Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2019 19:45:25 GMT 1
Christ on a bike, put a headline that suggests Jeremy Corbyn is a terrorist sympathiser and it’s gospel, but dare to suggest that their beloved tories are responsible for the deaths of thousands due to their policy of austerity and we have research worthy of a Cambridge degree. Would it be ok if it was 10? <iframe width="18.4" height="11.74" id="MoatPxIOPT0_19069401" scrolling="no" style="border-style: none; left: 15px; top: -5px; width: 18.4px; height: 11.74px; position: absolute; z-index: -9999;"></iframe> <iframe width="18.4" height="11.74" id="MoatPxIOPT0_48985453" scrolling="no" style="border-style: none; left: 865px; top: -5px; width: 18.4px; height: 11.74px; position: absolute; z-index: -9999;"></iframe> <iframe width="18.4" height="11.74" id="MoatPxIOPT0_2247749" scrolling="no" style="border-style: none; left: 15px; top: 520px; width: 18.4px; height: 11.74px; position: absolute; z-index: -9999;"></iframe> <iframe width="18.4" height="11.74" id="MoatPxIOPT0_85053678" scrolling="no" style="border-style: none; left: 865px; top: 520px; width: 18.4px; height: 11.74px; position: absolute; z-index: -9999;"></iframe> Well, indeed. I see Hunt today said he agreed 150% with Trump when talking about Khan, but wouldn't use the same language. If Corbyn had said the same about something anti-sematic, there would uproar, and certainly highlighted on here. It's gone beyond hypocrisy now, it's just people nailing their politics to the right-wing mast.
|
|
|
Post by stuttgartershrew on Jun 18, 2019 12:51:19 GMT 1
Christ on a bike, put a headline that suggests Jeremy Corbyn is a terrorist sympathiser and it’s gospel, but dare to suggest that their beloved tories are responsible for the deaths of thousands due to their policy of austerity and we have research worthy of a Cambridge degree. Would it be ok if it was 10? Christ on a bike. What?! Is this because someone happened to put a spanner in the works because of the numbers that clearly some on here are so, so desperate to be true, might not be? As in, it might be something completely unrelated that might be the cause. Yet someone dare point that out and we're getting Corbyn the clown and Cambridge degrees? If people want to post such things and don't want to be challenged for doing so then perhaps they would be better off doing so on some of the echo chambers that one or two on here clearly spend their time in. Someone posted those numbers, the information I linked to clearly shows that there is plenty to be cautious about with regarding the findings. And then we get a response like that. For pointing that out. What do you expect when it's clear that information can not be taken as read... Tory austerity is responsible for 120,000 deaths. Well that may not be the case at all, that claim has to be taken with some caution as clearly indicated here.Corbyn, Terrorist, Cambridge degree. What?!
|
|
|
Post by stuttgartershrew on Jun 18, 2019 12:55:38 GMT 1
What did Trump say about Khan that was in anyway comparable to being anti-Semitic? I must have missed that? What's he said now?
|
|
|
Post by martinshrew on Jun 18, 2019 14:26:39 GMT 1
Trump isn't far wrong, i'd go as far as to say Khan has blood on his hands.
He has a truly shocking record as Mayor of London in all aspects from crime to housing, transport to security.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2019 14:36:02 GMT 1
The criticism of the state of Israel, although a grey area, can now deemed to be anti-Semitic. Perhaps the criticism of anything English should be classed as Anglophobia !!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2019 14:45:52 GMT 1
Trump isn't far wrong, i'd go as far as to say Khan has blood on his hands. He has a truly shocking record as Mayor of London in all aspects from crime to housing, transport to security. Hands tied because Boris squandered so much cash on vanity projects. The overspending Crossrail was largely on Boris' watch and is only half funded by London. It has been said that the new board under Khan's watch took some time to realise the problems it inherited.
|
|
|
Post by martinshrew on Jun 18, 2019 14:54:46 GMT 1
Trump isn't far wrong, i'd go as far as to say Khan has blood on his hands. He has a truly shocking record as Mayor of London in all aspects from crime to housing, transport to security. Hands tied because Boris squandered so much cash on vanity projects. The overspending Crossrail was largely on Boris' watch and is only half funded by London. It has been said that the new board under Khan's watch took some time to realise the problems it inherited. Can't ignore the facts, he's been a terrible.
