Off Topic Political Debate

I don't think it's possible to speak of Trident outside of the context of NATO - it is, basically, a NATO weapon, which, if ever used, would be as part of a NATO defence (or offensive) operation. Bearing in mind that NATO's main function has ceased to be as a defence against the Warsaw Pact, and has actually increased it's activities into thinking that they have a divine right to encircle Russia, through having forces stationed far into Eastern Europe, then I do not find it illogical to think of NATO as now being the aggressor. Going further into the scenario that Trump gets into power in America, do we want to be a part of all this ? Trident makes us a legitimate target in any conflict which NATO is involved in, whether defensive or otherwise. In my opinion we should be not only scrapping Trident, but also withdrawing from NATO, and also closing down all USAF activities in the UK. Strange to think that so many people have talked of 'sovereignty' in recent weeks without mentioning that we are still the biggest offshore US aircraft carrier in the World.

 

Hard to tell under those chadors.

 

That sounds rather like Socialist Worker speak to me.
NATO will not start a war. Russia might. Invasions of Crimea and Ukraine together with support of Assad show they are no peace loving nation. It is all we need to have an idiot like Trump in the White House too. Uncertainty is often dangerous - to withdraw from NATO would destabilise the West. The US has global interests and has forces everywhere. China is a far more important major power now than Russia. "Biggest offshore US aircraft carrier" - oh dear oh dear oh dear - slogans not arguments.

 

It's not a slogan Leo, there are 10 bases in the UK. which play host to the USAF. and 2 which are solely in their hands, Lakenheath and Mildenhall. The fact that the USA. has forces based everywhere means that they have a 'global' notion of what constitutes self defence - which increases the likelihood of war. The chances of us being caught up in something like that are greater because of Trident. I do not want to get into backing Putin because I do not trust him but.....the occupation of the Crimea was justified. The place has a 'Russian' majority who had voted for independence from the Ukraine, a nation which did not recognize that vote, or declaration. Under similar circumstances most western nations would have taken a similar course. That Russia feels encircled does not need to be proved - NATO forces are now within very easy striking distance of Moscow (ie. in the Belarus states), and Russia does not want them in the Ukraine as well. How would the Americans react if the Russian military were knocking at their house door ? NATO will not start a war, but it may well provoke one. Quite frankly I don't care if the socialist worker are saying the same thing. If they are then they are right, for once !

 

How long have those bases been there? The US is a global power and has global defences - so what? Trident is immaterial to Russia - it is just part of the US nuclear arsenal to them. You think the UK could be hit by Russia but not Germany as they don't have nuclear weapons - I doubt it.
For Crimea read Czechoslovakia 1938, for Putin read Hitler, for Russian read German. I am aghast that you could justify an occupation by a foreign power of a sovereign country. You support Israel and China's occupations too do you? Spain would give up the Basque region on a vote would it?
Russia is huge - but it borders the West in Finland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania - you support the annexation of legitimate regimes there too do you?
I have no idea what the Socialist Worker says - I just do not like sloganised arguments and orchestrated marches and party membership like Momentum organise.

 

This discussion is very much based on how the world is today, and yet in 10 or 20 years time the threat could come from a very different area of the world. That we do not know, but we have seen that some are prepared to stop at nothing to try to get their way.

 

Agreed Frenchie - but the nuclear weapons argument still holds as newer threats are likely to be cyber based - or use everyday objects like trucks. Developing nuclear weapons is a bit "old world"

 

The Crimea is a special case Leo. Its own parliament declared independence, had a vote on the matter, and then asked to be included in the Russian Federation (which it was historically a part of) - it did this based upon its Russian majority, and through fear of Ukrainian reprisals. This is a different case to the others which you are quoting - the question is, was the Crimea a sovereign nation at the time of the annexation ? I would also be largely in favour of Basque or Catalan independence by the way. As to Israel, China or Nazi Germany I have not said a word - but I will say that the most expansionist nation on this earth is the USA. - they do not do it through annexation (that would be too expensive) but through informal influence and military power. When did they ever recognize the democratic wishes of people in countries like Nicaragua or Chile ? They do not conquer nations, they subsidize semi fascist dictatorships worldwide - infiltrate and topple left leaning ones (eg. the Sandanistas, or Alliende) as it suits their own agenda. NATO has turned itself from a, then necessary, means of holding the Soviet block at bay - to an expansionist power (against pledges made to Gorbachov) which has no other aim than to expand American economic/military power in all directions.

 

Didn't Nostradamus predict that a 'yellow peril' would sweep the world? Or is such a term no longer PC because of connotations...

 

I think we would need a much larger stadium to take on the world.

 

As an interested outsider I watched Corbyn and Smith debating in Wales in the leadership contest. In soccer terms it was a 3-0 victory for Smith. It was very clear that Corbyn is an idealist, not a practical leader. I have often thought he is happy when addressing a small meeting without having his ideas examined, but tonight he was seen to be inadequate when trying to explain why the party is so split. I think that Smith was trying to be more radical than Corbyn and yet put over that none of their views were relevant unless they could show a united party that could win power.

