Re: UKIP masterstroke : Tue Mar 19, 2013 10:51 pm  

UKIP's policy on the NHS pdf Page three (contents), Item 5: they can't even spell their own name

UKIP's policy on the NHS pdf Page three (contents), Item 5: they can't even spell their own name

Re: UKIP masterstroke : Wed Mar 20, 2013 8:04 am  

cod'ead wrote:

Yet your mates in government and the idiot in charge of London, would like to ignore a trades union strike decision unless a majority of the members, not the voters, decide to strike.

The irony of representation is lost on them

Agreed - although I would say London is a better place without Ken and his cronies on ridiculously high salaries - typical high up lefties!! all for the people, once they are suitably looked after - it would be funny if it weren't so sad.

On unions - the only thing I don't like is non-union members being expected to follow whatever the union has decided and being called scabs because they defy a decision that they had no part in. If you are a member and you don't vote that is your own fault and you should abide by the decision.

Re: UKIP masterstroke : Wed Mar 20, 2013 8:22 am  

Sal Paradise wrote:

Agreed - although I would say London is a better place without Ken and his cronies on ridiculously high salaries - typical high up lefties!! all for the people, once they are suitably looked after - it would be funny if it weren't so sad...

Boris has increased public transport fares by something like 100% in his time in office. The cheapest single fare in London is now £2.40.

A great help to everyone.

Re: UKIP masterstroke : Wed Mar 20, 2013 8:29 am  

Sal Paradise wrote: ... Are you suggesting bigger business should be ignored? No. I'm suggesting that the country should not be governed on behalf of them/so as not to offend them. So, for instance, public health policy being, in effect, handed over to big business in a sort of 'well, let's sit down and talk together about how Unilever and Pepsico can help work out how to tackle obesity etc etc'. And then we end up with the taxpayer effectively funding adverts for these huge companies in the guise of public health advice. We've seen, in the horsemeat scandal to the banking crisis, what a lack of proper regulation, properly enforced means. It's the same in big pharma, where massive corporations refuse to release all trial data to doctors to allow them, and their patients, to make fully informed decisions on medical treatments. What is required is robust regulation, properly enforced. But this government – and others – are now so scared of the supranational corporatocracy that they back away from doing anything meaningful, while much of the media continues to ply the myth that the key to growth, for instance, is less regulation.

Sal Paradise wrote: ... Are you suggesting bigger business should be ignored? No. I'm suggesting that the country should not be governed on behalf of them/so as not to offend them. So, for instance, public health policy being, in effect, handed over to big business in a sort of 'well, let's sit down and talk together about how Unilever and Pepsico can help work out how to tackle obesity etc etc'. And then we end up with the taxpayer effectively funding adverts for these huge companies in the guise of public health advice. We've seen, in the horsemeat scandal to the banking crisis, what a lack of proper regulation, properly enforced means. It's the same in big pharma, where massive corporations refuse to release all trial data to doctors to allow them, and their patients, to make fully informed decisions on medical treatments. What is required is robust regulation, properly enforced. But this government – and others – are now so scared of the supranational corporatocracy that they back away from doing anything meaningful, while much of the media continues to ply the myth that the key to growth, for instance, is less regulation.

Re: UKIP masterstroke : Wed Mar 20, 2013 9:14 am  

Sal Paradise wrote:

On unions - the only thing I don't like is non-union members being expected to follow whatever the union has decided and being called scabs because they defy a decision that they had no part in. If you are a member and you don't vote that is your own fault and you should abide by the decision.

I don't have a problem with that, providing non-union labour refuse to accept any benefits & safeguards negotiated on their behalf by the unions

Re: UKIP masterstroke : Wed Mar 20, 2013 9:38 am  

Sal Paradise wrote:

...

Are you suggesting bigger business should be ignored?

I am sure you liked it more when the likes of Jack Jones and Gormley told Harold what to do - more your cup of tea!!

Why does it have to be such a binary choice?

As I have said before on this forum, capitalism is like fire and water ... a good servant but a terrible master.
Capitalism and business are what has brought us the money to live a decent life but when capitalism and business are pushing people into poverty, it's past the time to address the balance.
Thatcher, Major, Blair and Brown were all in thrall to business and, instead of addressing the balance, Cameron is determined to make us pay for it and smash the way we look after those who need looking after.

Re: UKIP masterstroke : Wed Mar 20, 2013 10:26 am  

cod'ead wrote:

I don't have a problem with that, providing non-union labour refuse to accept any benefits & safeguards negotiated on their behalf by the unions

That is also OK as long as the union don't cry foul if non-union members are afforded more advantageous t&c?

Re: UKIP masterstroke : Wed Mar 20, 2013 10:30 am  

Mintball wrote:

Boris has increased public transport fares by something like 100% in his time in office. The cheapest single fare in London is now £2.40.

A great help to everyone.

Who is to say that would not have happened under Ken - what is driving higher charges, higher wages? increases in electricty costs, increased investment in infrastructure/stock, H&S improvements.

