Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
johnh

General Election

Recommended Posts

On 27/12/2019 at 11:36, MikeO said:

New peer Zac Goldsmith seems to have had a change of heart since 2012....

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-50868906

 

Capture.JPG

Reading up in this... So he stood for re-election, was rejected by the people and was then made a 'lord' so he could continue in government, ie rule the people that rejected him.

To pick up an old theme: who do you have to vote for to get rid of Zac Goldsmith?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, holystove said:

Reading up in this... So he stood for re-election, was rejected by the people and was then made a 'lord' so he could continue in government, ie rule the people that rejected him.

To pick up an old theme: who do you have to vote for to get rid of Zac Goldsmith?  

British hypocrisy democracy in action.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 15/12/2019 at 05:43, johnh said:

Before PR (which has been rejected by the electorate) we need to sort out the anomalies in FPTP.  Rationalising constituencies. Scotland is a  huge anomaly but the main objection comes from Labour who benefit from the current situation.

 

On 15/12/2019 at 05:57, MikeO said:

An extremely watered down version of PR was voted down by the electorate with both major parties campaigning against it so no great surprise; as I keep saying, turkeys don't vote for Christmas. You've still not answered my earlier question to you though John (and I quote), "do you really think it's a fair and equitable system when that the Tories got an MP for every 38,000 votes cast and the LibDems got one for every 332,500 votes?" You can add to that the Greens getting one MP when 865,697 voted for them.

Googling suggests the current boundaries give Labour about an extra 15 seats, a very minor amount in comparison to the changes PR would bring. We don't need to sort out anomalies in FPTP, we need to bin it. 

 

There has been no vote on PR watered down or otherwise, the vote was whether to introduce an Alternative Voting system where voter preferences are taken into account.

In the proposed system voters rank their candidate numerically and where no candidate has been able to get 50% + 1vote in first preference votes then voters second preference votes come into play and so on until a candidate has an actual majority.

Theres plenty of good arguments against PR but that people would vote against a system where a candidate is actually required to get 50% + 1 vote to win office is absurd in the extreme.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's an example from a recent by-election in the ousted Oz PM's seat, in FPTP the conservative would have won handily with 43% of total vote, but with no one on 50%+ preferences flowed to the independent who won a majority.

image.png.004753bc3fa47dbb2811009f3185a8ee.png

image.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 01/01/2020 at 16:47, Chach said:

Here's an example from a recent by-election in the ousted Oz PM's seat, in FPTP the conservative would have won handily with 43% of total vote, but with no one on 50%+ preferences flowed to the independent who won a majority.

image.png.004753bc3fa47dbb2811009f3185a8ee.png

image.png

Your PMs blown his chances at the next election, whilst the country burns he’s holidaying apparently 😡

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 01/01/2020 at 11:30, Chach said:

There has been no vote on PR watered down or otherwise, the vote was whether to introduce an Alternative Voting system where voter preferences are taken into account.

True enough it wasn't PR as I'd like it but it was electoral reform of a sort, which we desperately need (IMO) so that our elections aren't decided by how people vote in the minority number of constituencies that are "marginals".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 03/01/2020 at 01:28, Palfy said:

Your PMs blown his chances at the next election, whilst the country burns he’s holidaying apparently 😡

I wouldn't go off the hysteria in the media, he just won a GE and will win the next one. Same situation as the UK, there's no opposition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 03/01/2020 at 02:46, MikeO said:

True enough it wasn't PR as I'd like it but it was electoral reform of a sort, which we desperately need (IMO) so that our elections aren't decided by how people vote in the minority number of constituencies that are "marginals".

No reason you couldn't have reform with PR in a new democratically elected House of Lords but I think you need local members representing their constituencies in the lower house so preference voting is the way to go there I reckon.

In my experience with an upper house thats PR you often get the minor parties/cross benchers in the balance of power so they often block bad legislation or get the needed amendments, not perfect but works pretty well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MikeO said:

Need to keep all their voters happy.