 

Our MPs are not totally against the idea of nationalisation it would seem...

http://www.theguardian.com/politics...nationalise-westminster-pub-for-their-own-use

Bloody typical.

 

Nice new header for this thread

 

Complaints have been made against judge Patricia Lynch QC who used the C-word in court. Had she been reading Leo's use of the word.

 

Had my op yesterday and am currently in less pain than BB seems to be in (thinking of you, ).

It was a BUPA hospital, treatment paid for by the NHS. It just really gets me that when my wife was being treated for a stroke, our local hospital was so remiss it was extraordinary. Thankfully it wasn't a stroke (even though they thought it was for nearly four days), if it had been she would have been dead or at the very least, seriously damaged by the lack of urgency and response from the hospital.
When I went it with a dodgy knee, yes it caused daily pain, but it wasn't life-threatening, I get care with all the bells and whistles.
The farming out of care to BUPA et al is inefficient, poorly aimed and a drain on the NHS. There is no argument for our country maintaining a private sector in this industry. My God, it seems fairly unanimous to nationalise the railways (which I agree with), but for really important matters like Health and Education, there is no similar consensus. I don't understand. Where are our priorities?

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37151089

I like the headline of this article

 

I hope you are recovering well from your op.
I am not sure where you are going with the BUPA thing though. The NHS is overwhelmed by excessive demands. There has been no clear cut review of what should or should not be treated, how quickly etc etc for decades. You could spend the entire GDP on the NHS and still it would be insufficient. There is a private sector paid for by companies for their employees and for those who choose to self insure. If they have capacity and the NHS does not then surely it makes sense to use the facility rather than leave it less than fully occupied. To provide those extra beds staff etc for the NHS would prove far more costly than to pay a premium for a few ops the NHS cannot handle.
As for standards in the NHS (and probably in the private sector too there will always be better and worse hospitals - like schools - often dependent on those running them. If you want to experience really poor NHS service go to Wales - it is like the third world. My son in law - a consultant (although till recently a junior doctor) says that it is know as the placebo arm of the NHS.
On your railways point it does seem that at the moment nationalisation of the railways is the current thing to support. Perhaps those people do not remember the days of British Rail. What a good idea - let's have the entire nation spending billions on union based inefficient state enterprise again. Like the EU - people have short memories -how many of those who voted Leave remember the 1970s in th UK - but that is where we are going back to.
I cannot think of one good example of government appointed bureaucrats running a decent service. Nice in theory and very appealing to those on the left - but in practice .........

 

Hi Leo, the knee's doing pretty well, though not as neat a job as I last had (my son brought home from school genuinely neater needlework than can be seen on my knee at the moment) - also with BUPA doing NHS work. My right Achilles' tendon is either partially ruptured or severely inflamed, depending on which (witch??) doctor you listen to. It's bloody painful whatever.
The argument re NHS is a moral one regarding equity, but also links with efficiency, sound medical practice over financial incentive, and doctoring (couldn't resist that ) data to fool the public into thinking that private, insurance-based healthcare is a better option for our country.
Around 7% of the NHS budget goes to private companies.
The decisions as how to allocate the budget are made largely by GP commissioning groups - about 70% of the whole budget. They award the same number of contracts to private companies as the NHS (why is the NHS having to bid to provide healthcare? ).
Of the contracts worth more than £100m in 2014, 11 of the 13 went to for-profit companies, 2 to the NHS. This includes £280m to Virgin to look after elderly in East Staffs. They'd won over £500m worth of contracts before they got that £126m contract in Kent recently, for the elderly. No wonder that greedy bastard Branson (knighted by Tory Blair) has such a big bloody grin, he's mopping up what used to be nationalised industry money.
When I had to choose my hospital (governments are big on 'choice', including Tory Blair's of course, who started this rout), I couldn't choose an NHS one . I was truthfully engaged in a conversation with a very friendly and agreeable person about which of the private hospitals do the most surgical over non-surgical procedures! I didn't want surgery, there is another procedure I wanted but I am left questioning (and this was part of my very frank conversation with the 'procurer' () whether for-profit organisations are more likely to opt for the more expensive option over the actual medically optimum procedure.
PFI financed hospitals build quality has come into question, as well as the appalling financial legacy of debt. For-profit companies issuing their own certificates of build quality. Worrying as Edinburgh schools closed for this same reason.
The question of GDP is a good one. I am not urging necessarily for an increase by GDP. We would have to double our NHS spending to reach the same GDP level as the States, but their health service came last in a Commonwealth Fund report into the healthcare of the nations of the world in terms of efficiency, equity and cost. We came second. Private insurance-based healthcare feathers the nests of rich people like Branson, by, according to the Commonwealth Fund report, increasing costs (those profits don't come from nowhere) and decreasing efficiency. On a moral basis alone, they decrease equity. Did I mention that many of these companies have offshore tax havens built into their structures? A recent report said that Virgin is unlikely to pay tax "in the foreseeable future".
Tory Blair started most of this, but he would have been no friend of Nye. The change in NHS Hospitals being allowed to earn up to 49% of their budget from private patients, came at a time when those waiting on trollies in hospital went up by 400%!
I could go on. I believe the reason my wife's life was put in danger was a cynical political move by successive Tory governments (I wholeheartedly include Blair in those) who seek to undermine the quality of our NHS in order to gain personal financial gains via 'better' private healthcare companies. The involvement of these private agents in terms of Tory Party financing is also disgusting beyond words.

