|
Post by wagsastokie on Oct 30, 2021 8:59:31 GMT
Indeed so. Your point is correct and it's often helpful to use context. Bevan made that ill-advised comment on the set-up of the NHS, something the Tories had fought a long campaign against, throwing obstacle after obstacle in the way. So while it doesn't justify such language, his evident frustration is understandable. Probably worth remembering how much the Tory Party tried to block the establishment of the NHS whenever they claim to be the party that treasures public services, especially if you are a Tory supporter using the NHS... Seeing as you are so interested in context. Maybe you might like to have a shot at which party made this manifesto pledge in 1945… Wouldn’t be Churchill by any chance
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Oct 30, 2021 9:04:35 GMT
Seeing as you are so interested in context. Maybe you might like to have a shot at which party made this manifesto pledge in 1945… Wouldn’t be Churchill by any chance It just might be. Let’s allow that lover of context, RWB, to confirm though.
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Oct 30, 2021 9:08:10 GMT
Indeed so. Your point is correct and it's often helpful to use context. Bevan made that ill-advised comment on the set-up of the NHS, something the Tories had fought a long campaign against, throwing obstacle after obstacle in the way. So while it doesn't justify such language, his evident frustration is understandable. Probably worth remembering how much the Tory Party tried to block the establishment of the NHS whenever they claim to be the party that treasures public services, especially if you are a Tory supporter using the NHS... Seeing as you are so interested in context. Maybe you might like to have a shot at which party made this manifesto pledge in 1945… They make lots of manifesto pledges, the Tories. And many, many people get taken in by them, loving what they read and hear, never bothering or caring much to see whether they ever get implemented...I read somewhere that the Tories failed to deliver 50% of their 2017 manifesto pledges...and have already dumped the triple lock, foreign aid contribution and promise not to raise taxes in the current government manifesto...But Covid... You can only wonder why they tried so hard to block the formation of the NHS at every turn when it was such a central manifesto commitment? Good ol Churchy: "Churchill's Tories voted against the formation of the NHS 21 times before the act was passed, including both the Second and Third reading. Churchill sincerely believed that the NHS was a"first step to turn Britain into a National Socialist economy." To compare the NHS to Nazism in 1946 shows the extremity of views at the time." Starting to see why Bevan got so frustrated by his counterparts in the opposition...
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Oct 30, 2021 9:29:05 GMT
Seeing as you are so interested in context. Maybe you might like to have a shot at which party made this manifesto pledge in 1945… They make lots of manifesto pledges, the Tories. And many, many people get taken in by them, loving what they read and hear, never bothering or caring much to see whether they ever get implemented...I read somewhere that the Tories failed to deliver 50% of their 2017 manifesto pledges...and have already dumped the triple lock, foreign aid contribution and promise not to raise taxes in the current government manifesto...But Covid... You can only wonder why they tried so hard to block the formation of the NHS at every turn when it was such a central manifesto commitment? Good ol Churchy: "Churchill's Tories voted against the formation of the NHS 21 times before the act was passed, including both the Second and Third reading. Churchill sincerely believed that the NHS was a"first step to turn Britain into a National Socialist economy." To compare the NHS to Nazism in 1946 shows the extremity of views at the time." Starting to see why Bevan got so frustrated by his counterparts in the opposition... Are you aware that that quote was made by a certain Alfred Cox, a BMA official back in the day. Lazy people misattribute the quote which even more lazy people (like you) recycle. What happened in 1945 is a disagreement about how an NHS should be realised. Bevan wanted to create one that was socialist in nature (unsurprisingly), Churchill and the Tories objected (again unsurprisingly). This led to Bevan’s petulance. This disagreement is manifest today in the role of the private sector in the NHS.
