No, I'm not saying the past should influence your voting choices. In fact, I believe quite the opposite. I was simply commenting on the way some people attempt to invalidate other people's points if they refer to former politicians, even if those former politicians are relevant to the point. I wasn't saying you'd done that, I was just offering examples.
That is exactly how democracy works mate and he knows that, but it doesn't suit his agenda. Sadly a lot of people are wooed by soundbites and populism. My mate had a lad who worked for him who voted for Brexit on the sole criteria of "The French eat frogs, and I like frogs so I am voting leave" I kid you not
Just because you were commenting on the subject too, really. I wasn't necessarily disagreeing with you, just trying to make a point that could be put alongside your point.
Round where I currently live the incumbent mp is critisised on an almost daily basis. He votes in Parliament always tow the party line and always lead to the community complaining. He very rarely if ever appears in the constituency, let alone hold surgeries as his base is London, yet you can guarentee his seat at the next General election as despite the lib dems and greens being the better local candidates, the tory vote always wins through. I'm not quite sure what the locals actually want as they moan like hell about the tory party, then vote them in at every opportunity
You actually look that funny. Come on crying about 'fan boys' without realising it is your fellow labour supporters doing it. Then you cried about racist baiting and done exactly the same thing to me. Unbelievable Silly sausage
Labour didn't create the NHS. It was a cross party consensus and would have been rolled out whoever won the election.
I try not to join in political debates on this forum (Think we should stick to football) but this is a subject close to my heart and that’s absolute bollox. Straight from the Mat Hancock school of politics. There was a cross party report recommending a dogs dinner of a national service based on individual local authorities but only if they wanted to join in. The NHS as we know it was created by Aneurin Bevan and the Labour Party The Conservative party consistently voted against its creation
One thing the UK could do is make voting compulsory as it is here. Looking at that Shropshire post only 39% voted and a party with 29% of that vote will most likely hold. That's a 3rd of 40% which effectively means that 13% of the electorate have decided who their representative is
They are more and more like Mags every day now these Tories, rewriting history to suit their own agenda. The NHS and the entire welfare state is the antithesis of Tory party philosophy. A Labour government CREATED it and If it wasn't political suicide the Tories would dismantle it tomorrow, just as they did with all the other nationalised "industries".
Isn't ignoring the fact that there was support for some form of National Health Service amongst senior figures in all three of the major parties not rewriting history? Suggesting that only the Labour party had anything to do with it is blinkered and shows clear bias. If you consider that the three key individuals involved in its genesis were Henry Willink, William Beveridge, and Bevan, that's one from each party. The wartime cabinet, a coalition, gave their backing to it.
And why didn't the Tories get rid of it when they got back in. It's just a ludicrous argument to make. And perfectly understandable if they choose to ignore historical context of course. 24hrs to save the NHS. Since 1951. Maybe that's why the Tories are rubbish, they've failed what they apparently want to to more than anything for seventy years.
Bollocks, Churchill's tories voted 21 times against the formation of the NHS. Of course they want to rewrite history, one of many reports did come from a cross party committee, most of the documents relating to the formation of the NHS did come from Labour. Tories and lots of doctors resisted it. If we look at health funding in Western Developed countries we come way down the list of amount spent per head or beds per population or doctors nurses and ancillary staff, eg x-ray or ultrasound technicians. Atm the NHS has over 90,000 vacancies. The oft quoted mantra is the NHS keeps swallowing funds is true, but only because of chronic underfunding. Until the NHS has a lot more hospitals and medical staff, until it reaches a sort of equilibrium, ie less than 90+ plus percentage of bed occupancy in the winter months, a little bit of more funding, whilst needed and helpful is not good enough. Imagine a small family of 2 adults and 2 children, their income is such they cannot afford rent, food, clothing etc. Until their income is sufficient to provide a roof over their heads, food, clothing heating etc; increasing their income a little, helps of course, but doesn't alter the basic fact that they are below the poverty line.
See, this is where hstorical context is even more important. Nobody would have known at the time what the NHS would become, because nobody had experienced it. Plus, the opposition opposes - that's what they do. As we know, the content of what's being voted on rarely matters. If the other side propose it, you vote it down. It's not right, but it's the way it always has been.
And the Tories voting against the NHS was very part of the reason Churchill was booted out of office with a landslide Labour win very soon after we won WW2.
