Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2015 13:33:28 GMT 1
Banks have always lent many times their deposits; it's practically the definition of a bank. They also went bust for centuries until the Dutch invented the concept of the central bank to socialise their losses and prevent catastrophic interruption of the money supply. Fractional reserve banking is in the top three reasons why the West has been so dominant in the last four centuries. QE is just designed to enlarge their deposits held and in theory force a boom in lending, but the effects have been subdued due how overexposed the banks were in 2008. True, but to try and make out that high street banks can just magic money out of nowhere is plain wrong and an ignorant view shared by many socialists. Only the central bank, so for the UK, the Bank Of England, can produce money out of thin air as in quantitative easing. In QE the central bank electronically makes some new money and uses it to buy bonds from either the government or other financial institutions, therefore increasing cash in the banking sector and lowering interest rates. It is this process which puts money into the financial system, not because high street banks can just produce money at will. The earlier comment about there not being a finite amount of money is also wrong. There is unless the government/central bank pump money into the economy via QE. That's why we have interest rate fluctuations. It's modern politics, the left lay all the blame at the door of the nasty bankers and the right on benefits scroungers. Where are you getting this information from? It is massively incomplete. Please, before you post anything else on this topic, have a read of this - it is from the Bank of England, so not some socialist conspiracy. A couple of key bits for you: "Whenever a bank makes a loan, it simultaneously creates a matching deposit in the borrower’s bank account, thereby creating new money." "Although commercial banks create money through lending, they cannot do so freely without limit." www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Documents/quarterlybulletin/2014/qb14q1prereleasemoneycreation.pdfRight, I'm off to the game. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2015 13:55:12 GMT 1
True, but to try and make out that high street banks can just magic money out of nowhere is plain wrong and an ignorant view shared by many socialists. Only the central bank, so for the UK, the Bank Of England, can produce money out of thin air as in quantitative easing. In QE the central bank electronically makes some new money and uses it to buy bonds from either the government or other financial institutions, therefore increasing cash in the banking sector and lowering interest rates. It is this process which puts money into the financial system, not because high street banks can just produce money at will. The earlier comment about there not being a finite amount of money is also wrong. There is unless the government/central bank pump money into the economy via QE. That's why we have interest rate fluctuations. It's modern politics, the left lay all the blame at the door of the nasty bankers and the right on benefits scroungers. Where are you getting this information from? It is massively incomplete. Please, before you post anything else on this topic, have a read of this - it is from the Bank of England, so not some socialist conspiracy. A couple of key bits for you: "Whenever a bank makes a loan, it simultaneously creates a matching deposit in the borrower’s bank account, thereby creating new money." "Although commercial banks create money through lending, they cannot do so freely without limit." www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Documents/quarterlybulletin/2014/qb14q1prereleasemoneycreation.pdfRight, I'm off to the game. Think about it. QE is pumping cash into the high street banking system in order to try to encourage them to lend more. You seem to be interpreting it that they don't need this QE generated cash on their balance sheet as the high street banks can just create new money. When a commercial bank makes a loan to a customer, it's isn't creating money in the real sense of the term just as when a customer repays a debt, the money isn't really destroyed in the real sense. There is always an equal and balancing effect on the balance sheet of the bank, any increase in assets will be offset by a liability. It is not just creating money out of thin air, with no balancing liability. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2015 14:05:31 GMT 1
Sorry mate...couldnt disagree more. Who do you think looks the bigger c***? Him because you called him one, or you because you called him one? Obviously him hence the reason i called him one, i would not be too bothered if it makes me come across as one too. I kept off this thead for a long time.....probably should have tried harder tbh. Iam genuienly shocked that people have support for the banking system and would be interested to know your views on the debt being paid back? Seems virtually impossible to me, but hey let the next generation worry about that. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2015 14:09:57 GMT 1