"He said he would support housing associations… to ensure a minimum of 80,000 new homes a year’, more than in any year, save one, in London’s entire history. Few expected Khan to keep suchepoch-making promises. But we did expect him to do something. City Hall figures show, however, that in the first year of Khan’s term, London did not start building a single social rented home. By comparison, Johnson started 7,439 homes for social rent in his first year as mayor and 1,687 in the first year of his second term, after the economic crash. With two years of Khan’s term nearly now gone, the great social justice warrior has finally managed to begin (drum roll) 1,263 social rent homes, many of a type he once denounced as ‘not genuinely affordable’.
The same pattern applies in most other mayoral policy areas: big promises, followed by things going inexorably backwards. Crime is up by 12 per cent since he took office, with a far bigger rise in murders. February and March were the first months in history when London homicides exceeded New York’s. On transport, Khan claimed that he could ‘both freeze fares and invest record amounts modernising London’s transport infrastructure’. Fares have, in fact, only been frozen for some travellers."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2019 17:15:22 GMT 1
"25 February 2019 • Additional £234m from council tax increase and business rates • New spending boost to fight air pollution The Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, will commit today to investing record amounts to support policing and to tackle crime. The Mayor will confirm this investment as his Budget is considered for approval by the London Assembly. Keeping Londoners safe is the Mayor’s top priority. The Government has already forced the Met to make £850m of cuts and the force still has to make cuts of £263m by 2022-23. The Mayor’s Budget today contains an additional £234m for policing and tackling crime. This includes: • £95m announced earlier in the budget process, funded mostly from an 11 per cent increase to the Mayor’s council tax policing precept - the equivalent of 46p a week. This will be split between a number of crime-fighting measures, including new officers, specialist investigators to disrupt gang violence and the Mayor’s new Violence Reduction Unit. • An extra £118.6 million from business rates to support police officer numbers in future years. • An additional £20.4 million to support additional initiatives against serious violence, including tackling gangs and providing more youth workers at hospital Accident and Emergency units. Sadiq’s budget will also deliver record investment to tackle air pollution, with the Central London Ultra-Low Emission Zone being introduced in April. Additional investment included in today’s Budget includes: • £25 million for a diesel scrappage scheme to support low-income households. This is on top of the £23 million scrappage scheme to support micro-businesses and charities launched last week. • £24 million to support black cab drivers to transition to less polluting vehicles. The Mayor is also investing an additional £7m into a range of services and projects tackling rough sleeping in the capital. Building on the £8.5m from City Hall already funding pan-London rough sleeping services each year, this will provide both immediate and long-term support for rough sleepers, and improved winter provision. The Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, said: “This budget has been put together under extraordinarily difficult circumstances. These include the Government’s failed austerity agenda, with huge cuts to the Met Police, TfL and other public services – and the threat of a no-deal Brexit. “However - despite these challenges - this budget will quickly deliver tangible results to Londoners’ lives. In the face of crippling Government cuts to the Met police and key preventative services, my budget invests record amounts to support policing and to tackle crime. It will also deliver record investment to tackle air pollution.” The 2019/2020 budget covers the entire Greater London Authority Group – including Transport for London, the London Legacy Development Corporation, Old Oak and Park Royal Development Corporation, the Metropolitan Police service and the London Fire Brigade. It includes: • Pushing ahead with the Mayor’s ambitious proposals to make London a cleaner, safer, healthier city through investment to improve London’s streets and create better and more accessible public transport – at the same time as continuing to freeze TfL fares; • The introduction of the Ultra Low Emission Zone in central London in April 2019; • Continuing to tackle London’s housing crisis by supporting thousands of new homes for social rent as part of City Hall’s commitment to start at least 116,000 new genuinely affordable homes by 2022; • Increasing funding to the London Fire Brigade in the aftermath of the Grenfell Tower fire to invest in new equipment and ensure fire engines continue to arrive at emergency incidents within targets.
