Blah Blah

???? I've always argued for PR even when the Tories didn't win elections. I've always held the view that our electoral system is bad for democracy and that it protects a two party system. And to be fair you know nothing about me DaveR, or my views beyond a few posts on here. Idiots do not make millions, or have best selling books. I don't agree with much of what he says, but that in itself doesn't make him an idiot.

Ahhh maxxi. Hard to tell sometimes if something is written in jest :) All I'm saying Dave is that 76.5% of the electorate didn't vote for the government we now have and that I am for electoral reform to a PR system as a result, even if that means we have coalition government forever.

Can't agree the general election turned out for the best Maxxi. And the overwhelming millions who didn't vote Conservative over those who did would agree with me. Perhaps if those who didn't vote at all had voted, we wouldn't be witnessing the ideological attacks on the poorest that we are. But we have no way of knowing how those people would have voted of course.

I think his telling people not to vote did for him really. It's hard to have credibility campaigning for change if you start by telling people not to do the one thing that can bring about change.

There's more to narcissism than that. It's not an accurate definition of the condition. It would be correct however to define him as egotistic. I also wouldn't go as far as to call him an idiot either. Idiots don't become successful self made millionaires. He is also a fairly decent writer (not that I agree with him on many things) and again, not really the skillset of an idiot.

Yet another gaff that the Conservatives will be able to exploit. The inexperience and niaivity of the Corbyn/ Mcdonnell partnership is startling. I don't give Corbyn even 18 months if it continues like this. Polly Toynby made a good point in saying that Corbyn is so used to opposing everything, that he has no idea how to unify.

I'm not really interested in reading an article about a millionaire taking a taxi to appointments and meetings. It's not a story. I am more interested in the issues that Brand speaks about. I do think he is sometimes incoherant but sneering at him rather than considering the issues he's highlighting displays everything that is wrong with the mentality of parts of both the press and the public.

But who pays for the car? And is it really that unusual that someone uses a driver (taxi) to make sure they get to appointments on time? These are not the kinds of things that really matter. If wealthy people can't have views on poverty, then given that Parliament has been full of them forever and a day, no social reform would have ever happened. And at least Brand has a background in touch with ordnary people. Cameron certainly doesn't. Are you really saying that only if someone gives up their wealth, can they have a valid view on austerity? That's just bonkers. He also doesn't fullfil the clinical definition of narcissism either, given that he IS capable of empathy and doesn't appear to sufffer from underlying esteem issues, both of which are necessary attributes of narcissism.

????, when in London, Brand cycles a lot to get to places. As someone who has been to some of those anti-austerity marches, there are all kinds of people there, not just the loony lefty stereotypes that you seem to think everyone who opposes this government is. I do agree he's an egomaniac though, and his treatment of women has been very dubious in the past too. Don't really know the ins and outs of it all Duncan, just know they don't pay for their own tickets. I think most people though, given the choice, and flying long hual, would go first class if they could. I'm around the same height as Brand (I think) and leg room in economy is an issue.

lol now that IS funny :D

Most people who fly first class don't actually buy their tickets. They are paid for by whatever company, event etc is employing them to fly out. And a quick google search shows he was in Cape Town as part of a world tour. So the tour company (who like all tour companies do) fly their main act first class. Not quite what the person posting that pic on twitter was trying to make of it, is it.

It's also worth pointing out that it's not always poor dental hygeine that leads to dental decay, but lack of visits to the dentist. Fear of the dentist is a real issue, often formed through negative childhood experiences. If you then combine that with not everyone's teeth being the same, then some people will need more treatment no matter how well they look after their mouth. Some people have stronger teeth that are less prone to decay than others, just as some people have acidic imbalances in their saliva that subject their teeth to more attack than others. Teeth root into bone, so if you have healthy bone you are going to do better than if you have problems. It is also possible to overbrush, just as brushing within 40 mins of a meal is the wrong time to brush (at one time people were encourage to brush immediately after every meal). It stands to reason that where heathcare is private, poorer people can't afford to see a dentist as often, just as in the UK, only limited treatments are allowed on the NHS and the result is that many people who can't afford private dentistry lose teeth that would be saved under private treatment. Even the quality of something like a crown, is inferior in materials on the NHS.

Question Time audiences are notorious for digging up extremes in their attempts to 'reflect a wide section of public views'. I thought for Question Time, is was a tame one. The panel seems devoid of that 'go for the jugular' MP or journalist that it usually has at least one of :D On another note, Manchester is about to see a week of protest during the Conservative Party Conference.

My mistake, but it still doesn't change that your analysis of rental costs is wrong, as the table I posted shows.

