I'll use an exaggerated example to make a point. The Tories have a policy that means brown-haired people are subject to arrest and execution. Labour has a policy that means blond-haired people are subject to arrest and execution. The LibDems have a policy that means red-haired people are subject to arrest and execution. Now, ignoring the usual ginger-jokes, which party do you vote for? They all have show-stopper policies, there is no "best-fit" or "least-worst option". Although ... if TBP offered Clean Brexit and the arrest of blonds ... I could be persuaded. Maybe.
loz has never lived in a contry with a SNP gov. he relies on BRITTISH military personal accounts and the media for his information. yip, the media. . As the News continued, Laura Kuenssberg told us that the battle lines between the parties are now clearly drawn, and the major division is over how much the government “should interfere in the economy”. Interfere. Not intervene. Not regulate. Interfere. It is a very deliberate choice of word. Let me turn to the Oxford English Dictionary: Interfere 1) Prevent from continuing or being carried out properly 2) Handle or adjust without permission 3) Become involved in something without being asked 4) Sexually molest Words matter. Kuenssberg chose a word with powerful negative connotations and no possible positive meaning, to describe the alternative to the Tories. Kuenssberg talking of government interfering in, rather than intervening in, the economy is in itself a very strong and explicit declaration of Kuenssberg’s belief in an Ayn Rand, “Britannia unchained”, free market, ultra neo-liberal world view. To explicitly frame the choice in the election as between the Tories and “interfering” is just another example of the way the BBC slants their election coverage, permanently.
okay. I’ll play. none of the main parties. A smaller party that aren’t ‘radical’ in any way. Green Party then. (you could have just said that, like wot Finm did)
No no no. You believe that every constituency should have a candidate named None Of The Above and that that candidate should win. There, confusion cleared up.
the point I was making is that the Scottish and English NHS are completely separate and therefore some drugs are available in Scotland and not in England and vice versa, as both also have separate drug approval bodies. Prices are also different and so have nothing to do with the EU. My point also casts doubt that it’s the size of the NHS which means we get lower drug prices. I can also say that health insurance companies do. It restrict themselves to one country. They work worldwide. So for example, ACME Health Inc could offer its polices in the USA, Canada and Japan and so have a customer base far greater than Scotland for example, even on a modest market share. additionally, these companies are totally corrupt. They work in an environment where they induce insurance based health providers to push a given product which may be totally inappropriate. There have been cases of deliberate misdiagnosis by crooked Doctors. From the other perspective I regularly read posts from proper saying “I have changed jobs and my new employers health insurance company does not offer drug X, they want me on drug Y, which does not work for me as have me terrible side affects and had no beneficial affect” now, I appreciate the above has nothing to do with the NHS now or under what is looking possible in the future but it serves as a warning as to what these insurance and drug companies are interested in. It’s not health and it is money. to be fair to the American drug companies in the states, some of them do give their products away free of charge to people who do not have insurance. Therefore it’s a reasonable conclusion to say that the inflated price insured Americans pay is in part to subsidise those free cases. the drug I take is based upon a chemical used in dry cleaning. There is nothing expensive in its manufacture. It’s patent is about to come to an end and guess what? There is a new version coming out which has less side affects? Now isn’t that timely? so doctors will be induced to prescribe the new one as opposed to the old one which will be able to be copied by other manufacturers. the whole system is corrupt. Until I was exposed to it, I had no idea. So I can understand why most people are a bit surprised at what i am saying and hopefully will reconsider their view. Except Noobie, who ignores everything apart from what he wants to believe
I just left a meeting today where I did my usual of asking dum questions question - why are all the data centres we are talking about now in Frankfurt and not in South East England? answer. - because the banks are moving to Frankfurt it’s still the same Irish contractors that are building them though
“Do you think you Indians are ready to run your own civil service, courts of law, your own armed forces?” a British official asks an Indian servant. “We’ve learned from the best, sir,” he replies.
Quelle surprise! Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon is an unpleasant British far-right anti-Islam activist, so is not likely to suggest that his followers vote for far-left parties.
watched this or rather listened to it , a brief video clip of TR saying Go Boris, and the rest a load of verbal shit from some lavaTORY mouth, could do better.