Notes to editors The Mayor’s council tax proposals include an overall 8.9 per cent increase to his total precept, the equivalent of 50p a week for a Band D taxpayer. All of the additional income raised as a result of this increase will go to policing and the London Fire Brigade. The Mayor of London’s 2019-20 draft Council Tax requirement is £960.6m – this being the total sum forecast to be collected from Londoners to fund GLA services. Under the proposal the total GLA precept will be increased from £294.23 to £320.51 a year (Band D household) for residents of the 32 boroughs – an overall increase of £26.28. All of this increase will be provided to policing and the London Fire Brigade. This equates to a Policing Precept increase from £218.13 to £242.13 and a non-Policing Precept from £76.10 to £78.38 a year. Of the non-Policing precept, 2.99 per cent of the increase will go to London Fire Brigade but effectively one per cent will go to anti-violence measures by a reallocation of business rates from the Fire Brigade. The Mayor’s proposed council tax precept comprises £725m to support the Metropolitan Police service, £159m for the London Fire Brigade and £77m for other services such as transport and the GLA itself. The Mayor’s Budget consists of allocations for - the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime (Metropolitan Police), Transport for London, the London Fire Commissioner (London Fire Brigade), the London Legacy Development Company (Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park), the Old Oak and Park Royal Development Corporation, the core Greater London Authority and the London Assembly. The GLA is to pay TfL up to £1.4 billion for Crossrail. TfL also have access to a further borrowing facility to cover any further costs and separately have to manage the prudently assumed revenue shortfall from the delay to Crossrail fares income of £600m over the next three years. The total budget for the GLA Group for 2018-19 is £18.4bn. This comprises a revenue budget of £12.2bn and a capital spending plan of £6.2bn."
The current financial year's budget and who is to say it will not be delivered despite central government cuts
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on Jun 18, 2019 18:21:18 GMT 1
Christ on a bike, put a headline that suggests Jeremy Corbyn is a terrorist sympathiser and it’s gospel, but dare to suggest that their beloved tories are responsible for the deaths of thousands due to their policy of austerity and we have research worthy of a Cambridge degree. Would it be ok if it was 10? Christ on a bike. What?! Is this because someone happened to put a spanner in the works because of the numbers that clearly some on here are so, so desperate to be true, might not be? As in, it might be something completely unrelated that might be the cause. Yet someone dare point that out and we're getting Corbyn the clown and Cambridge degrees? If people want to post such things and don't want to be challenged for doing so then perhaps they would be better off doing so on some of the echo chambers that one or two on here clearly spend their time in. Someone posted those numbers, the information I linked to clearly shows that there is plenty to be cautious about with regarding the findings. And then we get a response like that. For pointing that out. What do you expect when it's clear that information can not be taken as read... Tory austerity is responsible for 120,000 deaths. Well that may not be the case at all, that claim has to be taken with some caution as clearly indicated here.Corbyn, Terrorist, Cambridge degree. What?! I referenced that fullfact.org analysis two days ago. It's hard to prove direct causality between government policies and deaths. It's hard to prove direct causality between traffic congestion and deaths but few would dispute there's a correlation. In my experience, anyone working in healthcare/social services (and I'm married to a healthcare professional) is likely to be able to tell of at least one person they've known whose life has been lost as a direct or indirect consequence of government policies, whether it's benefit funding cuts, fit for work assessments, inadequacy of care etc. The point I was making earlier is that this shouldn't be a numbers game. Of course there's doubt about the precise numbers Does that discredit the argument against austerity? Of course not.