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Oct 30, 2021 10:57:16 GMT
That Conservative manifesto pledge you quoted
"The health services of the country will be made available to all citizens. Everyone will contribute to the cost, and no one will be denied the attention, the treatment or the appliances he requires because he cannot afford them. We propose to create a comprehensive health service covering the whole range of medical treatment from the general practitioner to the specialist, and from the hospital to convalescence and rehabilitation"
by way of trying to make the Conservative Party appear in favour of the creation of the NHS, rather than mentioning that they actually campaigned against it and, indeed voted against it on 21 separate occasions, sounds a tad socialist doesn't it!
The funny thing is that all of today's Conservative voters who rely on the NHS just as much as everyone else does probably have little or no awareness of how much their own Party was against it for so long, how much they tried to block it at every turn, and how much more they would be paying as individual users of a healthcare system if the NHS didn't exist in the form that it does, where everyone contributes towards it according to their ability to do so and everyone uses it according to their need. That really is ironic!
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Oct 30, 2021 11:48:32 GMT
That Conservative manifesto pledge you quoted "The health services of the country will be made available to all citizens. Everyone will contribute to the cost, and no one will be denied the attention, the treatment or the appliances he requires because he cannot afford them. We propose to create a comprehensive health service covering the whole range of medical treatment from the general practitioner to the specialist, and from the hospital to convalescence and rehabilitation" by way of trying to make the Conservative Party appear in favour of the creation of the NHS, rather than mentioning that they actually campaigned against it and, indeed voted against it on 21 separate occasions, sounds a tad socialist doesn't it! The funny thing is that all of today's Conservative voters who rely on the NHS just as much as everyone else does probably have little or no awareness of how much their own Party was against it for so long, how much they tried to block it at every turn, and how much more they would be paying as individual users of a healthcare system if the NHS didn't exist in the form that it does, where everyone contributes towards it according to their ability to do so and everyone uses it according to their need. That really is ironic! Do you practice hard at being an idiot or does it all just come natural to you?
|
|
|
Post by cobhamstokey on Oct 30, 2021 12:09:38 GMT
That Conservative manifesto pledge you quoted "The health services of the country will be made available to all citizens. Everyone will contribute to the cost, and no one will be denied the attention, the treatment or the appliances he requires because he cannot afford them. We propose to create a comprehensive health service covering the whole range of medical treatment from the general practitioner to the specialist, and from the hospital to convalescence and rehabilitation" by way of trying to make the Conservative Party appear in favour of the creation of the NHS, rather than mentioning that they actually campaigned against it and, indeed voted against it on 21 separate occasions, sounds a tad socialist doesn't it! The funny thing is that all of today's Conservative voters who rely on the NHS just as much as everyone else does probably have little or no awareness of how much their own Party was against it for so long, how much they tried to block it at every turn, and how much more they would be paying as individual users of a healthcare system if the NHS didn't exist in the form that it does, where everyone contributes towards it according to their ability to do so and everyone uses it according to their need. That really is ironic! I’m pretty sure that there’s plenty that don’t contribute to it.
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Oct 30, 2021 17:54:04 GMT
That Conservative manifesto pledge you quoted "The health services of the country will be made available to all citizens. Everyone will contribute to the cost, and no one will be denied the attention, the treatment or the appliances he requires because he cannot afford them. We propose to create a comprehensive health service covering the whole range of medical treatment from the general practitioner to the specialist, and from the hospital to convalescence and rehabilitation" by way of trying to make the Conservative Party appear in favour of the creation of the NHS, rather than mentioning that they actually campaigned against it and, indeed voted against it on 21 separate occasions, sounds a tad socialist doesn't it! The funny thing is that all of today's Conservative voters who rely on the NHS just as much as everyone else does probably have little or no awareness of how much their own Party was against it for so long, how much they tried to block it at every turn, and how much more they would be paying as individual users of a healthcare system if the NHS didn't exist in the form that it does, where everyone contributes towards it according to their ability to do so and everyone uses it according to their need. That really is ironic! Do you practice hard at being an idiot or does it all just come natural to you? Straight to personal abuse, always the indication of nothing more constructive or sensible to say.
