Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Coronavirus in the UK - news, lockdown and discussion

They could donate 20% of their wage to various charities and other causes, most of which ironically wouldn't need as much support if the government had done their job in the first place.

Surely they should be continuously judged on their record as a government, not on whether they acquiesce to having a drop in the ocean transferred to various charities?

I reckon 20% of the salaries of the 50 government ministers can't be much more than 1 million. They announced the other day 250 million for charities involved with the response. The kudos they would get from that 1 million would be totally disproportionate and probably let them off the hook for a lot of other stuff.
 
That was to buy a laptop (or ten) and get broadband. Coz most of them don't have either of those.
To be fair, it was for their offices as a whole, so their admin staff, etc. On a smaller scale, my work have been sending out company laptops and buying us all headsets; there are admin costs to switch to working from home.

Not saying they all need £10k, or that they'll all use it 'responsibly', but it's not like the individual MPs have just been given a £10k bonus to their salary.
Surely they should be continuously judged on their record as a government, not on whether they acquiesce to having a drop in the ocean transferred to various charities?
tumblr_inline_n3ghj9J3u91qcklud.gif
 
It's disgusting that public money is still being spent on snake-oil bullshit like acupuncture. If you want some hippie to stick needles in random places on your body, you should pay for it entirely out of your own pocket.

I'm of the opinion that if it works for some people than its a whole lot cheaper in the long run than the patient constantly presenting at their GP / hospital. In this context the mechanism of how it works becomes less relevant. Than again I also think GP's should be allowed to prescribe placebos so make of that what you will.

Anyway, we digress.
 
Than again I also think GP's should be allowed to prescribe placebos so make of that what you will.
OT, but this is bullshit. Loads of people (women and minorities for the most part) already struggle to get GPs to take their undiagnosed but sometimes serious medical complaints seriously. Giving GPs the choice of giving them a placebo is a recipe for disaster.
 
I strongly agree with platinumsage .... I didn't see the Hancock interview, but focussing too much on a 10% rise for MPs and their staff runs the danger of over-focussing on populist bollocks at the expense of concentrating on care home deaths, PPE shortages, testing deficiencies.

All three of those are vastly more important than the MPs stuff**, IMO. To what extent did Morgan cover those subjects?

**I should emphasise that I'm not in any way defending what Partliament did, but that's a tabloid-type issue compared to the key Covid-19/NHS stuff :hmm:
 
I strongly agree with platinumsage .... I didn't see the Hancock interview, but focussing too much on a 10% rise for MPs and their staff runs the danger of over-focussing on populist bollocks at the expense of concentrating on care home deaths, PPE shortages, testing deficiencies.

All three of those are vastly more important than the MPs stuff**, IMO. To what extent did Morgan cover those subjects?

**I should emphasise that I'm not in any way defending what Partliament did, but that's a tabloid-type issue compared to the key Covid-19/NHS stuff :hmm:

It's not a 10% rise, it's a 20% cut he was banging on about, which Hancock bollocked footballers for not taking. And they subsequently have. And refuses to take himself. Bit unfair to focus on footballers really IMO. What about cityboys?

And yes, he did focus on other stuff but Hancock is quite the master of bullshit.



Apparently we were one of the most prepared countries in the world!
 
I strongly agree with platinumsage .... I didn't see the Hancock interview, but focussing too much on a 10% rise for MPs and their staff runs the danger of over-focussing on populist bollocks at the expense of concentrating on care home deaths, PPE shortages, testing deficiencies.

All three of those are vastly more important than the MPs stuff**, IMO. To what extent did Morgan cover those subjects?

**I should emphasise that I'm not in any way defending what Partliament did, but that's a tabloid-type issue compared to the key Covid-19/NHS stuff :hmm:
I agree to an extent, but the 10k extra expenses thing is symptomatic of a wider malaise - one of the speediest actions of parliament in a crisis is to make sure they have looked after themselves, and to be rather generous to themselves. The contrast with the NZ government's response is stark and revealing, imo.
 
It's not a 10% rise, it's a 20% cut he was banging on about, which Hancock bollocked footballers for not taking. And they subsequently have. And refuses to take himself. Bit unfair to focus on footballers really IMO. What about cityboys?

To be fair, I do agree with this, Hancock's earlier footballers' stuff in particular was bollocks IMO.

And yes, he did focus on other stuff but Hancock is quite the master of bullshit.

To what extent though? :hmm:
The three things I mentioned above (re NHS and care homes) should have been the absolute prime focus, I'd say.

But as I missed the interview :oops: maybe I'm getting this wrong, please correct me if so.
 
I agree to an extent, but the 10k extra expenses thing is symptomatic of a wider malaise - one of the speediest actions of parliament in a crisis is to make sure they have looked after themselves, and to be rather generous to themselves. The contrast with the NZ government's response is stark and revealing, imo.

Can't disagree, but I'm just resistant to the possibility that Morgan overfocussed on it, compared to the really important questions.
 
OT, but this is bullshit. Loads of people (women and minorities for the most part) already struggle to get GPs to take their undiagnosed but sometimes serious medical complaints seriously. Giving GPs the choice of giving them a placebo is a recipe for disaster.

Prescribing placebos makes no sense at all. What for? Imaginary illnesses? Illnesses that have no treatment or cure? Alongside the appropriate medication? It's just nonsense suggesting they should be prescribed. If you want a placebo go to a homeopath or some other quack.
 
OT, but this is bullshit. Loads of people (women and minorities for the most part) already struggle to get GPs to take their undiagnosed but sometimes serious medical complaints seriously. Giving GPs the choice of giving them a placebo is a recipe for disaster.
When my teetotal wife was struggling to get a Chronic Fatigue Syndrome diagnosis, her (white, middle aged, male) GP told her that she just needed to 'tough it out and go to the pub with your mates'. I shudder to think what would happen if people like him were given the power to prescribe placebos.
 
I'm of the opinion that if it works for some people than its a whole lot cheaper in the long run than the patient constantly presenting at their GP / hospital. In this context the mechanism of how it works becomes less relevant. Than again I also think GP's should be allowed to prescribe placebos so make of that what you will.

Anyway, we digress.

I was going to post something similar (fewer side effects than drugs too) but thought I'd get too much shit for saying it. :)
 
Back
Top Bottom