Landlords and £100k earners should be the minority. I just don't see how that get more votes than the other parties, well I don't see how they get any votes tbh it's inhumane what they stand for and what they do. Austerity and lack of governance over corporates absolutely destroyed Greece, why would we then proactively follow the same path? The only thing austerity is proven to do is increase tribalism and help promote fascism. 

It's mass murder and when the history books are rewritten I very much see Boris Johnson's face next to Hitler and the ilk. Joke that the schools currently don't teach about Thatcher and her tyranny causing poverty, covering up Hillsborough and keeping paedophiles in power as to use them as pawns. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, pete0 said:

Landlords and £100k earners should be the minority. I just don't see how that get more votes than the other parties, well I don't see how they get any votes tbh it's inhumane what they stand for and what they do. Austerity and lack of governance over corporates absolutely destroyed Greece, why would we then proactively follow the same path? The only thing austerity is proven to do is increase tribalism and help promote fascism. 

It's mass murder and when the history books are rewritten I very much see Boris Johnson's face next to Hitler and the ilk. Joke that the schools currently don't teach about Thatcher and her tyranny causing poverty, covering up Hillsborough and keeping paedophiles in power as to use them as pawns. 

Not all landlords or people who earn excess of £100k are Tories, I’m not and I’m both of those things. 
Generalising normally works but not in all instances, I find that most Tories are working class but believe calling themselves Tories makes them feel they are better maybe middle class, Thatcher created a form of snobbery within the working class if you like, and it’s still there.

Boris as created a form of racism in the Tories align that with the working class who think there middle class, and want out of the EU more because of freedom of movement and you have quite a powerful Tory base. 
Now I’m just generalising and not all Tories are the same, but for me I’d rather be a fairly well off working class landlord who try’s to treat his tenants how he he would want to be treated, and still hold the values that I believe is the main stay of the Labour Party, and being against capitalism isn’t one of them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Palfy said:

Not all landlords or people who earn excess of £100k are Tories, I’m not and I’m both of those things. 
Generalising normally works but not in all instances, I find that most Tories are working class but believe calling themselves Tories makes them feel they are better maybe middle class, Thatcher created a form of snobbery within the working class if you like, and it’s still there.

Boris as created a form of racism in the Tories align that with the working class who think there middle class, and want out of the EU more because of freedom of movement and you have quite a powerful Tory base. 
Now I’m just generalising and not all Tories are the same, but for me I’d rather be a fairly well off working class landlord who try’s to treat his tenants how he he would want to be treated, and still hold the values that I believe is the main stay of the Labour Party, and being against capitalism isn’t one of them. 

Well, I'm not a Landlord (at least, not in UK) but I am a tory and I do earn over £100k.

In GE19 the tories got a lot of votes from people who weren't tory before the election and still aren't after the election. So, why did they vote tory? Two reasons imho.

1- Brexit. In GE17 Corbyn promised to honour the referendum result but he had backslided on this to such an extent by GE19 that the 5 million Brexit supporting Labour voters could no longer support Corbyn and they therefore turned to the tory party - initially as a means to ensure brexit actually happened.

2- Corbyn. The prospect of him ever becoming PM just frightened too many people. They don't trust him - even large elements of the Labour support.

I think you will also find that Johnson is working hard to stamp out any snobbery that you refer to. I have many friends in Yorkshire and they were all pleasantly surprised at how down to earth he was when they met him on the hustings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Palfy said:

We knew it was going to happen, he’s selling us to the devil, in the hope of a trade deal to mask over the disaster looming with our Brexit. 

I find it amazing how so many European companies that had threatened to pull out of UK if we dared to implement brexit are now falling over themselves to extol the virtues of continuing and expanding their business in post brexit UK.

More project fear exposed as nothing more than cow towing to their EU masters.

The latest company to do a complete volte face being non other than Airbus!

https://ukupdates.co.uk/airbus-sees-great-potential-to-expand-after-brexit/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, RPG said:

Or, maybe, it is just the right thing to do. After all, the existing agreement with Iran has hardly been a resounding success has it.

