Election disaster

RE: Election disaster

Arlo Guthrie — Mon, 10 Jul 2017 11:48:42 GMT

[quote user="Jayne Heyes"]but I'm surprised to see you defending the rich, and complaining about the taxes they pay[/quote]

Jayne Heyes

Don't get me wrong, I wasn't defending the rich or complaining about the taxes paid by the rich. I was just observing that Corbyn proposed to pay for everything by increasing taxes further, and the evidence of history shows that if you do this, you can end up reducing the amount of tax the government collects.

People seem to think that corporation tax is a nice easy way to generate more money out of nowhere. Problem is that having a nice low corporation tax makes Britain attractive for companies to locate here and create jobs. Perhaps more to the point, when you put up corporation tax, companies put up prices, and guess who ends up paying for it. You!

[quote user="Jayne Heyes"]on a forum aimed at a very low-paid and predominantly female profession.[/quote]

It's well known that veterinary salaries (not just nurses; vets too) are low, especially when considered in the context of the amount of training required and the extraordinarily high level of care and service provided, which seem to bear little relation to what people pay for veterinary care.

Whilst I think that is a really big problem, I don't think it's directly related to tax rates. I'm not even sure I agree with you when you say:

[quote user="Jayne Heyes"]In reality, the main financial beneficiaries from the veterinary industry are the multinational pharmaceutical companies, (like Novartis), and the insurance companies. [/quote]

Novartis sold off its animal health arm a few years ago. That's slightly by the by. I'm genuinely interested: Do you think practices are unable to charge properly for their services because the costs of pharmaceutical products are too high?

My feeling was that there are many other reasons why veterinary practices do not charge more for their services:

a) Increasing competition from corporate practices. 'Buy one get one free' type of marketing emerging.

b) An unwillingness by pet owners, who are used to the idea of free healthcare for themselves, to pay enough to support better salaries.

c) An inability of pet owners to pay more: too many taking on animals without the resources to pay for healthcare (particularly when unplanned).

d) Historically, a slight sense of embarrassment by some veterinary professionals about money; the conflict between being a healthcare professional and commercialism.

e) The desire by veterinary professionals to do the very best for the animal, to offer the best that medicine has to offer, such as more diagnostic tests, referrals etc., which leads to more of the pet owner's budget being spent on tests & medication, leaving less for the advice and care.

These are just a few of the thoughts in my head, and you might well say I am talking rubbish. But, if there is any truth in the above, forming a union and campaigning for better pay won't achieve anything except further pricing your services out of the market.

[quote user="emmadilemma"]Well she managed to find well over a billion to keep herself in a job [/quote]

Yeah - that's a difficult one to argue. I think it was a bad call. As was today's request for other parties to contribute ideas, which I think was well-meaning but a bit of a case of shooting herself in the foot.

RE: Election disaster

emmadilemma — Sun, 09 Jul 2017 08:02:52 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]

[quote user="Sal the 1st"]but funded how? There's nothing in the pot to pay for them - unless you are looking at creating a volunteer police force.[/quote]

Well, according to The Times this morning, Mrs May has said 'austerity is over', so it's going to be really interesting to see what she thinks is the answer to that question (if she's there long enough to answer it)![/quote]

Well she managed to find well over a billion to keep herself in a job

RE: Election disaster

Sal the 1st — Sun, 09 Jul 2017 00:35:32 GMT

If you think unions are the answer then go a head - the subs you pay will be an even more of a drain on your pitifully low pay - and don't forget on our low pay we are still ahead of many other members of society who are a lot less fortunate with their wage.This is from an ex union member who remembers closed shop policies and who can remember 100's of families and whole factories being affected by the actions of a few and a coal industry brought to its knees.

Don't know if you are old enough to remember the winter of discontent but I am and I remember power cuts in the 70's, I spent a long time in hospital and can remember dark wards and nurses with torches whilst essential services ran on generators when there was no power. Union action doesn't even help a lot of its members far less anybody else as it usually targets the already struggling and makes their life even more miserable.

