FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Voting intentions
Voting intentions
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In my, predominantly labour borough, the feeling at grass roots from reading all the local media, the swing is strongly Reform. Each day the swing is more towards Reform. There is a very good chance the candidate will win. Who are you going to vote for?" Is this your way of saying that your voting intention is for reform?  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"After an unsatisfactory period of government of any colour, political iconoclasts always rise out of the swamp on a tide of popularism. In these days of Internet, social media, and sound bites the likes of Farage and Reform will appeal to the disgruntled voter. The problem is popularity does not mean competence. If I want a laugh, I will find a comedian. If I am picking someone to run the country, I want a boring but competent guy. As a political, popularity, outlier Farage and Rdfirm may appeal as a slap in the face for the established parties but he/they are, like all popularists, making promises they know they could not keep and will not be obliged to keep. " It could be argued that any party voted in is populist by default. It is another buzz word being used to make people feel bad about their choices.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"After an unsatisfactory period of government of any colour, political iconoclasts always rise out of the swamp on a tide of popularism. In these days of Internet, social media, and sound bites the likes of Farage and Reform will appeal to the disgruntled voter. The problem is popularity does not mean competence. If I want a laugh, I will find a comedian. If I am picking someone to run the country, I want a boring but competent guy. As a political, popularity, outlier Farage and Rdfirm may appeal as a slap in the face for the established parties but he/they are, like all popularists, making promises they know they could not keep and will not be obliged to keep. " For sure, much of Reform's apparent support is down to a protest vote. It's a weird situation : more about getting the Tories out than widespread desire for socialism. So if voters can't bring themselves to vote for Starmer, Rayner, Abbott et al., who else to vote for? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"After an unsatisfactory period of government of any colour, political iconoclasts always rise out of the swamp on a tide of popularism. In these days of Internet, social media, and sound bites the likes of Farage and Reform will appeal to the disgruntled voter. The problem is popularity does not mean competence. If I want a laugh, I will find a comedian. If I am picking someone to run the country, I want a boring but competent guy. As a political, popularity, outlier Farage and Rdfirm may appeal as a slap in the face for the established parties but he/they are, like all popularists, making promises they know they could not keep and will not be obliged to keep. It could be argued that any party voted in is populist by default. It is another buzz word being used to make people feel bad about their choices. "That’s not true. Popularism is characterised by having policies purely designed to be popular and gain votes/power rather than being true to traditional party ideology. It also means these popular policies are subject to change with the changing mood of the electorate. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"After an unsatisfactory period of government of any colour, political iconoclasts always rise out of the swamp on a tide of popularism. In these days of Internet, social media, and sound bites the likes of Farage and Reform will appeal to the disgruntled voter. The problem is popularity does not mean competence. If I want a laugh, I will find a comedian. If I am picking someone to run the country, I want a boring but competent guy. As a political, popularity, outlier Farage and Rdfirm may appeal as a slap in the face for the established parties but he/they are, like all popularists, making promises they know they could not keep and will not be obliged to keep. For sure, much of Reform's apparent support is down to a protest vote. It's a weird situation : more about getting the Tories out than widespread desire for socialism. So if voters can't bring themselves to vote for Starmer, Rayner, Abbott et al., who else to vote for?" Lib Dems Despite the desperate stunts, their _anifesto is pretty good! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"After an unsatisfactory period of government of any colour, political iconoclasts always rise out of the swamp on a tide of popularism. In these days of Internet, social media, and sound bites the likes of Farage and Reform will appeal to the disgruntled voter. The problem is popularity does not mean competence. If I want a laugh, I will find a comedian. If I am picking someone to run the country, I want a boring but competent guy. As a political, popularity, outlier Farage and Rdfirm may appeal as a slap in the face for the established parties but he/they are, like all popularists, making promises they know they could not keep and will not be obliged to keep. It could be argued that any party voted in is populist by default. It is another buzz word being used to make people feel bad about their choices.
That’s not true. Popularism is characterised by having policies purely designed to be popular and gain votes/power rather than being true to traditional party ideology. It also means these popular policies are subject to change with the changing mood of the electorate."But it is true… The Labour Party are doing that very thing, scrap Rwanda, VAT on private schools, non dom tax loopholes etc. all populist and let’s see how they get on with them. Populist is being used to say right wing at the moment and that is not correct. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"After an unsatisfactory period of government of any colour, political iconoclasts always rise out of the swamp on a tide of popularism. In these days of Internet, social media, and sound bites the likes of Farage and Reform will appeal to the disgruntled voter. The problem is popularity does not mean competence. If I want a laugh, I will find a comedian. If I am picking someone to run the country, I want a boring but competent guy. As a political, popularity, outlier Farage and Rdfirm may appeal as a slap in the face for the established parties but he/they are, like all popularists, making promises they know they could not keep and will not be obliged to keep. It could be argued that any party voted in is populist by default. It is another buzz word being used to make people feel bad about their choices. "The Reform party candidates and the reform party _anifesto should be enough to make people feel bad about their choice to vote Reform. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"After an unsatisfactory period of government of any colour, political iconoclasts always rise out of the swamp on a tide of popularism. In these days of Internet, social media, and sound bites the likes of Farage and Reform will appeal to the disgruntled voter. The problem is popularity does not mean competence. If I want a laugh, I will find a comedian. If I am picking someone to run the country, I want a boring but competent guy. As a political, popularity, outlier Farage and Rdfirm may appeal as a slap in the face for the established parties but he/they are, like all popularists, making promises they know they could not keep and will not be obliged to keep. It could be argued that any party voted in is populist by default. It is another buzz word being used to make people feel bad about their choices.
That’s not true. Popularism is characterised by having policies purely designed to be popular and gain votes/power rather than being true to traditional party ideology. It also means these popular policies are subject to change with the changing mood of the electorate.
But it is true… The Labour Party are doing that very thing, scrap Rwanda, VAT on private schools, non dom tax loopholes etc. all populist and let’s see how they get on with them.
Populist is being used to say right wing at the moment and that is not correct. "is labour taxing the wealthier parts of society, and offering compassion to the vulnerable, that out of kilter with their ideology ? And we are now at a place where both Rwanda and non Rwanda is populsit !! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"After an unsatisfactory period of government of any colour, political iconoclasts always rise out of the swamp on a tide of popularism. In these days of Internet, social media, and sound bites the likes of Farage and Reform will appeal to the disgruntled voter. The problem is popularity does not mean competence. If I want a laugh, I will find a comedian. If I am picking someone to run the country, I want a boring but competent guy. As a political, popularity, outlier Farage and Rdfirm may appeal as a slap in the face for the established parties but he/they are, like all popularists, making promises they know they could not keep and will not be obliged to keep. For sure, much of Reform's apparent support is down to a protest vote. It's a weird situation : more about getting the Tories out than widespread desire for socialism. So if voters can't bring themselves to vote for Starmer, Rayner, Abbott et al., who else to vote for? Lib Dems Despite the desperate stunts, their _anifesto is pretty good!" I can't forgive what the Lib Dems did in 2010. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"After an unsatisfactory period of government of any colour, political iconoclasts always rise out of the swamp on a tide of popularism. In these days of Internet, social media, and sound bites the likes of Farage and Reform will appeal to the disgruntled voter. The problem is popularity does not mean competence. If I want a laugh, I will find a comedian. If I am picking someone to run the country, I want a boring but competent guy. As a political, popularity, outlier Farage and Rdfirm may appeal as a slap in the face for the established parties but he/they are, like all popularists, making promises they know they could not keep and will not be obliged to keep. It could be argued that any party voted in is populist by default. It is another buzz word being used to make people feel bad about their choices.
The Reform party candidates and the reform party _anifesto should be enough to make people feel bad about their choice to vote Reform."I’m very happy to be voting Reform and will do so proudly and openly. We will see shortly how life in the Labour gulag works out for everyone. I wish the Green Party candidates well finding a job somewhere as they won’t be required in Parliament in the UK or EU. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"After an unsatisfactory period of government of any colour, political iconoclasts always rise out of the swamp on a tide of popularism. In these days of Internet, social media, and sound bites the likes of Farage and Reform will appeal to the disgruntled voter. The problem is popularity does not mean competence. If I want a laugh, I will find a comedian. If I am picking someone to run the country, I want a boring but competent guy. As a political, popularity, outlier Farage and Rdfirm may appeal as a slap in the face for the established parties but he/they are, like all popularists, making promises they know they could not keep and will not be obliged to keep. It could be argued that any party voted in is populist by default. It is another buzz word being used to make people feel bad about their choices. "It could be argued that way, but popularist parties are, in my book, defined by the deliverability of the promises they make. For instance the "Mighty UK" or "MUK" party promise, in their first term, to grow the economy at 10% per annum, halve all taxes, stop completely any illegal immigration, double the NHS funding so that you can get the operation you want faster than Amazon Prime and cure all forms of cancer. Any BS filter worthy of note will flag those up as bloody impossible. Yet some will vote for the MUK party believing in their rhetoric. That is a popularist party. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"After an unsatisfactory period of government of any colour, political iconoclasts always rise out of the swamp on a tide of popularism. In these days of Internet, social media, and sound bites the likes of Farage and Reform will appeal to the disgruntled voter. The problem is popularity does not mean competence. If I want a laugh, I will find a comedian. If I am picking someone to run the country, I want a boring but competent guy. As a political, popularity, outlier Farage and Rdfirm may appeal as a slap in the face for the established parties but he/they are, like all popularists, making promises they know they could not keep and will not be obliged to keep. For sure, much of Reform's apparent support is down to a protest vote. It's a weird situation : more about getting the Tories out than widespread desire for socialism. So if voters can't bring themselves to vote for Starmer, Rayner, Abbott et al., who else to vote for? Lib Dems Despite the desperate stunts, their _anifesto is pretty good! I can't forgive what the Lib Dems did in 2010. " They made promises they could not deliver, to make themselves popular. You are right not to trust them. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"After an unsatisfactory period of government of any colour, political iconoclasts always rise out of the swamp on a tide of popularism. In these days of Internet, social media, and sound bites the likes of Farage and Reform will appeal to the disgruntled voter. The problem is popularity does not mean competence. If I want a laugh, I will find a comedian. If I am picking someone to run the country, I want a boring but competent guy. As a political, popularity, outlier Farage and Rdfirm may appeal as a slap in the face for the established parties but he/they are, like all popularists, making promises they know they could not keep and will not be obliged to keep. It could be argued that any party voted in is populist by default. It is another buzz word being used to make people feel bad about their choices.
The Reform party candidates and the reform party _anifesto should be enough to make people feel bad about their choice to vote Reform.
I’m very happy to be voting Reform and will do so proudly and openly.
"I expect nothing less. " We will see shortly how life in the Labour gulag works out for everyone. " Labour are offering very little change to the status quo. If the occasional policy actually designed to help British people, and less corruption = gulag. Fair enough. " I wish the Green Party candidates well finding a job somewhere as they won’t be required in Parliament in the UK or EU."  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"After an unsatisfactory period of government of any colour, political iconoclasts always rise out of the swamp on a tide of popularism. In these days of Internet, social media, and sound bites the likes of Farage and Reform will appeal to the disgruntled voter. The problem is popularity does not mean competence. If I want a laugh, I will find a comedian. If I am picking someone to run the country, I want a boring but competent guy. As a political, popularity, outlier Farage and Rdfirm may appeal as a slap in the face for the established parties but he/they are, like all popularists, making promises they know they could not keep and will not be obliged to keep. It could be argued that any party voted in is populist by default. It is another buzz word being used to make people feel bad about their choices.
That’s not true. Popularism is characterised by having policies purely designed to be popular and gain votes/power rather than being true to traditional party ideology. It also means these popular policies are subject to change with the changing mood of the electorate.
But it is true… The Labour Party are doing that very thing, scrap Rwanda, VAT on private schools, non dom tax loopholes etc. all populist and let’s see how they get on with them.
Populist is being used to say right wing at the moment and that is not correct. "I made no mention of any party when I described what popularism is. I said it is a move away from the conventional ideology of any particular party. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"After an unsatisfactory period of government of any colour, political iconoclasts always rise out of the swamp on a tide of popularism. In these days of Internet, social media, and sound bites the likes of Farage and Reform will appeal to the disgruntled voter. The problem is popularity does not mean competence. If I want a laugh, I will find a comedian. If I am picking someone to run the country, I want a boring but competent guy. As a political, popularity, outlier Farage and Rdfirm may appeal as a slap in the face for the established parties but he/they are, like all popularists, making promises they know they could not keep and will not be obliged to keep. For sure, much of Reform's apparent support is down to a protest vote. It's a weird situation : more about getting the Tories out than widespread desire for socialism. So if voters can't bring themselves to vote for Starmer, Rayner, Abbott et al., who else to vote for? Lib Dems Despite the desperate stunts, their _anifesto is pretty good! I can't forgive what the Lib Dems did in 2010. " I didn’t for a long time but it was 14 years ago under a different leader (two leaders ago?). I like their _anifesto. Of course they haven’t a hope in hell of forming the next govt so they can in theory say anything. It just feels mire measured and sensible compared to other “fringe” parties. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"None are great and they all have their issues thah annoy me. I want a party that alligns with my beliefs. But takes the idea of being in power seriously, even if there is no hope of getting there. And has this apples on the whole. With the party taking decisive action in the bad apples. My closest fit to all 3 is probably lib Dems. Not a bad overall _anifesto and given they could become the oppo, relatively scandal free. Regardless of policies reform fail on the last two massively. And I feel a bit of that with the greens who I'm apparently very aligned to on policies (just not costings !)" good points and agree from me. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"After an unsatisfactory period of government of any colour, political iconoclasts always rise out of the swamp on a tide of popularism. In these days of Internet, social media, and sound bites the likes of Farage and Reform will appeal to the disgruntled voter. The problem is popularity does not mean competence. If I want a laugh, I will find a comedian. If I am picking someone to run the country, I want a boring but competent guy. As a political, popularity, outlier Farage and Rdfirm may appeal as a slap in the face for the established parties but he/they are, like all popularists, making promises they know they could not keep and will not be obliged to keep. For sure, much of Reform's apparent support is down to a protest vote. It's a weird situation : more about getting the Tories out than widespread desire for socialism. So if voters can't bring themselves to vote for Starmer, Rayner, Abbott et al., who else to vote for? Lib Dems Despite the desperate stunts, their _anifesto is pretty good! I can't forgive what the Lib Dems did in 2010. I didn’t for a long time but it was 14 years ago under a different leader (two leaders ago?). I like their _anifesto. Of course they haven’t a hope in hell of forming the next govt so they can in theory say anything. It just feels mire measured and sensible compared to other “fringe” parties." I voted Lib Dem (postal vote) as they are the tatical vote to try to unseat the Tory. Fairly happy with their _anifesto, and they have categorically stated they wouldn't go into coalition with the Tories again. In 2010 the UK had been badly hit by the banking crisis. Despite this the Tories failed to get a majority. The Lib Dems had a choice of siding with Labour, on the condition Brown went (he wouldn't), siding with the Tories, or having a hung parliament and the chaos that entails. With hindsight they made the wrong choice, but in 2010 we were in difficult times. 14 years later the Tories have decimated the UK. Let their mates suck out all our money and ruined all our services. Nothing works anymore. They need to be annihilated. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As much as it bothers me I think this will be quite a good election for Reform UK Limited. I think there is a disconnect between the various polls and the actual feeling on the ground. " The polls suggests lots of people will be voting for the Reform party. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As much as it bothers me I think this will be quite a good election for Reform UK Limited. I think there is a disconnect between the various polls and the actual feeling on the ground. The polls suggests lots of people will be voting for the Reform party." Even in constituencies where they have no candidates apparently  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As much as it bothers me I think this will be quite a good election for Reform UK Limited. I think there is a disconnect between the various polls and the actual feeling on the ground. The polls suggests lots of people will be voting for the Reform party. Even in constituencies where they have no candidates apparently "
There's no Reform candidate in my constituency. It's a Labour safe seat. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As much as it bothers me I think this will be quite a good election for Reform UK Limited. I think there is a disconnect between the various polls and the actual feeling on the ground. The polls suggests lots of people will be voting for the Reform party. Even in constituencies where they have no candidates apparently
There's no Reform candidate in my constituency. It's a Labour safe seat."There was another chap in here who wants to vote Reform but his constituency is the one safe Green seat in the UK and there is no Reform candidate apparently. Now while I do not agree with his decision to vote Reform, it is his decision and I respect that. But what it does is highlight why FPTP disenfranchises voters and leads to apathy. We need PR so every vote counts, even if it does let a few loons into Parliament. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Political debates create some good opinions but also shows how careful you need to be when considering who to vote for. I still have no idea who I will be voting for but I know for certain it won't be labour. I love change with Technology etc. its my love lol but constant changing of political parties and governments I take very careful consideration to. When parties start promising things that is obviously un-obtainable then they are kicked to the curb side. I know the Tories are extremely un-popular but like top CEO's etc who resign when things go bad, I think if there is a current global economic melt down due to wars and pandemics, I think changing parties is not the right way to go. Personally, I think if the labour party were in power from 2020 we would be in a much worse state of affairs now. So for me its probably going to be Tories, but still not sure." I agree politicians are at the whims of the wider world. they often take credit for this (hello, no more boom and bust!) But for me you still need to question if they have done a good or bad job notwithstanding this. You must feel they have some influence to think labour world have done a bad job ! For me, the current crop has a number of issues. To use your company example. The culture of the management team is shocking. From partygate to pincher to the betting, their is systematic bad behaviour. They focus the energies on the wrong projects. In a world that is going through real mely down, is the woke agenda really top of people's list? Even on the things they care about, they are impotent. The Rwanda scheme is an expensive scheme that was unlikely to move the dial... And that's even before factoring in the fact it was always going to fall at the legal hurdle. I'm deffo not right leaning. However I can have some respect for conservatives and conservatives governments in how they seek to deliver their philosophy. I can't even get there for this lot and would be stuck of I were right leaning. There are no credible right parties ATM. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Political debates create some good opinions but also shows how careful you need to be when considering who to vote for. I still have no idea who I will be voting for but I know for certain it won't be labour. I love change with Technology etc. its my love lol but constant changing of political parties and governments I take very careful consideration to. When parties start promising things that is obviously un-obtainable then they are kicked to the curb side. I know the Tories are extremely un-popular but like top CEO's etc who resign when things go bad, I think if there is a current global economic melt down due to wars and pandemics, I think changing parties is not the right way to go. Personally, I think if the labour party were in power from 2020 we would be in a much worse state of affairs now. So for me its probably going to be Tories, but still not sure." The Tories have had 14 years, and have made things worse year on year, how long should they be given to turn things around? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"After an unsatisfactory period of government of any colour, political iconoclasts always rise out of the swamp on a tide of popularism. In these days of Internet, social media, and sound bites the likes of Farage and Reform will appeal to the disgruntled voter. The problem is popularity does not mean competence. If I want a laugh, I will find a comedian. If I am picking someone to run the country, I want a boring but competent guy. As a political, popularity, outlier Farage and Rdfirm may appeal as a slap in the face for the established parties but he/they are, like all popularists, making promises they know they could not keep and will not be obliged to keep. It could be argued that any party voted in is populist by default. It is another buzz word being used to make people feel bad about their choices.
That’s not true. Popularism is characterised by having policies purely designed to be popular and gain votes/power rather than being true to traditional party ideology. It also means these popular policies are subject to change with the changing mood of the electorate.
But it is true… The Labour Party are doing that very thing, scrap Rwanda, VAT on private schools, non dom tax loopholes etc. all populist and let’s see how they get on with them.
Populist is being used to say right wing at the moment and that is not correct. is labour taxing the wealthier parts of society, and offering compassion to the vulnerable, that out of kilter with their ideology ?
And we are now at a place where both Rwanda and non Rwanda is populsit !!"What you defined is just left wing populism. Increasing tax on high earners without doing any analysis of its consequences is just an easy way to appeal to poor people who don't understand economics. The non-dom tax "loopholes" law is textbook populism which will do fuck all to help British economy | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Political debates create some good opinions but also shows how careful you need to be when considering who to vote for. I still have no idea who I will be voting for but I know for certain it won't be labour. I love change with Technology etc. its my love lol but constant changing of political parties and governments I take very careful consideration to. When parties start promising things that is obviously un-obtainable then they are kicked to the curb side. I know the Tories are extremely un-popular but like top CEO's etc who resign when things go bad, I think if there is a current global economic melt down due to wars and pandemics, I think changing parties is not the right way to go. Personally, I think if the labour party were in power from 2020 we would be in a much worse state of affairs now. So for me its probably going to be Tories, but still not sure." Yeah it would be interesting to see how Labour would have handled the COVID and war period inflation. But their candidate for that election was Jeremy Corbyn who is very different to Starmer in multiple bad ways. So it was better Tories were in power then. For me, the Tories got too complacent. All the scandals and inability to fulfil any promises they made means they have to stay out for a while, rebuild the party and come back | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yeah it would be interesting to see how Labour would have handled the COVID and war period inflation. But their candidate for that election was Jeremy Corbyn who is very different to Starmer in multiple bad ways. So it was better Tories were in power then." I sometimes see people make this claim. Based on what? How could anyone possibly know what a Corbyn led Labour govt would have done in 2020? It’s not like there was any precedent! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yeah it would be interesting to see how Labour would have handled the COVID and war period inflation. But their candidate for that election was Jeremy Corbyn who is very different to Starmer in multiple bad ways. So it was better Tories were in power then. I sometimes see people make this claim. Based on what? How could anyone possibly know what a Corbyn led Labour govt would have done in 2020? It’s not like there was any precedent!" His election promises already involved lots of spending. With COVID, I am pretty sure he would have extended lockdowns much longer and burnt even more money. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yeah it would be interesting to see how Labour would have handled the COVID and war period inflation. But their candidate for that election was Jeremy Corbyn who is very different to Starmer in multiple bad ways. So it was better Tories were in power then. I sometimes see people make this claim. Based on what? How could anyone possibly know what a Corbyn led Labour govt would have done in 2020? It’s not like there was any precedent! His election promises already involved lots of spending. With COVID, I am pretty sure he would have extended lockdowns much longer and burnt even more money." In your opinion. We have no way of knowing. It is a purely alternative reality. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"After an unsatisfactory period of government of any colour, political iconoclasts always rise out of the swamp on a tide of popularism. In these days of Internet, social media, and sound bites the likes of Farage and Reform will appeal to the disgruntled voter. The problem is popularity does not mean competence. If I want a laugh, I will find a comedian. If I am picking someone to run the country, I want a boring but competent guy. As a political, popularity, outlier Farage and Rdfirm may appeal as a slap in the face for the established parties but he/they are, like all popularists, making promises they know they could not keep and will not be obliged to keep. It could be argued that any party voted in is populist by default. It is another buzz word being used to make people feel bad about their choices.
That’s not true. Popularism is characterised by having policies purely designed to be popular and gain votes/power rather than being true to traditional party ideology. It also means these popular policies are subject to change with the changing mood of the electorate.
But it is true… The Labour Party are doing that very thing, scrap Rwanda, VAT on private schools, non dom tax loopholes etc. all populist and let’s see how they get on with them.
Populist is being used to say right wing at the moment and that is not correct. is labour taxing the wealthier parts of society, and offering compassion to the vulnerable, that out of kilter with their ideology ?
And we are now at a place where both Rwanda and non Rwanda is populsit !!"Using your theory of Labour plans not being out of kilter with their ideology and therefore not considered populist, then for reform to be considered populist their plans must be considered out of kilter with their ideology. So are reforms policies out of kilter to their ideology or are they populist? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"After an unsatisfactory period of government of any colour, political iconoclasts always rise out of the swamp on a tide of popularism. In these days of Internet, social media, and sound bites the likes of Farage and Reform will appeal to the disgruntled voter. The problem is popularity does not mean competence. If I want a laugh, I will find a comedian. If I am picking someone to run the country, I want a boring but competent guy. As a political, popularity, outlier Farage and Rdfirm may appeal as a slap in the face for the established parties but he/they are, like all popularists, making promises they know they could not keep and will not be obliged to keep. It could be argued that any party voted in is populist by default. It is another buzz word being used to make people feel bad about their choices.
