Off Topic Politics Thread

[ChilcoSaint]

Well you guys seem to have kept a closer eye on these things than me then.

Tbf, I know professionals within the NHS who talk about Conservatives attempting to destroy the NHS in similar terms to you.

What Piebacca is doing is what my old maths teacher used to call reductio ad absurdam. By taking an argument to a ridiculous extreme, you try to disprove it. Unfortunately he can't disprove the fact that the NHS, despite being reorganised by every government since its creation, still exists by the efforts of the people who work for it, despite what successive governments, not just the Tories, tried to do to it.

 

[fatletiss]

What Piebacca is doing is what my old maths teacher used to call reductio ad absurdam. By taking an argument to a ridiculous extreme, you try to disprove it. Unfortunately he can't disprove the fact that the NHS, despite being reorganised by every government since its creation, still exists by the efforts of the people who work for it, despite what successive governments, not just the Tories, tried to do to it.

I'm glad an experienced NHS employee has pointed out that every government has tried their 'thing' with it.

 

[Beddy]

We've had our disagreements Vin, but this is spot on. I posted something along the same lines a few weeks ago. Parliamentary yah-boo mutual slagging-off leaves me completely cold these days, and I would love to see a complete realignment of politics in this country with a national coalition working together, along the lines of the government during WWII. PR has to happen to bring that about though.

Surely though the labour banner is against PR?

 

[Archers Road]

I'm glad an experienced NHS employee has pointed out that every government has tried their 'thing' with it.

Such as creating it in the first place, in the face of stiff opposition from the only party to oppose it? I'll leave you to guess where the three main parties stood in 1945. But please don't make the mistake of thinking the NHS is valued equally across the political landscape. History tells a very different story.

 

[ChilcoSaint]

Such as creating it in the first place, in the face of stiff opposition from the only party to oppose it? I'll leave you to guess where the three main parties stood in 1945. But please don't make the mistake of thinking the NHS is valued equally across the political landscape. History tells a very different story.

Yes, history tells us that the successive Blair governments took up the Thatcher idea of the internal market in the NHS and went even further with it. I'm sorry Archers, but the socialist Labour Party which set up the NHS simply doesn't exist any more.

 

[Onionman]

Such as creating it in the first place, in the face of stiff opposition from the only party to oppose it? I'll leave you to guess where the three main parties stood in 1945. But please don't make the mistake of thinking the NHS is valued equally across the political landscape. History tells a very different story.

Blimey, if we're holding current political parties to what they believed in years ago then the following must apply:

Polaris was supported by Labour and opposed by the Tories (much more recently than 1945) therefore the current Labour party must support Trident. Clearly Corbyn must be lying if he says he's against it. He must have a secret agenda to install and upgrade Trident.


Vin

 

[Archers Road]

Yes, history tells us that the successive Blair governments took up the Thatcher idea of the internal market in the NHS and went even further with it. I'm sorry Archers, but the socialist Labour Party which set up the NHS simply doesn't exist any more.

Have you had a look at the Labour Party recently?

Blimey, if we're holding current political parties to what they believed in years ago then the following must apply:

Polaris was supported by Labour and opposed by the Tories (much more recently than 1945) therefore the current Labour party must support Trident. Clearly Corbyn must be lying if he says he's against it. He must have a secret agenda to install and upgrade Trident.


Vin

I somehow doubt Corbyn ever supported Polaris, so no inconsitancy there. However, I will concede that defence is usually considered a weakness for Labour.

Just as the NHS is considered a weakness for the Conservatives. In both cases, not without justification.

 

[Whiteley Saint]

The NHS has expanded over time into an unwieldy mismanaged concern. Departments keeping getting added and they don't integrate them so they have ended up with various stand alone parts all doing their own thing. There's more to it than the hospitals. I also know people who work within the NHS and they are astounded at the amount of money still being wasted compared to the private sector and in some cases the hospitals. It's a political hot potato and I'm not sure anyone has got the nerve to really tackle it and make it more efficient.

 

[davecg69]

The NHS has expanded over time into an unwieldy mismanaged concern. Departments keeping getting added and they don't integrate them so they have ended up with various stand alone parts all doing their own thing. There's more to it than the hospitals. I also know people who work within the NHS and they are astounded at the amount of money still being wasted compared to the private sector and in some cases the hospitals. It's a political hot potato and I'm not sure anyone has got the nerve to really tackle it and make it more efficient.

