Re: !% ????? : Tue Mar 09, 2021 8:58 am  

Zoo Zoo Boom wrote:

He simply wouldn't have gone ahead with the property if the charge remained in place - so do you want to provide jobs for many years or funds that yet another Labour council can blow on the many and various woke projects it engages in.

Are you sure that it wouldn't have gone ahead or have you been listening to (and believing) another very iffy Tory minister.
You should take more note of his body language under questioning and see just ho often he looks down at the floor when answering questions.
I wouldn't trust him if he said today was Tuesday.

Was his large donation from the developer to the Tory coffers a coincidence

Re: !% ????? : Tue Mar 09, 2021 10:59 am  

wrencat1873 wrote:

Are you sure that it wouldn't have gone ahead or have you been listening to (and believing) another very iffy Tory minister.
You should take more note of his body language under questioning and see just ho often he looks down at the floor when answering questions.
I wouldn't trust him if he said today was Tuesday.

Was his large donation from the developer to the Tory coffers a coincidence

It was £10k - hardly huge - the developer himself said the project wasn't viable with the addition of a further £40m of cost.

Do you think the unions have an unhealthy influence over Labour? what's the difference or is OK for the unions but not for private investors?

Re: !% ????? : Tue Mar 09, 2021 11:54 am  

Zoo Zoo Boom wrote:

It was £10k - hardly huge - the developer himself said the project wasn't viable with the addition of a further £40m of cost.

Do you think the unions have an unhealthy influence over Labour? what's the difference or is OK for the unions but not for private investors?

The unions are made up of British working people. A number of the Tory donors are non UK tax payers, some are russian with links to Putin.

Re: !% ????? : Tue Mar 09, 2021 1:19 pm  

Zoo Zoo Boom wrote:

It was £10k - hardly huge - the developer himself said the project wasn't viable with the addition of a further £40m of cost.

Do you think the unions have an unhealthy influence over Labour? what's the difference or is OK for the unions but not for private investors?

Of course the Unions have an influence over Labour and it's not always a good thing.
However, the current government looks grubby, with plenty of jobs for the boys, friends being awarded contracts and generally, a level of "sleaze" that hasn't been so blatantly open in ANY previous government.
It may well be that this is how things have always been but, NOBODY should be comfortable with the blatant abuse of power and blatant ignoring of the checks and balances that are in place to try and ensure that public money is spent "properly"

Re: !% ????? : Tue Mar 09, 2021 1:20 pm  

wrencat1873 wrote:

Of course the Unions have an influence over Labour and it's not always a good thing.
However, the current government looks grubby, with plenty of jobs for the boys, friends being awarded contracts and generally, a level of "sleaze" that hasn't been so blatantly open in ANY previous government.
It may well be that this is how things have always been but, NOBODY should be comfortable with the blatant abuse of power and blatant ignoring of the checks and balances that are in place to try and ensure that public money is spent "properly"

Completely agree with that.

Re: !% ????? : Tue Mar 09, 2021 1:26 pm  

silver2 wrote:

The unions are made up of British working people. A number of the Tory donors are non UK tax payers, some are russian with links to Putin.

The ordinary members have very little say in where their donations go its the fat cats like McClusky who decides which first growth claret he going to have that evening.

[Bullseye]

Re: !% ????? : Tue Mar 09, 2021 2:14 pm  

Tories can't claim any moral high ground about the way their party is funded.

Unions represent their members after all whereas firms like McKinsey, Deloitte, PWC, Serco, Capita etc are in it for the money.

From my viewpoint the NHS has done very well with the cards it was dealt. The deck was stacked against it before the pandemic began.

This isn't just about funding (where increases have been a fraction of what they ought to have been since 2010) but also about how it's set up. The Health and Social Care Act was a complete mess. A complete dog's breakfast. One wonders what they'll come up with in their next top down reorganisation, pardon me for not being optimistic. The Conservatives are responsible for funding the NHS over the past 11 years and how it is set up and how it operates, to blame the NHS itself for 100k dead and counting is missing the point.

Re: !% ????? : Wed Mar 10, 2021 9:04 am  

Zoo Zoo Boom wrote:

The ordinary members have very little say in where their donations go its the fat cats like McClusky who decides which first growth claret he going to have that evening.

We have a predominantly right wing media in the UK and sadly many people believe what they read in the gutter press without further research or challenge.

So, for your information, no union member is obliged to contribute to a union's political fund should they not wish to do so. They can opt in or opt out. The shareholders of political donating companies have no such right.

Re: !% ????? : Wed Mar 10, 2021 10:31 am  

A very interesting report out today regarding the £37 BILLION spaffed away on the "world beating" test and trace system.
Pretty much zero value for money but, front line NHS workers have their pay rise cut from the 2.1% agreed (pre pandemic) in 2019 to a pitiful 1% now and this comes after perhaps THE most testing year that The NHS have ever experienced.

Re: !% ????? : Thu Mar 11, 2021 2:11 pm  

wrencat1873 wrote:

A very interesting report out today regarding the £37 BILLION spaffed away on the "world beating" test and trace system.
Pretty much zero value for money but, front line NHS workers have their pay rise cut from the 2.1% agreed (pre pandemic) in 2019 to a pitiful 1% now and this comes after perhaps THE most testing year that The NHS have ever experienced.

Let's have some context here of £37bn 80% of the costs relate to taking and processing of the actual tests - one day this week they did 1.5m tests a number unimaginable 12 months ago when testing capacity was 2,000/day.

So that leaves 7bn in development costs - is that such a huge number to develop the systems to manage volumes on such a huge scale - I don't know - how much has it cost to develop similar systems in say Germany. Maybe it is but its not the 37bn everyone is quoting.

Perhaps it is because the money has had to be spent on these rush projects that there isn't the money to increase wages all over the public sector. In reality what % of the NHS has actually increased its workload - I would suggest the vast majority have seen a significant decrease in their activity