That’s not true. Popularism is characterised by having policies purely designed to be popular and gain votes/power rather than being true to traditional party ideology. It also means these popular policies are subject to change with the changing mood of the electorate.
But it is true… The Labour Party are doing that very thing, scrap Rwanda, VAT on private schools, non dom tax loopholes etc. all populist and let’s see how they get on with them.
Populist is being used to say right wing at the moment and that is not correct. is labour taxing the wealthier parts of society, and offering compassion to the vulnerable, that out of kilter with their ideology ?
And we are now at a place where both Rwanda and non Rwanda is populsit !!
Using your theory of Labour plans not being out of kilter with their ideology and therefore not considered populist, then for reform to be considered populist their plans must be considered out of kilter with their ideology. So are reforms policies out of kilter to their ideology or are they populist? "it's fair. No idea what their philosophy is tbf. And don't get a sense from their _anifesto either. It's all things to all men. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"After an unsatisfactory period of government of any colour, political iconoclasts always rise out of the swamp on a tide of popularism. In these days of Internet, social media, and sound bites the likes of Farage and Reform will appeal to the disgruntled voter. The problem is popularity does not mean competence. If I want a laugh, I will find a comedian. If I am picking someone to run the country, I want a boring but competent guy. As a political, popularity, outlier Farage and Rdfirm may appeal as a slap in the face for the established parties but he/they are, like all popularists, making promises they know they could not keep and will not be obliged to keep. It could be argued that any party voted in is populist by default. It is another buzz word being used to make people feel bad about their choices.
That’s not true. Popularism is characterised by having policies purely designed to be popular and gain votes/power rather than being true to traditional party ideology. It also means these popular policies are subject to change with the changing mood of the electorate.
But it is true… The Labour Party are doing that very thing, scrap Rwanda, VAT on private schools, non dom tax loopholes etc. all populist and let’s see how they get on with them.
Populist is being used to say right wing at the moment and that is not correct. is labour taxing the wealthier parts of society, and offering compassion to the vulnerable, that out of kilter with their ideology ?
And we are now at a place where both Rwanda and non Rwanda is populsit !!
Using your theory of Labour plans not being out of kilter with their ideology and therefore not considered populist, then for reform to be considered populist their plans must be considered out of kilter with their ideology. So are reforms policies out of kilter to their ideology or are they populist? it's fair. No idea what their philosophy is tbf. And don't get a sense from their _anifesto either. It's all things to all men. " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yeah it would be interesting to see how Labour would have handled the COVID and war period inflation. But their candidate for that election was Jeremy Corbyn who is very different to Starmer in multiple bad ways. So it was better Tories were in power then. I sometimes see people make this claim. Based on what? How could anyone possibly know what a Corbyn led Labour govt would have done in 2020? It’s not like there was any precedent! His election promises already involved lots of spending. With COVID, I am pretty sure he would have extended lockdowns much longer and burnt even more money. In your opinion. We have no way of knowing. It is a purely alternative reality." By that argument, we could theoretically never perfectly predict anything about future. Why have any debates at all? We know what Corbyn's ideology is and what he promised in the _anifesto. We can make reasonable guesses on how he might have handled the situation. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm voting tactically, I don't care who wins as long as the Tories lose " This for us too… | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yeah it would be interesting to see how Labour would have handled the COVID and war period inflation. But their candidate for that election was Jeremy Corbyn who is very different to Starmer in multiple bad ways. So it was better Tories were in power then. I sometimes see people make this claim. Based on what? How could anyone possibly know what a Corbyn led Labour govt would have done in 2020? It’s not like there was any precedent! His election promises already involved lots of spending. With COVID, I am pretty sure he would have extended lockdowns much longer and burnt even more money." He might have, also he might not have wasted money with the eat out scheme which only served to spread it.. Plus he just might not have had the attitude of Boris who apart from the vaccine rollout caused more excess deaths in locking down late initially then ignored the recommendations from SAGE to lock down sooner in the September of 2020 which again caused more deaths that winter .. Oh yes, PPE VIP friends and party gate might not have also happened.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yeah it would be interesting to see how Labour would have handled the COVID and war period inflation. But their candidate for that election was Jeremy Corbyn who is very different to Starmer in multiple bad ways. So it was better Tories were in power then. I sometimes see people make this claim. Based on what? How could anyone possibly know what a Corbyn led Labour govt would have done in 2020? It’s not like there was any precedent! His election promises already involved lots of spending. With COVID, I am pretty sure he would have extended lockdowns much longer and burnt even more money. He might have, also he might not have wasted money with the eat out scheme which only served to spread it.. Plus he just might not have had the attitude of Boris who apart from the vaccine rollout caused more excess deaths in locking down late initially then ignored the recommendations from SAGE to lock down sooner in the September of 2020 which again caused more deaths that winter .. Oh yes, PPE VIP friends and party gate might not have also happened.." You’re forgetting that we may have all had better/universal broadband to facilitate the shift to working from home (oh how we laughed at that policy when announced - looking back seems almost prescient!) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Reform are a bunch of immoral sickos who should piss off back to the 1970s I like what the Greens have to say but their economic plan is moronic. I like what the LibDems have to say (couldn’t care less about what they did 14 years ago). But I am concerned it will be a wasted vote in my constituency (Lab/Con have had 95% of all votes cast since WW2). So I think it’s going to be Labour. They are boringly, reliably and middle of the road. Which frankly after the last 8 years of clown school politics is a good thing. They have dumped all the socialist stuff that Corbyn dragged them down with and have made themselves electable." I agree. Labour aren't offering any meaningful change, have dropped most of their slightly leftish policies, and as you can see from their funding are now representing the interests of big corporations. Just Tory-lite. The best we can expect is less divisive rhetoric and less corruption. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yeah it would be interesting to see how Labour would have handled the COVID and war period inflation. But their candidate for that election was Jeremy Corbyn who is very different to Starmer in multiple bad ways. So it was better Tories were in power then. I sometimes see people make this claim. Based on what? How could anyone possibly know what a Corbyn led Labour govt would have done in 2020? It’s not like there was any precedent! His election promises already involved lots of spending. With COVID, I am pretty sure he would have extended lockdowns much longer and burnt even more money. He might have, also he might not have wasted money with the eat out scheme which only served to spread it.. Plus he just might not have had the attitude of Boris who apart from the vaccine rollout caused more excess deaths in locking down late initially then ignored the recommendations from SAGE to lock down sooner in the September of 2020 which again caused more deaths that winter .. Oh yes, PPE VIP friends and party gate might not have also happened.. You’re forgetting that we may have all had better/universal broadband to facilitate the shift to working from home (oh how we laughed at that policy when announced - looking back seems almost prescient!) " Lol... That Broadband policy is still ridiculous. Lack of broadband was the least of problems for people working from home. Most working people already have broadband. I don't know how the government collecting taxes from working people and paying for the broadband again would have magically made things better. The bigger problem was mental health of people. As for the first lockdown, didn't Boris just go with what Scientists recommended at that time? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yeah it would be interesting to see how Labour would have handled the COVID and war period inflation. But their candidate for that election was Jeremy Corbyn who is very different to Starmer in multiple bad ways. So it was better Tories were in power then. I sometimes see people make this claim. Based on what? How could anyone possibly know what a Corbyn led Labour govt would have done in 2020? It’s not like there was any precedent! His election promises already involved lots of spending. With COVID, I am pretty sure he would have extended lockdowns much longer and burnt even more money. He might have, also he might not have wasted money with the eat out scheme which only served to spread it.. Plus he just might not have had the attitude of Boris who apart from the vaccine rollout caused more excess deaths in locking down late initially then ignored the recommendations from SAGE to lock down sooner in the September of 2020 which again caused more deaths that winter .. Oh yes, PPE VIP friends and party gate might not have also happened.. You’re forgetting that we may have all had better/universal broadband to facilitate the shift to working from home (oh how we laughed at that policy when announced - looking back seems almost prescient!) Lol... That Broadband policy is still ridiculous. Lack of broadband was the least of problems for people working from home. Most working people already have broadband. I don't know how the government collecting taxes from working people and paying for the broadband again would have magically made things better. The bigger problem was mental health of people. As for the first lockdown, didn't Boris just go with what Scientists recommended at that time?" I was being tongue in cheek but seeing as you challenged me I will challenge back… High speed broadband with total UK coverage would be fantastic. The difference in performance (up/download speeds) and availability across different areas of the UK (especially many rural) is huge. A 21st century economy demands it actually. I agree with the mental health point but you seem to be positioning that as an argument against Corbyn’s theoretical handling of the pandemic? So what is your actual point in yhst regards? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yeah it would be interesting to see how Labour would have handled the COVID and war period inflation. But their candidate for that election was Jeremy Corbyn who is very different to Starmer in multiple bad ways. So it was better Tories were in power then. I sometimes see people make this claim. Based on what? How could anyone possibly know what a Corbyn led Labour govt would have done in 2020? It’s not like there was any precedent! His election promises already involved lots of spending. With COVID, I am pretty sure he would have extended lockdowns much longer and burnt even more money. He might have, also he might not have wasted money with the eat out scheme which only served to spread it.. Plus he just might not have had the attitude of Boris who apart from the vaccine rollout caused more excess deaths in locking down late initially then ignored the recommendations from SAGE to lock down sooner in the September of 2020 which again caused more deaths that winter .. Oh yes, PPE VIP friends and party gate might not have also happened.. You’re forgetting that we may have all had better/universal broadband to facilitate the shift to working from home (oh how we laughed at that policy when announced - looking back seems almost prescient!) Lol... That Broadband policy is still ridiculous. Lack of broadband was the least of problems for people working from home. Most working people already have broadband. I don't know how the government collecting taxes from working people and paying for the broadband again would have magically made things better. The bigger problem was mental health of people. As for the first lockdown, didn't Boris just go with what Scientists recommended at that time? I was being tongue in cheek but seeing as you challenged me I will challenge back… High speed broadband with total UK coverage would be fantastic. The difference in performance (up/download speeds) and availability across different areas of the UK (especially many rural) is huge. A 21st century economy demands it actually. I agree with the mental health point but you seem to be positioning that as an argument against Corbyn’s theoretical handling of the pandemic? So what is your actual point in yhst regards?" For doing just work, the speeds we have around UK are sufficient. Corbyn's plan was to nationalise BT which doesn't give any advantage. I have hardly seen a government run service provider do well when it comes to broadband and internet. I think we would have had even longer lockdowns under Corbyn that would have resulted in us printing out even more money without actually producing anything of value, not to mention the other expenses because of his economic policies. The post-covid inflationary crisis would have been much much worse because of this. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yeah it would be interesting to see how Labour would have handled the COVID and war period inflation. But their candidate for that election was Jeremy Corbyn who is very different to Starmer in multiple bad ways. So it was better Tories were in power then. I sometimes see people make this claim. Based on what? How could anyone possibly know what a Corbyn led Labour govt would have done in 2020? It’s not like there was any precedent! His election promises already involved lots of spending. With COVID, I am pretty sure he would have extended lockdowns much longer and burnt even more money. He might have, also he might not have wasted money with the eat out scheme which only served to spread it.. Plus he just might not have had the attitude of Boris who apart from the vaccine rollout caused more excess deaths in locking down late initially then ignored the recommendations from SAGE to lock down sooner in the September of 2020 which again caused more deaths that winter .. Oh yes, PPE VIP friends and party gate might not have also happened.. You’re forgetting that we may have all had better/universal broadband to facilitate the shift to working from home (oh how we laughed at that policy when announced - looking back seems almost prescient!) Lol... That Broadband policy is still ridiculous. Lack of broadband was the least of problems for people working from home. Most working people already have broadband. I don't know how the government collecting taxes from working people and paying for the broadband again would have magically made things better. The bigger problem was mental health of people. As for the first lockdown, didn't Boris just go with what Scientists recommended at that time?" No, he dithered.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yeah it would be interesting to see how Labour would have handled the COVID and war period inflation. But their candidate for that election was Jeremy Corbyn who is very different to Starmer in multiple bad ways. So it was better Tories were in power then. I sometimes see people make this claim. Based on what? How could anyone possibly know what a Corbyn led Labour govt would have done in 2020? It’s not like there was any precedent! His election promises already involved lots of spending. With COVID, I am pretty sure he would have extended lockdowns much longer and burnt even more money. He might have, also he might not have wasted money with the eat out scheme which only served to spread it.. Plus he just might not have had the attitude of Boris who apart from the vaccine rollout caused more excess deaths in locking down late initially then ignored the recommendations from SAGE to lock down sooner in the September of 2020 which again caused more deaths that winter .. Oh yes, PPE VIP friends and party gate might not have also happened.. You’re forgetting that we may have all had better/universal broadband to facilitate the shift to working from home (oh how we laughed at that policy when announced - looking back seems almost prescient!) Lol... That Broadband policy is still ridiculous. Lack of broadband was the least of problems for people working from home. Most working people already have broadband. I don't know how the government collecting taxes from working people and paying for the broadband again would have magically made things better. The bigger problem was mental health of people. As for the first lockdown, didn't Boris just go with what Scientists recommended at that time? I was being tongue in cheek but seeing as you challenged me I will challenge back… High speed broadband with total UK coverage would be fantastic. The difference in performance (up/download speeds) and availability across different areas of the UK (especially many rural) is huge. A 21st century economy demands it actually. I agree with the mental health point but you seem to be positioning that as an argument against Corbyn’s theoretical handling of the pandemic? So what is your actual point in yhst regards? For doing just work, the speeds we have around UK are sufficient. Corbyn's plan was to nationalise BT which doesn't give any advantage. I have hardly seen a government run service provider do well when it comes to broadband and internet. I think we would have had even longer lockdowns under Corbyn that would have resulted in us printing out even more money without actually producing anything of value, not to mention the other expenses because of his economic policies. The post-covid inflationary crisis would have been much much worse because of this." 2nd point first “I think” so pure opinion based on not much it seems. We have zero idea what would have happened or how he would have behaved when faced with the situation as there was no precedent. It is all conjecture. All we know is what DID happen and the actions Johnson and Sunak actually took. 1st point totally depends on nature of the work being done and number of people in the household simultaneously using the broadband. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not a secret. I am voting for Reform. There is a chance that they will give opposing candidates a few bloody noses, and maybe provide a few shocks." Someone locally said they aren't standing in Saltdean, is that correct? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Reform are a bunch of immoral sickos who should piss off back to the 1970s I like what the Greens have to say but their economic plan is moronic. I like what the LibDems have to say (couldn’t care less about what they did 14 years ago). But I am concerned it will be a wasted vote in my constituency (Lab/Con have had 95% of all votes cast since WW2). So I think it’s going to be Labour. They are boringly, reliably and middle of the road. Which frankly after the last 8 years of clown school politics is a good thing. They have dumped all the socialist stuff that Corbyn dragged them down with and have made themselves electable. I agree. Labour aren't offering any meaningful change, have dropped most of their slightly leftish policies, and as you can see from their funding are now representing the interests of big corporations. Just Tory-lite. The best we can expect is less divisive rhetoric and less corruption. " I hope he will repair some of the damage caused by brexit, customs delays and for anyone exporting perishable goods. And more security for the increasing numbers in rented accommodation. Delivery of new homes and 300,000 council houses will have to wait and see What will they do to improve life for the three million using food banks. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" 2nd point first “I think” so pure opinion based on not much it seems. We have zero idea what would have happened or how he would have behaved when faced with the situation as there was no precedent. It is all conjecture. All we know is what DID happen and the actions Johnson and Sunak actually took. " I have answered it before. Pretty much everything we tell about the future is just what "we think". No one can predict the future accurately. I mentioned what it's based on - His _anifesto and his outspoken political views. If you want to ignore all discussions about future, there is literally no point debating about the next elections. For all we know, Sunak might act different if he is given a chance second time. " 1st point totally depends on nature of the work being done and number of people in the household simultaneously using the broadband." Even in rural areas, we have an average connection speed of 54MBPs. 97% of households in the country have over 30MBPs broadband speed. I don't understand how the government is going to do any better here. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not a secret. I am voting for Reform. There is a chance that they will give opposing candidates a few bloody noses, and maybe provide a few shocks." If you really live in Saltdean then hate to break it to you but there is no Reform candidate in the Brighton Kemptown and Peacehaven constituency. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" 2nd point first “I think” so pure opinion based on not much it seems. We have zero idea what would have happened or how he would have behaved when faced with the situation as there was no precedent. It is all conjecture. All we know is what DID happen and the actions Johnson and Sunak actually took. I have answered it before. Pretty much everything we tell about the future is just what "we think". No one can predict the future accurately. I mentioned what it's based on - His _anifesto and his outspoken political views. If you want to ignore all discussions about future, there is literally no point debating about the next elections. For all we know, Sunak might act different if he is given a chance second time. 1st point totally depends on nature of the work being done and number of people in the household simultaneously using the broadband. Even in rural areas, we have an average connection speed of 54MBPs. 97% of households in the country have over 30MBPs broadband speed. I don't understand how the government is going to do any better here." We aren’t talking about the future we are talking about an alternative reality past! As we are also talking about the past then it needs to be in the context of 2019. An article pre-election said… “Britain is in the slow lane when it comes to the internet. Fewer than one in 12 premises in Britain have access to full-fibre connections capable of delivering speeds greater than 1 gigabit per second. By comparison in Spain more than 70% can connect via such networks. In South Korea the figure is close to 100%.” And “With more people using data-intensive streaming services and smart devices, the appetite for data will grow. It already is. Last year the average household used 240 gigabytes of data a month, up 26% on the previous year.” Also just to be clear, Corbyn was not proposing to nationalise BT, only the infrastructure division Openreach (which already operated a virtual monopoly). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" We aren’t talking about the future we are talking about an alternative reality past! " How is predicting future any different from alternative reality in the past? Both are things which never happened. " “Britain is in the slow lane when it comes to the internet. Fewer than one in 12 premises in Britain have access to full-fibre connections capable of delivering speeds greater than 1 gigabit per second. By comparison in Spain more than 70% can connect via such networks. In South Korea the figure is close to 100%.” And “With more people using data-intensive streaming services and smart devices, the appetite for data will grow. It already is. Last year the average household used 240 gigabytes of data a month, up 26% on the previous year.” Also just to be clear, Corbyn was not proposing to nationalise BT, only the infrastructure division Openreach (which already operated a virtual monopoly)." This seems to be very similar to other British infrastructure stories. Create policies which result in a monopoly. Complain that private operators are doing a poor job and then pass it on to the biggest and the most irresponsible monopoly - The government. They do a terrible job at it, then go in this cycle forever. You have praised Spain who actually managed to get high internet speeds by enabling competition. In European scales, we are right in the middle of broadband speeds. And what we have is more than enough to do work. If people want to watch Ultra HD Netflix and VR Porn at the same time, it's not ideal in some places. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" We aren’t talking about the future we are talking about an alternative reality past! How is predicting future any different from alternative reality in the past? Both are things which never happened. “Britain is in the slow lane when it comes to the internet. Fewer than one in 12 premises in Britain have access to full-fibre connections capable of delivering speeds greater than 1 gigabit per second. By comparison in Spain more than 70% can connect via such networks. In South Korea the figure is close to 100%.” And “With more people using data-intensive streaming services and smart devices, the appetite for data will grow. It already is. Last year the average household used 240 gigabytes of data a month, up 26% on the previous year.” Also just to be clear, Corbyn was not proposing to nationalise BT, only the infrastructure division Openreach (which already operated a virtual monopoly). This seems to be very similar to other British infrastructure stories. Create policies which result in a monopoly. Complain that private operators are doing a poor job and then pass it on to the biggest and the most irresponsible monopoly - The government. They do a terrible job at it, then go in this cycle forever. You have praised Spain who actually managed to get high internet speeds by enabling competition. In European scales, we are right in the middle of broadband speeds. And what we have is more than enough to do work. If people want to watch Ultra HD Netflix and VR Porn at the same time, it's not ideal in some places. " I haven’t praised anyone the “xxx” is the clue. You’d clearly be surprised if you knew the kind of work people do from home and the levels/speeds of data transfer needed these days. It also clearly wasn’t only about WFH but also enabling businesses to set up in different places across the UK creating employment away from urban centres. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" We aren’t talking about the future we are talking about an alternative reality past! How is predicting future any different from alternative reality in the past? Both are things which never happened. “Britain is in the slow lane when it comes to the internet. Fewer than one in 12 premises in Britain have access to full-fibre connections capable of delivering speeds greater than 1 gigabit per second. By comparison in Spain more than 70% can connect via such networks. In South Korea the figure is close to 100%.” And “With more people using data-intensive streaming services and smart devices, the appetite for data will grow. It already is. Last year the average household used 240 gigabytes of data a month, up 26% on the previous year.” Also just to be clear, Corbyn was not proposing to nationalise BT, only the infrastructure division Openreach (which already operated a virtual monopoly). This seems to be very similar to other British infrastructure stories. Create policies which result in a monopoly. Complain that private operators are doing a poor job and then pass it on to the biggest and the most irresponsible monopoly - The government. They do a terrible job at it, then go in this cycle forever. You have praised Spain who actually managed to get high internet speeds by enabling competition. In European scales, we are right in the middle of broadband speeds. And what we have is more than enough to do work. If people want to watch Ultra HD Netflix and VR Porn at the same time, it's not ideal in some places. I haven’t praised anyone the “xxx” is the clue. You’d clearly be surprised if you knew the kind of work people do from home and the levels/speeds of data transfer needed these days. It also clearly wasn’t only about WFH but also enabling businesses to set up in different places across the UK creating employment away from urban centres." I am all ears to hear what kind of work people do from home that requires more bandwidth than we already have. As for businesses expanding elsewhere, internet speed is hardly the reason for them sticking to one area. If businesses move to a new place, higher internet speeds will follow because businesses can obviously make the project financially scalable. Even before Internet became necessary, companies were getting more and more concentrated in cities. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Labour are offering nationalising the railways, extending voting to 16 and 17 year olds,using the tools of the state to destroy international people smuggling gangs, buildin homes for people and creating a government owned energy company. I don't know about you but those sound like quite left wing ideas." But Labour aren't nationalising the railways. They are allowing the regional operators contracts to run out. In 5 years time all the rolling stock will still be privately owned, and all freight operations will still be privately run. They also aren't setting up an energy company. They are setting up a green energy investment company. It won't be doing any generation itself, or supplying any energy to anyone. Those ideas sound rather less left wing. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Never Conservative or Labour. Would sooner vote Reform as if establishment media are trying to demonize them they are at least able to rock the boat. That said, would also sooner vote for a turnip in a tuxedo than main parties too. "I don't think the media is demonising Reform. They're barely doing their job calling out all their bullshit policies and continuous links to BNP, various racists, bigoted candidates, etc etc. I actually think the media has given them an easy run. Same as they did when these same clowns under a different banner were campaigning for Brexit. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" We aren’t talking about the future we are talking about an alternative reality past! How is predicting future any different from alternative reality in the past? Both are things which never happened. “Britain is in the slow lane when it comes to the internet. Fewer than one in 12 premises in Britain have access to full-fibre connections capable of delivering speeds greater than 1 gigabit per second. By comparison in Spain more than 70% can connect via such networks. In South Korea the figure is close to 100%.” And “With more people using data-intensive streaming services and smart devices, the appetite for data will grow. It already is. Last year the average household used 240 gigabytes of data a month, up 26% on the previous year.” Also just to be clear, Corbyn was not proposing to nationalise BT, only the infrastructure division Openreach (which already operated a virtual monopoly). This seems to be very similar to other British infrastructure stories. Create policies which result in a monopoly. Complain that private operators are doing a poor job and then pass it on to the biggest and the most irresponsible monopoly - The government. They do a terrible job at it, then go in this cycle forever. You have praised Spain who actually managed to get high internet speeds by enabling competition. In European scales, we are right in the middle of broadband speeds. And what we have is more than enough to do work. If people want to watch Ultra HD Netflix and VR Porn at the same time, it's not ideal in some places. I haven’t praised anyone the “xxx” is the clue. You’d clearly be surprised if you knew the kind of work people do from home and the levels/speeds of data transfer needed these days. It also clearly wasn’t only about WFH but also enabling businesses to set up in different places across the UK creating employment away from urban centres. I am all ears to hear what kind of work people do from home that requires more bandwidth than we already have. As for businesses expanding elsewhere, internet speed is hardly the reason for them sticking to one area. If businesses move to a new place, higher internet speeds will follow because businesses can obviously make the project financially scalable. Even before Internet became necessary, companies were getting more and more concentrated in cities." It’s fine you don’t accept what I am saying, that’s your prerogative