Where are you getting this information from? It is massively incomplete. Please, before you post anything else on this topic, have a read of this - it is from the Bank of England, so not some socialist conspiracy. A couple of key bits for you: "Whenever a bank makes a loan, it simultaneously creates a matching deposit in the borrower’s bank account, thereby creating new money." "Although commercial banks create money through lending, they cannot do so freely without limit." www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Documents/quarterlybulletin/2014/qb14q1prereleasemoneycreation.pdfRight, I'm off to the game. Think about it. QE is pumping cash into the high street banking system in order to try to encourage them to lend more. You seem to be interpreting it that they don't need this QE generated cash on their balance sheet as the high street banks can just create new money. When a commercial bank makes a loan to a customer, it's isn't creating money in the real sense of the term just as when a customer repays a debt, the money isn't really destroyed in the real sense. There is always an equal and balancing effect on the balance sheet of the bank, any increase in assets will be offset by a liability. It is not just creating money out of thin air, with no balancing liability. If i go to the bank and take out a mortage the bank basically creates the money as my debt, they dont borrow the money to lend to me they also dont have it as dont quote me on this but only have to hold as little as5% to what they can lend. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2015 14:27:26 GMT 1
Where are you getting this information from? It is massively incomplete. Please, before you post anything else on this topic, have a read of this - it is from the Bank of England, so not some socialist conspiracy. A couple of key bits for you: "Whenever a bank makes a loan, it simultaneously creates a matching deposit in the borrower’s bank account, thereby creating new money." "Although commercial banks create money through lending, they cannot do so freely without limit." www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Documents/quarterlybulletin/2014/qb14q1prereleasemoneycreation.pdfRight, I'm off to the game. Think about it. QE is pumping cash into the high street banking system in order to try to encourage them to lend more. You seem to be interpreting it that they don't need this QE generated cash on their balance sheet as the high street banks can just create new money. When a commercial bank makes a loan to a customer, it's isn't creating money in the real sense of the term just as when a customer repays a debt, the money isn't really destroyed in the real sense. There is always an equal and balancing effect on the balance sheet of the bank, any increase in assets will be offset by a liability. It is not just creating money out of thin air, with no balancing liability. Marcus, many pages back in this thread I offered to share via PM a PDF of an article that appeared in the FT several years back (2006), written by Gillian Tett (google her to see how well respected she is) and explaining how a bunch of JP Morgan bankers worked up the idea and then introduced the concept of credit derivatives into the global market. I would urge you to try and find this article (believe it's still available but on a subscription basis if you google the FT archives), grab a coffee and really understand as to why the seeds of the crash of 2008 were sown many yrs earlier. As a layman it also opens up your eyes to just one incident and as to why the money markets control governments... I also have a copy of the bankruptcy petition for Lehmans and again their list of creditors and sums involved are eye watering and go some way for normal people to understand what a dangerous house of cards our banking system is. You know my views on this thread but when you add the Libor scandal to things like the FT article I can't understand why these people aren't currently rotting in a jail somewhere, even if it's only a symbolic few... I expect if you took the time to read articles like this you would take a different view and pat them on the back for getting away with it, which shows your lack of social maturity in regards to this subject and it's effects on society in general... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2015 14:36:36 GMT 1
Think about it. QE is pumping cash into the high street banking system in order to try to encourage them to lend more. You seem to be interpreting it that they don't need this QE generated cash on their balance sheet as the high street banks can just create new money. When a commercial bank makes a loan to a customer, it's isn't creating money in the real sense of the term just as when a customer repays a debt, the money isn't really destroyed in the real sense. There is always an equal and balancing effect on the balance sheet of the bank, any increase in assets will be offset by a liability. It is not just creating money out of thin air, with no balancing liability. If i go to the bank and take out a mortage the bank basically creates the money as my debt, they dont borrow the money to lend to me they also dont have it as dont quote me on this but only have to hold as little as5% to what they can lend. Using the term "creates money" to describe what happens when a bank loans a customer money is misleading. It is not free money created out of thin air, the asset carries a liability and lowers it's reserves. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2015 14:42:47 GMT 1