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Oct 30, 2021 17:54:28 GMT
That Conservative manifesto pledge you quoted "The health services of the country will be made available to all citizens. Everyone will contribute to the cost, and no one will be denied the attention, the treatment or the appliances he requires because he cannot afford them. We propose to create a comprehensive health service covering the whole range of medical treatment from the general practitioner to the specialist, and from the hospital to convalescence and rehabilitation" by way of trying to make the Conservative Party appear in favour of the creation of the NHS, rather than mentioning that they actually campaigned against it and, indeed voted against it on 21 separate occasions, sounds a tad socialist doesn't it! The funny thing is that all of today's Conservative voters who rely on the NHS just as much as everyone else does probably have little or no awareness of how much their own Party was against it for so long, how much they tried to block it at every turn, and how much more they would be paying as individual users of a healthcare system if the NHS didn't exist in the form that it does, where everyone contributes towards it according to their ability to do so and everyone uses it according to their need. That really is ironic! I’m pretty sure that there’s plenty that don’t contribute to it. Everyone who can...
|
|
|
Post by cobhamstokey on Oct 30, 2021 18:14:42 GMT
I’m pretty sure that there’s plenty that don’t contribute to it. Everyone who can... So we pick up the tab for the people that contribute nothing at all as is the same with housing. There’s some that deserve the help that can’t work but there’s many that don’t, the ones that can work but won’t because it’s made too easy for them. The poor kids that are bought into the world and are used as a ticket to buy housing and every benefit going but aren’t looked after because there parents don’t want the responsibility.
|
|
|
Post by thevoid on Oct 30, 2021 18:34:51 GMT
Do you practice hard at being an idiot or does it all just come natural to you? Straight to personal abuse, always the indication of nothing more constructive or sensible to say. Yet you like Huddy's posts and don't address similar concerns to him when he's calling people 'retard' or 'gammon'...not to mention your festish for calling people 'Combo' or comparing them with terrorists Sorry mate, it's not washing 🙂
|
|
|
Post by thevoid on Oct 30, 2021 18:46:07 GMT
Seeing as you are so interested in context. Maybe you might like to have a shot at which party made this manifesto pledge in 1945… They make lots of manifesto pledges, the Tories. And many, many people get taken in by them, loving what they read and hear, never bothering or caring much to see whether they ever get implemented...I read somewhere that the Tories failed to deliver 50% of their 2017 manifesto pledges...and have already dumped the triple lock, foreign aid contribution and promise not to raise taxes in the current government manifesto...But Covid... You can only wonder why they tried so hard to block the formation of the NHS at every turn when it was such a central manifesto commitment? Good ol Churchy: "Churchill's Tories voted against the formation of the NHS 21 times before the act was passed, including both the Second and Third reading. Churchill sincerely believed that the NHS was a"first step to turn Britain into a National Socialist economy." To compare the NHS to Nazism in 1946 shows the extremity of views at the time." Starting to see why Bevan got so frustrated by his counterparts in the opposition... 'Starting to see why Bevan got so frustrated by his counterparts in the opposition... ' So you're sympathising with the old 'vermin' thing? Can't really moan about me using similar vernacular with you then, mate 🙂
|
|
|
Post by thevoid on Oct 30, 2021 19:00:31 GMT
Seeing as you are so interested in context. Maybe you might like to have a shot at which party made this manifesto pledge in 1945… They make lots of manifesto pledges, the Tories. And many, many people get taken in by them, loving what they read and hear, never bothering or caring much to see whether they ever get implemented...I read somewhere that the Tories failed to deliver 50% of their 2017 manifesto pledges...and have already dumped the triple lock, foreign aid contribution and promise not to raise taxes in the current government manifesto...But Covid... You can only wonder why they tried so hard to block the formation of the NHS at every turn when it was such a central manifesto commitment? Good ol Churchy: "Churchill's Tories voted against the formation of the NHS 21 times before the act was passed, including both the Second and Third reading. Churchill sincerely believed that the NHS was a"first step to turn Britain into a National Socialist economy." To compare the NHS to Nazism in 1946 shows the extremity of views at the time." Starting to see why Bevan got so frustrated by his counterparts in the opposition... If you want a little trip into the past mate, any thoughts on The Guardian and it's previous unsavoury views on slavery? Or you could act like a normal, well adjusted member of society and accept that times change- I thought you were all for progress and changing attitudes? 🙂
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Oct 30, 2021 19:02:35 GMT
Do you practice hard at being an idiot or does it all just come natural to you? Straight to personal abuse, always the indication of nothing more constructive or sensible to say. It was a genuine question. I suspect the answer is a bit of both.