My company and my staff require fibre optic high speed internet with super fast connection to cloud based development platforms and the ability to very quickly transfer huge files. Copper wires won’t cut it any more | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Labour are offering nationalising the railways, extending voting to 16 and 17 year olds,using the tools of the state to destroy international people smuggling gangs, buildin homes for people and creating a government owned energy company. I don't know about you but those sound like quite left wing ideas. But Labour aren't nationalising the railways. They are allowing the regional operators contracts to run out. In 5 years time all the rolling stock will still be privately owned, and all freight operations will still be privately run. They also aren't setting up an energy company. They are setting up a green energy investment company. It won't be doing any generation itself, or supplying any energy to anyone. Those ideas sound rather less left wing." U turned on the green policy’s too and most likely to fail dismally on immigration As for the 1.5 million pledged new homes, the 112 page _anifesto document does not put a number on the number of social homes planned. Is there anything fulfilling they have to offer The tv debates are characterised by Starmer not answering any questions with reliable answers | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" We aren’t talking about the future we are talking about an alternative reality past! How is predicting future any different from alternative reality in the past? Both are things which never happened. “Britain is in the slow lane when it comes to the internet. Fewer than one in 12 premises in Britain have access to full-fibre connections capable of delivering speeds greater than 1 gigabit per second. By comparison in Spain more than 70% can connect via such networks. In South Korea the figure is close to 100%.” And “With more people using data-intensive streaming services and smart devices, the appetite for data will grow. It already is. Last year the average household used 240 gigabytes of data a month, up 26% on the previous year.” Also just to be clear, Corbyn was not proposing to nationalise BT, only the infrastructure division Openreach (which already operated a virtual monopoly). This seems to be very similar to other British infrastructure stories. Create policies which result in a monopoly. Complain that private operators are doing a poor job and then pass it on to the biggest and the most irresponsible monopoly - The government. They do a terrible job at it, then go in this cycle forever. You have praised Spain who actually managed to get high internet speeds by enabling competition. In European scales, we are right in the middle of broadband speeds. And what we have is more than enough to do work. If people want to watch Ultra HD Netflix and VR Porn at the same time, it's not ideal in some places. I haven’t praised anyone the “xxx” is the clue. You’d clearly be surprised if you knew the kind of work people do from home and the levels/speeds of data transfer needed these days. It also clearly wasn’t only about WFH but also enabling businesses to set up in different places across the UK creating employment away from urban centres. I am all ears to hear what kind of work people do from home that requires more bandwidth than we already have. As for businesses expanding elsewhere, internet speed is hardly the reason for them sticking to one area. If businesses move to a new place, higher internet speeds will follow because businesses can obviously make the project financially scalable. Even before Internet became necessary, companies were getting more and more concentrated in cities. It’s fine you don’t accept what I am saying, that’s your prerogative
My company and my staff require fibre optic high speed internet with super fast connection to cloud based development platforms and the ability to very quickly transfer huge files. Copper wires won’t cut it any more "Do you really need high speed internet at every home to do that? Can't all the work happen in the cloud itself? I work in tech and most of my friends and family work in tech too. They just have a simple laptop that connects them to a remote machine which can do all the heavy lifting. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" We aren’t talking about the future we are talking about an alternative reality past! How is predicting future any different from alternative reality in the past? Both are things which never happened. “Britain is in the slow lane when it comes to the internet. Fewer than one in 12 premises in Britain have access to full-fibre connections capable of delivering speeds greater than 1 gigabit per second. By comparison in Spain more than 70% can connect via such networks. In South Korea the figure is close to 100%.” And “With more people using data-intensive streaming services and smart devices, the appetite for data will grow. It already is. Last year the average household used 240 gigabytes of data a month, up 26% on the previous year.” Also just to be clear, Corbyn was not proposing to nationalise BT, only the infrastructure division Openreach (which already operated a virtual monopoly). This seems to be very similar to other British infrastructure stories. Create policies which result in a monopoly. Complain that private operators are doing a poor job and then pass it on to the biggest and the most irresponsible monopoly - The government. They do a terrible job at it, then go in this cycle forever. You have praised Spain who actually managed to get high internet speeds by enabling competition. In European scales, we are right in the middle of broadband speeds. And what we have is more than enough to do work. If people want to watch Ultra HD Netflix and VR Porn at the same time, it's not ideal in some places. I haven’t praised anyone the “xxx” is the clue. You’d clearly be surprised if you knew the kind of work people do from home and the levels/speeds of data transfer needed these days. It also clearly wasn’t only about WFH but also enabling businesses to set up in different places across the UK creating employment away from urban centres. I am all ears to hear what kind of work people do from home that requires more bandwidth than we already have. As for businesses expanding elsewhere, internet speed is hardly the reason for them sticking to one area. If businesses move to a new place, higher internet speeds will follow because businesses can obviously make the project financially scalable. Even before Internet became necessary, companies were getting more and more concentrated in cities. It’s fine you don’t accept what I am saying, that’s your prerogative
My company and my staff require fibre optic high speed internet with super fast connection to cloud based development platforms and the ability to very quickly transfer huge files. Copper wires won’t cut it any more
Do you really need high speed internet at every home to do that? Can't all the work happen in the cloud itself? I work in tech and most of my friends and family work in tech too. They just have a simple laptop that connects them to a remote machine which can do all the heavy lifting. "Not saying it isn’t possible but it is certainly preferable. Better internet speeds and people WFH has enabled me to hire great quality staff across the whole of the UK rather than only from a pool of people who are commutable to the office. Plus it is only going one way in terms of data transfer and speed needed. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" We aren’t talking about the future we are talking about an alternative reality past! How is predicting future any different from alternative reality in the past? Both are things which never happened. “Britain is in the slow lane when it comes to the internet. Fewer than one in 12 premises in Britain have access to full-fibre connections capable of delivering speeds greater than 1 gigabit per second. By comparison in Spain more than 70% can connect via such networks. In South Korea the figure is close to 100%.” And “With more people using data-intensive streaming services and smart devices, the appetite for data will grow. It already is. Last year the average household used 240 gigabytes of data a month, up 26% on the previous year.” Also just to be clear, Corbyn was not proposing to nationalise BT, only the infrastructure division Openreach (which already operated a virtual monopoly). This seems to be very similar to other British infrastructure stories. Create policies which result in a monopoly. Complain that private operators are doing a poor job and then pass it on to the biggest and the most irresponsible monopoly - The government. They do a terrible job at it, then go in this cycle forever. You have praised Spain who actually managed to get high internet speeds by enabling competition. In European scales, we are right in the middle of broadband speeds. And what we have is more than enough to do work. If people want to watch Ultra HD Netflix and VR Porn at the same time, it's not ideal in some places. I haven’t praised anyone the “xxx” is the clue. You’d clearly be surprised if you knew the kind of work people do from home and the levels/speeds of data transfer needed these days. It also clearly wasn’t only about WFH but also enabling businesses to set up in different places across the UK creating employment away from urban centres. I am all ears to hear what kind of work people do from home that requires more bandwidth than we already have. As for businesses expanding elsewhere, internet speed is hardly the reason for them sticking to one area. If businesses move to a new place, higher internet speeds will follow because businesses can obviously make the project financially scalable. Even before Internet became necessary, companies were getting more and more concentrated in cities. It’s fine you don’t accept what I am saying, that’s your prerogative
My company and my staff require fibre optic high speed internet with super fast connection to cloud based development platforms and the ability to very quickly transfer huge files. Copper wires won’t cut it any more
Do you really need high speed internet at every home to do that? Can't all the work happen in the cloud itself? I work in tech and most of my friends and family work in tech too. They just have a simple laptop that connects them to a remote machine which can do all the heavy lifting.
Not saying it isn’t possible but it is certainly preferable. Better internet speeds and people WFH has enabled me to hire great quality staff across the whole of the UK rather than only from a pool of people who are commutable to the office. Plus it is only going one way in terms of data transfer and speed needed."Better internet speeds would help greatly in any role that requires a lot of zoom and Teams meetings. Anyway, seems like a better way to spend money on something actually useful to society instead of spunking it away on pointless shit like the Rwanda scheme or handing billions of £ to their pals for start up PPE companies. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Labour are offering nationalising the railways, extending voting to 16 and 17 year olds,using the tools of the state to destroy international people smuggling gangs, buildin homes for people and creating a government owned energy company. I don't know about you but those sound like quite left wing ideas. But Labour aren't nationalising the railways. They are allowing the regional operators contracts to run out. In 5 years time all the rolling stock will still be privately owned, and all freight operations will still be privately run. They also aren't setting up an energy company. They are setting up a green energy investment company. It won't be doing any generation itself, or supplying any energy to anyone. Those ideas sound rather less left wing." For the energy side I thought they were setting up great British energy, a state owned company to allow profits to go back to the state or proper investment in infrastructure. What you describe sounds like buying shares in existing suppliers. I presume to reap the dividends | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Better internet speeds would help greatly in any role that requires a lot of zoom and Teams meetings. Anyway, seems like a better way to spend money on something actually useful to society instead of spunking it away on pointless shit like the Rwanda scheme or handing billions of £ to their pals for start up PPE companies. " We already have enough internet speeds to do zoom calls, even in rural regions. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Labour are offering nationalising the railways, extending voting to 16 and 17 year olds,using the tools of the state to destroy international people smuggling gangs, buildin homes for people and creating a government owned energy company. I don't know about you but those sound like quite left wing ideas." "But Labour aren't nationalising the railways. They are allowing the regional operators contracts to run out. In 5 years time all the rolling stock will still be privately owned, and all freight operations will still be privately run. They also aren't setting up an energy company. They are setting up a green energy investment company. It won't be doing any generation itself, or supplying any energy to anyone. Those ideas sound rather less left wing." "For the energy side I thought they were setting up great British energy, a state owned company to allow profits to go back to the state or proper investment in infrastructure. What you describe sounds like buying shares in existing suppliers. I presume to reap the dividends" Great British Energy is getting founded to supply start-up capital to green energy companies. The idea is that they will buy shares in other companies to give them money to invest in green tech, and then reap the rewards when those companies are successful. Quite why the Labour party think that they will be better at spotting the profitable opportunities than experienced investors is beyond me. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Labour are offering nationalising the railways, extending voting to 16 and 17 year olds,using the tools of the state to destroy international people smuggling gangs, buildin homes for people and creating a government owned energy company. I don't know about you but those sound like quite left wing ideas. But Labour aren't nationalising the railways. They are allowing the regional operators contracts to run out. In 5 years time all the rolling stock will still be privately owned, and all freight operations will still be privately run. They also aren't setting up an energy company. They are setting up a green energy investment company. It won't be doing any generation itself, or supplying any energy to anyone. Those ideas sound rather less left wing. For the energy side I thought they were setting up great British energy, a state owned company to allow profits to go back to the state or proper investment in infrastructure. What you describe sounds like buying shares in existing suppliers. I presume to reap the dividends Great British Energy is getting founded to supply start-up capital to green energy companies. The idea is that they will buy shares in other companies to give them money to invest in green tech, and then reap the rewards when those companies are successful. Quite why the Labour party think that they will be better at spotting the profitable opportunities than experienced investors is beyond me." Keir Starmer was Director of Public Prosecutions and his father was a toolmaker. Rachel Reeves worked for the Bank of England and that great British success story HBOS. Their expertise in this area is beyond doubt. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Labour are offering nationalising the railways, extending voting to 16 and 17 year olds,using the tools of the state to destroy international people smuggling gangs, buildin homes for people and creating a government owned energy company. I don't know about you but those sound like quite left wing ideas. But Labour aren't nationalising the railways. They are allowing the regional operators contracts to run out. In 5 years time all the rolling stock will still be privately owned, and all freight operations will still be privately run. They also aren't setting up an energy company. They are setting up a green energy investment company. It won't be doing any generation itself, or supplying any energy to anyone. Those ideas sound rather less left wing. For the energy side I thought they were setting up great British energy, a state owned company to allow profits to go back to the state or proper investment in infrastructure. What you describe sounds like buying shares in existing suppliers. I presume to reap the dividends Great British Energy is getting founded to supply start-up capital to green energy companies. The idea is that they will buy shares in other companies to give them money to invest in green tech, and then reap the rewards when those companies are successful. Quite why the Labour party think that they will be better at spotting the profitable opportunities than experienced investors is beyond me. Keir Starmer was Director of Public Prosecutions and his father was a toolmaker. Rachel Reeves worked for the Bank of England and that great British success story HBOS. Their expertise in this area is beyond doubt." As reported the new government will inherit an economy that has started to recover, this week the growth figure upgraded from what was previously reported. Interest rates will start to fall in coming months. Inflation is already down from 11.1% to 2% This improved period will be claimed by labour as their success. Planning overall and lower interest rates, government backed mortgage deposit scheme will push up house prices and construction. Then equalisation of capital gains tax rates to income tax on Britain’s £9trn of residential housing should raise some revenue. Can’t see anything else on the horizon that will improve the economy. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Labour are offering nationalising the railways, extending voting to 16 and 17 year olds,using the tools of the state to destroy international people smuggling gangs, buildin homes for people and creating a government owned energy company. I don't know about you but those sound like quite left wing ideas. But Labour aren't nationalising the railways. They are allowing the regional operators contracts to run out. In 5 years time all the rolling stock will still be privately owned, and all freight operations will still be privately run. They also aren't setting up an energy company. They are setting up a green energy investment company. It won't be doing any generation itself, or supplying any energy to anyone. Those ideas sound rather less left wing. For the energy side I thought they were setting up great British energy, a state owned company to allow profits to go back to the state or proper investment in infrastructure. What you describe sounds like buying shares in existing suppliers. I presume to reap the dividends Great British Energy is getting founded to supply start-up capital to green energy companies. The idea is that they will buy shares in other companies to give them money to invest in green tech, and then reap the rewards when those companies are successful. Quite why the Labour party think that they will be better at spotting the profitable opportunities than experienced investors is beyond me. Keir Starmer was Director of Public Prosecutions and his father was a toolmaker. Rachel Reeves worked for the Bank of England and that great British success story HBOS. Their expertise in this area is beyond doubt. As reported the new government will inherit an economy that has started to recover, this week the growth figure upgraded from what was previously reported. Interest rates will start to fall in coming months. Inflation is already down from 11.1% to 2% This improved period will be claimed by labour as their success. Planning overall and lower interest rates, government backed mortgage deposit scheme will push up house prices and construction. Then equalisation of capital gains tax rates to income tax on Britain’s £9trn of residential housing should raise some revenue. Can’t see anything else on the horizon that will improve the economy. " Theres nothing like a good old war to boost the economy. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In my, predominantly labour borough, the feeling at grass roots from reading all the local media, the swing is strongly Reform. Each day the swing is more towards Reform. There is a very good chance the candidate will win. Who are you going to vote for?" Bollocks as is your profile | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Labour are offering nationalising the railways, extending voting to 16 and 17 year olds,using the tools of the state to destroy international people smuggling gangs, buildin homes for people and creating a government owned energy company. I don't know about you but those sound like quite left wing ideas. But Labour aren't nationalising the railways. They are allowing the regional operators contracts to run out. In 5 years time all the rolling stock will still be privately owned, and all freight operations will still be privately run. They also aren't setting up an energy company. They are setting up a green energy investment company. It won't be doing any generation itself, or supplying any energy to anyone. Those ideas sound rather less left wing. For the energy side I thought they were setting up great British energy, a state owned company to allow profits to go back to the state or proper investment in infrastructure. What you describe sounds like buying shares in existing suppliers. I presume to reap the dividends Great British Energy is getting founded to supply start-up capital to green energy companies. The idea is that they will buy shares in other companies to give them money to invest in green tech, and then reap the rewards when those companies are successful. Quite why the Labour party think that they will be better at spotting the profitable opportunities than experienced investors is beyond me." Thank you. I won't expect to be able to swap my energy supplier to GB energy any time soon then. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Vote Conservative - get more of the same. Vote Labour - get more of the same but with the additional suffering we’ve endured in Wales. " Vote Reform for increased suffering. Incidentally, do you have an example of the additional suffering caused by Labour in Wales? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Yeah it would be interesting to see how Labour would have handled the COVID and war period inflation. But their candidate for that election was Jeremy Corbyn who is very different to Starmer in multiple bad ways. So it was better Tories were in power then. For me, the Tories got too complacent. All the scandals and inability to fulfil any promises they made means they have to stay out for a while, rebuild the party and come back " This. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Vote Conservative - get more of the same. Vote Labour - get more of the same but with the additional suffering we’ve endured in Wales. Vote Reform for increased suffering. Incidentally, do you have an example of the additional suffering caused by Labour in Wales?" Worst performing NHS and education in the UK, highest levels of unemployment in the UK, 6 out of 10 of the most polluted rivers in the UK and less inward business investment post devolution which heralded Labour control of Wales. But on the plus side we get to drive 20mph | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Vote Conservative - get more of the same. Vote Labour - get more of the same but with the additional suffering we’ve endured in Wales. Vote Reform for increased suffering. Incidentally, do you have an example of the additional suffering caused by Labour in Wales?" The couple lives in Wales... Don't you think they know a little more than you do within your utopian bubble? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Vote Conservative - get more of the same. Vote Labour - get more of the same but with the additional suffering we’ve endured in Wales. Vote Reform for increased suffering. Incidentally, do you have an example of the additional suffering caused by Labour in Wales? Worst performing NHS and education in the UK, highest levels of unemployment in the UK, 6 out of 10 of the most polluted rivers in the UK and less inward business investment post devolution which heralded Labour control of Wales. But on the plus side we get to drive 20mph "Do labour have control over any of this, are there different laws on pollution in Wales? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Natural Resources Wales is government sponsored and the Labour run Senedd have control of the NHS, education and attracting business investment. And the 20 mph limit? Of course. They have consistently failed but are allowed to do so by the electorate. We are run by incompetent jumper-up local councillors now calling for more Senedd members to jump on the gravy train. Classic socialism. All coming your way soon - enjoy "Ah the "socialism" boogie man. No further questions. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Natural Resources Wales is government sponsored and the Labour run Senedd have control of the NHS, education and attracting business investment. And the 20 mph limit? Of course. They have consistently failed but are allowed to do so by the electorate. We are run by incompetent jumper-up local councillors now calling for more Senedd members to jump on the gravy train. Classic socialism. All coming your way soon - enjoy "Just little bit more money bro. Just little bit more taxes bro. We will reach the land of Utopian socialism bro. Trust me bro. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Natural Resources Wales is government sponsored and the Labour run Senedd have control of the NHS, education and attracting business investment. And the 20 mph limit? Of course. They have consistently failed but are allowed to do so by the electorate. We are run by incompetent jumper-up local councillors now calling for more Senedd members to jump on the gravy train. Classic socialism. All coming your way soon - enjoy
Ah the "socialism" boogie man.
No further questions. "When the Berlin Wall fell, to which side did people run? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Natural Resources Wales is government sponsored and the Labour run Senedd have control of the NHS, education and attracting business investment. And the 20 mph limit? Of course. They have consistently failed but are allowed to do so by the electorate. We are run by incompetent jumper-up local councillors now calling for more Senedd members to jump on the gravy train. Classic socialism. All coming your way soon - enjoy
Ah the "socialism" boogie man.
No further questions.
When the Berlin Wall fell, to which side did people run? "There was a socialist side? Shocking revelation (if true). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Natural Resources Wales is government sponsored and the Labour run Senedd have control of the NHS, education and attracting business investment. And the 20 mph limit? Of course. They have consistently failed but are allowed to do so by the electorate. We are run by incompetent jumper-up local councillors now calling for more Senedd members to jump on the gravy train. Classic socialism. All coming your way soon - enjoy
Ah the "socialism" boogie man.
No further questions.
When the Berlin Wall fell, to which side did people run? "There were only 2 sides of that wall. Did it occur to you that people were running from communism rather than towards anything? Much like now people are running from the tories rather than towards anything. Most of us seem to be left with a choice of what is least worst rather than truly wanting any of what is on offer | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Natural Resources Wales is government sponsored and the Labour run Senedd have control of the NHS, education and attracting business investment. And the 20 mph limit? Of course. They have consistently failed but are allowed to do so by the electorate. We are run by incompetent jumper-up local councillors now calling for more Senedd members to jump on the gravy train. Classic socialism. All coming your way soon - enjoy
Ah the "socialism" boogie man.
No further questions.
When the Berlin Wall fell, to which side did people run?
There were only 2 sides of that wall. Did it occur to you that people were running from communism rather than towards anything? Much like now people are running from the tories rather than towards anything. Most of us seem to be left with a choice of what is least worst rather than truly wanting any of what is on offer "People weren't running away from communism. People were running away from socialism. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Natural Resources Wales is government sponsored and the Labour run Senedd have control of the NHS, education and attracting business investment. And the 20 mph limit? Of course. They have consistently failed but are allowed to do so by the electorate. We are run by incompetent jumper-up local councillors now calling for more Senedd members to jump on the gravy train. Classic socialism. All coming your way soon - enjoy
Ah the "socialism" boogie man.
No further questions.
When the Berlin Wall fell, to which side did people run?
There were only 2 sides of that wall. Did it occur to you that people were running from communism rather than towards anything? Much like now people are running from the tories rather than towards anything. Most of us seem to be left with a choice of what is least worst rather than truly wanting any of what is on offer
People weren't running away from communism. People were running away from socialism."I would run away from both personally | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Natural Resources Wales is government sponsored and the Labour run Senedd have control of the NHS, education and attracting business investment. And the 20 mph limit? Of course. They have consistently failed but are allowed to do so by the electorate. We are run by incompetent jumper-up local councillors now calling for more Senedd members to jump on the gravy train. Classic socialism. All coming your way soon - enjoy
Ah the "socialism" boogie man.
No further questions.
When the Berlin Wall fell, to which side did people run?
There were only 2 sides of that wall. Did it occur to you that people were running from communism rather than towards anything? Much like now people are running from the tories rather than towards anything. Most of us seem to be left with a choice of what is least worst rather than truly wanting any of what is on offer
People weren't running away from communism. People were running away from socialism.
I would run away from both personally" What would you run towards? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Natural Resources Wales is government sponsored and the Labour run Senedd have control of the NHS, education and attracting business investment. And the 20 mph limit? Of course. They have consistently failed but are allowed to do so by the electorate. We are run by incompetent jumper-up local councillors now calling for more Senedd members to jump on the gravy train. Classic socialism. All coming your way soon - enjoy
Ah the "socialism" boogie man.
No further questions.
When the Berlin Wall fell, to which side did people run?
There were only 2 sides of that wall. Did it occur to you that people were running from communism rather than towards anything? Much like now people are running from the tories rather than towards anything. Most of us seem to be left with a choice of what is least worst rather than truly wanting any of what is on offer
People weren't running away from communism. People were running away from socialism."East Germany was Communist | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Natural Resources Wales is government sponsored and the Labour run Senedd have control of the NHS, education and attracting business investment. And the 20 mph limit? Of course. They have consistently failed but are allowed to do so by the electorate. We are run by incompetent jumper-up local councillors now calling for more Senedd members to jump on the gravy train. Classic socialism. All coming your way soon - enjoy
Ah the "socialism" boogie man.
No further questions.
When the Berlin Wall fell, to which side did people run?
There were only 2 sides of that wall. Did it occur to you that people were running from communism rather than towards anything? Much like now people are running from the tories rather than towards anything. Most of us seem to be left with a choice of what is least worst rather than truly wanting any of what is on offer
People weren't running away from communism. People were running away from socialism.
