|
Post by oranjemob 1 on Apr 27, 2005 6:50:36 GMT 1
The initial hearing was held by a Parliamentary sub-committee, with a built in Labour majority, and even then they couldn't ignore: "We further conclude that the jury is still out on the accuracy of the September dossier until substantial evidence of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, or of their destruction, is found." and "We conclude that the February dossier was badly handled and was misrepresented." The Hutton Report was a complete whitewash that embarrased even the most toadying Blairites, and insulted the memory of the man. The Butler report was so tied down by it's rediculously limited 'terms of reference' that the guy was in a straight jacket. But even so the following came out: The report reveals new information about the way in which thin and at times inaccurate intelligence was turned into prime ministerial certainty. In a devastating litany of mistakes, omissions and hyperbole, it says: · Downing Street stretched the available intelligence to "the outer limits". · The claim that biological or chemical weapons could be deployed within 45 minutes should not have been included in the dossier, and led to suspicions that it had been inserted "because of its eye-catching character". · The government's September 2002 dossier setting out the case for war had the "serious weakness" of omitting many crucial caveats about the dubious nature and limitations of much of the intelligence. The language in the dossier suggested the intelligence was "fuller and firmer" than it was. · Britain had only a handful of "main sources" on Iraq and the quality of much of their information has since been challenged by the intelligence services themselves. Reports from a key source were withdrawn in July last year as "unreliable". Maybe none of the above actually says "Tony Blair lied", but given the restrictions placed upon the enquiries, it , and countless volumes of other evidence, make it clear to all but the most biased, that this Prime Minister, and his cohorts, deliberately mis-lead the British people, and he is therefore, despite any successes of this administration, unfit to govern. Care to read this again Pab? "....was misrepresented". "..inacurate intelligence was turned into Prime Ministerial certainty". "...Downing Street stretched the available intelligence to the 'outer limits". "The Governments September 2002 dossier.... had the "serious weakness"...." "The claim that biological or chemical weapons could be deployed within 45 minutes should not have been included...." "The language in the dossier suggested the evidence was "fuller and firmer" than it was". Etc, etc, etc. These are just extracts from a miniscule sample of the evidence available. Add to this the farce over the legal advice given, the naming of David Kelly, to try to hide the fact that Gilligans broadcast was completely accurate, etc, etc, etc. Whatever words you care to use; lies, misrepresentation, exageration, evasion, economical with the truth, suppression of key facts, etc, etc, etc, one thing is absolutely clear. Tony Blair, did not tell Parliament or the people, the whole, undoctored, truth. And in a situation where that directly resulted in this country going to war - that is unforgivable.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Rogerson on Apr 27, 2005 18:44:24 GMT 1
I think the Tory's new campaign slogan about Blair saying if he'd lie to take us to war in Iraq he would lie to win an election is, while accurate, quite likely to backfire on them as they backed him to the hilt over the war. If the Tories had opposed the war, it probably wouldn't have happened given the number of Labour MPs who also opposed the war.
|
|
|
Post by OldGit on Apr 27, 2005 18:47:20 GMT 1
I think events of this evening have changed things quite dramatically - anyone taking odds on Blair resigning before the weekend?
|
|
|
Post by Steve Rogerson on Apr 27, 2005 18:48:44 GMT 1
I think events of this evening have changed things quite dramatically - anyone taking odds on Blair resigning before the weekend? He will still be there and probably win the election next week.
|
|
|
Post by SeanBroseley on Apr 27, 2005 23:14:00 GMT 1
This is an issue for me as is future pensions. This Government has made the pension crisis worse If this is a reference to the different treatment of dividends then I don't agree. The measure was there to encourage reinvestment of profits for greater economic growth. And without economic growth all the savings into pensions are a waste of time. The simple fact is that saving an adequate amount of money for your pension is beyond the vast majority of people in this country if they are also to buy a house, keep up with the Joneses in the purchase of white goods, change their car regularly, go on holiday regularly, and fund their children's university education. The arithmetic is a nonsense. If someone aged 25 years earning £25k per year wants to retire at age 60 years on an income of two-thirds of his salary in real terms he will need to save a regular monthly amount of £357 net of basic rate tax - assuming a real rate of return on 4% p.a. and current prevailing annuity rates are available in 35 years time (i.e. 4% to provide a male with an increasing pension).
