|
|
Post by see2 on Apr 29, 2024 6:34:49 GMT
I can see where he agrees with Labour over the NHS, but I don't see him as having a position in the Labour Party. Perhaps you could cut and past the part you think shows him as being employed as an advisor to the Labour Party? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 29, 2024 6:37:20 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Apr 29, 2024 6:44:53 GMT
Through experience, recalling the 1970s and the EMF, recalling illegal wars, devolution, wrecked education, immigration and EU membership. It isn't guesswork. Johnny come lately ^^^ really does post some ill informed nonsense. You have had the 1970s explained to you, What is the EMF? There were NO ILLEGAL WARS. what was wrong with devolution? New Labour rescued the education system, immigration was welcomed at the time. The loss of membership of the EU is still to prove it was the right thing to do or even the right time to do it. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 29, 2024 6:49:41 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Apr 29, 2024 6:52:12 GMT
You need to sterilise the shit that flows between your ears. "Israel claimed hundreds of UNRWA staff are Hamas members" Come back if that is ever proven. "An independent report has said Israel has not provided evidence for its claims that Hamas has infiltrated the agency." Meanwhile you have just exposed the fact that you read and are influenced by one of the shit papers on the market. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Apr 29, 2024 6:53:51 GMT
Health budget over time (Billions, inflation adjusted): £131.8 - 2010 (Dr Poulter stands as a Tory) £139.2 - 2015 (stands as a Tory) £144.1 - 2017 (stands as a Tory) £150.3 - 2019 (stands as a Tory) £182.2 - 2024 (defects, suddenly says Tories are no longer focused on funding the NHS)  IIRC there was a cut of some 50 £billion in NHS funding during the first half of the last decade, followed by the governments boasts that they were pouring some 30 £billion funding into the NHS during more recent years, which left a 20 £billion hole in funding. Then there was the con of taking £billions from the NHS building maintenance pot and sliding it into running the health side of the NHS. It seems to me that the lying deceiving Tories are remaining true to their natural dishonesty. no that is untrue |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Apr 29, 2024 6:55:59 GMT
So can I - do you think that Gordon Browns raid on pension dividends was a success? - what about the revised GP contract - or the the new Dental charges - or the NHS PFI program - or the reduction in social house building - or the introduction of mass immigration? Keen to hear some realism rather than propaganda. Given the circumstances of the time Brown was absolutely right to tax unearned income. Meanwhile things were so good the bosses were taking breaks in paying into the pension funds and paying the cash out to shareholders instead. Add to that the increasing tendency to take early retirement and the realisation that the pension pay outs by firms were increasingly impossible to be met, and we can see where the real problems lay. Because of the very nasty insinuations you post, some political honesty from you would be welcomed. So, given the resulting demise in final salary pensions in the private sector you think it was a price worth paying?. I thought that Labour were supposed to be on the side of the working man...  |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Apr 29, 2024 7:03:33 GMT
IIRC there was a cut of some 50 £billion in NHS funding during the first half of the last decade, followed by the governments boasts that they were pouring some 30 £billion funding into the NHS during more recent years, which left a 20 £billion hole in funding. Then there was the con of taking £billions from the NHS building maintenance pot and sliding it into running the health side of the NHS. It seems to me that the lying deceiving Tories are remaining true to their natural dishonesty. no that is untrue Well it has certainly been in the news. And I know you have already acknowledged that the annual percentage increase in NHS funding was cut in half by the Tories. Wasn't it something like from 7% to around 3.5%. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 29, 2024 7:06:58 GMT
IIRC there was a cut of some 50 £billion in NHS funding during the first half of the last decade, followed by the governments boasts that they were pouring some 30 £billion funding into the NHS during more recent years, which left a 20 £billion hole in funding. Then there was the con of taking £billions from the NHS building maintenance pot and sliding it into running the health side of the NHS. It seems to me that the lying deceiving Tories are remaining true to their natural dishonesty. no that is untrue When they're not posting insults for the Labour party they're telling lies for them around the clock. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Apr 29, 2024 7:10:01 GMT
