Re: The people vs PFI.
Quote:
I am with the majority of the UK in desiring re-nationalisation of railway operations; privatisation of both network and services having failed. Still Gideon and Dave's mates won't profit as much out of that, so far better to let corporations part-owned by the French government and others run our railways, subsidised by the British taxpayer, at a profit. |
Re: The people vs PFI.
Smear by association - not very nice.
The fact that people went to school / University together, doesn't mean collusion / corruption is happening. Is this were fact, don't you think it would be headline news? |
Re: The people vs PFI.
Quote:
About the only story that's received any real attention is how much of the cabinet / government are profiting personally from NHS contracts. I guess we are getting used to it and following in the USA's footsteps. I generally try to be nice but when it comes to politicians who have caused so much pain to so many it's difficult. :( |
Re: The people vs PFI.
Quote:
The fact that it isn't headline news does not mean it isn't happening. |
Re: The people vs PFI.
Quote:
|
Re: The people vs PFI.
Quote:
Someone who George Osborne has known since University, and who was his best man in 1998, is on Lansdownes Partners (one of the biggest hedge funds in the world) management, and when the Royal Mail was privatised, that company was one of the many hedge funds who bought shares on behalf of pension funds, charities, etc. - not for employees of Lansdowne. Any profits made by the share price rise belongs to the Pension Funds, etc. If you can provide a link showing Paul Davies personally made millions from the Royal Mail privatisation, or that Lansdowne were given preferential treatment by the Chancellor, I would, of course, change my mind. Not even the Daily Mail have claimed that, but what a lot of people have done is take part of their headline out of context.... Quote:
|
Re: The people vs PFI.
Quote:
|
Re: The people vs PFI.
So, that's a 'no', then? ;)
Seriously, though, if there was actual corruption on the scale you (and others) intimate, they would lose my vote - but it's all by association, and no actual facts.... |
Re: The people vs PFI.
Quote:
|
Re: The people vs PFI.
So you can libel someone, but you haven't looked to see if it's true......
Huge difference between an old boy's network (which I think is wrong) and outright corruption and breaking of laws to favour someone you know.... |
Re: The people vs PFI.
They don't need to break the laws since the laws are engineered in their favour. Look at the recent rate fixing attempts by the banks - no one is going to prison there.
What jobs do ministers regularly have when they are in and have left office? Answer: big business. Only a fool would deny that politicians who support the free market would engineer policies that favour business, the same companies that they then go on and work for after leaving office. Ministers should be not allowed to work in business for min. 2 years after leaving office to stop this conflict of interest. They also should not be allowed to hold other jobs while they govern the country. What we see and have seen on a depressing scale over the past decades is state assets, paid for by tax contributions of the majority being sold to an elite set of owners (sometimes foreign) at a knock down price .. all in the name of ideology .. or maybe a better name, greed. We have a lot of people on this forums trying to stop the poor from the EU coming here and taking our national resources. I am sorry, this has already been done to a large extent except it was not the EU poor doing the robbing. Until you have a government that is representative of the people they govern, you will always get policies that are align with the vested interests of the politicians. I am reluctant to link to a Daily Mail article but this does illustrate the issue quite well: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/elec...hy-Tories.html How can you expect millionaires to sponsor bills to close tax loopholes when these very people are, in all probability, using them? How can you not expect the rich to sponsor bills that privatise state-run operations when they would directly or indirectly benefit. Maybe Dave, we are not all in it together after all? |
Re: The people vs PFI.
Quote:
No that huge a difference imo, this country is rotten and we shouldn't be putting up with it. |
Re: The people vs PFI.
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: The people vs PFI.
Quote:
Quote:
---------- Post added at 19:30 ---------- Previous post was at 19:26 ---------- Quote:
btw, Ministers cannot have other jobs outside Parliament whilst in office. btw2, I agree with you regarding ministers and jobs outside - but you may find it difficult to garner support when you comment that only a fool could disagree with you....;) |
Re: The people vs PFI.
Quote:
You are right, Labour MPs should not be sponsored by Unions, again a conflict of interests. So do you deny that politicians who support the free market engineer policies that favour business at the expense of the country and its longer term interests? |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 15:03. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.