|
|
|
Post by neilsalop on Jun 18, 2019 19:26:57 GMT 1
Christ on a bike. What?! Is this because someone happened to put a spanner in the works because of the numbers that clearly some on here are so, so desperate to be true, might not be? As in, it might be something completely unrelated that might be the cause. Yet someone dare point that out and we're getting Corbyn the clown and Cambridge degrees? If people want to post such things and don't want to be challenged for doing so then perhaps they would be better off doing so on some of the echo chambers that one or two on here clearly spend their time in. Someone posted those numbers, the information I linked to clearly shows that there is plenty to be cautious about with regarding the findings. And then we get a response like that. For pointing that out. What do you expect when it's clear that information can not be taken as read... Tory austerity is responsible for 120,000 deaths. Well that may not be the case at all, that claim has to be taken with some caution as clearly indicated here.Corbyn, Terrorist, Cambridge degree. What?! I referenced that fullfact.org analysis two days ago. It's hard to prove direct causality between government policies and deaths. It's hard to prove direct causality between traffic congestion and deaths but few would dispute there's a correlation. In my experience, anyone working in healthcare/social services (and I'm married to a healthcare professional) is likely to be able to tell of at least one person they've known whose life has been lost as a direct or indirect consequence of government policies, whether it's benefit funding cuts, fit for work assessments, inadequacy of care etc. The point I was making earlier is that this shouldn't be a numbers game. Of course there's doubt about the precise numbers Does that discredit the argument against austerity? Of course not. I'll put my hands up and admit that it was me who put the 130,000 out there. It could be about right, it could be way over, it could even be under, but what does anyone think is an acceptable number? 1, 100, 1,000, 10,000, 100,000? Personally I think that even 1 is 1 too many, but it would appear that some on here think differently.
There were 179 British forces fatalities in Iraq and 100s more maimed and injured. I think that most on here would agree that one would have been too many. Strange then how are some willing to excuse the deaths of British civilians, British disabled, British elderly, British children, British veterans and British people with mental health issues due to austerity?
*Just for clarification New Labour and Blair decided to go into Iraq with the almost universal support of the Tories. The current leader of the Labour party voted and marched against it and is refusing to roll over on a war with Iran without evidence.
|
|
|
Post by stuttgartershrew on Jun 18, 2019 19:27:46 GMT 1
Christ on a bike. What?! Is this because someone happened to put a spanner in the works because of the numbers that clearly some on here are so, so desperate to be true, might not be? As in, it might be something completely unrelated that might be the cause. Yet someone dare point that out and we're getting Corbyn the clown and Cambridge degrees? If people want to post such things and don't want to be challenged for doing so then perhaps they would be better off doing so on some of the echo chambers that one or two on here clearly spend their time in. Someone posted those numbers, the information I linked to clearly shows that there is plenty to be cautious about with regarding the findings. And then we get a response like that. For pointing that out. What do you expect when it's clear that information can not be taken as read... Tory austerity is responsible for 120,000 deaths. Well that may not be the case at all, that claim has to be taken with some caution as clearly indicated here.Corbyn, Terrorist, Cambridge degree. What?! I referenced that fullfact.org analysis two days ago. It's hard to prove direct causality between government policies and deaths. It's hard to prove direct causality between traffic congestion and deaths but few would dispute there's a correlation. In my experience, anyone working in healthcare/social services (and I'm married to a healthcare professional) is likely to be able to tell of at least one person they've known whose life has been lost as a direct or indirect consequence of government policies, whether it's benefit funding cuts, fit for work assessments, inadequacy of care etc. The point I was making earlier is that this shouldn't be a numbers game. Of course there's doubt about the precise numbers Does that discredit the argument against austerity? Of course not. I know you referenced to it, I pointed that out. But clearly the numbers and reasoning included in those findings are questionable and should be taken with some caution. However, I suspect an awful lot of people, some on here, will completely disregarded that because it doesn't fit their agenda. Those numbers should be taken with caution, when you have people throwing them about I see no harm in pointing out the information available that questions the findings. Why anyone would take issue with that is beyond me. The correlation is not as certain as some would want you to believe.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2019 19:36:10 GMT 1
