Politics, politics, politics

[parklane1]

And while Brisket unravels, our government is neglecting schools, the civil services, hospitals, reforms...the real things that can make a difference to people lives. Imo.

A very heartfelt post which in most part i disagree with but as you say Stop! Hammer time. I feel i must pull you up on the bit above though. If you think the government has only been neglecting schools etc since Brexit then you are dreaming, the government has been neglecting all those things for years, the CRISIS in the NHS has not just developed its been going down the tubes for years.

And that neglect has helped the majority vote for Brexit.

 

[Gutter Boy]

It seems that Brexit is highly personal to you. Tribal. Similar to the bile we feel for the arse. It doesn't seem to be much to do with what is best for the country.

I get that the media is biased, but when a paper like the FT are so entrenched in a point of view, it is because they are sure its not in the interests of us, the U.K. It drives them bonkers because its so irrational. Its a bit like a vote for us to get rid of our Argentinian manager. If there was a vote to oust Poch, you would feel it was plain and simply not in our interests. That's how the FT feel. That's how people who weigh up the cold positives and negatives from a financial perspective feel. the fact that they pised you off, just shows how irrational your belief in Brexit is. With respect. And I would feel the same as there is a lot of provocative black or white nonsense - when something this complex is never that simple. but it is all very tribal; those in the remain camp are no better, probably worse.

From my perspective change is a good thing generally. Its advantageous to shake things up. There are merits to the UK becoming more agile, and free from the interests of many nations. But in this particular case, there are many more advantages to being part of a union that puts free trade at its core. The EU is in essence a customs union. Its also a union born out of war. A continent having a mechanism to trade and work, and we haven't seen member countries at conflict since it was formed. But these arguments seem to be totally irrelevant to many. Do you think that is because when we go there, and weigh things up honestly, there is a very strong rational for being part of the customs union? Is that why instead we have emotive images of Turks lining up, or 350m to the NHS?

The EU doesn't control us really. It takes away some of the hassle to do with international trade, it doesn't really impact on sovereignty. But why make it about reality? When it can be reduced to a them and us?

Ultimately BoJo was right when he Tweeted a year ago, that leaving the EU is simply a massive waste of our governments time. How can you want to leave the EU but still be part of it? How can we exit but remain in the single market? The EU is a massive part of the world, the part that is physically closest to us. Statements like 'I want to be part of a country that trades with the world' are simply at odds with a Bread Stick reality.

I hope the government can deliver the impossible, exit a customs union only to remain in it for trade, while providing more nimble access to all other countries. Everyone does. It's just that some people can not see it happening. And while Brisket unravels, our government is neglecting schools, the civil services, hospitals, reforms...the real things that can make a difference to people lives. Imo.

A customs union means external barriers. It means 15% of the world has decided to be protectionist and close itself off to the rest of the world.

The goal isn't to leave the union and remain in it. It's to leave it so we are free to trade competitively with the rest of the world, but then to negotiate ACCESS to the single market. Like Canada has.

 

[Gutter Boy]

A very heartfelt post which in most part i disagree with but as you say Stop! Hammer time. I feel i must pull you up on the bit above though. If you think the government has only been neglecting schools etc since Brexit then you are dreaming, the government has been neglecting all those things for years, the CRISIS in the NHS has not just developed its been going down the tubes for years.

And that neglect has helped the majority vote for Brexit.

It's not neglect. It's a lack of political confidence to do what's neccessary to make it a twenty-first century service. I.e. make it an insurance-based system like the Canadian or German model. The NHS is like keeping your 1989 Fiat Ono for sentimental reasons, when everyone else on the road is in their new Audis and Mercs. It's third world in its organisation and quality.

 

[Danishfurniturelover]

It seems that Brexit is highly personal to you. Tribal. Similar to the bile we feel for the arse. It doesn't seem to be much to do with what is best for the country.

