Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Uk Debate Mk 2, the UK's liveliest political and social debate site.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Nigel Farage named Briton of the year by the Times
Topic Started: Dec 27 2014, 03:42 PM (2,921 Views)
AndyK
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
The 50-year-old was described as "game-changing" politician and was honoured for "bulldozing" his party into the political mainstream during 2014.


http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/548896/Nigel-Farage-Ukip-UK-Independence-Party-Briton-of-the-Year-2014-The-Times
Edited by AndyK, Dec 27 2014, 03:43 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Replies:
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Jan 6 2015, 09:39 PM
C-too
Jan 6 2015, 09:28 AM
Steve K
Jan 5 2015, 10:11 PM
Anyone want to endorse that post by C-Too? (Assuming they can decypher the corrupting of the quote system) Otherwise it's ignored
You appear to be running and hiding from information you do not like..

The international financial meltdown was a reality from which you have no escape. End of.
No, you decided to try to make this an offensive insult throwing contest. Not doing that.

I do note that no one has yet endorsed what passes for logic in your later posts so as stated I will ignore them.
What you refer to as an attack by myself was nothing more than a reasonable comment that hit a raw nerve of yours. Your single minded approach restricted the area you were prepared to debate. That is your weakness not mine.

Even the graphs you have posted show that the economy bit the dust after the international financial meltdown hit. I do expect you to ignore that which does not suit you, in my experience that is one of your trade marks.

I note that most thinkers acknowledge the problems caused by the INTERNATIONAL financial meltdown.

You choose to hide from the reality, well that's fine by me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
C2 you completely miss the point. The international meltdown was the stimulus which exposed that the Public Sector budget had been expanded far too quickly, was built on a Housing and FS bubble and as the IMF confirmed helped to overheat our economy. There was no indication that Brown gave any cognisance to this as he intended to carry on borrowing to fuel current consumption. The only point is that if NL had been prudent and only expanded the cost of the State at a moderate rate then we, the UK, would not have been the worst placed economy to weather that storm. The claim that the UK would have collapsed if NL had not gone on such a spending spree is absolute BS. Not only did Brown sanction borrowing to fuel current Public Sector consumption he also signed off on >£250b of the most expensive and often misguided PFI known to man.

It is telling that the Usuals have had to scrap for justifications post expenditure.


http://media.pimco.com/PublishingImages/NR/rdonlyres/1909F3B9-C29E-4A33-BAF8-1F376C95F8F4/7386/UpdatedChart1US1.gif
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
Posted Image

The Ring of Fire
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Jan 7 2015, 09:18 AM
C2 you completely miss the point. The international meltdown was the stimulus which exposed that the Public Sector budget had been expanded far too quickly, was built on a Housing and FS bubble and as the IMF confirmed helped to overheat our economy. There was no indication that Brown gave any cognisance to this as he intended to carry on borrowing to fuel current consumption. The only point is that if NL had been prudent and only expanded the cost of the State at a moderate rate then we, the UK, would not have been the worst placed economy to weather that storm. The claim that the UK would have collapsed if NL had not gone on such a spending spree is absolute BS. Not only did Brown sanction borrowing to fuel current Public Sector consumption he also signed off on >£250b of the most expensive and often misguided PFI known to man.

It is telling that the Usuals have had to scrap for justifications post expenditure.


http://media.pimco.com/PublishingImages/NR/rdonlyres/1909F3B9-C29E-4A33-BAF8-1F376C95F8F4/7386/UpdatedChart1US1.gif
No you miss the point.
Borrowing began to be reigned-in, in 2005.
There was no reason to expect a meltdown in US sub prime mortgages to end up with their toxic debts being slipped into the international financial markets with such a decimating effect on Western economies.

How that was allowed to happen is the problem, it is also the question that needs to be addressed.

Continuing to avoid this basic problem while attempting to lay the blame at the feet of NL can only IMO be blamed on the political bias of those that do it.

If the "housing bubble" was such a big issue how come it has come and gone despite the meltdown?
If the country had not been in such a disgusting state after 18 years of Tory maladministration NL would not have to deal with the expensive mess they inherited.

And of course you ignore the loss of income from our Deregulated, Financial Services, Free Market approach to earning a living in the world. And the damage done to the Banks that have had a negative knock-on effect on rebuilding our economy.

All is down to the greater sharing of the economic wealth of the country, a typical greedy Tory attitude.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Malum Unus
Member Avatar
Hater of Political Correctness and Legalese
[ *  *  * ]
Steve K
Jan 6 2015, 09:39 PM
C-too
Jan 6 2015, 09:28 AM
Steve K
Jan 5 2015, 10:11 PM
Anyone want to endorse that post by C-Too? (Assuming they can decypher the corrupting of the quote system) Otherwise it's ignored
You appear to be running and hiding from information you do not like..

The international financial meltdown was a reality from which you have no escape. End of.
No, you decided to try to make this an offensive insult throwing contest. Not doing that.

I do note that no one has yet endorsed what passes for logic in your later posts so as stated I will ignore them.


Are you really surprised?

There IS a reason he's on at least several peoples ignore lists, yes it may not be seen as entirely appropriate to just ignore someone on a debate forum, but when said ignored person has no concept of how debate works, it's for the best.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Malum Unus
Jan 7 2015, 09:59 AM
Steve K
Jan 6 2015, 09:39 PM
C-too
Jan 6 2015, 09:28 AM
Steve K
Jan 5 2015, 10:11 PM
Anyone want to endorse that post by C-Too? (Assuming they can decypher the corrupting of the quote system) Otherwise it's ignored
You appear to be running and hiding from information you do not like..

The international financial meltdown was a reality from which you have no escape. End of.
No, you decided to try to make this an offensive insult throwing contest. Not doing that.

I do note that no one has yet endorsed what passes for logic in your later posts so as stated I will ignore them.


Are you really surprised?

