clearly being opposite to what the majority of us want.
Not actually disagreeing but. I'd be interested to see evidence of that. As I think it depends on age.
Most over 50 grew up thinking of hamas as terrorists that kidnapped and held UK and other prisoners for over a decade. It was a huge element of 80s news and hugely influenced the media daily.
As such their ideals and pre internet news will have influenced at least 40 plus year olds.
You are likely to find the majority is hugely against these actions under 40. As these people very much depends on the internet for news. Older UK folks literally grew up with little or no ability to see non UK news.
So around 40 plus it likely scews further and further to the mainstream medias opinion. Reinforced over decades of UK media and negativity towards hamas.
Add to that the age group not only most likely to vote. But most reliable on their party support when voting.
Add under 40 as a political force really only include 18 to 40. As those that cannot vote are ignored for most political desiions unless their parents agree. And then it really is the parents opinion that is counted.
And the government choices seem less surprising. More so as few of the MPs are under 40
Is it likely the vaste majority of voting public are not opposed these actions. Or even recognise them as genacide based on media views.
Last effective protest was the women's pay movement in 1968. Where all women at the factory strike. Plus many other female employees throughout the UK.
It was effective in that the law changed. Equal pay for women passed as a lawin 1971.
Question Then became is the legal requirements enough.
As much as I hate to give any Tory the benefit of doubt on anything.
His main argument.
"Nobody has yet provided me with an alternative that was available at the time that would have saved more lives,"
Dose sound like a reasonable question to ask.
This was before the availability of fast testing. And before any nightingale hospitals had been build.
Hospitals were overloaded staff wise. Even with all non urgent care stopped.
Their was a well documented lack of PPE. So hardly possible for the gov to do more to help care homes keep residents more separated.
At the time. Their really dose seems like very little else he could have done.
BUT:
The NHS did have plans and resources for pandemics. plans the Tory party removed support for during austerity.
Not to mention the risk of a pandemic has been a well known one since the mid 1990s. Yet still the Tories considered shutting down the minimal support the NHS had. As a tax saving measure. (Because allowing the Tories to keep low corp and capital gains taxes was the real reason).
Yes the report and HandsonCock never considered this as a cause.
Given this is total house building. So basically how willing or able private construction companies are to build.
I'd be interested to know exactly what the Tories did to discourage private building.
Personally I'd rather blame the development companies who have been openly accused of limiting building numbers. To increase profits value of properties they do build.
Wow a potentially positive move for a change. Depending how it's funded. And how the huge staff shortages (enhanced by new NHS immigration rule). Limit it.
But for 40 year the NHS has had centralisation into big city hospitals. Increasing the cost difficulty and CO2 footprint of mobility limited travelers to get help.
Moving more specialist care into local community centers. Would be a huge positive.
This is just insane. Since the Windrush. The NHS has had a high dependency on immigration. Mainly due to our own lower pay of staff. Many qualified British medical staff can get higher paying work elsewhere. Both foreign and non NHS UK jobs. This is why multiple governments from both parties haver always offered NHS training and employment as a way to encourage immigration from lower paying nations.
If the gov does not have the funding (wish to raise taxes). To pay NHS staff and UK care staff a wage that competes with higher paying jobs in the UK or aboard. This will directly lead to a collapse of the NHS. With ) benifit to the UK.
Except Maybe gaining privatisation of the NHS. Exactly like the Tories have been trying for decades.
Just a news article. Can't even remember where I saw it. So yeah. You are likely correct.
That said. If the US refused to support the UK. I find it hard to believe we would not quickly have difficulties maintaing f35s. And given how much they really on software to fly. I'd be more surprised if the US did not have a backdoor.
I'd add that to anything the US sells that they would have reason to fear if turned against them.
I really think is the EU and or the UK want to be independent of the US. Arming with modern US weapons is about as safe as. Well issuing Chinese smart phones to all our politicians.
The US has never been entirely trust worthy when it comes to them Vs the world. Less so now.
It is inflammation. Can be minor(short term pain and gastric issue), But when acute can lead to death. Mainly as it seriously harm other organs and has a systemic effect on the body when the pancreas fails.
Pancreatitis ranges from minor to life threatening.
It can become systemic harming multiple organs.
So idepending on what this study shows when done. A high number of severe cases. Could def be worse for the NHS then obesity. Considering 1 in 4 adults meet the obesity Def now. And 1 in 5 cases of pancreatitis are classed as severe. Mass roll out could be a disaster if the study shows high numbers suffer this effect.
Not actually disagreeing but. I'd be interested to see evidence of that. As I think it depends on age.
Most over 50 grew up thinking of hamas as terrorists that kidnapped and held UK and other prisoners for over a decade. It was a huge element of 80s news and hugely influenced the media daily.
As such their ideals and pre internet news will have influenced at least 40 plus year olds.
You are likely to find the majority is hugely against these actions under 40. As these people very much depends on the internet for news. Older UK folks literally grew up with little or no ability to see non UK news.
So around 40 plus it likely scews further and further to the mainstream medias opinion. Reinforced over decades of UK media and negativity towards hamas.
Add to that the age group not only most likely to vote. But most reliable on their party support when voting.
Add under 40 as a political force really only include 18 to 40. As those that cannot vote are ignored for most political desiions unless their parents agree. And then it really is the parents opinion that is counted.
And the government choices seem less surprising. More so as few of the MPs are under 40 Is it likely the vaste majority of voting public are not opposed these actions. Or even recognise them as genacide based on media views.