pwa wrote: ↑2 Jul 2022, 6:26am
If you are comparing him with Starmer, then you may be right. Certainly regarding refugees. But what if Corbyn had been PM? Would Jeremy have been so quick to send arms to Ukraine? He would have been better on the refugee front, but his pacifist leanings might have reduced his willingness to give Ukraine arms to defend themselves.
I remain ambivalent. If Ukraine had just let the Russians walk in think how many lives would have been saved, military and especially civilian.
Putin cares not a jot about Russian soldiers lives so the sanctions that would have still been imposed may have stood the same chance of success as they do now and nobody would have died.
I feel the same way about the Falklands war.
Or does this make me a pacifist nutter?
Genuine question
The world went through that movie in the middle of the last century,look what happened when the west let Nazi Germany have it's own way and ultimately the lives lost as a result.
The Falklands could easily have been avoided,not so Ukraine.
-----------------------------------------------------------
"All we are not stares back at what we are"
W H Auden
Stradageek wrote: ↑2 Jul 2022, 7:57am
I remain ambivalent. If Ukraine had just let the Russians walk in think how many lives would have been saved, military and especially civilian.
...
...
Or does this make me a pacifist nutter?
Genuine question
I disagree with you, but I'd much rather people were ambivalent or uncertain than unquestioningly believing in their own position.
From a purely short term and practical question, the experience of occupying troops murdering and raping around Kyiv makes the argument that surrender equals a reduction in suffering far from definite.
Then there's the question of generations to come under that occupation.
And what Russia might be further emboldened to do next.
So I do believe helping the Ukrainians have the option to decide for themselves whether to fight or not is right
But I certainly would characterise other positions as nutty.
Is there a "not" missing from the bit I highlighted?
"The government’s official spending watchdog is to launch an inquiry into Boris Johnson’s claim that 40 new hospitals will be built by 2030, as concerns grow in Whitehall that the pledge is unaffordable and has been greatly oversold to the public.": https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... -hospitals
If questioned about he'll claim it's been delayed due to cost of Covid and inflation due to the Ukraine war.
In truth it's his 40 new hospitals are just another pack of lies as we all know.
-----------------------------------------------------------
"All we are not stares back at what we are"
W H Auden
francovendee wrote: ↑3 Jul 2022, 6:58am
What's happened to all those millions mentioned on that big red bus?
They've been spent by the pals of Bokum & His Spivs, on luxury-dross and packing their offshore accounts.
Cugel
“Practical men who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence are usually the slaves of some defunct economist”.
John Maynard Keynes
Does anybody know how Boris Johnson came to appoint Chris Pincher as a government whip?
It's a key role in parliamentary parties, involving keeping a party's MPs in line and AIUI involves maintaining good communication with the different factions as well as a combination of bribery and blackmail to get members in the right lobby when there are divisions, although I can see with a big majority it may be a less crucial role. I cannot see how Chris Pincher was ever considered for the role.
In police canteen lingo, has CP somehow got the black on BJ?
I suppose he was an effective whip when he threatened wayward MPs with the grope!
Al
Reuse, recycle, thus do your bit to save the planet.... Get stuff at auctions, Dump, Charity Shops, Facebook Marketplace, Ebay, Car Boots. Choose an Old House, and a Banger ..... And cycle as often as you can......
There are all sorts of jobs a prime minister can dish out. What I was trying to say was that I thought somebody with a taste for sherbet and exotic tendencies might be best-suited to any other job than party whip.
Maybe Tory Party donors would not pay for it so taxpayers had to (god forbid the day when Johnson has to pay for something himself, like a private visit to family. Only reason for visit was election campaigning and/or/combined family visit, none of which warrants use of a private jet. and if there were security concerns he should have stayed in London - it was not a necessary trip. Still, we got to pay for it.
In 2018, as foreign secretary, Johnson complained that he wanted his own private government plane as the prime minister’s was rarely available and was too grey.
Jdsk wrote: ↑22 Jun 2021, 1:43pm
Higher taxation would make it easier, but the Dilnot proposals are surprisingly inexpensive:
Analysis from the King's Fund: https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/sites/defa ... -jul11.pdf
includes: "If the Commission’s recommendations are implemented in full, it forecasts that no-one would have to spend more than 30 per cent of their assets to fund their care. It estimates that its recommended changes to the funding system would require £1.7 billion in additional public expenditure (0.14 per cent of GDP) if the cap on individual contributions is set at £35,000, rising to £3.6 billion (0.22 per cent of GDP) by 2025/6."
And the IfS in 2017, that's after Dilnot and after the Conservative proposals: https://ifs.org.uk/publications/9243
includes: "A life-time cap on care costs, as proposed by the Dilnot Commission, is a solution to the insurance problem. It is effectively a form of social insurance, funded from general taxation. It may also make it easier for a private market to emerge that would offer insurance against care costs up to the cap.
"By contrast, the Conservative plan makes no attempt to deal with the fundamental challenge of social care funding. That is the big problem – not how many people might win or lose."
The next non-solution is being considered today.
OTOH:
"Labour will aim to bring in a national care service in England free at the point of use, just as the 1945 government brought in the NHS, the shadow health secretary has said, launching a review of how it would work." https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... re-service
With regard to the Pincher appointment, Johnson has yet again made himself look like a fool. Claiming he didn't know the individual's reputation is the daft thing that shows his incapability.
With so many MPs now saying "if Johnson didn't know his [Pincher's] reputation then he [Johnson] was the only person in Westminster not knowing". So Johnson either Johnson was appointing inappropraite people without inquiring into their suitability or he is (yet again) lying. Either option shows Johnson unsuited to his office. Really makes one question how so many Conservative MPs still support him rather than the interest of the country (and the interest of their own party).