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Oct 31, 2021 7:22:00 GMT
Straight to personal abuse, always the indication of nothing more constructive or sensible to say. It was a genuine question. I suspect the answer is a bit of both. I don't know, in answer to your "genuine question". Since it was you who decided to stop talking about Churchill's obstruction to the creation of the NHS and go needlessly personal once again, you'll forgive me for asking a similarly "genuine question": do you practise at being prissy, abusive and uptight when disagreed with or is that something that is in your nature at all times? And, while we're talking about abusive people, just look at Voidy weighing in as usual when it gets personal, quelle surprise! Three posts, must gave been giving it a good go last night!
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Oct 31, 2021 7:37:33 GMT
So we pick up the tab for the people that contribute nothing at all as is the same with housing. There’s some that deserve the help that can’t work but there’s many that don’t, the ones that can work but won’t because it’s made too easy for them. The poor kids that are bought into the world and are used as a ticket to buy housing and every benefit going but aren’t looked after because there parents don’t want the responsibility. Yes, unfortunately that's the price we agree to pay for living in a civilised society where we agree to look after the weakest parts of it. It's interesting, we were talking about the creation of the NHS back in the late 40's, at least we were trying to, until the usual unpleasant lot came out with the personal stuff again, and one of the arguments for its creation was lifting those people who couldn't afford medical treatment out of the terror of getting sick, as was the case pre NHS, especially when losing employment was a common occurrence. It's fine that there should be checks on those who are gaming the system, refusing to work etc. But, as a drain on the nation's finances, that needs to be put into context against tax dodging which removes far more from the nation's coffers. Not justifying either by that statement by the way, but it's interesting that a lot of the focus whenever this issue crops up seems to fall first on poor people who "won't work" rather than the bigger impact from wealthier people tax dodging.
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Oct 31, 2021 7:56:33 GMT
It was a genuine question. I suspect the answer is a bit of both. I don't know, in answer to your "genuine question". Since it was you who decided to stop talking about Churchill's obstruction to the creation of the NHS and go needlessly personal once again, you'll forgive me for asking a similarly "genuine question": do you practise at being prissy, abusive and uptight when disagreed with or is that something that is in your nature at all times? And, while we're talking about abusive people, just look at Voidy weighing in as usual when it gets personal, quelle surprise! Three posts, must gave been giving it a good go last night! Ah, poor you. Here’s a suggestion for you. Try and get things right once in a while. Or at least, try and learn from your mistakes. As in this discussion where you have once again grabbed hold of the wrong end of the stick and refuse to let go. In 1945, as has been shown, all parties were committed to creating a national health service. Where there was disagreement was in how it should be set up. So voting against Labour’s bill wasn’t a vote against the NHS but against Labour’s plans for the NHS. There is a difference. But, it seems it’s a difference you are unable to grasp. Which is why I raise the question of the nature of your idiocy.