There IS a reason he's on at least several peoples ignore lists, yes it may not be seen as entirely appropriate to just ignore someone on a debate forum, but when said ignored person has no concept of how debate works, it's for the best.

Silly immature unprovable nonsense. Shame on you.

Why you persist in making a fool of yourself is your business, but let me reassure you, repeatedly lying about me will not turn a lie into a truth.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
HIGHWAY
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
C-too
Jan 7 2015, 10:13 AM
Malum Unus
Jan 7 2015, 09:59 AM
Steve K
Jan 6 2015, 09:39 PM
C-too
Jan 6 2015, 09:28 AM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep
No, you decided to try to make this an offensive insult throwing contest. Not doing that.

I do note that no one has yet endorsed what passes for logic in your later posts so as stated I will ignore them.


Are you really surprised?

There IS a reason he's on at least several peoples ignore lists, yes it may not be seen as entirely appropriate to just ignore someone on a debate forum, but when said ignored person has no concept of how debate works, it's for the best.

Silly immature unprovable nonsense. Shame on you.

Why you persist in making a fool of yourself is your business, but let me reassure you, repeatedly lying about me will not turn a lie into a truth.
Another poster who you say is lying to you,but no threat of reporting them,,,,interesting
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ACH1967
Member Avatar
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
I am glad to see that it is not just me getting fed up with it. It is a shame because this forum desperately needs some from the left to make a stronger case.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
C-too
Jan 7 2015, 09:45 AM
RJD
Jan 7 2015, 09:18 AM
C2 you completely miss the point. The international meltdown was the stimulus which exposed that the Public Sector budget had been expanded far too quickly, was built on a Housing and FS bubble and as the IMF confirmed helped to overheat our economy. There was no indication that Brown gave any cognisance to this as he intended to carry on borrowing to fuel current consumption. The only point is that if NL had been prudent and only expanded the cost of the State at a moderate rate then we, the UK, would not have been the worst placed economy to weather that storm. The claim that the UK would have collapsed if NL had not gone on such a spending spree is absolute BS. Not only did Brown sanction borrowing to fuel current Public Sector consumption he also signed off on >£250b of the most expensive and often misguided PFI known to man.

It is telling that the Usuals have had to scrap for justifications post expenditure.


http://media.pimco.com/PublishingImages/NR/rdonlyres/1909F3B9-C29E-4A33-BAF8-1F376C95F8F4/7386/UpdatedChart1US1.gif
No you miss the point.
Borrowing began to be reigned-in, in 2005.
There was no reason to expect a meltdown in US sub prime mortgages to end up with their toxic debts being slipped into the international financial markets with such a decimating effect on Western economies.

How that was allowed to happen is the problem, it is also the question that needs to be addressed.

Continuing to avoid this basic problem while attempting to lay the blame at the feet of NL can only IMO be blamed on the political bias of those that do it.

If the "housing bubble" was such a big issue how come it has come and gone despite the meltdown?
If the country had not been in such a disgusting state after 18 years of Tory maladministration NL would not have to deal with the expensive mess they inherited.

And of course you ignore the loss of income from our Deregulated, Financial Services, Free Market approach to earning a living in the world. And the damage done to the Banks that have had a negative knock-on effect on rebuilding our economy.

All is down to the greater sharing of the economic wealth of the country, a typical greedy Tory attitude.
Again you avoid the obvious. The meltdown did not cause the deficit this was caused by spending > revenues. As we have seen the revenue streams were not sustainable.
Anyway not even Jesus Christus could persuade you otherwise so basically such a debate with you is a complete waste of time. Seems that you have decided to take on the rest of the World peddling myths that have long been dispelled. Why? To protect Politicians, you must be joking.
I note that you always avoid any justification of NL borrowing to fuel current consumption and that is exactly what they did. Please do not insult me with the smoke that such borrowing was spent on infrastructure as it wasn't that was what the PFGI waste was for.

Enough C2, enough.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
ACH1967
Jan 7 2015, 10:43 AM
I am glad to see that it is not just me getting fed up with it. It is a shame because this forum desperately needs some from the left to make a stronger case.
The left do need somebody to make a case that can be substantiated, however, currently we have only myth peddling and whinging. Milliband appears to be avoiding "the economy" and "immigration" and is concentrating on revving up the spite and envy brigade and trying to frighten the public with scare stories about the NHS. Yep that idiot could be our PM come June. Andy Burnham is probably the biggest hypocrite in the Labour Party and there are a lot of those. Why? He started out arguing for NHS reform. He instituted the reform programmes. So what changed?

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
krugerman
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
The credit crunch washed onto our shores from across the Atlantic and soon spread through the British financial sector, leading to the banking crisis, a world-wide financial crisis and then a recession, which affected every nation on earth.

What those of the "right" are clearly attemting to do, is to link what happened, to the last government, to Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling, this is not only a false interpretation, but also very dishonest.

The economic course that Gordon Brown and his chancellor was set upon, had no relationship to the world wide crisis which was sparked off by the internatonal banking sector, and it is utterly mischievous to say that there was a connection, toxic debts held by some of the largest banks in the world, American banks and loan companies has nothing to do with HM Treasurey.

Even if British banks had tighter rules and tighter regulations, the fall-out from other major international banks acrooss the world, but in particular the United States, would still have caused a major crisis across Europe.

Those posters who crudely attempt to connect the recession to Gordon Brown, need reminding that immediately prior to the crisis, our deficit was not out of control, it was amongst the lowest deficits in the industrialized world, the "Golden Rule" of keeping borrowing below the figure of 40% of GDP had not been broken.

In mid 2007 the UK budget deficit amounted to 36% of GDP, which was LESS than it was in 1992, 1993, 1994 and 1995, which I do believe were years in which Mr John Major was in charge.

The facts speak for themselves, the UK economy was in good shape prior to the financial crisis hitting, inflation was low, growth was consistent and steady, borrowing under control.
The modest borrowing combined with revenue from such sources as the sale of the radio spectrum meant that the government at the time could invest billions in public services and education, where it was much needed.

