Monuments to Stupidity

[tophatter]

Im offended you should view my contempt for DC spin as stupidity OFF. :)

I am fed up with DC totally, he is actually starting to sicken me rather than just annoy me.

I have no problem with spin, if you have something to spin. Spin is just another word for politics.

As a "Gordon Brown supporter" I should be pleased Cameron is performing so attrociously as it makes Browns job easier but its not very good for the countries politics if we dont have an effective opposition.

This past week has hit new lows in my opinion of DC. I used to think he was a skilful spin doctor but he is actually now trying to spin things when he has nothing to spin.

Hypocrisy is too strong a word to describe my viewpoint - I think puzzlement would be more apt. I would like to think that having listened to the Conservative party for years whinge about spin (when what they really meant is they were been out manouvered) they are now trying to do the same thing - but very badly bodgeing it - that im actually puzzled at THEIR hypocricy!

Spin is fine, but this aint even spin, its fluff and candyfloss for dreamers. Not good at all.

[tophatter]

By the way, im far from a Tony Blair supporter although I admired his political skills (not as much as Cameron and Osbourne do, but i did admire those skills)

Blair was the product of a dillution of Labour which us lefties accepted to keep the middle classes happy. The conservatives now have their own version. Unfortunatley he is not as skilful as Blair so you get the worst of both worlds - perpetual opposition AND a dilution of your beliefs!

Feel free to defend his spin on the thread I started OFF rather than just call me a hypo. I know you love me really and I suspect, knowing that you are not a vacuaos fluffhead, that you cant really argue with what i said on there as you know its true.

[buddhabee]

If 27 hospitals are closing then surely it must be Labour's ineffectiveness in proving funding from taxation.

If they were to raise income tax for the highest earners to 50% then perhaps these hospitals need not close. High earners use NHS hospitals too.

Instead Labour just seem paralyzed to do that other than by 'stealth' that hits everyone. If they were to raise income tax (as they know they should) they'd get a slating in the press and their popularity would go down. But as it may save a few hospitals so what?

[Win2Win]

Blackpool hospital closed while the Tories where in power....wonder how many more went.....

[tophatter]

I dont know how many hospitals are closing and nor does Dave Cameron. Difference is I dont go on the radio shout my mouth off without checking. Also it might just be they are closing for re-organisation purposes or they are talking about shutting certain wings. Whatever the case you can be sure his lot are the last people you want to protect public services.

[Win2Win]

Blackpool hospital closed while the Tories where in power....wonder how many more went.....

...My Nan points out that the Liverpool hopsital closed while the Tories were in power, and the local hospital on Stanley Road......that's 3 in a pretty small'ish area of the country......

[Onlyforfun]

If 27 hospitals are closing then surely it must be Labour's ineffectiveness in proving funding from taxation.

If they were to raise income tax for the highest earners to 50% then perhaps these hospitals need not close. High earners use NHS hospitals too.

Instead Labour just seem paralyzed to do that other than by 'stealth' that hits everyone. If they were to raise income tax (as they know they should) they'd get a slating in the press and their popularity would go down. But as it may save a few hospitals so what?

They have nearly doubled spending on the NHS yet it still lurches from crisis to crisis. The main folly obviously being increasing salaries, particularly consultants and GP's without imposing any changes in working practices. Most of the extra cash has been sucked up in pay rises with no corresponding improvement in productivity. It is not how much money that is spent that determines teh quality of care, it is how it is spent.

To say raise taxes on the "rich" to 50% would lose them the election. Fact is, lots more people are now in the top rate tax band as it has been raised by your friend Brown in far smaller increments than inflation (and don't get me started on that subject, 2% my ), and few of them are "rich" unless they have plundered the equity in their houses.

In London you now need a salary of something like £30k just to pay the mortgage on an average house, council tax, TV license, gas, elec, & water and insurance. Then add food and travel and you are looking closer to £40k without any treats / holidays / running a car. And that my foolish friend is over the threshold!

