Jump to content
MattP

FT General Election Poll 2019

FT General Election 2019  

383 members have voted

  1. 1. Which party will be getting your vote?

    • Conservative
      124
    • Labour
      124
    • Liberal Democrats
      84
    • Brexit Party
      13
    • Green Party
      19
    • Other
      19


Recommended Posts

33 minutes ago, Strokes said:

Also that quote makes no sense ‘Jo Donald. Love Bous. Did Dianne Abbot write it?

It's also a picture of Ronald Reagen's time in office according to a few eagle eyes.

 

Corbyn has probably had it saved up from the seventies.

Share this post


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

 

Well according to Jess Phillips it's an abomination for anybody to profit from healthcare provision even if it means you getting treated. It won't be long until we get to the stage of them explicitly stating death > private provision of health services. 

 

When I go into Waitrose later, I'm gonna look at the staff in the most scornful manner for profiting from my hunger. 

i'll likely be voting Labour but even i think this statement is a load of old blllocks.  Based on this statement, where do we stop with our outrage?  Should we also be p!ssed at the Surgeon for taking home their 6 figure salary on the back of treating a child with cancer too?

 

Somewhere down the line theres a company that builds ambulances who profit off people having car crashes.......  

 

 

 

Share this post


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

is anyone surprised by this?  you can tell Raab's a cvnt just by looking at him. he falls in to that Smug "Jeremy Hunt" style mould for me.

Edited by Tommo220
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, MattP said:

Will this stop the "Boris is going to sell the NHS to Trump" rhetoric? I very much doubt it.

 

Both campaigns in this election are being ran on complete fantasy and a pack of lies - very depressing.

I hope you're right but the esteemed current leader of the US does have a reputation for lying as easily as most people draw breath, so I'm not sure what he says can be taken as a definitive closing of the matter.

 

Of course, I know that this leads to a Kafka Trap of sorts whereby his denial is taken as as best ambiguity instead, but then that's not the fault of the folks pointing that out - they didn't make his reputation for him.

 

2 hours ago, Kopfkino said:

 

Well according to Jess Phillips it's an abomination for anybody to profit from healthcare provision even if it means you getting treated. It won't be long until we get to the stage of them explicitly stating death > private provision of health services. 

 

When I go into Waitrose later, I'm gonna look at the staff in the most scornful manner for profiting from my hunger. 

Perhaps a middle ground can be established here where there simply is an acceptance that profit from a rather inelastic market (is that the right term) in a fundamental human need like healthcare (as opposed to a rather more elastic one like foodstuffs) is rather sketchy ethically if all the bases are not being covered in terms of patient care first?

 

 

1 hour ago, Jon the Hat said:

How dare pharma companies make a return on their development of life savings medicines, or Medical tech companies on their incredible advances in equipment.  I'm less clear on how one incetivises people to invest their capital in developing anything at all.  Oh hang on, they aren't supposed to have captial are they.  Even our pension funds probably.  

...maybe self-interest and material gain are not the chief motivators for anyone and everyone who gets into that particular line of work (or others) and perhaps they might actually be driven by just a hint of altruism?

 

....actually, no, having taken a look outside and seen the state of quite a lot of the world, you're entirely right. Carry on.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

...maybe self-interest and material gain are not the chief motivators for anyone and everyone who gets into that particular line of work (or others) and perhaps they might actually be driven by just a hint of altruism?

 

....actually, no, having taken a look outside and seen the state of quite a lot of the world, you're entirely right. Carry on.

Is your career based on altruism?  How about your pension investments?  No?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Finally got around to Marr-Boris, what a farce. Just shouting over the top of each other.

 

Marr clearly annoyed by recent events as he tried to conduct the interview like Neil, something he isn't capable of unfortunately.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

Is your career based on altruism?  How about your pension investments?  No?

I have no pension investments, no future portfolios of any kind, so I have no particular concerns about ethics there. Of course, if and when the time comes to deal with that kind of thing, I will ask many questions about the ethics of the investment.

 

And yes, given my current career line I like to think it's more driven by altruism than most because I spend almost all of it actively helping other people or planning to do so while commanding a salary less than I might get elsewhere with the qualifications I have.

 

Of course, the above only matters if one were to make an accusatory argument regarding hypocrisy based on the assumption that I meant that profit should be no objective at all in such industries rather than merely a lower priority (hence the qualifier "chief motivator") - but strawman though it is, it did deserve an answer.

Edited by leicsmac

Share this post


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

Perhaps a middle ground can be established here where there simply is an acceptance that profit from a rather inelastic market (is that the right term) in a fundamental human need like healthcare (as opposed to a rather more elastic one like foodstuffs) is rather sketchy ethically if all the bases are not being covered in terms of patient care first?

 

Demand for particular foodstuffs might be more elastic but demand for food (which is the equivalent of just saying healthcare because demand for basic analgesics is quite different to chemotherapy) is still pretty inelastic.

 

But really you've touched upon what the actual issue is: outcomes. It matters not whether anyone skims a profit or not if the outcomes are sufficient or even superior. So that's the debate and discussion to have, not make silly points about people to gaining financially from children having cancer even if its of no material detriment to the end user. 

Edited by Kopfkino
  • Like 3

Share this post


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

Demand for particular foodstuffs might be more elastic but demand for food (which is the equivalent of just saying healthcare because demand for analgesics is quite different to chemotherapy) is still pretty inelastic.

 

But really you've touched upon what the actual issue is: outcomes. It matters not whether anyone skims a profit or not if the outcomes are sufficient or even superior. So that's the debate and discussion to have, not make silly points about people to gaining financially from children having cancer even if its of no material detriment to the end user. 

Critically needed and reasonably urgent healthcare - which is what I was really referring to, I should have been clearer - is a very inelastic market IMO.

 

No disagreement with the last sentence there. As long as the overall outcomes are of no detriment to the end user, then there should absolutely be material reward available.

 

But those overall outcomes should be the priority rather than profitability - first, last, always.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, MattP said:

Diane Abbott withdraws from tomorrow's debate after her son is charged with biting a police officer.

 

https://order-order.com/2019/12/03/james-abbott-charged-biting-police-officer/

Gets mum out of jail by getting himself sent there 

 

Unless a decent brief can work wonders with the Luis Suarez defence - I lost balance and hit my teeth against the plod 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What idiot called a general election in December?

 

When posties are rushed off their feet with parcels and cards and poll cards and postal ballots and campaign literature. :mad:

 

Bah humbug! :angry:

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Jon the Hat said:

It is a rather  depressing campaign that is for sure.  Twats everywhere.

 

Perhaps you can explain though how using private provision actually damages the NHS?

Do we include facilities management?  Building?  The idea that the NHS is only the state has always been nonsense.

 

Sorry about the delayed response, Jon. I had to hit a work deadline to maximise my business profits. ;)

 

I'm aware that the NHS isn't only the state - GP surgeries, dental practices, chemists. I'm not knowledgeable about the public/private breakdown within hospitals but know that it exists - you allude to PFI hospital building schemes, for starters, though I'm not sure they're a great advert for the private sector providing taxpayer value (under red & blue govts, I know).

 

I don't assume that private provision would always damage the NHS, but you run that risk - because you're adding in another stakeholder (private capital) who will need a slice of the cake in profit.

All undertakings, including public concerns, will have to give some of their cash to suppliers, some to staff, pay some for overheads, invest some in buildings & equipment etc. Privatise and some of the cash will have to go to capital in profit.

Now, you'll tell me that sometime private provision can be more efficient & provide better taxpayer value than public - and you're right. But sometimes it results in a very poor service, especially if it is near-monopoly service like rail (or potentially some of the more investment-intense health areas) or if the public service (e.g. NHS) is strapped for cash. It can result in contracts going to low bidders, who still have to accrue profits, but do so by cutting corners on service, cutting workers' pay/conditions or finding ways of getting more money out of the taxpayer once they've got the contract.

 

There are countless examples of privatised former public services providing poor value to taxpayers and punters: some of the most expensive rail tickets in Europe yet private franchisees getting bailouts or quitting franchises; repeated scandals with G4S prisoner escapes; utility companies maximising profits from high prices by operating an effective cartel - or shutting down when the profits disappear, like npower.

 

That's before even considering what might happen if US health/pharmaceutical corporations did get a few slices of the NHS cake: the potential for much higher drug prices or higher costs due to privatised, profit-seeking management of hospitals. Sure, even if that happened, it wouldn't necessarily mean that we'd have to adopt a mainly paying healthcare system like the NHS; it could still be free at the point of care....but could cost the taxpayer a lot more. I know that the NHS is far from perfect (from recent personal experience!) & other European systems often have better outcomes....but they're often achieved at much higher cost, be that via tax, health insurance payments or whatever.

 

8 hours ago, Kopfkino said:
Well according to Jess Phillips it's an abomination for anybody to profit from healthcare provision even if it means you getting treated. It won't be long until we get to the stage of them explicitly stating death > private provision of health services. 

 

When I go into Waitrose later, I'm gonna look at the staff in the most scornful manner for profiting from my hunger. 

 

Waitrose, eh? Don't leave your Burberry jacket on the seat of your Chelsea tractor while you're in there, Kopf. There are some frightful Labour-voting crims living in Waitrose areas these days.... :whistle:

 

No, seriously, that's OTT rhetoric from Philipps & I'm sure Waitrose won't profit from your hunger. But the supermarkets profit from the oligopolistic nature of the food retail sector to drive down the prices they pay to their fragmented network of suppliers. This includes a lot of farmers whose businesses are non-viable based on market prices alone - and which only remain in business through massive public subsidies, mainly from the EU now, but potentially from the British taxpayer post-Brexit, unless Boris allows half the farms to go bust and opts for all this cheap food from Africa that Brexiteers used to talk about. That's not a great advert for laissez-faire capitalism either, without major public intervention to address the adverse impact of the tendency to monopoly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Waitrose, eh? Don't leave your Burberry jacket on the seat of your Chelsea tractor while you're in there, Kopf. There are some frightful Labour-voting crims living in Waitrose areas these days.... :whistle:

 

Pfft, come on Alf I'm still a country boy at heart so always Barbour, Burberry's too metro.:thumbup:

58 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

But the supermarkets profit from the oligopolistic nature of the food retail sector to drive down the prices they pay to their fragmented network of suppliers

Monopsonist*:D

  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

Pfft, come on Alf I'm still a country boy at heart so always Barbour, Burberry's too metro.:thumbup:

Monopsonist*:D

 

I stand doubly corrected......or do I?

 

Is food retailing monopsonistic? (I admit that I had to look that term up, btw, though I'd heard it before :D).

I suppose a large proportion of many farmers' output is often tied to a single supermarket chain....but they could theoretically contract with a different chain?

Whereas the big supermarkets between them absolutely dominate the market.....even allowing for the farmer's markets that you attend in Melton Mowbray in your Barbour gear.... 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

I stand doubly corrected......or do I?

 

Is food retailing monopsonistic? (I admit that I had to look that term up, btw, though I'd heard it before :D).

I suppose a large proportion of many farmers' output is often tied to a single supermarket chain....but they could theoretically contract with a different chain?

Whereas the big supermarkets between them absolutely dominate the market.....even allowing for the farmer's markets that you attend in Melton Mowbray in your Barbour gear.... 

 

Tbf I deserve pedantry back. It would indeed technically be oligopsony (not oligopoly:D) but in reality there's little difference between oligopsony and monopsony unlike oligopoly and monopoly.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

:blink:

 

Any truth in the rumour that he's the candidate for Battersea?

Not according to Wikipedia.

 

What a bizarre story though, those private school fees weren't worth it lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 02/12/2019 at 10:23, MattP said:

Although Burgon is far better than this I suppose. 

 

**** me, she could be home secretary by next week lol

 

Why doesn't she just as admit she hasn't bothered to read it? Why try and pretend you have when it's obvious you haven't. 

God, this is really scary! Please put this on TV the night before the election.I can`t stand the woman but I genuinely sat alone in front of my computer and could not look at the screen for embarrassment...that is the honest truth.

She really is thick as Pig muck............if this does not  stop you voting Labour ..........Nothing will!.........Really,really SCARY.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 02/12/2019 at 10:23, MattP said:

Although Burgon is far better than this I suppose. 

 

**** me, she could be home secretary by next week lol

 

Why doesn't she just as admit she hasn't bothered to read it? Why try and pretend you have when it's obvious you haven't. 


Conservative politicians upon hearing that Abbott is doing another interview on national tv 

 

ED3049FA-A9E5-4F5F-B4C9-F04965124051.gif.59527c0b599ce41b06827945dd3254b9.gif

Edited by Mike Oxlong
  • Haha 1

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.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

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...

×
×
  • Create New...