There was no bloating of public services ( another falsehood perpetrated by the right ), the borrowing and revenue was used as genuine investment, the kind of investment which reaps real benefits for the population at the time, and for many years to come, it was not short term.

The investment ensured for example that the unacceptable waiting lists within the NHS were vastly decreased over a number of years, and it must be pointed out that those NHS waiting lists that were inherited in 1997 were actually increasing, it took several years to turn them around.

The Conservative apologists on here and elsewhere always come up with the same utter garbage - that the previous government caused the recession, that they borrowed too much and wasted it all, that they bloated public services which created an unsustainable economy, all of which is not true.

The real facts of this matter is that some of our public services, in particular our NHS was in a shocking state in 1997, thats the blunt truth, the investment put into those public services which some here criticise, was not onlt desperately needed, it was also supported and endorsed by the majority of the people.



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Jan 7 2015, 09:18 AM
Posted Image

The Ring of Fire


Just to remark that this Ring of Fire clearly demonstrates that Socialist Countries avoided getting burned whereas The More Capitalist nations faired worst.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Jan 7 2015, 10:57 AM
C-too
Jan 7 2015, 09:45 AM
RJD
Jan 7 2015, 09:18 AM
C2 you completely miss the point. The international meltdown was the stimulus which exposed that the Public Sector budget had been expanded far too quickly, was built on a Housing and FS bubble and as the IMF confirmed helped to overheat our economy. There was no indication that Brown gave any cognisance to this as he intended to carry on borrowing to fuel current consumption. The only point is that if NL had been prudent and only expanded the cost of the State at a moderate rate then we, the UK, would not have been the worst placed economy to weather that storm. The claim that the UK would have collapsed if NL had not gone on such a spending spree is absolute BS. Not only did Brown sanction borrowing to fuel current Public Sector consumption he also signed off on >£250b of the most expensive and often misguided PFI known to man.

It is telling that the Usuals have had to scrap for justifications post expenditure.


http://media.pimco.com/PublishingImages/NR/rdonlyres/1909F3B9-C29E-4A33-BAF8-1F376C95F8F4/7386/UpdatedChart1US1.gif
No you miss the point.
Borrowing began to be reigned-in, in 2005.
There was no reason to expect a meltdown in US sub prime mortgages to end up with their toxic debts being slipped into the international financial markets with such a decimating effect on Western economies.

How that was allowed to happen is the problem, it is also the question that needs to be addressed.

Continuing to avoid this basic problem while attempting to lay the blame at the feet of NL can only IMO be blamed on the political bias of those that do it.

If the "housing bubble" was such a big issue how come it has come and gone despite the meltdown?
If the country had not been in such a disgusting state after 18 years of Tory maladministration NL would not have to deal with the expensive mess they inherited.

And of course you ignore the loss of income from our Deregulated, Financial Services, Free Market approach to earning a living in the world. And the damage done to the Banks that have had a negative knock-on effect on rebuilding our economy.

All is down to the greater sharing of the economic wealth of the country, a typical greedy Tory attitude.
Again you avoid the obvious. The meltdown did not cause the deficit this was caused by spending > revenues. As we have seen the revenue streams were not sustainable.
Anyway not even Jesus Christus could persuade you otherwise so basically such a debate with you is a complete waste of time. Seems that you have decided to take on the rest of the World peddling myths that have long been dispelled. Why? To protect Politicians, you must be joking.
I note that you always avoid any justification of NL borrowing to fuel current consumption and that is exactly what they did. Please do not insult me with the smoke that such borrowing was spent on infrastructure as it wasn't that was what the PFGI waste was for.

Enough C2, enough.

Correct, in so far as the meltdown did not cause (all of) the deficit, but it did cause the deficit to spiral out of control.

Why the likes of yourself choose to ignore this fact can only be down to the level of political bias that influences the thought processes.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Malum Unus
Jan 7 2015, 09:59 AM
Steve K
Jan 6 2015, 09:39 PM
C-too
Jan 6 2015, 09:28 AM
Steve K
Jan 5 2015, 10:11 PM
Anyone want to endorse that post by C-Too? (Assuming they can decypher the corrupting of the quote system) Otherwise it's ignored
You appear to be running and hiding from information you do not like..

The international financial meltdown was a reality from which you have no escape. End of.
No, you decided to try to make this an offensive insult throwing contest. Not doing that.

I do note that no one has yet endorsed what passes for logic in your later posts so as stated I will ignore them.


Are you really surprised?

There IS a reason he's on at least several peoples ignore lists, yes it may not be seen as entirely appropriate to just ignore someone on a debate forum, but when said ignored person has no concept of how debate works, it's for the best.

I wouldn't put C-Too on an ignore list. I won't get thanked for this but by and large C-Too's one of the better posters on here (so are you). We will always have disagreements - so?

I won't defend his attack on me though and I won't get goaded into a ban provoking tit for tat exchange in the main forum. But I will say this, to me it all went south when RJD made an offensive OTT attack on C-Too in post 169. by calling C-Too a liar. C-Too seems to have made the mistake others make here in assuming RJD and myself are of like minds almost co-joined twins. We aren't, we have been disagreeing on forums various for 10 years now and for goodness sake he support a certain team in red and I support a far finer club *. It wasn't for me to report that post though.



* well in my reality I do
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ACH1967
Member Avatar
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Jan 7 2015, 10:15 PM
Malum Unus
Jan 7 2015, 09:59 AM
Steve K
Jan 6 2015, 09:39 PM
C-too
Jan 6 2015, 09:28 AM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep
No, you decided to try to make this an offensive insult throwing contest. Not doing that.

I do note that no one has yet endorsed what passes for logic in your later posts so as stated I will ignore them.


Are you really surprised?