And the reason unions don't work? because each individual group thinks they are more important than everybody else and deserve more than everybody else - and when you look at it like that there is no real difference from somebody , as you put it, 'defending the rich' as its is just down to degrees of 'richness'

RE: Election disaster

Jayne Heyes — Sat, 08 Jul 2017 22:38:43 GMT

I don't visit this forum often, but I'm surprised to see you defending the rich, and complaining about the taxes they pay, on a forum aimed at a very low-paid and predominantly female profession.

UK taxes for the highest earners are by no means excessive, UK corporation tax and personal taxation for the higher paid are lower than similar sized EU countries.
Your comments about Labour's election manifesto seem odd, given that Labour's manifesto was fully costed, whereas the Tory manifesto was not costed at all!
It is pleasing to see that you recognise the understandable popularity of renationalisation, we are being ripped off by utility companies making massive profits very often for a poor service, (I've spent three months trying to get BT to provide an adequate telephone service). When the fuel utilities were nationalised, customers paid simply for the fuel and service they received, and not for shareholders' dividends. Rail travel is expensive, rolling stock is poor, many commuters spend their entire journeys standing crammed together in overcrowded trains, and the taxpayer still pays heavy subsidies that disappear as profits.
According to www.payscale.com, veterinary Nurse average pay is £17,972. Understandably it is higher in areas covered by trade union collective bargaining, such as the veterinary colleges. Liverpool pays from £23,879 to £27,600 for a registered veterinary nurse. These posts also have access to a good pension scheme.
In reality, the main financial beneficiaries from the veterinary industry are the multinational pharmaceutical companies, (like Novartis), and the insurance companies. Over the recent period veterinary salaries have been squeezed, veterinary nurse pay is pitifully low, and prices to the customers keep rising.
There is money in the industry, but the wrong people are getting it. Veterinary Nurses should get organised, join a union and campaign for decent pay and conditions of service! The British Veterinary Union in Unite is probably a good place to start.

RE: Election disaster

Arlo Guthrie — Tue, 13 Jun 2017 07:51:20 GMT

[quote user="Sal the 1st"]but funded how? There's nothing in the pot to pay for them - unless you are looking at creating a volunteer police force.[/quote]

RE: Election disaster

Sal the 1st — Mon, 12 Jun 2017 21:36:37 GMT

[quote user="James Colver Cert. Ed, RVN"]

[quote user="Sal the 1st"]National security under Corbyn - what national security?[/quote]

- additional police working in the communities with their ears to the ground, potentially enabling problems to be spotted and nipped in the bud before something terrible happens

[/quote]

but funded how? There's nothing in the pot to pay for them - unless you are looking at creating a volunteer police force. Where do you suggest cuts are made to come up with the funding. We can report a burglary in our village which involved the theft of guns - it still took the police 5 days to come. In the meantime where are the guns?

There are actually lots of similarities in the two parties, there are aspects they can both agree on - thank you for highlighting - and to me it does show that both parties to some extent have a) done their homework and b) know what is needed, even if their interpretation differs somewhat. To me a long term solution will only happen when the combative, adversarial culture we have now gives way to collaboration/coalition but that is never going to happen when you have mainstream media and indeed the internet stoking the fire at the picket line. Carry on doing the same and we are going to get more of the same

RE: Election disaster

James Colver Cert. Ed, RVN — Mon, 12 Jun 2017 21:00:09 GMT

[quote user="Sal the 1st"]National security under Corbyn - what national security?[/quote]

- additional police working in the communities with their ears to the ground, potentially enabling problems to be spotted and nipped in the bud before something terrible happens

- NOT selling billions of £ of weapons to oppressive regimes

- The renewal of Trident was on the Labour manifesto, as it was on the Tory manifesto

- 2% of GDP spent on defense, again, exactly the same as Tory plan

- Creating a minister for peace

"Sis vis pacem, para pactum"

RE: Election disaster

Arlo Guthrie — Mon, 12 Jun 2017 12:49:19 GMT

[quote user="emmadilemma"]I actually think this forum needs more discussions like this![/quote]

Careful, I'll be on religion next

Seriously, I agree with you.

