Cameron: "Cuts will change our way of life"

[Guest Pistonbroke]

Cunts want to sell off the forests now.

[dennis tooth]

Cancer sufferers 'to be given chemotherapy at branches of Boots' in extraordinary shake-up of NHS

 

NHS reform: Cancer sufferers 'to be given chemotherapy at Boots branches' | Mail Online

[Section_31]

NHS reform: Cancer sufferers 'to be given chemotherapy at Boots branches' | Mail Online

 

Fuck me pink!

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

Argh, I am seriously fed up of this shit. How many times do we have to hear the excuse "It was labour that got us into this mess" for shit policies that are unnecessary and draconian, as well as policies that go directly against manifestos.

 

I agree. There's a few reasons why they shouldn't continue with that canard. Firstly, it's not all that true. Secondly, it makes them look like they're incapable of being what they promised (better placed than Labour to deal with it), and thirdly, it's not fucking working. Nobody is buying it. Well, at least not enough people to stop Labour gaining massively.

 

The only way for them to start winning support is by fixing the economy, and doing it without being unfair and harming people's lives for something that wasn't their fault.

[Strontium]

Cunts want to sell off the forests now.

 

 

We had a thread back on that in October. Not like the Guardian to recycle negative stories about the government is it!

 

Fortunately the experts in the matter have no political axe to grind:

 

A spokesman for the National Trust said: "Potentially this is an opportunity. It would depend on which 50 per cent of land they sold off. We will take a fairly pragmatic approach and look at each sale on a case by case basis..."

 

Mark Avery, conservation director for the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) said: [...] "We would look very carefully at what was planned. It would be possible to sell 50 per cent if it was done in the right way."

[dennis tooth]

I agree. There's a few reasons why they shouldn't continue with that canard. Firstly, it's not all that true. Secondly, it makes them look like they're incapable of being what they promised (better placed than Labour to deal with it), and thirdly, it's not fucking working. Nobody is buying it. Well, at least not enough people to stop Labour gaining massively.

 

The only way for them to start winning support is by fixing the economy, and doing it without being unfair and harming people's lives for something that wasn't their fault.

 

See this is where 'Uncle Tom' SD is totally owning you on this subject IMO.

 

These are 90% Labour proposals from Blair, who got them from John Major originally, yes the Tories have ramped it up in some areas and scaled back in others but this was always the market driving a new product to market with no recourse to the consumers, which is the way everything goes under the market, you cannot ringfence anything, media, government, health services, it will eat it all and chew all the nutrition and spit us along with the rest of it out. You cannot regulate this beast, like the war on drugs, except you talk tougher whilst negotiating a defeat behind the people's backs with the beast.

All of the current parties subscribe to the same suicidal thinking and will plunge us full steam ahead to disaster and ruin all over again. These suited-up 'sane' people with their charted projections and Guassian graphs have had their chance though, they failed, the crazies from both sides will try to take over and the out of date educated thinking you employ while education establishments prop up the military research establishements that power it all and can all be rationlised by people such as you and the Guardian providing 3 dimensions to this fraud. By formalising us all while all ahead lies chaos will lead to further revisionism until the Turkey realises the farmer was not a kind man after all and 'too late, too late' will be the cry while the divisive manners push you aside and pass you by.

[melons]

Does that daily fail article have any basis, anywhere?

 

 

 

Edit, I mean other then liked to the above. I can't find anything*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*but then i can't even find my driving licence.

[Tyler Durden]

Fuck me pink!

 

All for the low low price of £150 a session, you cant put a price on your life though

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

Does that daily fail article have any basis, anywhere?

 

Edit, I mean other then liked to the above. I can't find anything*

 

*but then i can't even find my driving licence.

 

No, it doesn't. It's one of the worst articles I've ever had the displeasure of reading. I wouldn't have clicked it, but Sec's comment made me think it might have been something worthwhile in there. The Mail, and anybody who reads it and then posts articles from it, are utterly worthless 'IMO'. I couldn't tell you how little their 'opinion' means to me.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

We had a thread back on that in October. Not like the Guardian to recycle negative stories about the government is it!