Yes I just about remember the public information films John. I think the likelihood of a terrorist group getting hold of anything nuclear is slim Fox. You need scientists and facilities (costing billions) to operate and maintain a nuclear weapon. And from what I understand, the idea of a single button to launch a weapon is a myth too. There's a whole process of buttons and codes etc.

You just can't refrain from insult can you? It's you that should get out more. Might help your mood a little. You seem to think all nurses are single and without families to support. That's the first failure of your analysis. And if you had actually read the information I posted, I told you that the four countries of the UK have different scales. So the cost of rent in Ireland has nothing to do with the cost of rent in England. The average rent of a one bedroomed property is ?660 p/m btw. Here is true reflection of rent to income for the whole country... I do think it is fair to have equal starting salaries when they are that low. There is London weighting which is supposed to help but it is also why many teaching hospitals provide their own accomodation for junior doctors and nurses. Needless to say that there is not enough of this accomodation to meet demand. I will dig out comparisons for you on costs between the NHS and private health care. There's is tons of data online (and lots of detailed reports and analysis) if you google. That isn't to say that some areas wouldn't be improved financially if they were part privatised. An example of that would be charging a small fee for doctors appointments and allowing a refund process after attendance. Millions of booked appointments are missed every year, at a cost to the tax payer, and the thinking is that it would be an incentive to reduce that. The downside is that we wouldn't want to disincentivise people from seeing a doctor when they need too either. These are debates that those of us engaged with policy makers have all the time, and finding ways to improve outcomes and efficiency is an ongoing process. Just back to salaries. A ?21k starting salary is not huge for any graduate (and is comaparable to other both public and private sector starting salaries). Debates around pay are increasingly mirroring a race to the bottom. We are not a poor country. It's easy for me to fight for the NHS, I work in it, but one thing I do know is that people who are healthy, in body and/or mind, are more productive. So in economic terms, it's worth paying for a good health service, just as it is worth paying for good education, housing etc for all.

I don't really know where I stand on nuclear weapons. They have kept a peace of sorts between superpowers, but done little to stop other forms of conflict, often backed by the superpowers. There's no doubting that nuclear weapons in the wrong hands would be a disaster for the world. But I also don't think a world free of nuclear weapons is possible either.

I think you might be right ????, but I kind of hope you are not (for the nicest of reasons). I enjoyed his speech. I didn't agree with everything but I really liked the spirit of what he said. I'm happy to see something like Mental Health being championed for example. That IS something that needs attention. I was left with an impression of caring politics. He may well be preaching to the converted but don't all parties do that at their conferences? A rally call to the foot soldiers to go forth and spread the message? The real task then becomes one of shifting wider public consciouness. There are lots of parallels between his election and Thatcher's election as leader of the Conservatives. She was an antithesis to the way many Tory MPs thought at the time. She started out with a cabinet of mixed views from all sides of the party too (before having to shuffle out the most opposed to her policies). The point is that Tories went through a radical transition themselves which is not too disimilar to the transition that Corbyn will have to bring about. The idea that that in itself makes any party unelectable isn't proven historically. It will depend on many things over the next four years as to how it pans out. Whilst I think most people would probably agree that Corbyn being able to swing Southern floating voters is a challenge too far, there's no doubting that in the North and Scotland, he is speaking for many people formerly disillusioned with politicians. The SNP in Hollyrood last year voted against a living wage introduction for example, so there are already cracks in their claim that they are an anti-austerity party. I think Corbyn can reclaim ground there, and let's face it, without those Scottish seats back, Labour have no chance of winning a majority ever. It's going to be an interesting four years.

I don't know where you get this idea that NHS staff are overpaid in other regions DaveR. All NHS staff are paid according to scale. England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland take different decisions on what those scales are but that's as far as non consensus goes. The starting salary (in England) for a Nurse is ?21,692. For a Doctor ?22,636 (rising to ?28,076 in year 2). I can't think of anywhere in England where either of those starting salaries could be described as overpaid. The cost of housing alone makes both those salaries ordinary. Even the second year rate for Junior Doctors isn't anything to be proud of, given the years taken to train, study, and the hours that have to be put in (not to mention the cost of student fees and loans etc). Even nurses increasingly need degrees. I am someone who has worked in the NHS for almost two decades. There is a lot of mythology around what people actually earn. If you want to talk about market rates, you'll find that actually, most NHS staff should be paid more according to their experience and skills, compared to those working comparably in the private sector. This is one of the biggest arguments against wholesale privatisation of the NHS. It would increase the cost of healthcare by five times. The NHS is actually very good value for money. An operation the costs ?2k within the NHS, costs ?10k in the private sector. And the more opportunity that becomes available in the private sector, the more difficulty we'll have keeping hold of those junior doctors for example. That's how the market really works. So you might want to re-think your position on that DaveR?