In fact, I think this thread highlights an important related point. There used to be more discussions like this, but I got diverted by all the development work going on in the background on these sites, and I think some of the discussions started getting too heated - I think partly because of the issue we're discussing here: the difference between disagreeing with someone and remarks written with the intent to make someone feel silly.

Similar thing going on on VetSurgeon.org, so I've brought in a zero-tolerance rule on both sites for posts that are personally rude, belittling, unkind etc. I have no time for that at all. None whatsoever. Fine to criticise/challenge ideas or beliefs that I may subscribe to (as has been done, rather successfully, in this thread). Not fine if it seems the intent is just to make me feel like a pillock! (not saying anyone has - they haven't - I'm just trying to explain the difference).

RE: Election disaster

emmadilemma — Mon, 12 Jun 2017 11:51:13 GMT

I actually think this forum needs more discussions like this! I'd probably post more if it did

RE: Election disaster

Arlo Guthrie — Mon, 12 Jun 2017 07:55:02 GMT

[quote user="emmadilemma"] They got cocky in my opinion, ran a terrible campaign, and totally got what they deserved.[/quote]

emmadilemma Couldn't agree with you more about that!

[quote user="emmadilemma"]As far as bribes for votes go, that's just politics. Do I need to list all the Tory bribes or unkept promises?? Might be here a while [/quote]

True. I suppose the point I was trying to make is that the Labour bribes on offer this year were economically illiterate.

[quote user="Hannah1611"]I don't have the energy or time right now to point out where sexism and racism exists everyday to someone who I'm going to assume has never experienced it.[/quote]

Hannah1611 As a white male, you're right, I don't have the experience of being on the receiving end of it. But I have seen it.

I think you do raise an interesting point. Certainly, when I wrote the criticism of Dianne Abbott, neither the colour of her skin, nor her sex even entered my mind.

[quote user="Hannah1611"]The fact that you don't remember seeing any doesn't mean it hasn't been happening, even if you haven't seen it/recognised it yourself in the mainstream media.[/quote]

Sure. But could you post a link to an example of a mainstream media outlet being sexist or racist.

[quote user="sananbaz"]I would really not enjoy working with you, if you tried to shout me down and tell how wrong my views are. Much the same as you did to previous posters.

It appears you have alienated some of your website users by trying to force feed your personal opinions on politics down our throats.[/quote]

sananbaz I'm not trying to shout anyone down or force feed my opinions. I'm merely expressing an opinion, which, like yours, should be open to challenge.

[quote user="sananbaz"]To liken my opinion that, in a professional context, personal beliefs should be kept personal, being only a step away from Charlie Hebdo scenarios is offensive.[/quote]

That's not what I said! What I said was that the idea that debate should be censored for fear of causing offence is only a step away from the Charlie Hebdo scenario. And that is true.

You're making it sound like I am having a pop at you personally, which I am not. I'm having a pop at the idea that debate should be shut down for fear of causing offence.

[quote user="sananbaz"]As is the assumption that you needed to explain what happened at the Charlie Hebdo offices.[/quote]

That wasn't for your benefit - just for clarity (esp to highlight the point that they were killed because of the cartoons of the prophet) in case someone else arrived at the thread cold.

[quote user="sananbaz"]Your regurgitation of gutter press commentary on Diane Abbott, when you know nothing of the situation, stinks.[/quote]

I haven't regurgitated the gutter press. I posted my own observation.

[quote user="sananbaz"]If you care to read a blog by Jack Monroe on Ms Abbott[/quote]

Thank you for highlighting that. I went and read the blog (https://cookingonabootstrap.com/2017/06/07/we-need-to-talk-about-diane-abbott-now-explicit-content). Two things really stand out:

Those twitter posts about her. They are appalling. Not just racist and sexist, but utterly vile. I was not aware that she'd been on the receiving end of that kind of thing, and I was quite shocked to see them, if I am honest.

Her achievements. As Jack Monroe highlights, they are considerable, and it is good to be reminded of that (so again, thank you for posting that, it has reminded me!)

I agree with Monroe about how easy it is to fluff your lines when doing a radio or TV interview. But she did it repeatedly over the course of the campaign, which I still think demonstrates she was not in command of her facts, and would make her completely unsuited to the job of Home Secretary.