Only because Trump ripped it up. Until then it was limiting Iran's Nuclear ambitions, allowing regular inspections and calming fears of nucular proliferation in the region.Not perfect but doing what it was designed to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, RPG said:

I find it amazing how so many European companies that had threatened to pull out of UK if we dared to implement brexit are now falling over themselves to extol the virtues of continuing and expanding their business in post brexit UK.

More project fear exposed as nothing more than cow towing to their EU masters.

The latest company to do a complete volte face being non other than Airbus!

https://ukupdates.co.uk/airbus-sees-great-potential-to-expand-after-brexit/

We wont know the cost until the trade deal is delivered, but there will be a cost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, London Blue said:

Only because Trump ripped it up. Until then it was limiting Iran's Nuclear ambitions, allowing regular inspections and calming fears of nucular proliferation in the region.Not perfect but doing what it was designed to do.

But it wasn't working was it. Iran was hiding stuff left right and centre and the agreement itself was time limited.

Politics aside, I welcome a new approach on pure security grounds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, London Blue said:

We wont know the cost until the trade deal is delivered, but there will be a cost.

Can you not at least acknowledge the complete change in position from Airbus?

When it thought it could help EU stop brexit there were all sorts of threats and warnings about a pull out from UK.

Now Airbus knows that brexit will happen it is talking not just about staying in UK but actually expanding its operation there.

Whilst this is obviously welcome news on trade grounds, it does highlight the total hypocrisy of project fear and all those that pushed it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hypocrisy based on 1 British founded company saying it wants to stay in Britain after all? :lol: some of the words you’ve used recently have very different meanings to what you actually think they do. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, RPG said:

But it wasn't working was it. Iran was hiding stuff left right and centre and the agreement itself was time limited.

Politics aside, I welcome a new approach on pure security grounds.

Yes it was, the United Nations nuclear inspectors visited Iran, all the sites, and said there was no enriching of uranium beyond the level needed for fuel. All their reports are on line if you want to check.

It was time limited, the idea was to allow time for a more comprehensive agreement which would see Iran have a fully functioning nuclear energy program be agreed.

There was never going to be an agreement on limiting Irans involvement in the middle east, unless Saudi Arabia agreed to the same limitations, which was never going to happen as both are battling for regional power.

Security wise this is a nightmare, when Iran develops a nuclear warhead, and it is a case of "when not if" now, Israel will feel compelled to attack Iran, to try to prevent Iran from deploying it. Iran will feel compelled to respond wither directly or through proxy's. Then you have two nuclear armed states at war in the worlds volatile region.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, RPG said:

Can you not at least acknowledge the complete change in position from Airbus?

When it thought it could help EU stop brexit there were all sorts of threats and warnings about a pull out from UK.

Now Airbus knows that brexit will happen it is talking not just about staying in UK but actually expanding its operation there.

Whilst this is obviously welcome news on trade grounds, it does highlight the total hypocrisy of project fear and all those that pushed it.

I agree Airbus's change is pretty 180, but it is a European institution so it was always going to be political.

The numerous other companies have scaled back or moved all or part of their operations overseas, look at the car industry for example.

But that all pales into comparison with the risk of our service sector not being able to do business in Europe, the service sector accounts for almost 80% of our GDP.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, London Blue said:

Yes it was, the United Nations nuclear inspectors visited Iran, all the sites, and said there was no enriching of uranium beyond the level needed for fuel. All their reports are on line if you want to check.

It was time limited, the idea was to allow time for a more comprehensive agreement which would see Iran have a fully functioning nuclear energy program be agreed.

There was never going to be an agreement on limiting Irans involvement in the middle east, unless Saudi Arabia agreed to the same limitations, which was never going to happen as both are battling for regional power.

Security wise this is a nightmare, when Iran develops a nuclear warhead, and it is a case of "when not if" now, Israel will feel compelled to attack Iran, to try to prevent Iran from deploying it. Iran will feel compelled to respond wither directly or through proxy's. Then you have two nuclear armed states at war in the worlds volatile region.