There IS a reason he's on at least several peoples ignore lists, yes it may not be seen as entirely appropriate to just ignore someone on a debate forum, but when said ignored person has no concept of how debate works, it's for the best.

I wouldn't put C-Too on an ignore list. I won't get thanked for this but by and large C-Too's one of the better posters on here (so are you). We will always have disagreements - so?

I won't defend his attack on me though and I won't get goaded into a ban provoking tit for tat exchange in the main forum. But I will say this, to me it all went south when RJD made an offensive OTT attack on C-Too in post 169. by calling C-Too a liar. C-Too seems to have made the mistake others make here in assuming RJD and myself are of like minds almost co-joined twins. We aren't, we have been disagreeing on forums various for 10 years now and for goodness sake he support a certain team in red and I support a far finer club *. It wasn't for me to report that post though.



* well in my reality I do
I don't know Steve, his constant "it's all beacuse of the global financial meltdown" line is starting to grate and his slavish defence of everything labour is pushing him towards my ignore list.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
ACH1967
Jan 8 2015, 08:57 AM
Steve K
Jan 7 2015, 10:15 PM
Malum Unus
Jan 7 2015, 09:59 AM
Steve K
Jan 6 2015, 09:39 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep


Are you really surprised?

There IS a reason he's on at least several peoples ignore lists, yes it may not be seen as entirely appropriate to just ignore someone on a debate forum, but when said ignored person has no concept of how debate works, it's for the best.

I wouldn't put C-Too on an ignore list. I won't get thanked for this but by and large C-Too's one of the better posters on here (so are you). We will always have disagreements - so?

I won't defend his attack on me though and I won't get goaded into a ban provoking tit for tat exchange in the main forum. But I will say this, to me it all went south when RJD made an offensive OTT attack on C-Too in post 169. by calling C-Too a liar. C-Too seems to have made the mistake others make here in assuming RJD and myself are of like minds almost co-joined twins. We aren't, we have been disagreeing on forums various for 10 years now and for goodness sake he support a certain team in red and I support a far finer club *. It wasn't for me to report that post though.



* well in my reality I do
I don't know Steve, his constant "it's all beacuse of the global financial meltdown" line is starting to grate and his slavish defence of everything labour is pushing him towards my ignore list.
I do not defend "everything Labour" in fact I have more than once listed some of the things I disagree with that NL did. I do defend NL against misinformation and biased insinuation. Why you might have a problem with that is for you to answer.

I have never claimed "it's all because of the global financial meltdown", I just seek recognition of the effect the meltdown has had. Again, if you have a problem with that, then that is something you need to answer for yourself and to yourself, not for me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ACH1967
Member Avatar
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
C-too
Jan 8 2015, 09:09 AM
ACH1967
Jan 8 2015, 08:57 AM
Steve K
Jan 7 2015, 10:15 PM
Malum Unus
Jan 7 2015, 09:59 AM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep
I wouldn't put C-Too on an ignore list. I won't get thanked for this but by and large C-Too's one of the better posters on here (so are you). We will always have disagreements - so?

I won't defend his attack on me though and I won't get goaded into a ban provoking tit for tat exchange in the main forum. But I will say this, to me it all went south when RJD made an offensive OTT attack on C-Too in post 169. by calling C-Too a liar. C-Too seems to have made the mistake others make here in assuming RJD and myself are of like minds almost co-joined twins. We aren't, we have been disagreeing on forums various for 10 years now and for goodness sake he support a certain team in red and I support a far finer club *. It wasn't for me to report that post though.



* well in my reality I do
I don't know Steve, his constant "it's all beacuse of the global financial meltdown" line is starting to grate and his slavish defence of everything labour is pushing him towards my ignore list.
I do not defend "everything Labour" in fact I have more than once listed some of the things I disagree with that NL did. I do defend NL against misinformation and biased insinuation. Why you might have a problem with that is for you to answer.

I have never claimed "it's all because of the global financial meltdown", I just seek recognition of the effect the meltdown has had. Again, if you have a problem with that, then that is something you need to answer for yourself and to yourself, not for me.
The blurry line between a claim and an inference can be very useful if one is so inclined.

I have clearly missed the emails where you criticise labour.

I suppose I am just getting tired with the repetition of your responses BUT I find the right wings repetition just as tiresome. I find that all it does (from both sides of the discussion) is obfuscates and distracts rather than enlightens hence my frustration.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
krugerman
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
Saying that the deficit is Labours fault is equivelant to saying the blitz was Churchills fault, or that some flooding was the result of firemen putting a fire out using water.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
ACH1967
Jan 8 2015, 08:57 AM

I don't know Steve, his constant "it's all beacuse of the global financial meltdown" line is starting to grate and his slavish defence of everything labour is pushing him towards my ignore list.
There is also a constant "it's all because of the Labour Party there was a global financial meltdown" line that is starting to grate and a is slavish Tory attack on Labour for political gain.
It is no defence from either side to say they "they do not place all the blame on *********". As has been noted, even the PM never tires of accusing Labour for the "mess".

Edited by Affa, Jan 8 2015, 02:19 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Affa
Jan 8 2015, 02:18 PM
ACH1967
Jan 8 2015, 08:57 AM

I don't know Steve, his constant "it's all beacuse of the global financial meltdown" line is starting to grate and his slavish defence of everything labour is pushing him towards my ignore list.
There is also a constant "it's all because of the Labour Party there was a global financial meltdown" line that is starting to grate . .
No one has said that Affa

What has been said is that the senior labour party leadership (ie Gordon and Balls) were so reckless that they left the UK with an inevitable domestic slump and in no way prepared to ride out the global meltdown without serious problems.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Jan 8 2015, 03:03 PM
Affa
Jan 8 2015, 02:18 PM
ACH1967
Jan 8 2015, 08:57 AM

I don't know Steve, his constant "it's all beacuse of the global financial meltdown" line is starting to grate and his slavish defence of everything labour is pushing him towards my ignore list.
There is also a constant "it's all because of the Labour Party there was a global financial meltdown" line that is starting to grate . .
No one has said that Affa

What has been said is that the senior labour party leadership (ie Gordon and Balls) were so reckless that they left the UK with an inevitable domestic slump and in no way prepared to ride out the global meltdown without serious problems.
I hope we can put aside our recent altercations. (Mild as I thought they were).

