|
|
Post by carlton43 on Feb 16, 2017 12:34:11 GMT
Voting Labour will have no effect on the decisions taken about this hospital. Only an arsehole would think otherwise. It is an example of why I dislike Labour so much  These bastards with their fake letters and tendentious nasty literature need to be beaten and we must get on with giving them a severe wrap in the mouth next week. |
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Feb 16, 2017 12:41:08 GMT
For someone who railed against the supposedly malign influence of Islam in the UK, you are surprisingly in favour of something awfully similar to the dhimmi (assuming you are not trolling). Why? Do I really have to confess I was trolling?  Benji mentioned on the Islam thread he was an atheist, so I thought it a great idea to tax him in order to save his beloved NHS. Not really no. have to be careful though. A couple more minutes and it would have been all over the interwangle, and the National Secular Society would have been picketing your avatar.... |
|
|
|
Post by thirdchill on Feb 16, 2017 13:09:20 GMT
You can't fund stuff like hospitals with PFI in my view. Whatever you build must be revenue generating to work properly. So...hospitals, no.....hospital multi-storey car park, yes. Anything else simply defeats the whole object as the government can borrow money cheaper than the PFI contractor You've hit the nail on the head with this one. Have long had objections to the proliferation of PFI for it's own sake. PFI for anything that is non-profit making is almost certainly going to cost more in the long run. It's not just hospitals, schools have also had this problem: www.heraldscotland.com/news/14432710.__30_billion__The_cost_of_Labour_s_toxic_PFI_legacy_to_Scotland/Although at the very least hospitals and schools were being used. The regional control fire station in warrington was definitely one of the worst examples of PFI mismanagement: manchestermule.com/article/millions-spent-on-pfi-white-elephants-as-fire-service-staff-get-sackThis shouldn't be treated as just a criticism of labour though. In the early years of the coalition, there was issues with funding of capital projects, for example a hospital in liverpool, leading to some to state that PFI was 'the only game in town'. People there were unhappy about this, and I can understand why. www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/royal-liverpool-hospital-rebuild-should-3368123.ampThe idea of the PFI raising it's own revenue, for example in the profits from the dartford crossing, is a sound one. Anything else is just costs being shifted from central government onto the hospital/school etc, which costs far more in the long run. If it doesn't raise revenue and it's quite clear that the costs will be significantly larger in the longer term, it should be funded up-front. |
|
johnr
Labour & Co-operative
Posts: 1,944 
|
Post by johnr on Feb 16, 2017 14:14:42 GMT
Voting Labour will have no effect on the decisions taken about this hospital. Only an arsehole would think otherwise. It is an example of why I dislike Labour so much These bastards with their fake letters and tendentious nasty literature need to be beaten and we must get on with giving them a severe wrap in the mouth next week. How is this a "fake letter", when it clearly appears to be a glossy leaflet with the Labour brand prominent, of the sort used in elections everywhere and by everyone? Or is this some kind of Trump strategy whereby you call things "fake news" simply because you disagree with it? |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Feb 16, 2017 14:18:56 GMT
Yes, AC, it is all down to the quality of the deal hammered out for each PFI. Some have been pathetic in the quality of negotiating skill deployed. The idea can be very good if handled well.
As to the WFP which I enjoyed (and enjoyed in Italy when I lived there) always beware the political consequential damage of withdrawing any benefit your own side get and enjoy!!! Do I think it is justified? No. Do I think it and the Bus Pass are sacrosanct? No. As a rational and financially comfortable senior with political views would I personally resent or endorse the withdrawal? I would resist and resent it. I know that I shouldn't. We need austerity and to sop up these trivial forms of expenditure. I agree. But don't do it. You will lose goodwill, support and votes and the cost is not worth it. We are the demographic that is most Conservative, most loyal and with the highest TO. Don't upset us for the sake of a principle. Just don't. Warning!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Feb 16, 2017 14:22:43 GMT
These bastards with their fake letters and tendentious nasty literature need to be beaten and we must get on with giving them a severe wrap in the mouth next week. How is this a "fake letter", when it clearly appears to be a glossy leaflet with the Labour brand prominent, of the sort used in elections everywhere and by everyone? Or is this some kind of Trump strategy whereby you call things "fake news" simply because you disagree with it? It is couched as a personal letter in handwriting with the intention to mislead and to deceive electors into thinking it is a genuine letter by a member of the public (or a known local, or the candidate) to seem like a direct appeal person to person. It is in every way 'fake'. And it is intended to deceive. |
|
johnr
Labour & Co-operative
Posts: 1,944
|
Post by johnr on Feb 16, 2017 14:28:34 GMT
How is this a "fake letter", when it clearly appears to be a glossy leaflet with the Labour brand prominent, of the sort used in elections everywhere and by everyone? Or is this some kind of Trump strategy whereby you call things "fake news" simply because you disagree with it? It is couched as a personal letter in handwriting with the intention to mislead and to deceive electors into thinking it is a genuine letter by a member of the public (or a known local, or the candidate) to seem like a direct appeal person to person. It is in every way 'fake'. And it is intended to deceive. But clearly branded by the Labour party. The Labour name and logo are very large in your image. I fail to see who could be decieved into thinking this is anything other than an election communication on behalf of the Labour party and candidate. And as for it being personally addressed and in the style of natural handwriting, again that is something that ALL political parties have done for many, many years. My parents received something similar from the Conservative candidate in 1979 - the first election they voted Tory. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Feb 16, 2017 14:59:32 GMT
Is this Paula Townsley a real person and are the facts laid out in the letter true? If yes to both of these well and good, if not then it is a fraud
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2017 15:20:15 GMT
I'm surprised to see a "blue letter" outside LibDem circles tbh!