How do you suggest this is paid for?

Re: UKIP masterstroke : Wed Mar 20, 2013 10:41 am  

Mintball wrote: No. I'm suggesting that the country should not be governed on behalf of them/so as not to offend them. So, for instance, public health policy being, in effect, handed over to big business in a sort of 'well, let's sit down and talk together about how Unilever and Pepsico can help work out how to tackle obesity etc etc'. And then we end up with the taxpayer effectively funding adverts for these huge companies in the guise of public health advice. We've seen, in the horsemeat scandal to the banking crisis, what a lack of proper regulation, properly enforced means. It's the same in big pharma, where massive corporations refuse to release all trial data to doctors to allow them, and their patients, to make fully informed decisions on medical treatments. What is required is robust regulation, properly enforced. But this government – and others – are now so scared of the supranational corporatocracy that they back away from doing anything meaningful, while much of the media continues to ply the myth that the key to growth, for instance, is less regulation. We have in Stafford/Barrow etc that the public sector is hardly any better - sadly this is lost in your miopic view!! The private sector is ultimately where all the money is generated, you cannot ignore it, it is a balancing act to extract the maximum tax revenues whilst still leaving companies with sufficient opportunities/cashflow to make the UK an attractive option. On tax the UK government cannot work in isolation most of these huge corporations are global and have the resources to minimise what they pay. We have had the discussions around drugs previously - on the whole the drug companies do a good job, they will never be squeaky clean - they are in a commercial environment where data is everything. They invest billions in new treatments - look at what progress has been made over the past 20 years in clinical care and much of the improvement is down to advances in drug treatment.

Mintball wrote: No. I'm suggesting that the country should not be governed on behalf of them/so as not to offend them. So, for instance, public health policy being, in effect, handed over to big business in a sort of 'well, let's sit down and talk together about how Unilever and Pepsico can help work out how to tackle obesity etc etc'. And then we end up with the taxpayer effectively funding adverts for these huge companies in the guise of public health advice. We've seen, in the horsemeat scandal to the banking crisis, what a lack of proper regulation, properly enforced means. It's the same in big pharma, where massive corporations refuse to release all trial data to doctors to allow them, and their patients, to make fully informed decisions on medical treatments. What is required is robust regulation, properly enforced. But this government – and others – are now so scared of the supranational corporatocracy that they back away from doing anything meaningful, while much of the media continues to ply the myth that the key to growth, for instance, is less regulation. We have in Stafford/Barrow etc that the public sector is hardly any better - sadly this is lost in your miopic view!! The private sector is ultimately where all the money is generated, you cannot ignore it, it is a balancing act to extract the maximum tax revenues whilst still leaving companies with sufficient opportunities/cashflow to make the UK an attractive option. On tax the UK government cannot work in isolation most of these huge corporations are global and have the resources to minimise what they pay. We have had the discussions around drugs previously - on the whole the drug companies do a good job, they will never be squeaky clean - they are in a commercial environment where data is everything. They invest billions in new treatments - look at what progress has been made over the past 20 years in clinical care and much of the improvement is down to advances in drug treatment.

[DaveO]

Re: UKIP masterstroke : Wed Mar 20, 2013 10:59 am  

Sal Paradise wrote:

Who is to say that would not have happened under Ken - what is driving higher charges, higher wages? increases in electricty costs, increased investment in infrastructure/stock, H&S improvements.

How do you suggest this is paid for?

When I moved to London years ago Ken Livingston had introduced the "Fairs fare" scheme on public transport in London. In Sheffield there was a similar idea where it cost you 5p to go anywhere on a bus and the provision of very regular, coordinated local authority run bus service. The effect of these schemes was quite dramatic. For example in Sheffield car usage and congestion dropped considerably and the schemes were very popular with locals.

They were subsidised services paid for by your local taxes but they were killed off by Thatcher who used the typical right wing argument of you should not pay for what you don't use so in her tiny mind the fact a minority of people in Sheffield didn't use public transport was reason enough to ride roughshod over the democratic will of the local electorate.

The point of all that to this discussion is the cost of public transport can be met in different ways. It's an ideological choice if you like. Under the schemes I mentioned the cost of use was very low and didn't cover the running costs which were covered by local taxes. Under Boris he would never go far enough down the subsidy route because he is politically opposed to it. So when you ask what is driving up costs one of the main reasons is political. Boris will say it has to pay for itself and when that happens public transport becomes expensive at the point of use.

Having seen first hand how those subsidised schemes worked and also noting a majority of the local electorate were in favour I can say for certain the subsidised model works far better. It is just far more efficient and has the effect of persuading people out of their cars and reduces congestion. Of course reduced congestion can't be entered into a spread sheet so all the likes of Thatcher ever looked at was the net cost not the bigger picture.

Along with not removing the ban on councils being able to reinvest the money from the sale of council houses into new builds not removing the block on councils "doing a Sheffield" is another of the things I am very surprised Labour governments didn't repeal when in power.