Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

barlio wrote: Since we are apparently moving to a national healthcare system I would like to know what we can begin to expect.

It would buy the president who conceives the idea a second term. So there is a Machiavellian incentive to try.

The USA needs an 'NHS' and cannot claim it cannot afford one. You get access to legal support in your rights, dental and medical should be civic rights too. it will cost a fortune, but you wont regret the decision. You could build one with a redirection of some interstate funds and a realistic reduction in military spending, both of which the nation can afford.

If anything, Britain is better aligning itself with the States.Most of
the time Britain seems to be battling to stop French/German powerplays
to control europe.The European governments really hate Britain,they
tend to come up with bizarre ideas and stupid rules that Britain rightly
rejects.The euro was just one in a long list of tactics that France and
Germany have come up with in the struggle for total control of europe.

barlio wrote: Since we are apparently moving to a national healthcare system I would like to know what we can begin to expect.

In general, medical care would be free or cheap. The overall costs of medical care in the UK, France and Japan are roughly half of the cost of the US system. The French and Japanese systems charge the patient a proportion of the costs while the UK one is basically free. The balance is made up from general taxation.

You will not find all diseases are instantly cured because even the public purse is not bottomless. I mean, there isn't a perfect system. In the UK people with money often go private for certain types of treatment, for example if it is not offered on the NHS or in order to get treated more quickly.

Mr. Orlanth wrote:

So you dont beleive what you put down as an answer. So how was it a credible answer?

You really need me to explain non sequitur to you ? Really ? Because I could believe that.

There was a lot clearly missing from the Independent's coverage. Despite some praise is mentioned that the meeting was 'not warm' in conrrast from the cherry picked comments that any one leader would say to another. If you read betwween the lines on this, as one should with the press you will discover that they are shoring up a bad day.

And the right wing press coverage was of course fully clear and bias free... [/facepalm]

Do you understand 'wait'? I can wait for a bus and have been on one before. I can wait to meet my mother and have met her previously. Where does the word wait indicate never having met before?
Ner mind, dont bother sidetracking on this one. I am sure 99% of the rest of Dakka will see what the word wait means, even those for whome English is a second language.

Well, it would appear that BS is yours, in the English language context is vital to the understanding of a words meaning. The way you used it-- perhaps unintentionally, which is fair enough-- did not mean the same as "waiting for something that has already occurred frequently".

I know how to spell, being a writer amongst other things, but my Dakka posts are speed typed and net posts are written dictation and not prose per se. i.e. this is a conversation rather than a correspondence.
When I mispell, and I frequently do, it is because my typing speed is very high and I miss the typos.
You mispell too and I wont criticise you for it.

If that's the case then it's a bad idea to make cheap cracks about words like "diplomacy" etc isn't it ? Still if you can't stand the heat.. etc etc.

One event. look at the wealth of BBC reporting against that. BBC reporting news circa 1995.
- Crisis, New Labour spokesman interviewed, Government spokensmen interviewed, last word given to New Labour spokesmena, pro New Labour final word ' the government cant get out of this one'.
BBC reporting news post 1997.
- Crisis, Opposed spokesman interviewed (often not from the opposition) Government spokesman interviewed, pro New Labour final word 'how will the government get out of this one.'

In cicular debates in many political discussions in the news studio a government and an independent spokesman would be invited but not an opposition spokesman. Look at the formatting of the news media, it shifted very heavily after 1997.

And your proof of this is what ? Oh, it's you, it must be back to anecdote and hearsay again. We can dredge up the mediawatch stats that prove you're wrong. Again. If you like.

The BBC. and the media in general have been no more forgiving or gentle with the current administration than any other. Any fool watching the coverage of the war, can see that.

As for the incident regarding the Director General being forced down. Why was this the case?

(Are you talking about Greg Dyke?)