I would run away from both personally
What would you run towards?"I’m not running towards anything that is on offer at the moment. Modern politics feels so polarised and dysfunctional. I’m in this weird place where i feel both hooked on keeping up to date with it whilst feeling completely disenfranchised and under represented at the same time. Same sh* different tie colour as far as I can tell. And yet I can also see how we got here because would I hell want to throw my hat in the ring for the stress and scrutiny and hate they get. So that leaves you a narrow pool of people that are happy to go into that environment and those people are more likely to be doing it for self serving reasons than the joy that public service gives them | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Natural Resources Wales is government sponsored and the Labour run Senedd have control of the NHS, education and attracting business investment. And the 20 mph limit? Of course. They have consistently failed but are allowed to do so by the electorate. We are run by incompetent jumper-up local councillors now calling for more Senedd members to jump on the gravy train. Classic socialism. All coming your way soon - enjoy
Ah the "socialism" boogie man.
No further questions.
When the Berlin Wall fell, to which side did people run?
There were only 2 sides of that wall. Did it occur to you that people were running from communism rather than towards anything? Much like now people are running from the tories rather than towards anything. Most of us seem to be left with a choice of what is least worst rather than truly wanting any of what is on offer
People weren't running away from communism. People were running away from socialism.
I would run away from both personally
What would you run towards?
I’m not running towards anything that is on offer at the moment. Modern politics feels so polarised and dysfunctional. I’m in this weird place where i feel both hooked on keeping up to date with it whilst feeling completely disenfranchised and under represented at the same time. Same sh* different tie colour as far as I can tell.
And yet I can also see how we got here because would I hell want to throw my hat in the ring for the stress and scrutiny and hate they get. So that leaves you a narrow pool of people that are happy to go into that environment and those people are more likely to be doing it for self serving reasons than the joy that public service gives them"A-unfortunly-men | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Natural Resources Wales is government sponsored and the Labour run Senedd have control of the NHS, education and attracting business investment. And the 20 mph limit? Of course. They have consistently failed but are allowed to do so by the electorate. We are run by incompetent jumper-up local councillors now calling for more Senedd members to jump on the gravy train. Classic socialism. All coming your way soon - enjoy
Ah the "socialism" boogie man.
No further questions.
When the Berlin Wall fell, to which side did people run?
There were only 2 sides of that wall. Did it occur to you that people were running from communism rather than towards anything? Much like now people are running from the tories rather than towards anything. Most of us seem to be left with a choice of what is least worst rather than truly wanting any of what is on offer
People weren't running away from communism. People were running away from socialism.
I would run away from both personally
What would you run towards?
I’m not running towards anything that is on offer at the moment. Modern politics feels so polarised and dysfunctional. I’m in this weird place where i feel both hooked on keeping up to date with it whilst feeling completely disenfranchised and under represented at the same time. Same sh* different tie colour as far as I can tell.
And yet I can also see how we got here because would I hell want to throw my hat in the ring for the stress and scrutiny and hate they get. So that leaves you a narrow pool of people that are happy to go into that environment and those people are more likely to be doing it for self serving reasons than the joy that public service gives them"Agree with you
That's why I always recommend compassionate people to go out and help others themselves, instead of expecting government to do it on their behalf. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The Reform party candidates and the reform party _anifesto should be enough to make people feel bad about their choice to vote Reform." I would never feel bad voting for asny party that secures our borders, keep us out of the EU, keeps tax low and smashes the state religion of the NHS and returns it to being a cost-efficient healthcare system that works. If those principles make you feel bad, maybe you ought to take a long hard look in the mirror and remind yourself what a whole generation of your grandparents age gave their lives to defend. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The Reform party candidates and the reform party _anifesto should be enough to make people feel bad about their choice to vote Reform. I would never feel bad voting for asny party that secures our borders, keep us out of the EU, keeps tax low and smashes the state religion of the NHS and returns it to being a cost-efficient healthcare system that works. If those principles make you feel bad, maybe you ought to take a long hard look in the mirror and remind yourself what a whole generation of your grandparents age gave their lives to defend. " My grandfather fought to destroy Nazism and Fascism. My grandmother and her parents fled to the UK as immigrants to escape the Nazi persecution of the Jews. What’s your solution for healthcare in the UK? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The Reform party candidates and the reform party _anifesto should be enough to make people feel bad about their choice to vote Reform. I would never feel bad voting for asny party that secures our borders, keep us out of the EU, keeps tax low and smashes the state religion of the NHS and returns it to being a cost-efficient healthcare system that works. " What about the Reform party? Staying out of the EU is the only thing they would do, same as Labour and Tories. " If those principles make you feel bad, " Your principles don't make me feel bad. And I'm not going to vote Reform. " maybe you ought to take a long hard look in the mirror and remind yourself what a whole generation of your grandparents age gave their lives to defend. " My grandparents fought against the far right. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The Reform party candidates and the reform party _anifesto should be enough to make people feel bad about their choice to vote Reform. I would never feel bad voting for asny party that secures our borders, keep us out of the EU, keeps tax low and smashes the state religion of the NHS and returns it to being a cost-efficient healthcare system that works. If those principles make you feel bad, maybe you ought to take a long hard look in the mirror and remind yourself what a whole generation of your grandparents age gave their lives to defend. My grandfather fought to destroy Nazism and Fascism. My grandmother and her parents fled to the UK as immigrants to escape the Nazi persecution of the Jews. What’s your solution for healthcare in the UK?" Your logical falacy is to suggest that policies designed to secure our borders equates to “nazism”. Unless I missed an unpublished part of the Reform _anifesto I don’t see them suggesting the rounding uyp of Jews and sending them to the gas chambers and a totalitarian national-socialist one party state. In fact part of their _anifesto talks about the kind of electoral reform that opens up both candidacy and franchise and challenges the current political duopoly, in other words more democracy, not less which is the eapt opposite of nazism. To answer the second point, I’d dismantle the entire system that is now a model no longer fit for purpose and I would put in place a system of direct health insurance that pays a mixed economy model of the private sector and state-subsidised providers. I would introduce means tested front-end payment for acces to primary care physicians and I would remove the link between GPs and signing off the benefits culture. It’s a set up that works for the rest of the world, who funnily enough, have better health outcomes than the UK. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The Reform party candidates and the reform party _anifesto should be enough to make people feel bad about their choice to vote Reform. I would never feel bad voting for asny party that secures our borders, keep us out of the EU, keeps tax low and smashes the state religion of the NHS and returns it to being a cost-efficient healthcare system that works. If those principles make you feel bad, maybe you ought to take a long hard look in the mirror and remind yourself what a whole generation of your grandparents age gave their lives to defend. My grandfather fought to destroy Nazism and Fascism. My grandmother and her parents fled to the UK as immigrants to escape the Nazi persecution of the Jews. What’s your solution for healthcare in the UK? Your logical falacy is to suggest that policies designed to secure our borders equates to “nazism”. Unless I missed an unpublished part of the Reform _anifesto I don’t see them suggesting the rounding uyp of Jews and sending them to the gas chambers and a totalitarian national-socialist one party state. In fact part of their _anifesto talks about the kind of electoral reform that opens up both candidacy and franchise and challenges the current political duopoly, in other words more democracy, not less which is the eapt opposite of nazism. To answer the second point, I’d dismantle the entire system that is now a model no longer fit for purpose and I would put in place a system of direct health insurance that pays a mixed economy model of the private sector and state-subsidised providers. I would introduce means tested front-end payment for acces to primary care physicians and I would remove the link between GPs and signing off the benefits culture. It’s a set up that works for the rest of the world, who funnily enough, have better health outcomes than the UK. " You should try living in a country with a healthcare system like you described. Poor people simply die due to lack of access to healthcare. 68,000 Americans die each year because they can't get the care they need. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The Reform party candidates and the reform party _anifesto should be enough to make people feel bad about their choice to vote Reform. I would never feel bad voting for asny party that secures our borders, keep us out of the EU, keeps tax low and smashes the state religion of the NHS and returns it to being a cost-efficient healthcare system that works. If those principles make you feel bad, maybe you ought to take a long hard look in the mirror and remind yourself what a whole generation of your grandparents age gave their lives to defend. My grandfather fought to destroy Nazism and Fascism. My grandmother and her parents fled to the UK as immigrants to escape the Nazi persecution of the Jews. What’s your solution for healthcare in the UK? Your logical falacy is to suggest that policies designed to secure our borders equates to “nazism”. Unless I missed an unpublished part of the Reform _anifesto I don’t see them suggesting the rounding uyp of Jews and sending them to the gas chambers and a totalitarian national-socialist one party state. In fact part of their _anifesto talks about the kind of electoral reform that opens up both candidacy and franchise and challenges the current political duopoly, in other words more democracy, not less which is the eapt opposite of nazism. To answer the second point, I’d dismantle the entire system that is now a model no longer fit for purpose and I would put in place a system of direct health insurance that pays a mixed economy model of the private sector and state-subsidised providers. I would introduce means tested front-end payment for acces to primary care physicians and I would remove the link between GPs and signing off the benefits culture. It’s a set up that works for the rest of the world, who funnily enough, have better health outcomes than the UK. You should try living in a country with a healthcare system like you described. Poor people simply die due to lack of access to healthcare. 68,000 Americans die each year because they can't get the care they need." Here we go. “The NHS isn’t working”. “You are a Tufton Street shill! Who funds you? You just want a US healthcare system and poor people are going to die in their millions”! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The Reform party candidates and the reform party _anifesto should be enough to make people feel bad about their choice to vote Reform. I would never feel bad voting for asny party that secures our borders, keep us out of the EU, keeps tax low and smashes the state religion of the NHS and returns it to being a cost-efficient healthcare system that works. If those principles make you feel bad, maybe you ought to take a long hard look in the mirror and remind yourself what a whole generation of your grandparents age gave their lives to defend. My grandfather fought to destroy Nazism and Fascism. My grandmother and her parents fled to the UK as immigrants to escape the Nazi persecution of the Jews. What’s your solution for healthcare in the UK? Your logical falacy is to suggest that policies designed to secure our borders equates to “nazism”. Unless I missed an unpublished part of the Reform _anifesto I don’t see them suggesting the rounding uyp of Jews and sending them to the gas chambers and a totalitarian national-socialist one party state. In fact part of their _anifesto talks about the kind of electoral reform that opens up both candidacy and franchise and challenges the current political duopoly, in other words more democracy, not less which is the eapt opposite of nazism. To answer the second point, I’d dismantle the entire system that is now a model no longer fit for purpose and I would put in place a system of direct health insurance that pays a mixed economy model of the private sector and state-subsidised providers. I would introduce means tested front-end payment for acces to primary care physicians and I would remove the link between GPs and signing off the benefits culture. It’s a set up that works for the rest of the world, who funnily enough, have better health outcomes than the UK. You should try living in a country with a healthcare system like you described. Poor people simply die due to lack of access to healthcare. 68,000 Americans die each year because they can't get the care they need. Here we go. “The NHS isn’t working”. “You are a Tufton Street shill! Who funds you? You just want a US healthcare system and poor people are going to die in their millions”!" You appear to have misquoted me there. Just to clarify what I said: "You should try living in a country with a healthcare system like you described. Poor people simply die due to lack of access to healthcare. 68,000 Americans die each year because they can't get the care they need." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The Reform party candidates and the reform party _anifesto should be enough to make people feel bad about their choice to vote Reform. I would never feel bad voting for asny party that secures our borders, keep us out of the EU, keeps tax low and smashes the state religion of the NHS and returns it to being a cost-efficient healthcare system that works. If those principles make you feel bad, maybe you ought to take a long hard look in the mirror and remind yourself what a whole generation of your grandparents age gave their lives to defend. My grandfather fought to destroy Nazism and Fascism. My grandmother and her parents fled to the UK as immigrants to escape the Nazi persecution of the Jews. What’s your solution for healthcare in the UK? Your logical falacy is to suggest that policies designed to secure our borders equates to “nazism”. Unless I missed an unpublished part of the Reform _anifesto I don’t see them suggesting the rounding uyp of Jews and sending them to the gas chambers and a totalitarian national-socialist one party state. In fact part of their _anifesto talks about the kind of electoral reform that opens up both candidacy and franchise and challenges the current political duopoly, in other words more democracy, not less which is the eapt opposite of nazism. To answer the second point, I’d dismantle the entire system that is now a model no longer fit for purpose and I would put in place a system of direct health insurance that pays a mixed economy model of the private sector and state-subsidised providers. I would introduce means tested front-end payment for acces to primary care physicians and I would remove the link between GPs and signing off the benefits culture. It’s a set up that works for the rest of the world, who funnily enough, have better health outcomes than the UK. You should try living in a country with a healthcare system like you described. Poor people simply die due to lack of access to healthcare. 68,000 Americans die each year because they can't get the care they need. Here we go. “The NHS isn’t working”. “You are a Tufton Street shill! Who funds you? You just want a US healthcare system and poor people are going to die in their millions”!" bUt WhAt AbOuT lAbOuR? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The Reform party candidates and the reform party _anifesto should be enough to make people feel bad about their choice to vote Reform. I would never feel bad voting for asny party that secures our borders, keep us out of the EU, keeps tax low and smashes the state religion of the NHS and returns it to being a cost-efficient healthcare system that works. If those principles make you feel bad, maybe you ought to take a long hard look in the mirror and remind yourself what a whole generation of your grandparents age gave their lives to defend. My grandfather fought to destroy Nazism and Fascism. My grandmother and her parents fled to the UK as immigrants to escape the Nazi persecution of the Jews. What’s your solution for healthcare in the UK? Your logical falacy is to suggest that policies designed to secure our borders equates to “nazism”. Unless I missed an unpublished part of the Reform _anifesto I don’t see them suggesting the rounding uyp of Jews and sending them to the gas chambers and a totalitarian national-socialist one party state. In fact part of their _anifesto talks about the kind of electoral reform that opens up both candidacy and franchise and challenges the current political duopoly, in other words more democracy, not less which is the eapt opposite of nazism. To answer the second point, I’d dismantle the entire system that is now a model no longer fit for purpose and I would put in place a system of direct health insurance that pays a mixed economy model of the private sector and state-subsidised providers. I would introduce means tested front-end payment for acces to primary care physicians and I would remove the link between GPs and signing off the benefits culture. It’s a set up that works for the rest of the world, who funnily enough, have better health outcomes than the UK. You should try living in a country with a healthcare system like you described. Poor people simply die due to lack of access to healthcare. 68,000 Americans die each year because they can't get the care they need. Here we go. “The NHS isn’t working”. “You are a Tufton Street shill! Who funds you? You just want a US healthcare system and poor people are going to die in their millions”! You appear to have misquoted me there. Just to clarify what I said: "You should try living in a country with a healthcare system like you described. Poor people simply die due to lack of access to healthcare. 68,000 Americans die each year because they can't get the care they need." " Of course, I forgot that there are only two countries in the world. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The Reform party candidates and the reform party _anifesto should be enough to make people feel bad about their choice to vote Reform. I would never feel bad voting for asny party that secures our borders, keep us out of the EU, keeps tax low and smashes the state religion of the NHS and returns it to being a cost-efficient healthcare system that works. If those principles make you feel bad, maybe you ought to take a long hard look in the mirror and remind yourself what a whole generation of your grandparents age gave their lives to defend. My grandfather fought to destroy Nazism and Fascism. My grandmother and her parents fled to the UK as immigrants to escape the Nazi persecution of the Jews. What’s your solution for healthcare in the UK? Your logical falacy is to suggest that policies designed to secure our borders equates to “nazism”. Unless I missed an unpublished part of the Reform _anifesto I don’t see them suggesting the rounding uyp of Jews and sending them to the gas chambers and a totalitarian national-socialist one party state. In fact part of their _anifesto talks about the kind of electoral reform that opens up both candidacy and franchise and challenges the current political duopoly, in other words more democracy, not less which is the eapt opposite of nazism. To answer the second point, I’d dismantle the entire system that is now a model no longer fit for purpose and I would put in place a system of direct health insurance that pays a mixed economy model of the private sector and state-subsidised providers. I would introduce means tested front-end payment for acces to primary care physicians and I would remove the link between GPs and signing off the benefits culture. It’s a set up that works for the rest of the world, who funnily enough, have better health outcomes than the UK. You should try living in a country with a healthcare system like you described. Poor people simply die due to lack of access to healthcare. 68,000 Americans die each year because they can't get the care they need. Here we go. “The NHS isn’t working”. “You are a Tufton Street shill! Who funds you? You just want a US healthcare system and poor people are going to die in their millions”! You appear to have misquoted me there. Just to clarify what I said: "You should try living in a country with a healthcare system like you described. Poor people simply die due to lack of access to healthcare. 68,000 Americans die each year because they can't get the care they need." Of course, I forgot that there are only two countries in the world." You're misinformed. There's over 190. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The Reform party candidates and the reform party _anifesto should be enough to make people feel bad about their choice to vote Reform. I would never feel bad voting for asny party that secures our borders, keep us out of the EU, keeps tax low and smashes the state religion of the NHS and returns it to being a cost-efficient healthcare system that works. If those principles make you feel bad, maybe you ought to take a long hard look in the mirror and remind yourself what a whole generation of your grandparents age gave their lives to defend. My grandfather fought to destroy Nazism and Fascism. My grandmother and her parents fled to the UK as immigrants to escape the Nazi persecution of the Jews. What’s your solution for healthcare in the UK? Your logical falacy is to suggest that policies designed to secure our borders equates to “nazism”. Unless I missed an unpublished part of the Reform _anifesto I don’t see them suggesting the rounding uyp of Jews and sending them to the gas chambers and a totalitarian national-socialist one party state. In fact part of their _anifesto talks about the kind of electoral reform that opens up both candidacy and franchise and challenges the current political duopoly, in other words more democracy, not less which is the eapt opposite of nazism. To answer the second point, I’d dismantle the entire system that is now a model no longer fit for purpose and I would put in place a system of direct health insurance that pays a mixed economy model of the private sector and state-subsidised providers. I would introduce means tested front-end payment for acces to primary care physicians and I would remove the link between GPs and signing off the benefits culture. It’s a set up that works for the rest of the world, who funnily enough, have better health outcomes than the UK. You should try living in a country with a healthcare system like you described. Poor people simply die due to lack of access to healthcare. 68,000 Americans die each year because they can't get the care they need. Here we go. “The NHS isn’t working”. “You are a Tufton Street shill! Who funds you? You just want a US healthcare system and poor people are going to die in their millions”! You appear to have misquoted me there. Just to clarify what I said: "You should try living in a country with a healthcare system like you described. Poor people simply die due to lack of access to healthcare. 68,000 Americans die each year because they can't get the care they need." Of course, I forgot that there are only two countries in the world. You're misinformed. There's over 190." Google is an amazing thing! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The Reform party candidates and the reform party _anifesto should be enough to make people feel bad about their choice to vote Reform. I would never feel bad voting for asny party that secures our borders, keep us out of the EU, keeps tax low and smashes the state religion of the NHS and returns it to being a cost-efficient healthcare system that works. If those principles make you feel bad, maybe you ought to take a long hard look in the mirror and remind yourself what a whole generation of your grandparents age gave their lives to defend. My grandfather fought to destroy Nazism and Fascism. My grandmother and her parents fled to the UK as immigrants to escape the Nazi persecution of the Jews. What’s your solution for healthcare in the UK? Your logical falacy is to suggest that policies designed to secure our borders equates to “nazism”. Unless I missed an unpublished part of the Reform _anifesto I don’t see them suggesting the rounding uyp of Jews and sending them to the gas chambers and a totalitarian national-socialist one party state. In fact part of their _anifesto talks about the kind of electoral reform that opens up both candidacy and franchise and challenges the current political duopoly, in other words more democracy, not less which is the eapt opposite of nazism. To answer the second point, I’d dismantle the entire system that is now a model no longer fit for purpose and I would put in place a system of direct health insurance that pays a mixed economy model of the private sector and state-subsidised providers. I would introduce means tested front-end payment for acces to primary care physicians and I would remove the link between GPs and signing off the benefits culture. It’s a set up that works for the rest of the world, who funnily enough, have better health outcomes than the UK. You should try living in a country with a healthcare system like you described. Poor people simply die due to lack of access to healthcare. 68,000 Americans die each year because they can't get the care they need. Here we go. “The NHS isn’t working”. “You are a Tufton Street shill! Who funds you? You just want a US healthcare system and poor people are going to die in their millions”! You appear to have misquoted me there. Just to clarify what I said: "You should try living in a country with a healthcare system like you described. Poor people simply die due to lack of access to healthcare. 68,000 Americans die each year because they can't get the care they need." Of course, I forgot that there are only two countries in the world. You're misinformed. There's over 190. Google is an amazing thing!" Anyway, back to the point the other chap made about wanting to move to a healthcare system that poor people can't afford. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The Reform party candidates and the reform party _anifesto should be enough to make people feel bad about their choice to vote Reform. I would never feel bad voting for asny party that secures our borders, keep us out of the EU, keeps tax low and smashes the state religion of the NHS and returns it to being a cost-efficient healthcare system that works. If those principles make you feel bad, maybe you ought to take a long hard look in the mirror and remind yourself what a whole generation of your grandparents age gave their lives to defend. My grandfather fought to destroy Nazism and Fascism. My grandmother and her parents fled to the UK as immigrants to escape the Nazi persecution of the Jews. What’s your solution for healthcare in the UK? Your logical falacy is to suggest that policies designed to secure our borders equates to “nazism”. Unless I missed an unpublished part of the Reform _anifesto I don’t see them suggesting the rounding uyp of Jews and sending them to the gas chambers and a totalitarian national-socialist one party state. In fact part of their _anifesto talks about the kind of electoral reform that opens up both candidacy and franchise and challenges the current political duopoly, in other words more democracy, not less which is the eapt opposite of nazism. To answer the second point, I’d dismantle the entire system that is now a model no longer fit for purpose and I would put in place a system of direct health insurance that pays a mixed economy model of the private sector and state-subsidised providers. I would introduce means tested front-end payment for acces to primary care physicians and I would remove the link between GPs and signing off the benefits culture. It’s a set up that works for the rest of the world, who funnily enough, have better health outcomes than the UK. You should try living in a country with a healthcare system like you described. Poor people simply die due to lack of access to healthcare. 68,000 Americans die each year because they can't get the care they need. Here we go. “The NHS isn’t working”. “You are a Tufton Street shill! Who funds you? You just want a US healthcare system and poor people are going to die in their millions”! You appear to have misquoted me there. Just to clarify what I said: "You should try living in a country with a healthcare system like you described. Poor people simply die due to lack of access to healthcare. 68,000 Americans die each year because they can't get the care they need." Of course, I forgot that there are only two countries in the world. You're misinformed. There's over 190. Google is an amazing thing! Anyway, back to the point the other chap made about wanting to move to a healthcare system that poor people can't afford." It seems sometimes that people who want to get rid of the NHS want to be healthy, whereas as people who support the NHS want everyone to be healthy. It’s similar to the old no atheists in a foxhole thing. A health service based on insurance seems like a great idea until you’re bankrupted by out of pocket expenses. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The Reform party candidates and the reform party _anifesto should be enough to make people feel bad about their choice to vote Reform. I would never feel bad voting for asny party that secures our borders, keep us out of the EU, keeps tax low and smashes the state religion of the NHS and returns it to being a cost-efficient healthcare system that works. If those principles make you feel bad, maybe you ought to take a long hard look in the mirror and remind yourself what a whole generation of your grandparents age gave their lives to defend. My grandfather fought to destroy Nazism and Fascism. My grandmother and her parents fled to the UK as immigrants to escape the Nazi persecution of the Jews. What’s your solution for healthcare in the UK? Your logical falacy is to suggest that policies designed to secure our borders equates to “nazism”. Unless I missed an unpublished part of the Reform _anifesto I don’t see them suggesting the rounding uyp of Jews and sending them to the gas chambers and a totalitarian national-socialist one party state. In fact part of their _anifesto talks about the kind of electoral reform that opens up both candidacy and franchise and challenges the current political duopoly, in other words more democracy, not less which is the eapt opposite of nazism. To answer the second point, I’d dismantle the entire system that is now a model no longer fit for purpose and I would put in place a system of direct health insurance that pays a mixed economy model of the private sector and state-subsidised providers. I would introduce means tested front-end payment for acces to primary care physicians and I would remove the link between GPs and signing off the benefits culture. It’s a set up that works for the rest of the world, who funnily enough, have better health outcomes than the UK. You should try living in a country with a healthcare system like you described. Poor people simply die due to lack of access to healthcare. 