I'm sure it has been well argued by now that whichever way one looks at the situation pre meltdown, it is not as simplistic as to claim that NL just got it wrong.

There was much to be done like for instance bringing NHS spending up to the average of GDP spent by other countries. Perhaps NL attempted to do too much too quickly? I don't know. But we are apparently a rich country and IMO such aims should not have been beyond our reach.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Don't really have any issues with that ^. NHS spending is a complex topic and there's another thread on that.

And yes lets move on (actually I start each day with a clean sheet)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
Affa
Jan 7 2015, 02:20 PM
RJD
Jan 7 2015, 09:18 AM
Posted Image

The Ring of Fire


Just to remark that this Ring of Fire clearly demonstrates that Socialist Countries avoided getting burned whereas The More Capitalist nations faired worst.
Really? Which one is the Socialist country? The Nordics are not Socialist. France is about the closest you will get.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Jan 8 2015, 04:47 PM
Affa
Jan 7 2015, 02:20 PM
RJD
Jan 7 2015, 09:18 AM
Posted Image

The Ring of Fire


Just to remark that this Ring of Fire clearly demonstrates that Socialist Countries avoided getting burned whereas The More Capitalist nations faired worst.
Really? Which one is the Socialist country? The Nordics are not Socialist. France is about the closest you will get.
Did I just hear you fire up the semantics goal post moving JCB?

Remember societies that actually acknowledge that people make up societies and business opportunities and corporate cock sucking do not always make for better prospects for the majority, this is what is meant by some nations who are clearly capitalist but are still in favour of stable and equitable societies and longer term planning, these nations are more socialist in outlook, they do not have collective farms or gulags and measure productivity by beetroot production per head of population. See it's easy when you think about it!

File under stories about my days in East Germany and a book I read about the CCCP.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rich
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
"The real facts of this matter is that some of our public services, in particular our NHS was in a shocking state in 1997, thats the blunt truth, the investment put into those public services which some here criticise, was not onlt desperately needed, it was also supported and endorsed by the majority of the people."

What do you think of the NHS now after four years of maintaining the funding level? do you agree that to keep funding the body without reforms is good value for the taxpayer or should it always be a sacred cow and a bottomless pit for throwing money into?, if you do agree to reforms, where would you start?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tigger
Jan 8 2015, 07:40 PM
Did I just hear you fire up the semantics goal post moving JCB?

Remember societies that actually acknowledge that people make up societies and business opportunities and corporate cock sucking do not always make for better prospects for the majority, this is what is meant by some nations who are clearly capitalist but are still in favour of stable and equitable societies and longer term planning, these nations are more socialist in outlook, they do not have collective farms or gulags and measure productivity by beetroot production per head of population. See it's easy when you think about it!

File under stories about my days in East Germany and a book I read about the CCCP.


He didn't like the inference, the indication that his entire economic ethos has the opposite effect of what he determines it delivers.

Producing the now predictable response of denial without the comfort of an alibi.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Rich
Jan 8 2015, 07:57 PM
"The real facts of this matter is that some of our public services, in particular our NHS was in a shocking state in 1997, thats the blunt truth, the investment put into those public services which some here criticise, was not onlt desperately needed, it was also supported and endorsed by the majority of the people."

What do you think of the NHS now after four years of maintaining the funding level? do you agree that to keep funding the body without reforms is good value for the taxpayer or should it always be a sacred cow and a bottomless pit for throwing money into?, if you do agree to reforms, where would you start?
Just about any international comparison you could find by employing the services of Google would reveal that overall the NHS does fairly well in comparison to other nations who spend similar amounts, this clearly nulls your main point. Additionally and excusing the US in which healthcare is primarily a money making exercise, nations that spend more get better health services and those that spend less get a worse deal. By European standards we are mid table.

Quality healthcare costs money and that is the bottom line, and if you find this objectionable there are plenty of private providers out there only too happy to take your money, but be careful they are less well regulated being businesses........... :)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
krugerman
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
Rich
Jan 8 2015, 07:57 PM
"The real facts of this matter is that some of our public services, in particular our NHS was in a shocking state in 1997, thats the blunt truth, the investment put into those public services which some here criticise, was not onlt desperately needed, it was also supported and endorsed by the majority of the people."

What do you think of the NHS now after four years of maintaining the funding level? do you agree that to keep funding the body without reforms is good value for the taxpayer or should it always be a sacred cow and a bottomless pit for throwing money into?, if you do agree to reforms, where would you start?
The only people who thought the NHS needed a colossal reorganisation ( so called "reforms" ) was the government, every professional body from the Royal College of Pysychiatrists to the Hospital Consultants & Specialist Association ( of which my wife is a member ) opposed the unecessary and costly reforms.

The so called "reforms" will not make anything any better, all evidence so far suggests it has made things much worse, and we all know that the reforms were merely a smokescreen to allow for the mass privatization of our NHS, mostly by companies which donate money to the Conservative Party



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
krugerman
Jan 8 2015, 10:16 PM


The so called "reforms" will not make anything any better, all evidence so far suggests it has made things much worse, and we all know that the reforms were merely a smokescreen to allow for the mass privatization of our NHS, mostly by companies which donate money to the Conservative Party




Don't you think that our National Press, the body that declares it is the Guardian of the people (and so must not be regulated) ought to be more critical of government moves to wreck the NHS?

Why they are not is of course because these too are part of the plot, part of the State organisation that more or less dictates everything in our lives - sod democracy when the Corporate empire hegemony OWNS everything!

