Eames Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 Sell off, outsource, privatisation. Call it what you will. It's private companies, often linked to the Tory party, making a profit from people being sick. It doesn't drive up standards or efficiency but some people get rich, so it's being done. Evidence? Because I would argue that the private sector is several times more efficient than the public. Presumably you also object to GlaxoSmithKline? Or Elastoplast? Or the bloke that makes sick bags because they too make a profit out of sick people.Or is it profit in general you object to? If the NHS remain free at the point of use but more efficient in its treatment of people where is the problem? :-) - how about a little word called accountability. I suppose all the banking / finance sector were more efficient than any state run sector? I suppose many companies who try and erode workers rights and evade paying a living wage are more efficient? Elastoplast are not a company as far as I know, and some of the pharmaceutical companies are very very good at research and development but the rest of society have to pay a massive price for that, for what is a basic part of a civilised society in the support and welfare of the health at least of each and everyone of us. Unless of course you subscribe that wealth = health? I would absolutely agree that the banking industry is more efficiently managed than the NHS...although clearly I am comparing apples with oranges. And yes those companies that keep wages as low as possible are clearly more efficient. Morally repugnant. But more efficient . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 Like promising to scrap tuition fees to win the students' vote when they knew they couldn't really do it, for example? Well, others break promises as well. I'm thinking more about the level of lying nastiness about opponents which they stoop to, especially in leaflets at election time. At the same time they present an image of a kindly vicar who is slightly dismayed that others are arguing about political issues, as though it's lowering the tone. Cognitive dissonance, or being a pack of two-faced lying toads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 I too will look forward to yours, seeing as you quoted me. I can't comment on the other bit as I don't know what free trade deal he is referring to. Is it just to do with the NHS or a general free trade deal. Colhint - so basically again you wont enter the spirit of debate other than a "ahh but ..." type retort. Is it that you agree that a lot of what is reported as fact is in reality myth? Come on surely there are enough comments being made by supporters of others than the Tory party for you to have a reasonable argument against them. What about the Grud article I posted as a starter for 10, or maybe Burnham's comments, they contain some reasonable statements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eames Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 Is that the Andy Burnham who is Shadow Health Minister the and Labour front bencher? because he of course has no interest on dressing up what is happening for his own political aims has he? Yes it is - well done. So I see that you wont even argue against the comments other than identifying who said it - something I had done anyway. Me thinks you may be struggling a bit for a reasonable answer to the points raised? No because I said in relation to the bedroom tax....what is happening and what Burnham was describing are dramatically different. As long as the NHS remains free at the point of use for all... And the staff are paid a fairnwage for the work they do and with fair conditions in which to work what is the issue with asking private companies to provide services of they can do it better than the government can? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 Sell off, outsource, privatisation. Call it what you will. It's private companies, often linked to the Tory party, making a profit from people being sick. It doesn't drive up standards or efficiency but some people get rich, so it's being done. Evidence? Because I would argue that the private sector is several times more efficient than the public. Presumably you also object to GlaxoSmithKline? Or Elastoplast? Or the bloke that makes sick bags because they too make a profit out of sick people.Or is it profit in general you object to? If the NHS remain free at the point of use but more efficient in its treatment of people where is the problem? :-) - how about a little word called accountability. I suppose all the banking / finance sector were more efficient than any state run sector? I suppose many companies who try and erode workers rights and evade paying a living wage are more efficient? Elastoplast are not a company as far as I know, and some of the pharmaceutical companies are very very good at research and development but the rest of society have to pay a massive price for that, for what is a basic part of a civilised society in the support and welfare of the health at least of each and everyone of us. Unless of course you subscribe that wealth = health? I would absolutely agree that the banking industry is more efficiently managed than the NHS...although clearly I am comparing apples with oranges. And yes those companies that keep wages as low as possible are clearly more efficient. Morally repugnant. But more efficient . Right so your example is that banking / finance industry is more efficient than the state - I suppose we can discount the impact of this well run machine has had on society recently? But at least you are consistent to the Tory ideal of low wages and suppressing the workforce I will give you that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eames Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 I too will look forward to yours, seeing as you quoted me. I can't comment on the other bit as I don't know what free trade deal he is referring to. Is it just to do with the NHS or a general free trade deal. Colhint - so basically again you wont enter the spirit of debate other than a "ahh but ..." type retort. Is it that you agree that a lot of what is reported as fact is in reality myth? Come on surely there are enough comments being made by supporters of others than the Tory party for you to have a reasonable argument against them. What about the Grud article I posted as a starter for 10, or maybe Burnham's comments, they contain some reasonable statements. they contain reasonable statements of you happen to be of the same political persuasion as he. The Guardian good....Telegraph bad approach to arguements is rather disappointing. Rather than parroting the work of others and passing it off as gospel why not interpret what is being said in the context of that publications news agenda and think for yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eames Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 Sell off, outsource, privatisation. Call it what you will. It's private companies, often linked to the Tory party, making a profit from people being sick. It doesn't drive up standards or efficiency but some people get rich, so it's being done.Evidence? Because I would argue that the private sector is several times more efficient than the public. Presumably you also object to GlaxoSmithKline? Or Elastoplast? Or the bloke that makes sick bags because they too make a profit out of sick people.Or is it profit in general you object to? If the NHS remain free at the point of use but more efficient in its treatment of people where is the problem? :-) - how about a little word called accountability. I suppose all the banking / finance sector were more efficient than any state run sector? I suppose many companies who try and erode workers rights and evade paying a living wage are more efficient? Elastoplast are not a company as far as I know, and some of the pharmaceutical companies are very very good at research and development but the rest of society have to pay a massive price for that, for what is a basic part of a civilised society in the support and welfare of the health at least of each and everyone of us. Unless of course you subscribe that wealth = health? I would absolutely agree that the banking industry is more efficiently managed than the NHS...although clearly I am comparing apples with oranges. And yes those companies that keep wages as low as possible are clearly more efficient. Morally repugnant. But more efficient . Right so your example is that banking / finance industry is more efficient than the state - I suppose we can discount the impact of this well run machine has had on society recently? But at least you are consistent to the Tory ideal of low wages and suppressing the workforce I will give you that Did you not see the bit where i said it was morally repugnant or did it just not suit you to notice it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 Is that the Andy Burnham who is Shadow Health Minister the and Labour front bencher? because he of course has no interest on dressing up what is happening for his own political aims has he? Yes it is - well done. So I see that you wont even argue against the comments other than identifying who said it - something I had done anyway. Me thinks you may be struggling a bit for a reasonable answer to the points raised? No because I said in relation to the bedroom tax....what is happening and what Burnham was describing are dramatically different. As long as the NHS remains free at the point of use for all... And the staff are paid a fairnwage for the work they do and with fair conditions in which to work what is the issue with asking private companies to provide services of they can do it better than the government can? That has not even come anywhere close to discussing the points that Burnham raised. Surely a clear acceptance of Tory led myths on economic performances of the parties and things like privatisation of the NHS for example have easy answers to counter what opponents of the Gvmt are putting forward. All I have seen on VT is a "ahh but Labour ....", a resort to calling people "scum" and a total deflection and non-answering of the points raised. It's hardly a debate that is full of opinion and counter opinion is it? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colhint Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 It is true really. I think the Tories get kicked out on Scandal or sleaze, Labour have always been kicked out for buggering up the economy, well since 1960 anyway, before my time any further back again massive myth - so interesting to see the right wing perpetuating this so called justification for ideologically led cuts and attacks on certain members of society For the sake of argument lets look at % of GDP being spent and go from there for a reasonable conversation and less of this stupid "name calling" that some are now resorting to http://www.theguardian.com/politics/interactive/2010/oct/15/comprehensive-spending-review-2010-public-spending Whichever way you may look at this is up to you. but Wilson Lost the 1970 election because the economy was in poor shape, having to devalue the pound was the end for him Callaghan, well, the run on the pound, crisis what crisis, Healey cap in hand to the IMF (these aren't my words, they are taken from the BBC archive pages) Brown, well, prudence ran off with someone else and No more boom and bust, turned into an almighty bust. So I would reckon my statement was true that Labour keep getting kicked out for buggering up the economy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 I too will look forward to yours, seeing as you quoted me. I can't comment on the other bit as I don't know what free trade deal he is referring to. Is it just to do with the NHS or a general free trade deal. Colhint - so basically again you wont enter the spirit of debate other than a "ahh but ..." type retort. Is it that you agree that a lot of what is reported as fact is in reality myth? Come on surely there are enough comments being made by supporters of others than the Tory party for you to have a reasonable argument against them. What about the Grud article I posted as a starter for 10, or maybe Burnham's comments, they contain some reasonable statements. they contain reasonable statements of you happen to be of the same political persuasion as he. The Guardian good....Telegraph bad approach to arguements is rather disappointing. Rather than parroting the work of others and passing it off as gospel why not interpret what is being said in the context of that publications news agenda and think for yourself. Who said Grud good, Torygraph bad? - You have, I certainly haven't. I merely used the Grud's article as a starter for a debate, one that I notice the Tory supporters still wont enter into especially against the myth of the history of the two main parties. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meregreen Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 Is that the Andy Burnham who is Shadow Health Minister the and Labour front bencher? because he of course has no interest on dressing up what is happening for his own political aims has he? Ah. If you can't debate the point , shoot the messenger. As for private versus public. Well the USA has private hospitals and the cost of treatment there is absolutely horrendous. If we're arguing about the phrase selling off the NHS how about we change it to selling out.. There, I gave my opinions without calling anyone scum. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colhint Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 I too will look forward to yours, seeing as you quoted me. I can't comment on the other bit as I don't know what free trade deal he is referring to. Is it just to do with the NHS or a general free trade deal. Colhint - so basically again you wont enter the spirit of debate other than a "ahh but ..." type retort. Is it that you agree that a lot of what is reported as fact is in reality myth? Come on surely there are enough comments being made by supporters of others than the Tory party for you to have a reasonable argument against them. What about the Grud article I posted as a starter for 10, or maybe Burnham's comments, they contain some reasonable statements. What trade agreement is he talking about, if you point me in that direction I'll be happy to check it and respond Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eames Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 I too will look forward to yours, seeing as you quoted me. I can't comment on the other bit as I don't know what free trade deal he is referring to. Is it just to do with the NHS or a general free trade deal. Colhint - so basically again you wont enter the spirit of debate other than a "ahh but ..." type retort. Is it that you agree that a lot of what is reported as fact is in reality myth? Come on surely there are enough comments being made by supporters of others than the Tory party for you to have a reasonable argument against them. What about the Grud article I posted as a starter for 10, or maybe Burnham's comments, they contain some reasonable statements.they contain reasonable statements of you happen to be of the same political persuasion as he. The Guardian good....Telegraph bad approach to arguements is rather disappointing. Rather than parroting the work of others and passing it off as gospel why not interpret what is being said in the context of that publications news agenda and think for yourself. Who said Grud good, Torygraph bad? - You have, I certainly haven't. I merely used the Grud's article as a starter for a debate, one that I notice the Tory supporters still wont enter into especially against the myth of the history of the two main parties. See my post on the subject a couple of pages back. Sums up my position perfectly. Both parties can be relied on to make at total Horlicks of the situation...they just have their own special ways of doing it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 It is true really. I think the Tories get kicked out on Scandal or sleaze, Labour have always been kicked out for buggering up the economy, well since 1960 anyway, before my time any further back again massive myth - so interesting to see the right wing perpetuating this so called justification for ideologically led cuts and attacks on certain members of society For the sake of argument lets look at % of GDP being spent and go from there for a reasonable conversation and less of this stupid "name calling" that some are now resorting to http://www.theguardian.com/politics/interactive/2010/oct/15/comprehensive-spending-review-2010-public-spending Whichever way you may look at this is up to you. but Wilson Lost the 1970 election because the economy was in poor shape, having to devalue the pound was the end for him Callaghan, well, the run on the pound, crisis what crisis, Healey cap in hand to the IMF (these aren't my words, they are taken from the BBC archive pages) Brown, well, prudence ran off with someone else and No more boom and bust, turned into an almighty bust. So I would reckon my statement was true that Labour keep getting kicked out for buggering up the economy At last a defence of the myth, and for that thanks. I suppose then that the relative performances and more importantly the social impacts of the Tory gvmts can be ignored? As said way back there has to be a discussion and a realisation of what certain economic and social policies have on the infrastructure and the welfare of the majority. The Tory led principles have been typically about wealth for the few I would argue - and I suspect you wouldn't. The simplistic viewpoint that some have put out there have been "bonking and banking" for the Tory downfalls and "spending" for Labour, when the reality of the situation is that it isn't that simple. So many factors come into play. Look at the world economic crisis that hit all countries during the last Gvmt. What about the various wars that Gvmts have entered into and the social and economic impacts they have had? What about the recession that Major took us through for example? what about the massive Vat rises that the Tory gvmt have inflicted? Poll Tax, record interest rates etc at certain times. The point is a simple one, the myth that someone through out there a few pages back (followed by some frankly silly and at times idiotic name calling) is just that a myth. The reality is that throughout the past x years the performances of both Labour and Tory gvmts have been interestingly similar when judged against outside factors - and before anyone gets anal similar not alike. What differentiates the parties is the social policies that have remained fairly consistent for a lot of the general beliefs But I suspect we wont agree, so I am off now to finish packing for my next work trip 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meregreen Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 As far as I'm aware, the current "bust" was caused by private debt ie the banks. Public finances were relatively robust and debt to GDP was better than the previous Tory Government had managed prior to Labours election in 1997. Doesn't quite fit the myth does it 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colhint Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 have a nice one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colhint Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 As far as I'm aware, the current "bust" was caused by private debt ie the banks. Public finances were relatively robust and debt to GDP was better than the previous Tory Government had managed prior to Labours election in 1997. Doesn't quite fit the myth does it No that's not true. The IMF reported a structural deficit of 5.2% Compared to US 3.3%, France 3% and Germany 1.1% We were in a worse position than most of the major economies, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 The IMF reported a structural deficit of...Which is pretty much a guessing game and hardly something to build a serious case around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colhint Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 true, but probably a bit closer to the truth than the original point Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 There isn't any such thing as 'truth' when it comes to guessing at something you can't know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts