Thought Id start this one going because its rather dead on this board at the moment and I suppose all my usual muckers are either at the Stella tennis event watching Dim Tim (lose again) or at Henly Regatta eating cucumber sandwiches (they wish,...NOT).

Anyway please feel free to just talk to yourself blast away and let it go on any company or subject you wish. Just wish Id thought of this one before.

cheers GF.

Hazes,

Post 47299

" decision to catch and dispatch Brooks Newmark MP – former minister for civil society, dressed in paisley pyjamas and waggling his genitalia at a mythical Tory PR blonde called Sophie – is its apparent heedlessness"


You can see what tory ministers expect from the party PR women.

Interesting reflection of the con party!

DB4.

"What makes you so sure this so-called MansionTax would be spent on the NHS? Are you sure at least some of it wouldn't be spent on foreign aid, or dishing out more benefits to people who don't deserve them - ie those who think it OK to have limitless numbers of children with different partners and those who come to live in this country without any job prospects, money or a place to live?"


I think attaching a specific item of tax to a specific item of government expenditure is "problematic", but I would assume that the connection you refer to is symbolic and has underlying cogitations of the way taxes are raised and distributed.

I would prefer to think of taxation going into one mutual pot and society as a whole drawing from it for the benefit as a whole. (What the divisions should be, let politics decide guided by society itself.

I think foreign aid given by one country to another, or especially "poorer groups in another country" is valuable. (Similar, to educating the “poor” in this country aiming at the long-term benefits it confers on the society.) (General, or academic education.)

One hopes that the aid helps to benefit the development of the society, educating, improving their hygiene and medical care, and socialising into more tolerant caring societies.)

The benefit is, that even though the "aid" is sometimes given patronisingly the receivers will think more generously towards the givers. That is in the way of future trade and "political" support.

Is some of the aid misdirected, probably is is criminally syphoned off by the "criminal” upper political, or governmental echelons in some countries?

Probably, yes.

Often, paid directly into their own pockets and sometimes into the "companies" owned by their friends. (Similar to what is happening to lesser degrees in this country.)

If "corruption" is happening, if possible then it should be negated. But an important feature of us providing aid to other countries is that is protective to the UK.

Another factor of Aid is its use to treat and contain disease within a country of “origin” preventing its spread to the rest of the world. That needs money which some countries can’t or don’t make available themselves.

Hopefully, like small pox, polio and malaria can be, or eventually will be eradicated.

Similar applies to Ebola, Zars etc..

It makes us “safer”!

-=-=-=---

As far as breeding like rats, is concerned, Education, contraceptive information and “free” access to “contraceptives” and family planning is part of the resolution, but one of the best contraceptives was raising the economics circumstances and opportunities of a population. (They respond to the economic possibilities, families in general get smaller.)¬¬¬


Money to immigrants.

Depends on reasons for being in the UK.

Whether we have a ongoing responsibility to them through history etc. (Poles, Afghans used as interpreters, etc.)

The actual true cost, or effect on the UK economy.

Also, if an immigrant is found to open TB, I would prefer the cost of treatment than allowing him/her to sleep on the streets.

I don’t fancy walking around the streets stepping over bodies, because it is thought cheaper, or “that will larn them” attitude.


Should there be reform of immigration policies yes, but I think the problems are being blown up by the political attitudes galvanised by BNP’s, the party of Kippers and the anal Right wing of the Con party in an attempt to gain political advantage.

Should all immigrants/visitors to the UK be expected to justify their reasons for admission to the country?

Maybe. But justify the expense of administration against real gains.



I hope that answers your question. If you don’t think so and need further resolutions to them, ask Manuel. He has asked enough questions in the past, and has possibly read, or listened to, the answers and maybe able to help.

Ps.

Why did I write the above?

It helped to clarify my thoughts for myself.

Not Manuels! That would be impossible!

