Those who voted Liberal Democrat in the last general election presumably did so on the basis of their manifesto – that, Like New Labour’s, promised a referendum on the European Constitution.
Now their new Leader, Nick Clegg, who holds his seat as a result of that election, is also disingenuously claiming, like Gordon Brown, that the microscopic differences in the Lisbon Treaty somehow remove any need for a popular vote. He wants Liberal Democrat MPs to help New Labour block an amendment demanding a referendum and force the treaty through.
So now you know. With Nick Clegg in charge you can’t believe the lies the Fib Dems print in their manifesto any more than you can New Labour’s.
They will apparently say whatever is expedient to persuade people to vote for them - and then do as it suits them with no regard to their vain promises.
And they wonder why the citizen is loosing faith in politicians…
Wednesday, 13 February 2008
Quote of the day
“ If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of caring for them, they will be happy.”Thomas Jefferson
Private treatment initiative underutilised by NHS, rollout halted.
It seems that Independent sector treatment centres (ISTCs), created in a bid to cut waiting lists, to take care of minor surgery and diagnostic tests such knee and hip replacements, hernias and cataract operations, are being under utilised. Some are being passed only half the work they agreed to handle.
This is hardly surprising when you realise that it is not in the interests of cash strapped NHS hospitals to pass them patients - as they are paid per person treated and have to compete for the patients.
Under this arrangement It makes economic sense for NHS hospitals to hang on to as many patients as possible, even though this may disadvantage the patient, as it may involve, at a minimum, much longer waits for treatment.
Thus the contractual arrangements have the, presumably, unintentional side effect of sabotaging the initiative.
David Worskett, representing private health providers, pointed out that part of the problem was also due to GPs being reluctant to utilise them in some areas.
There have been two waves of ISTCs opened since they were announced in 2003. Health Secretary, Alan Johnson, has scrapped some of the second wave because of ‘lack of demand’, despite waiting lists. He has also pulled the plug on the third wave.
This may not necessarily be seen as entirely bad, or to be avoided, by NHS supporters who are vehemenently opposed to any private sector involvement on ideological grounds. It is also likely some employed within in the NHS may closely identify their interests with it’s remaining as it is.
Karen Jennings, of Unison stated: "This is money that should have gone into the NHS."
This is hardly surprising when you realise that it is not in the interests of cash strapped NHS hospitals to pass them patients - as they are paid per person treated and have to compete for the patients.
Under this arrangement It makes economic sense for NHS hospitals to hang on to as many patients as possible, even though this may disadvantage the patient, as it may involve, at a minimum, much longer waits for treatment.
Thus the contractual arrangements have the, presumably, unintentional side effect of sabotaging the initiative.
David Worskett, representing private health providers, pointed out that part of the problem was also due to GPs being reluctant to utilise them in some areas.
There have been two waves of ISTCs opened since they were announced in 2003. Health Secretary, Alan Johnson, has scrapped some of the second wave because of ‘lack of demand’, despite waiting lists. He has also pulled the plug on the third wave.
This may not necessarily be seen as entirely bad, or to be avoided, by NHS supporters who are vehemenently opposed to any private sector involvement on ideological grounds. It is also likely some employed within in the NHS may closely identify their interests with it’s remaining as it is.
Karen Jennings, of Unison stated: "This is money that should have gone into the NHS."
Tuesday, 12 February 2008
New Labour Manifesto Promises are: “Not subject to Legitimate Expectation”
This has been aired elsewhere - but quite frankly can’t be drawn to the attention of the voters often enough, so I make no apology for raising it here.
UKIP took Gordon Brown to court over his reneging on New Labour’s manifesto promise to hold a referendum on the EU Constitution now renamed the Lisbon Treaty.
The case was brought by former New Labour activist, Stuart Bower. He stated:
"From the papers I have been sent, it seems that the Prime Minister is denying the pledge made in his government's manifesto. Surely this is a desperate act as everybody knows the commitment was made and that is why many people gave their votes to his party.
"To me, it is a clear case of breach of contract. They made a written promise and broke it. That was a contract between the government and the people. “
Everybody does know the commitment was made - and it certainly was a factor that many of those who in the end voted New Labour took account of when they voted.
What is (hat tip to the ‘Is there more to life than shoes?’ blog) soooo worth noting though - and seems to be of such little interest to MSM, was Gordon Brown’s Barrister; who blithely informed the court that: "manifesto pledges are not subject to legitimate expectation "!!
In other words, the Prime Minister’s personal representative, is saying in open court, that the electorate can’t really expect any manifesto promises to be kept.
Now we all know that it may not be possible to deliver of a manifesto promise, due to unforeseen circumstances, including the non co-operation of opposition MPs, but there is a world of difference between that and actively wriggling out of keeping them, deliberately avoiding keeping them.