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ACH1967
Member Avatar
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
krugerman
Jan 8 2015, 10:16 PM
Rich
Jan 8 2015, 07:57 PM
"The real facts of this matter is that some of our public services, in particular our NHS was in a shocking state in 1997, thats the blunt truth, the investment put into those public services which some here criticise, was not onlt desperately needed, it was also supported and endorsed by the majority of the people."

What do you think of the NHS now after four years of maintaining the funding level? do you agree that to keep funding the body without reforms is good value for the taxpayer or should it always be a sacred cow and a bottomless pit for throwing money into?, if you do agree to reforms, where would you start?
The only people who thought the NHS needed a colossal reorganisation ( so called "reforms" ) was the government, every professional body from the Royal College of Pysychiatrists to the Hospital Consultants & Specialist Association ( of which my wife is a member ) opposed the unecessary and costly reforms.

The so called "reforms" will not make anything any better, all evidence so far suggests it has made things much worse, and we all know that the reforms were merely a smokescreen to allow for the mass privatization of our NHS, mostly by companies which donate money to the Conservative Party



Mass privatisation ?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
krugerman
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
ACH1967
Jan 9 2015, 08:22 AM
krugerman
Jan 8 2015, 10:16 PM
Rich
Jan 8 2015, 07:57 PM
"The real facts of this matter is that some of our public services, in particular our NHS was in a shocking state in 1997, thats the blunt truth, the investment put into those public services which some here criticise, was not onlt desperately needed, it was also supported and endorsed by the majority of the people."

What do you think of the NHS now after four years of maintaining the funding level? do you agree that to keep funding the body without reforms is good value for the taxpayer or should it always be a sacred cow and a bottomless pit for throwing money into?, if you do agree to reforms, where would you start?
The only people who thought the NHS needed a colossal reorganisation ( so called "reforms" ) was the government, every professional body from the Royal College of Pysychiatrists to the Hospital Consultants & Specialist Association ( of which my wife is a member ) opposed the unecessary and costly reforms.

The so called "reforms" will not make anything any better, all evidence so far suggests it has made things much worse, and we all know that the reforms were merely a smokescreen to allow for the mass privatization of our NHS, mostly by companies which donate money to the Conservative Party



Mass privatisation ?
A third of NHS contracts have gone to the private sector since this government’s NHS reorganisation kicked in during 2012, the level of privatization is growing and expanding.

A contract worth up £5 billion is being advertised by NHS England to provide commissioning support services (the bodies who handle the administration and purchasing of services by local CCGs). An arms manufacturer, an Indian call centre company, a Japanese electronics giant and disgraced outsourcing companies G4S and Serco are among those interested in bidding

NHS spending has doubled on private ambulances used for 999
_____________________________________________________



An NHS hospital has been forced to scrap highly rated services for patients with severe skin conditions including skin cancer after an “exodus” of senior doctors reluctant to work for a private-sector subcontractor.

Nottingham University Hospitals Trust said it would no longer be able to provide acute adult dermatology, including emergency care, after losing six of its eight consultants.

Five of those departing are understood to have left rather than transfer to Circle, a private healthcare company which won a contract to provide most of the local dermatology services last year. The closure of the service has raised concerns about the impact of privatisation on the NHS, with doctors worried about job security in the private sector.

The trust lost out to Circle, despite warnings from senior doctors that they would leave rather than be transferred out of the NHS, the Health Service Journal reported.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/nhs-services-cut-in-nottingham-after-doctors-quit-rather-than-work-for-private-firm-9931763.html
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
Affa
Jan 8 2015, 07:58 PM
Tigger
Jan 8 2015, 07:40 PM
Did I just hear you fire up the semantics goal post moving JCB?

Remember societies that actually acknowledge that people make up societies and business opportunities and corporate cock sucking do not always make for better prospects for the majority, this is what is meant by some nations who are clearly capitalist but are still in favour of stable and equitable societies and longer term planning, these nations are more socialist in outlook, they do not have collective farms or gulags and measure productivity by beetroot production per head of population. See it's easy when you think about it!

File under stories about my days in East Germany and a book I read about the CCCP.


He didn't like the inference, the indication that his entire economic ethos has the opposite effect of what he determines it delivers.

Producing the now predictable response of denial without the comfort of an alibi.

I note the question has been avoided, yet again. Seems to me that when the Usuals are pinned down and are expected to articulate they resort to smear.



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
krugerman
Jan 8 2015, 10:16 PM
Rich
Jan 8 2015, 07:57 PM
"The real facts of this matter is that some of our public services, in particular our NHS was in a shocking state in 1997, thats the blunt truth, the investment put into those public services which some here criticise, was not onlt desperately needed, it was also supported and endorsed by the majority of the people."

What do you think of the NHS now after four years of maintaining the funding level? do you agree that to keep funding the body without reforms is good value for the taxpayer or should it always be a sacred cow and a bottomless pit for throwing money into?, if you do agree to reforms, where would you start?
The only people who thought the NHS needed a colossal reorganisation ( so called "reforms" ) was the government, every professional body from the Royal College of Pysychiatrists to the Hospital Consultants & Specialist Association ( of which my wife is a member ) opposed the unecessary and costly reforms.

The so called "reforms" will not make anything any better, all evidence so far suggests it has made things much worse, and we all know that the reforms were merely a smokescreen to allow for the mass privatization of our NHS, mostly by companies which donate money to the Conservative Party



Are these the same companies who have erstwhile NL MPs and Ministers on the Boards of Directors?

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
krugerman
Jan 9 2015, 02:54 PM
ACH1967
Jan 9 2015, 08:22 AM
krugerman
Jan 8 2015, 10:16 PM
Rich
Jan 8 2015, 07:57 PM
"The real facts of this matter is that some of our public services, in particular our NHS was in a shocking state in 1997, thats the blunt truth, the investment put into those public services which some here criticise, was not onlt desperately needed, it was also supported and endorsed by the majority of the people."