68,000 Americans die each year because they can't get the care they need. Here we go. “The NHS isn’t working”. “You are a Tufton Street shill! Who funds you? You just want a US healthcare system and poor people are going to die in their millions”! You appear to have misquoted me there. Just to clarify what I said: "You should try living in a country with a healthcare system like you described. Poor people simply die due to lack of access to healthcare. 68,000 Americans die each year because they can't get the care they need." Of course, I forgot that there are only two countries in the world. You're misinformed. There's over 190. Google is an amazing thing! Anyway, back to the point the other chap made about wanting to move to a healthcare system that poor people can't afford." Poor people can’t afford healthcare in this country. I’ve even noticed a significant downturn in the quality of private healthcare. The failure of “Our NHS” is dragging everything down with it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The Reform party candidates and the reform party _anifesto should be enough to make people feel bad about their choice to vote Reform. I would never feel bad voting for asny party that secures our borders, keep us out of the EU, keeps tax low and smashes the state religion of the NHS and returns it to being a cost-efficient healthcare system that works. If those principles make you feel bad, maybe you ought to take a long hard look in the mirror and remind yourself what a whole generation of your grandparents age gave their lives to defend. My grandfather fought to destroy Nazism and Fascism. My grandmother and her parents fled to the UK as immigrants to escape the Nazi persecution of the Jews. What’s your solution for healthcare in the UK? Your logical falacy is to suggest that policies designed to secure our borders equates to “nazism”. Unless I missed an unpublished part of the Reform _anifesto I don’t see them suggesting the rounding uyp of Jews and sending them to the gas chambers and a totalitarian national-socialist one party state. In fact part of their _anifesto talks about the kind of electoral reform that opens up both candidacy and franchise and challenges the current political duopoly, in other words more democracy, not less which is the eapt opposite of nazism. To answer the second point, I’d dismantle the entire system that is now a model no longer fit for purpose and I would put in place a system of direct health insurance that pays a mixed economy model of the private sector and state-subsidised providers. I would introduce means tested front-end payment for acces to primary care physicians and I would remove the link between GPs and signing off the benefits culture. It’s a set up that works for the rest of the world, who funnily enough, have better health outcomes than the UK. You should try living in a country with a healthcare system like you described. Poor people simply die due to lack of access to healthcare. 68,000 Americans die each year because they can't get the care they need. Here we go. “The NHS isn’t working”. “You are a Tufton Street shill! Who funds you? You just want a US healthcare system and poor people are going to die in their millions”! You appear to have misquoted me there. Just to clarify what I said: "You should try living in a country with a healthcare system like you described. Poor people simply die due to lack of access to healthcare. 68,000 Americans die each year because they can't get the care they need." Of course, I forgot that there are only two countries in the world. You're misinformed. There's over 190. Google is an amazing thing! Anyway, back to the point the other chap made about wanting to move to a healthcare system that poor people can't afford. Poor people can’t afford healthcare in this country. " The UK has a healthcare system that is paid for from taxes. Poor people don't have to pay at the point of recieving healthcare. So it's incorrect to say poor people in this country can't afford healthcare. " I’ve even noticed a significant downturn in the quality of private healthcare. The failure of “Our NHS” is dragging everything down with it." The government has been trying to run the NHS into the ground for over a decade, to try to get support for selling it off to the highest bidder. It needs proper management and appropriate funding. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The Reform party candidates and the reform party _anifesto should be enough to make people feel bad about their choice to vote Reform. I would never feel bad voting for asny party that secures our borders, keep us out of the EU, keeps tax low and smashes the state religion of the NHS and returns it to being a cost-efficient healthcare system that works. If those principles make you feel bad, maybe you ought to take a long hard look in the mirror and remind yourself what a whole generation of your grandparents age gave their lives to defend. My grandfather fought to destroy Nazism and Fascism. My grandmother and her parents fled to the UK as immigrants to escape the Nazi persecution of the Jews. What’s your solution for healthcare in the UK? Your logical falacy is to suggest that policies designed to secure our borders equates to “nazism”. Unless I missed an unpublished part of the Reform _anifesto I don’t see them suggesting the rounding uyp of Jews and sending them to the gas chambers and a totalitarian national-socialist one party state. In fact part of their _anifesto talks about the kind of electoral reform that opens up both candidacy and franchise and challenges the current political duopoly, in other words more democracy, not less which is the eapt opposite of nazism. To answer the second point, I’d dismantle the entire system that is now a model no longer fit for purpose and I would put in place a system of direct health insurance that pays a mixed economy model of the private sector and state-subsidised providers. I would introduce means tested front-end payment for acces to primary care physicians and I would remove the link between GPs and signing off the benefits culture. It’s a set up that works for the rest of the world, who funnily enough, have better health outcomes than the UK. " You said: "long hard look in the mirror and remind yourself what a whole generation of your grandparents age gave their lives to defend" And I said what my grandparents did. You made the connection. My point was around you implying what they fought for which I think was revisionist and missed the mark. My grandfather was opposed to any form of totalitarianism, left or right. He would shake his head in disbelief and this younger generation moving back towards the right saying “did they learn nothing”. He would also tell you to give your head a wobble and change the name of your profile as it has offensive connotations! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The Reform party candidates and the reform party _anifesto should be enough to make people feel bad about their choice to vote Reform. I would never feel bad voting for asny party that secures our borders, keep us out of the EU, keeps tax low and smashes the state religion of the NHS and returns it to being a cost-efficient healthcare system that works. If those principles make you feel bad, maybe you ought to take a long hard look in the mirror and remind yourself what a whole generation of your grandparents age gave their lives to defend. My grandfather fought to destroy Nazism and Fascism. My grandmother and her parents fled to the UK as immigrants to escape the Nazi persecution of the Jews. What’s your solution for healthcare in the UK? Your logical falacy is to suggest that policies designed to secure our borders equates to “nazism”. Unless I missed an unpublished part of the Reform _anifesto I don’t see them suggesting the rounding uyp of Jews and sending them to the gas chambers and a totalitarian national-socialist one party state. In fact part of their _anifesto talks about the kind of electoral reform that opens up both candidacy and franchise and challenges the current political duopoly, in other words more democracy, not less which is the eapt opposite of nazism. To answer the second point, I’d dismantle the entire system that is now a model no longer fit for purpose and I would put in place a system of direct health insurance that pays a mixed economy model of the private sector and state-subsidised providers. I would introduce means tested front-end payment for acces to primary care physicians and I would remove the link between GPs and signing off the benefits culture. It’s a set up that works for the rest of the world, who funnily enough, have better health outcomes than the UK. You should try living in a country with a healthcare system like you described. Poor people simply die due to lack of access to healthcare. 68,000 Americans die each year because they can't get the care they need. Here we go. “The NHS isn’t working”. “You are a Tufton Street shill! Who funds you? You just want a US healthcare system and poor people are going to die in their millions”! You appear to have misquoted me there. Just to clarify what I said: "You should try living in a country with a healthcare system like you described. Poor people simply die due to lack of access to healthcare. 68,000 Americans die each year because they can't get the care they need." Of course, I forgot that there are only two countries in the world. You're misinformed. There's over 190. Google is an amazing thing! Anyway, back to the point the other chap made about wanting to move to a healthcare system that poor people can't afford. Poor people can’t afford healthcare in this country. The UK has a healthcare system that is paid for from taxes. Poor people don't have to pay at the point of recieving healthcare. So it's incorrect to say poor people in this country can't afford healthcare. I’ve even noticed a significant downturn in the quality of private healthcare. The failure of “Our NHS” is dragging everything down with it. The government has been trying to run the NHS into the ground for over a decade, to try to get support for selling it off to the highest bidder. It needs proper management and appropriate funding." If the “free healthcare” isn’t available, then it may as well not exist. In which case only people who can afford to pay privately can get healthcare. So no, poor people in this country cannot afford healthcare. The rest of your comments are just the usual incoherent babble. Personally I don’t care what the healthcare model is. I don’t care if it’s state, insurance, or privately funded, as long as it works. I am even open to different letters of the alphabet being used to describe it, pretty radical I know. What about you? Are you open to other models? Are you open to learning from best practice overseas, from countries that have better outcomes? Of course you aren’t. You are an ideologue. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The Reform party candidates and the reform party _anifesto should be enough to make people feel bad about their choice to vote Reform. I would never feel bad voting for asny party that secures our borders, keep us out of the EU, keeps tax low and smashes the state religion of the NHS and returns it to being a cost-efficient healthcare system that works. If those principles make you feel bad, maybe you ought to take a long hard look in the mirror and remind yourself what a whole generation of your grandparents age gave their lives to defend. My grandfather fought to destroy Nazism and Fascism. My grandmother and her parents fled to the UK as immigrants to escape the Nazi persecution of the Jews. What’s your solution for healthcare in the UK? Your logical falacy is to suggest that policies designed to secure our borders equates to “nazism”. Unless I missed an unpublished part of the Reform _anifesto I don’t see them suggesting the rounding uyp of Jews and sending them to the gas chambers and a totalitarian national-socialist one party state. In fact part of their _anifesto talks about the kind of electoral reform that opens up both candidacy and franchise and challenges the current political duopoly, in other words more democracy, not less which is the eapt opposite of nazism. To answer the second point, I’d dismantle the entire system that is now a model no longer fit for purpose and I would put in place a system of direct health insurance that pays a mixed economy model of the private sector and state-subsidised providers. I would introduce means tested front-end payment for acces to primary care physicians and I would remove the link between GPs and signing off the benefits culture. It’s a set up that works for the rest of the world, who funnily enough, have better health outcomes than the UK. You should try living in a country with a healthcare system like you described. Poor people simply die due to lack of access to healthcare. 68,000 Americans die each year because they can't get the care they need. Here we go. “The NHS isn’t working”. “You are a Tufton Street shill! Who funds you? You just want a US healthcare system and poor people are going to die in their millions”! You appear to have misquoted me there. Just to clarify what I said: "You should try living in a country with a healthcare system like you described. Poor people simply die due to lack of access to healthcare. 68,000 Americans die each year because they can't get the care they need." Of course, I forgot that there are only two countries in the world. You're misinformed. There's over 190. Google is an amazing thing! Anyway, back to the point the other chap made about wanting to move to a healthcare system that poor people can't afford. Poor people can’t afford healthcare in this country. The UK has a healthcare system that is paid for from taxes. Poor people don't have to pay at the point of recieving healthcare. So it's incorrect to say poor people in this country can't afford healthcare. I’ve even noticed a significant downturn in the quality of private healthcare. The failure of “Our NHS” is dragging everything down with it. The government has been trying to run the NHS into the ground for over a decade, to try to get support for selling it off to the highest bidder. It needs proper management and appropriate funding. If the “free healthcare” isn’t available, then it may as well not exist. In which case only people who can afford to pay privately can get healthcare. So no, poor people in this country cannot afford healthcare." You misquoted me there again. I clearly didn't say "free healthcare". To reiterate. Healthcare is paid for from tax revenue. The NHS does exist, and poor people do have access to healthcare without paying at the point of delivery. " The rest of your comments are just the usual incoherent babble. " Oooookkkkkaaaayyyyyy. Irony maybe? " Personally I don’t care what the healthcare model is. I don’t care if it’s state, insurance, or privately funded, as long as it works. I am even open to different letters of the alphabet being used to describe it, pretty radical I know. What about you? Are you open to other models? Are you open to learning from best practice overseas, from countries that have better outcomes? Of course you aren’t. You are an ideologue." Why did you ask the question if you prefer to make random assumptions about people anyway? Not everyone that wants poor people to have access to healthcare is an "ideologue". | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The Reform party candidates and the reform party _anifesto should be enough to make people feel bad about their choice to vote Reform. I would never feel bad voting for asny party that secures our borders, keep us out of the EU, keeps tax low and smashes the state religion of the NHS and returns it to being a cost-efficient healthcare system that works. If those principles make you feel bad, maybe you ought to take a long hard look in the mirror and remind yourself what a whole generation of your grandparents age gave their lives to defend. My grandfather fought to destroy Nazism and Fascism. My grandmother and her parents fled to the UK as immigrants to escape the Nazi persecution of the Jews. What’s your solution for healthcare in the UK? Your logical falacy is to suggest that policies designed to secure our borders equates to “nazism”. Unless I missed an unpublished part of the Reform _anifesto I don’t see them suggesting the rounding uyp of Jews and sending them to the gas chambers and a totalitarian national-socialist one party state. In fact part of their _anifesto talks about the kind of electoral reform that opens up both candidacy and franchise and challenges the current political duopoly, in other words more democracy, not less which is the eapt opposite of nazism. To answer the second point, I’d dismantle the entire system that is now a model no longer fit for purpose and I would put in place a system of direct health insurance that pays a mixed economy model of the private sector and state-subsidised providers. I would introduce means tested front-end payment for acces to primary care physicians and I would remove the link between GPs and signing off the benefits culture. It’s a set up that works for the rest of the world, who funnily enough, have better health outcomes than the UK. You should try living in a country with a healthcare system like you described. Poor people simply die due to lack of access to healthcare. 68,000 Americans die each year because they can't get the care they need. Here we go. “The NHS isn’t working”. “You are a Tufton Street shill! Who funds you? You just want a US healthcare system and poor people are going to die in their millions”! You appear to have misquoted me there. Just to clarify what I said: "You should try living in a country with a healthcare system like you described. Poor people simply die due to lack of access to healthcare. 68,000 Americans die each year because they can't get the care they need." Of course, I forgot that there are only two countries in the world. You're misinformed. There's over 190. Google is an amazing thing! Anyway, back to the point the other chap made about wanting to move to a healthcare system that poor people can't afford. Poor people can’t afford healthcare in this country. The UK has a healthcare system that is paid for from taxes. Poor people don't have to pay at the point of recieving healthcare. So it's incorrect to say poor people in this country can't afford healthcare. I’ve even noticed a significant downturn in the quality of private healthcare. The failure of “Our NHS” is dragging everything down with it. The government has been trying to run the NHS into the ground for over a decade, to try to get support for selling it off to the highest bidder. It needs proper management and appropriate funding. If the “free healthcare” isn’t available, then it may as well not exist. In which case only people who can afford to pay privately can get healthcare. So no, poor people in this country cannot afford healthcare. The rest of your comments are just the usual incoherent babble. Personally I don’t care what the healthcare model is. I don’t care if it’s state, insurance, or privately funded, as long as it works. I am even open to different letters of the alphabet being used to describe it, pretty radical I know. What about you? Are you open to other models? Are you open to learning from best practice overseas, from countries that have better outcomes? Of course you aren’t. You are an ideologue." The common denominator among countries with better health outcomes than the UK is that they spend more per capita on healthcare than the UK. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The Reform party candidates and the reform party _anifesto should be enough to make people feel bad about their choice to vote Reform. I would never feel bad voting for asny party that secures our borders, keep us out of the EU, keeps tax low and smashes the state religion of the NHS and returns it to being a cost-efficient healthcare system that works. If those principles make you feel bad, maybe you ought to take a long hard look in the mirror and remind yourself what a whole generation of your grandparents age gave their lives to defend. My grandfather fought to destroy Nazism and Fascism. My grandmother and her parents fled to the UK as immigrants to escape the Nazi persecution of the Jews. What’s your solution for healthcare in the UK? Your logical falacy is to suggest that policies designed to secure our borders equates to “nazism”. Unless I missed an unpublished part of the Reform _anifesto I don’t see them suggesting the rounding uyp of Jews and sending them to the gas chambers and a totalitarian national-socialist one party state. In fact part of their _anifesto talks about the kind of electoral reform that opens up both candidacy and franchise and challenges the current political duopoly, in other words more democracy, not less which is the eapt opposite of nazism. To answer the second point, I’d dismantle the entire system that is now a model no longer fit for purpose and I would put in place a system of direct health insurance that pays a mixed economy model of the private sector and state-subsidised providers. I would introduce means tested front-end payment for acces to primary care physicians and I would remove the link between GPs and signing off the benefits culture. It’s a set up that works for the rest of the world, who funnily enough, have better health outcomes than the UK. You should try living in a country with a healthcare system like you described. Poor people simply die due to lack of access to healthcare. 68,000 Americans die each year because they can't get the care they need. Here we go. “The NHS isn’t working”. “You are a Tufton Street shill! Who funds you? You just want a US healthcare system and poor people are going to die in their millions”! You appear to have misquoted me there. Just to clarify what I said: "You should try living in a country with a healthcare system like you described. Poor people simply die due to lack of access to healthcare. 68,000 Americans die each year because they can't get the care they need." Of course, I forgot that there are only two countries in the world. You're misinformed. There's over 190. Google is an amazing thing! Anyway, back to the point the other chap made about wanting to move to a healthcare system that poor people can't afford. Poor people can’t afford healthcare in this country. The UK has a healthcare system that is paid for from taxes. Poor people don't have to pay at the point of recieving healthcare. So it's incorrect to say poor people in this country can't afford healthcare. I’ve even noticed a significant downturn in the quality of private healthcare. The failure of “Our NHS” is dragging everything down with it. The government has been trying to run the NHS into the ground for over a decade, to try to get support for selling it off to the highest bidder. It needs proper management and appropriate funding. If the “free healthcare” isn’t available, then it may as well not exist. In which case only people who can afford to pay privately can get healthcare. So no, poor people in this country cannot afford healthcare. The rest of your comments are just the usual incoherent babble. Personally I don’t care what the healthcare model is. I don’t care if it’s state, insurance, or privately funded, as long as it works. I am even open to different letters of the alphabet being used to describe it, pretty radical I know. What about you? Are you open to other models? Are you open to learning from best practice overseas, from countries that have better outcomes? Of course you aren’t. You are an ideologue. The common denominator among countries with better health outcomes than the UK is that they spend more per capita on healthcare than the UK." Shhhhh that’s an inconvenient truth. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The Reform party candidates and the reform party _anifesto should be enough to make people feel bad about their choice to vote Reform. I would never feel bad voting for asny party that secures our borders, keep us out of the EU, keeps tax low and smashes the state religion of the NHS and returns it to being a cost-efficient healthcare system that works. If those principles make you feel bad, maybe you ought to take a long hard look in the mirror and remind yourself what a whole generation of your grandparents age gave their lives to defend. My grandfather fought to destroy Nazism and Fascism. My grandmother and her parents fled to the UK as immigrants to escape the Nazi persecution of the Jews. What’s your solution for healthcare in the UK? Your logical falacy is to suggest that policies designed to secure our borders equates to “nazism”. Unless I missed an unpublished part of the Reform _anifesto I don’t see them suggesting the rounding uyp of Jews and sending them to the gas chambers and a totalitarian national-socialist one party state. In fact part of their _anifesto talks about the kind of electoral reform that opens up both candidacy and franchise and challenges the current political duopoly, in other words more democracy, not less which is the eapt opposite of nazism. To answer the second point, I’d dismantle the entire system that is now a model no longer fit for purpose and I would put in place a system of direct health insurance that pays a mixed economy model of the private sector and state-subsidised providers. I would introduce means tested front-end payment for acces to primary care physicians and I would remove the link between GPs and signing off the benefits culture. It’s a set up that works for the rest of the world, who funnily enough, have better health outcomes than the UK. You should try living in a country with a healthcare system like you described. Poor people simply die due to lack of access to healthcare. 68,000 Americans die each year because they can't get the care they need. Here we go. “The NHS isn’t working”. “You are a Tufton Street shill! Who funds you? You just want a US healthcare system and poor people are going to die in their millions”! You appear to have misquoted me there. Just to clarify what I said: "You should try living in a country with a healthcare system like you described. Poor people simply die due to lack of access to healthcare. 68,000 Americans die each year because they can't get the care they need." Of course, I forgot that there are only two countries in the world. You're misinformed. There's over 190. Google is an amazing thing! Anyway, back to the point the other chap made about wanting to move to a healthcare system that poor people can't afford. Poor people can’t afford healthcare in this country. The UK has a healthcare system that is paid for from taxes. Poor people don't have to pay at the point of recieving healthcare. So it's incorrect to say poor people in this country can't afford healthcare. I’ve even noticed a significant downturn in the quality of private healthcare. The failure of “Our NHS” is dragging everything down with it. The government has been trying to run the NHS into the ground for over a decade, to try to get support for selling it off to the highest bidder. It needs proper management and appropriate funding. If the “free healthcare” isn’t available, then it may as well not exist. In which case only people who can afford to pay privately can get healthcare. So no, poor people in this country cannot afford healthcare. The rest of your comments are just the usual incoherent babble. Personally I don’t care what the healthcare model is. I don’t care if it’s state, insurance, or privately funded, as long as it works. I am even open to different letters of the alphabet being used to describe it, pretty radical I know. What about you? Are you open to other models? Are you open to learning from best practice overseas, from countries that have better outcomes? Of course you aren’t. You are an ideologue. The common denominator among countries with better health outcomes than the UK is that they spend more per capita on healthcare than the UK. Shhhhh that’s an inconvenient truth." Although spending more per capita does not guarantee better outcomes. The US spends more than twice as much as the UK and has considerably worse outcomes. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The government has been trying to run the NHS into the ground for over a decade, to try to get support for selling it off to the highest bidder. It needs proper management and appropriate funding." No, this government has NOT been trying to run the NHS into the ground. The NHS has run itself into the ground. Let’s start with establishing a few things: I’m no Tory supporter, this argument is NOT political, and I have spent the past 15 years working in the NHS in senior roles so I have first hadn experience of it’s utter dysfuntion. Let’s also state another fact: Labour will inherit the problems of it’s own policies coming home to roost after 20 years to mature adn do it’s damage. Some root cause problems: Labour moved the NHS to a “commissioning model” that does not work. 111 services are run by the Ambulance services and their boundaries are not co-terminus with the NHS trusts they “commission” from, and this is a model that was set up by Labour, failed, and then was taken out of its former delivery model and foisted on the ambulance services with no consultation. That’s why your call handler may be based out of area, and the only out of hours service they can send you to is miles away from your nearest GP or hospital. Ditto the PTS service and many others run by the ambulance trusts. Trusts are all on different IT systems which is why if you call 999 and the overspill goes to a neighbouring control room they can’t dispatch an ambulance and have to use a back-channel phone line to double handle your call. The NHS is not cash starved, in fact it is awash with so much money they can’t spend it! The problem is in the annualisation of budgets, a problem created by Treasury Civil Servants who refuse to update their accounting practices to the 20th Century and will refuse to change for a Labour Government as much as a Tory one because it means the civil service retains control. You have the absurdity that a budget only last for a year and there are processes that take far longer than the accouting period to actually spend it so you ahve the mad rush to the finish each year hoofing money out of the door on a “use it or loose it” basis because under-spend cannot be carried forward. This kills spend controls - the money is there but you literally cannot spend it. Then the NHS management is so bad it is criminally incompetent. These people are civil servants and they have made a UDI from ministerial accountability. If you don’t believe me look up the videos on youtube of the CEO of NHS England giving zero fucks about being 2 years late with a workforce plan and being unwilling to answer a single question. Any CEO doing that in front of a board in the private sector would be outin minutes, but this is the NHS so they get rewarded with knighthoods for incompetence. Sure Liabour will promise to throw money at the NHS, and they probably will. Be under no illusion it will fix fuck all, and the evidence base for this is the shit show of the NHS in wales. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The Reform party candidates and the reform party _anifesto should be enough to make people feel bad about their choice to vote Reform. I would never feel bad voting for asny party that secures our borders, keep us out of the EU, keeps tax low and smashes the state religion of the NHS and returns it to being a cost-efficient healthcare system that works. If those principles make you feel bad, maybe you ought to take a long hard look in the mirror and remind yourself what a whole generation of your grandparents age gave their lives to defend. My grandfather fought to destroy Nazism and Fascism. My grandmother and her parents fled to the UK as immigrants to escape the Nazi persecution of the Jews. What’s your solution for healthcare in the UK? Your logical falacy is to suggest that policies designed to secure our borders equates to “nazism”. Unless I missed an unpublished part of the Reform _anifesto I don’t see them suggesting the rounding uyp of Jews and sending them to the gas chambers and a totalitarian national-socialist one party state. In fact part of their _anifesto talks about the kind of electoral reform that opens up both candidacy and franchise and challenges the current political duopoly, in other words more democracy, not less which is the eapt opposite of nazism. To answer the second point, I’d dismantle the entire system that is now a model no longer fit for purpose and I would put in place a system of direct health insurance that pays a mixed economy model of the private sector and state-subsidised providers. I would introduce means tested front-end payment for acces to primary care physicians and I would remove the link between GPs and signing off the benefits culture. It’s a set up that works for the rest of the world, who funnily enough, have better health outcomes than the UK. You should try living in a country with a healthcare system like you described. Poor people simply die due to lack of access to healthcare. 