|
|
|
|
Post by Devil Wincarnate on Feb 16, 2017 15:35:57 GMT
Back in Winchester a few years back, a campaign was run (not by Labour, I might add) claiming that the Tories and Libs were going to close down the main hospital. This was palpable nonsense, and was denied by just about everyone. Since then, I've been reasonably suspicious of any of these SAVE THE HOSPITAL things. I should note as well that, not long before the 2010 general election, Labour shut the maternity wards at several hospitals around Manchester, and concentrated the functions at Wythenshawe. By all accounts, this has worked very well indeed. Closure=loss is a pretty simplistic formula. Sibboleth and Sharon hit the nail on the head- the problem is healthcare in the community. |
|
|
|
Post by An Sionnach Flannbhuí on Feb 16, 2017 16:25:46 GMT
Is this an actual letter that someone's written, or a photocopied "blue ink" letter? If the latter, where's the imprint? |
|
|
|
Post by Chris Whiteside on Feb 16, 2017 16:42:31 GMT
What's this alt news you are coming out with? PFI was a concept invented by the Conservative administration in the 1990s. Labour followed this up with the PPP. No, no, no. PFI was a concept invented by the Conservatives in 1986 with the Dartford Crossing Act. The Dartford Tunnel was built in 1963, was loading with debt and was in need of complete refurbishment and a new crossing building to increase capacity to cope with the building of the M25. Thatcher....for it was she....handed over the tunnels to Trafalgar House, who had to build a new bridge, refurbish the existing tunnels, pay off the debts and hand the tunnels back to the Dept of Transport with a 100 million pound maintenance fund In return for doing this Trafalgar House could keep all of the tolls they collected for a maximum period of, I think it was about 18 years, or until they had recovered their costs with an agreed profit, whichever was the sooner. Trafalgar House did all of the work as instructed and handed back the tunnels to the DoT, with the maintenance fund, in about 15 years and 3 months. At this point the tolls were supposed to be removed. That was the agreement. Unfortunately we had a Labour government in office and they decided to keep the tolls in place. The Dartford Crossing was an excellent example of how PFI can and should work. Unfortunately, the Labour government just saw it as a way of spending money off balance sheet and never really understood how to do it. That is why my local hospital is signed up to an absurd 35 year PFI arrangement, where the hospital pays 80 quid to have a poster put up, while the stupid little cunt that claims to have organised the deal, Mary Creagh, now denies having had anything to do with it. I knocked on a door in about 2009 for Alex Story. They guy who answered was a PFI consultant of some sort. I asked him if he would vote for us. He said that normally he would, but he wasn't going to because if he did he knew that the PFI deals he signed up would become much more difficult because the Tories wouyldn't sign them with gay abandon, like Labour did. Whether that is true I have no idea. You can't fund stuff like hospitals with PFI in my view. Whatever you build must be revenue generating to work properly. So...hospitals, no.....hospital multi-storey car park, yes. Anything else simply defeats the whole object as the government can borrow money cheaper than the PFI contractor This superb summary by "Armchair Critic" of what PFI is and is not good for, and why Gordon Brown was mad to use it to try to pay for hospitals, deserves a much wider audience. I hope Armchair Critic will not mind that I have posted it on my blog, credited to him and with a link to this forum.
|
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Feb 16, 2017 16:43:33 GMT
Is this an actual letter that someone's written, or a photocopied "blue ink" letter? If the latter, where's the imprint? On the back? * * Yes, I know, illegal if it's otherwise blank, but perfectly legal if the reverse is relevant text. |
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Feb 16, 2017 16:50:45 GMT
Cut all benefits and introduce an atheist tax. Speaking as an agnostic, where does that leave me? ... in every sense! You mean you don't know?  |
|
|
|
Post by Chris Whiteside on Feb 16, 2017 16:51:55 GMT
Is this an actual letter that someone's written, or a photocopied "blue ink" letter? If the latter, where's the imprint? On the back? * * Yes, I know, illegal if it's otherwise blank, but perfectly legal if the reverse is relevant text. They've been posting it on social media without an imprint. They have also been circulating paper copies and I have seen one which was handed in to the Conservative campaign centre earlier today.