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Oct 31, 2021 8:06:45 GMT
I don't know, in answer to your "genuine question". Since it was you who decided to stop talking about Churchill's obstruction to the creation of the NHS and go needlessly personal once again, you'll forgive me for asking a similarly "genuine question": do you practise at being prissy, abusive and uptight when disagreed with or is that something that is in your nature at all times? And, while we're talking about abusive people, just look at Voidy weighing in as usual when it gets personal, quelle surprise! Three posts, must gave been giving it a good go last night! Ah, poor you. Here’s a suggestion for you. Try and get things right once in a while. Or at least, try and learn from your mistakes. As in this discussion where you have once again grabbed hold of the wrong end of the stick and refuse to let go. In 1945, as has been shown, all parties were committed to creating a national health service. Where there was disagreement was in how it should be set up. So voting against Labour’s bill wasn’t a vote against the NHS but against Labour’s plans for the NHS. There is a difference. But, it seems it’s a difference you are unable to grasp. Which is why I raise the question of the nature of your idiocy. It was a genuine question, Partick, are you always so uptight and prissy? Try not to get so annoyed when disagreed with, it's politics, people have different opinions and it might be the case that you are not always as immaculately correct as you appear to think! I realise some folk get very upset when Churchill is ever questioned as being anything other than a saint who won the war, but the fact remains, his party blocked the introduction of the NHS on 21 separate occasions, with their supporters likening it to the introduction of national socialism, somewhat akin to when Boris Johnson described the EU as the third Reich! Who knows what kind of system they might have eventually introduced, if at all, or whether it would've looked anything like what was ultimately created?
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Oct 31, 2021 8:20:41 GMT
Ah, poor you. Here’s a suggestion for you. Try and get things right once in a while. Or at least, try and learn from your mistakes. As in this discussion where you have once again grabbed hold of the wrong end of the stick and refuse to let go. In 1945, as has been shown, all parties were committed to creating a national health service. Where there was disagreement was in how it should be set up. So voting against Labour’s bill wasn’t a vote against the NHS but against Labour’s plans for the NHS. There is a difference. But, it seems it’s a difference you are unable to grasp. Which is why I raise the question of the nature of your idiocy. It was a genuine question, Partick, are you always so uptight and prissy? Try not to get so annoyed when disagreed with, it's politics, people have different opinions and it might be the case that you are not always as immaculately correct as you appear to think! I realise some folk get very upset when Churchill is ever questioned as being anything other than a saint who won the war, but the fact remains, his party blocked the introduction of the NHS on 21 separate occasions, with their supporters likening it to the introduction of national socialism, somewhat akin to when Boris Johnson described the EU as the third Reich! Who’s annoyed? I’m not. You sound rather tetchy though. I’m just trying to help you out of your fog of ignorance. But, you seem happy to wallow in ignorance. As you demonstrate once again in your reply. Oh, did you know there were objections inside the Labour Party about Bevan’s implementation notably Herbert Morrison. Do you know what his objections were? Because they were good ones. It’s a shame Bevan didn’t listen more, we might have ended up with a better NHS.
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Oct 31, 2021 8:35:11 GMT
It was a genuine question, Partick, are you always so uptight and prissy? Try not to get so annoyed when disagreed with, it's politics, people have different opinions and it might be the case that you are not always as immaculately correct as you appear to think! I realise some folk get very upset when Churchill is ever questioned as being anything other than a saint who won the war, but the fact remains, his party blocked the introduction of the NHS on 21 separate occasions, with their supporters likening it to the introduction of national socialism, somewhat akin to when Boris Johnson described the EU as the third Reich! Who’s annoyed? I’m not. You sound rather tetchy though. I’m just trying to help you out of your fog of ignorance. But, you seem happy to wallow in ignorance. As you demonstrate once again in your reply. Oh, did you know there were objections inside the Labour Party about Bevan’s implementation notably Herbert Morrison. Do you know what his objections were? Because they were good ones. It’s a shame Bevan didn’t listen more, we might have ended up with a better NHS. Personal abuse, coming out of nowhere, even when phrased in a mealy-mouthed way, is often the sign of irritation at being disagreed with. You and Voidy are by far the worst for it, although I wouldn't describe Voidy's use of abusive language as remotely mealy-mouthed! But it's unnecessary from any quarters. It's just a forum for discussion. At least you seem to be willing to get back the point of the discussion now, after that rather childish and tedious diversion, once again. Yes, I'm well aware of dissenting voices within the Labour Party at the time. When are there not in any party with most policies? As I said above who knows what kind of NHS the Tories might have brought in or even if, eventually, they scrapped the idea completely? A White Paper is one thing, delivering is another. Labour delivered the NHS, the Tories voted against it. In your mind obviously, the Tories were all in favour of an NHS which would no doubt have been much better than the one we have. All supposition of course, but you can't really argue against what someone thinks would have happened, especially if they've convinced themselves that they're right about their supposition, only point out what did.