Think about it. QE is pumping cash into the high street banking system in order to try to encourage them to lend more. You seem to be interpreting it that they don't need this QE generated cash on their balance sheet as the high street banks can just create new money. When a commercial bank makes a loan to a customer, it's isn't creating money in the real sense of the term just as when a customer repays a debt, the money isn't really destroyed in the real sense. There is always an equal and balancing effect on the balance sheet of the bank, any increase in assets will be offset by a liability. It is not just creating money out of thin air, with no balancing liability. Marcus, many pages back in this thread I offered to share via PM a PDF of an article that appeared in the FT several years back (2006), written by Gillian Tett (google her to see how well respected she is) and explaining how a bunch of JP Morgan bankers worked up the idea and then introduced the concept of credit derivatives into the global market. I would urge you to try and find this article (believe it's still available but on a subscription basis if you google the FT archives), grab a coffee and really understand as to why the seeds of the crash of 2008 were sown many yrs earlier. As a layman it also opens up your eyes to just one incident and as to why the money markets control governments... I also have a copy of the bankruptcy petition for Lehmans and again their list of creditors and sums involved are eye watering and go some way for normal people to understand what a dangerous house of cards our banking system is. You know my views on this thread but when you add the Libor scandal to things like the FT article I can't understand why these people aren't currently rotting in a jail somewhere, even if it's only a symbolic few... I expect if you took the time to read articles like this you would take a different view and pat them on the back for getting away with it, which shows your lack of social maturity in regards to this subject and it's effects on society in general... I'm not advocating the stupid and greedy behaviour of certain areas of the banking sector, although I do feel the borrowers who spent beyond their means living the high life on credit should also burden some of the blame. My point really was to try to dispel this myth that commercial banks can just make free money out of thin air to lend out. It is certainly not free to the bank, even in the form of QE. |
|
|
|
Post by Grandfather Berty of Cleck on Apr 6, 2015 15:23:40 GMT 1
That is true, if you choose to ignore the fact that the figures were 'routinely fiddled' to hide the patients waiting longer than the 18 months. And what do you know, waiting lists are climbing again under the cons. Is this how you decide who to vote for? Chose a party, then randomly invent figures that show you are correct to vote for them. The 3 years claim is bollocks. If you're going to pick a figure off the top of your head, you need to at least make it believable to some degree. And heres some more stats about current waiting times you can dismiss as fiddled because they don't fit in with your choice of party. www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/data-and-charts/waiting-times-hospital-treatment-englandNot my figures mate, as reported in that well know left wing newspaper The Daily Mail. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2015 16:13:45 GMT 1
If i go to the bank and take out a mortage the bank basically creates the money as my debt, they dont borrow the money to lend to me they also dont have it as dont quote me on this but only have to hold as little as5% to what they can lend. Using the term "creates money" to describe what happens when a bank loans a customer money is misleading. It is not free money created out of thin air, the asset carries a liability and lowers it's reserves. Would it make it sound better if I said in essence creating money then? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2015 18:11:59 GMT 1
Using the term "creates money" to describe what happens when a bank loans a customer money is misleading. It is not free money created out of thin air, the asset carries a liability and lowers it's reserves. Would it make it sound better if I said in essence creating money then? Maybe. The point is that there are still people who don't understand that when they "create" this money, it still comes off the balance sheet and isn't free at all. The link Walter posted earlier has a good bit dispelling the myth that QE is the free cash for the high street banks (page 11, I think). |
|
Tinpot
Mental Health Support Group
I'm really tinpot
Posts: 24,105 
|
Post by Tinpot on Apr 6, 2015 18:30:34 GMT 1
Until Gordon Brown relinquished control of the BofE to start the house price boom, house prices had remained fairly stable for about a decade. Then they doubled, tripled, quadrupled or more in a very short space of time. If you owned property when Blair's government won in 1997, you were laughing. If you didn't own property by the end of the following year you were screwed. To answer your question, I imagine it wasn't like that early in Tony Blair's tenure, or during John Major's. it was though, even in the periods between property price booms, it is still a challenge to save up the money to get on the property ladder. Always has been always will be. When you could get a 2-bedroom terraced house in a nice area of Huddersfield for around 3x the average entry level annual salary (or you could get a flat in an area with a high crime rate for less than the average entry level annual salary), it was just as hard? Of course you still needed to save for a deposit, but it was possible to get something nicer on your own then than it is as part of a couple now. |
