Jump to content

Don't Miss a Beat

Join the UK's most passionate festival community. Keep up with the latest conversations, line-up rumours, and music news.

250,000+ Members

Connect with a massive network of fellow festival-goers.

Lively Discussions

Thousands of active topics on music, campsites, and tips.

Hot Rumours & News

Hear about secret sets and lineup drops before anyone else.

Create Free Account
OR
  • Sign Up!

    Join our friendly community of music lovers and be part of the fun 😎

news & politics:discussion


zahidf

Recommended Posts

23 hours ago, lost said:

Interesting article on labours plans for the NHS:

 


Australia also with a lower median age and much less income and wealth inequality.

A large and increasing share of the NHS budget goes on managing chronic illnesses that are often basically caused by poverty.

You cant solve the NHS’ problems without solving the social problems that blight the uk, and the best way to do that is by reducing inequality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mattiloy said:

A large and increasing share of the NHS budget goes on managing chronic illnesses that are often basically caused by poverty

an awful lot isn't that, a growing proportion is going to people like me, the oldies disabled like me, long term disabilities caused by stoke (strokes happen to one in four people, mostly - but not always - in later life; i play football with a 25 year old guy who's had a stroke). this is a growing number of people currently because of the population peak. the inactivity caused by those disabilities, is going to cause an even greater amount of diabetes   - which has its own health service load.

 

these are not conditions caused by poverty

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Neil said:

an awful lot isn't that, a growing proportion is going to people like me, the oldies disabled like me, long term disabilities caused by stoke (strokes happen to one in four people, mostly - but not always - in later life; i play football with a 25 year old guy who's had a stroke). this is a growing number of people currently because of the population peak. the inactivity caused by those disabilities, is going to cause an even greater amount of diabetes   - which has its own health service load.

 

these are not conditions caused by poverty

but people in poverty tend to have worse health than those that aren't...? So, it's a mix of inequality and an aging population.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, steviewevie said:

but people in poverty tend to have worse health than those that aren't...? So, it's a mix of inequality and an aging population.

like cancer they're conditions caused by life, not poverty.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

but people in poverty tend to have worse health than those that aren't...? So, it's a mix of inequality and an aging population.

even fit and clean-living Olympic athlete Michael johnson had a stroke, so its not something that can be avoided with lifestyle changes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, steviewevie said:

Starmer says Thatcher was awesome.

Never thought I'd live to hear a Labour leader praising Margaret Thatcher. Shows how far the party has come (and also what it's left behind)

Edited by Ommadawn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, steviewevie said:

disagree...poorer people likely to have worse diets and lifestyles which can lead to cancers.

Evidence shows the same incidences of cancer at all levels of wealth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, steviewevie said:

he was writing in the Telegraph...he's hardly going to call her an evil witch.

He said she had effected "meaningful change”. What the hell did he mean by that? 3 Million unemployed, defeating the miners? Can anyone list any meaningful change that happened for the good during her premiership cos I'm struggling. As usual, Starmer didn't go into details so I'm none the wiser. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Ommadawn said:

He said she had effected "meaningful change”. What the hell did he mean by that? 3 Million unemployed, defeating the miners? Can anyone list any meaningful change that happened for the good during her premiership cos I'm struggling. As usual, Starmer didn't go into details so I'm none the wiser. 

It was meaningful change, for better or worse depending on your point of view.

We're all Thatcher's children now.

 

mw127964.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

It was meaningful change, for better or worse depending on your point of view.

We're all Thatcher's children now.

 

mw127964.jpg

Thats all he said as well, you’d think he’d done something truly heinous with the way some have been going on today. Clearly people haven’t actually read the article and are just using it as an excuse to moan again. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ozanne said:

Thats all he said as well, you’d think he’d done something truly heinous with the way some have been going on today. Clearly people haven’t actually read the article and are just using it as an excuse to moan again. 

So what was in the article that hasn't been mentioned? You appear to have Starmer's ear and are the font of all knowledge (as long as it's Twitter/X based, of course). What have I missed please as it seems to me that Starmer highly rates a previous Tory PM, a war criminal and a Labour prime minister from 1951.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Latest Activity

    • People seem to have got obsessed about 'secret sets' at all festivals this year even when there aren't any spaces other than, in EOTR's case, the usual late Folly sets that 90%+ of the time are from artists who are already playing. And if it is someone else, I'm sure it won't be a band who played the festival last year.
    • To be fair @Superscally barely mentions the running thing. Very quiet about it 😘
    • I guess we'll just have to wait until videos of the shows go up, but the fact that the standing is also greyed out still suggests to me that those sections just sold out out before the others and a blue block just be like 3 tickets left, it's still not concrete proof they never went on sale and if they were never on sale why would they not make it even, if 414 wasn't on sale then you'd think 409 wouldn't be either   
    • Selfish, but I've done the 2 days I'm there.. i'll try to do the rest through the day but might get beaten to it as it's editable....    https://clashfinder.com/s/ape2026/
    • I don’t think the festival automatically ‘need’ to have a female headliner if you have strong female headliners on the Other Stage (which I reckon will be Rosalia and Phoebe Bridgers), perhaps a female legend (praying for Annie, will take Cher), and a few female/mix gendered subs on the Pyramid (maybe London Grammar, The xx). From what I’ve seen of Sabrina, her team prioritises the pay day and I think she will be doing Wembley over Glasto weekend.   One thing I’ve noticed is a lot of the suggestions would be first time headliners and I can’t work out when the last time was that the festival had three artists top the bill that hadn’t topped it before? It seems to be something they like to do to make sure they have a ‘safe’ headliner that will land well with the masses. Plenty of names in that hat that could step back up next summer and should/could be about: Billie Eilish, Adele, Foo Fighters, The Cure, Radiohead, U2…hell, if Beyoncé is really planning to release a ‘rock n roll’ album to complete her Renaissance trilogy, Glastonbury would be a great place to ‘kick off’ that campaign for her.   And there’s always the Rihanna rumour. Her husband (I think) said this week she’s in the studio.
  • Featured Products

  • Hot Topics

  • Latest Tourdates

×
×
  • Create New...