One death, or 120,000. I will say it again, it's irrelevant. Government policy has caused this. voxpoliticalonline.com/2019/04/21/the-dwp-was-responsible-for-the-pneumonia-that-killed-stephen-smith-will-his-survivors-support-legal-action/dpac.uk.net/2019/05/mps-must-speak-out-on-criminal-probe-into-dwp-death-links-say-activists/As some people on here may know, I am active in the disabled community as a volunteer and advocate. I have stories that would you wouldn't believe and would make you boil with anger (or not...). So, while you argue the t0ss over figures, someone has actually died, or had their life severely restricted, life choices limited, or vital services removed because of government policy. Of course, what will stick in my throat, is that there will be a parade of ehouses on TV tonight promising all sorts of increase in spending, despite a voting record that suggests otherwise. But, there you go.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2019 20:03:37 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on Jun 18, 2019 20:29:26 GMT 1
I referenced that fullfact.org analysis two days ago. It's hard to prove direct causality between government policies and deaths. It's hard to prove direct causality between traffic congestion and deaths but few would dispute there's a correlation. In my experience, anyone working in healthcare/social services (and I'm married to a healthcare professional) is likely to be able to tell of at least one person they've known whose life has been lost as a direct or indirect consequence of government policies, whether it's benefit funding cuts, fit for work assessments, inadequacy of care etc. The point I was making earlier is that this shouldn't be a numbers game. Of course there's doubt about the precise numbers Does that discredit the argument against austerity? Of course not. I know you referenced to it, I pointed that out. But clearly the numbers and reasoning included in those findings are questionable and should be taken with some caution. However, I suspect an awful lot of people, some on here, will completely disregarded that because it doesn't fit their agenda. Those numbers should be taken with caution, when you have people throwing them about I see no harm in pointing out the information available that questions the findings. Why anyone would take issue with that is beyond me. The correlation is not as certain as some would want you to believe. Sorry, I missed that you’d pointed that out. As I recall, not having re-read it, fullfacts.org presented the studies, encouraged healthy scepticism as to the numerical accuracy and discussed the subject objectively. They didn’t say that any specified figure was correct. When you talk about fitting the agenda of some people, I trust you include those at the other end of the scale, who would claim there have been no premature deaths as a consequence of austerity policies. I don’t take issue with anyone pointing out the available information. I do take issue with those seeking to discredit the case against austerity because precise numbers can’t be proven.
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on Jun 18, 2019 20:34:36 GMT 1
One death, or 120,000. I will say it again, it's irrelevant. Government policy has caused this. voxpoliticalonline.com/2019/04/21/the-dwp-was-responsible-for-the-pneumonia-that-killed-stephen-smith-will-his-survivors-support-legal-action/dpac.uk.net/2019/05/mps-must-speak-out-on-criminal-probe-into-dwp-death-links-say-activists/As some people on here may know, I am active in the disabled community as a volunteer and advocate. I have stories that would you wouldn't believe and would make you boil with anger (or not...). So, while you argue the t0ss over figures, someone has actually died, or had their life severely restricted, life choices limited, or vital services removed because of government policy. Of course, what will stick in my throat, is that there will be a parade of ehouses on TV tonight promising all sorts of increase in spending, despite a voting record that suggests otherwise. But, there you go. At the moment they’re trying to outdo each other promising tax cuts based on hoped for economic growth - without the slightest indication of how that growth can be magicked out of thin air. So good luck anyone still waiting for the “end of austerity”. These jerks haven’t a clue.