Well said! This is what I've heard as well - from friends who work in hospitals. If the major part of the money went on actual care and not admin, it would be even more amazing than it is now. Remember the fiasco of the IT systems a few years ago? I wonder if any heads rolled over that, as they would have done in private industry.

 

[Onionman]

I somehow doubt Corbyn ever supported Polaris, so no inconsitancy there. However, I will concede that defence is usually considered a weakness for Labour.

Just as the NHS is considered a weakness for the Conservatives. In both cases, not without justification.

I think you're quite deliberately missing my point now*.

I'm not saying "defence is a weakness for Labour". I'm pointing out that political parties can radically change their views (as per Labour and nuclear weapons since the 1970s). So, using the Tories' views on the NHS in 1945 as a guide to their beliefs 71 years later is utterly ludicrous.

Vin

* So I won't be bothering any more after this post. Twist my meaning as much as you like.

 

[Onionman]

Well said! This is what I've heard as well - from friends who work in hospitals. If the major part of the money went on actual care and not admin, it would be even more amazing than it is now. Remember the fiasco of the IT systems a few years ago? I wonder if any heads rolled over that, as they would have done in private industry.

Many years ago Ken Clarke said that one of the problems with the NHS is that burning a pile of money in a hospital corridor would count as NHS expenditure and thus be seen as a good thing.

Vin

 

[Archers Road]

I think you're quite deliberately missing my point now*.

I'm not saying "defence is a weakness for Labour". I'm pointing out that political parties can radically change their views (as per Labour and nuclear weapons since the 1970s). So, using the Tories' views on the NHS in 1945 as a guide to their beliefs 71 years later is utterly ludicrous.

Vin

* So I won't be bothering any more after this post. Twist my meaning as much as you like.

Mate, once again I'm not missing your point, I'm fundamentally disagreeing with it. It's quite clear you and I have very different ways of looking at the world; I can accept that, life wouldn't be the fascinating drama it is if we all thought the same way. But no matter how many times you attempt to restate and redefine your point of view, I will continue to see the tories as the party of the privilaged, out of touch with the concerns of ordinary working people. If it looks like the party of the rich, talks like the party of the rich, and acts like the party of the rich, it's probably the party of the rich. Which would explain why it doesn't give much of a toss about the poor.

I'm happy to leave it at that, but I have a feeling you'll be back for the last word.

 

[tiggermaster]

The NHS has expanded over time into an unwieldy mismanaged concern. Departments keeping getting added and they don't integrate them so they have ended up with various stand alone parts all doing their own thing. There's more to it than the hospitals. I also know people who work within the NHS and they are astounded at the amount of money still being wasted compared to the private sector and in some cases the hospitals. It's a political hot potato and I'm not sure anyone has got the nerve to really tackle it and make it more efficient.

In my experience, most, but not all of the money being wasted was because of continual reorganisation that only served the purposes of management consultants and their political friends. Front line services, especially those whose work loads are variable from day to day are struggling. Do not think that the private sector is immune from wasting money, I have been offered consultancy work in the private sector way above what I earned in the NHS for basically using expertise gained within the NHS.
You are right that there is more to it than hospitals, until there is decent linkage between Primary, Secondary and Community Services the NHS will continue to have it's woes. You would think with all these reorganisations this may have been addressed. It has been addressed in words but never in true action, indicating management failure at the highest level.
Furthermore the divide between Social Care and Health Care will never be solved until budgets are merged, this has been the biggest obstacle to providing seamless services for ever. Merging those budgets is a political decision that nobody of any political persuasion has been prepared to make. Rant over

 

[Saints_Alive]

Mate, once again I'm not missing your point, I'm fundamentally disagreeing with it. It's quite clear you and I have very different ways of looking at the world; I can accept that, life wouldn't be the fascinating drama it is if we all thought the same way. But no matter how many times you attempt to restate and redefine your point of view, I will continue to see the tories as the party of the privilaged, out of touch with the concerns of ordinary working people. If it looks like the party of the rich, talks like the party of the rich, and acts like the party of the rich, it's probably the party of the rich. Which would explain why it doesn't give much of a toss about the poor.