[tophatter]

I think a tax band on salaries over 100K might be worth looking at but essentially OFF is correct - the government have kept their promise and invested in the public services so I dont think it is necessary to raise any more tax, a bit more redistribution would be nice though but not without redefing who the rich are.

I dont think the NHS lurch from crisis to crisis either. It is a huge organisation and it will always be a balancing act. I think its performing well but has to be kept under control which means hard decisions are painted as crisis by people who would never had made the commitment to it this government has if they had been in their shoes.

[Onlyforfun]

31- And this one really made my blood boil .

The target for basic literacy and numeracy in primary schools is 85% of pupils to reach the required level. 85 percent?!?!

Reminds me of the old saying that "I'm not disappointed that everyone has a price, what disappoints me is that most people's price is so low."

The TARGET should be 100%. To make it 85% sends the message that it is OK if nearly 1 in 6 kids leaves primary school without being able to write and count. So will the teachers and DoE celebrate if they make 86%??? What a bunch of ing s. If primary schools can't teach that in 5 years or however long it is in this god-forsaken country, we might as well shut them down.

[MattR]

That is staggering. How can it be acceptable to have anything less than 100%? There is no reason in this day and age for anyone to go through school and still be illiterate and not be able to do basic arithmetic (barring some kind of mental disablity)

[mathare]

Our education system should aspire to be more like that of our best buddy America's. Where 1 in 5 Americans couldn't find their country on a map.

[vegyjones]

There was a report the other dau about children using text speak in their written examinations.

Even I no U can't do that! R they B ing serious? That's outr8gus!!!!

[mathare]

There was a report the other dau about children using text speak in their written examinations.

What's a dau? :wink

[vegyjones]

That's a computer error, not a typo. It has cut off the bottom of the letter!

[MattR]

Our education system should aspire to be more like that of our best buddy America's. Where 1 in 5 Americans couldn't find their country on a map.

And 4 in 5 didn't know there was a world outside America :D

[mathare]

That's a computer error, not a typo. It has cut off the bottom of the letter!

I think it's what's known as PEBCAK. :wink



(Problem Exists Between Chair And Keyboard)

[vegyjones]

My sandwich is the problem?

[Onlyforfun]

And it is perfectly possible to get an A* in GCSE English with bad spelling, punctuation and grammar which entirely defeats the purpose of the exam.

[tophatter]

32

spend years banging on about Gordon Brown robbing the country and taxes been too high and then pledge to match his spending for the next two years based on the economy growing faster than government even though you have also spent that time forecasting the economy is about to go pop.

[Onlyforfun]

32- I toyed with the ultimate in jobsworth behaviour where A&E satff wouldn't attend a bloke in a car parked outside and made his mate phone an ambulance. Of course, if he hadn't been likely to be consumed in a blizzard of tickets he may have pulled into the ambulance bay.

But no! I will resist such obvious shenanigans and instead talk about wi-fi.

Some Community Support Officers collared a bloke sitting on a wall using his laptop and he is now up before the beak, accused of theft for piggybacking somebody's unsecured wi-fi network.

My problems with this are 2-fold.

1- What has he actually stolen? Assuming said network is connected to broadband the "owner" won't pay for it. The broadband operator has already contracted to provide a certain "bandwith" (see, it is even difficult to define exactly what has been stolen). Open and quickly closed case in my book.

2- If my next door neighbour has a wi-fi set-up and wishes to keep it to himself he is more than welcome as far as I am concerned. However, this is on the basis that it doesn't intrude onto my property. If we are going to allow wi-fi, being able to occassionaly piggyback is a small price to pay for the intrusion into others homes and property and the public space of this once green and pleasant land.

The same laws should be applied to wi-fi that apply to game, once it is on your land it is yours. In fact, I would go so far as to legislate that unless you can restrain it within the boundaries of your property it should be illegal to block it.