Even these days, we at least expect them to make the effort.
So there you have it. You don’t just have to rely on personal observation any more - It is official.
You would have to be a mug to be swayed by the blandishments contained in any future New Labour’s manifesto - you really can not expect them to even attempt to honour them.
Gordon, the Pork Pieman, may have been reading his Machiavelli again; Perhaps: “The promise given was a necessity of the past: the word broken is a necessity of the present.”.
UKIP took Gordon Brown to court over his reneging on New Labour’s manifesto promise to hold a referendum on the EU Constitution now renamed the Lisbon Treaty.
The case was brought by former New Labour activist, Stuart Bower. He stated:
"From the papers I have been sent, it seems that the Prime Minister is denying the pledge made in his government's manifesto. Surely this is a desperate act as everybody knows the commitment was made and that is why many people gave their votes to his party.
"To me, it is a clear case of breach of contract. They made a written promise and broke it. That was a contract between the government and the people. “
Everybody does know the commitment was made - and it certainly was a factor that many of those who in the end voted New Labour took account of when they voted.
What is (hat tip to the ‘Is there more to life than shoes?’ blog) soooo worth noting though - and seems to be of such little interest to MSM, was Gordon Brown’s Barrister; who blithely informed the court that: "manifesto pledges are not subject to legitimate expectation "!!
In other words, the Prime Minister’s personal representative, is saying in open court, that the electorate can’t really expect any manifesto promises to be kept.
Now we all know that it may not be possible to deliver of a manifesto promise, due to unforeseen circumstances, including the non co-operation of opposition MPs, but there is a world of difference between that and actively wriggling out of keeping them, deliberately avoiding keeping them.
Even these days, we at least expect them to make the effort.
So there you have it. You don’t just have to rely on personal observation any more - It is official.
You would have to be a mug to be swayed by the blandishments contained in any future New Labour’s manifesto - you really can not expect them to even attempt to honour them.
Gordon, the Pork Pieman, may have been reading his Machiavelli again; Perhaps: “The promise given was a necessity of the past: the word broken is a necessity of the present.”.
Quote of the day
“ Nothing is easier than self-deceit. For what each man wishes, that he also believes to be true.”Demosthenes
Diana Death enquiry pushed to £6 Million and rising
It emerges that £6 million has been spent investigating the death of the Princess of Wales – and that is only so far. You can be absolutely sure the final figure will be considerably more than that .
Why? Largely because one sad grieving old man, being fed what people think he wants to hear by people who can collect money from him, plus some fully paid up members of the tinfoil hat squad, will never accept an outcome that does not fit in with their pre conceived conspiracy theories.
No matter how many enquiries, investigations, whatever, they will not be satisfied with the truth they will only be satisfied with what they want to hear, what they sadly imagine to be the truth.
Any reasonable person can not escape the fact that this junket has gone on long enough – far too long and spent far too much taxpayer’s money.
No body with a realistic understanding of the world can imagine anyone would plan an assassination like that. That is the stuff of convoluted best selling novels. There were simply too many random factors at play and too many witnesses.
Much of what happened that night was clearly chance resulting from decisions made on the fly by Dodi Fayed, his driver and the random actions of the paparazzi. No one in their right mind would rely on so many random factors coming together to plan for them.
One can empathise with Mr Fayed for thinking the way he does and he may have some excuse.
He employed the driver, his beloved son made many of the key decisions that lead to the accident. He will be desperate to believe it was anyone or anything, other than himself, or his son that may have been responsible for this sad accident.
His idea of the way Royal families behave may be influenced by how certain middle eastern royal families who actually govern their countries do react and judge their honour. It would be understandable if a grieving old man, a man who’s understanding of the way some things work in the UK may be less than clear, were to project what he is familiar with, his expectations, on another princess.
With the best will in the world it is difficult to equate the plain speaking Prince Philip with King Khalid.
If Mr Fayed wishes to continue to flog a dead horse indefinitely perhaps it would be better done at his own expense rather than the put upon British Taxpayer’s.
Why? Largely because one sad grieving old man, being fed what people think he wants to hear by people who can collect money from him, plus some fully paid up members of the tinfoil hat squad, will never accept an outcome that does not fit in with their pre conceived conspiracy theories.
No matter how many enquiries, investigations, whatever, they will not be satisfied with the truth they will only be satisfied with what they want to hear, what they sadly imagine to be the truth.
Any reasonable person can not escape the fact that this junket has gone on long enough – far too long and spent far too much taxpayer’s money.
No body with a realistic understanding of the world can imagine anyone would plan an assassination like that. That is the stuff of convoluted best selling novels. There were simply too many random factors at play and too many witnesses.
Much of what happened that night was clearly chance resulting from decisions made on the fly by Dodi Fayed, his driver and the random actions of the paparazzi. No one in their right mind would rely on so many random factors coming together to plan for them.