It does indeed have an imprint on the back, designed to look handwritten. The back is otherwise blank.
|
|
Jack
Reform Party
Posts: 8,714
|
Post by Jack on Feb 16, 2017 16:57:30 GMT
No, no, no. PFI was a concept invented by the Conservatives in 1986 with the Dartford Crossing Act. The Dartford Tunnel was built in 1963, was loading with debt and was in need of complete refurbishment and a new crossing building to increase capacity to cope with the building of the M25. Thatcher....for it was she....handed over the tunnels to Trafalgar House, who had to build a new bridge, refurbish the existing tunnels, pay off the debts and hand the tunnels back to the Dept of Transport with a 100 million pound maintenance fund In return for doing this Trafalgar House could keep all of the tolls they collected for a maximum period of, I think it was about 18 years, or until they had recovered their costs with an agreed profit, whichever was the sooner. Trafalgar House did all of the work as instructed and handed back the tunnels to the DoT, with the maintenance fund, in about 15 years and 3 months. At this point the tolls were supposed to be removed. That was the agreement. Unfortunately we had a Labour government in office and they decided to keep the tolls in place. The Dartford Crossing was an excellent example of how PFI can and should work. Unfortunately, the Labour government just saw it as a way of spending money off balance sheet and never really understood how to do it. That is why my local hospital is signed up to an absurd 35 year PFI arrangement, where the hospital pays 80 quid to have a poster put up, while the stupid little cunt that claims to have organised the deal, Mary Creagh, now denies having had anything to do with it. I knocked on a door in about 2009 for Alex Story. They guy who answered was a PFI consultant of some sort. I asked him if he would vote for us. He said that normally he would, but he wasn't going to because if he did he knew that the PFI deals he signed up would become much more difficult because the Tories wouyldn't sign them with gay abandon, like Labour did. Whether that is true I have no idea. You can't fund stuff like hospitals with PFI in my view. Whatever you build must be revenue generating to work properly. So...hospitals, no.....hospital multi-storey car park, yes. Anything else simply defeats the whole object as the government can borrow money cheaper than the PFI contractor This superb summary by "Armchair Critic" of what PFI is and is not good for, and why Gordon Brown was mad to use it to try to pay for hospitals, deserves a much wider audience. I hope Armchair Critic will not mind that I have posted it on my blog, credited to him and with a link to this forum.
We're famous!  Hello Mum!  |
|
wallington
Green
The Pride of Croydon 2022 award winner
Posts: 1,322
|
Copeland
Feb 16, 2017 16:58:32 GMT
via mobile
Post by wallington on Feb 16, 2017 16:58:32 GMT
I would doubt it's a fake letter! The Tories used such letters signed by some 'local resident' as a campaign tool in Croydon. The Lib Dems are the kings of them (I recall seeing two of them in the Wallington South by-election). Why wouldn't Labour also do the same.
I imagine they are quite effective. Personaly someone I've never heard of or spoken to claiming to be a neighbour telling me why some candidate or another is amazing because of xyz fails to work. But then again, i know it's just some party member trying to sell me the candidate. They could at least offer me and the mrs around for a cuppa and a digestive or two first to say hi before selling me the brilliant local candidate.
|
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Feb 16, 2017 17:01:38 GMT
I think it's perfectly legitimate to put forward the argument that, if the Conservative Party candidate wins a byelection and gains a seat in an area where the Conservative government is proposing to close hospital facilities, they will conclude that it is politically safe to carry on with the closures.
|
|
Merseymike
Independent
Posts: 40,496
Member is Online
|
Copeland
Feb 16, 2017 17:09:07 GMT
via mobile
Post by Merseymike on Feb 16, 2017 17:09:07 GMT
Since 1983 you have told the public that the nasty Tories want to sell off the NHS, yet the reality is that Labour have privatised more of it than the Conservatives ever have. Not sure that is true but yes - I carry no torch for the mistakes of New Labour. They certainly created the conditions for 'any eligible provider'. I am not defending them. |
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Feb 16, 2017 17:18:04 GMT
On the back? * * Yes, I know, illegal if it's otherwise blank, but perfectly legal if the reverse is relevant text. They've been posting it on social media without an imprint. They have also been circulating paper copies and I have seen one which was handed in to the Conservative campaign centre earlier today.
It does indeed have an imprint on the back, designed to look handwritten. The back is otherwise blank.
In which case I would suspect it is in breach of electoral law. Though my knowledge these days is rusty. |
|
