Comments by "Xyz Same" (@xyzsame4081) on "LBC" channel.

Clueless, not willing to listen, passionately and beyond being informed. it is a cult. - I wonder if that energy and passion in combination with being INFORMED would have hit the elites regarding the lies of the Iraq war (or the Afghanistan war which was also based on a lie, but that gets overlooked) or the Great Financial Crisis.
3
@Walterp60 New Labour likely were clever enough to see the debts - like the Tories they did not care as long as their buddies got lucrative contracts. - I mean look at Tony Blair, he lied the country into a war against massive contracts, and now he makes a killing by advising dictatorships !
2
Merlin Fourever oh man ! a country with 60 million people has a hard time negotiating, and it will not be FAST. The U.K. will cash in the tariffs (if they can set up the systems this is not your 1980s or even 90s economy when it comes to diversification). so it is like a sales tax. That is all fine and well, if the voters are compensated for that otherwise. And a "sales" tax is the most regressive form of taxes. Likewise the (high) tariffs will apply when the U.K. exports making them more expensive to purchase for other nations. that system used to be in place, got the nations tax revenue, the importer slapped the costs of the tariff on the product. But that was in all countries so there were no distortions where only one nation had these tariffs that made goods more expensive in both directions. Being the only one is a (massive) competitive disadvantage. in manufacturing they are sending parts back and forth (back in the day less components were imported, more was produced in the country and the half finished products were not sent around because it was a tiny bit cheaper to handle on production step elsewhere.
2
you would rather have the investor class in charge of natural monopolies ?? And the big companies dictating the conditions under which people work and what they can earn ?? We only have to look before WW1 or now in the developing countries * what the employers grant if it is up to them. * and I mean the employers / multinationals of Europe, U.S. North America - not the local oligarchs of Asia, Africa, .... Foxconn had suicide nets - did not bother Apple. Garment industry (even if the shirts are sold by Addidas, Puma and for a fairly high price - the workers do not even get the minimum in the developing countries. It would be a tiny share of the whole price - but it does not matter, 50 cents or 1 dollar out of a shirt that sells at 60 USD - that is still too much).
1
The Germans had a conservative government after WW2 for a long time (but with very strong Social Democratats forcing them to keep the Social contract). - The Tories have always been hostile towards the NHS (they just had to become more sneaky about it) and have wanted forever to turn it into a scheme for the profiteers. Most conservative politicians in other countries are not THAT rabid.
1
Were the labour conflicts in the 1970s in the U.K. really worse than the GLOBAL financial crisis - and the lifes and wealth that was destroyed then ?? (for regular people - those at the top of the foodchain always find ways to make it work out for them, sure Lehman went under - but the other too big too fail banks are larger than ever. And no one was prosecuted). - but the media owned by rich individuals will brainwash people to be scared because of what may have been poorly handled in the 1970s by the left and unions (in the U.K. NOT in other countries, they were doing fine in most of Western Europe, Canada, Australia, Japan - they had the social contract and they also had lots of well maintained public utilities). What about lying the country into wars (Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria covertly and almost open war in 2013 - even Yugoslavia was a shady scheme, and likely could have been avoided, they did not even try). the Great Financial Crisis MI5 grooming jihadists that go back and forth between the Middle East and the U.K. - one went rogue - in the bombing at the concert in Manchester. (see Salman Abedi, Manchester boys, Libyan Islamic Fighting Group). Family Abedi had been in the country for some time (fleeing from Libya) likely they had arrived under Blair. Under Cameron (or Brown) they were encouraged to go to Libya and Syria and start the jihad against the secular governments. The U.S. U.K. France wanted them toppled (did not work out with Syria). Sep. 2016: John Kerry Secretary of State under Obama: "We wanted ISIS to become stronger in Syria that would harm Assad". Right: you can "fight" them elsewhere while propping them up in Syria. While they have an excellent social media game, attract lots of recruits because they win and can pay the highest wages - with the oil revenue from the occupied oil fields in Syria. The oil went to Turkey for the most part. The U.S. / NATO military and intelligence could not find the trucks, oil fields, (mobile) pipelines, the streets on which the trucks needed to drive. The Russian airforce was able to locate them though.
1
@coyhutt8022 a power house like the U.K. could throw a fit - The EU could steamroll Greece but the U.K. is another weight class (especially if everyone would have been glad in case of a Remain scenario. Renationalization would be popular with the citizens of other countries as well (lots of firesales of the family silver have been done in the past) - so the EU might have gone along in the most obvious cases (water, railway) if only to not draw too much attention. (Not sure if corporations could sue, even if the EU would not fine the U.K. - but DB Deutsche Bahn suing the U.K. ??? they have to explain that move at home as well. it does help with the threat of fines if the country is a net contributor and also a relevant NATO member state.