One can empathise with Mr Fayed for thinking the way he does and he may have some excuse.
He employed the driver, his beloved son made many of the key decisions that lead to the accident. He will be desperate to believe it was anyone or anything, other than himself, or his son that may have been responsible for this sad accident.
His idea of the way Royal families behave may be influenced by how certain middle eastern royal families who actually govern their countries do react and judge their honour. It would be understandable if a grieving old man, a man who’s understanding of the way some things work in the UK may be less than clear, were to project what he is familiar with, his expectations, on another princess.
With the best will in the world it is difficult to equate the plain speaking Prince Philip with King Khalid.
If Mr Fayed wishes to continue to flog a dead horse indefinitely perhaps it would be better done at his own expense rather than the put upon British Taxpayer’s.
Monday, 11 February 2008
Quote of the day
“ Confidence... thrives on honesty, on honor, on the sacredness of obligations, on faithful protection and on unselfish performance. Without them it cannot live.”“Franklin D. Roosevelt
Egg faces possible enquiry over cancelled cards
Egg’s dubious cancellation of the cards of customers who are reliable users has now led them to be reported to the Financial Services Authority. This has now been referred to the Office of Fair Trading (OFT).
New Labour MP, Nigel Griffiths stated: "I am very pleased about that. It shows how seriously they are taking it. I cannot tell you the number of complaints I have had - they just keep flooding in."
Many customers who have had their cards summarily cancelled were adamant that they always paid their bills on time and had excellent credit ratings.
Mr Griffiths said he would be introducing a Commons motion demanding an inquiry into the matter and that he was "in no doubt that is the reason" for the cancellations.
New Labour MP, Nigel Griffiths stated: "I am very pleased about that. It shows how seriously they are taking it. I cannot tell you the number of complaints I have had - they just keep flooding in."
Many customers who have had their cards summarily cancelled were adamant that they always paid their bills on time and had excellent credit ratings.
Mr Griffiths said he would be introducing a Commons motion demanding an inquiry into the matter and that he was "in no doubt that is the reason" for the cancellations.
Friday, 8 February 2008
Are credit card companies over extended?
Are the credit card companies feeling the pinch more than they would care to admit?
In the last decade or so, many of us will have been aware of credit card companies thrusting increased spending limits on people, when they are nearing their current limit and use of the card has slowed.
We are all unfortunately used to what you might call postal SPAM, urging us to take out new cards together with partially completed (where do they get the details?) application forms that we then have to destroy in order to avoid the threat of identity theft.
Recently I have become aware of instances of credit limits being reduced, presumably because of some new panicked arcane algorithms applied to the owners spending habits.
I became aware of a new one the other day though. A credit card actually pulling out of the agreement - for no discernable reason at all. The person pays all their bills on time. In withdrawing the company wrote assuring that there was no problem with the person’s credit record and they could continue to make payments (how kind of them).
Given the current financial climate the owner had prudently cut back on using it and was just making the regular payments in order to reduce it. With the intent of maintain this until some assets were freed up and they could clear the card - though it is surely unlikely the card operator could have known this. Though it does rather smack of breaking up with someone before they can call it off with you.
One can only conclude that the company may be becoming slightly desperate and also possibly needs to look more carefully at it’s computer algorithms as they have lost the sort of reliable customer one would think they would be desperate to hang on to.
Let's hope we arn't going to see any more 'Northern Rocks' too soon - Do we all need to worry more than the Government would have us believe?
It would be interesting to know if anyone can add to this.
In the last decade or so, many of us will have been aware of credit card companies thrusting increased spending limits on people, when they are nearing their current limit and use of the card has slowed.
We are all unfortunately used to what you might call postal SPAM, urging us to take out new cards together with partially completed (where do they get the details?) application forms that we then have to destroy in order to avoid the threat of identity theft.
Recently I have become aware of instances of credit limits being reduced, presumably because of some new panicked arcane algorithms applied to the owners spending habits.
I became aware of a new one the other day though. A credit card actually pulling out of the agreement - for no discernable reason at all. The person pays all their bills on time. In withdrawing the company wrote assuring that there was no problem with the person’s credit record and they could continue to make payments (how kind of them).
Given the current financial climate the owner had prudently cut back on using it and was just making the regular payments in order to reduce it. With the intent of maintain this until some assets were freed up and they could clear the card - though it is surely unlikely the card operator could have known this. Though it does rather smack of breaking up with someone before they can call it off with you.
One can only conclude that the company may be becoming slightly desperate and also possibly needs to look more carefully at it’s computer algorithms as they have lost the sort of reliable customer one would think they would be desperate to hang on to.
Let's hope we arn't going to see any more 'Northern Rocks' too soon - Do we all need to worry more than the Government would have us believe?
It would be interesting to know if anyone can add to this.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
