Yeah, he has a close connection to the NHS. His wife works for the NHS. He thinks that it's something we must protect at all costs.
And then he makes West Streeting the Health Secretary.
Westminster Politics 2024-2029
- Thread starter Pexbo
- Start date
And then he makes West Streeting the Health Secretary.
Sorry but how much can we trust your memory if you can't even accept the fact that his uncle served in the Navy?
That and the fact that 97-2010 was so much better than the years that followed it you'd have to be blind not to recognise the decline and destruction caused by the subsequent governments.
Yeah but Gordon Brown, gold, no money left letter etc
I was high 97% of time back then.
Ah yeah. Shit. That note about having spent all the cash that was obviously meant to be taken at face value. How could I forget?
From that picture it looks like next to no one is interested !
She's Leader of the House. You always get a low turnout for Leader's questions on Thursday morning. It only deals with announcing business for the next week.
There's your unnecessary information for the day.
Finally some proper policy from the Labour Party
fair enoughThis is clear manipulation and needs to be stopped, the Pidgy Economic and National Investment Society* have been using Freddos as a key price indicator to judge inflation for decades.
*A subsidiary of the Kidbob Nominal Operations Bureau.
It gets better.
From the story:
Hurley told the BBC he was inspired to launch his campaign after speaking to students at a local school in his constituency.
"The girls were very clued-up about political issues, including assisted dying and the Middle East."
However, he said one of the students also asked if he could launch a petition to cut Freddo bars to 5p.
Is that real?
If so …… erm….. I dunno
I guess I’m in favour and my kids certainly will be
Andrea Jenkyns had a sour face all throughout Have I Got News For You tonight and made herself look like a right pratt here:
Another ideology vs pragmatism debate.
Philosophically I abhor this idea, funnelling public money into private healthcare is against everything I believe in.
BUT
Can I stop over 2m people having treatment, ‘for free’ quicker than they would otherwise do, and wipe 1/3 off the NHS waiting lists?
For £1bn, or 1/185th of the annual NHS budget, I think it’s a no-brainer.
The NHS has basically always funneled public money into private healthcare, GPs were initially independent contractors, but were treated as quasi-employees of the NHS. They were paid a capitation fee for each patient registered with them, and were responsible for running the costs of their practice.
Same. Pragmatism has to win out. But man alive they need to get the messaging right.
Just be loud and bold. Actively say;
“Spending money in this way should be a last resort for Government. The private healthcare sector is able to help as it’s so well funded. But no government should be using public money to spend on private healthcare.
We’ve inherited the worst healthcare crisis in our lifetimes from the Tories. They deliberately broke it in to see these kind of payments and partnerships become the norm.
But know this, a Billion pounds spent inside the NHS will always be better value than a Billion pounds sent outside it, into shareholders pockets.
Our long term plan will see a fully funded and well managed NHS that sees this kind of emergency a thing of the past.
We have settled the disputes, and are budgeting for the long term future of the NHS but right now, we need people to get treated. The backlog must be cleared so it’s with a heavy heart we must make this decision”
Just say that, but better.
So, for those who can't remember back in the mists of time to those fargone days of 2022, kier starmer said he would r3eplace the house of lords with an elected chamber.
He has 400 MPs to choose from for all these positions, many of whom, like McSweeney's wife, luke akehurst, streeting's former and current partner, were hand chosen by his office and forced onto the local PLP.
And this is what he does. A job for life, at £361 per day.
He has 400 MPs to choose from for all these positions, many of whom, like McSweeney's wife, luke akehurst, streeting's former and current partner, were hand chosen by his office and forced onto the local PLP.
And this is what he does. A job for life, at £361 per day.
You are too kind. She will allowed to claim £361 per day tax free, plus expenses, and you only have to turn up. You don't have to speak or vote.
Indeed.
'promoting the UK' likely means travelling to nice places to meet with friends, and charging it to the public purse. For 5 years.
She was a founder and led a company that agreed a sale £4.2 billion within the last month. I'm not sure £361 per attendance is as tempting for her as it would be for me.
There should be a clause that life peerages can't be awarded to anyone under 75 for economic reasons.
I noticed this when I went down the Wiki rabbit hole.
In 2009, she moved to Autonomy working as a corporate controller
This is the company HP bought and then filed fraud charges against and one of the owners went down on that yatch.
Her CV suggests she has a lot of experience working with investors, which is probably what you want in a Minister for Investment, in a government crying out for investment. Maybe she's actually the best person for the job, as you imply.
For government, you want someone elected to represent people.
Labour just had 400 of them to choose from.
In general, yes. On occasion, no.
Eton among elite private schools set to cash in on windfall from new VAT rules
VAT-registered schools will be able to claim refunds for tax paid on capital projects over past 10 yearshttps://www.theguardian.com/educati...set-to-cash-in-on-windfall-from-new-vat-rules
The UK’s biggest and richest private schools are in line for substantial financial windfalls as a consequence of the government’s plan to impose VAT on their fees, according to official new guidance issued by tax authorities.
A document issued by HMRC on Thursday made clear that, once registered for VAT, independent schools will be able to claim back the tax they have paid on capital projects such as buildings and land acquisition completed over the past 10 years.
The money would be paid back progressively over the next decade, with the timing and amounts dependent on when the project was finished.
The fact that institutions such as Eton College and other elite private schools will be able to attain a net benefit from the change is causing tension within the independent sector, with those running smaller private schools saying it will widen the gap between them and the richest.
Why on earth can they charge stuff back from a decade ago? Why so long?
I assume because they are registered as charities (like universities) and therefore can take advantages of the huge tax breaks given to them.
Because businesses that charge VAT to supply a service can claim back VAT paid on capital investments made in the provision of that service up to 10 years ago.
Like Universities the most elite will have invested the most in building these facilities and stand to gain the most from the rebates, further stretching the inequality gap.
Last edited:
Whoops.
That wasn’t really thought through properly.
Makes sense, thanks. For most it was cushion the VAT on fees blow to some degree, albeit way more for the loaded ones.
I didn't like the guy but I am sorry for his family as it seems sudden.
Those schools exist above society anyway. Them getting a bigger one off handout is an absolute nothing to anyone.
The VAT change won’t touch them, and their rebate will be irrelevant.
The Daily Mail will both criticise how awful the VAT is, and admonish the Labour government for their shortsightedness. It’s just the cost of change. No drama.
He was easily my favourite ‘British’ politician of the last 20 years, and I’d say both Salmond and Nigel Farage have been the most consequential political figures in that time period.
Nelson Mandela’s grandson denied entry to UK for pro-Palestinian talks
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...a-grandson-denied-uk-visa-hamas-b2627743.html
Did you bother to read the article?
It doesn't take a genius to work out what's happened here, there was confusion as up until a couple of months ago he had a diplomatic passport where he wouldn't need a visa. Officials wrongly told him he wouldn't need a visa because of this, but he does.
How you've managed to attribute this to starmer is impressive even for you.
No doubt if starmer did jump in and do something, you'd post the exact same tweet but talk about favouritism. Youre a joke.