What do you think of the NHS now after four years of maintaining the funding level? do you agree that to keep funding the body without reforms is good value for the taxpayer or should it always be a sacred cow and a bottomless pit for throwing money into?, if you do agree to reforms, where would you start?
The only people who thought the NHS needed a colossal reorganisation ( so called "reforms" ) was the government, every professional body from the Royal College of Pysychiatrists to the Hospital Consultants & Specialist Association ( of which my wife is a member ) opposed the unecessary and costly reforms.

The so called "reforms" will not make anything any better, all evidence so far suggests it has made things much worse, and we all know that the reforms were merely a smokescreen to allow for the mass privatization of our NHS, mostly by companies which donate money to the Conservative Party



Mass privatisation ?
A third of NHS contracts have gone to the private sector since this government’s NHS reorganisation kicked in during 2012, the level of privatization is growing and expanding.

A contract worth up £5 billion is being advertised by NHS England to provide commissioning support services (the bodies who handle the administration and purchasing of services by local CCGs). An arms manufacturer, an Indian call centre company, a Japanese electronics giant and disgraced outsourcing companies G4S and Serco are among those interested in bidding

NHS spending has doubled on private ambulances used for 999
_____________________________________________________



An NHS hospital has been forced to scrap highly rated services for patients with severe skin conditions including skin cancer after an “exodus” of senior doctors reluctant to work for a private-sector subcontractor.

Nottingham University Hospitals Trust said it would no longer be able to provide acute adult dermatology, including emergency care, after losing six of its eight consultants.

Five of those departing are understood to have left rather than transfer to Circle, a private healthcare company which won a contract to provide most of the local dermatology services last year. The closure of the service has raised concerns about the impact of privatisation on the NHS, with doctors worried about job security in the private sector.

The trust lost out to Circle, despite warnings from senior doctors that they would leave rather than be transferred out of the NHS, the Health Service Journal reported.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/nhs-services-cut-in-nottingham-after-doctors-quit-rather-than-work-for-private-firm-9931763.html
The conclusion is that someone must be desperate to try anything but more Public Sector failures. K please do not brush under the carpets the legions of Public Sector failures and abuses of authority reported over the last decade and understand why it is that many have lost confidence in these people. Maybe the Public Sector needs to shape up and get it's act together before the Gov. decides that the whole Shooting Match would be better off elsewhere. The claim that Politicians are feeding friends is bogus, they just do not trust Public Servants much and have decided that the smack of competition and the possibility, God forbid, that they might lose their jobs might spur them on. Seems to be working with you.







Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ACH1967
Member Avatar
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
krugerman
Jan 9 2015, 02:54 PM
ACH1967
Jan 9 2015, 08:22 AM
krugerman
Jan 8 2015, 10:16 PM
Rich
Jan 8 2015, 07:57 PM
"The real facts of this matter is that some of our public services, in particular our NHS was in a shocking state in 1997, thats the blunt truth, the investment put into those public services which some here criticise, was not onlt desperately needed, it was also supported and endorsed by the majority of the people."

What do you think of the NHS now after four years of maintaining the funding level? do you agree that to keep funding the body without reforms is good value for the taxpayer or should it always be a sacred cow and a bottomless pit for throwing money into?, if you do agree to reforms, where would you start?
The only people who thought the NHS needed a colossal reorganisation ( so called "reforms" ) was the government, every professional body from the Royal College of Pysychiatrists to the Hospital Consultants & Specialist Association ( of which my wife is a member ) opposed the unecessary and costly reforms.

The so called "reforms" will not make anything any better, all evidence so far suggests it has made things much worse, and we all know that the reforms were merely a smokescreen to allow for the mass privatization of our NHS, mostly by companies which donate money to the Conservative Party



Mass privatisation ?
A third of NHS contracts have gone to the private sector since this government’s NHS reorganisation kicked in during 2012, the level of privatization is growing and expanding.

A contract worth up £5 billion is being advertised by NHS England to provide commissioning support services (the bodies who handle the administration and purchasing of services by local CCGs). An arms manufacturer, an Indian call centre company, a Japanese electronics giant and disgraced outsourcing companies G4S and Serco are among those interested in bidding

NHS spending has doubled on private ambulances used for 999
_____________________________________________________



An NHS hospital has been forced to scrap highly rated services for patients with severe skin conditions including skin cancer after an “exodus” of senior doctors reluctant to work for a private-sector subcontractor.

Nottingham University Hospitals Trust said it would no longer be able to provide acute adult dermatology, including emergency care, after losing six of its eight consultants.

Five of those departing are understood to have left rather than transfer to Circle, a private healthcare company which won a contract to provide most of the local dermatology services last year. The closure of the service has raised concerns about the impact of privatisation on the NHS, with doctors worried about job security in the private sector.

The trust lost out to Circle, despite warnings from senior doctors that they would leave rather than be transferred out of the NHS, the Health Service Journal reported.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/nhs-services-cut-in-nottingham-after-doctors-quit-rather-than-work-for-private-firm-9931763.html
Isn't the total budget that has been contracted out less than 4%?

Do you consider 4% to be mass privatisation?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Jan 9 2015, 02:58 PM
I note the question has been avoided, yet again. Seems to me that when the Usuals are pinned down and are expected to articulate they resort to smear.





No it hasn't!
Tigger gave you enough of an answer, an accurate unbiased reply, that identified what 'socialism' 21st Century style is really about. And that distinction adequately proves my comment/observation and wrecks your own outdated pre-Perestroika version of what socialism is and the virtues of greedy Capitalism.





Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Jan 9 2015, 03:06 PM
krugerman
Jan 9 2015, 02:54 PM
ACH1967
Jan 9 2015, 08:22 AM
krugerman
Jan 8 2015, 10:16 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep
Mass privatisation ?
A third of NHS contracts have gone to the private sector since this government’s NHS reorganisation kicked in during 2012, the level of privatization is growing and expanding.

