Do you want to discuss boring politics? (12 Viewers)

[skybluetony176]

The money wasn’t wasted until the scheme was cancelled, without the option of a refund, by the Labour government.

Poor business on the Tories part then as they clearly signed up to a scheme with no get out clause. Thank god they didn’t get in and potentially spend another £9.7 billion on a gimmick that we’d never have gotten back or had any benefit from.

 

---

[Sky Blue Pete]

Far too little, too late.

Really? Why?

 

[PVA]

The money wasn’t wasted until the scheme was cancelled, without the option of a refund, by the Labour government.

So if I go out and buy a written off Ford Fiesta for £100k I haven't wasted my money because it could get up and running still?

 

[MalcSB]

Poor business on the Tories part then as they clearly signed up to a scheme with no get out clause. Thank god they didn’t get in and potentially spend another £9.7 billion on a gimmick that we’d never have gotten back or had any benefit from.

Speculation.

 

[MalcSB]

So if I go out and buy a written off Ford Fiesta for £100k I haven't wasted my money because it could get up and running still?

Written off by whom?

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

The tone of this post alone tells me you’re driven by hatred/envy of the rich than concern for the poor.

Free market capitalism has lead to the largest expansion of living standards. Like you, I agree capitalism is the worst economic system, except for all the others.

What it tells me is that you have no idea who I am or what I stand for.

Why would I envy people who are destroying society, causing misery for billions, driving things like migration and conflict as well as causing the collapse of ecosystems and a mass extinction of species not seen since the dinosaurs. Yep, I really envy them! If anything I pity them for not having the intelligence to see the damage they're doing. If they do know and just don't care maybe that could be described as hatred, but even then maybe that's a bit strong. More annoyance and frustration.

Capitalism hasn't lead to the biggest increase in living standards, that was science and the enlightment. The Incans believed that the reason for their success was brutally sacrificing kids and guess what happened when the 'Gods showed their displeasure'? They sacrificed even more kids. Had absolutely fuck all to do with the success or failure of their civilisation but they believed it. Capitalists show the same thinking - things are going well it's all because of capitalism, things aren't going well it's because we need to add more capitalism.

As has been pointed out we don't have free market capitalism in it's true sense because so many things are provided outside of that system. And most of those have the biggest benefit for living standards. And almost all others are subject to regulation and laws to specifically prevent abuse by the free market capitalists.

I would love to see in a thousand years the reaction of people then to how we're living now. They'll look back on it with the incredulity we show to sacrificing kids.

 

[fernandopartridge]

Outrage as boy, 8, refused NHS treatment 'for going to private school'

Mother blames Labour's VAT raid on private school fees for emboldening the NHS to deny her son help with his crippling joint condition

www.standard.co.uk

Refused by a private provider

School Health Healthcare Services | Kingston and Richmond | Your Healthcare

Get expert support with School Health from a team of dedicated healthcare professionals, serving Richmond and Kingston upon Thames.

yourhealthcare.org

Tut tut tut tut tut tsk tsk tsk

 

[Grendel]

I see Zara has got in a pickle again and now is claiming Labour are leaking non stories to the Mail to cover up senior figures relationship with Jeffrey Epstein.

 

[Captain Dart]

Another U turn.

More than 75% of pensioners to get winter fuel payment as Reeves confirms major U-turn - live updates

Pensioners in England and Wales with an annual income below £35,000 will now be eligible, reversing one of the government's first major policies.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[rob9872]

Another U turn.

More than 75% of pensioners to get winter fuel payment as Reeves confirms major U-turn - live updates

Pensioners in England and Wales with an annual income below £35,000 will now be eligible, reversing one of the government's first major policies.

www.bbc.co.uk

Tbf, he should be applauded for that. Giving it to most but the really wealthy who don't need it. Nobody should be called out for U-turns if the option is sensible, it was used as a stick to beat the Tory's with previously. Personally I'm happy that people can be big enough to reassess and accept they've made a mistake or the landscape has changed.

 

[fernandopartridge]

Any idea why governments do this? It's the same as the high income child benefit debacle:

• The payment, worth up to £300, will still be given to pensioners with income above the £35,000 threshold, but will then be reclaimed from them

 

[mmttww]

Any idea why governments do this?

 

[rob9872]

Any idea why governments do this? It's the same as the high income child benefit debacle:

I wondered if it might be easier to see the trail of when it's recovered or if circumstances change mid year etc.

However the cynic in me, says that if anyone is earning £34,700 and this £300 takes it to £35k they can then take it back

 

[PVA]

Erm, is this normal?

 

[shmmeee]

Erm, is this normal?