? uncleglen. What has where people live in proximity to family have to do with anything?

You completely miss the premise of my comments and the thread of discussion they were in reply to. I didn't realise that making a distinction between the lobbying interests of someone like Lord Ashcroft and Unions made me simple. You are a bit of a knob aren't you? I respect that you have a view that is different to me, but it doesn't make you more clever than anyone. At least I will look at independent reports instead of being lazy and expecting everyone else to do the work for me. To make it crystal clear for you. My comparison of Lord Ashcroft and the Union Bill was to highlight the hypocracy of any party that protects the tax avoidance of those who donate to it whilst trying to make donations to an opposition party more difficult to administer. That is ALL I was talking about. So I would appreciate it if you would refrain from making any assumptions on my cognitive ability, especially in relation to contexts I was even debating.

How do you know what a report contains if you don't read it? C'mom! Until you read it you have no idea of what it says or doesn't say. Using your own lazyness to dimiss my view is like a Judge saying he won't listen to any witnesses because he knows what they will say. The distinction I make between unions and millionaires is in who they represent. I would say that is fairly obvious by my comments. Unions repesent a mass, corporate millionaires, themselves. I'm finding your tone provocative to be honest. You are not interested in debate and as for being patronising, I think your post above is a perfect example of that. If you can't be bothered reading a report I posted, why on earth should I bother posting links to any other papers.

I think we get to the crux of the matter now. Your problem is with unions DaveR and you're not really interested in a discussion about wealth trying to buy power (which is where I personally started with this). I'm not going to get into a debate with you about unions (any more than I am going to paraphrase a well researched report that you are too lazy to read on lobbying and corruption). Union membership is not only found in the public sector. There are several unions that represent workers in lines of work that are private sector or freelance jobs. More than half of people in work do not earn the average wage. And that includes public sector workers. There is a huge difference between them and the millionaires that donate to political parties. Unions campaign for better working conditions and why shouldn't they, when we have a crop of corporations forcing a wage race to the bottom, while we subsidise them with tax credits and top up benefits. Even you should be able to acknowledge that.

Did you get out of bed the wrong side this morning DaveR? I was simply illustrating the hypocrasy of one party taking donations whilst trying to curb (by law) the ability of another to collect it's donations. It's also worth remembering that the Conservatives raise far more from their city backers than Labour do from all of theirs (including unions) and yes I do think there a difference between an organisation that reppresents workers and an individual who represents himself or his own corporate interests. You may disagree, which is fine, but I'm entitled to my view without insult from you. Azira, here is an in depth report into the inadequacies that lead to a fine line between lobbying and corruption. It contains many examples of unethical relationships between MPs and corporate interests. http://www.transparency.org.uk/publications/15-publications/81-corruption-in-the-uk-overview-policy-recommendations/81-corruption-in-the-uk-overview-policy-recommendations With regards to loans and donations. Political parties are required by law to report every quarter to the electoral commission. Everything you need can be found here. http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/find-information-by-subject/political-parties-campaigning-and-donations/donations-and-loans-to-political-parties/quarterly-donations-and-loans Both are reputable sources as I'm sure you'll agree.

There's plenty of evidence Azira. Lobbying and party donations for a start. Corporations fund election campaigns, they make donations to buy off interest groups that lobby in their interests, all things that ordinary people can't compete with. That's how you end up with people like the Koch brothers in America securring the legislation they needed for a controversial pipeline within months, and it taking years on the other hand for Obmama to get through a watered down version of his health reforms. We see the same thing here. A lowering in Corporation Tax (even though corporations already do everything they can to avoid paying it) whilst low waged working people have their support taken away. And the trade union bill, which the Tories seem to have conveniently convinced everyone (who hasn't read it) is about strike ballots, is actually about restricting Unions ablity to collect subscriptions and use some of those subscriptions to fund the Labour party. So it's ok for a non dom tax avoiding billionaire to fund the Tory party, but it's not ok for ordinary people to fund the Labour party through their union subscriptions. It's totally hypocritical. Big business can lobby and buy influence, while organisations representing ordinary working people are outlawed for doing the same thing. Familiarise yourself with parliamentary procedure Azira. Read the bills themselves (rather than the selctive spin the media uses in 'informing' us). It's all there in the public domain to read, inlcuding who donates what to which party.