I disagree. Iran was already making life difficult for the inspectors and threatening to cancel the agreement itself if sanctions weren't lifted. It has hijacked ship, continued supporting terrorism and violated the limits on allowed nuclear production so the existing agreement really wasn't working. And the complaints process for violating the agreement has already begun. Factor in the time limited nature of the agreement and it becomes ineffective.

Far better imho, to let Iran know we mean business and go hard with sanctions, offer them a new, permanent deal and tie them down like they obviously need doing if we are to preserve security in the region.

NATO delivered peace in Europe after WW2, not because it was weak and worried about the other side's reaction, but because it was strong and had a deterrent. That is the approach we need to take with Iran.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, London Blue said:

I agree Airbus's change is pretty 180, but it is a European institution so it was always going to be political.

The numerous other companies have scaled back or moved all or part of their operations overseas, look at the car industry for example.

But that all pales into comparison with the risk of our service sector not being able to do business in Europe, the service sector accounts for almost 80% of our GDP.   

Thanks re Airbus.

I am confident the net total of our services industry will actually increase, long term, post brexit. The world does not stop at EU boundaries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Matt said:

Hypocrisy based on 1 British founded company saying it wants to stay in Britain after all? :lol: some of the words you’ve used recently have very different meanings to what you actually think they do. 

We shall see. The hypocrisy is Project Fear initially back tracking on its threats and now actually stating that business in UK will actually increase post brexit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 16/01/2020 at 12:33, pete0 said:

I think the other info that came with the link you shared is that the number of people attending A&E has risen by 25% (in round figures from 1.6 million to 2.0 million) since 2010. That is a rise in demand that, imho, is unreasonable, and that leads us straight back to controls on immigration.

It is the National Health Service not the Global Health Service.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, RPG said:

I think the other info that came with the link you shared is that the number of people attending A&E has risen by 25% (in round figures from 1.6 million to 2.0 million) since 2010. That is a rise in demand that, imho, is unreasonable, and that leads us straight back to controls on immigration.

It is the National Health Service not the Global Health Service.

It's unreasonable for people to be unwell? We don't have health tourist that's just you and the Daily mail trying to justify your racist immigration stance. We have more people attending a and e as they can't get an appointment at their local doctor, reason being we don't have enough GPs. Add to that the rising population on what was an already stretched NHS and its clear to see it's supply that is the problem, not demand. The tories have purposely under funded it and people are dying because of it. 

Note without immigration the figures would be even worse as a fair chunk of our medical staff are from over seas. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, pete0 said:

It's unreasonable for people to be unwell? We don't have health tourist that's just you and the Daily mail trying to justify your racist immigration stance. We have more people attending a and e as they can't get an appointment at their local doctor, reason being we don't have enough GPs. Add to that the rising population on what was an already stretched NHS and its clear to see it's supply that is the problem, not demand. The tories have purposely under funded it and people are dying because of it. 

Note without immigration the figures would be even worse as a fair chunk of our medical staff are from over seas. 

 

If you are unwell you don't go to A&E. That is implicit in the name of the service - Accident and Emergency!

Can't get an appointment with a doctor? I'm not surprised. There have been millions of new patients registered since 2010. It's an issue of demand much more than supply.

And, please don't try to associate immigration controls with racism. It is about numbers, not race. I just want one universal set of criteria applied to everyone (no matter their race) who wishes to reside in UK. That is about as un racist as you can get.

So, yes, I can agree that NHS is overstretched. But in order to fix the problem we have to ask ourselves why it is overstretched. And that is mainly because of the demands being placed upon it, not lack of funding. That said, I am pleased more funding than ever before is being made available by this Tory government but the danger is that it just attracts yet more welfare tourists to UK and will not really produce any net benefit unless we control the source of the demands made upon the service.

The problem is far more demand pulled than supply pushed. And continuing freedom of movement and open borders would just increase demand and drag down service standards even more.