68,000 Americans die each year because they can't get the care they need. Here we go. “The NHS isn’t working”. “You are a Tufton Street shill! Who funds you? You just want a US healthcare system and poor people are going to die in their millions”! You appear to have misquoted me there. Just to clarify what I said: "You should try living in a country with a healthcare system like you described. Poor people simply die due to lack of access to healthcare. 68,000 Americans die each year because they can't get the care they need." Of course, I forgot that there are only two countries in the world. You're misinformed. There's over 190. Google is an amazing thing! Anyway, back to the point the other chap made about wanting to move to a healthcare system that poor people can't afford. Poor people can’t afford healthcare in this country. The UK has a healthcare system that is paid for from taxes. Poor people don't have to pay at the point of recieving healthcare. So it's incorrect to say poor people in this country can't afford healthcare. I’ve even noticed a significant downturn in the quality of private healthcare. The failure of “Our NHS” is dragging everything down with it. The government has been trying to run the NHS into the ground for over a decade, to try to get support for selling it off to the highest bidder. It needs proper management and appropriate funding. If the “free healthcare” isn’t available, then it may as well not exist. In which case only people who can afford to pay privately can get healthcare. So no, poor people in this country cannot afford healthcare. The rest of your comments are just the usual incoherent babble. Personally I don’t care what the healthcare model is. I don’t care if it’s state, insurance, or privately funded, as long as it works. I am even open to different letters of the alphabet being used to describe it, pretty radical I know. What about you? Are you open to other models? Are you open to learning from best practice overseas, from countries that have better outcomes? Of course you aren’t. You are an ideologue. The common denominator among countries with better health outcomes than the UK is that they spend more per capita on healthcare than the UK. Shhhhh that’s an inconvenient truth. Although spending more per capita does not guarantee better outcomes. The US spends more than twice as much as the UK and has considerably worse outcomes." Back to there only being two countries the world again….. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I have spent the past 15 years working in the NHS in senior roles" Not doubting you but want to check you are not a Walt as that would be highly ironic | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The Reform party candidates and the reform party _anifesto should be enough to make people feel bad about their choice to vote Reform. I would never feel bad voting for asny party that secures our borders, keep us out of the EU, keeps tax low and smashes the state religion of the NHS and returns it to being a cost-efficient healthcare system that works. If those principles make you feel bad, maybe you ought to take a long hard look in the mirror and remind yourself what a whole generation of your grandparents age gave their lives to defend. My grandfather fought to destroy Nazism and Fascism. My grandmother and her parents fled to the UK as immigrants to escape the Nazi persecution of the Jews. What’s your solution for healthcare in the UK? Your logical falacy is to suggest that policies designed to secure our borders equates to “nazism”. Unless I missed an unpublished part of the Reform _anifesto I don’t see them suggesting the rounding uyp of Jews and sending them to the gas chambers and a totalitarian national-socialist one party state. In fact part of their _anifesto talks about the kind of electoral reform that opens up both candidacy and franchise and challenges the current political duopoly, in other words more democracy, not less which is the eapt opposite of nazism. To answer the second point, I’d dismantle the entire system that is now a model no longer fit for purpose and I would put in place a system of direct health insurance that pays a mixed economy model of the private sector and state-subsidised providers. I would introduce means tested front-end payment for acces to primary care physicians and I would remove the link between GPs and signing off the benefits culture. It’s a set up that works for the rest of the world, who funnily enough, have better health outcomes than the UK. You should try living in a country with a healthcare system like you described. Poor people simply die due to lack of access to healthcare. 68,000 Americans die each year because they can't get the care they need. Here we go. “The NHS isn’t working”. “You are a Tufton Street shill! Who funds you? You just want a US healthcare system and poor people are going to die in their millions”! You appear to have misquoted me there. Just to clarify what I said: "You should try living in a country with a healthcare system like you described. Poor people simply die due to lack of access to healthcare. 68,000 Americans die each year because they can't get the care they need." Of course, I forgot that there are only two countries in the world. You're misinformed. There's over 190. Google is an amazing thing! Anyway, back to the point the other chap made about wanting to move to a healthcare system that poor people can't afford. Poor people can’t afford healthcare in this country. The UK has a healthcare system that is paid for from taxes. Poor people don't have to pay at the point of recieving healthcare. So it's incorrect to say poor people in this country can't afford healthcare. I’ve even noticed a significant downturn in the quality of private healthcare. The failure of “Our NHS” is dragging everything down with it. The government has been trying to run the NHS into the ground for over a decade, to try to get support for selling it off to the highest bidder. It needs proper management and appropriate funding. If the “free healthcare” isn’t available, then it may as well not exist. In which case only people who can afford to pay privately can get healthcare. So no, poor people in this country cannot afford healthcare. The rest of your comments are just the usual incoherent babble. Personally I don’t care what the healthcare model is. I don’t care if it’s state, insurance, or privately funded, as long as it works. I am even open to different letters of the alphabet being used to describe it, pretty radical I know. What about you? Are you open to other models? Are you open to learning from best practice overseas, from countries that have better outcomes? Of course you aren’t. You are an ideologue. The common denominator among countries with better health outcomes than the UK is that they spend more per capita on healthcare than the UK. Shhhhh that’s an inconvenient truth. Although spending more per capita does not guarantee better outcomes. The US spends more than twice as much as the UK and has considerably worse outcomes. Back to there only being two countries the world again….." Which countries are you talking about, and how much per capita do they spend on healthcare in comparison to the UK? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The Reform party candidates and the reform party _anifesto should be enough to make people feel bad about their choice to vote Reform. I would never feel bad voting for asny party that secures our borders, keep us out of the EU, keeps tax low and smashes the state religion of the NHS and returns it to being a cost-efficient healthcare system that works. If those principles make you feel bad, maybe you ought to take a long hard look in the mirror and remind yourself what a whole generation of your grandparents age gave their lives to defend. My grandfather fought to destroy Nazism and Fascism. My grandmother and her parents fled to the UK as immigrants to escape the Nazi persecution of the Jews. What’s your solution for healthcare in the UK? Your logical falacy is to suggest that policies designed to secure our borders equates to “nazism”. Unless I missed an unpublished part of the Reform _anifesto I don’t see them suggesting the rounding uyp of Jews and sending them to the gas chambers and a totalitarian national-socialist one party state. In fact part of their _anifesto talks about the kind of electoral reform that opens up both candidacy and franchise and challenges the current political duopoly, in other words more democracy, not less which is the eapt opposite of nazism. To answer the second point, I’d dismantle the entire system that is now a model no longer fit for purpose and I would put in place a system of direct health insurance that pays a mixed economy model of the private sector and state-subsidised providers. I would introduce means tested front-end payment for acces to primary care physicians and I would remove the link between GPs and signing off the benefits culture. It’s a set up that works for the rest of the world, who funnily enough, have better health outcomes than the UK. You should try living in a country with a healthcare system like you described. Poor people simply die due to lack of access to healthcare. 68,000 Americans die each year because they can't get the care they need. Here we go. “The NHS isn’t working”. “You are a Tufton Street shill! Who funds you? You just want a US healthcare system and poor people are going to die in their millions”! You appear to have misquoted me there. Just to clarify what I said: "You should try living in a country with a healthcare system like you described. Poor people simply die due to lack of access to healthcare. 68,000 Americans die each year because they can't get the care they need." Of course, I forgot that there are only two countries in the world. You're misinformed. There's over 190. Google is an amazing thing! Anyway, back to the point the other chap made about wanting to move to a healthcare system that poor people can't afford. Poor people can’t afford healthcare in this country. The UK has a healthcare system that is paid for from taxes. Poor people don't have to pay at the point of recieving healthcare. So it's incorrect to say poor people in this country can't afford healthcare. I’ve even noticed a significant downturn in the quality of private healthcare. The failure of “Our NHS” is dragging everything down with it. The government has been trying to run the NHS into the ground for over a decade, to try to get support for selling it off to the highest bidder. It needs proper management and appropriate funding. If the “free healthcare” isn’t available, then it may as well not exist. In which case only people who can afford to pay privately can get healthcare. So no, poor people in this country cannot afford healthcare. The rest of your comments are just the usual incoherent babble. Personally I don’t care what the healthcare model is. I don’t care if it’s state, insurance, or privately funded, as long as it works. I am even open to different letters of the alphabet being used to describe it, pretty radical I know. What about you? Are you open to other models? Are you open to learning from best practice overseas, from countries that have better outcomes? Of course you aren’t. You are an ideologue. The common denominator among countries with better health outcomes than the UK is that they spend more per capita on healthcare than the UK." And possibly waste less taxpayers money https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/12/nhs-hospital-trusts-to-pay-out-further-55bn-under-pfi-scheme | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" He would also tell you to give your head a wobble and change the name of your profile as it has offensive connotations! " It would only be offensive to the wokeishly perma-offended. If you’d served in the army (which I did both regular and reserve for over 20 years) you’d understand what it means, but then you haven’t, so you don’t. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The Reform party candidates and the reform party _anifesto should be enough to make people feel bad about their choice to vote Reform. I would never feel bad voting for asny party that secures our borders, keep us out of the EU, keeps tax low and smashes the state religion of the NHS and returns it to being a cost-efficient healthcare system that works. If those principles make you feel bad, maybe you ought to take a long hard look in the mirror and remind yourself what a whole generation of your grandparents age gave their lives to defend. My grandfather fought to destroy Nazism and Fascism. My grandmother and her parents fled to the UK as immigrants to escape the Nazi persecution of the Jews. What’s your solution for healthcare in the UK? Your logical falacy is to suggest that policies designed to secure our borders equates to “nazism”. Unless I missed an unpublished part of the Reform _anifesto I don’t see them suggesting the rounding uyp of Jews and sending them to the gas chambers and a totalitarian national-socialist one party state. In fact part of their _anifesto talks about the kind of electoral reform that opens up both candidacy and franchise and challenges the current political duopoly, in other words more democracy, not less which is the eapt opposite of nazism. To answer the second point, I’d dismantle the entire system that is now a model no longer fit for purpose and I would put in place a system of direct health insurance that pays a mixed economy model of the private sector and state-subsidised providers. I would introduce means tested front-end payment for acces to primary care physicians and I would remove the link between GPs and signing off the benefits culture. It’s a set up that works for the rest of the world, who funnily enough, have better health outcomes than the UK. You should try living in a country with a healthcare system like you described. Poor people simply die due to lack of access to healthcare. 68,000 Americans die each year because they can't get the care they need. Here we go. “The NHS isn’t working”. “You are a Tufton Street shill! Who funds you? You just want a US healthcare system and poor people are going to die in their millions”! You appear to have misquoted me there. Just to clarify what I said: "You should try living in a country with a healthcare system like you described. Poor people simply die due to lack of access to healthcare. 68,000 Americans die each year because they can't get the care they need." Of course, I forgot that there are only two countries in the world. You're misinformed. There's over 190. Google is an amazing thing! Anyway, back to the point the other chap made about wanting to move to a healthcare system that poor people can't afford. Poor people can’t afford healthcare in this country. The UK has a healthcare system that is paid for from taxes. Poor people don't have to pay at the point of recieving healthcare. So it's incorrect to say poor people in this country can't afford healthcare. I’ve even noticed a significant downturn in the quality of private healthcare. The failure of “Our NHS” is dragging everything down with it. The government has been trying to run the NHS into the ground for over a decade, to try to get support for selling it off to the highest bidder. It needs proper management and appropriate funding. If the “free healthcare” isn’t available, then it may as well not exist. In which case only people who can afford to pay privately can get healthcare. So no, poor people in this country cannot afford healthcare. The rest of your comments are just the usual incoherent babble. Personally I don’t care what the healthcare model is. I don’t care if it’s state, insurance, or privately funded, as long as it works. I am even open to different letters of the alphabet being used to describe it, pretty radical I know. What about you? Are you open to other models? Are you open to learning from best practice overseas, from countries that have better outcomes? Of course you aren’t. You are an ideologue. The common denominator among countries with better health outcomes than the UK is that they spend more per capita on healthcare than the UK. Shhhhh that’s an inconvenient truth. Although spending more per capita does not guarantee better outcomes. The US spends more than twice as much as the UK and has considerably worse outcomes. Back to there only being two countries the world again….." In fairness, so far you're the only person who has claimed that there are only two countries. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The government has been trying to run the NHS into the ground for over a decade, to try to get support for selling it off to the highest bidder. It needs proper management and appropriate funding. No, this government has NOT been trying to run the NHS into the ground. The NHS has run itself into the ground. Let’s start with establishing a few things: I’m no Tory supporter, this argument is NOT political, and I have spent the past 15 years working in the NHS in senior roles so I have first hadn experience of it’s utter dysfuntion. Let’s also state another fact: Labour will inherit the problems of it’s own policies coming home to roost after 20 years to mature adn do it’s damage. Some root cause problems: Labour moved the NHS to a “commissioning model” that does not work. 111 services are run by the Ambulance services and their boundaries are not co-terminus with the NHS trusts they “commission” from, and this is a model that was set up by Labour, failed, and then was taken out of its former delivery model and foisted on the ambulance services with no consultation. That’s why your call handler may be based out of area, and the only out of hours service they can send you to is miles away from your nearest GP or hospital. Ditto the PTS service and many others run by the ambulance trusts. Trusts are all on different IT systems which is why if you call 999 and the overspill goes to a neighbouring control room they can’t dispatch an ambulance and have to use a back-channel phone line to double handle your call. The NHS is not cash starved, in fact it is awash with so much money they can’t spend it! The problem is in the annualisation of budgets, a problem created by Treasury Civil Servants who refuse to update their accounting practices to the 20th Century and will refuse to change for a Labour Government as much as a Tory one because it means the civil service retains control. You have the absurdity that a budget only last for a year and there are processes that take far longer than the accouting period to actually spend it so you ahve the mad rush to the finish each year hoofing money out of the door on a “use it or loose it” basis because under-spend cannot be carried forward. This kills spend controls - the money is there but you literally cannot spend it. Then the NHS management is so bad it is criminally incompetent. These people are civil servants and they have made a UDI from ministerial accountability. If you don’t believe me look up the videos on youtube of the CEO of NHS England giving zero fucks about being 2 years late with a workforce plan and being unwilling to answer a single question. Any CEO doing that in front of a board in the private sector would be outin minutes, but this is the NHS so they get rewarded with knighthoods for incompetence. Sure Liabour will promise to throw money at the NHS, and they probably will. Be under no illusion it will fix fuck all, and the evidence base for this is the shit show of the NHS in wales. " In a bigger point(s) 1. That sounds like the issue is government interference causing problems (ie DHSC rather than NHS)? 2. Totally agree re budgeting process in Govt it is nuts. 3. You didn’t mention the internal marketplace, PFI, and outsourcing of significant areas of work to the private sector that is still badged NHS (sucking money out of the system to pay shareholders), and the lack of integration (you mentioned different systems and incompatibility actually so yes - a lack of integration). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" He would also tell you to give your head a wobble and change the name of your profile as it has offensive connotations! It would only be offensive to the wokeishly perma-offended. If you’d served in the army (which I did both regular and reserve for over 20 years) you’d understand what it means, but then you haven’t, so you don’t. " Assumptions assumptions. Hope you aren’t a Walt? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The Reform party candidates and the reform party _anifesto should be enough to make people feel bad about their choice to vote Reform. I would never feel bad voting for asny party that secures our borders, keep us out of the EU, keeps tax low and smashes the state religion of the NHS and returns it to being a cost-efficient healthcare system that works. If those principles make you feel bad, maybe you ought to take a long hard look in the mirror and remind yourself what a whole generation of your grandparents age gave their lives to defend. My grandfather fought to destroy Nazism and Fascism. My grandmother and her parents fled to the UK as immigrants to escape the Nazi persecution of the Jews. What’s your solution for healthcare in the UK? Your logical falacy is to suggest that policies designed to secure our borders equates to “nazism”. Unless I missed an unpublished part of the Reform _anifesto I don’t see them suggesting the rounding uyp of Jews and sending them to the gas chambers and a totalitarian national-socialist one party state. In fact part of their _anifesto talks about the kind of electoral reform that opens up both candidacy and franchise and challenges the current political duopoly, in other words more democracy, not less which is the eapt opposite of nazism. To answer the second point, I’d dismantle the entire system that is now a model no longer fit for purpose and I would put in place a system of direct health insurance that pays a mixed economy model of the private sector and state-subsidised providers. I would introduce means tested front-end payment for acces to primary care physicians and I would remove the link between GPs and signing off the benefits culture. It’s a set up that works for the rest of the world, who funnily enough, have better health outcomes than the UK. You should try living in a country with a healthcare system like you described. Poor people simply die due to lack of access to healthcare. 68,000 Americans die each year because they can't get the care they need. Here we go. “The NHS isn’t working”. “You are a Tufton Street shill! Who funds you? You just want a US healthcare system and poor people are going to die in their millions”! You appear to have misquoted me there. Just to clarify what I said: "You should try living in a country with a healthcare system like you described. Poor people simply die due to lack of access to healthcare. 68,000 Americans die each year because they can't get the care they need." Of course, I forgot that there are only two countries in the world. You're misinformed. There's over 190. Google is an amazing thing! Anyway, back to the point the other chap made about wanting to move to a healthcare system that poor people can't afford. Poor people can’t afford healthcare in this country. The UK has a healthcare system that is paid for from taxes. Poor people don't have to pay at the point of recieving healthcare. So it's incorrect to say poor people in this country can't afford healthcare. I’ve even noticed a significant downturn in the quality of private healthcare. The failure of “Our NHS” is dragging everything down with it. The government has been trying to run the NHS into the ground for over a decade, to try to get support for selling it off to the highest bidder. It needs proper management and appropriate funding. If the “free healthcare” isn’t available, then it may as well not exist. In which case only people who can afford to pay privately can get healthcare. So no, poor people in this country cannot afford healthcare. The rest of your comments are just the usual incoherent babble. Personally I don’t care what the healthcare model is. I don’t care if it’s state, insurance, or privately funded, as long as it works. I am even open to different letters of the alphabet being used to describe it, pretty radical I know. What about you? Are you open to other models? Are you open to learning from best practice overseas, from countries that have better outcomes? Of course you aren’t. You are an ideologue. The common denominator among countries with better health outcomes than the UK is that they spend more per capita on healthcare than the UK. And possibly waste less taxpayers money https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/12/nhs-hospital-trusts-to-pay-out-further-55bn-under-pfi-scheme" Nobody in the NHS thinks PFI was a good idea. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The Reform party candidates and the reform party _anifesto should be enough to make people feel bad about their choice to vote Reform. I would never feel bad voting for asny party that secures our borders, keep us out of the EU, keeps tax low and smashes the state religion of the NHS and returns it to being a cost-efficient healthcare system that works. If those principles make you feel bad, maybe you ought to take a long hard look in the mirror and remind yourself what a whole generation of your grandparents age gave their lives to defend. My grandfather fought to destroy Nazism and Fascism. My grandmother and her parents fled to the UK as immigrants to escape the Nazi persecution of the Jews. What’s your solution for healthcare in the UK? Your logical falacy is to suggest that policies designed to secure our borders equates to “nazism”. Unless I missed an unpublished part of the Reform _anifesto I don’t see them suggesting the rounding uyp of Jews and sending them to the gas chambers and a totalitarian national-socialist one party state. In fact part of their _anifesto talks about the kind of electoral reform that opens up both candidacy and franchise and challenges the current political duopoly, in other words more democracy, not less which is the eapt opposite of nazism. To answer the second point, I’d dismantle the entire system that is now a model no longer fit for purpose and I would put in place a system of direct health insurance that pays a mixed economy model of the private sector and state-subsidised providers. I would introduce means tested front-end payment for acces to primary care physicians and I would remove the link between GPs and signing off the benefits culture. It’s a set up that works for the rest of the world, who funnily enough, have better health outcomes than the UK. You should try living in a country with a healthcare system like you described. Poor people simply die due to lack of access to healthcare. 68,000 Americans die each year because they can't get the care they need. Here we go. “The NHS isn’t working”. “You are a Tufton Street shill! Who funds you? You just want a US healthcare system and poor people are going to die in their millions”! You appear to have misquoted me there. Just to clarify what I said: "You should try living in a country with a healthcare system like you described. Poor people simply die due to lack of access to healthcare. 68,000 Americans die each year because they can't get the care they need." Of course, I forgot that there are only two countries in the world. You're misinformed. There's over 190. Google is an amazing thing! Anyway, back to the point the other chap made about wanting to move to a healthcare system that poor people can't afford. Poor people can’t afford healthcare in this country. The UK has a healthcare system that is paid for from taxes. Poor people don't have to pay at the point of recieving healthcare. So it's incorrect to say poor people in this country can't afford healthcare. I’ve even noticed a significant downturn in the quality of private healthcare. The failure of “Our NHS” is dragging everything down with it. The government has been trying to run the NHS into the ground for over a decade, to try to get support for selling it off to the highest bidder. It needs proper management and appropriate funding. If the “free healthcare” isn’t available, then it may as well not exist. In which case only people who can afford to pay privately can get healthcare. So no, poor people in this country cannot afford healthcare. The rest of your comments are just the usual incoherent babble. Personally I don’t care what the healthcare model is. I don’t care if it’s state, insurance, or privately funded, as long as it works. I am even open to different letters of the alphabet being used to describe it, pretty radical I know. What about you? Are you open to other models? Are you open to learning from best practice overseas, from countries that have better outcomes? Of course you aren’t. You are an ideologue. The common denominator among countries with better health outcomes than the UK is that they spend more per capita on healthcare than the UK. Shhhhh that’s an inconvenient truth. Although spending more per capita does not guarantee better outcomes. The US spends more than twice as much as the UK and has considerably worse outcomes. Back to there only being two countries the world again….. Which countries are you talking about, and how much per capita do they spend on healthcare in comparison to the UK?" Unfortunately I have work to do. Maybe you know an NHS employee with plenty of time on their hands who can look into it for you. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" 3. You didn’t mention the internal marketplace, PFI, and outsourcing of significant areas of work to the private sector that is still badged NHS (sucking money out of the system to pay shareholders), and the lack of integration (you mentioned different systems and incompatibility actually so yes - a lack of integration). " Only because I’d have run out of internet if I had. You either do what other countries do and operate a socially funded insurance system that pays a provider to deliver healthcare, or you do what we have done and set up a socialist healthcare system with a country attached. What you don’t do is set up a socialist system that competes with itself, hence why I said, this is Labour policy coming home to roost after it’s had 20 years to come to fruition. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The Reform party candidates and the reform party _anifesto should be enough to make people feel bad about their choice to vote Reform. I would never feel bad voting for asny party that secures our borders, keep us out of the EU, keeps tax low and smashes the state religion of the NHS and returns it to being a cost-efficient healthcare system that works. If those principles make you feel bad, maybe you ought to take a long hard look in the mirror and remind yourself what a whole generation of your grandparents age gave their lives to defend. My grandfather fought to destroy Nazism and Fascism. My grandmother and her parents fled to the UK as immigrants to escape the Nazi persecution of the Jews. What’s your solution for healthcare in the UK? Your logical falacy is to suggest that policies designed to secure our borders equates to “nazism”. Unless I missed an unpublished part of the Reform _anifesto I don’t see them suggesting the rounding uyp of Jews and sending them to the gas chambers and a totalitarian national-socialist one party state. In fact part of their _anifesto talks about the kind of electoral reform that opens up both candidacy and franchise and challenges the current political duopoly, in other words more democracy, not less which is the eapt opposite of nazism. To answer the second point, I’d dismantle the entire system that is now a model no longer fit for purpose and I would put in place a system of direct health insurance that pays a mixed economy model of the private sector and state-subsidised providers. I would introduce means tested front-end payment for acces to primary care physicians and I would remove the link between GPs and signing off the benefits culture. It’s a set up that works for the rest of the world, who funnily enough, have better health outcomes than the UK. You should try living in a country with a healthcare system like you described. Poor people simply die due to lack of access to healthcare. 68,000 Americans die each year because they can't get the care they need. Here we go. “The NHS isn’t working”. “You are a Tufton Street shill! Who funds you? You just want a US healthcare system and poor people are going to die in their millions”! You appear to have misquoted me there. Just to clarify what I said: "You should try living in a country with a healthcare system like you described. Poor people simply die due to lack of access to healthcare. 