|
|
|
Post by amoeba on Apr 6, 2015 18:32:10 GMT 1
Would it make it sound better if I said in essence creating money then? Maybe. The point is that there are still people who don't understand that when they "create" this money, it still comes off the balance sheet and isn't free at all. The link Walter posted earlier has a good bit dispelling the myth that QE is the free cash for the high street banks (page 11, I think). QE? Was it the money they invented to cover fines and PIP payments? Anyhoo cba reading thread but have Town said anything about McCartney's election leaflet? Sent from my HTC One_M8 using proboards |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2015 18:37:14 GMT 1
it was though, even in the periods between property price booms, it is still a challenge to save up the money to get on the property ladder. Always has been always will be. When you could get a 2-bedroom terraced house in a nice area of Huddersfield for around 3x the average entry level annual salary (or you could get a flat in an area with a high crime rate for less than the average entry level annual salary), it was just as hard? Of course you still needed to save for a deposit, but it was possible to get something nicer on your own then than it is as part of a couple now. Still worth pointing our that our 9m renting households mean home ownership is at its lowest level since 1981. It's killed B&Q; no one does DIY when it's the landlord's job. So much for the Thatcherite dream. At the same time there's never been so many living mortgage free, folk asset rich in a pyramid scheme of BTLers and first time buyers. At least all that IHT will be good for government coffers. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2015 19:26:05 GMT 1
Where are you getting this information from? It is massively incomplete. Please, before you post anything else on this topic, have a read of this - it is from the Bank of England, so not some socialist conspiracy. A couple of key bits for you: "Whenever a bank makes a loan, it simultaneously creates a matching deposit in the borrower’s bank account, thereby creating new money." "Although commercial banks create money through lending, they cannot do so freely without limit." www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Documents/quarterlybulletin/2014/qb14q1prereleasemoneycreation.pdfRight, I'm off to the game. Think about it. QE is pumping cash into the high street banking system in order to try to encourage them to lend more. You seem to be interpreting it that they don't need this QE generated cash on their balance sheet as the high street banks can just create new money. When a commercial bank makes a loan to a customer, it's isn't creating money in the real sense of the term just as when a customer repays a debt, the money isn't really destroyed in the real sense. There is always an equal and balancing effect on the balance sheet of the bank, any increase in assets will be offset by a liability. It is not just creating money out of thin air, with no balancing liability. QE was used in the UK for the first time in 2009, I'm not sure why you're attaching so much importance to it. It is separate to how banks create loans. You can argue about the wording of "money creation" the fact is when banks make a loan it is money that did not previously exist. Of course there is a liability to it, it may not be paid back. That's why some banks go out of business or need a bail out. |
|
Tinpot
Mental Health Support Group
I'm really tinpot
Posts: 24,105
|
Post by Tinpot on Apr 6, 2015 19:27:23 GMT 1
I'm not sure what is so good about a society of people being micromanaged by an overbearing Labour government. Assuming that is what you mean by your post. I have known four Labour prime ministers, and no, I can't say I have ever felt micromanaged. Lucky you. Perhaps Labour's love of bringing in pointless laws, banning this and that never affected you. Perhaps I've just been unlucky that my passions in life are the very things that Labour have felt the greatest need to meddle in. I'm left wondering what they'll ban next if they get into power. My gut feeling is that SSSIs will be the next thing a Labour government would ride roughshod over. That and the pub trade. They already banned smoking in pubs, I wouldn't put it past them to ban drinking in them next! I'm only half joking. I expect Labour to attack rural areas. They're generally Tory strongholds so they can do whatever they like to them without losing any seats in parliament. What surprised me was their attack on responsible dog owners. Lots of urban voters have dogs too, yet because they give those policies nice sounding names (e.g. Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act) and allow staggered introduction of them to reduce opposition, they got it through without any blame attached to them. Give them their due, Labour have an amazing PR team. |
|
|
|
Post by saintlyterrier on Apr 6, 2015 19:37:51 GMT 1
SSSIs? Why? Statutory protection. (That's if you're talking about Sites of Special Scientific Interest.)