The solution isn't racist in any way, shape or form. It is good, old fashioned, common sense - which, sadly, isn't so common nowadays.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RPG said:

So, yes, I can agree that NHS is overstretched. But in order to fix the problem we have to ask ourselves why it is overstretched. And that is mainly because of the demands being placed upon it,

So in your opinion get rid of the foreigners and close the borders, and all the problems of the NHS will be solved. 
That’s the far right facist solution, which could and should be classed as a form of racism. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Palfy said:

So in your opinion get rid of the foreigners and close the borders, and all the problems of the NHS will be solved. 
That’s the far right facist solution, which could and should be classed as a form of racism. 

'Get rid of foreigners and close borders' is not remotely what RPG said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In theory what your saying RPG is right the numbers don't lie but I massively disagree with funding 

Regardless of "extra funds" it's a moot point if those added funds don't cover the already massive deficit in operating costs 

It's like putting 20p in a vending machine for a brew and it costs 25p, you'll just be stood there like a cock waiting for something to happen when it never will..... Until Trump comes along to add 5p and walks away with your cupper whilst your stood there out of pocket and left still wanting 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, johnh said:

'Get rid of foreigners and close borders' is not remotely what RPG said.

He’s blaming the problem of the NHS on immigration by insinuating  that 25% rise or 1.6-2 million more people using the services is a direct result of our open borders with the EU, the people who come here from the EU work and contribute to the system in Taxes and NI contributions, the NHS is in trouble because of the years of underfunding by this Tory government in the name of austerity. 
But the far right want to blame all our woes on our open borders with the EU. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, EFC-Paul said:

 

In theory what your saying RPG is right the numbers don't lie but I massively disagree with funding 

 

I don’t agree with that, are you saying that 2 million more migrants are using our hospitals this year than used them in 2010  that’s why we’ve had a 25% increase in its demand, because that’s the only reason he can give for the extra demand and poor service, blame the foreigners. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, EFC-Paul said:

In theory what your saying RPG is right the numbers don't lie but I massively disagree with funding 

Regardless of "extra funds" it's a moot point if those added funds don't cover the already massive deficit in operating costs 

It's like putting 20p in a vending machine for a brew and it costs 25p, you'll just be stood there like a cock waiting for something to happen when it never will..... Until Trump comes along to add 5p and walks away with your cupper whilst your stood there out of pocket and left still wanting 

I firmly believe that you can throw as much money at the NHS as you like and it won't touch the sided without significant reform. You go into some hospitals and despite the same funding some wards are really well managed and others are a farce.

Furthermore you get stupid pay for things like a Chaplain or a project manager and yet nurses are paid a pittance in comparison. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Bailey said:

I firmly believe that you can throw as much money at the NHS as you like and it won't touch the sided without significant reform. You go into some hospitals and despite the same funding some wards are really well managed and others are a farce.

Furthermore you get stupid pay for things like a Chaplain or a project manager and yet nurses are paid a pittance in comparison. 

If I remember my stats correctly, 13.6% of the population of GB were born overseas. By comparison 14% of NHS were born overseas. I think it is a bit of a coincidence that the numbers are as close as they are but it makes sense.

The problem is that we add 100,000 people to the country every year (don't quote me on that one 😆) and it takes 5 years to train up a nurse. It's a supply and demand issue. We can't even bring staff from overseas fast enough to cope with demand. You could throw all the money in the world at the NHS but demand is far outstripping the supply of staff.

On top of that we have terrible lifestyles, an obesity epidemic, rampant drug abuse, rising violent crime, alcoholism, an ageing population etc. It's a perfect storm to kill the NHS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/projects/verdict/what-do-we-know-about-impact-immigration-nhs

This is a 2015 article regarding immigration and the NHS.

Key points include:

Health tourism is estimated to cost in the region of £60-80 million a year

Immigrants tend to use the NHS less than "naturalised citizens" on account of them generally being younger.

Accurate statistics regarding immigration and the NHS are hard to come by. I concur with this as immigration is a political hot potato and having sought FOI requests for work place injuries involving non English speakers I have also been frustrated.

When immigrants have children in this country those children become "naturalised citizens" and are counted as such in the statistics.