 

Fortunately the experts in the matter have no political axe to grind:

 

Hmn, interesting that you decided to remove some of the opinions of one of your experts. I wonder what you took out? Maybe it was something that might be inconvenient to the government you're supporting? Something like this, perhaps?

 

You can understand why this Government would think 'why does the state need to be in charge of growing trees', because there are lots of people who make a living from growing trees.

 

"But the Forestry Commission does more than just grow trees. A lot of the work is about looking after nature and landscapes."

 

"We would be quite relaxed about the idea of some sales, but would be unrelaxed if the wrong bits were up for sale like the New Forest, Forest of Dean or Sherwood Forest, which are incredibly valuable for wildlife and shouldn't be sold off.

 

"We would look very carefully at what was planned. It would be possible to sell 50 per cent if it was done in the right way."

 

Source: Telegraph

 

If the New Forest, Forest of Dean or Sherwood Forest, or places 'like' them, get sold off, as this suggests the will, it makes your partial quote less powerful, or at least more critical of the policy of the Tory-led coalition that you support. Maybe that's the reason you took it out.

 

In response to Pistonbroke's comment: I'm unsure about it all. I've not really researched it enough and, as I don't know nearly enough about the forestry, what they own or how they operate, it's hard to form a strong opinion either way. That said, I doubt I'd come to the opinion that the vast majority of the land would be better in private hands than in the hands of the state.

 

Regardless of that, the vast majority don't want it. There's also nearly 190k people who have signed the petition against it. Not that this government haven't made it crystal clear that they don't give a fuck what people actually want. They're going to do what they want.

[Strontium]

Hmn, interesting that you decided to remove some of the opinions of one of your experts. I wonder what you took out? Maybe it was something that might be inconvenient to the government you're supporting? Something like this, perhaps?

 

 

Oh behave will you. What you quoted wasn't inconvenient to the point I was making, which was that a forest sell off wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing. I share the concerns of the RSPB and National Trust, having previously been a member of both for many years. I would hope and expect that any sell off would be done in as sensitive and considerate a manner as possible.

 

Maybe that's the reason you took [that bit] out.

 

 

Nope, sorry to shatter your illusions, it's more mundane than that. I copied the quotes from a thread from October which already had that article linked. It's not a question of leaving anything out.

 

In response to Pistonbroke's comment: I'm unsure about it all. I've not really researched it enough and, as I don't know nearly enough about the forestry, what they own or how they operate, it's hard to form a strong opinion either way. That said, I doubt I'd come to the opinion that the vast majority of the land would be better in private hands than in the hands of the state.

 

 

It depends what is meant by "private hands" doesn't it? This is what I don't get about ideological opposition to privatisation of the forests. Privatisation could mean anything from being sold to Big Logging PLC to being given to the Woodland Trust, and everything in between.

 

Regardless of that, the vast majority don't want it. There's also nearly 190k people who have signed the petition against it. Not that this government haven't made it crystal clear that they don't give a fuck what people actually want. They're going to do what they want.

 

 

Are you seriously suggesting that government should abandon what it thinks is right and instead do what it thinks is popular? We had 13 years of that already, didn't we? It ended up with Paul Dacre basically deciding what government policy should be.

[dennis tooth]

No, it doesn't. It's one of the worst articles I've ever had the displeasure of reading. I wouldn't have clicked it, but Sec's comment made me think it might have been something worthwhile in there. The Mail, and anybody who reads it and then posts articles from it, are utterly worthless 'IMO'. I couldn't tell you how little their 'opinion' means to me.

 

Boots to put GPs in the high street | UK news | The Guardian

 

Sorry, I didn't put in your language. Enjoy.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

Oh behave will you. What you quoted wasn't inconvenient to the point I was making, which was that a forest sell off wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing. I share the concerns of the RSPB and National Trust, having previously been a member of both for many years. I would hope and expect that any sell off would be done in as sensitive and considerate a manner as possible.