But I can't help feeling that this thread really illustrates my point about the importance of continuing discussion even when people find it offensive. You've posted something really interesting there, which I have learned something from. Thank you

RE: Election disaster

sananbaz — Mon, 12 Jun 2017 00:43:16 GMT

Arlo, of course professionals can talk and have opinions; I am well versed on the election campaigns, having read the manifestos from the two main parties; watched the debates (that weren't really debates), and tried to find balanced views in the media. I am perfectly capable of holding a good natured debate on the subject, and have strongly held opinions on what I think would be best for the country. I do not however, feel the need to bring these discussions into the workplace, where colleagues may feel they have no way to escape. I would really not enjoy working with you, if you tried to shout me down and tell how wrong my views are. Much the same as you did to previous posters.

It appears you have alienated some of your website users by trying to force feed your personal opinions on politics down our throats. To liken my opinion that, in a professional context, personal beliefs should be kept personal, being only a step away from Charlie Hebdo scenarios is offensive. As is the assumption that you needed to explain what happened at the Charlie Hebdo offices. Your regurgitation of gutter press commentary on Diane Abbott, when you know nothing of the situation, stinks. If you care to read a blog by Jack Monroe on Ms Abbott, you would see how offensive your comment about being out of her depth is.

I've said my piece. I'm done.

RE: Election disaster

Hannah1611 — Sun, 11 Jun 2017 21:13:14 GMT

I don't have the energy or time right now to point out where sexism and racism exists everyday to someone who I'm going to assume has never experienced it. The fact that you don't remember seeing any doesn't mean it hasn't been happening, even if you haven't seen it/recognised it yourself in the mainstream media.

As I said before everyone is entitled to their opinions but I think I'll be leaving my contributions to this thread at that.

RE: Election disaster

emmadilemma — Sun, 11 Jun 2017 21:12:46 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]

That's the only thing I can think of that would have been worse than the mess we're now in! It really was appalling that the Conservative party didn't challenge the sums in the Labour manifesto.

Sure, we'd all love free university education, more police, better healthcare and so on and so on, and they're great ~~bribes~~ vote-winners[/quote]

Luckily the voters challenged the Tory manifesto and decided to vote against a party who intended to freeze pensioners and rip apart foxes for sport. They got cocky in my opinion, ran a terrible campaign, and totally got what they deserved.

As far as bribes for votes go, that's just politics. Do I need to list all the Tory bribes or unkept promises?? Might be here a while

RE: Election disaster

Sal the 1st — Sun, 11 Jun 2017 18:48:30 GMT

[quote user="sananbaz"]

I am not interested on how anyone here voted, or hearing their opinions on political parties.

[/quote]

I'm sorry but just because you aren't interested does that mean nobody else should be either?

[quote user="sananbaz"]

You should know how incestuous this profession is and that personal beliefs should not and must not influence professional relationships within the profession.

[/quote]

but they do and they have - look how the listed nurses were treated

RE: Election disaster

Sal the 1st — Sun, 11 Jun 2017 18:22:10 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]

it beggars belief that she increased her majority.

[/quote]

agreed - and is she now 'fit' to represent her constituency?

re nationalisation = stronger unions, more strikes, power cuts - boy oh boy I look forward to that (not) you are right it definitely wasn't pretty or productive.

National security under Corbyn - what national security?

As far as I am concerned Brexit will happen like it or lump it - would I trust Corbyn and friends to broker the best deal - snowball in hells chance.

RE: Election disaster

Arlo Guthrie — Sun, 11 Jun 2017 17:07:36 GMT

[quote user="sananbaz"]I totally disagree with you that this platform should be used to discuss the general election, and politics in general.[/quote]

Duly chastised, I shall go into the garden now and flog myself over the back with some nettles, and put my hands in the barbecue.

Joking aside, you make such an important point here that I HAVE to challenge it:

[quote user="sananbaz"]Professionals (unless in politics) should avoid discussions on personal beliefs to avoid offence being taken [/quote]

This is at the very heart of 'political correctness', and I'd like to try and persuade you that it's actually a very dangerous tack to take.