In my opinion immigration does play a part in the issues surrounding the NHS. It is a viable point of discussion and it is also frustrating that any kind of conversation around immigration is met with accusations of racism. Racism is not a catch all term to shut down your opponents legitimate argument, it is arguing in bad faith and will only ever lead to conflict.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, TallPaul1878 said:

https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/projects/verdict/what-do-we-know-about-impact-immigration-nhs

This is a 2015 article regarding immigration and the NHS.

Key points include:

You choose to ignore the "verdict" at the end of the article.

"The use of NHS services by immigrants and visitors will also vary across the country, depending on the number and type of immigrants in the area. However, in some cases the United Kingdom is recouping the costs of treating non-British nationals through reciprocal agreements with their respective governments or, from April 2015, through up-front fees that temporary residents need to pay before they enter the United Kingdom.

Alongside this, immigrants make up a substantial part of the NHS workforce. With some key areas of the NHS workforce already in very short supply, this contribution is very significant."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://fullfact.org/europe/eu-immigration-and-pressure-nhs/

Here is another article from a fact checking website that suggest the NHS is simply failing to recoup the costs of treating European citizens that it is owed.

"Government papers suggest that this is because NHS trusts find it easier not to record that they are owed money from abroad, thereby getting full payment from the standard system without the extra admin involved in tracking foreign visitors."

Why is this? Is it because of poor management? It being a political hot potato? Something else?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, MikeO said:

You choose to ignore the "verdict" at the end of the article.

"The use of NHS services by immigrants and visitors will also vary across the country, depending on the number and type of immigrants in the area. However, in some cases the United Kingdom is recouping the costs of treating non-British nationals through reciprocal agreements with their respective governments or, from April 2015, through up-front fees that temporary residents need to pay before they enter the United Kingdom.

Alongside this, immigrants make up a substantial part of the NHS workforce. With some key areas of the NHS workforce already in very short supply, this contribution is very significant."

I've already mentioned the proportion of non British workers within the NHS and it matches the proportion of non British people living in the country. That is why I did not see fit to mention it again but I get where you are going with this one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, TallPaul1878 said:

https://fullfact.org/europe/eu-immigration-and-pressure-nhs/

Here is another article from a fact checking website that suggest the NHS is simply failing to recoup the costs of treating European citizens that it is owed.

On the figures given in your first link the amount of the NHS budget being spent on "benefit tourists" amounts to 0.0708% of the total (worst case scenario), not exactly earth shattering.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, TallPaul1878 said:

I've already mentioned the proportion of non British workers within the NHS and it matches the proportion of non British people living in the country. That is why I did not see fit to mention it again but I get where you are going with this one.

I'm not "going" anywhere I'm just looking at what you posted and commenting on it, no agenda.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, MikeO said:

On the figures given in your first link the amount of the NHS budget being spent on "benefit tourists" amounts to 0.0708% of the total, not exactly earth shattering.

Well that makes it okay then. But that is by the by, I'm not trying to make the argument that health tourism is killing the NHS. I think that other people are and am presenting the facts.

I'll give you my honest opinion here now. I think that when people talk about foreigners using the NHS they don't really mean or perhaps understand who the foreigners are. I think what they are really getting at are British born Indians or Pakistanis. They use foreign as a catch all term for non-white whether they are born here or not.

Now what the statistics are for BAME use of the NHS compared to white British I don't have the foggiest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, MikeO said:

this contribution is very significant."

Obviously not for everyone particularly for those who don’t live in this country, or use it’s services. 
The NHS is in a bad state purely due to the lack of funding, but there will always be those who want to lay it squarely at the door of immigration and immigrants. 
Obviously those who have blamed immigration as the route cause of a over stretched NHS are as equally to blame for the argument that will pursue, or should people who disagree with that statement say nothing, and cower done to the views of the far right.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, MikeO said:

I'm not "going" anywhere I'm just looking at what you posted and commenting on it, no agenda.