 

Nope, sorry to shatter your illusions, it's more mundane than that. I copied the quotes from a thread from October which already had that article linked. It's not a question of leaving anything out.

 

You're not shattering anything. I said 'maybe' that's why you're doing it. You defend the government religiously. I think it's a very important piece of information that's entirely relevant to what's being argued. If you're going to leave it to the experts, then leave it to the experts. If they do what's expected, it'll me that the expert in your quote will be against the plans.

 

Given the way you spoke about negative regurgitation of articles and grinding political axes, I think it's quite relevant to hear what he actually thinks, rather than just part of it. It misrepresents him in order to show the government in a more positive light than he intended, and that's what I'm objecting to.

 

It depends what is meant by "private hands" doesn't it? This is what I don't get about ideological opposition to privatisation of the forests. Privatisation could mean anything from being sold to Big Logging PLC to being given to the Woodland Trust, and everything in between.

 

This is why I said I needed to do more research. If the plan, and I don't for a second believe it will be, is to sell forests off for the benefit of the people and communities, rather than companies who will build God knows what and their tory donating major shareholders earning God knows how much, then I'd be more relaxed about the whole thing.

 

Are you seriously suggesting that government should abandon what it thinks is right and instead do what it thinks is popular? We had 13 years of that already, didn't we? It ended up with Paul Dacre basically deciding what government policy should be.

 

That's a really difficult question, and one that would likely take about ten pages to answer remotely adequately. If the opposite to 'doing what is popular' is actually just 'giving the government carte blanche to do what they 'think is right' in order to enrich their donators and friends in the city' rather than do 'what is right' for the majority of people in this country, then yeah, I'm suggesting it.

 

The real question here is 'who is the government serving?'.

[dennis tooth]

Fuck me pink!

 

It's alright mate, NN says it's false, just cos it's in the Daily Mail, like the BBC bias, the Guardians subservience to it's advertisers and wireless mesh networks.

 

Phew!

 

One hundred pounds to the HJC says it's true? I'll leave you in the hands of Mr Smoothie, let's hope he's as brave with his precious pounds.

[Strontium]

Given the way you spoke about negative regurgitation of articles and grinding political axes, I think it's quite relevant to hear what he actually thinks, rather than just part of it. It misrepresents him in order to show the government in a more positive light than he intended, and that's what I'm objecting to.

 

 

Okay, fine. I'll be more careful next time.

 

The real question here is 'who is the government serving?'.

 

 

Well, if it's not serving the public, then people can - and should - vote it out at the next election.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

Well, if it's not serving the public, then people can - and should - vote it out at the next election.

 

It's all very well saying that, but we've just had an election and, unless I'm very mistaken, nobody ran their election on this. It's not like we're 4 years into a 5 year term and we need to get money. We're a few months into this government and nowhere in the coalition agreement, nor either manifesto, was anything about selling off all, or a very large amount of our forestry and lands. By the time the next election comes around, they would have done this and it'll be irreversible.

 

What we're saying now is extreme measures that were not mentioned - or in many cases, are the opposite to what was mentioned - during the election or in the manifestos.

[Stu Monty]

Okay, fine. I'll be more careful next time.

 

Well, if it's not serving the public, then people can - and should - vote it out at the next election.

 

Yes, we can vote for three maifestos all serving the same interests and none of which anyone will even bother to stick to. Wonderful.

 

Look at that quote from Clegg in NN's signature and try and tell me about voting with a straight face. "Action X would be lunacy!" - "I now fully support action X"

 

Keep fiddling, Nero.

[dennis tooth]

Exactly why I urged and continue to urge people not to vote but to deface their voting papers at the very least (I recommend mustard and human excrement for maximum effect or two carefully wrapped and prepared cat poo parcels if you are voting by post.), participating in such a fraud will only make things worse.