1
This would all be well if not the U.K. would be one of the worst war mongers (after the U.S.) and weapons exporters.
1
2017 healthcare spending per person of nations (Keiser Foundation also see World Bank). The U.S. 10,260 USD for every person in the country on average. Most wealthy nations are in the range of 47 - 56 %, the most common range is 50 - 54 % (Sweden, Finland, Austria, ....), Germany 56 %. France Belgium, Australia, Canada even below 50 % ....and then there is the U.K. with 42 % of U.S. spending levels. I looks like first world medicine with a certain age structure needs around 5,400 - 5,800 USD per person per year (level 2017). Or a little less if you are France, Belgium, Iceland, Japan .... If the NHS would get the proper funding (which would of course show up in the per capita healthcare expenditures of the nation) the U.K.would still be at the lower end of the average rich nation - and the NHS would run like a charm. Which would of course do away with all pretext why it has to be privatized or why they would need private contractors to make the NHS "better". The Tories have been openly hostile towards the NHS in the 1950s, but they had to tone it down, because the voters loved it (incl. their own base, they cannot win with the vote of the affluent and rich only). Thatcher promised to leave the NHS alone to get elected but had of course other plans. Her inner circle implored her to leave the NHS alone (they should have let her !), they feared the backlash. even when run cost-efficiently (so as little private for-profit as possible) healthcare is 7 - 11 % of GDP in most wealthy nations, again the usual rate is 8 - 10 %. That is a large part of the national economy. The Tories have always found it very offensive that it should be mostly off limits for the profiteers, "investors" and the landlord class. The crisis caused by the banksters was a welcome pretext to have austerity and to defund the NHS (that had a lean budget to begin with). Running it into the ground was the necessary condition to "justify" more private contractors. Which do nothing to make things more cost-efficient, they add complexity, dysfunction and extract profits. And no doubt donate to the Tories and provide cushy jobs for former politicians.
1
@stephenisom6089 the Tories have not (yet) sold the NHS - but it is not for lack of trying !
1
2017 healthcare spending per person of nations (Keiser Foundation also see World Bank). The U.S. 10,260 USD for every person in the country on average. Most wealthy nations are in the range of 47 - 56 %. The most common range is 50 - 54 % (Sweden, Finland, Austria, ....), Germany 56 %. France Belgium, Australia, Canada, Japan, ... even below 50 % ....and then there is the U.K. with 42 % of U.S. spending levels. I looks like first world medicine with a certain age structure needs around 5,400 - 5,800 USD per person per year (level 2017). Or a little less if you are France, Belgium, Iceland, Japan .... If the NHS would get the proper funding (which would of course show up in the per capita healthcare expenditures of the nation) the U.K.would still be on of the most cost-efficient nations regarding healthcare - and the NHS would run like a charm. Which would of course do away with all pretext why it has to be privatized or why they would need private contractors to make the NHS "better". The Tories have been openly hostile towards the NHS in the 1950s, but they had to tone it down, because the voters loved it (incl. their own base, they cannot win with the vote of the affluent and rich only). Thatcher promised to leave the NHS alone to get elected but had of course other plans. Her inner circle implored her to leave the NHS alone (they should have let her !), they feared the backlash. (That came out much later - use a web search). even when run cost-efficiently (so as little private for-profit as possible) healthcare is 7 - 11 % of GDP in most wealthy nations, again the usual rate is 8 - 10 %. That is a large part of the national economy. The Tories have always found it very offensive that it should be mostly off limits for the profiteers, "investors" and the landlord class. The crisis caused by the banksters was a welcome pretext to have austerity and to defund the NHS (that had a lean budget to begin with). Running it into the ground was the necessary condition to "justify" more private contractors. Which do nothing to make things more cost-efficient, they add complexity, dysfunction and extract profits. And no doubt donate to the Tories and provide cushy jobs for former politicians.
1
The propaganda works - or she is a shill of a Israeli lobby (or a shill of rich people who wanted to stop Corbyn - by all means necessary). - She had death threats - so HOW does she know who made them. If the person can be identified they would have their day in court, and if not (assuming her claims are true) then she cannot know WHO made them. Lots of rude people out there - most of them just bark online. - Online abuse is not unusual unfortunately Dianne Abbot also gets a lot, which is more believable because she does not parade it around.