I get that the media is biased, but when a paper like the FT are so entrenched in a point of view, it is because they are sure its not in the interests of us, the U.K. It drives them bonkers because its so irrational. Its a bit like a vote for us to get rid of our Argentinian manager. If there was a vote to oust Poch, you would feel it was plain and simply not in our interests. That's how the FT feel. That's how people who weigh up the cold positives and negatives from a financial perspective feel. the fact that they pised you off, just shows how irrational your belief in Brexit is. With respect. And I would feel the same as there is a lot of provocative black or white nonsense - when something this complex is never that simple. but it is all very tribal; those in the remain camp are no better, probably worse.

It is pretty obvious your out to get a rise from me because you do not agree with my point of view, sadly you can not bring yourself to even try to understand the others side point of view and it is why you will be destined to never understand us.

I get the remain people were worried about the impact on the economy, the ability to freely move around Europe and live and work in other European countries without getting work visas and the possible crack down on mass immigration and a cheaper Labour force, who coincidentally over time studies and research have shown tend to vote Labour(another reason Labour wanted mass immigration)

The FT holds itself up as an impartial website focused on the money markets, but it's editor received The Légion d'Honneur is France's highest military and civil award and did so for running a campaign purely to scare the market. It did indeed scare some junior traders in Asia in November resulting in a run on the pound.

The FT has whipped up hatred in politics at a far higher level then even the mail has managed, I am no fan of the mail. I went into my newsagents this weekend and saw the headline in the Mail about some Royal kids and the gushing made me queasy. But what the FT the "paper of the City" did was worse, at least Mark Carney had the decency to come out and admit the bank of England were over the top and got it wrong over the initial impact of Brexit(none of us know long term yet)

You go on to use an example of Poch and mention Argentina, it is clearly meant as a way to belittle me and my and millions of others point of views, it is not tribal. A paper that has direct influence in the City had an editor who was so far in cohorts with the European elite this country was trying to get itself away from he could not edit impartially and has damaged the prestige his paper was once held in.

I have explained why I voted out and would do so again, I will not say that everyone that voted out did so for the same reason, undoubtedly immigration was a big reason for many, but in the circles I move in, we all voted out for non migration rules. Unless you truly take the time to understand people and learn about them you will be destined to never understand them.

I explained in my previous post why I voted out, take the time to read it again. It is about Britain deciding our own rules, the EU thinks it is ok for criminals to have the vote, I do not think that someone who commits a crime is a fit judgement of character to decide who runs the country, just like they can not be a justice of the peace. It is down to Britain to decide if we want to have a trade deal with Australia or any other country and it has nothing to do with a bunch of people from Luxembourg of Belgium. It is down to Britain to decide how many migrants this country can sustainably take before our schools and doctors surgery collapses under the strain.

I do not want to see Britain part of an armed forces of Europe, mentioned by a few people in Brussels straight after we voted out, I do not want us to have our tax rates set in Brussels again something mentioned quite a lot by the people in Brussels. Europe is a wonderful place, I have been lucky to visit all the main countries and had a holiday home in Latvia where I have many friends, but the reason the Euro does not work(because the economies are so different) is the reason the EU can not work as anything except a trading block. The EU if it were a simple trading block would be a splendid idea that I would back to the hilt, but the people running it are federalists and they have an Empire in mind. I think the days of Empires are long gone, Britain had an Empire and we did not treat people well. Let us forge a new identity in the world and not hark after an Empire no matter how well meaning, they never turn out well.

 

[Danishfurniturelover]

I think most people who are actually left wing in their views (rather than tinkering around the edges of what a Tory government wants to do) were pretty evenly split between leave and remain. I voted remain, but I'm not a passionate remainer. My vote was simply "better the devil you know."

The really rabid remainers imo are the centrists i.e. those on the left of the Tory Party, those on the right of the Labour Party and the Lib Dems. There are exceptions, but mainly it's the Ken Clarke, Tony Blair, Nick Clegg types.

Yeah well even Corbyn was a leaver just did have the guts to say so. If only he would get rid of that stupid hat.

Saw a report on the internet about one of the guys involved in the Southern dispute who is a good friend of Corbyn and a union leader, he came out and said he wanted rid of the tory government(i have no great love for them) and how he used to get up an hour early just so he had longer in the day to hate Thatcher(pretty funny, but sad if actually true). Makes you wonder if it is all politically motivated that dispute.