8-)

MIDDLETON & HEYWOOD MEANS NOTHING LIKE THE MEDIA/UKIP ARE SAYING
10/10/2014 · by skwalker1964

BBC News, Radio 4 and others have been giving plenty of airtime and oxygen – as they did for years without justification in featuring Farage on every possible occasion – to the UKIP ‘near-triumph’ of UKIP in the Middleton and Heywood by-election. The claim, in pseudo-rational analysis by pundits and near-histrionic terms by UKIP spokespeople, has been that the result is a scare for Labour and a clear demonstration of UKIP’s supposed threat to Labour in its heartlands.

Nonsense – as a quick comparison of yesterday’s results and the 2010 General Election results will show.

Here are the results side by side:



The first thing to note is that Labour’s vote is down by 37% – exactly the same as the percentage drop in turnout (36/57.5 = 63%). As is well known, in what is perceived as a solid seat for any party, voters for that party usually turn out in lower numbers in a by-election because of the assumption that others will vote in sufficient numbers to secure the win).

It is almost unquestionable that this would have happened in Middleton and Heywood, where a by-election resulting from the death of a popular Labour MP would have been expected by the local populace to bring a straightforward Labour win. In fact, it’s extremely likely that the fall in Labour turnout was higher than the average, which would make Labour’s result an effective increase on 2010.

The UKIP vote rose by 9,800 – with a massive effort from them to create an upset. It’s certain that every would-be UKIP voter would turn out to vote, either in protest or in the hope of creating that upset or at least putting on a ‘good’ show.

But now look at the Tory result. The Tories were terrified of getting a worse result than UKIP in this election and will have mobilised every possible effort. Yet the drop in their vote was massive – and almost identical to the increase in the UKIP vote.

Not only that, but the BNP did not stand a candidate – unlike in 2010. Since, as we saw in Rotherham, in a strong Labour area the UKIP vote basically cannibalises the BNP vote, it is very safe to assume that the same happened in M&H yesterday.

UKIP’s vote rose by 9.800. The Tory vote fell by over 9,000 and the BNP vote disappeared.

Without the former-BNP vote, UKIP would not have been able even to match the fall in the Tory vote – in spite of what must have been a high turnout of their voters and a massive effort to create a splash.

This was nothing like the result that UKIP and the media are trying to paint it as. So what was it – what are the real lessons?

First and foremost, that – as always, and in spite of claims to the contrary by Farage and his cronies – all UKIP were able to do in a ‘Labour heartland’ was cannibalise the votes of disaffected Tories and, even more shamefully, of the disgraceful BNP.

Secondly, while this was very nearly a disaster for the Labour party, it’s extremely unlikely to set or demonstrate a trend. Labour voters stayed at home in the Middleton and Heywood by-election – but one close call is enough to ensure that this mistake will not be repeated in other seats at the next election.

Sadly, this isn’t a view you’ll hear/read mentioned in the media. So spread the word.

goldfinger

What do you think about the artical in the Oct SB Maq on page 92, about stop's for beginners. I liked the Alpesh Patel advice.

Good post Fred, thank you for your thoughts. I agree with some of the points you make.

I think this country contributes more money per head of population in foreign aid than any other G8 country. Some African countries are still very sceptical about Western medical practices so sending medical aid is a waste of time and money. If our NHS wasn't in such a mess then perhaps I wouldn't object so much.

Yes, I do think all visitors/immigrants should be asked to justify their reasons for coming to the UK. Australia & and America have very strict controls in place. I think the administration costs would be miniscule in comparison to the option of leaving the floodgates open.

I must say that I like the US green card system. We could do with something similar. It is not the actual immigration that is the problem. We know that most of the EU immigrants do work and contribute to tax.

Immigration to the UK, whether is from EU or not, causes other consequential problems. It causes an overloading of our services and infrastructure such as no school places in some boroughs, very long waiting lists at doctors and hospitals, shortages of housing, increased demand for benefits. It has also been responsible for major changes in our demographics which erode our traditional culture and in some cases our laws.

Schools are frightened to carry on UK traditions. Christmas is hardly celebrated in state schools so as to avoid upsetting children from specific ethnic groups. Councils are obsessed with political correctness to the extent that they have looked the other way when children were abused by men from foreign ethnic groups.

It is not the immigrants we should fear and worry about. It is the unwelcome changes and damage that is done to our society.

DB4.

Yet again and just as superficial my reply.

