My only issue there is who will they desert them for?Correct - they are Labour in name only - which is why so many - quite a few on here - traditional Labour voters will desert them (I hope)
Why ? do they negotiate seperately.Gotta love those influential powers of the Southern and Eastern European members, eh!
It includes lowering food standards and food content labels , happy daysThe leaked document covers more than than len it’s a uk/ us trade discussion document it even covers legal services. You know trade deals we have to do when we leave. Normal stuff.
it’s all out there unredacted on the internet len. Oh by the way you may notice most of the documents date from when Theresa May was in charge....
According to Sky not leaked, a FOI release which has been available unredacted for several weeks but with a 'sensitive' designation to prevent press publication.This leaked document .......
whoosh.Why ? do they negotiate seperately.
It includes lowering food standards and food content labels , happy days
I've no idea what a thinking person would imagine we might be considering doing with the US. Emphasis a thinking person.
Why on earth would we agree to pay maybe 10x more for certain drugs than we pay already? It makes no sense. Unless of course it was in return for some other benefit, which meant the overall picture for us was better.
But it is ludicrous to imagine that anyone in the UK would advocate some kind of deal which was to our detrimnent. Why on earth would anyone do that?
There is NOTHING to see here. Literally nothing. The NHS is already severely hampered in its spending. What on earth would be the point of unilaterally making it worse. Anyone suggesting this is either mischief-making, or an idiot. And in many cases on this forum, both.
According to Sky not leaked, a FOI release which has been available unredacted for several weeks but with a 'sensitive' designation to prevent press publication.
The leaked document covers more than than len it’s a uk/ us trade discussion document it even covers legal services. You know trade deals we have to do when we leave. Normal stuff.
it’s all out there unredacted on the internet len. Oh by the way you may notice most of the documents date from when Theresa May was in charge....
The un redacted version mentions the chlorine chicken and that the UK shouldn’t worry because they will ‘change the narrative’ around that.
And yet here you areThis thread seems to have turned into a Tory boy echo chamber with half the Tory boys pretending they're lifelong traditional Labour voters.
This thread seems to have turned into a Tory boy echo chamber with half the Tory boys pretending they're lifelong traditional Labour voters.
So why lie about it all? 50000 extra nurses? Lie. 40 new hospitals? Lie. First government in history not to account for inflation when describing healthcare investment. Demand rising at over 6% and annual funding rising at 0.1% (following, on average 4% from the inception of the NHS). Why is it doing that? If I accept your argument about the deficit (I don't, obviously) then why did they not tell everyone that the consequences would be longer waiting lists, longer waits to see a GP, longer waits for cancer treatment (I think you were the one bemoaning the NHS cancer performance, whilst you are constantly advocating reducing budgets)?We've had 10 years of running a dirty great big deficit and have had to make cuts. We are doing better now, but have not won a country-wide super lottery, so growth and expansion plans have to be founded on reasonable and sensible finances. WTF do you expect???
If the government's covert agenda was to get rid of the NHS, why did they protect NHS budgets more than any other government area of expenditure over the last 10 years? Did you see the police forces rolling in money, or the schools? We've had to make cuts and yet have actually favoured NHS spending, and yet you ask us to believe that's because the Tories want to get rid of it?
What you suggest is poppycock mate, it really is.
Helps yes, but not as much as the UK is helped by being part of the EU negotiating.whoosh.
The UK helps give the EU it's clout and negotiating power.
Actually it makes it more difficult as every member can veto a potential deal if it doesn't benefit them.Helps yes, but not as much as the UK is helped by being part of the EU negotiating.
Just the opposite it means the U.S or whichever country/ block is negotiating it has to offer a deal that satisfys everyone. If we are negotiating on our own they only have to offer a deal that satisfys the government of the day, in other words if Johnsons happy we get stuck with whatevers offered.Actually it makes it more difficult as every member can veto a potential deal if it doesn't benefit them.
I've not seen that report mate, but there clearly is a big north/south divide and it's therefore extremely unfortunate that the one government minister who was really trying his best to try to fix that - George Osborne - is so criticised by those on the left (and sacked before he got chance to see his initiatives through).
But your stat on government spending (in particular) does seem rather dubious to say the least. In fact, no, it must be wrong, or referring to one particular spending area.
The government spends about £800bn a year and of that more than half is spent on Welfare, Health, Education and Defence - just to pick 4. And none of these are London only. So the 95% figure is impossible.
Unless you mean spending on *government* (rather than government spending) - which since parliament and whitehall are in London, would probably make sense.