A contract worth up £5 billion is being advertised by NHS England to provide commissioning support services (the bodies who handle the administration and purchasing of services by local CCGs). An arms manufacturer, an Indian call centre company, a Japanese electronics giant and disgraced outsourcing companies G4S and Serco are among those interested in bidding

NHS spending has doubled on private ambulances used for 999
_____________________________________________________



An NHS hospital has been forced to scrap highly rated services for patients with severe skin conditions including skin cancer after an “exodus” of senior doctors reluctant to work for a private-sector subcontractor.

Nottingham University Hospitals Trust said it would no longer be able to provide acute adult dermatology, including emergency care, after losing six of its eight consultants.

Five of those departing are understood to have left rather than transfer to Circle, a private healthcare company which won a contract to provide most of the local dermatology services last year. The closure of the service has raised concerns about the impact of privatisation on the NHS, with doctors worried about job security in the private sector.

The trust lost out to Circle, despite warnings from senior doctors that they would leave rather than be transferred out of the NHS, the Health Service Journal reported.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/nhs-services-cut-in-nottingham-after-doctors-quit-rather-than-work-for-private-firm-9931763.html
The conclusion is that someone must be desperate to try anything but more Public Sector failures. K please do not brush under the carpets the legions of Public Sector failures and abuses of authority reported over the last decade and understand why it is that many have lost confidence in these people. Maybe the Public Sector needs to shape up and get it's act together before the Gov. decides that the whole Shooting Match would be better off elsewhere. The claim that Politicians are feeding friends is bogus, they just do not trust Public Servants much and have decided that the smack of competition and the possibility, God forbid, that they might lose their jobs might spur them on. Seems to be working with you.







It's very simple O master of market forces, if you try and treat the large numbers of highly skilled people who work in the NHS as little more than semi disposable shop workers and production units most simply will leave.

What a shame your education never quite got to the level of these doctors, consultants and scientists, if you had you might have actually have been some use to the society you have lived in.....

Those of us still active in the world of business live by that old adage, you pay peanuts and you get monkeys.

Have a banana on me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rich
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
krugerman
Jan 8 2015, 10:16 PM
Rich
Jan 8 2015, 07:57 PM
"The real facts of this matter is that some of our public services, in particular our NHS was in a shocking state in 1997, thats the blunt truth, the investment put into those public services which some here criticise, was not onlt desperately needed, it was also supported and endorsed by the majority of the people."

What do you think of the NHS now after four years of maintaining the funding level? do you agree that to keep funding the body without reforms is good value for the taxpayer or should it always be a sacred cow and a bottomless pit for throwing money into?, if you do agree to reforms, where would you start?
The only people who thought the NHS needed a colossal reorganisation ( so called "reforms" ) was the government, every professional body from the Royal College of Pysychiatrists to the Hospital Consultants & Specialist Association ( of which my wife is a member ) opposed the unecessary and costly reforms.

The so called "reforms" will not make anything any better, all evidence so far suggests it has made things much worse, and we all know that the reforms were merely a smokescreen to allow for the mass privatization of our NHS, mostly by companies which donate money to the Conservative Party




So, out of the 14 hospitals so far that have declared themselves to be in a crisis situation, how many of them are privately run and for a profit that is returned to shareholders and investors?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Rich
Jan 9 2015, 07:34 PM
krugerman
Jan 8 2015, 10:16 PM
Rich
Jan 8 2015, 07:57 PM
"The real facts of this matter is that some of our public services, in particular our NHS was in a shocking state in 1997, thats the blunt truth, the investment put into those public services which some here criticise, was not onlt desperately needed, it was also supported and endorsed by the majority of the people."

What do you think of the NHS now after four years of maintaining the funding level? do you agree that to keep funding the body without reforms is good value for the taxpayer or should it always be a sacred cow and a bottomless pit for throwing money into?, if you do agree to reforms, where would you start?
The only people who thought the NHS needed a colossal reorganisation ( so called "reforms" ) was the government, every professional body from the Royal College of Pysychiatrists to the Hospital Consultants & Specialist Association ( of which my wife is a member ) opposed the unecessary and costly reforms.

The so called "reforms" will not make anything any better, all evidence so far suggests it has made things much worse, and we all know that the reforms were merely a smokescreen to allow for the mass privatization of our NHS, mostly by companies which donate money to the Conservative Party




So, out of the 14 hospitals so far that have declared themselves to be in a crisis situation, how many of them are privately run and for a profit that is returned to shareholders and investors?
How many have been undermined by a Tory government just as in the 1980s?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Rich
Jan 9 2015, 07:34 PM
krugerman
Jan 8 2015, 10:16 PM
Rich
Jan 8 2015, 07:57 PM
"The real facts of this matter is that some of our public services, in particular our NHS was in a shocking state in 1997, thats the blunt truth, the investment put into those public services which some here criticise, was not onlt desperately needed, it was also supported and endorsed by the majority of the people."

What do you think of the NHS now after four years of maintaining the funding level? do you agree that to keep funding the body without reforms is good value for the taxpayer or should it always be a sacred cow and a bottomless pit for throwing money into?, if you do agree to reforms, where would you start?
The only people who thought the NHS needed a colossal reorganisation ( so called "reforms" ) was the government, every professional body from the Royal College of Pysychiatrists to the Hospital Consultants & Specialist Association ( of which my wife is a member ) opposed the unecessary and costly reforms.

The so called "reforms" will not make anything any better, all evidence so far suggests it has made things much worse, and we all know that the reforms were merely a smokescreen to allow for the mass privatization of our NHS, mostly by companies which donate money to the Conservative Party




So, out of the 14 hospitals so far that have declared themselves to be in a crisis situation, how many of them are privately run and for a profit that is returned to shareholders and investors?
Not the point, we were told and some on here keep telling us that private and for profit is invariably better.

This is clearly bollocks.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create a free forum in seconds.
Learn More · Sign-up Now
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic »
Add Reply