[kirklancaster]

More convoluted gerrymandering by politicians.

Fines on 'The Banks' for 'Forex Fiddling' amounting to £1.1 billion is but a mere drop in the ocean compared to the £1020 billion - yes; £1020 billion - real cost to the British Taxpayer of bailing out these inept greedy bastards since 2008 -- of which the said taxpayers are still out of pocket to the tune of around £145 billion.

So any governmental 'input' of £1.1 billion into any 'N.H.S Rescue' package can be seen for what it is - 'smoke and mirrors' drip feeding from an ocean of the banks money which fecking belongs to the taxpayer in the first place.

Perhaps, the Government 'rhetoric' of the day, that the banks had to be rescued because they were "too big to fail", speaks volumes about the government's real attitude on the N.H.S, because an injection of only £3.1 billion on the N.H.S. in comparison to the £1020 billions of public money 'invested' on saving the banks, would suggest that the N.H.S. is deemed 'not too big to fail - or in other words, with 'privatisation firmly in mind - 'not really worthy of saving'.

Please bear in mind that I am not a 'Labour' voter so I have no 'personal agenda' here, and I am merely stating what I regard as the truth.

The 'Modus Operandi' behind this latest Government ploy is designed to impress non-Tory voters and recruit them to their cause, by bamboozling them that this 'Government Initiative' penalises the Banker's or traditional Tory supporters, to the benefit of the 'working classes', or traditional Labour supporters. Yet, it is all a con, and merely copies the very successful blueprint first drafted by that great political tactician Maggie Thatcher, which she employed during the 'Council House' sell off and State Owned companies privatisation of the 1980's.

That, however, is another post.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

More convoluted gerrymandering by politicians.

Fines on 'The Banks' for 'Forex Fiddling' amounting to £1.1 billion is but a mere drop in the ocean compared to the £1020 billion - yes; £1020 billion - real cost to the British Taxpayer of bailing out these inept greedy bastards since 2008 -- of which the said taxpayers are still out of pocket to the tune of around £145 billion.

So any governmental 'input' of £1.1 billion into any 'N.H.S Rescue' package can be seen for what it is - 'smoke and mirrors' drip feeding from an ocean of the banks money which fecking belongs to the taxpayer in the first place.

Perhaps, the Government 'rhetoric' of the day, that the banks had to be rescued because they were "too big to fail", speaks volumes about the government's real attitude on the N.H.S, because an injection of only £3.1 billion on the N.H.S. in comparison to the £1020 billions of public money 'invested' on saving the banks, would suggest that the N.H.S. is deemed 'not too big to fail - or in other words, with 'privatisation firmly in mind - 'not really worthy of saving'.

Please bear in mind that I am not a 'Labour' voter so I have no 'personal agenda' here, and I am merely stating what I regard as the truth.

The 'Modus Operandi' behind this latest Government ploy is designed to impress non-Tory voters and recruit them to their cause, by bamboozling them that this 'Government Initiative' penalises the Banker's or traditional Tory supporters, to the benefit of the 'working classes', or traditional Labour supporters. Yet, it is all a con, and merely copies the very successful blueprint first drafted by that great political tactician Maggie Thatcher, which she employed during the 'Council House' sell off and State Owned companies privatisation of the 1980's.

That, however, is another post.

Great post

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

More convoluted gerrymandering by politicians.

Fines on 'The Banks' for 'Forex Fiddling' amounting to £1.1 billion is but a mere drop in the ocean compared to the £1020 billion - yes; £1020 billion - real cost to the British Taxpayer of bailing out these inept greedy bastards since 2008 -- of which the said taxpayers are still out of pocket to the tune of around £145 billion.

So any governmental 'input' of £1.1 billion into any 'N.H.S Rescue' package can be seen for what it is - 'smoke and mirrors' drip feeding from an ocean of the banks money which fecking belongs to the taxpayer in the first place.

Perhaps, the Government 'rhetoric' of the day, that the banks had to be rescued because they were "too big to fail", speaks volumes about the government's real attitude on the N.H.S, because an injection of only £3.1 billion on the N.H.S. in comparison to the £1020 billions of public money 'invested' on saving the banks, would suggest that the N.H.S. is deemed 'not too big to fail - or in other words, with 'privatisation firmly in mind - 'not really worthy of saving'.

Please bear in mind that I am not a 'Labour' voter so I have no 'personal agenda' here, and I am merely stating what I regard as the truth.

The 'Modus Operandi' behind this latest Government ploy is designed to impress non-Tory voters and recruit them to their cause, by bamboozling them that this 'Government Initiative' penalises the Banker's or traditional Tory supporters, to the benefit of the 'working classes', or traditional Labour supporters. Yet, it is all a con, and merely copies the very successful blueprint first drafted by that great political tactician Maggie Thatcher, which she employed during the 'Council House' sell off and State Owned companies privatisation of the 1980's.

That, however, is another post.

Really well said, I have a lot of family who work in the NHS,their view is too too little,too late and a pre election bribe of sorts.
They also repeat that this govt,simply does not listen to them at all and that a great deal of the problems in the NHS are because of the confusing and costly reforms this govt. made.

I hope the electorate are not fooled again,Cameron got some support back when he said he would do no top down re-organisation of the NHS.
I hope that pledge is constantly mentioned all through the 2015 campaign because as you said and I said too, this is a con.

The difference I feel with David Cameron and Margaret Thatcher is that she was believed overall by voters,this PM has shown terrible judgement,in my opinion, all through his premiership and also that his word is near meaningless too.
Especially concerning the NHS.