The problems of the NHS are minuscule compare with what the World Health Authority is contending with. The UK is nor insulated from the spread of disease and the effects due to the speed and amount of travel and also the economic effects of travel, export and import restrictions. Also, another "problem" is due to the Internet and Media (SOME) issues are hyped.

It is a minority in those "foreign" countries who attend the "witch doctors" rather than the medically trained doctors. A bit like some in the country who buy the latest fad food, vitamin pill, or attend somebody for a seance, or Homeopathy.

The major problem with the NHS is to many senseless re-organisations (especially the last one, the resulting apathy and disconnect of Medical staff, (nurses and doctors) and other areas of the "caring" services. (Including resentment of privatisation of many areas, such as Ambulance service and reliance on various agency staff.)

There has been a disconnect by many in the health service between their own goals and the intended goals of the health service.

How is it repaired.

Slowly.

PS.

Without immigrants working at all levels within the NHS it would collapse.

But you can't import a lorry full of migrants when you need them and dispose of them after use.

Also, remember The English and other nationalities in Europe (World) are crossbreeds or hybrids of one form or another.

When there are problems to resolve then it is in general better address the real cause of problems rather than the symptoms.

Unfortunately, the cause/s and causation are often complex.

==-=-=-=-=-=-=


I will now shut up and get drunk.

thank goodness for that!

Haystack,I agree the US green card system is fair and works well.

It is worrying what is going on in our schools and I think the British tradition of wearing school uniforms and respecting British relegious culture should be strictly applied. How parents decide to educate their children in the privacy of their own homes is up to them, but when they are in a public environment they should be made to abide by the laws of the country they choose to live in.

I think political correctness started to become really silly in this country when Robertsons were made to remove the gollywog labels from their jam jars.

Changed my mind.

Haze.

Disgraced Tory Brooks Newmark to quit as an MP

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/disgraced-tory-brooks-newmark-quit-4421549#ixzz3FrJo8EAA
Follow us: @DailyMirror on Twitter | DailyMirror on Facebook


=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=


The tory party is imploding.

Good scheme Fred, I'll join you.


I will now shut up and get drunk.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband/11156102/Now-Ed-Miliband-has-the-women-problem-as-a-PM.html

Interesting article.

This the bit I like

Some Labour MPs want Mr Miliband to be replaced by Alan Johnson, a former home secretary, as a “caretaker” leader because they believe the party has no chance of winning the election next May.

The tory party would love that and I can imagine the sneering and denigration from Hays and kin.

But remember from his background to a Ministerial office is well beyond themselves.

But don't worry, come the next election there will be a lot of room for them to stand for election in the seats of those who have defected from the party of conners to the party of kippers!

Ps.

Johnson has no aspirations in that direction.

Perhaps, he doesn't overvalue himself, unlike Cameron and Osborne!

Here come big trouble for the complacent three ... you know who they are!



Douglas Carswell truly grasps the root of our malaise

Ukip's first MP now has a broader opportunity to use his Ukip Westminster perch to highlight — and keep highlighting — just what a state we’re in.



By Liam Halligan

4:48PM BST 11 Oct 2014




In the small hours of Friday morning, when most of my fellow economics scribes were in Washington at the annual meetings of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund, I was eating cheese on toast on my sofa. With Labour having just held on in the Heywood and Middleton by-election, there was I, like the rest of the UK’s political obsessives, staring at the television bug-eyed, awaiting Clacton’s verdict.


I’m not a Ukip supporter and Douglas Carswell isn’t a personal friend. Yet, as I wrote three days after he defected from the Tories, I really wanted the member for Clacton to hold his Commons seat. That because, over many years of talking to MPs and ministers of all parties, he’s one of the few politicians I’ve encountered who has truly grasped the realities of the Western world’s current economic predicament.


Carswell is not only prepared to think through our unpalatable challenges — on-going large deficits, vast public and private debts, weak productivity and potentially disastrous demography. He’ll also openly discuss tough proposals, speaking truth to power and saying what needs to be said.