68,000 Americans die each year because they can't get the care they need." Of course, I forgot that there are only two countries in the world. You're misinformed. There's over 190. Google is an amazing thing! Anyway, back to the point the other chap made about wanting to move to a healthcare system that poor people can't afford. Poor people can’t afford healthcare in this country. The UK has a healthcare system that is paid for from taxes. Poor people don't have to pay at the point of recieving healthcare. So it's incorrect to say poor people in this country can't afford healthcare. I’ve even noticed a significant downturn in the quality of private healthcare. The failure of “Our NHS” is dragging everything down with it. The government has been trying to run the NHS into the ground for over a decade, to try to get support for selling it off to the highest bidder. It needs proper management and appropriate funding. If the “free healthcare” isn’t available, then it may as well not exist. In which case only people who can afford to pay privately can get healthcare. So no, poor people in this country cannot afford healthcare. The rest of your comments are just the usual incoherent babble. Personally I don’t care what the healthcare model is. I don’t care if it’s state, insurance, or privately funded, as long as it works. I am even open to different letters of the alphabet being used to describe it, pretty radical I know. What about you? Are you open to other models? Are you open to learning from best practice overseas, from countries that have better outcomes? Of course you aren’t. You are an ideologue. The common denominator among countries with better health outcomes than the UK is that they spend more per capita on healthcare than the UK. Shhhhh that’s an inconvenient truth. Although spending more per capita does not guarantee better outcomes. The US spends more than twice as much as the UK and has considerably worse outcomes. Back to there only being two countries the world again….. Which countries are you talking about, and how much per capita do they spend on healthcare in comparison to the UK? Unfortunately I have work to do. Maybe you know an NHS employee with plenty of time on their hands who can look into it for you." How would an NHS employee know which countries you were talking about? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Assumptions assumptions. Hope you aren’t a Walt?" Commissioned in the early 90’s pre the days of JPA so have a 6 fig number beginning “54”. Not the kind of thing you’d know if I was. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I won’t be voting this time, was hoping there would be a Reform candidate here, but there isn’t this time. Hopefully there will be a candidate in every constituency for the 2029 election." There's no Reform candidate here. I have Labour (always win), Greens, Lib Dems, Social Democrats and two independents. One of the independents seems unclear what he wants, the other is a Reform type, but not in Reform. Maybe one of your independents (if there are any) will represent your views and be worthy of the vote? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I won’t be voting this time, was hoping there would be a Reform candidate here, but there isn’t this time. Hopefully there will be a candidate in every constituency for the 2029 election." spoil your ballet. Show you care for politics but not their policies. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I won’t be voting this time, was hoping there would be a Reform candidate here, but there isn’t this time. Hopefully there will be a candidate in every constituency for the 2029 election." Matt Goodwin makes a good point: Reform doesn’t claim to have either the answers or the struictures top be a mature opposition - they have 5 years to get that straight, and Farage is open about wanting to start a movement and hand it on to people with the competence, but what he is doing is asking the right questions and making sure that they are asked in the face of the Tory/Labour chumocracy of complacent 2 party politics and the status quo. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I won’t be voting this time, was hoping there would be a Reform candidate here, but there isn’t this time. Hopefully there will be a candidate in every constituency for the 2029 election. Matt Goodwin makes a good point: Reform doesn’t claim to have either the answers or the struictures top be a mature opposition - they have 5 years to get that straight, and Farage is open about wanting to start a movement and hand it on to people with the competence, but what he is doing is asking the right questions and making sure that they are asked in the face of the Tory/Labour chumocracy of complacent 2 party politics and the status quo. " This is a point that is sadly not at the front of peoples minds. The fact that the country is calling out for change is the perfect time to challenge the norm, we simply need a refresh on the day to day of our political thinking and decisions. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Assumptions assumptions. Hope you aren’t a Walt? Commissioned in the early 90’s pre the days of JPA so have a 6 fig number beginning “54”. Not the kind of thing you’d know if I was. " Can’t take a joke though right? You know there are Ex Forces Walts out there claiming to be or to have been something they weren’t right? You decided to call your profile Waltenkommando (which IMO was a stupid name decision by ARRSE due to language implications - why not Waltcommando?) and then provide a generally pretty right wing set of views. The implication is plain and it is not remotely woke to comment on it. My grandfather would be disappointed in a younger generation serviceman not being able to see those implications after what he fought for, witnessed and the friends he lost. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Assumptions assumptions. Hope you aren’t a Walt? Commissioned in the early 90’s pre the days of JPA so have a 6 fig number beginning “54”. Not the kind of thing you’d know if I was. " Ah so an officer then? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I won’t be voting this time, was hoping there would be a Reform candidate here, but there isn’t this time. Hopefully there will be a candidate in every constituency for the 2029 election. Matt Goodwin makes a good point: Reform doesn’t claim to have either the answers or the struictures top be a mature opposition - they have 5 years to get that straight, and Farage is open about wanting to start a movement and hand it on to people with the competence, but what he is doing is asking the right questions and making sure that they are asked in the face of the Tory/Labour chumocracy of complacent 2 party politics and the status quo. " this is what I wanted reform to do despite them being on the other side of the scale to me. I guess that is why they didn't really give a shit about costings. But they need credible MPs,therefore I hope any that do get in are the good apples, and they spend the five years ing out the bad ones. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I won’t be voting this time, was hoping there would be a Reform candidate here, but there isn’t this time. Hopefully there will be a candidate in every constituency for the 2029 election. Matt Goodwin makes a good point: Reform doesn’t claim to have either the answers or the struictures top be a mature opposition - they have 5 years to get that straight, and Farage is open about wanting to start a movement and hand it on to people with the competence, but what he is doing is asking the right questions and making sure that they are asked in the face of the Tory/Labour chumocracy of complacent 2 party politics and the status quo. This is a point that is sadly not at the front of peoples minds. The fact that the country is calling out for change is the perfect time to challenge the norm, we simply need a refresh on the day to day of our political thinking and decisions. " We want change, not regression. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I won’t be voting this time, was hoping there would be a Reform candidate here, but there isn’t this time. Hopefully there will be a candidate in every constituency for the 2029 election. Matt Goodwin makes a good point: Reform doesn’t claim to have either the answers or the struictures top be a mature opposition - they have 5 years to get that straight, and Farage is open about wanting to start a movement and hand it on to people with the competence, but what he is doing is asking the right questions and making sure that they are asked in the face of the Tory/Labour chumocracy of complacent 2 party politics and the status quo. this is what I wanted reform to do despite them being on the other side of the scale to me. I guess that is why they didn't really give a shit about costings. But they need credible MPs,therefore I hope any that do get in are the good apples, and they spend the five years ing out the bad ones. " Their only sitting MP seems to spend most of his time attacking his constituents on Twitter. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I won’t be voting this time, was hoping there would be a Reform candidate here, but there isn’t this time. Hopefully there will be a candidate in every constituency for the 2029 election. Matt Goodwin makes a good point: Reform doesn’t claim to have either the answers or the struictures top be a mature opposition - they have 5 years to get that straight, and Farage is open about wanting to start a movement and hand it on to people with the competence, but what he is doing is asking the right questions and making sure that they are asked in the face of the Tory/Labour chumocracy of complacent 2 party politics and the status quo. This is a point that is sadly not at the front of peoples minds. The fact that the country is calling out for change is the perfect time to challenge the norm, we simply need a refresh on the day to day of our political thinking and decisions. We want change, not regression. " Not all change is going to be palatable, and this is pretty much the issue we have today, nobody seems to want to compromise or to understand other points of views. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I won’t be voting this time, was hoping there would be a Reform candidate here, but there isn’t this time. Hopefully there will be a candidate in every constituency for the 2029 election. Matt Goodwin makes a good point: Reform doesn’t claim to have either the answers or the struictures top be a mature opposition - they have 5 years to get that straight, and Farage is open about wanting to start a movement and hand it on to people with the competence, but what he is doing is asking the right questions and making sure that they are asked in the face of the Tory/Labour chumocracy of complacent 2 party politics and the status quo. This is a point that is sadly not at the front of peoples minds. The fact that the country is calling out for change is the perfect time to challenge the norm, we simply need a refresh on the day to day of our political thinking and decisions. We want change, not regression. Not all change is going to be palatable, and this is pretty much the issue we have today, nobody seems to want to compromise or to understand other points of views." I agree on that. But all Reform seems to be offering is a more extreme version of what we've had for the last 14 years. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I won’t be voting this time, was hoping there would be a Reform candidate here, but there isn’t this time. Hopefully there will be a candidate in every constituency for the 2029 election. Matt Goodwin makes a good point: Reform doesn’t claim to have either the answers or the struictures top be a mature opposition - they have 5 years to get that straight, and Farage is open about wanting to start a movement and hand it on to people with the competence, but what he is doing is asking the right questions and making sure that they are asked in the face of the Tory/Labour chumocracy of complacent 2 party politics and the status quo. This is a point that is sadly not at the front of peoples minds. The fact that the country is calling out for change is the perfect time to challenge the norm, we simply need a refresh on the day to day of our political thinking and decisions. We want change, not regression. Not all change is going to be palatable, and this is pretty much the issue we have today, nobody seems to want to compromise or to understand other points of views. I agree on that. But all Reform seems to be offering is a more extreme version of what we've had for the last 14 years. " They might be today, however if they want to be successful they will need to understand their voting public, which I believe is their aim over then next 5 years. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I won’t be voting this time, was hoping there would be a Reform candidate here, but there isn’t this time. Hopefully there will be a candidate in every constituency for the 2029 election. Matt Goodwin makes a good point: Reform doesn’t claim to have either the answers or the struictures top be a mature opposition - they have 5 years to get that straight, and Farage is open about wanting to start a movement and hand it on to people with the competence, but what he is doing is asking the right questions and making sure that they are asked in the face of the Tory/Labour chumocracy of complacent 2 party politics and the status quo. This is a point that is sadly not at the front of peoples minds. The fact that the country is calling out for change is the perfect time to challenge the norm, we simply need a refresh on the day to day of our political thinking and decisions. We want change, not regression. Not all change is going to be palatable, and this is pretty much the issue we have today, nobody seems to want to compromise or to understand other points of views. I agree on that. But all Reform seems to be offering is a more extreme version of what we've had for the last 14 years. They might be today, however if they want to be successful they will need to understand their voting public, which I believe is their aim over then next 5 years." We can see. Farage doesn't seem to have changed tack since he's been in politics. Not in any ideological way. Regardless of what party they are a member of, attacking your constituents shouldn't be tolerated. They're supposed to be representing these people whatever way they voted. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I won’t be voting this time, was hoping there would be a Reform candidate here, but there isn’t this time. Hopefully there will be a candidate in every constituency for the 2029 election. Matt Goodwin makes a good point: Reform doesn’t claim to have either the answers or the struictures top be a mature opposition - they have 5 years to get that straight, and Farage is open about wanting to start a movement and hand it on to people with the competence, but what he is doing is asking the right questions and making sure that they are asked in the face of the Tory/Labour chumocracy of complacent 2 party politics and the status quo. This is a point that is sadly not at the front of peoples minds. The fact that the country is calling out for change is the perfect time to challenge the norm, we simply need a refresh on the day to day of our political thinking and decisions. We want change, not regression. Not all change is going to be palatable, and this is pretty much the issue we have today, nobody seems to want to compromise or to understand other points of views. I agree on that. But all Reform seems to be offering is a more extreme version of what we've had for the last 14 years. They might be today, however if they want to be successful they will need to understand their voting public, which I believe is their aim over then next 5 years. We can see. Farage doesn't seem to have changed tack since he's been in politics. Not in any ideological way. Regardless of what party they are a member of, attacking your constituents shouldn't be tolerated. They're supposed to be representing these people whatever way they voted. " What constituents are they attacking? I have not seen anything from Farage or reform that indicates this is happening?? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I won’t be voting this time, was hoping there would be a Reform candidate here, but there isn’t this time. Hopefully there will be a candidate in every constituency for the 2029 election. Matt Goodwin makes a good point: Reform doesn’t claim to have either the answers or the struictures top be a mature opposition - they have 5 years to get that straight, and Farage is open about wanting to start a movement and hand it on to people with the competence, but what he is doing is asking the right questions and making sure that they are asked in the face of the Tory/Labour chumocracy of complacent 2 party politics and the status quo. This is a point that is sadly not at the front of peoples minds. The fact that the country is calling out for change is the perfect time to challenge the norm, we simply need a refresh on the day to day of our political thinking and decisions. We want change, not regression. Not all change is going to be palatable, and this is pretty much the issue we have today, nobody seems to want to compromise or to understand other points of views. I agree on that. But all Reform seems to be offering is a more extreme version of what we've had for the last 14 years. They might be today, however if they want to be successful they will need to understand their voting public, which I believe is their aim over then next 5 years. We can see. Farage doesn't seem to have changed tack since he's been in politics. Not in any ideological way. Regardless of what party they are a member of, attacking your constituents shouldn't be tolerated. They're supposed to be representing these people whatever way they voted. What constituents are they attacking? I have not seen anything from Farage or reform that indicates this is happening??" Lee Anderson, the only sitting Reform MP spends much of his time doing this on Twitter. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I won’t be voting this time, was hoping there would be a Reform candidate here, but there isn’t this time. Hopefully there will be a candidate in every constituency for the 2029 election. Matt Goodwin makes a good point: Reform doesn’t claim to have either the answers or the struictures top be a mature opposition - they have 5 years to get that straight, and Farage is open about wanting to start a movement and hand it on to people with the competence, but what he is doing is asking the right questions and making sure that they are asked in the face of the Tory/Labour chumocracy of complacent 2 party politics and the status quo. This is a point that is sadly not at the front of peoples minds. The fact that the country is calling out for change is the perfect time to challenge the norm, we simply need a refresh on the day to day of our political thinking and decisions. We want change, not regression. Not all change is going to be palatable, and this is pretty much the issue we have today, nobody seems to want to compromise or to understand other points of views. I agree on that. But all Reform seems to be offering is a more extreme version of what we've had for the last 14 years. They might be today, however if they want to be successful they will need to understand their voting public, which I believe is their aim over then next 5 years. We can see. Farage doesn't seem to have changed tack since he's been in politics. Not in any ideological way. Regardless of what party they are a member of, attacking your constituents shouldn't be tolerated. They're supposed to be representing these people whatever way they voted. What constituents are they attacking? I have not seen anything from Farage or reform that indicates this is happening?? Lee Anderson, the only sitting Reform MP spends much of his time doing this on Twitter. " He has opinions on things he sees as detrimental, however he doesn't seem to have the ability to present them without being confrontational. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I won’t be voting this time, was hoping there would be a Reform candidate here, but there isn’t this time. Hopefully there will be a candidate in every constituency for the 2029 election. Matt Goodwin makes a good point: Reform doesn’t claim to have either the answers or the struictures top be a mature opposition - they have 5 years to get that straight, and Farage is open about wanting to start a movement and hand it on to people with the competence, but what he is doing is asking the right questions and making sure that they are asked in the face of the Tory/Labour chumocracy of complacent 2 party politics and the status quo. This is a point that is sadly not at the front of peoples minds. The fact that the country is calling out for change is the perfect time to challenge the norm, we simply need a refresh on the day to day of our political thinking and decisions. We want change, not regression. Not all change is going to be palatable, and this is pretty much the issue we have today, nobody seems to want to compromise or to understand other points of views. I agree on that. But all Reform seems to be offering is a more extreme version of what we've had for the last 14 years. They might be today, however if they want to be successful they will need to understand their voting public, which I believe is their aim over then next 5 years. We can see. Farage doesn't seem to have changed tack since he's been in politics. Not in any ideological way. Regardless of what party they are a member of, attacking your constituents shouldn't be tolerated. They're supposed to be representing these people whatever way they voted. What constituents are they attacking? I have not seen anything from Farage or reform that indicates this is happening?? Lee Anderson, the only sitting Reform MP spends much of his time doing this on Twitter. He has opinions on things he sees as detrimental, however he doesn't seem to have the ability to present them without being confrontational. " Sorry the man is a bully and a twat. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I won’t be voting this time, was hoping there would be a Reform candidate here, but there isn’t this time. Hopefully there will be a candidate in every constituency for the 2029 election. Matt Goodwin makes a good point: Reform doesn’t claim to have either the answers or the struictures top be a mature opposition - they have 5 years to get that straight, and Farage is open about wanting to start a movement and hand it on to people with the competence, but what he is doing is asking the right questions and making sure that they are asked in the face of the Tory/Labour chumocracy of complacent 2 party politics and the status quo. This is a point that is sadly not at the front of peoples minds. The fact that the country is calling out for change is the perfect time to challenge the norm, we simply need a refresh on the day to day of our political thinking and decisions. We want change, not regression. Not all change is going to be palatable, and this is pretty much the issue we have today, nobody seems to want to compromise or to understand other points of views. I agree on that. But all Reform seems to be offering is a more extreme version of what we've had for the last 14 years. They might be today, however if they want to be successful they will need to understand their voting public, which I believe is their aim over then next 5 years. We can see. Farage doesn't seem to have changed tack since he's been in politics. Not in any ideological way. Regardless of what party they are a member of, attacking your constituents shouldn't be tolerated. They're supposed to be representing these people whatever way they voted. What constituents are they attacking? I have not seen anything from Farage or reform that indicates this is happening?? Lee Anderson, the only sitting Reform MP spends much of his time doing this on Twitter. He has opinions on things he sees as detrimental, however he doesn't seem to have the ability to present them without being confrontational. Sorry the man is a bully and a twat." Maybe people in Nottinghamshire are made of slightly sterner stuff. What you assume is being a “bully and a twat” is probably just being a “working class northerner”. Maybe you could visit it sometime. With a large bottle of smelling salts and some pearls to clutch. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I won’t be voting this time, was hoping there would be a Reform candidate here, but there isn’t this time. Hopefully there will be a candidate in every constituency for the 2029 election. Matt Goodwin makes a good point: Reform doesn’t claim to have either the answers or the struictures top be a mature opposition - they have 5 years to get that straight, and Farage is open about wanting to start a movement and hand it on to people with the competence, but what he is doing is asking the right questions and making sure that they are asked in the face of the Tory/Labour chumocracy of complacent 2 party politics and the status quo. This is a point that is sadly not at the front of peoples minds. The fact that the country is calling out for change is the perfect time to challenge the norm, we simply need a refresh on the day to day of our political thinking and decisions. We want change, not regression. Not all change is going to be palatable, and this is pretty much the issue we have today, nobody seems to want to compromise or to understand other points of views. I agree on that. But all Reform seems to be offering is a more extreme version of what we've had for the last 14 years. They might be today, however if they want to be successful they will need to understand their voting public, which I believe is their aim over then next 5 years. We can see. Farage doesn't seem to have changed tack since he's been in politics. Not in any ideological way. Regardless of what party they are a member of, attacking your constituents shouldn't be tolerated. They're supposed to be representing these people whatever way they voted. What constituents are they attacking? I have not seen anything from Farage or reform that indicates this is happening?? Lee Anderson, the only sitting Reform MP spends much of his time doing this on Twitter. He has opinions on things he sees as detrimental, however he doesn't seem to have the ability to present them without being confrontational. " Regardless what party he or anyone stands for. It's behaviour inappropriate for an MP in my opinion. They're supposed to be serving the electorate, not attacking them. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I won’t be voting this time, was hoping there would be a Reform candidate here, but there isn’t this time. Hopefully there will be a candidate in every constituency for the 2029 election. Matt Goodwin makes a good point: Reform doesn’t claim to have either the answers or the struictures top be a mature opposition - they have 5 years to get that straight, and Farage is open about wanting to start a movement and hand it on to people with the competence, but what he is doing is asking the right questions and making sure that they are asked in the face of the Tory/Labour chumocracy of complacent 2 party politics and the status quo. This is a point that is sadly not at the front of peoples minds. The fact that the country is calling out for change is the perfect time to challenge the norm, we simply need a refresh on the day to day of our political thinking and decisions. We want change, not regression. Not all change is going to be palatable, and this is pretty much the issue we have today, nobody seems to want to compromise or to understand other points of views. I agree on that. But all Reform seems to be offering is a more extreme version of what we've had for the last 14 years. They might be today, however if they want to be successful they will need to understand their voting public, which I believe is their aim over then next 5 years. We can see. Farage doesn't seem to have changed tack since he's been in politics. Not in any ideological way. Regardless of what party they are a member of, attacking your constituents shouldn't be tolerated. They're supposed to be representing these people whatever way they voted. What constituents are they attacking? I have not seen anything from Farage or reform that indicates this is happening?? Lee Anderson, the only sitting Reform MP spends much of his time doing this on Twitter. He has opinions on things he sees as detrimental, however he doesn't seem to have the ability to present them without being confrontational. Sorry the man is a bully and a twat. Maybe people in Nottinghamshire are made of slightly sterner stuff. What you assume is being a “bully and a twat” is probably just being a “working class northerner”. Maybe you could visit it sometime. With a large bottle of smelling salts and some pearls to clutch." Nottinghamshire isn’t in the North. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I won’t be voting this time, was hoping there would be a Reform candidate here, but there isn’t this time. Hopefully there will be a candidate in every constituency for the 2029 election. Matt Goodwin makes a good point: Reform doesn’t claim to have either the answers or the struictures top be a mature opposition - they have 5 years to get that straight, and Farage is open about wanting to start a movement and hand it on to people with the competence, but what he is doing is asking the right questions and making sure that they are asked in the face of the Tory/Labour chumocracy of complacent 2 party politics and the status quo. This is a point that is sadly not at the front of peoples minds. The fact that the country is calling out for change is the perfect time to challenge the norm, we simply need a refresh on the day to day of our political thinking and decisions. We want change, not regression. Not all change is going to be palatable, and this is pretty much the issue we have today, nobody seems to want to compromise or to understand other points of views. I agree on that. But all Reform seems to be offering is a more extreme version of what we've had for the last 14 years. They might be today, however if they want to be successful they will need to understand their voting public, which I believe is their aim over then next 5 years. We can see. Farage doesn't seem to have changed tack since he's been in politics. Not in any ideological way. Regardless of what party they are a member of, attacking your constituents shouldn't be tolerated. They're supposed to be representing these people whatever way they voted. What constituents are they attacking? I have not seen anything from Farage or reform that indicates this is happening?? Lee Anderson, the only sitting Reform MP spends much of his time doing this on Twitter. He has opinions on things he sees as detrimental, however he doesn't seem to have the ability to present them without being confrontational. Regardless what party he or anyone stands for. It's behaviour inappropriate for an MP in my opinion. They're supposed to be serving the electorate, not attacking them." If the majority of the voting electorate in his constituency decide to vote for him, would you say he is serving them as they want? I often say this, but we get what we vote for. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I won’t be voting this time, was hoping there would be a Reform candidate here, but there isn’t this time. Hopefully there will be a candidate in every constituency for the 2029 election. Matt Goodwin makes a good point: Reform doesn’t claim to have either the answers or the struictures top be a mature opposition - they have 5 years to get that straight, and Farage is open about wanting to start a movement and hand it on to people with the competence, but what he is doing is asking the right questions and making sure that they are asked in the face of the Tory/Labour chumocracy of complacent 2 party politics and the status quo. This is a point that is sadly not at the front of peoples minds. The fact that the country is calling out for change is the perfect time to challenge the norm, we simply need a refresh on the day to day of our political thinking and decisions. We want change, not regression. Not all change is going to be palatable, and this is pretty much the issue we have today, nobody seems to want to compromise or to understand other points of views. I agree on that. But all Reform seems to be offering is a more extreme version of what we've had for the last 14 years. They might be today, however if they want to be successful they will need to understand their voting public, which I believe is their aim over then next 5 years. We can see. Farage doesn't seem to have changed tack since he's been in politics. Not in any ideological way. Regardless of what party they are a member of, attacking your constituents shouldn't be tolerated. They're supposed to be representing these people whatever way they voted. What constituents are they attacking? I have not seen anything from Farage or reform that indicates this is happening?? Lee Anderson, the only sitting Reform MP spends much of his time doing this on Twitter. He has opinions on things he sees as detrimental, however he doesn't seem to have the ability to present them without being confrontational. Regardless what party he or anyone stands for. It's behaviour inappropriate for an MP in my opinion. They're supposed to be serving the electorate, not attacking them. If the majority of the voting electorate in his constituency decide to vote for him, would you say he is serving them as they want? I often say this, but we get what we vote for." I don't know if his constituents want him to spend time attacking other constituents. If the person I voted for spent their time doing that I would contact them and ask them to stop, and I'd never vote for them again. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I won’t be voting this time, was hoping there would be a Reform candidate here, but there isn’t this time. Hopefully there will be a candidate in every constituency for the 2029 election. Matt Goodwin makes a good point: Reform doesn’t claim to have either the answers or the struictures top be a mature opposition - they have 5 years to get that straight, and Farage is open about wanting to start a movement and hand it on to people with the competence, but what he is doing is asking the right questions and making sure that they are asked in the face of the Tory/Labour chumocracy of complacent 2 party politics and the status quo. This is a point that is sadly not at the front of peoples minds. The fact that the country is calling out for change is the perfect time to challenge the norm, we simply need a refresh on the day to day of our political thinking and decisions. We want change, not regression. Not all change is going to be palatable, and this is pretty much the issue we have today, nobody seems to want to compromise or to understand other points of views. I agree on that. But all Reform seems to be offering is a more extreme version of what we've had for the last 14 years. They might be today, however if they want to be successful they will need to understand their voting public, which I believe is their aim over then next 5 years. We can see. Farage doesn't seem to have changed tack since he's been in politics. Not in any ideological way. Regardless of what party they are a member of, attacking your constituents shouldn't be tolerated. They're supposed to be representing these people whatever way they voted. What constituents are they attacking? I have not seen anything from Farage or reform that indicates this is happening?? Lee Anderson, the only sitting Reform MP spends much of his time doing this on Twitter. He has opinions on things he sees as detrimental, however he doesn't seem to have the ability to present them without being confrontational. Regardless what party he or anyone stands for. It's behaviour inappropriate for an MP in my opinion. They're supposed to be serving the electorate, not attacking them. If the majority of the voting electorate in his constituency decide to vote for him, would you say he is serving them as they want? I often say this, but we get what we vote for." and if he gets out can we say they dont want to be attacked?  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I won’t be voting this time, was hoping there would be a Reform candidate here, but there isn’t this time. Hopefully there will be a candidate in every constituency for the 2029 election. Matt Goodwin makes a good point: Reform doesn’t claim to have either the answers or the struictures top be a mature opposition - they have 5 years to get that straight, and Farage is open about wanting to start a movement and hand it on to people with the competence, but what he is doing is asking the right questions and making sure that they are asked in the face of the Tory/Labour chumocracy of complacent 2 party politics and the status quo. This is a point that is sadly not at the front of peoples minds. The fact that the country is calling out for change is the perfect time to challenge the norm, we simply need a refresh on the day to day of our political thinking and decisions. We want change, not regression. Not all change is going to be palatable, and this is pretty much the issue we have today, nobody seems to want to compromise or to understand other points of views. I agree on that. But all Reform seems to be offering is a more extreme version of what we've had for the last 14 years. They might be today, however if they want to be successful they will need to understand their voting public, which I believe is their aim over then next 5 years. We can see. Farage doesn't seem to have changed tack since he's been in politics. Not in any ideological way. Regardless of what party they are a member of, attacking your constituents shouldn't be tolerated. They're supposed to be representing these people whatever way they voted. What constituents are they attacking? I have not seen anything from Farage or reform that indicates this is happening?? Lee Anderson, the only sitting Reform MP spends much of his time doing this on Twitter. He has opinions on things he sees as detrimental, however he doesn't seem to have the ability to present them without being confrontational. Regardless what party he or anyone stands for. It's behaviour inappropriate for an MP in my opinion. They're supposed to be serving the electorate, not attacking them. If the majority of the voting electorate in his constituency decide to vote for him, would you say he is serving them as they want? I often say this, but we get what we vote for.and if he gets out can we say they dont want to be attacked? " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I won’t be voting this time, was hoping there would be a Reform candidate here, but there isn’t this time. Hopefully there will be a candidate in every constituency for the 2029 election. Matt Goodwin makes a good point: Reform doesn’t claim to have either the answers or the struictures top be a mature opposition - they have 5 years to get that straight, and Farage is open about wanting to start a movement and hand it on to people with the competence, but what he is doing is asking the right questions and making sure that they are asked in the face of the Tory/Labour chumocracy of complacent 2 party politics and the status quo. This is a point that is sadly not at the front of peoples minds. The fact that the country is calling out for change is the perfect time to challenge the norm, we simply need a refresh on the day to day of our political thinking and decisions. We want change, not regression. Not all change is going to be palatable, and this is pretty much the issue we have today, nobody seems to want to compromise or to understand other points of views. I agree on that. But all Reform seems to be offering is a more extreme version of what we've had for the last 14 years. They might be today, however if they want to be successful they will need to understand their voting public, which I believe is their aim over then next 5 years. We can see. Farage doesn't seem to have changed tack since he's been in politics. Not in any ideological way. Regardless of what party they are a member of, attacking your constituents shouldn't be tolerated. They're supposed to be representing these people whatever way they voted. What constituents are they attacking? I have not seen anything from Farage or reform that indicates this is happening?? Lee Anderson, the only sitting Reform MP spends much of his time doing this on Twitter. He has opinions on things he sees as detrimental, however he doesn't seem to have the ability to present them without being confrontational. Sorry the man is a bully and a twat. Maybe people in Nottinghamshire are made of slightly sterner stuff. What you assume is being a “bully and a twat” is probably just being a “working class northerner”. Maybe you could visit it sometime. With a large bottle of smelling salts and some pearls to clutch." Surprised someone from Yorkshire would consider Nottinghamshire to be Northern | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The Reform party candidates and the reform party _anifesto should be enough to make people feel bad about their choice to vote Reform. I would never feel bad voting for asny party that secures our borders, keep us out of the EU, keeps tax low and smashes the state religion of the NHS and returns it to being a cost-efficient healthcare system that works. If those principles make you feel bad, maybe you ought to take a long hard look in the mirror and remind yourself what a whole generation of your grandparents age gave their lives to defend. My grandfather fought to destroy Nazism and Fascism. My grandmother and her parents fled to the UK as immigrants to escape the Nazi persecution of the Jews. What’s your solution for healthcare in the UK? Your logical falacy is to suggest that policies designed to secure our borders equates to “nazism”. Unless I missed an unpublished part of the Reform _anifesto I don’t see them suggesting the rounding uyp of Jews and sending them to the gas chambers and a totalitarian national-socialist one party state. In fact part of their _anifesto talks about the kind of electoral reform that opens up both candidacy and franchise and challenges the current political duopoly, in other words more democracy, not less which is the eapt opposite of nazism. To answer the second point, I’d dismantle the entire system that is now a model no longer fit for purpose and I would put in place a system of direct health insurance that pays a mixed economy model of the private sector and state-subsidised providers. I would introduce means tested front-end payment for acces to primary care physicians and I would remove the link between GPs and signing off the benefits culture. It’s a set up that works for the rest of the world, who funnily enough, have better health outcomes than the UK. You should try living in a country with a healthcare system like you described. Poor people simply die due to lack of access to healthcare. 68,000 Americans die each year because they can't get the care they need. Here we go. “The NHS isn’t working”. “You are a Tufton Street shill! Who funds you? You just want a US healthcare system and poor people are going to die in their millions”! You appear to have misquoted me there. Just to clarify what I said: "You should try living in a country with a healthcare system like you described. Poor people simply die due to lack of access to healthcare. 68,000 Americans die each year because they can't get the care they need." Of course, I forgot that there are only two countries in the world. You're misinformed. There's over 190. Google is an amazing thing! Anyway, back to the point the other chap made about wanting to move to a healthcare system that poor people can't afford. Poor people can’t afford healthcare in this country. The UK has a healthcare system that is paid for from taxes. Poor people don't have to pay at the point of recieving healthcare. So it's incorrect to say poor people in this country can't afford healthcare. I’ve even noticed a significant downturn in the quality of private healthcare. The failure of “Our NHS” is dragging everything down with it. The government has been trying to run the NHS into the ground for over a decade, to try to get support for selling it off to the highest bidder. It needs proper management and appropriate funding. If the “free healthcare” isn’t available, then it may as well not exist. In which case only people who can afford to pay privately can get healthcare. So no, poor people in this country cannot afford healthcare. The rest of your comments are just the usual incoherent babble. Personally I don’t care what the healthcare model is. I don’t care if it’s state, insurance, or privately funded, as long as it works. I am even open to different letters of the alphabet being used to describe it, pretty radical I know. What about you? Are you open to other models? Are you open to learning from best practice overseas, from countries that have better outcomes? Of course you aren’t. You are an ideologue. The common denominator among countries with better health outcomes than the UK is that they spend more per capita on healthcare than the UK. Shhhhh that’s an inconvenient truth. Although spending more per capita does not guarantee better outcomes. The US spends more than twice as much as the UK and has considerably worse outcomes. Back to there only being two countries the world again….." I presume this is reference to when changes to the NHS is mentioned, people automatically bring up the U.S. model and rarely any other models around the world, hence only UK and U.S existing? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The Reform party candidates and the reform party _anifesto should be enough to make people feel bad about their choice to vote Reform. I would never feel bad voting for asny party that secures our borders, keep us out of the EU, keeps tax low and smashes the state religion of the NHS and returns it to being a cost-efficient healthcare system that works. If those principles make you feel bad, maybe you ought to take a long hard look in the mirror and remind yourself what a whole generation of your grandparents age gave their lives to defend. My grandfather fought to destroy Nazism and Fascism. My grandmother and her parents fled to the UK as immigrants to escape the Nazi persecution of the Jews. What’s your solution for healthcare in the UK? Your logical falacy is to suggest that policies designed to secure our borders equates to “nazism”. Unless I missed an unpublished part of the Reform _anifesto I don’t see them suggesting the rounding uyp of Jews and sending them to the gas chambers and a totalitarian national-socialist one party state. In fact part of their _anifesto talks about the kind of electoral reform that opens up both candidacy and franchise and challenges the current political duopoly, in other words more democracy, not less which is the eapt opposite of nazism. To answer the second point, I’d dismantle the entire system that is now a model no longer fit for purpose and I would put in place a system of direct health insurance that pays a mixed economy model of the private sector and state-subsidised providers. I would introduce means tested front-end payment for acces to primary care physicians and I would remove the link between GPs and signing off the benefits culture. It’s a set up that works for the rest of the world, who funnily enough, have better health outcomes than the UK. You should try living in a country with a healthcare system like you described. Poor people simply die due to lack of access to healthcare. 68,000 Americans die each year because they can't get the care they need. Here we go. “The NHS isn’t working”. “You are a Tufton Street shill! Who funds you? You just want a US healthcare system and poor people are going to die in their millions”! You appear to have misquoted me there. Just to clarify what I said: "You should try living in a country with a healthcare system like you described. Poor people simply die due to lack of access to healthcare. 68,000 Americans die each year because they can't get the care they need." Of course, I forgot that there are only two countries in the world. You're misinformed. There's over 190. Google is an amazing thing! Anyway, back to the point the other chap made about wanting to move to a healthcare system that poor people can't afford. Poor people can’t afford healthcare in this country. The UK has a healthcare system that is paid for from taxes. Poor people don't have to pay at the point of recieving healthcare. So it's incorrect to say poor people in this country can't afford healthcare. I’ve even noticed a significant downturn in the quality of private healthcare. The failure of “Our NHS” is dragging everything down with it. The government has been trying to run the NHS into the ground for over a decade, to try to get support for selling it off to the highest bidder. It needs proper management and appropriate funding. If the “free healthcare” isn’t available, then it may as well not exist. In which case only people who can afford to pay privately can get healthcare. So no, poor people in this country cannot afford healthcare. The rest of your comments are just the usual incoherent babble. Personally I don’t care what the healthcare model is. I don’t care if it’s state, insurance, or privately funded, as long as it works. I am even open to different letters of the alphabet being used to describe it, pretty radical I know. What about you? Are you open to other models? Are you open to learning from best practice overseas, from countries that have better outcomes? Of course you aren’t. You are an ideologue. The common denominator among countries with better health outcomes than the UK is that they spend more per capita on healthcare than the UK. Shhhhh that’s an inconvenient truth. Although spending more per capita does not guarantee better outcomes. The US spends more than twice as much as the UK and has considerably worse outcomes. Back to there only being two countries the world again….. I presume this is reference to when changes to the NHS is mentioned, people automatically bring up the U.S. model and rarely any other models around the world, hence only UK and U.S existing?" And yet despite continuously asking, none of the advocates for ridding us of the NHS and replacing the model can ever provide any detailed explanation of how it works anywhere else. There is also another factor. The lobbyists pushing the anti NHS agenda are funded by the huge pharmaceutical companies who actually want a USA style approach in the UK. Just do a price comparison for their drugs in the USA vs UK (NHS) market and you will understand why. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The Reform party candidates and the reform party _anifesto should be enough to make people feel bad about their choice to vote Reform. I would never feel bad voting for asny party that secures our borders, keep us out of the EU, keeps tax low and smashes the state religion of the NHS and returns it to being a cost-efficient healthcare system that works. If those principles make you feel bad, maybe you ought to take a long hard look in the mirror and remind yourself what a whole generation of your grandparents age gave their lives to defend. My grandfather fought to destroy Nazism and Fascism. My grandmother and her parents fled to the UK as immigrants to escape the Nazi persecution of the Jews. What’s your solution for healthcare in the UK? Your logical falacy is to suggest that policies designed to secure our borders equates to “nazism”. Unless I missed an unpublished part of the Reform _anifesto I don’t see them suggesting the rounding uyp of Jews and sending them to the gas chambers and a totalitarian national-socialist one party state. In fact part of their _anifesto talks about the kind of electoral reform that opens up both candidacy and franchise and challenges the current political duopoly, in other words more democracy, not less which is the eapt opposite of nazism. To answer the second point, I’d dismantle the entire system that is now a model no longer fit for purpose and I would put in place a system of direct health insurance that pays a mixed economy model of the private sector and state-subsidised providers. I would introduce means tested front-end payment for acces to primary care physicians and I would remove the link between GPs and signing off the benefits culture. It’s a set up that works for the rest of the world, who funnily enough, have better health outcomes than the UK. You should try living in a country with a healthcare system like you described. Poor people simply die due to lack of access to healthcare. 68,000 Americans die each year because they can't get the care they need. Here we go. “The NHS isn’t working”. “You are a Tufton Street shill! Who funds you? You just want a US healthcare system and poor people are going to die in their millions”! You appear to have misquoted me there. Just to clarify what I said: "You should try living in a country with a healthcare system like you described. Poor people simply die due to lack of access to healthcare. 68,000 Americans die each year because they can't get the care they need." Of course, I forgot that there are only two countries in the world. You're misinformed. There's over 190. Google is an amazing thing! Anyway, back to the point the other chap made about wanting to move to a healthcare system that poor people can't afford. Poor people can’t afford healthcare in this country. The UK has a healthcare system that is paid for from taxes. Poor people don't have to pay at the point of recieving healthcare. So it's incorrect to say poor people in this country can't afford healthcare. I’ve even noticed a significant downturn in the quality of private healthcare. The failure of “Our NHS” is dragging everything down with it. The government has been trying to run the NHS into the ground for over a decade, to try to get support for selling it off to the highest bidder. It needs proper management and appropriate funding. If the “free healthcare” isn’t available, then it may as well not exist. In which case only people who can afford to pay privately can get healthcare. So no, poor people in this country cannot afford healthcare. The rest of your comments are just the usual incoherent babble. Personally I don’t care what the healthcare model is. I don’t care if it’s state, insurance, or privately funded, as long as it works. I am even open to different letters of the alphabet being used to describe it, pretty radical I know. What about you? Are you open to other models? Are you open to learning from best practice overseas, from countries that have better outcomes? Of course you aren’t. You are an ideologue. The common denominator among countries with better health outcomes than the UK is that they spend more per capita on healthcare than the UK. Shhhhh that’s an inconvenient truth. Although spending more per capita does not guarantee better outcomes. The US spends more than twice as much as the UK and has considerably worse outcomes. Back to there only being two countries the world again….. I presume this is reference to when changes to the NHS is mentioned, people automatically bring up the U.S. model and rarely any other models around the world, hence only UK and U.S existing? And yet despite continuously asking, none of the advocates for ridding us of the NHS and replacing the model can ever provide any detailed explanation of how it works anywhere else. There is also another factor. The lobbyists pushing the anti NHS agenda are funded by the huge pharmaceutical companies who actually want a USA style approach in the UK. Just do a price comparison for their drugs in the USA vs UK (NHS) market and you will understand why." My question was for clarity to the other poster mainly. I have heard the claims of American interest in any changes to the NHS before. For those discussing and considering alternative solutions, looking at several other countries solutions seems logical as opposed to saying the only choices are NHS or American style health care. It may be the NHS is better than all others or it maybe it is worse but shutting out all but one alternative does not sound great to me. Just to clarify, I personally don't know the workings or understand how other countries operate their health care systems | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The Reform party candidates and the reform party _anifesto should be enough to make people feel bad about their choice to vote Reform. I would never feel bad voting for asny party that secures our borders, keep us out of the EU, keeps tax low and smashes the state religion of the NHS and returns it to being a cost-efficient healthcare system that works. If those principles make you feel bad, maybe you ought to take a long hard look in the mirror and remind yourself what a whole generation of your grandparents age gave their lives to defend. My grandfather fought to destroy Nazism and Fascism. My grandmother and her parents fled to the UK as immigrants to escape the Nazi persecution of the Jews. What’s your solution for healthcare in the UK? Your logical falacy is to suggest that policies designed to secure our borders equates to “nazism”. Unless I missed an unpublished part of the Reform _anifesto I don’t see them suggesting the rounding uyp of Jews and sending them to the gas chambers and a totalitarian national-socialist one party state. In fact part of their _anifesto talks about the kind of electoral reform that opens up both candidacy and franchise and challenges the current political duopoly, in other words more democracy, not less which is the eapt opposite of nazism. To answer the second point, I’d dismantle the entire system that is now a model no longer fit for purpose and I would put in place a system of direct health insurance that pays a mixed economy model of the private sector and state-subsidised providers. I would introduce means tested front-end payment for acces to primary care physicians and I would remove the link between GPs and signing off the benefits culture. It’s a set up that works for the rest of the world, who funnily enough, have better health outcomes than the UK. You should try living in a country with a healthcare system like you described. Poor people simply die due to lack of access to healthcare. 68,000 Americans die each year because they can't get the care they need. Here we go. “The NHS isn’t working”. “You are a Tufton Street shill! Who funds you? You just want a US healthcare system and poor people are going to die in their millions”! You appear to have misquoted me there. Just to clarify what I said: "You should try living in a country with a healthcare system like you described. Poor people simply die due to lack of access to healthcare. 68,000 Americans die each year because they can't get the care they need." Of course, I forgot that there are only two countries in the world. You're misinformed. There's over 190. Google is an amazing thing! Anyway, back to the point the other chap made about wanting to move to a healthcare system that poor people can't afford. Poor people can’t afford healthcare in this country. The UK has a healthcare system that is paid for from taxes. Poor people don't have to pay at the point of recieving healthcare. So it's incorrect to say poor people in this country can't afford healthcare. I’ve even noticed a significant downturn in the quality of private healthcare. The failure of “Our NHS” is dragging everything down with it. The government has been trying to run the NHS into the ground for over a decade, to try to get support for selling it off to the highest bidder. It needs proper management and appropriate funding. If the “free healthcare” isn’t available, then it may as well not exist. In which case only people who can afford to pay privately can get healthcare. So no, poor people in this country cannot afford healthcare. The rest of your comments are just the usual incoherent babble. Personally I don’t care what the healthcare model is. I don’t care if it’s state, insurance, or privately funded, as long as it works. I am even open to different letters of the alphabet being used to describe it, pretty radical I know. What about you? Are you open to other models? Are you open to learning from best practice overseas, from countries that have better outcomes? Of course you aren’t. You are an ideologue. The common denominator among countries with better health outcomes than the UK is that they spend more per capita on healthcare than the UK. Shhhhh that’s an inconvenient truth. Although spending more per capita does not guarantee better outcomes. The US spends more than twice as much as the UK and has considerably worse outcomes. Back to there only being two countries the world again….. I presume this is reference to when changes to the NHS is mentioned, people automatically bring up the U.S. model and rarely any other models around the world, hence only UK and U.S existing? And yet despite continuously asking, none of the advocates for ridding us of the NHS and replacing the model can ever provide any detailed explanation of how it works anywhere else. There is also another factor. The lobbyists pushing the anti NHS agenda are funded by the huge pharmaceutical companies who actually want a USA style approach in the UK. Just do a price comparison for their drugs in the USA vs UK (NHS) market and you will understand why. My question was for clarity to the other poster mainly. I have heard the claims of American interest in any changes to the NHS before. For those discussing and considering alternative solutions, looking at several other countries solutions seems logical as opposed to saying the only choices are NHS or American style health care. It may be the NHS is better than all others or it maybe it is worse but shutting out all but one alternative does not sound great to me. Just to clarify, I personally don't know the workings or understand how other countries operate their health care systems" Oh I agree that if we are to change healthcare in the UK we absolutely MUST not go down USA route and MUST look at models in other countries. My point was that the main lobbying on this has been going for years driving the narrative and that is coming from those who would want a USA style approach because that = $$$$$$ | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I finally made a decision today on who I am going to vote for…. I am not going to publicly tell people who and why till Friday….. "Count Bin Face will be chuffed | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I finally made a decision today on who I am going to vote for…. I am not going to publicly tell people who and why till Friday….. "You've read the Suns headline.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"My eldest son works for the NHS in pathology. I have never met anyone who would want it abolished, it’s one of the greatest things about this nation." "I think we're going to have to move to an insurance based system of health care". - Nigel Farage. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"My eldest son works for the NHS in pathology. I have never met anyone who would want it abolished, it’s one of the greatest things about this nation. "I think we're going to have to move to an insurance based system of health care". - Nigel Farage. " I will have to disagree with him on that. It will never happen here anyway. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"My eldest son works for the NHS in pathology. I have never met anyone who would want it abolished, it’s one of the greatest things about this nation. "I think we're going to have to move to an insurance based system of health care". - Nigel Farage. I will have to disagree with him on that. It will never happen here anyway. " Hopefully not. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I would actually be supportive of getting rid of NHS and other welfare in favour of UBI. This way people can use welfare for what they need instead of government deciding for them. Medical insurance cost for young people would be cheaper and hence they can use that extra money for things they care about, like housing. And without NHS, healthcare system can actually work with competition. They can pay nurses and doctors based on markets." Best get UK citizenship first though right? Easy to have an opinion when your health insurance is being paid for by your employer (nothing wrong in that at all but you are not walking in the shoes of millions of Brits). Why should there be “competition” in healthcare? Why does healthcare (ie the well being of the entire population of the country and the workforce) need to be a profit making business? Why shouldn’t it be a state provided service for the good of society? Why should the profit motive drive patient outcomes? Again as per my other posts on this topic, what happens with pre-existing, hereditary, or lifestyle conditions? Also if I may ask, your employer provided health insurance - does it cover the conditions above? Does it have an annual threshold on £ covered? Any exclusions? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Already voted as off to Wimbledon tomorrow. It's a secret between me and the ballot box and I'm certainly not shouting about it on here. I'm hoping the silent majority think the same. Ha ha. Have a lovely day everyone and I hope you all get the government you hoped for on friday." Why not just be honest and share. We’re a lovely, kind, tolerant, supportive bunch in these here politics threads…oh wait | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