|
|
|
Post by MartinB on Apr 28, 2005 6:21:17 GMT 1
If this is a reference to the different treatment of dividends then I don't agree. The measure was there to encourage reinvestment of profits for greater economic growth. And without economic growth all the savings into pensions are a waste of time. The simple fact is that saving an adequate amount of money for your pension is beyond the vast majority of people in this country if they are also to buy a house, keep up with the Joneses in the purchase of white goods, change their car regularly, go on holiday regularly, and fund their children's university education. The arithmetic is a nonsense. If someone aged 25 years earning £25k per year wants to retire at age 60 years on an income of two-thirds of his salary in real terms he will need to save a regular monthly amount of £357 net of basic rate tax - assuming a real rate of return on 4% p.a. and current prevailing annuity rates are available in 35 years time (i.e. 4% to provide a male with an increasing pension). Sean, I take your point but are you saying taking £5 billion a year out of pension funds and the resulting falls in the Stock Market have helped?
|
|
|
Post by SeanBroseley on Apr 28, 2005 8:47:57 GMT 1
I don't see the link between the reform of Advanced Corporation Tax and the falls in the stockmarket.
One of the better performing unit trust sectors has been UK Equity Income. Different types of investors will look to invest in different types of companies. Even those with a yield target, say 130% of the yield of the FTSE All-Share will not look necessarily to the ones paying the most attractive dividend yield at the price of the share because it can be a dog business.
What you did have in early 2003 were basically poor businesses trading at a share price that gave them less value than if they had a fire sale of their assets. That was clearly a nonsense and so professional investors bought into companies that they hated because it was easy money.
But that is a cyclical issue about the stockmarket, I'm talking a long term investment. I'm talking about long-term investment trends - the real rate of return people can rely upon getting over a very long term of 30-40 years is unlikely to enable them fulfill their retirement needs.
|
|
|
Post by Minor on Apr 28, 2005 10:16:36 GMT 1
Despite the outrage from some surrounding the subject at the time, I don't think it's going to have that big of an effect on the election result. , Its the economy stupid
|
|
|
Post by MartinB on Apr 28, 2005 16:43:46 GMT 1
I don't see the link between the reform of Advanced Corporation Tax and the falls in the stockmarket. One of the better performing unit trust sectors has been UK Equity Income. Different types of investors will look to invest in different types of companies. Even those with a yield target, say 130% of the yield of the FTSE All-Share will not look necessarily to the ones paying the most attractive dividend yield at the price of the share because it can be a dog business. What you did have in early 2003 were basically poor businesses trading at a share price that gave them less value than if they had a fire sale of their assets. That was clearly a nonsense and so professional investors bought into companies that they hated because it was easy money. But that is a cyclical issue about the stockmarket, I'm talking a long term investment. I'm talking about long-term investment trends - the real rate of return people can rely upon getting over a very long term of 30-40 years is unlikely to enable them fulfill their retirement needs. The £5 billion a year in extra tax being paid was not re-invested in the stock market. This means to pay out on policies share shave to be sold hence the drop in the market as less money to invest.
|
|
|
Post by Link51 on Apr 28, 2005 20:05:57 GMT 1
Only one party has a clear and principled stand against risking the lives of British troops in any foregin engagment of no concern to us. People like you vote BNP
|
|
|
Post by OldGit on Apr 28, 2005 22:17:09 GMT 1
Only one party has a clear and principled stand against risking the lives of British troops in any foregin engagment of no concern to us. People like you vote BNP I don't think the words "Clear and Principled" can ever be applied to the BNP. Try "Bigotted and Unprincipled"
|
|
|
Post by oranjemob 1 on Apr 29, 2005 7:20:56 GMT 1
Only one party has a clear and principled stand against risking the lives of British troops in any foregin engagment of no concern to us. People like you vote BNP Is that because the army would be fully employed rounding up anyone who was (or vaguely appeared) non-white, and guarding them in 'holding camps' before forcing them onto boats and planes, bound for countries which most of them have never even seen?
|
|
|
Post by harmerhillshrew on Apr 29, 2005 8:40:53 GMT 1
I think events of this evening have changed things quite dramatically - anyone taking odds on Blair resigning before the weekend? Only today left and no one is taking odds. Leave your thanks here, for the great job Tony has done. www.thankyoutony.com/
|
|
|
Post by OldGit on Apr 29, 2005 9:09:30 GMT 1
No-one can deny that in many areas Labour have made a real impact. But given their majority and the fairly benign economy they inherited that is hardly a massive surprise. I actually voted them in and was pleased to do so. What has frustrated and angered me, is the way Blair has gradually centralised power around himself and eliminated those around him that differ from his views (in effect, he's turning into Maggie). Above all, he has betrayed those who believed him when he said No to top up fees, and those who thought it was wrong to Invade Iraq without the UN giving its full support. On the periphery of my disappointment are the missed opportunities and fudged issues. Transport - where is the "joined up strategy" we were promised? Education - why are there still so many failing schools and so few new teachers? Health - why is MRSA so prevalent and why are Nurses leaving in droves? Taxation - we were told there would be no increases - this month I paid over 2 grand in tax and NI; I look around and ask myself are this Government delivering value for money"? So: Thanks Tony - you had the chance of a lifetime and you screwed up, you are the equivalent of the Millenium Dome - obsolete, over-priced and a massive disappointment
|
|
|
Post by harmerhillshrew on Apr 29, 2005 18:55:29 GMT 1
Thanks Tony - you had the chance of a lifetime and you screwed up, you are the equivalent of the Millenium Dome - obsolete, over-priced and a massive disappointment Ah the Millenium Dome, the brainchild of John Major and the last Tory Goverment.
|
|
|
Post by pawlo on Apr 29, 2005 20:05:46 GMT 1
Health - why is MRSA so prevalent and why are Nurses leaving in droves? MRSA first developed during the late eighties as a result of the over prescription of anti biotics. It thrived because hospital bosses where forced to put hospital cleaning out to tender and accept the most "cost effective" bid ( cheapest). As with most things in life, the cheaper something is, the poorer the quality. One in three people now carry the MRSA super bug. Most of these have never been ill or been in hospital. So basically speaking, if you have three friends, one of them have MRSA. Now i could spend all day rubbing my hands with alchohol cleaner, but if one of your friends comes into visit one of my patients, shakes his hand, sits on his bed, then there is a good chance my patient will acquire MRSA. I agree that this government could do more to stamp out the bug, indeed, we have just been given the cash to have a full time cleaner ( 8 hours a day), that will cover us for weekends as well as week days. I am not a matron , i am a Sister (charge nurse), but everyone of my team know that if i catch them not cleaning thier hands thoroughly between patients, they will be in the s**t, and i have that authority and i will use it. At present, the closing of wards due to an infection risk is decided by a team that consists of a consultant microbiologist and two infection control Sisters. My ward has been closed twice in the last two years due to an outbreak of E Coli. On niether occassion was the decision overulled by a hospital manager becuase they simply do not have the authority to over rule it. We still achieved all of our targets, which i personally think are a great idea. When a patient on the ward is found to have MRSA, all the staff and the rest of the patients in the same bay are screened for it. This has happened twice since christmas, and on each occassion all the staff came back as being negative to MRSA as did the rest of the patients that where screened. Staff are basically leaving the NHS because we are recruiting the wrong kind of people. Too much of this family friendly bollox being talked about and when the hard truth that " No, you cant have every weekend off" hits home, they decide they dont want to play any more. The tories changed nurses training to make it university based, which meant that you need good qualifications to get in, which meant that too much emphasis was put on being bright rather than being "caring". The tories also abolished the Enrolled Nurses, the nurses who could do the same stuff as "Staff Nurses", but were not so academically based. More "bedside" nurses. They then decided to change "Nursing Auxillaries" ( i unkindly and only in jest call them "bum wipers"), into health care assistants. Now, (i hope your keeping up ), health care assistants where trained to take bloods, do blood pressures, do ECGs and various other technical stuff that the enrolled nurses used to do. They also get a degree of training. So we, or rather they, abolished Enrolled Nurses and Nursing Auxillaries and turned them instaed, into health care assistants. Why? Because they are cheaper. So what do we have. Staff Nurses (technically trained, very academic, budding managers) and health care assistants ( doing the job of enrolled nurses and nursing Auxillaries). Tory proposals are nonsence. Nurses close wards now if needed and im sure at the last election, they where offering some kind of voucher scheme for something or other. The Acid test: Think about this, you are about to have a heart attack (god forbid), and you could instantaneously transport yourself to any Country in the world. Where would you rather be? For me, it would be Britain every time. Not just because the care you get is second to none, but also because i would rather spend my last hours looking at my family and reading a bible, rather than studying the small print on the health insurance policy
|
|
|
Post by pawlo on Apr 29, 2005 21:44:47 GMT 1
From the BBC archive site, just out of interest to those who blame the government of today for all the managers and targets, lack of beds ect. Micheal Howard was part of the government then.