1
They do not get benefits in the first years ! Check out the legal situation (5 or 3 years ....)
1
@MP-cg3dv The problem with capitalism is that it completely crushed in 2008 and had to be propped up with trillions of dollars - never mind that it is still a wobbly balance, just wait until the next cyclic downturn.
1
The caller was emotional, did not listen (it should be a two way street). clearly has NO idea what a hard Brexit means, he sounds like he might be retired, maybe he does not care about manufacturing.
1
Can't wait to see how the "Brexit means Brexit" and "we won" crowd handles it when BoJo gives them a Brexit-in-name-only. BoJo will not dare to crash out, and the EU is not going to blink.
1
pammens miss Tory Math: we hire 31,000 nurses that makes 50,000 new ones. Explanation (confused interviewer rejects that "logci"): of 275,000 nurses (currently in the NHS) 27,000 leave every year - numbers of recent years. - since the Tories think they can NOW persuade 19,000 to stay who would have left otherwise * that makes in total 50,000 new ones. * We will make the NHS an even better place to work ! - Orwellian framing anyone ? Never mind: even if the ambitious goal (hiring 31k and retaining 19k) succeeds. - they still have 8,000 that leave - in other words they plan to hire 31k and only 8k leave so net 23,000 nurses more. And WHAT does that say about the government that was presiding over the NHS in the last 10 years. So it is possible to hold on to the nurses, they just could not be bothered ??
1
this election the Greens would have needed 600,000 votes for a seat, the Tories needed over 20,000 votes and Labour over 30,000. - a system with popular vote usually avoids the polarization (also between the regions). It allows smaller parties to be an influence (or effective opposition), they can even become king makers. - That usually means more moderation, and less wild swings.
1
2017 healthcare spending per person of nations. The U.S. 10,260 USD for every person in the country on average. Most wealthy nations are in the range of 47 - 56 %, the most common range is 50 - 54 % (Sweden, Finland, Austria, ....), Germany 56 %. France Belgium, Australia, Canada even below 50 % ....and then there is the U.K. with 42 % of U.S. spending levels. I looks like first world medicine with a certain age structure needs around 5,400 - 5,800 USD per person per year (level 2017). Or a little less if you are France, Belgium, Iceland, Japan .... If the NHS would get the proper funding (which would of course show up in the per capita healthcare expenditures of the nation) the U.K.would still be at the lower end of the average rich nation - and the NHS would run like a charm. Which would of course do away with all pretext why it has to be privatized or why they would need private contractors to make the NHS "better". The Tories have been openly hostile towards the NHS in the 1950s, but they had to tone it down, because the voters loved it (incl. their own base, they cannot win with the vote of the affluent and rich only). Thatcher promised to leave the NHS alone to get elected but had of course other plans. Her inner circle implored her to leave the NHS alone (they should have let her !), they feared the backlash. even when run cost-efficiently (so as little private for-profit as possible) healthcare is 7 - 11 % of GDP in most wealthy nations, again the usual rate is 8 - 10 %. That is a large part of the national economy. The Tories have always found it very offensive that it should be mostly off limits for the profiteers, "investors" and the landlord class. The crisis caused by the banksters was a welcome pretext to have austerity and to defund the NHS (that had a lean budget to begin with). Running it into the ground was the necessary condition to "justify" more private contractors. Which do nothing to make things more cost-efficient, they add complexity, dysfunction and extract profits. And no doubt donate to the Tories and provide cushy jobs for former politicians.
1
@alibobsmarland9572 Well you got an PM that hides in the fridge to avoid being interviewed by Piers Morgan (Which is even more ridiculous than weaseling out from an Andrew neil interview. He does not dare to attend the debates (or the team does not dare to let him), skips interviews - and does math like this: we will hire 31,000 nurses more so that makes 50,000 new nurses for the NHS (no they don't breed the rest in the lab. Boris and the rest of the Tories that were interviewed on that miracle said they would try to convince 19,000 that were determined to leave not to, so one can add them as "new". The interviewers was also confused. Don't worry, it is not you. On a side note: the number of nurses is now 270,000 or 280,000, and 27,000 of that leave every year (or 27,000 minus 19,000 if the Tories succeed in their charm offensive to "make the NHS an even better place to work". So the NHS lost approx. 10 % of its nurses every year in the last years ?? That is not normal ! On the other hand if the U.S. finally gets a reasonable system they will need more doctors and nurses, some might want to leave a NHS run down by the Tories.
1