 

Voting is the worse thing you can do, people died for the right to control our own country for our own benefit not for a meaningless sham peice of paper that enables us to be apathetic slaves to a system that doesn't serve us for another 5 years but with the inherent right to choose a yellow, blue or red ribbon around the polished turd for the period.

 

So stop voting in my name please, if you want change, then change it. You are a freeman, claim your prize.

 

Never mind fucking voting for Labour, NN is another SD, forget him, the only thing he brings is confusion, that's all his education produces. it's exactly what it is what designed to do. That's why he holds position within it, he can be trusted by the system to perpetuate it, a virus needs a host carrier.

[Guest Pistonbroke]

We had a thread back on that in October. Not like the Guardian to recycle negative stories about the government is it!

 

Fortunately the experts in the matter have no political axe to grind:

 

So what. I don't have the time to read every thread and spend days away from this place due to other commitments and certain threads just don't get read. Negative stories about the Government..fuck me you biff, you have to take the rough with the smooth, especially when you are serving the public!! Plus your yellow streaked bastards and Cameron promised the greenest Government of all time. Just another load of shite from a shower of shits. Obviously if you sell off all the land to the private sector then it will be green for certain people, well at least to make fucking money out of it. You and your sort piss me off, you come on here thinking you are fighting the Liberal front yet you just pick and choose what posts to answer too whilst conveniently leaving out others.

[Section_31]

Growth figures out tomorrow apparently, I still don't know where this growth is supposed to come from, like some kind of magic beans - you cut the public sector and for some unexplainable reason the private sector grows.

 

The departing head of the country's biggest business group has taken a surprise swipe at the Government, accusing it of failing to put forward its vision for the economy.

 

Sir Richard Lambert, who stands down as director general of the CBI on Friday, said business supported the "ruthless" approach to spending cuts, agreeing they were essential for the long-term stability of the economy.

 

But in his last major speech after four-and-a-half years in the job, Sir Richard said the Government had not been so consistent and focused on its plans for economic growth.

 

"It's failed so far to articulate in big picture terms its vision of what the UK economy might become under its stewardship. And it's taken a series of policy initiatives for political reasons, apparently careless of the damage they might do to business and to job creation."

 

Sir Richard said ministers were yet to set out a vision of what a successful growing economy would look like, adding: "The growth White Paper that was expected last autumn never materialised, and the impression was given that there simply weren't enough good ideas around to justify such a publication.

 

"Rather than a big picture of the kind of economic eco-system the Government wants to champion, we are left with a few rather vague ideas about the scope supporting a number of predictable sectors, and the promise that more ideas will be forthcoming at the time of the spring budget.

 

"When it comes to micro policy initiatives, politics appear to have trumped economics on too many occasions over the past eight months."

 

Sir Richard said the Business Department had been "understandably preoccupied" with the "dramas" of higher education in recent months, but he said: "Perhaps it is time for a hard look at the role of the Department of Business. We need a department that is seriously knowledgeable about everyday business needs. Less of a talking shop, more of an action-oriented growth champion."

 

David Cameron's official spokesman said: "Richard Lambert, it seems to me, is making many of the arguments you would expect a business lobby group to be making. The Government has made no apology about the fact that the deficit has to be addressed. We are also looking across the board at what more we can do to promote growth in the economy."

 

Shadow chancellor Ed Balls said: "These are damning criticisms from such a respected figure in the business world. As Sir Richard says, the Conservative-led Government has no plan for growth and has taken decisions for political reasons regardless of the consequences for job creation and business."

 

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

0.2 - 0.5 is the prediction. Nasty. The cuts haven't even hit yet.

[Guest Pistonbroke]

Growth figures out tomorrow apparently, I still don't know where this growth is supposed to come from, like some kind of magic beans - you cut the public sector and for some unexplainable reason the private sector grows.