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Oct 31, 2021 9:14:46 GMT
Who’s annoyed? I’m not. You sound rather tetchy though. I’m just trying to help you out of your fog of ignorance. But, you seem happy to wallow in ignorance. As you demonstrate once again in your reply. Oh, did you know there were objections inside the Labour Party about Bevan’s implementation notably Herbert Morrison. Do you know what his objections were? Because they were good ones. It’s a shame Bevan didn’t listen more, we might have ended up with a better NHS. Personal abuse, coming out of nowhere, even when phrased in a mealy-mouthed way, is often the sign of irritation at being disagreed with. You and Voidy are by far the worst for it, although I wouldn't describe Voidy's use of abusive language as remotely mealy-mouthed! But it's unnecessary from any quarters. It's just a forum for discussion. At least you seem to be willing to get back the point of the discussion now, after that rather childish and tedious diversion, once again. Yes, I'm well aware of dissenting voices within the Labour Party at the time. When are there not in any party with most policies? As I said above who knows what kind of NHS the Tories might have brought in or even if, eventually, they scrapped the idea completely? A White Paper is one thing, delivering is another. Labour delivered the NHS, the Tories voted against it. In your mind obviously, the Tories were all in favour of an NHS which would no doubt have been much better than the one we have. All supposition of course, but you can't really argue against what someone thinks would have happened, especially if they've convinced themselves that they're right about their supposition, only point out what did. Once more you miss the point which I’ll repeat once again, but typing very slowly in the (probably forlorn) hope you might be able to grasp the point. The point is, they, the Tories, were committed to introducing an NHS in their 1945 manifesto. You are saying they opposed the NHS. Which is disingenuous at best and quite possibly a deliberate lie (or possibly a consequence of stupidity). They opposed, as did many other people, the form of NHS Bevan created. Can you understand that point. Oh, btw, I’ve not said anywhere that a Tory inspired NHS “would” be “much better”, I said it “might have” been better. We will never know. Misrepresenting what people say is not good. One might consider it to be somewhat childish.
|
|
|
Post by franklin on Oct 31, 2021 9:23:13 GMT
This has brightened my boring Sunday morning reading this hilarious stuff.
|
|
|
Post by yeswilko on Oct 31, 2021 9:32:56 GMT
It was a genuine question. I suspect the answer is a bit of both. I don't know, in answer to your "genuine question". Since it was you who decided to stop talking about Churchill's obstruction to the creation of the NHS and go needlessly personal once again, you'll forgive me for asking a similarly "genuine question": do you practise at being prissy, abusive and uptight when disagreed with or is that something that is in your nature at all times? And, while we're talking about abusive people, just look at Voidy weighing in as usual when it gets personal, quelle surprise! Three posts, must gave been giving it a good go last night! Void also sends abuse via private message... "you thick cunt" was one incredibly witty effort of his i received recently. He's a very odd and insecure bloke.
