• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


eFestivals last won the day on June 12 2010

eFestivals had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

6 Neutral

About eFestivals

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    in a field

Recent Profile Visitors

141,915 profile views
  1. where's the fun in that?
  2. Nah. There's too many other bits of Corbyn baggage to be dragged out if (rather amazingly) he's not knocked down by this one, and it's not over till it's over. But if he comes out of this one well he's probably in with a chance for the first time.
  3. I don't think anyone's thinking any magic happens, but by choosing to make it the first speech of the resumed campaigning it's hanging a big label on it saying "I'm playing politics with the bombing". It's either incredibly foolish or genius. It's very definitely risky.
  4. I'd just been reading about the same things, and I took it to be 'too soon' rather than 'can't be talked about' so maybe you're being a little harsh on timid tim? I'm not entirely sure when might be the right time, but the first speech after recommencing campaigning wasn't necessarily the best choice. It was always going to get some flack for that.
  5. last shout for boomtown - they're just about sold out. They've only got tickets with coach travel left, and I'm guessing those won't last long now. https://ww2.theticketsellers.co.uk/boomtown-2017/
  6. I'd vote Labour as the lesser evil. It doesn't mean I have to mindlessly swallow the manifesto or to suddenly believe Corbyn is wonderful and the saviour of socialism.
  7. How you use your vote is up to you, hopefully decided by what you'd like to achieve by it and/or who you think gives the chance of giving you more of what you want. I wouldn't have it any other way.
  8. nope, i don't know and don't really have any ideas. My presumption is that it's something special rather than just-another-band-on-the-bill cos that's my take of how Emily said it, tho she's not adverse to going over the top with 'fantastic' and the like at other times so perhaps its just that again.
  9. Kinks seemed like a could-happen option - or at least, more than stuff like (say) The Smiths. That's a long way less than 'most likely'. I'd say a solo show rules that possibility out, unless it were to be a true one-of. Could happen i suppose, tho i doubt it. Haven't thought much beyond that, so don't have another guess.
  10. less the cash I'd say. I made the mistake of thinking there might have been something special.
  11. but it does work for most people. People are often very quick to ignore that fact.
  12. the yank system can be much like that so I've read - tho it of course depends on what level of insurance a person buys, so even then it's not like that for everyone. I know that the NHS is just about unique, but i know almost nothing about how other systems in Europe operate - but i do know I've never seen the sorts of fail-to-serve-everyone criticisms that get said about the US. So there's very probably plenty of alternative options that don't get close to what you outline. Really? The poor get (or got, in your case) free prescriptions. I can't prove it, but i'm pretty sure that's an urban myth in almost all cases if not every single instance.
  13. They continue to function. They just don't do so as fast or as widely as they might do with greater resources allocated to them. How fast and how wide is *always* a political choice - not a health choice - with the public ultimately deciding the level of resource stuff like that gets, by how they cast their votes. And like it or not, on the whole the public prefers to decide for themselves where their money gets spent more than it wants the govt to decide for them (otherwise the tories wouldn't keep on winning). The problem is the public aren't being offered "a bit for the NHS but most other things much the same", they're being offered loads more for everything - which the public is likely to see as 'loads more from me' rather than the free that Jezza promises (and falsely, as the IFS now point out as well as me).
  14. But not all of them would have average needs. There's a small percentage of very very expensive cases and a much greater number of cheaper cases. Your conclusion is also based on the assumption that all of those 60% have no spare cash currently after they've paid their taxes, to divert to health costs if they needed to. And remember, if we did replace the NHS with another model, it's likely to be an insurance-based model of some sort, rather than pay-as-you go - so in many ways it wouldn't be unlike now (tho with an extra slice for the insurance company and any profit-based treatment companies). And without state involvement employers tend to take on at-least some of the load (tho no doubt at the expensive of a bit of wage). As I say, I'm not advocating it. A quick look at the USA shows that a number fall out of the healthcare system - but it's a long way from the plagues and unaffordable-for-most you said.
  15. Without in any way suggesting it's ideal... yep, because no one else is being stopped from owning and publishing any alternative media. If there was a demand for it, someone would do it. Which is why they don't. It's by reference to stuff like that that i end up saying what I have been. Yep, which is probably somewhere around the best we can hope for until there might be better media that enough people are interested in.