He was forced out for not obeying the government. In case you hadnt realised the BBC is not supposed to obey the whim of the government it is supposed to be independent. However this is not how New Labour saw it. When finally some high ups decided to grow a pair and try something outside their bonds what happens, they get stomped on. By tyhe time of the Hutton report Blair has been in power too long and did not accept what he considered disobedience.

What you see as proof of the BBC's independence is actually an 'off with his head moment' when the indentured servant dares finally say no

So your "argument"-- I'll be generous here-- is.. the BBC didn't do what the Govt wanted them to, and was fired, to much dismay and lamentation from the BBC.... and this shows the BBC is in thrall to the Govt ? How ?

Next thing you'll be complaining about how the BBC's reporting of the war as being a bad thing and a huge mistake is also the ploy of their labour masters.

You will always get a few, besides Ken Livingston was bnig enough Labour had to court him after Dobbo failed to kick him offstage.

Yes, thus disproving your argument that dissenters "disappeared" and are never heard from.

Again, where did I say this?
Hint : I didnt.

It's implied by what you wrote.

*golf clap again*

Hold on, you said what was wrong with the Tory party was that they were toffs. let me get your quote right:

I don't think Brown will ever be popular in the USA-- not charismatic enough-- but Blair will back him, or more pertinently the Labour Party over Cameron and his bunch of toffs and second chancers every time.

First there are planety of toff champagne socialists in new Labour. Secondly, as I ask, why are 'toffs' not fit for office?

Is it because if you come from a gentry family you are a 'rich ne'er do well'? This smacks of plain old bigotry to me. If toff was a colour of skin you wouldn't be allowed to say this. If toff was a sexual preference you would be allowed to say this. If toff was a faith you wouldnt be allowed to say this. Toff is very close to a regional stereotype, like scouser or geordie. If you discriminated against them it would not be allowed either. So stop avoiding the question, why in your opinion are toffs unfit for office?

Your inference says much about you. If you read it, I never said that "toffs" are unfit for office. What i said was that Blair would back the Labour Party over Cameron and co,.

Or. The Lib dems.

Or the BNP.

Or indeed any other party.

Perhaps if you remove your monocle you might read better.

Orlanth wrote: The big trick is there is no "hard" left or right in mainstream British politics. It's really just whether you're one step to the left of centre or one step to the right.

- True. But for completion there are left/right extremist parties.

Hence the use of the word "mainstream".

To an extent this explains the apathy a lot of people have about UK politics, as really we're just arguing over the colour of the ties of the next shower of witches we elect to ridicule and blame when it all goes wrong.

- My reason to comment. in this we finally make full agreement. this is especially true with the rebirth of New Tory in 2005. at this current time New Tory and New Labour are pretty much identicle. Who wins will be a matter of incumbency vs state of the nations economy and a lot of spin. Expect a very dirty campaign in 2010.

Best description is it's like choosing whether you want death by firing squad or hanging. The end result is the same, but you get a whole load of arguments as to whether or not the gallows is made from sustainable resources, the pollution impact of the bullets and, most importantly of all, who gets to pay for the whole charade.

- This is where the Liberal Democrat party, the third party in UK politics has a very good chance of making headway. But prior to this they must spin up a new identity too.
it wont consitute a chage per se, but it qwill manufacture the illusion of progress that Tony Blair successfully used to hoodwink the populace.

With you 100%.
Modern politics is a lot like Marvel Comics. No change, just the illusion of change.

Orlanth wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:The rot began in the 90's and was only holding out due to illusory money for as long as the frauds and bad debts did not take toll in the USA. That triggered a collapse that had already happened but had been kept out of the 'real' economy by a paperchain of revolving credit.

Do you own your own house? Because if you believe we are that fethed... Well I just hope we aren't
For some reason I am now also stuck in a quote box

reds8n wrote:
You really need me to explain non sequitur to you ?