I'm happy to leave it at that, but I have a feeling you'll be back for the last word.

Couldn't agree more...

 

[TheSecondStain]

Couldn't agree more...

Not a lot to disagree with there, was there.

 

[TheSecondStain]

Not everyone's favourite comedian. Certainly not mine. But his act is just that, an act. He's actually an observant and sensitive bloke. From the same paper that gave you Dele Alli's punch [that's where I found it], here's Frankie Boyle's opinion on Jeremy Hunt and what he represents:

http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...-understand-junior-doctors-book-dismantle-nhs

 

[davecg69]

Mate, once again I'm not missing your point, I'm fundamentally disagreeing with it. It's quite clear you and I have very different ways of looking at the world; I can accept that, life wouldn't be the fascinating drama it is if we all thought the same way. But no matter how many times you attempt to restate and redefine your point of view, I will continue to see the tories as the party of the privilaged, out of touch with the concerns of ordinary working people. If it looks like the party of the rich, talks like the party of the rich, and acts like the party of the rich, it's probably the party of the rich. Which would explain why it doesn't give much of a toss about the poor.

I'm happy to leave it at that, but I have a feeling you'll be back for the last word.

Depends on how one defines the term "rich", I suppose. Owning one's home = Rich. Having a job = Rich in many parts of the world. Access to food and water = Rich in many parts of the world .........
So, one can agree to disagree. I don't classify myself as "rich" in any way, however, I have a car (at the moment) and was lucky enough to have a decent job which allowed me to see many parts of the world where people are a lot poorer than in this country. I will vote whichever way I believe, but I won't ever vote for an extreme view, be it left or right. I'm with Vin on this "let's bash the Tories, they're all scum" business - in the 70's it was the unions who turned on their beloved Labour party and said the same about them - hence the demise of the left. I'd far rather there was a government of the people looking after the truly needy and working for the people - however, I firmly believe we'll never get that with either the current Tory or Labour party - too many extreme views.
By the way, many "rich" people redistribute their wealth in the form of charitable donations and assistance - I guess you'd have them up against a wall as well come the revolution?

 

[Whiteley Saint]

All people in the UK are considered rich compared to some others. I was in South Africa and saw real poverty there. The rich, as referred to by our driver, lived in the normal houses which the majority of people on this thread live in over here. The people who lived in tin huts and worked in the mines were well off according to him. People were seen in the middle of nowhere walking along the road - no cars for them. I felt embarrassed to be so well off and to take it for granted. I have always said since then that everyone should go and see some of these countries and then maybe we will count our blessings.

I do not begrudge people who run the country being well off - not just Tories by the way but Labour too - but what I do find outrageous is that a footballer can earn more in 1 week than the Prime Minister does in 1 year.

I like to think I take each individual for who they are and not what they do or don't have so it's a shame that some seem to have prejudices which they just can't let go.

 

[Handyman]

Let's put being rich and poor this way. The rich get the chance to be charitable, once in a while, through their own decision making. The poor have to be charitable every day whether they like it or not, so that the rich can have the choice. And that's as true today as it was in Robert Tressell's time.

 

[fatletiss]

Mate, once again I'm not missing your point, I'm fundamentally disagreeing with it. It's quite clear you and I have very different ways of looking at the world; I can accept that, life wouldn't be the fascinating drama it is if we all thought the same way. But no matter how many times you attempt to restate and redefine your point of view, I will continue to see the tories as the party of the privilaged, out of touch with the concerns of ordinary working people. If it looks like the party of the rich, talks like the party of the rich, and acts like the party of the rich, it's probably the party of the rich. Which would explain why it doesn't give much of a toss about the poor.

I'm happy to leave it at that, but I have a feeling you'll be back for the last word.

Does that mean that Vin (who has told us he is a Tory must be Rich? I don't agree with that part of your post because it is a sweeping statement as most political posts are.

My Dad votes UKIP - I assume most people think he is a racist bastard. My Jamaican wife doesn't think he is.

I really don't like politics. Here we have two of the posters that I really enjoy and respect a lot of their views in our football forum, drawing lines in the sand. Political lines.