I actually hope Corbyn wins the next election, he is an imbecile with no grasp of the economy. But like how I hate Trump and check out that thread I was the person who created it and did so slagging Trump off. I like to see a conviction politician get in to power and it would be as funny as fcuk to see Corbyn in downing street. Trump has made so many people I immensely dislike so angry and I imagine Corbyn would do the same if he got in, just at your next meeting Dza, tell him to get rid of the hat.

 

[Robspur12]

It's not neglect. It's a lack of political confidence to do what's neccessary to make it a twenty-first century service. I.e. make it an insurance-based system like the Canadian or German model. The NHS is like keeping your 1989 Fiat Ono for sentimental reasons, when everyone else on the road is in their new Audis and Mercs. It's third world in its organisation and quality.

Without doubt mate there are flaws in the National Health Service. But don't let the Tory, right wing rhetoric mess with your head, you are too intelligent for that. In the main it work's well. Life expectancy in the UK is higher than ever thanks in no small part to the healthcare system - vaccinations for all children, screening for adults, exercise referral programmes, subsidised prescriptions the list goes on.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/life-expectancy-at-older-ages-is-the-highest-its-ever-been

The Tories have never liked it because on the bottom line it appears only to be a huge net cost to the economy, they want the services provided by the state reduced and many of their MPs probably have private insurance plans so don't need it - unless they suffer a life threatening emergency of course. Btw the private healthcare insurance cherry picks the "easy wins" but leaves the NHS to pick up the not so lucrative or unglamorous, chronic and costly conditions.

Many people especially those whose families were/are not affluent are alive today thanks to the National Health Service. Sadly once many people start doing well they turn their backs on the public services that helped them up the ladder because they don't want to pay for them.

I don't take the NHS for granted because my family originate from a country overseas where there is no state healthcare system. The only public hospitals are run by charities. We complain about Mental Health services in this country, but where my parents came from until recently, mentally ill patients were instutionalised in the most archaic and frankly insanitary conditions. That is not to say that there is nothing to complain about in terms of mental health care in this country.

We are told the NHS is a bottomless pit of money and no money will ever be enough. We are told the NHS budget has not been cut. But here's the thing. When Blair took office in 1997, spending on the NHS as a proportion of GDP lagged far behind the US, France and Germany, after 18 years of Tory Government. The much maligned New Labour government then increased spending to bring it up to the level of our European neighbours. Now after austerity guess what? We are yet again lagging in terms of proportion spent as a percentage of GDP. Behind the states, France, Germany, Japan, Sweden and Portugal.

https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/blog/2...nding-compare-health-spending-internationally

Now I am not a corbynista and don't think his economics stand up but at least he cares if he is somewhat misguided. The Tories however, are totally disingenuous when it comes to the NHS.

 

[Danishfurniturelover]

Have life expectancy gone up in Germany, France and Holland?

Do they have a national health service?

 

[Robspur12]

Have life expectancy gone up in Germany, France and Holland?

Do they have a national health service?

No idea mate but their spending on healthcare as a proportion of GDP is more than us.

 

[the dza]

Yeah well even Corbyn was a leaver just did have the guts to say so. If only he would get rid of that stupid hat.

Saw a report on the internet about one of the guys involved in the Southern dispute who is a good friend of Corbyn and a union leader, he came out and said he wanted rid of the tory government(i have no great love for them) and how he used to get up an hour early just so he had longer in the day to hate Thatcher(pretty funny, but sad if actually true). Makes you wonder if it is all politically motivated that dispute.

I actually hope Corbyn wins the next election, he is an imbecile with no grasp of the economy. But like how I hate Trump and check out that thread I was the person who created it and did so slagging Trump off. I like to see a conviction politician get in to power and it would be as funny as fcuk to see Corbyn in downing street. Trump has made so many people I immensely dislike so angry and I imagine Corbyn would do the same if he got in, just at your next meeting Dza, tell him to get rid of the hat.

haha, if I ever meet old Jez, I will tell him to bin the hat...or wear it to Prime Minister's Questions, just to get them all going.