It was in the late 1970s and the 1980s that the financial constraints which now shackle the NHS really started to take hold.
Fuelled by the relentless progress in medical science and an increasingly ageing population, the NHS became a victim of its own success with the realisation that it could no longer be all things to all people.
However, as in the previous two decades, the NHS was still pressing ahead with the latest medical technology. It carried out the first Heart transplant operation in 1980.
NHS Management attempted to improve efficiency, with a restructure in 1982 a new tier of general management being introduced between 1983 and 1985.
Waiting lists
However the ever increasing demand on a finite amount of money caused more rethinks, with experiments in budgeting implemented. It was in the 1980s that the now familiar performance indicators made their first appearance.
By 1987 many health authorities across the country were in the red, waiting lists were growing and hospital wards were being closed. This was all despite evidence of higher spending and increases in staff numbers.
It was at this point that the NHS really came under scrutiny from the media and it was during this period that saw the health service go through its largest period of change.
|
|
|
Post by MartinB on Apr 30, 2005 7:20:00 GMT 1
Ah the Millenium Dome, the brainchild of John Major and the last Tory Goverment. But who spent the money Hamermerhill IT'S TOTALLY THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE GOVERNMENT IN POWER WHEN THE MONET WAS SPENT.
|
|
|
Post by OldGit on Apr 30, 2005 8:25:04 GMT 1
Thanks Pab for that insight into the NHS from a hard-working employee.
I realise that this Government inherited a huge debacle from the Tories, and I'm not disputing the fact that they have had a lot of ground to make up. But, it doesn't explain why after nearly 8 yrs and 2 terms, God knows how many Billions of pounds, that our health service is still in such a state. MRSA is far worse in this country than in most of our European neighbours - but I'm sure the argument about 1 in 3 people carrying it applies fairly equally across the Continent. I also hear what you are saying about Nursing and training - but why aren't things improving after 8yrs and all the money?
My only recent experience of the NHS was a night in hospital after a car crash. I waited 4 hrs after my neck X Ray to see the SHO after the doc on duty couldn't decide whether I needed to stay in for Obs. The SHO when he arrived barely spoke English and I couldn't understand him. I ended up spending a night on the Ward strapped to a Spinal bed amongst mostly old men and women who just wondered around in next to nothing all night. One old lady peed herself as she was walking around and it went un-cleaned until just before the morning Ward Round. One bloke had his portable telly on all night next to his bed. It was a shambles. There were call buttons left unanswered for ages because the staff were either too tired or too complacent to do anything. I couldn't wait to get the hell out of there.
My Mum in Harlow has awful tales about her treatment at the Princess Alexandra, my brother had a prem baby taken into the Royal Holloway - the staff were magnificent, but they were under enormous pressure and most were talking of quitting because of the stress and hours they had to put in.
