Jump to content

UK Politics: Royal Weddings and Referendums


Yukle

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, john said:

I’m only opposed (and only somewhat opposed) to government business being dealt with by PMBs.

This wasn't government business, though.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Spockydog said:

She's taking us for mugs, and the BBC's complicity is nauseating. 

 

Not sure that I would say the BBC is complicit exactly:

See here https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-44495598

Quote

The prime minister said this would be funded partly by a "Brexit dividend", but also hinted at tax rises.

I think that is reasonably fair, being enough for anyone capable of thinking about it to realise that this promise is completely unfunded.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, A wilding said:

 

Not sure that I would say the BBC is complicit exactly:

See here https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-44495598

I think that is reasonably fair, being enough for anyone capable of thinking about it to realise that this promise is completely unfunded.

 

The BBC's headline: NHS funding: Theresa May unveils £20bn boost

And the Guardian's: May's NHS 'Brexit dividend' claim draws scepticism and doubt

Any suggestion of a Brexit Dividend is pure fantasy. The fact that she was able to get away with such bullshit on Andrew Marr's show, completely unchallenged, demonstrates just how low the BBC's journalistic values have sunk.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is the BBC is in the same position as Australia's ABC? Every single criticism of the government now gets them a funding cut. :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Yukle said:

Is the BBC is in the same position as Australia's ABC? Every single criticism of the government now gets them a funding cut. :(

The BBC does not criticise the Government.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, La Albearceleste said:

And now the government, having milked the positive headlines, comes clean: the NHS rise will be funded by tax rises, not a 'Brexit dividend'.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-44516123

And now the story is no longer about the much needed cash boost for the NHS. It's all about May's dishonesty. She really is bad at Prime Ministering. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Spockydog said:

The BBC's headline: NHS funding: Theresa May unveils £20bn boost

And the Guardian's: May's NHS 'Brexit dividend' claim draws scepticism and doubt

Any suggestion of a Brexit Dividend is pure fantasy. The fact that she was able to get away with such bullshit on Andrew Marr's show, completely unchallenged, demonstrates just how low the BBC's journalistic values have sunk.

 

Well I didn't watch the Andrew Marr show, it being a long time since I have been able to stomach listening to a professional politician, but I still don't personally think the BBC website at least can be described as "complicit". They can't really not give May a platform, but here for example are some quotes from that article:

Quote

Labour said the government had failed to fund the NHS properly and was relying on a "hypothetical" windfall.

Mrs May did not spell out how the £20bn a year would be funded

Commons Health and Social Care Committee chairwoman Sarah Wollaston described the idea of a Brexit dividend as "tosh".

the director of economic think tank the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS), Paul Johnson, has tweeted to say "there is no Brexit dividend".

shadow chancellor John McDonnell dismissed the government announcement as a "publicity stunt", adding: "Can you imagine if I came forward with this? There'd be accusations of magic money trees. This is a magic money forest that's come out this morning."

The government clearly feels the detail on funding is for another day. There will be difficult decisions ahead - but the prime minister appears to be saying "trust me".

chief executive of the NHS Confederation, which represents healthcare organisations, said the announcement "isn't a bonanza by any means"

[May] did not spell out that would require tax rises, although a recent report by the IFS said they would be needed because it was hard to imagine the money could be found from economic growth or raiding other areas of government spending.

So what will this mean? The final picture is somewhat clouded by the lack of clarity about what will happen to the wider health budget. However, talk to those working for the health service and they say this was the "bare minimum" that was needed to keep services going.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Spockydog said:

The BBC does not criticise the Government.

They did, quite a bit, after the election last year and started talking about Labour policies rather than just Jeremy Corbyn's funny hats and how he will step down any second. At some point they drifted back to the status quo, although they seem a bit ballshier now about pointing out the daftness of some of the policy ideas coming down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The implication that the BBC are unfair to Corbyn is nonsense. If anything, they give him much too easy a ride. Corbyn should be glad the press are largely ignoring him, IMO: he does not withstand scrutiny, and he doesn't like it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Spockydog said:

And now the story is no longer about the much needed cash boost for the NHS. It's all about May's dishonesty. She really is bad at Prime Ministering. 

From afar, she always seemed like a terrible candidate to be Prime Minister, though I guess us Yanks are really in no position to be critical of other countries' leaders. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, chiKanery et al. said:

From afar, she always seemed like a terrible candidate to be Prime Minister, though I guess us Yanks are really in no position to be critical of other countries' leaders. 

The worrying thing is she was still better than any of the other Tory candidates to replace Cameron.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Spockydog said:

Western Democracy is an absolute fucking joke. We are governed by the worst of us, a bunch of evil, lying, self-serving bastards. 

We're actually the lucky few, in terms of our leaders, in Western democracies.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, williamjm said:

The worrying thing is she was still better than any of the other Tory candidates to replace Cameron.

I never got the hate for Cameron. Sure I disagreed with his politics, but he never seemed as bad as some people made him out to be. Perhaps that's just the benefit of hindsight though. People seem terrible in the moment only until some worse succeeds them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, chiKanery et al. said:

I never got the hate for Cameron. Sure I disagreed with his politics, but he never seemed as bad as some people made him out to be. Perhaps that's just the benefit of hindsight though. People seem terrible in the moment only until some worse succeeds them. 

I think it's a similar situation to May being better than the alternative candidates, Cameron was also a better option than most of the other senior members of his cabinet (including May). That said, many of the things the current Government is struggling to deal with are a legacy of Cameron's time - most obviously Brexit but also things like the Universal Credit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, williamjm said:

The worrying thing is she was still better than any of the other Tory candidates to replace Cameron.

It's my guess that none of the other potential candidates want to be the ones who oversee Brexit, as it will be a permanent scar on their legacy to history.

It'd be like being offered the job of CEO of MySpace.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...