 

[Baleforce]

if labour fight the next election on a promise of increasing tax to a level that can sustain the NHS at an ideal service level how many votes would they get?

everyone thinks the NHS is a wonderful idea, because it is, but nobody wants to pay for it (or take personal responsibility for their own health*)

drugs and doctors are expensive, I don't think the tories have a grand plan to kill the NHS, they just can't see a way to make the numbers meet in the middle

*he says sipping a 10% belgian blonde ale

 

[Robspur12]

if labour fight the next election on a promise of increasing tax to a level that can sustain the NHS at an ideal service level how many votes would they get?

everyone thinks the NHS is a wonderful idea, because it is, but nobody wants to pay for it (or take personal responsibility for their own health*)

drugs and doctors are expensive, I don't think the tories have a grand plan to kill the NHS, they just can't see a way to make the numbers meet in the middle

*he says sipping a 10% belgian blonde ale

I don't disagree. The Tories don't want to destroy the NHS, they couldn't any way. But they are not interested in increasing spending on it because without increasing borrowing they would have to raise taxes, something which is politically unpalatable to them. That said I think many Tories are ideologically conflicted about a Service that is almost totally reliant on the state.

 

[Gutter Boy]

Without doubt mate there are flaws in the National Health Service. But don't let the Tory, right wing rhetoric mess with your head, you are too intelligent for that. In the main it work's well. Life expectancy in the UK is higher than ever thanks in no small part to the healthcare system - vaccinations for all children, screening for adults, exercise referral programmes, subsidised prescriptions the list goes on.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/life-expectancy-at-older-ages-is-the-highest-its-ever-been

The Tories have never liked it because on the bottom line it appears only to be a huge net cost to the economy, they want the services provided by the state reduced and many of their MPs probably have private insurance plans so don't need it - unless they suffer a life threatening emergency of course. Btw the private healthcare insurance cherry picks the "easy wins" but leaves the NHS to pick up the not so lucrative or unglamorous, chronic and costly conditions.

Many people especially those whose families were/are not affluent are alive today thanks to the National Health Service. Sadly once many people start doing well they turn their backs on the public services that helped them up the ladder because they don't want to pay for them.

I don't take the NHS for granted because my family originate from a country overseas where there is no state healthcare system. The only public hospitals are run by charities. We complain about Mental Health services in this country, but where my parents came from until recently, mentally ill patients were instutionalised in the most archaic and frankly insanitary conditions. That is not to say that there is nothing to complain about in terms of mental health care in this country.

We are told the NHS is a bottomless pit of money and no money will ever be enough. We are told the NHS budget has not been cut. But here's the thing. When Blair took office in 1997, spending on the NHS as a proportion of GDP lagged far behind the US, France and Germany, after 18 years of Tory Government. The much maligned new labour government then increased spending to bring it up to the level of our European. Now after austerity guess what? We are yet again lagging in terms of proportion spent as a percentage of GDP. Behind the states, France, Germany, Japan, Sweden and Portugal.

https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/blog/2...nding-compare-health-spending-internationally

Now I am not a corbynista and don't think his economics stand up but at least he cares if he is somewhat misguided. The Tories however, are totally disingenuous when it comes to the NHS.

It's the reactionary ethos of it that is the problem.

Here people get diagnosed with cancer in A&E, and usually die within a month.

Where there's an insurance-based system, people have regular checks and screens, stuff gets picked up and dealt with while it's at an early stage.

I think we should all pay more to get private/German/Canadian-level service. But it's got to be insurance-based to ensure proactivity around health checks and behaviours.

Double or treble the amount the NHS gets and it will still be as much of a shambles. It's not about the cash.

 

[Baleforce]

It's the reactionary ethos of it that is the problem.

Here people get diagnosed with cancer in A&E, and usually die within a month.

Where there's an insurance-based system, people have regular checks and screens, stuff gets picked up and dealt with while it's at an early stage.

I think we should all pay more to get private/German/Canadian-level service. But it's got to be insurance-based to ensure proactivity around health checks and behaviours.