Are you going to answer 'only joking' whenever you lose ground in a debate?

reds8n wrote:
And the right wing press coverage was of course fully clear and bias free... [/facepalm]

Not implied, you dont need to be biased when you have the party you dont support on the coals, the truth is good enough. This of course goes both ways there are just times when the supporting coverage really has to ignore face value presentation of an event in order to appear positive. Just as with any party faithful newspaper at a time when those it wajnts to support are in a poor position to be defended.
Independent tried to write up a pro Brown spin, but it could not manage to put a spin on the issue and had to backhandedly admit that the meeting was less positive than implied.

reds8n wrote:
Well, it would appear that BS is yours, in the English language context is vital to the understanding of a words meaning. The way you used it-- perhaps unintentionally, which is fair enough-- did not mean the same as "waiting for something that has already occurred frequently".

You still want to fail to understand. I made no attempt to claim Cameron had met Obama frequently either. I only claimed that the definitive Cameron Obama meeting will only happen when both or thwem are in power or near in power. This sir is how politics works. When in opposition or waiting an opportunity to be elected or whatever you have opportunity to network. but there is no powerplay, and these guys being politicians and thus able to say nice things (ior bad things) about each other without much consequence, though in general you aim to say pleasant nicities.

On aside Obama still used this mode of communication with Brown at a time when powerplay was valid, indicating that he was a waste of time in Obamas eyes. Let us take all the honeyed words from the independent article I found:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/obama-hails-the-bond-with-britain-that-cant-be-broken-1636835.html

If you understand how to read political rhetoric this was not good. Obama whispered 'sweet nothings'.

reds8n wrote:
If that's the case then it's a bad idea to make cheap cracks about words like "diplomacy" etc isn't it ? Still if you can't stand the heat.. etc etc.

I am not criticising your ability to write English, but your grasp of the concept of diplomacy. it is clear fromm many of your comments you dont understand how it is played, and certainly can't read a high politics fob off. such as the one Obama gave Brown.
Note that those press who wanted to appear to favour Brown gave the honeyed words at face value for the masses. those that didnt translated them into realspeak. Of course were the boot on the other foot the positions of the newspapers would be reversed. I can bet you peretty much all of Westminster will be reading this as a snub, don't hold your breath waiting for them to tell you that though.

reds8n wrote:
And your proof of this is what ? Oh, it's you, it must be back to anecdote and hearsay again. We can dredge up the mediawatch stats that prove you're wrong. Again. If you like.

'Ancedotes' are valid, also 'hearsay doesnt cover repreat exposue to the press. What the press says is hearsay, if you said that you would be wiser than you appear.
However how the press says it is not, the delivery is key.

besides Mediwatch said nothing to discredit my analysis on how the media is balanced, then or now. For a start it doesn't collect the right sort of statistical data to even comment. It is also doubly easy to twist things with statisitcs. The hint I gave you was in the tonal change in conclusions of televison news articles especially. This imbalance is bery subtle and very powerful, it is part of what is known in propoganda as subliminal.

reds8n wrote:
The BBC. and the media in general have been no more forgiving or gentle with the current administration than any other. Any fool watching the coverage of the war, can see that.

But those who are not fools can see the line being toed on other issues, in faxct most other issues. Imbalanced airtime is a good example. Iraq is not the sort of issue you can spin away, the public know its there, they know the troops are there, the public is angry. even at the height of his power Blair couldnt have stopped the BBc from some negativity.

reds8n wrote:
So your "argument"-- I'll be generous here-- is.. the BBC didn't do what the Govt wanted them to, and was fired, to much dismay and lamentation from the BBC.... and this shows the BBC is in thrall to the Govt ? How ?