Given the circumstances of the time Brown was absolutely right to tax unearned income. Meanwhile things were so good the bosses were taking breaks in paying into the pension funds and paying the cash out to shareholders instead. Add to that the increasing tendency to take early retirement and the realisation that the pension pay outs by firms were increasingly impossible to be met, and we can see where the real problems lay. Because of the very nasty insinuations you post, some political honesty from you would be welcomed. So, given the resulting demise in final salary pensions in the private sector you think it was a price worth paying?. I thought that Labour were supposed to be on the side of the working man... Not as a result of. The increase over the latter years of early retirement and people living longer meant that 'Final Salary' pensions had already past their sell by date. |
|
|
|
Post by Dogburger on Apr 29, 2024 7:11:24 GMT
I can see where he agrees with Labour over the NHS, but I don't see him as having a position in the Labour Party. Perhaps you could cut and past the part you think shows him as being employed as an advisor to the Labour Party? I would have thought the sub headline would have covered it " MP and part time consultant will advise Labour on health policy" saying Do you think these people work for nothing ? Advisers are currently paid between £40,500 and £145,000 depending on assessment by the cabinet office . Its no surprise then that he is standing down as an MP (£91K ) and will no doubt fall into the higher bracket of 'special advisors ' The current spend by government on advisors is about £12 million which includes £2.5 million in pension contributions , nice work if you can get it . Maybe I'm wrong and he is throwing in his MP salary and not taking on the advisor role or that he is doing it for free and returning to the NHS full time for around £60,000  |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Apr 29, 2024 7:13:17 GMT
When they're not posting insults for the Labour party they're telling lies for them around the clock. How old are you? You post like an irritated small minded teenager. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Apr 29, 2024 7:26:23 GMT
I can see where he agrees with Labour over the NHS, but I don't see him as having a position in the Labour Party. Perhaps you could cut and past the part you think shows him as being employed as an advisor to the Labour Party? I would have thought the sub headline would have covered it " MP and part time consultant will advise Labour on health policy" saying Do you think these people work for nothing ? Advisers are currently paid between £40,500 and £145,000 depending on assessment by the cabinet office . Its no surprise then that he is standing down as an MP (£91K ) and will no doubt fall into the higher bracket of 'special advisors ' The current spend by government on advisors is about £12 million which includes £2.5 million in pension contributions , nice work if you can get it . Maybe I'm wrong and he is throwing in his MP salary and not taking on the advisor role or that he is doing it for free and returning to the NHS full time for around £60,000 He was a health minister in the Tory party. MP and part-time consultant psychiatrist. He has offered his support of others. I do not see "will advise Labour on health policy". |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 29, 2024 7:27:43 GMT
I can see where he agrees with Labour over the NHS, but I don't see him as having a position in the Labour Party. Perhaps you could cut and past the part you think shows him as being employed as an advisor to the Labour Party? I would have thought the sub headline would have covered it " MP and part time consultant will advise Labour on health policy" saying Do you think these people work for nothing ? Advisers are currently paid between £40,500 and £145,000 depending on assessment by the cabinet office . Its no surprise then that he is standing down as an MP (£91K ) and will no doubt fall into the higher bracket of 'special advisors ' The current spend by government on advisors is about £12 million which includes £2.5 million in pension contributions , nice work if you can get it . Maybe I'm wrong and he is throwing in his MP salary and not taking on the advisor role or that he is doing it for free and returning to the NHS full time for around £60,000 It just goes to show that he responds without thinking and has little awareness of what goes on outside of his tiny circle. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Apr 29, 2024 7:35:48 GMT
So, given the resulting demise in final salary pensions in the private sector you think it was a price worth paying?. I thought that Labour were supposed to be on the side of the working man... Not as a result of. The increase over the latter years of early retirement and people living longer meant that 'Final Salary' pensions had already past their sell by date. Labour were the enemy of the working man - they knew what they were doing. Gordon Brown was warned by officials that he risked long term damage to Britain's occupational pensions industry when he pressed ahead with a £5bn a year cut in tax relief in his first budget.
Official Treasury documents released last night under the Freedom of Information Act show that officials told the chancellor his decision to cut a long-standing tax break to pension funds in his first budget in 1997 would place an added burden on employers and could hasten the demise of final salary scheme pensions.
The documents will shock pensioner groups which have argued for the past 10 years that Gordon Brown was at least in part responsible for the collapse in pension schemes.
Brown defied warnings over pension tax relief |
|