Fair enough, I'm just very fed up with ad hom attacks that perhaps I have become more distrusting of people. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Palfy said:

Obviously not for everyone particularly for those who don’t live in this country, or use it’s services. 
The NHS is in a bad state purely due to the lack of funding, but there will always be those who want to lay it squarely at the door of immigration and immigrants. 
Obviously those who have blamed immigration as the route cause of a over stretched NHS are as equally to blame for the argument that will pursue, or should people who disagree with that statement say nothing, and cower done to the views of the far right.  

I've said it before and I'll say it again. I believe that people are using "immigrant" as a catch all term for non-white. I think when they argue they are most definitely including British born Asians and Africans in this term.

To lay the blame solely on the lack of funding is, in my opinion, a cop out.

The NHS is fairly well funded but clearly needs more. Demand is definitely outpacing supply and services are being cut in none critical areas to meet demand in others.

The public in general could be doing a lot more to "help out" the NHS. This includes considering their general health and how they are using services.

Another example is the knife crime epidemic, this is largely due to a cut in police funding and failure to stop and search in some cities. Liverpool has stop and search and has seen a reduction in knife attacks, London has the opposite. Hospitals are dealing with the fallout of this as a result.

An ageing population with long term health demands. I see this first hand as my wife has a life long eye condition and the waiting room for the specialist is chock full of pensioners.

Women. The burden that women in general put on the NHS is astronomical 🤣. Women as a group will NEVER at any point in their life come near to breaking even in what they pay in compared to what they take out.

I'm telling you fellas, women's suffrage will be the end of Western civilisation 🤣🤣🤣

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, TallPaul1878 said:

I'll give you my honest opinion here now. I think that when people talk about foreigners using the NHS they don't really mean or perhaps understand who the foreigners are. I think what they are really getting at are British born Indians or Pakistanis. They use foreign as a catch all term for non-white whether they are born here or not.

Now what the statistics are for BAME use of the NHS compared to white British I don't have the foggiest.

Do you genuinely believe that the majority of white British nationals think that people with a different colour skin are foreigners, if you were a white supremacist you would think that, if you were a member of a far right nationalist party you would possibly think that. 
I don’t know who you socialise with but I can genuinely say I know nobody who would believe that or even thinks that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The NHS is picking up the pieces and picking up the bill for issues and incidents outside of it's control. I'm sure you have heard the problems with gambling. The NHS is having to foot the bill for addiction whilst the gambling companies are reaping the biggest profits they have ever seen.

The NHS isn't just underfunded or understaffed. The whole of our society is broken.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, TallPaul1878 said:

I'll give you my honest opinion here now. I think that when people talk about foreigners using the NHS they don't really mean or perhaps understand who the foreigners are. I think what they are really getting at are British born Indians or Pakistanis. They use foreign as a catch all term for non-white whether they are born here or not.

No argument with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Palfy said:

Do you genuinely believe that the majority of white British nationals think that people with a different colour skin are foreigners, if you were a white supremacist you would think that, if you were a member of a far right nationalist party you would possibly think that. 
I don’t know who you socialise with but I can genuinely say I know nobody who would believe that or even thinks that. 

Are you incapable of reading or has the communist party bashed your brains out.

I'm suggesting that people who argue that immigrants are hurting the NHS are incorrectly lumping in non-white in general.

What part of this can't you understand or do you just see Nazis everywhere you look?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Palfy said:

Do you genuinely believe that the majority of white British nationals think that people with a different colour skin are foreigners, if you were a white supremacist you would think that, if you were a member of a far right nationalist party you would possibly think that. 
I don’t know who you socialise with but I can genuinely say I know nobody who would believe that or even thinks that. 

There's a lot of them out there though Palf.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, TallPaul1878 said:

Are you incapable of reading or has the communist party bashed your brains out.

I'm suggesting that people who argue that immigrants are hurting the NHS are incorrectly lumping in non-white in general.

What part of this can't you understand or do you just see Nazis everywhere you look?

Im saying there not, and I know no one who thinks that, is that what you believe or do you personally know people who believe that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Palfy said:

Im saying there not, and I know no one who thinks that, is that what you believe or do you personally know people who believe that. 