|
|
|
Post by cobhamstokey on Oct 31, 2021 11:02:54 GMT
So we pick up the tab for the people that contribute nothing at all as is the same with housing. There’s some that deserve the help that can’t work but there’s many that don’t, the ones that can work but won’t because it’s made too easy for them. The poor kids that are bought into the world and are used as a ticket to buy housing and every benefit going but aren’t looked after because there parents don’t want the responsibility. Yes, unfortunately that's the price we agree to pay for living in a civilised society where we agree to look after the weakest parts of it. It's interesting, we were talking about the creation of the NHS back in the late 40's, at least we were trying to, until the usual unpleasant lot came out with the personal stuff again, and one of the arguments for its creation was lifting those people who couldn't afford medical treatment out of the terror of getting sick, as was the case pre NHS, especially when losing employment was a common occurrence. It's fine that there should be checks on those who are gaming the system, refusing to work etc. But, as a drain on the nation's finances, that needs to be put into context against tax dodging which removes far more from the nation's coffers. Not justifying either by that statement by the way, but it's interesting that a lot of the focus whenever this issue crops up seems to fall first on poor people who "won't work" rather than the bigger impact from wealthier people tax dodging. I have absolutely zero issue with helping the weak and poor that are not able to work through illness or circumstances. They are fully deserving. I just don’t happen to class as weak and poor those that choose not to work that can because they can’t be bothered and expect those that do work to pick up the tab whilst they spend their money on iphones, drugs and alcohol (yet still use the food bank). in relation to the filthy rich I certainly don’t support them not paying their way but I’d imagine most go private so they’d be contributing to something they don’t use. Apologies if I get on my high horse re such matters I just believe you should get rewards for working hard.
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Oct 31, 2021 13:38:18 GMT
Yes, unfortunately that's the price we agree to pay for living in a civilised society where we agree to look after the weakest parts of it. It's interesting, we were talking about the creation of the NHS back in the late 40's, at least we were trying to, until the usual unpleasant lot came out with the personal stuff again, and one of the arguments for its creation was lifting those people who couldn't afford medical treatment out of the terror of getting sick, as was the case pre NHS, especially when losing employment was a common occurrence. It's fine that there should be checks on those who are gaming the system, refusing to work etc. But, as a drain on the nation's finances, that needs to be put into context against tax dodging which removes far more from the nation's coffers. Not justifying either by that statement by the way, but it's interesting that a lot of the focus whenever this issue crops up seems to fall first on poor people who "won't work" rather than the bigger impact from wealthier people tax dodging. I have absolutely zero issue with helping the weak and poor that are not able to work through illness or circumstances. They are fully deserving. I just don’t happen to class as weak and poor those that choose not to work that can because they can’t be bothered and expect those that do work to pick up the tab whilst they spend their money on iphones, drugs and alcohol (yet still use the food bank). in relation to the filthy rich I certainly don’t support them not paying their way but I’d imagine most go private so they’d be contributing to something they don’t use. Apologies if I get on my high horse re such matters I just believe you should get rewards for working hard. I think almost everyone would agree with you on that, Cobham. It's useful to see the difference between the impact of tax 'loss' compared to benefit 'fraud'. You have to be careful what you're comparing, as this article rightly says, but the scale of the tax problem is much bigger than the benefit issue. fullfact.org/online/comparing-benefit-and-tax-fraud/Of course, you're also talking about those people who aren't weak or poor but choose not to work, not just those who claim benefits fraudulently, although the line between the two is moot. I'm fortunate never to have been there, but presumably there are people whose job it is to assess claimants who "choose not to work" to decide if they should receive benefits or not?