To answer your question about where I'd prefer to stay, having lived in Germany for 6 yrs, I'd go there.
|
|
|
Post by OldGit on Apr 30, 2005 8:36:25 GMT 1
Ah the Millenium Dome, the brainchild of John Major and the last Tory Goverment. Oh yes silly me! The Tories, they left office when? May 97 wasn't it? So they must be reponsible As for it standing empty at a cost of £80k a month ever since it closed - what a huge Tory balls up that's been. Thank God Tony has it all in hand
|
|
|
Post by harmerhillshrew on Apr 30, 2005 8:43:31 GMT 1
But who spent the money Hamermerhill IT'S TOTALLY THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE GOVERNMENT IN POWER WHEN THE MONET WAS SPENT. Were talking about the dome here not some painting
|
|
|
Post by harmerhillshrew on Apr 30, 2005 8:49:09 GMT 1
Oh yes silly me! The Tories, they left office when? May 97 wasn't it? So they must be reponsible As for it standing empty at a cost of £80k a month ever since it closed - what a huge Tory balls up that's been. Thank God Tony has it all in hand Yeah thats right Old Git you just turn up one day and build it. Projects of that size take years of planning. Heres the facts. 1994 : Millennium Commission established by John Major and handed over to deputy Prime Minister Michael Heseltine January 1996 : Greenwich site selected December 1996 : Government decides to support the project with public money after being unable to raise private capital. Is that easy enough for you all to follow
|
|
|
Post by Blue on Apr 30, 2005 8:59:47 GMT 1
Yeah thats right Old Git you just turn up one day and build it. Projects of that size take years of planning. Heres the facts. 1994 : Millennium Commission established by John Major and handed over to deputy Prime Minister Michael Heseltine January 1996 : Greenwich site selected December 1996 : Government decides to support the project with public money after being unable to raise private capital. Is that easy enough for you all to follow Come of it The building was fine it was what went in the Dome that was a disaster and kept visitor numbers so low & that was the product of new labour and no one else -seem to remember Peter Crony Mandelson was heavily involved he has moved on to Brussels now never was so much given to one man for so little
|
|
|
Post by OldGit on Apr 30, 2005 9:07:28 GMT 1
"Is that easy enough for you all to follow "
Steady on old chap - we're not all complete dickheads.
Clearly you think Blair is doing a grand job.
I, for reasons that I have elaborated, despite voting him in, feel he has flunked it and want a change.
As regards the Dome - no-one disputes that it was planned by the Tories and (surprise) didn't just spring up out of thin air - but, having decided to "run with it", do you honestly think this Government has done a good job?
It has been a humungous waste of taxpayer's money - and still is. Having cut their teeth on the Dome, they have used that experience to bring us the new "Wembley"!
Perhaps, you might like to elaborate on why you think Tony has done a good job with the Dome for the last 8yrs, and why he deserves another term?
|
|
|
Post by harmerhillshrew on Apr 30, 2005 9:11:02 GMT 1
All I stated was the Dome was the brainchild of John Major.
Once the wheels were in motion it was impossible to not build it.
As for what went in it I agree rubbish.
|
|
|
Post by pawlo on Apr 30, 2005 9:13:34 GMT 1
My understanding of the millenium dome situation is that contracts had already been awarded and vast ammounts of cash committed, and it would have caused alsorts of legal problems if it had been cancelled and still cost vast ammounts of money. It ws accepted by everyone, that something needed to be done to celebrate the millenium, and with all the already committed costs involved, it ws decided to go ahead with the dome rather than cancel and try to organise something completely new in just three years. A huge cock up alround me thinks. But very unfair of the tories/tory press/tory supporters to lay the blame with labour. Old Git If the spark plugs are knackered on my car, the audi garage can get them changed in about half an hour. If the camshafts ****ed, radiator burst,brakes worn,oil needs changing, and in need of a thourogh valetting, then it will take a few weeks, and the garage will do it in a certain order, they wont start by valeting the car then move onto the camshaft, if you get my drift.
|
|
|
Post by harmerhillshrew on Apr 30, 2005 9:13:36 GMT 1
For the record Old Git I think Tony Bliar is doing a fair job. I will not be voting for his party on Thursday mind
|
|
|
Post by OldGit on Apr 30, 2005 9:19:50 GMT 1
Pab - your drift needs a bit of Technikal Vorsprung! Harmer - I'm off to Abersoch for the weekend
|
|
|
Post by harmerhillshrew on Apr 30, 2005 9:25:25 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by pawlo on Apr 30, 2005 10:21:47 GMT 1
Thats an interesting site isnt it. Whats all this stuff the Lib Dops keep telling us that they are the only party that can beat the tories?
|
|