Actually, it's argued far more eloquently in this book https://www.bitebackpublishing.com/books/i-find-that-offensive, which is a really good read if you have an e-reader and a spare fiver.

But the bottom line is that it's a very short step from saying you can't talk about something because it might offend, to the Charlie Hebdo killings (the journalists who were killed because they drew 'offensive' cartoons depicting the prophet).

The truth is that it is ONLY by talking about things - accepting that we might find other people's opinions offensive - that any progress can be made.

Censorship of the sort you are describing, however well-motivated, prevents us from exposing all sorts of evil in the world. It is, I would argue, at the heart of why it took so long to expose the Rotherham scandal.

[quote user="sananbaz"]Professionals (unless in politics) should avoid discussions[/quote]

Again, with respect, couldn't disagree with you more! Professionals are often key opinion leaders in their communities, and it is (to my mind, anyway) even more important that they (you) are well-informed, which largely comes about through discussion.

There have never been any subjects that are considered off-limits for discussion on vetnurse.co.uk (provided legal), and I don't plan to change that now. It's worth noting that there are several discussions about politics running on VetSurgeon.org (my point is just that clearly there are professionals who do want to discuss these things, and feel it is appropriate to do so).

[quote user="Hannah1611"]She is an accomplished female MP with a name, not just someone's "ex-girlfriend", it's horribly sexist you'd refer to anyone and diminish their achievements by reducing them to that.[/quote]

The reason I described her as Corbyn's ex-girlfriend was not to diminish her, but because I genuinely wonder what bearing their previous relationship has had on the fact that she has survived as Shadow Home Secretary for so long, despite being so hopelessly out of her depth.

[quote user="Hannah1611"]Also the article you've linked to regarding her "illness" is by a Conservative backed paper so is obviously going to be biased against her.[/quote]

The reason I linked to that story is that it gave a link to the twitter account which published the emails Ms Abbott apparently replied to, so you can make your own mind up.

But since you made the point, I went to look at the coverage of the story in a Labour-supporting newspaper, and, surprise surprise:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/shadow-home-secretary-diane-abbott-10572743

No links to the emails. No reporting of their content. No mention of the fact that she said she was uncomfortable telling lies about her health which could so easily be disproved (the inference being that she wasn't ill at all).

[quote user="Hannah1611"]I think anyone would need and be right to take a break if they'd been subjected to the weeks of endless racist and sexist name calling that she has.[/quote]

I don't remember her being subject to ANY sexist or racist name calling in the media. She was panned for not being in command of the figures; for coming up with a cost for policing which would have meant that new recruits would be paid something like £30 per annum (and that is just one example).

This is the danger of shouting 'you can't say that, it's [sexist] [it's racist] [it's ageist] [delete as applicable]'. It prevents proper discussion about her ability to do the job.

I should perhaps add that I LOVE the way this country has become a more tolerant, inclusive society in recent decades (though there is still a long way to go in some aspects). I certainly don't consider myself an 'ist' of any sort. But part of being a tolerant society means accepting, discussing and tolerating, even celebrating ideas we may find offensive.

My case rests, m'lud.

RE: Election disaster

Hannah1611 — Sun, 11 Jun 2017 12:49:29 GMT

I second most of what sananbaz says on this. Everyone has the right to their own opinions obviously and discussion is important, but Arlo that whole post you made in reply to emmadilemma is just completely bashing Labour/their supporters and is not a very professional stance to take in your position on this site. I take particular issue with your comments about Diane Abbott.

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]Not to mention the threat of having Corbyn's ex-girlfriend as Home Secretary - until she retired from the game as a result of 'illness' (although obviously nothing of the sort).[/quote]

She is an accomplished female MP with a name, not just someone's "ex-girlfriend", it's horribly sexist you'd refer to anyone and diminish their achievements by reducing them to that. Also the article you've linked to regarding her "illness" is by a Conservative backed paper so is obviously going to be biased against her. We have no idea of her health and we shouldn't question it if she needs a break. I think anyone would need and be right to take a break if they'd been subjected to the weeks of endless racist and sexist name calling that she has.