As Tony Hancock and Hugh Lloyd would say: "As long as you've got your health..."
God help you if you haven't, is all I can say to that.

 

Your post is too long for me to try to answer most points so I will try to stick to principles. I have no private health insurance - but did when I was at work. It was useful as it got quicker treatment in better conditions - although I do not think you got better doctors - many do NHS and private work
I think the NHS should be the backbone of the country's health service - free and available to everyone (and I would include dentistry) and it should be of the highest possible quality that the amount of resources the country is willing to put into it will buy. That will leave holes and it should be down to medical experts not government ministers to determine how the money is spent - although perhaps the government could lay down a few rules like not allowing cosmetic surgery.
Having a private health service alongside the NHS means that rich people and companies like the ones I worked for take a lot of patients out of the NHS and de facto save the NHS their cost and so releases it for others. Unlike many I have no jealousy towards rich people and accept in this world education and health WILL be bought - even if people have to organise it themselves or go abroad for it. You will not stop a millionaire getting better treatment - so let's accept that as how the world turns.
Countries like France successfully integrate public and private health service to give a much better service than we achieve.
As far as bidding for services goes: if two potential providers, one of whom is making profits for themselves, the other is not then the one not making a profit ought to be cheaper and so win the contract if both are equally efficient. It suggests - and goes with everything I have experienced with publicly run services - that the private services are more efficient and so can win a tender on contract even while making a profit. If you suggest that those awarding the contracts are blind to the quality of what is being provided then your issue should be with inefficient buyers (government people?) not with the concept of private health care.
Your comment in bold on decreasing equity is therefore 180º wrong. To operate so efficiently that they can undercut the opposition whilst making a profit suggests they are cost efficient and are increasing equity. ( I am not sure you can call that moral or not - it is financial).

However - having made all these arguments on a personal level I would still prefer to see the NHS stand alone and not mix with the private sector except in cases of emergency. That is not a sensile economic or fiancial position - it is just that I believe in an inclusive and strong NHS.

 

Hi Leo! You were longer than me! Gotta be quick now, only have time for longer posts during insomniac nights, so excuse me if I sound glib (moi? ) but I don't have time to be flowery.
I think private healthcare, via work or wherever, is wrong. It is not equitable and means that a proportion of money the nation spends on healthcare goes to shareholders rather than patients' health. The money doesn't materialise, it is part of the GDP. Why should one person be allowed quicker treatment than another? This is a moral question as I see it.
Totally agree re dentistry, people should not be making financial decisions about the quality of their healthcare. Given the fact that poor teeth have a knock-on to health of the heart, this only makes common sense. Well, and moral sense.
Not because I don't look hugely different to this , I would include opticians in this too. My eyesight and my children's is inherent. Why should I now, and they in the future have to pay to rectify something that is not our fault? It's not because of smoking, drink/drug abuse, poor diet (and believe me I've tried ), yet poor people make financial choices about whether they can see!
Agree re how much we put in, quality and choices of how to spend.
Companies and the rich don't take people out if the NHS! Huge No! It is still part of the nation's healthcare spend, it just goes to show that we could pay more equitably raised tax into the NHS and make sure those new services are shared fairly - not keeping the cream of service for the wealthy. That is morally wrong, in my view.
Your contention that we have to accept that rich people will get better healthcare and education is not one I share. I aspire to greater things.
Don't make assumptions about perceived jealousy of wealth. I'm certainly not jealous, I think it is an ideological matter as to why people can amass fortunes on the backs of people living in poor housing, who received an education without benefits, who have poorer healthcare. And the situation is likely to be the same for their children. Not a meritocracy as is claimed. It just goes round and round. It is inefficient to keep potentially more able people in that rut because that's where they come from.
The fact that the NHS spent 14% on administration in 2010 as opposed to 5% in 1979, is not eased by being legally required to involve itself in bidding for healthcare services. Absurdity at its best.
My comment in bold was one of the main conclusions of the Commonwealth Fund report. Patently equity is not achieved by a two-tier system. The term 'equity' is used in terms of its meaning of fairness and justice.
I agree with you at the end of your statement, although for me it is a financial matter, but primarily a moral matter.
I'm wholly with Corbyn in his aims to renationalise the NHS.
Aaagh! That was me being brief. Back to the world of dreams...