I can barely recall any development on such sites. Moreover, the eco-lobby is very strong.
|
|
|
|
Post by Captainslapper on Apr 6, 2015 20:08:07 GMT 1
Is this how you decide who to vote for? Chose a party, then randomly invent figures that show you are correct to vote for them. The 3 years claim is bollocks. If you're going to pick a figure off the top of your head, you need to at least make it believable to some degree. And heres some more stats about current waiting times you can dismiss as fiddled because they don't fit in with your choice of party. www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/data-and-charts/waiting-times-hospital-treatment-englandNot my figures mate, as reported in that well know left wing newspaper The Daily Mail. So the daily mail claimed average waiting times for an operation under a tory government were 3 years, when in fact according to the medical profession they were 26 weeks?? You'll forgive me for being a tad sceptical about that.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2015 20:15:35 GMT 1
Think about it. QE is pumping cash into the high street banking system in order to try to encourage them to lend more. You seem to be interpreting it that they don't need this QE generated cash on their balance sheet as the high street banks can just create new money. When a commercial bank makes a loan to a customer, it's isn't creating money in the real sense of the term just as when a customer repays a debt, the money isn't really destroyed in the real sense. There is always an equal and balancing effect on the balance sheet of the bank, any increase in assets will be offset by a liability. It is not just creating money out of thin air, with no balancing liability. QE was used in the UK for the first time in 2009, I'm not sure why you're attaching so much importance to it. It is separate to how banks create loans. You can argue about the wording of "money creation" the fact is when banks make a loan it is money that did not previously exist. Of course there is a liability to it, it may not be paid back. That's why some banks go out of business or need a bail out. But it did previously exist, as part of their balance sheet. When they loan it, their balance sheet changes by that amount. It's real balance whether it was created or not as physical cash. Your link was very good, are you sure you fully understand how assets, liabilities and reserve balance works? It's still very real credit or loss and not magic money made out of thin air. The QE bit us similar in how it explains how this "free cash" that some see, costs the bank and is far from free. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2015 20:41:34 GMT 1
QE was used in the UK for the first time in 2009, I'm not sure why you're attaching so much importance to it. It is separate to how banks create loans. You can argue about the wording of "money creation" the fact is when banks make a loan it is money that did not previously exist. Of course there is a liability to it, it may not be paid back. That's why some banks go out of business or need a bail out. But it did previously exist, as part of their balance sheet. When they loan it, their balance sheet changes by that amount. It's real balance whether it was created or not as physical cash. Your link was very good, are you sure you fully understand how assets, liabilities and reserve balance works? It's still very real credit or loss and not magic money made out of thin air. The QE bit us similar in how it explains how this "free cash" that some see, costs the bank and is far from free. I understand balance sheets, assets and liabilities, but all that occurs after the money is created. Once it is created if it is not paid back the bank is liable, so it isn't magic money - I don't think I ever claimed it was. My point has always been that banks create money. You claimed only the BoE can create money through QE and that they control the amount of money, which clearly isn't the case. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2015 22:05:58 GMT 1
But it did previously exist, as part of their balance sheet. When they loan it, their balance sheet changes by that amount. It's real balance whether it was created or not as physical cash. Your link was very good, are you sure you fully understand how assets, liabilities and reserve balance works? It's still very real credit or loss and not magic money made out of thin air. The QE bit us similar in how it explains how this "free cash" that some see, costs the bank and is far from free. I understand balance sheets, assets and liabilities, but all that occurs after the money is created. Once it is created if it is not paid back the bank is liable, so it isn't magic money - I don't think I ever claimed it was. My point has always been that banks create money. You claimed only the BoE can create money through QE and that they control the amount of money, which clearly isn't the case. Not correct. ONLY the central bank can introduce new additional money into the system, even then it's in return for bonds. Any money "created" by commercial banks already exists on their balance sheet. All "creating" this apparent "new" Money is doing, is transferring an existing balance from one part of their balance sheet to the other. It already exists on the balance sheet, they are not really creating new money, just moving it from one side of their accounts to the other. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 7, 2015 6:05:28 GMT 1
www.ft.com/cms/s/0/93c4e11e-ec39-11df-9e11-00144feab49a.html#ixzz3Wb3ivtDg"The essence of the contemporary monetary system is creation of money, out of nothing, by private banks’ often foolish lending. Why is such privatisation of a public function right and proper, but action by the central bank, to meet pressing public need, a road to catastrophe? When banks will not lend and the broad money supply is barely growing, that is just what it should be doing...." Martin Wolf arguing that The Fed is right to turn on the tap - in the FT.