RE: Election disaster

sananbaz — Sun, 11 Jun 2017 11:43:55 GMT

Arlo, I like you and your sense of humour. I enjoy the website and its efforts to provide a platform for veterinary nurses to share and discuss the profession. I totally disagree with you that this platform should be used to discuss the general election, and politics in general. Personal views on politics, race, religion, culture, ethnicity, sexual orientation and the like, are just that - personal. Professionals (unless in politics) should avoid discussions on personal beliefs to avoid offence being taken, or outright discrimination. I am not interested on how anyone here voted, or hearing their opinions on political parties. You should know how incestuous this profession is and that personal beliefs should not and must not influence professional relationships within the profession. I'm disappointed that you have started this post; there are plenty of other avenues available to you to discuss your politics on social media. This should not be one of them.

RE: Election disaster

Arlo Guthrie — Sun, 11 Jun 2017 11:13:50 GMT

[quote user="emmadilemma"]I wanted an outright labour win so am gutted but not surprised.[/quote]

That's the only thing I can think of that would have been worse than the mess we're now in! It really was appalling that the Conservative party didn't challenge the sums in the Labour manifesto.

Sure, we'd all love free university education, more police, better healthcare and so on and so on, and they're great ~~bribes~~ vote-winners. But Corbyn proposed to pay for it all by increasing corporation tax and getting the (already very heavily taxed) rich to pay more. ALL the evidence of history shows that if you do that, tax receipts go DOWN, not up.

Then there was the completely uncosted, and blatantly populist call for renationalisation (I'm just old enough to remember what things were like in the era of nationalisation, and it wasn't pretty).

On top of that, there was the rather terrifying idea that a man who believes the answer to ISIL is to 'open dialogue' could be in charge of our national security. Hopelessly idealistic.

Not to mention the threat of having Corbyn's ex-girlfriend as Home Secretary - until she retired from the game as a result of 'illness' (although obviously nothing of the sort).

Sal the 1st - it beggars belief that she increased her majority.

And now what?

We wind up with a crippled Prime Minister without the authority to negotiate hard with the EU, which is surely going to produce the worst of all results for the UK. I think we'll end up with Brexit-lite in which we have to surrender some of the benefits of EU membership, but don't regain control of immigration or the law of the land.

The only good thing out of all this is that Corbyn has put hard left socialist ideals back on the agenda, which provides some semblance of opposition.

RE: Election disaster

emmadilemma — Sat, 10 Jun 2017 13:19:31 GMT

I wanted an outright labour win so am gutted but not surprised. Thought things were bad enough until I heard that the DUP were getting involved and now I reckon we're worse off than before this election was called. I did enjoy seeing the smug look getting wiped off Mays face mind..

As a side note, I hope that not getting a majority takes her fox hunting plans off the table but only time will tell I suppose. With the DUP helping out we could all be heading back to the dark ages in more ways than one

RE: Election disaster

Sal the 1st — Sat, 10 Jun 2017 13:08:21 GMT

also gutted. I think her days are numbered unless she can pull something spectacular out of the hat - and that could just save her. I don't think she will be gone straight away because there isn't time to establish another credible leader in time for the Brexit negotiations to start and also I think her staying would be useful to some within her own party who can then pin the blame on any Brexit failures on her door. I cannot see a soft Brexit happening I think the course has already been set. I reckon she will be back after summer recess but ? for how long

I do feel some sympathy for those that lost their seats but can that all be pinned on TM? I admit I voted for our local candidate not because I wanted her to keep her seat (I find the woman repellent) but because I was looking at the bigger picture. I wonder if that is how Diane Abbott did as well as she did?

RE: Election disaster

Arlo Guthrie — Fri, 09 Jun 2017 14:12:09 GMT

[quote user="jojofruits"]bloody gutted tbh[/quote]

You and me both.

I didn't see her announcement, but will go and look for it now.

Some people are saying they think it opens the door to a nice, soft, amicable Brexit. I think that's optimistic (to say the least). Absolutely no sign of anything amicable coming out of them at the moment. I think they sniff a wounded beast.

RE: Election disaster

jojofruits — Fri, 09 Jun 2017 13:59:58 GMT

bloody gutted tbh

Theresa May's announcement was awful too!