I come across all manner of people. I work in construction and deal with people from the bottom rung to the very top of the industry. I meet people with hardly any education and people who are well educated. I can only ever speak for myself and from what I have experienced and how I interpret the world.

I've worked in towns that have huge muslim communities like Oldham and Rochdale. I've worked in places like Birkenhead that is largely white working class and has lots of poverty. I've worked in places like Alderly Edge that are enclaves of privileged white middle class progressives.

I draw my opinions from my experiences. Yours may be different none the less but these are my experiences and they are genuine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Palfy said:

Im saying there not, and I know no one who thinks that, is that what you believe or do you personally know people who believe that. 

Going back many years (1977-94) the company I worked for in London employed (illegally at that time) many Polish workers in our factory, and the management were fine with them. The cab company that we had a contract with employed many black people so every time we booked one certain senior staff had as the catchphrase, "nigger in a Datsun on the way". It was unashamed and I, in a "senior" position but in tech so not involved with admin type stuff bit my tongue (to my shame).

There are millions of people like that still out there sadly imo.

Oh, and once I came down to Devon it was worse if anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Palfy said:

I don’t agree with that, are you saying that 2 million more migrants are using our hospitals this year than used them in 2010  that’s why we’ve had a 25% increase in its demand, because that’s the only reason he can give for the extra demand and poor service, blame the foreigners. 

Did I say or suggest that!?

Simple facts are more people regardless of where they came from put more strain on the NHS 

I'm sure there's factual figures out there re immigrants but it's not something I can be arsed digging into as it's not about background it's simply about numbers to me 

When I'm saying that it includes increasing birth rates and population as a whole, let's not misconstrue what's being said into some daft race debate

I do agree Bailey it's ran piss poorly but I do think funding is massively under what's required, but do agree it needs to be spread and used much better 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, EFC-Paul said:

Did I say or suggest that!?

Simple facts are more people regardless of where they came from put more strain on the NHS 

I'm sure there's factual figures out there re immigrants but it's not something I can be arsed digging into as it's not about background it's simply about numbers to me 

When I'm saying that it includes increasing birth rates and population as a whole, let's not misconstrue what's being said into some daft race debate

I do agree Bailey it's ran piss poorly but I do think funding is massively under what's required, but do agree it needs to be spread and used much better 

This is the problem. Whenever we ever try to talk about the population it always degenerates into a race related argument and unfortunately I find it is the left that brings these arguments up.

Take Meghan Markle. The press are of course disgusting in this country but the negative press she receives is not because of the colour of her skin or that she is American, it's because she is an obnoxious hypocrite.

I used to consider myself a bit of a lefty, I'm all for nationalisation of public infrastructure. I think it is abominable that foreign companies and shareholders can reap huge profits off the backs of Brits who need to heat their homes and travel to work to pay the mortgage.

I'd consider myself a civic nationalist these days. I'm not concerned about the colour of your skin but the content of your character. It seems today though that's a far right position because I'm not an open border globalist. I think we are moving in to a post-globalist world and I think Trump and Brexit are indicative of that.

Putting my tinfoil hat on here, the Communist Party wrote the book on slinging racism about. It was the perfect way to shut down discourse. Just slander your enemies enough times and the mud will stick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, MikeO said:

Going back many years (1977-94) the company I worked for in London employed (illegally at that time) many Polish workers in our factory, and the management were fine with them. The cab company that we had a contract with employed many black people so every time we booked one certain senior staff had as the catchphrase, "nigger in a Datsun on the way". It was unashamed and I, in a "senior" position but in tech so not involved with admin type stuff bit my tongue (to my shame).

There are millions of people like that still out there sadly imo.

Oh, and once I came down to Devon it was worse if anything.

Greedy capitalists love immigration, specifically illegal immigration. It's a wonderful way to slash wages in half.

Like I mentioned before, it's impossible to get a FOI request on the number of work place injuries involving people who do not have English as a first language. Maybe nobody is recording it but I'd hazard a guess that there are loads of Eastern Europeans getting injured and killed on construction sites because they can't read warning signs.

Who cares though? GDP goes up right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...