It is when these guys run the BBC:

Tim Davie - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Robbie Gibb - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[PVA]

It is when these guys run the BBC:

Tim Davie - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Robbie Gibb - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Yeah, it's mad.

Why does the BBC need to 'win over' anyone?

 

[MalcSB]

Refused by a private provider

School Health Healthcare Services | Kingston and Richmond | Your Healthcare

Get expert support with School Health from a team of dedicated healthcare professionals, serving Richmond and Kingston upon Thames.

yourhealthcare.org

Tut tut tut tut tut tsk tsk tsk

Social enterprise, not quite a private provider.

It’s who they are contracted to provide the service to, not who provides it that is key.

Sounds iffy to me.

 

[shmmeee]

Yeah, it's mad.

Why does the BBC need to 'win over' anyone?

More to the point when does anyone else get pandered to who isn’t an perma-angry boomer? It just makes everything so bad tempered and miserable.

 

[MalcSB]

More to the point when does anyone else get pandered to who isn’t an perma-angry boomer? It just makes everything so bad tempered and miserable.

You play a role in that as well.

 

[shmmeee]

You play a role in that as well.

The only role I’ve played is switching off BBC political coverage post Brexit because it’s awful and seemingly that’s being read as me wanting even more drivel on there.

 

[fernandopartridge]

Social enterprise, not quite a private provider.

It’s who they are contracted to provide the service to, not who provides it that is key.

Sounds iffy to me.

They are commissioned by the local authority, the local authority fulfilling its legal obligation to provide for a nursing service for state funded schools.

They are private but not for profit CIC (I should know I have actually met people that work for them)

 

[Grendel]

Erm, is this normal?

There is zero evidence this actually happened?

 

[PVA]

There is zero evidence this actually happened?

Did you even read the article?

 

[Grendel]

Did you even read the article?

Yes I did- the whole article. It was full of quotation marks and supposition. There are claims the rather nonsense "paper" had "seen" minutes but oddly did not publicise them. The BBC statement said;

“Our Royal Charter requires us to reflect and represent all the communities of the UK, and our Editorial Guidelines require that we must take account of the different political parties with electoral support across the UK to achieve due impartiality.”

This is somewhat at odds with the article. Where is the evidence that this is unique as it would breach the Royal Charter?

The only time I have every come cross this idiot was when he and his "paper" were attacking the Daily Mail as being a Nazi paper and someone pointed out that one of its primary contributors was Max Mosley. They then said Mosley would sue if still alive. Well OK. Then made this staunch defence of Mr Mosley

"I do not believe that Max Mosley is a racist or a Nazi, whatever his views may have been half a century ago. Nor do I judge him for the sins of his father or for his sexual preferences."

His sexual preferences being to have prostitutes dress as Nazi concentration camp victims and Nazis in a dungeon.

 

[wingy]

God where have you been to make the connection of what the Rwanda scheme was all about!

Rwanda pulls out of regional bloc over DR Congo row - BBC News

Kigali accuses the central African organisation Eccas of pandering to the demands of Kinshasa.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[PVA]

Yes I did- the whole article. It was full of quotation marks and supposition. There are claims the rather nonsense "paper" had "seen" minutes but oddly did not publicise them.

The BBC statement clearly admits it’s true.

 

[Grendel]

The BBC statement clearly admits it’s true.

It admits it does the same for every single party to create editorial balance which is the requirement from the Royal Charter.

Where are the minutes?

 

[PVA]

It admits it does the same for every single party to create editorial balance which is the requirement from the Royal Charter.

Where are the minutes?

Make your mind up, is there zero evidence it happened or does it happen for every party?

 

[Grendel]

Make your mind up, is there zero evidence it happened or does it happen for every party?

Oh dear - it was you that said is this normal.

The article suggests there is a bias. That is the point - there is no bias - it wpuld be biased to not represent views of all spheres of the political spectrum.

Your dough brained mate said this;

"More to the point when does anyone else get pandered to who isn’t an perma-angry boomer? It just makes everything so bad tempered and miserable."

No-one is getting pandered to and that is the point despite the spin by the lunatic who wrote it.

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

Another U turn.

More than 75% of pensioners to get winter fuel payment as Reeves confirms major U-turn - live updates

Pensioners in England and Wales with an annual income below £35,000 will now be eligible, reversing one of the government's first major policies.

www.bbc.co.uk

That’s a great change to be honest and what should have been done originally

 

[MalcSB]

Any idea why governments do this? It's the same as the high income child benefit debacle:

They hope the giving will be noticed but the taking back less so.

It’s a con, directly linked to by-election results. Incompetence from the outset.

Claiming they can do it because of stability they have brought to the economy .

 

[MalcSB]

That’s a great change to be honest and what should have been done originally

But wasn’t.