 

It's just balancing numbers, all Governments do it as they are only interested in bent figures to suit their 4 year term in office. They say unemployment is down yet we all know these figures are manipulated. They count people who are on courses, mini jobs etc as employed. Yet they are still receiving unemployment benefit. Then they have the cheek to tell us they are planing for the future etc etc..what a load of bollocks, they are only interested in getting voted in again and think only of their own immediate future. The current Tory government are just trying to push through as many bills as possible to make it harder for future parties in power to change/remove them. Bunch of bastards as usual. What makes them even more dangerous this time around is that they have a built in excuse for when things go tits up and will shift the blame as much as they can onto those yellow bellied Lib dems who choose a moment of power rather than looking to the future of their own party.

[Strontium]

Look at that quote from Clegg in NN's signature and try and tell me about voting with a straight face. "Action X would be lunacy!" - "I now fully support action X"

 

 

Anyone can take a quote from 2009, as Johann Hari did, and trot it out in late 2010. To pretend that nothing can have happened to change someone's mind in the 15 months between the original statement and the quotemine is fallacious.

 

So what. I don't have the time to read every thread and spend days away from this place due to other commitments and certain threads just don't get read. Negative stories about the Government..fuck me you biff, you have to take the rough with the smooth, especially when you are serving the public!! Plus your yellow streaked bastards and Cameron promised the greenest Government of all time. Just another load of shite from a shower of shits. Obviously if you sell off all the land to the private sector then it will be green for certain people, well at least to make fucking money out of it. You and your sort piss me off, you come on here thinking you are fighting the Liberal front yet you just pick and choose what posts to answer too whilst conveniently leaving out others.

 

 

I wasn't criticising you for posting it, just mentioning that it was a follow up on something previously posted.

 

I'll take the rough with the smooth happily, I do wonder when we're going to get some smooth. I know that I certainly haven't been getting any (see: the tags on this thread).

 

Funny that it's okay for you not to have time to read every post, but me not having time to reply to every post is somehow picking and choosing what to answer, eh?

 

I think I'll wait until I see what is being sold and to whom before I declare it environmental vandalism.

[Stu Monty]

Anyone can take a quote from 2009, as Johann Hari did, and trot it out in late 2010. To pretend that nothing can have happened to change someone's mind in the 15 months between the original statement and the quotemine is fallacious.

 

You're pathetic. That might sound off but if you treat me with so little respect as to trot that shit out to me then that's what you'll get in return. I sometimes feel sorry for you when everyone is piling into you but, you know what, you deserve is for the amount of times you fall back to supine, cowardly shit like this.

 

The basics of economics didn't suddenly change in a year, and it's just his mind that is mentioned either; it's any serious economist.

 

The sad thing is you'll twist yourself right back round again when the AV vote goes against you and your boys suddenly start attacking the tory ideology and distancing themselves from it. As I say, it's pathetic and transparent.

[Guest Pistonbroke]

Anyone can take a quote from 2009, as Johann Hari did, and trot it out in late 2010. To pretend that nothing can have happened to change someone's mind in the 15 months between the original statement and the quotemine is fallacious.

 

 

 

 

I wasn't criticising you for posting it, just mentioning that it was a follow up on something previously posted.

 

I'll take the rough with the smooth happily, I do wonder when we're going to get some smooth. I know that I certainly haven't been getting any (see: the tags on this thread).

 

Funny that it's okay for you not to have time to read every post, but me not having time to reply to every post is somehow picking and choosing what to answer, eh?

 

I think I'll wait until I see what is being sold and to whom before I declare it environmental vandalism.

 

I'm sure if you read this thread from start to finish that you are indeed one of those more involved with the topic at hand. You have replied to many posters opinions whilst sticking up in what you believe, however it's pretty obvious to a blind cobbler that you have deliberately selected parts of posts or only posts which fit your agenda. Plus the topic we were discussing was in another thread ( as you said ) and not this one.

 

People put those tags in this thread for a reason, if i were you i'd be looking at how i come over myself rather than those adding the tags.

 

So you are prepared to wait around and see what happens rather than listen to those who count...the public who vote you in. You'll make a good politician one day, you have the " fuck you jack i'll feather my own bed " attitude down to a tee.