After all, if you clear the public footpath outside your house of snow and ice you can hardly stop other people from walking on it or using the light spilling from your house to look at their watches or if their cherry tree grows over the fence they can hardly ask for the cherries back (thanks neighbour btw! :D)

Maybe it has more to do with the "State" not being able to track and log your browsing history?

[Onlyforfun]

32

spend years banging on about Gordon Brown robbing the country and taxes been too high and then pledge to match his spending for the next two years based on the economy growing faster than government even though you have also spent that time forecasting the economy is about to go pop.

Nope, can't have that as no. 32, lacks originality, satire and / or humour. :D

[tophatter]

It has humour alright and satire, made me laugh when i heard him presenting it like a school boy handing in his homework this morning.

I agree its not original though as it looks like it has been nicked from Tony Blairs all things to all men handbook.

I dont care, I agree with it. :)

[vegyjones]

32- I toyed with the ultimate in jobsworth behaviour where A&E satff wouldn't attend a bloke in a car parked outside and made his mate phone an ambulance. Of course, if he hadn't been likely to be consumed in a blizzard of tickets he may have pulled into the ambulance bay.

Trouble is... once you set a precedent!

[vegyjones]

After all, if you clear the public footpath outside your house of snow and ice you can hardly stop other people from walking on it or using the light spilling from your house to look at their watches or if their cherry tree grows over the fence they can hardly ask for the cherries back (thanks neighbour btw! :D

But your car doesn't have to be on your own property to be considered theft if someone steals it! :)

[Onlyforfun]

But if I steal a car, "the victim" suffers a real and accountable cost.

Even then, if you park it on my property without permission I can clamp it, remove it or even build a 10 foot high concrete wall around it and there is nothing you can do to stop me.

And in the manner of the Rocky Horror Show (apt I assure you) "Let's do the timewarp again"

Back in 1997

spend years banging on about Ken Clarke robbing the poor and taxes being too low and then pledge to match his spending restraint for the next four years based on the economy growing faster than government forecast even though you have also spent that time forecasting the economy is about to go pop.

[vegyjones]

But if I steal a car, "the victim" suffers a real and accountable cost.

If someone takes your car, drives around for an hour, fills the car back up with petrol and parks it back where they took it from... that is still against the law :)

[sparkyminer]

If someone takes your car, drives around for an hour, fills the car back up with petrol and parks it back where they took it from... that is still against the law :)

It's TWOC though, not theft.

[Onlyforfun]

It's TWOC though, not theft.

Exactly, and you still suffer a loss in terms of wear and tear, and also a potential significant loss if the driver crashes it as there would be an excess on your insurance and it would have a direct impact on the cost of insurance.

[vegyjones]

Exactly, and you still suffer a loss in terms of wear and tear, and also a potential significant loss if the driver crashes it as there would be an excess on your insurance and it would have a direct impact on the cost of insurance.

But TWOC is exactly what we're talking about here, so same rules apply. Unfortunately I know too little to comment on what costs might be occured by someone "piggybacking" another's wi-fi, but surely the owner of the wi-fi may now realise his is close to his bandwidth limit when he may not have been beforehand!

[tophatter]

And in the manner of the Rocky Horror Show (apt I assure you) "Let's do the timewarp again"

Back in 1997

There you go then, so what you are basically saying is that Dave Camerons Conservatives are basically New Labour.

That is all I have ever argued with the more conventional Conservatives such as yourslef.

The idealogiccal battle has been won. Ken Clarke (who most of the conservative right wing cant stand) started more sensible economic policies after the slash and burn, boom and bust policies of the 80's. Gordon Brown built on that newfound stability and then increased spending on the public services and now Osbourne has pledged to continue spending.

The state is no longer attacked by the conservative party. They now accept they were wrong to attack the state and they now propose to continue to fund it. We are all social democrats now. Today was just confirmation that the 80's are never coming back - ever. If we all agree on economic policy now I would prefer the prime mininster of the country to be the longest serving chancellor who presided over 40 succesive periods of economic growth than an old etonian who has never held office, wrote the 2005 losing manifesto and in his heart dont really believe in the state anyway.