Ok. Again you show a naivity of how Westminster works, or for that matter power in general. You might want to listen to this because it is true for Tories too:

To be simple once a leader is in power too long (Blair certainly was, as was Thatcher) as human nature tends to change them into people who just expect to be obeyed. Psychologically someone who has traditonally been obediant and suddenly is not envokes far more wrath than an open opponent. It is the disloyal servant principle. Good example Hitlers hissy fits when generals didnt obey his every whim, yes Hitler was crazy, but dont just assume it weas all Hitler crazy, its is human nature of power crazy. From what I heard Blair got very much like that towards the end, just without the executions.
I strongly suspect this was the point at which Thatcher was removed from power by her own party, Thatcher could have won the 1992 election, but the Tories didnt want a control freak Thatcher. Blair however did get to cross this mental threshold while in power, and only stood down when it was clear that it would damage the parties chance to remain in power if he did not. This however was always the plan, Brown is set up as New Labours get out of jail card fromm the beginning. Once the public gets sick of Blair, this is inevitable for any politician Brown was to step in and 'renew' the party. This part of the plan was clearly set up from the beginning if you can read the signs. it is why Brown was never removed from his position as Chancellor, so he was always visibly the number two. Ignore Prescott, he was a big nothing throughout. Hence the very obvious case of 'when is it my turn' between Brown and Blair in the middle of this decadethat anyone should have noticed. Come on you should be able to read this, if you didn't the papers certainly cottoned on.

reds8n wrote:
Yes, thus disproving your argument that dissenters "disappeared" and are never heard from.

You make it sound I claim they were sent to Gulags. Anyway I still keep to this point.

Livingston was to be made to 'disappear' as you put it, by Dobbo. Dobbo lost, so when Livingston was relected he was courted by Blair instead, to rejoin the Labour party and become their official candidate. He did this, and immediately stopped spouting (most) of his old socialist old Labour ideas out of keeping with the party. A clear case of a buy out.

The poeple Blair trult silenced early, and we havent heard of them really since were Militant Tendency. Especially the Liverpool councillors Hatton et al, were dealt with very speedily after 1992 and the formation of New Labour. The death of old Labour was again sealed by letting the leaders climb the ladder and pull it up, behind them. Prescott being the best example. Prescott did nothing, he had a mighty title that gave him lots of privilege and no power. The was there only be be the bought Trade Union man, and his job, if job it was was to be the figure of the satisfied Old Labour who would reap the rewards while Blair pissed all over the traditional voting block. Blair did more damage to the grass roots Labour voter than Thatcher could dream of doing, because he crushed what was left of socialism, and crushed the unions. without fear of a general strike because the Union leadership remained in his pocket with Prescott as the strongarm.

These is Blair style "disappearances" if you will.

Just so you know, I loath what Blair did to this nation, and the traditional Labour voting block, which is now - for now! - the Tory middle class block. However I respect the mans political talent immensely, New Labour is one of the masterstrokes of propoganda in modern democratic history, and it has been remembered accross the globe. I looked in awe at the genius of how they did this still back in the 90's while wondering why most pople could not see what was in front of them.

reds8n wrote:
Your inference says much about you. If you read it, I never said that "toffs" are unfit for office. What i said was that Blair would back the Labour Party over Cameron and co,.

I read what you said, but your use of the racist terminology to refer to subsections of Tory members deserved the challenge.
If I dismissed labour voters as 'just peasants' it would be equally racist. That is just an example, I neither think that not claim that.

reds8n wrote:
The school thing does annoy me. But i would also suggest that the children of influential politicians are perhaps in need-- for their own sake-- of slightly more protection and shielding than the child of a normal person.
The Home Secretary has round the clock armed guards as he/she is at risk. Their families are similarly at risk and it's much easier for certain schools to work round those requirements than others.

To help you understand here children of senior civil servants and military officers get a sponsorship for private education for a percentage of the fees. This is how I went to Private school, even though my family income was certainly not anything like enough to be considered 'rich' per se. In fact you might find this odd , but the parent of most private school pupils are not rich, above average yes, but many consider it worthwhile to pay school fees rather than buy luxuries.
MP's are not included in this, as their employment is entirely based on their continued electability. However the senior civil service is the circle within which ther MP's live, and they accustomed to want the same.
that is all very well until they try to make their careers calling for the whole private school system to be abolished, or *cough* reformed *cough*.

