For Us All said:

Didn't the last Labour goverment sell off most of our gold reserves on the cheap?

Only slightly. 😊 And the sale of gold reserves (by no means all or even most) was to attempt to deal with the 2008 financial crisis - the source of which was the sub prime mortgages scandal in the USA; nothing to do with Labour government policy.

In a previous existence I was a public sector manager and the authority I worked for asked me to write a report on alternative methods of funding to authority budgets for my service, and was expressly asked to include PFI in the options as they were considering it. Having done my research I concluded that PFI was easily the worst option they could have taken as the assets would be taken by the PFI contractor and the authority would cease to have control of it - except by a loosely worded output specification. It was essentially a licence to print money for the contracting sector; the only saving grace was that the Government were prepared to contribute much more as funding for the contract than they would have provided to the authority in capital funding. That's why so many local authorities and the NHS went for it - to all intents and purposes, it was the only game in town if you wanted capital funding for your service. So the contractors would build the hospitals, roads etc with a very small residual value at the end of the (typically 25 year) contract - leaving five years residual life before major capital expenditure is required again, requiring another PFI.

Incidentally, the authority I worked for decided against PFI in the end as expenditure on the service would increase by about a third. Which is why I think that if Corbyn gets in one of his first acts would be to buy out all the PFI contracts.

[philpvfc]

Gordon Brown sold half of our gold, around 400 tonnes if I remember right. He sold it for $3.5 billion as the price was really low at the time. If he sold it today he would get over €10.5 billion. Not good business if you ask me. He needed it because the Blair/ Brown reign had spent all our money but even then he would have been far better borrowing the money but hey, that would have shown to increased Government lending.

[For Us All]

13 minutes ago, Heatwave said:

 

Only slightly. 😊 And the sale of gold reserves (by no means all or even most) was to attempt to deal with the 2008 financial crisis - the source of which was the sub prime mortgages scandal in the USA; nothing to do with Labour government policy.

In a previous existence I was a public sector manager and the authority I worked for asked me to write a report on alternative methods of funding to authority budgets for my service, and was expressly asked to include PFI in the options as they were considering it. Having done my research I concluded that PFI was easily the worst option they could have taken as the assets would be taken by the PFI contractor and the authority would cease to have control of it - except by a loosely worded output specification. It was essentially a licence to print money for the contracting sector; the only saving grace was that the Government were prepared to contribute much more as funding for the contract than they would have provided to the authority in capital funding. That's why so many local authorities and the NHS went for it - to all intents and purposes, it was the only game in town if you wanted capital funding for your service. So the contractors would build the hospitals, roads etc with a very small residual value at the end of the (typically 25 year) contract - leaving five years residual life before major capital expenditure is required again, requiring another PFI.

Incidentally, the authority I worked for decided against PFI in the end as expenditure on the service would increase by about a third. Which is why I think that if Corbyn gets in one of his first acts would be to buy out all the PFI contracts.

Thanks for the information,very interesting.

[Playa Amodores]

As much as I agree with nationalisation we could never afford it. In relation to PFI, it was a gun to the heads of the different departments under the public sector umbrella.

Having met up with some friends who I went to school with over 40 years ago some didn’t know anything about PFI. When we go on about the NHS being on the table for sale, there can’t be much left to sell. Hearing tests at Boots & Specsavers, tests being carried out at your local chemists. 
 

I was told that the hospital in Stoke is on a fifty year PFI, ask yourself what condition modern built buildings will be in, in 50 years time. I’d imagine they’ll be pulled down and rebuilt. Also that in 25 years over half the NHS budget will be swallowed up by rent alone. With PFI the authority using the building is a tenant so not allowed to do any work, modifications no matter how small or repairs. Repairs include replacing light bulbs, as you are a tenant. So you contact the landlord who then arranges for the work to be carried out, with public sector contractors adding at least a third to the bill.

Its so wrong and I feel sorry for future generations, who will adopt this mess that my generation have created.

Sorry about the rant.

 

[For Us All]

Thanks,very interesting.From your experience do you think that the public sector could run these various companies better after nationalisation than the private sector are doing now?

[Playa Amodores]

It’s pretty simple really, you have a choice of voting for a liar or a fantasist. Lib Dem vote us a wasted vote, that allows their voters to sit back when the government has made a complete mess of things which they will do and say, we’ll I didn’t vote for them.

i personally think the country has been better off since they closed Parliament for the election. IMO we don’t need them, self serving individuals. The only time they want us is when it’s election time, so they can be guaranteed £75k a year for the next four/five years. When they vote in Parliament do they represent their constituents, answer no they don’t. A good example of this is Brexit, where they’ve blocked it. I have that fantastic Mr Snell as my MP, what a buffoon. I don’t wish to undermine Boomer, but I’d vote for Boomer if he was standing. He’d also be easier on the eye when on the back benches. 

[Playa Amodores]

14 minutes ago, For Us All said:

Thanks,very interesting.From your experience do you think that the public sector could run these various companies better after nationalisation than the private sector are doing now?

No I don’t, because in education,fire and police the ppl in charge of the purse strings have no management qualifications. They’ve climbed the greasy pole through cronyism.

its reported that the Fire and a Police commissioner with his entourage cost a lot more than the authorities that they replaced. All this cones out of the budget, so council tax payer has to pay for these lot. It’s said in the public sector, it’s not our money we’re spending, how irresponsible. I have a friend in the police and she used to say come March any spare money has to be spent so there was always overtime. The reason it had to be spent/wasted was because if they didn’t spend it, the next year instead of being rewarded it would be deducted from m the following years budget. What a responsible and great way of handling finances. The local authority are the same, look at all the road repairs that go in in Feb/March.

The ship is far to big to stop and turn around 

[Jacko51]

1 hour ago, Playa Amodores said:

It’s pretty simple really, you have a choice of voting for a liar or a fantasist. Lib Dem vote us a wasted vote, that allows their voters to sit back when the government has made a complete mess of things which they will do and say, we’ll I didn’t vote for them.

i personally think the country has been better off since they closed Parliament for the election. IMO we don’t need them, self serving individuals. The only time they want us is when it’s election time, so they can be guaranteed £75k a year for the next four/five years. When they vote in Parliament do they represent their constituents, answer no they don’t. A good example of this is Brexit, where they’ve blocked it. I have that fantastic Mr Snell as my MP, what a buffoon. I don’t wish to undermine Boomer, but I’d vote for Boomer if he was standing. He’d also be easier on the eye when on the back benches. 

Snell voted for the second reading of the WAB against his party's wishes but what his constituents wanted.  How does that make him a buffoon?

[Heatwave]

2 hours ago, For Us All said:

Thanks,very interesting.From your experience do you think that the public sector could run these various companies better after nationalisation than the private sector are doing now?

From my experience, yes, provided the public sector has retained or can easily obtain (through TUPE) the experienced staff that would be needed. The authority I worked for asked one of the contractors providing our type of service to undertake a management consultancy exercise to see if they could do it cheaper than our directly employed staff. When the results came back, not only could it not be done any more cheaply but they refused point blank to take it on saying that they couldn't make any profit from it.

I can foresee that happening in all manner of services.