Almost anyone with Carswell’s considerable ability and media skills, having entered the Commons as a Tory, would have kept their nose clean, climbed the greasy pole and made an early bid for the Cabinet. The trappings of power were there for the taking, maybe even one of the great offices of state.


Carswell, though, is among just a handful of credible politicians who’s refused to let his ambition outweigh his intellect. Sticking to his principles, he hasn’t shied away from the pressing problems mainstream politicians don’t want to face.


That’s why, to my mind, his staying in Parliament was far more important than which party he represents.

Now he’s won, though, having polled a massive 60pc of the vote, the returning Clacton MP’s party affiliation is deeply significant. As Ukip’s first elected member, Carswell can table Ukip parliamentary motions and lay Ukip amendments to legislation. He can question the Prime Minister on television and hold ministers to account. Above all, he can play a leading role in determining his new party’s economic platform ahead of the May 2015 general election and beyond.



Full story here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/11156084/Douglas-Carswell-truly-grasps-the-root-of-our-malaise.html

Cameron and Miliband should have learnt from Clegg’s tuition fee vow: don’t make promises you can’t keep. They’ve both committed that fatal error over the last few weeks, promising to save primary healthcare with thousands more GPs.
But they didn’t fool anyone: they have no idea how they’re going to achieve their aims, and with GP shortages already threatening to close 600 practices, their negligence will be bad for our health.
Jeremy Hunt underlined that negligence in a speech to the Royal College of General Practitioners last week: he announced that he would commission an independent review of how many additional GPs are required across the country.
You would have thought that’s the kind of thing he should have done before he made sweeping policy announcements, but no: lofty promises come first, and the detail of how it will work comes much later. His party’s promise to deliver 5,000 more GPs was based on guesswork: they have no idea how many more doctors we need, where the bulk of the shortages are, or how the government can encourage more medical students into the sector.
To make it worse, Tory plans to extend GP opening hours and keep practices open on weekends won’t help the recruitment crisis. Nearly 40 per cent of GP training places were unfilled in some areas of the UK this year, and applications for postgraduate GP speciality training have dropped 15 per cent.
It used to be that the regular hours and comfortable lifestyle that came with being a GP had doctors fighting over places. But now GPs have more commissioning responsibility, and have seen their workloads gradually increase. Doctors that were once so eager to enter practices are wavering on the threshold.
Telling them they may have to work longer hours, giving up their Sunday evenings to be stuck in the surgery, turn them away for good. Practices are already at “breaking point” according to the GP representative body the BMA, and without a boost in GP numbers – which won’t materialise – they may be stretched beyond repair.
Health news: in pictures
 
Ed Miliband’s plan to deliver 8,000 more GPs is equally ludicrous. Just 2,564 doctors took GP training jobs this year, 200 less than last year: the BMA branded the figures the “worst ever”.
However, Labour has turned it around before; the number of GPs rose by more than 8,000 between 1996 and 2010.  But we’re facing a harsher climb than ever: in 600 British practices, more than 90 per cent of the GPs are 60 or older, according to the RCGP.
The average retirement age is 59. Mr Miliband doesn’t have 14 years to fix our health service – it’s already “creaking”, as he said in his conference speech, and if the next government doesn’t take urgent action it will collapse. He can’t deliver, and if we let him get away with it until he’s in number 10, the problems are only going to get worse.
Even if he and Cameron can find a few thousand GPs down the back of a Whitehall sofa, it’s not clear that throwing bodies at the problem is the way to go. More GPs means more appointments and more hospital referrals, and inevitably more crowded wards. The announcements – designed to show that politicians really care about our health service – are an insult to us all.
Instead of the reasoned, balanced plan the NHS needed, we got politicians puffing up their chests, seeing who could pluck the highest number out of the air. And while the inflated figures made good headlines, they shouldn’t satisfy anyone who cares about our health service.

Independent

Who watched "The Gatekeepers" , debate to follow now

I watched it and now watching the debate. Nothing in the film surprised me. If anything it was too tame, much worse has happened and is happening.

The guy talking now - Ari Shavit writes for the fairly left wing Israeli newspaper Haaretz which I read online every day. He wrote a book called My Promised Land, which I am reading. It was recommended to me by cynic.

The clown has found his role!