Though this is declining because the governments squeeze on private schools has forced them to put up fees, and now many people who could afford now cannot can no longer afford to send their children to private school. it is ironic that the schools are now truly being for the monetary elite, with fees jump from 15K a year to over 50-80K. However luckily for New Labour mandarins MP's salaries and their flunkies are now paid several times what they would have got in '97.

Mod mode on:
lets remember Rule #1 here people. Please be polite

Mod mode off:

Orlanth wrote:The rot began in the 90's and was only holding out due to illusory money for as long as the frauds and bad debts did not take toll in the USA. That triggered a collapse that had already happened but had been kept out of the 'real' economy by a paperchain of revolving credit.

Did Killkrazy post a reply to my comment you drew this from. I cannot see it.

namegoeshere wrote:
Do you own your own house?

No, took me 12 years wait but I got council housed.

namegoeshere wrote:
Because if you believe we are that fethed... Well I just hope we aren't

The housing market is in some trouble, more specifically the mortgage market is in trouble.

One heads up for you. I saw an alarming tactic recently, it goes like this. I will be thorough and spread it out thin so you can see crystal clear:

1. People tend to get their loans and mortages from the same bank.

2. People tend to pay their loans and mortgage from the same billing account, the one they get paid into. Often this is also from the same bank, but that is not relevant.

3. Thus the bank can claim, if you are short. 'You have paid off your monthly agreement on the overdraught, but not on the mortage' almost irrespectively of how you considered you have allocated the monies.

4. Banks are in trouble.

5. Houses are worth a lot, especially now because no matter the eceonomy real estate keept its core value. Note: This is how Hindenberg got out of the runaway (Zimbabwe style) inflation in Germany in the 20's. So realestate = safe is a long established thinking of the banks. Hence the term 'safe as houses'

6. So along comes joe public with a small mortage and a small overdraft.

7. Like many people Mr J Public doesnt often pay all his overdraft or is late or whatever.

8. Suddenly this is translated ito 'being behind on the mortage'.

9. Money owed on a loan is trouble for a bank, especially now, with defaulting going up and no assets to claim.

10. Money owned on a house is good money, yes please. House, house, house. We like and want your house.

11. also loan call ins wont help for the bank if the mortgage is in another name. the courts might not allow a forced sale, besides they only get the % owed, not the house and resale.

12. But if the default is on the house they claim ther house, after all until the mortage is paid in full the house is theirs by law.

13. Sneaky Letters go out.

14. J Public doesnt take this one seruiously for now, payments are being made at least enough to cover the mortage, but the oversdraft is not so good, the kids need new clothes and the recession is biting, besides the debt over is small etc.....

15. Bank waits the appointed time and makes a legal claim for the house.

There are many safeguards against this, but it can happen over relatively trivial amounts of money and if the borrower is not savvy it could cost them the home. generally speaking forwarded is forarmed, a good lawyer will get you out of this, its a sucker punch but a lucrative one.
I know of one case it is being tried on, whether it will work is another matter because the pattern has been recognised and can therfore be countered.

namegoeshere wrote:
For some reason I am now also stuck in a quote box

I use the Edit function and hand copy/paste quote boxes where needed. Less grief than letting Dakka try and do it.

namegoeshere wrote:

Orlanth wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:The rot began in the 90's and was only holding out due to illusory money for as long as the frauds and bad debts did not take toll in the USA. That triggered a collapse that had already happened but had been kept out of the 'real' economy by a paperchain of revolving credit.

Do you own your own house? Because if you believe we are that fethed... Well I just hope we aren't
For some reason I am now also stuck in a quote box

I am lucky enough to have sold my flat in July last year and cleared a massive profit. If my wife wasn't Japanese, we could have retired to Kerala or Acapulco and lived like kings. That was my voted but being married, I was outvoted.

Instead, we put the money into land in Tokyo and thanks to the rapid decline of the £ vs Yen, I am about to take on a huge mortgage just to finish building a house on it.

Still it's the kind of problem that 99% of the world's population would love to have, so I can't complain.