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Oct 31, 2021 13:55:21 GMT
Personal abuse, coming out of nowhere, even when phrased in a mealy-mouthed way, is often the sign of irritation at being disagreed with. You and Voidy are by far the worst for it, although I wouldn't describe Voidy's use of abusive language as remotely mealy-mouthed! But it's unnecessary from any quarters. It's just a forum for discussion. At least you seem to be willing to get back the point of the discussion now, after that rather childish and tedious diversion, once again. Yes, I'm well aware of dissenting voices within the Labour Party at the time. When are there not in any party with most policies? As I said above who knows what kind of NHS the Tories might have brought in or even if, eventually, they scrapped the idea completely? A White Paper is one thing, delivering is another. Labour delivered the NHS, the Tories voted against it. In your mind obviously, the Tories were all in favour of an NHS which would no doubt have been much better than the one we have. All supposition of course, but you can't really argue against what someone thinks would have happened, especially if they've convinced themselves that they're right about their supposition, only point out what did. Once more you miss the point which I’ll repeat once again, but typing very slowly in the (probably forlorn) hope you might be able to grasp the point. The point is, they, the Tories, were committed to introducing an NHS in their 1945 manifesto. You are saying they opposed the NHS. Which is disingenuous at best and quite possibly a deliberate lie (or possibly a consequence of stupidity). They opposed, as did many other people, the form of NHS Bevan created. Can you understand that point. Oh, btw, I’ve not said anywhere that a Tory inspired NHS “would” be “much better”, I said it “might have” been better. We will never know. Misrepresenting what people say is not good. One might consider it to be somewhat childish. It's touching that you put so much reliance on their manifesto, but as I said earlier, governments promise lots of things in their manifestos and sometimes, just like the current government, they break those manifesto promises. Eg the pension triple lock, foreign aid contribution and their promise not to raise taxes, to name just three so far in the less than two years from Dec 2019 to date. Who knows what a Tory government might eventually have decided to do re the creation of an NHS on the back of a manifesto promise? Make a better one? Scrap it entirely? We'll never know. It's all supposition and a touch naive to take their manifesto pledge so much to heart. Or did governments not break manifesto pledges back then? We do know however that they tried to block the creation of the NHS at the time by voting against it on 21 separate occasions. I guess they must have really hated it in its proposed incarnation at the time.
|
|
|
Post by Orbs on Oct 31, 2021 15:00:55 GMT
It’s almost making me wish for a return of Crappers and MattyD…
With regards to A Rayner then I kind of took on poisoned monkeys mantle of replying with ‘IWFH’ whenever it was suitable. Maybe in October 21 it’s not appropriate any more. It’s a shame because it used to make me giggle.
(IWFH)
|
|
|
Post by iancransonsknees on Oct 31, 2021 15:13:00 GMT
It’s almost making me wish for a return of Crappers and MattyD… With regards to A Rayner then I kind of took on poisoned monkeys mantle of replying with ‘IWFH’ whenever it was suitable. Maybe in October 21 it’s not appropriate any more. It’s a shame because it used to make me giggle. (IWFH) Whatever happened to him, did he leave his mobile/laptop open and his missus found his account and posts?
|
|
|
Post by Orbs on Oct 31, 2021 15:16:38 GMT
It’s almost making me wish for a return of Crappers and MattyD… With regards to A Rayner then I kind of took on poisoned monkeys mantle of replying with ‘IWFH’ whenever it was suitable. Maybe in October 21 it’s not appropriate any more. It’s a shame because it used to make me giggle. (IWFH) Whatever happened to him, did he leave his mobile/laptop open and his missus found his account and posts? Monkey AIDS.
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Oct 31, 2021 15:24:44 GMT
Once more you miss the point which I’ll repeat once again, but typing very slowly in the (probably forlorn) hope you might be able to grasp the point. The point is, they, the Tories, were committed to introducing an NHS in their 1945 manifesto. You are saying they opposed the NHS. Which is disingenuous at best and quite possibly a deliberate lie (or possibly a consequence of stupidity). They opposed, as did many other people, the form of NHS Bevan created. Can you understand that point. Oh, btw, I’ve not said anywhere that a Tory inspired NHS “would” be “much better”, I said it “might have” been better. We will never know. Misrepresenting what people say is not good. One might consider it to be somewhat childish. It's touching that you put so much reliance on their manifesto, but as I said earlier, governments promise lots of things in their manifestos and sometimes, just like the current government, they break those manifesto promises. Eg the pension triple lock, foreign aid contribution and their promise not to raise taxes, to name just three so far in the less than two years from Dec 2019 to date. Who knows what a Tory government might eventually have decided to do re the creation of an NHS on the back of a manifesto promise? Make a better one? Scrap it entirely? We'll never know. It's all supposition and a touch naive to take their manifesto pledge so much to heart. Or did governments not break manifesto pledges back then? We do know however that they tried to block the creation of the NHS at the time by voting against it on 21 separate occasions . I guess they must have really hated it in its proposed incarnation at the time. Well done. You got there in the end.
|
|