|
|
|
Post by shrewsace on Jun 18, 2019 20:58:50 GMT 1
One death, or 120,000. I will say it again, it's irrelevant. Government policy has caused this. voxpoliticalonline.com/2019/04/21/the-dwp-was-responsible-for-the-pneumonia-that-killed-stephen-smith-will-his-survivors-support-legal-action/dpac.uk.net/2019/05/mps-must-speak-out-on-criminal-probe-into-dwp-death-links-say-activists/As some people on here may know, I am active in the disabled community as a volunteer and advocate. I have stories that would you wouldn't believe and would make you boil with anger (or not...). So, while you argue the t0ss over figures, someone has actually died, or had their life severely restricted, life choices limited, or vital services removed because of government policy. Of course, what will stick in my throat, is that there will be a parade of ehouses on TV tonight promising all sorts of increase in spending, despite a voting record that suggests otherwise. But, there you go. But still, no reason to be unpleasant. It's really quite nasty to expect governments to take responsibility for the effects of their policies. Dearie me, etc
|
|
|
Post by stuttgartershrew on Jun 18, 2019 21:52:17 GMT 1
I know you referenced to it, I pointed that out. But clearly the numbers and reasoning included in those findings are questionable and should be taken with some caution. However, I suspect an awful lot of people, some on here, will completely disregarded that because it doesn't fit their agenda. Those numbers should be taken with caution, when you have people throwing them about I see no harm in pointing out the information available that questions the findings. Why anyone would take issue with that is beyond me. The correlation is not as certain as some would want you to believe. They didn’t say that any specified figure was correct. Yes, exactly. So we are unsure of the numbers. One, ten, 100, 120,000. We simply do not know. And that is because there could be other factors that are responsible. Whether such deaths would have been avoidable is austerity was not in place. Whether they will be as and when we have finally kicked austerity to touch (sooner rather than later we all very much hope I'm sure)... “This study presents the classic problems of interpreting observational data. The data are highly complex, with a number of possible explanations (known and unknown) for the change in mortality. Certainly the recent change in previous trends of reducing mortality is of concern. However, the authors overstate the certainty of this link to funding and are highly speculative about the money needed to ‘save lives’ in future.”Yet with that said, people are still looking to propagate the claim that 130,000 people that have died due austerity measures and we all know why they would look to do so. One death is one too many but we can argue and should argue a toss about numbers when it is perfectly clear why some would look to use these numbers without the clear caveat that should accompany them. This is clearly a lot more complex than some would have us believe.
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on Jun 18, 2019 22:25:48 GMT 1
They didn’t say that any specified figure was correct. Yes, exactly. So we are unsure of the numbers. One, ten, 100, 120,000. We simply do not know. And that is because there could be other factors that are responsible. Whether such deaths would have been avoidable is austerity was not in place. Whether they will be as and when we have finally kicked austerity to touch (sooner rather than later we all very much hope I'm sure)... “This study presents the classic problems of interpreting observational data. The data are highly complex, with a number of possible explanations (known and unknown) for the change in mortality. Certainly the recent change in previous trends of reducing mortality is of concern. However, the authors overstate the certainty of this link to funding and are highly speculative about the money needed to ‘save lives’ in future.”Yet with that said, people are still looking to propagate the claim that 130,000 people that have died due austerity measures and we all know why they would look to do so. One death is one too many but we can argue and should argue a toss about numbers when it is perfectly clear why some would look to use these numbers without the clear caveat that should accompany them. This is clearly a lot more complex than some would have us believe. When people are so angry and frustrated with austerity and its consequences, unsubstantiated and unverifiable claims are made. The real point is not how many, it’s whether there have been some. And there have been some. Sadly, those in power and their blindest supporters don’t believe that some is too many, or else they’d do something about it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2019 22:39:13 GMT 1
Yes, exactly. So we are unsure of the numbers. One, ten, 100, 120,000. We simply do not know. And that is because there could be other factors that are responsible. Whether such deaths would have been avoidable is austerity was not in place. Whether they will be as and when we have finally kicked austerity to touch (sooner rather than later we all very much hope I'm sure)... “This study presents the classic problems of interpreting observational data. The data are highly complex, with a number of possible explanations (known and unknown) for the change in mortality. Certainly the recent change in previous trends of reducing mortality is of concern. However, the authors overstate the certainty of this link to funding and are highly speculative about the money needed to ‘save lives’ in future.”Yet with that said, people are still looking to propagate the claim that 130,000 people that have died due austerity measures and we all know why they would look to do so. One death is one too many but we can argue and should argue a toss about numbers when it is perfectly clear why some would look to use these numbers without the clear caveat that should accompany them. This is clearly a lot more complex than some would have us believe. The real point is not how many, it’s whether there have been some. And there have been some. Sadly, those in power and their blindest supporters don’t believe that some is too many, or else they’d do something about it. Spot on. And, as I have pointed out, it's not just about deaths, but also other factors that make life difficult for those with disability. But, it suits agenda's for people to dispute numbers, while the real issues go unreported, not discussed, or just buried in people talking BS.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2019 6:48:35 GMT 1
I look forward in the future to such lines as “Jeremy Corbyn is an anti semite, with the clear caveat that’s he is not” and “Diane Abbott can’t count to ten, but with the clear caveat that she can”.