|
|
|
|
Post by Grandfather Berty of Cleck on Apr 7, 2015 7:21:26 GMT 1
Not my figures mate, as reported in that well know left wing newspaper The Daily Mail. So the daily mail claimed average waiting times for an operation under a tory government were 3 years, when in fact according to the medical profession they were 26 weeks?? You'll forgive me for being a tad sceptical about that. I think that's the jist of it. The medical profession claim one set of waiting times, but after closer scrutiny by journalists, it was found out that those figures were fiddled. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 7, 2015 8:23:16 GMT 1
So the daily mail claimed average waiting times for an operation under a tory government were 3 years, when in fact according to the medical profession they were 26 weeks?? You'll forgive me for being a tad sceptical about that. I think that's the jist of it. The medical profession claim one set of waiting times, but after closer scrutiny by journalists, it was found out that those figures were fiddled. Yes berty, my previous post in answer to you points out how it can be and is done. If obstacles like delaying you from even entering a consultants waiting list are employed it's pretty obvious. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 7, 2015 10:23:13 GMT 1
I understand balance sheets, assets and liabilities, but all that occurs after the money is created. Once it is created if it is not paid back the bank is liable, so it isn't magic money - I don't think I ever claimed it was. My point has always been that banks create money. You claimed only the BoE can create money through QE and that they control the amount of money, which clearly isn't the case. Not correct. ONLY the central bank can introduce new additional money into the system, even then it's in return for bonds. Any money "created" by commercial banks already exists on their balance sheet. All "creating" this apparent "new" Money is doing, is transferring an existing balance from one part of their balance sheet to the other. It already exists on the balance sheet, they are not really creating new money, just moving it from one side of their accounts to the other. Reads fairly clearly to me: "Most of the money in circulation is created, not by the printing presses of the Bank of England, but by the commercial banks themselves: banks create money whenever they lend to someone in the economy or buy an asset from consumers." Also, the graphs on Page 3 show new assets and liabilities being added to a bank's balance sheets when a loan in being made, not simply being transferred. This differs from when the BoE creates base money. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 7, 2015 16:54:50 GMT 1
Marcus are you just trying to take the piss here or are you being serious?
|
|
|
|
Post by Christ in Shades (art) on Apr 7, 2015 18:10:57 GMT 1
This thread will go down in DATM folklore!!
|
|
|
|
Post by galpharm2400 on Apr 7, 2015 18:15:58 GMT 1
at least it gave some with an 'A' level in politics the chance to have a go.. it does not happen often..
the pub experts although clearly 'less informed' had a bit of a bash at it early doors..
suffice to say, whoever gets in , the rich will probably get richer, the poor will get poorer and the poor bastards in the middle will end up working till they are a 100 to pay for both...
|
|
|
|
Post by Grandfather Berty of Cleck on Apr 7, 2015 19:02:08 GMT 1
And what do you know,
the worst waiting times for ten years are announced !
|
|
|
|
Post by Captainslapper on Apr 7, 2015 19:13:13 GMT 1
So the daily mail claimed average waiting times for an operation under a tory government were 3 years, when in fact according to the medical profession they were 26 weeks?? You'll forgive me for being a tad sceptical about that. I think that's the jist of it. The medical profession claim one set of waiting times, but after closer scrutiny by journalists, it was found out that those figures were fiddled. So the traditionally left wing, highly unionised medical profession, in an act of unbelievable understanding and loyalty to the Conservative government that will hugely negate their argument for more resources, decide to artificially reduce the average waiting times from ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY WEEKS to just 26 ?? And at the same time that renowned bastion of Conservative bashing, the Daily Mail, jump at the chance to expose this devious deception?? Hmmmm  |
|
|
|
Post by Captainslapper on Apr 7, 2015 19:19:11 GMT 1
And what do you know, the worst waiting times for ten years are announced ! But surely those figures are fiddled beyond all belief too?? Or let me guess- they are negative for the Tories, so they will be true?  |
|