Double or treble the amount the NHS gets and it will still be as much of a shambles. It's not about the cash.

people won't because it's expensive and most people think bad things won't happen to them

i'm a cynical miserable bastard who knows that only bad things happen to me though so i'm currently looking at private insurance, it's expensive, even at a subsidised rate through my company for full family cover, it's not an insignificant cost, even though we are both fortunate enough to be on a good salary

 

[Robspur12]

It's the reactionary ethos of it that is the problem.

Here people get diagnosed with cancer in A&E, and usually die within a month.

Where there's an insurance-based system, people have regular checks and screens, stuff gets picked up and dealt with while it's at an early stage.

I think we should all pay more to get private/German/Canadian-level service. But it's got to be insurance-based to ensure proactivity around health checks and behaviours.

Double or treble the amount the NHS gets and it will still be as much of a shambles. It's not about the cash.

It's far from a shambles.

 

[Baleforce]

at the sharp end it's still brilliant, both my father and son were in hospital over the holidays and I have no complaints over the care they received

getting a gp appt though is a whole other thing, even for my 6yr old daughter, when I was a kid we'd just get taken straight in to see a doctor or they would come to the house

right now, I think it is just about cash, we need more medical staff, we need to buy more expensive drugs and equipment

the problem is that the system is flying, you can't swap an engine on a plane whilst it's in the air, change in the NHS can only happen gradually

 

[the dza]

I think we should all pay more to get private/German/Canadian-level service. But it's got to be insurance-based to ensure proactivity around health checks and behaviours.

In that case, Americans would be the healthiest people on earth, no obesity etc.

Double or treble the amount the NHS gets and it will still be as much of a shambles. It's not about the cash.

We should try spending the equivalent amounts per capita of other developed, western countries and then see. At the moment, we expect our health service to do more with less. Spend the money first, then we can re-visit.

Tories are ideologically opposed to the NHS. In their spending cuts, they have undermined the social care provided by local authorities, causing more people to end up going to hospital when they don't need to be there. Many in the Tory party want the NHS to fail, regardless of whether it's possible to fund it properly and make it run smoothly. If people want an NHS that works for everyone, the Tory government has to be voted out.

 

[monkeybarry]

Have life expectancy gone up in Germany, France and Holland?

Do they have a national health service?

No, but they do more socially responsible governments and an electorate that will take to the streets rather than just tutt and post on Facebook

 

[scaramanga]

I don't disagree. The Tories don't want to destroy the NHS, they couldn't any way. But they are not interested in increasing spending on it because without increasing borrowing they would have to raise taxes, something which is politically unpalatable to them. That said I think many Tories are ideologically conflicted about a Service that is almost totally reliant on the state.

It's not that it's politically unpalatable to them, it's that it's political suicide for anyone.

Look what happened to Labour's chances when Ed "The Wrong" Miliband was pushed into admitting that taxation and borrowing would probably have to increase.

 

[Robspur12]

It's the reactionary ethos of it that is the problem.

Here people get diagnosed with cancer in A&E, and usually die within a month.

Where there's an insurance-based system, people have regular checks and screens, stuff gets picked up and dealt with while it's at an early stage.

I think we should all pay more to get private/German/Canadian-level service. But it's got to be insurance-based to ensure proactivity around health checks and behaviours.

Double or treble the amount the NHS gets and it will still be as much of a shambles. It's not about the cash.

Insurance and health is a nightmare combination. The number of exclusions from policies, their frequent unwillingness to treat chronic conditions such as Cancer, the increasing premiums with every claim, would the elderly even get cover? Many just take for granted the care which the NHS provides. It may not be perfect but it is a lot better when you look across a country's population than an insurance based system. We need to fund it properly instead of wasting money re-organizing it with every change of government.

 

[Robspur12]

It's not that it's politically unpalatable to them, it's that it's political suicide for anyone.

Look what happened to Labour's chances when Ed "The Wrong" Miliband was pushed into admitting that taxation and borrowing would probably have to increase.

Milliband lost for lots of reasons, the main one being that he did not come across as a good leader. I don't think that raising taxes to pay for specific things such as the NHS, if the argument was framed properly is politicsl suicide.