|
|
|
Post by percy on Jun 19, 2019 7:29:43 GMT 1
Corbyn has a big choice this week - back a second referendum and a remain stance or do nothing. If he does nothing then Labour are as dead as the Tories. I can see some defections if he doesn't respond to the ultimatum set by his deputy.
|
|
|
Post by stuttgartershrew on Jun 19, 2019 7:47:53 GMT 1
Yes, exactly. So we are unsure of the numbers. One, ten, 100, 120,000. We simply do not know. And that is because there could be other factors that are responsible. Whether such deaths would have been avoidable is austerity was not in place. Whether they will be as and when we have finally kicked austerity to touch (sooner rather than later we all very much hope I'm sure)... “This study presents the classic problems of interpreting observational data. The data are highly complex, with a number of possible explanations (known and unknown) for the change in mortality. Certainly the recent change in previous trends of reducing mortality is of concern. However, the authors overstate the certainty of this link to funding and are highly speculative about the money needed to ‘save lives’ in future.”Yet with that said, people are still looking to propagate the claim that 130,000 people that have died due austerity measures and we all know why they would look to do so. One death is one too many but we can argue and should argue a toss about numbers when it is perfectly clear why some would look to use these numbers without the clear caveat that should accompany them. This is clearly a lot more complex than some would have us believe. When people are so angry and frustrated with austerity and its consequences, unsubstantiated and unverifiable claims are made. The real point is not how many, it’s whether there have been some. And there have been some. Sadly, those in power and their blindest supporters don’t believe that some is too many, or else they’d do something about it. Sure, I understand that. But when it comes to such claims and the way they are employed people aren’t daft, they understand what’s happening. The Tories have killed over 100,000 people with their policies, tens of thousands every year, they know this is happening and they simply do not care. I mean we know where this is going, right? Full Fact decided they needed to substantiate such claims (twice), as have others. Why do you think they saw a need to do so? I think they did so for good reason. Because that is quite some claim. And people ought to understand the reasoning (and shortcomings) behind it.
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on Jun 19, 2019 10:31:08 GMT 1
When people are so angry and frustrated with austerity and its consequences, unsubstantiated and unverifiable claims are made. The real point is not how many, it’s whether there have been some. And there have been some. Sadly, those in power and their blindest supporters don’t believe that some is too many, or else they’d do something about it. Sure, I understand that. But when it comes to such claims and the way they are employed people aren’t daft, they understand what’s happening. The Tories have killed over 100,000 people with their policies, tens of thousands every year, they know this is happening and they simply do not care. I mean we know where this is going, right? Full Fact decided they needed to substantiate such claims (twice), as have others. Why do you think they saw a need to do so? I think they did so for good reason. Because that is quite some claim. And people ought to understand the reasoning (and shortcomings) behind it. Fullfact evaluate or comment on more or less any statistical claim that makes the news. Check any claim made by a politician or interest group and it's likely fullfact will have analysed it. In that sense, there's nothing special about them having assessed this.
|
|
|
Post by stuttgartershrew on Jun 19, 2019 10:40:39 GMT 1
Sure, I understand that. But when it comes to such claims and the way they are employed people aren’t daft, they understand what’s happening. The Tories have killed over 100,000 people with their policies, tens of thousands every year, they know this is happening and they simply do not care. I mean we know where this is going, right? Full Fact decided they needed to substantiate such claims (twice), as have others. Why do you think they saw a need to do so? I think they did so for good reason. Because that is quite some claim. And people ought to understand the reasoning (and shortcomings) behind it. In that sense, there's nothing special about them having assessed this. Sure. They might well do but they still saw the need to substantiate such claims (twice). And we understand why they do so, right? Because we need the complete picture of what is being claimed. That's why they do it. That is why people will reference such findings when such claims are repeated.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2019 11:05:24 GMT 1
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2019 11:07:37 GMT 1
When people are so angry and frustrated with austerity and its consequences, unsubstantiated and unverifiable claims are made. The real point is not how many, it’s whether there have been some. And there have been some. Sadly, those in power and their blindest supporters don’t believe that some is too many, or else they’d do something about it. Sure, I understand that. But when it comes to such claims and the way they are employed people aren’t daft, they understand what’s happening. The Tories have killed over 100,000 people with their policies, tens of thousands every year, they know this is happening and they simply do not care. I mean we know where this is going, right? Full Fact decided they needed to substantiate such claims (twice), as have others. Why do you think they saw a need to do so? I think they did so for good reason. Because that is quite some claim. And people ought to understand the reasoning (and shortcomings) behind it. Some people were daft enough to accept that the figure on Boris's Bus was gospel and that we would be flooded by millions of Turks. The key pointers as admitted by Cummings to them winning in the referendum.
|
|
|
Post by stuttgartershrew on Jun 19, 2019 11:12:14 GMT 1
Sure, I understand that. But when it comes to such claims and the way they are employed people aren’t daft, they understand what’s happening. The Tories have killed over 100,000 people with their policies, tens of thousands every year, they know this is happening and they simply do not care. I mean we know where this is going, right? Full Fact decided they needed to substantiate such claims (twice), as have others. Why do you think they saw a need to do so? I think they did so for good reason. Because that is quite some claim. And people ought to understand the reasoning (and shortcomings) behind it. Some people were daft enough to accept that the figure on Boris's Bus was gospel... Sure. And we don't take issue in pointing out that the amount written on the side of that bus wasn't exactly telling the whole story do we?
|
|
|
Post by mattmw on Jun 19, 2019 16:08:06 GMT 1
Corbyn has a big choice this week - back a second referendum and a remain stance or do nothing. If he does nothing then Labour are as dead as the Tories. I can see some defections if he doesn't respond to the ultimatum set by his deputy. I’m guessing do nothing will be the option he goes for. Very real chance the next 12 months could see big defections from both Conservatives and Labour for brexit and other reasons. Some very big changes to party politics on the way. Wonder if we’ll ever see either party get a majority in Parliament again?
|
|
|
Post by percy on Jun 19, 2019 17:33:31 GMT 1
Corbyn has a big choice this week - back a second referendum and a remain stance or do nothing. If he does nothing then Labour are as dead as the Tories. I can see some defections if he doesn't respond to the ultimatum set by his deputy. I’m guessing do nothing will be the option he goes for. Very real chance the next 12 months could see big defections from both Conservatives and Labour for brexit and other reasons. Some very big changes to party politics on the way. Wonder if we’ll ever see either party get a majority in Parliament again? I've been a paid up member of the labour party since I was at university. I've tolerated Corbyn rather than supported him, but I have reached a point where I cannot support the party with him at the helm playing games with the future of the country to suit his personal ends (that is a Tory sport).
|
|
|
Post by martinshrew on Jun 19, 2019 17:34:42 GMT 1
I’m guessing do nothing will be the option he goes for. Very real chance the next 12 months could see big defections from both Conservatives and Labour for brexit and other reasons. Some very big changes to party politics on the way. Wonder if we’ll ever see either party get a majority in Parliament again? I've been a paid up member of the labour party since I was at university. I've tolerated Corbyn rather than supported him, but I have reached a point where I cannot support the party with him at the helm playing games with the future of the country to suit his personal ends. Good post.
|
|