Why not have the courage of your convictions?

Perhaps he has lingering doubts… for somebody who espouses the role of the market etc, he does sound rather uncertain:

I am a crap shopper and dont want all the “choices again.”

Given that healthcare can become a bit more complicated than buying a bike, you might want to sharpen up those shopping skills….

(THM: I rarely agree with you, but it’s the broad & bracing mixture of opinion that makes STW what it is… so, I hope you take this post in its intended spirit. 😉 )

Thing is, THM is clearly an intelligent guy and has interesting contributions to make, I could just do without the constant condescension/obfuscation (I like that word 🙂 ).

No need to apologise Grum, it’s great to see someone upholding such high standards of forum consistency and etiquette. Much better than the slightly creepy stalker approach. I claim party-political neutrality not political neutrality. But the benefit of age and experience is that you can see merits in different poltical and economic schools of thought. To deny this, is not displaying courage of convictions, it is merely being being myopic.

DD Quelle surprise, but 100% for consistency.

No teeth 😀 yes, crap shopper. More that I hate spending money on myself and see no value in MTB at current prices tbh!!!

But the benefit of age and experience is that you can see merits in different poltical and economic schools of thought.

This is a good example of how you can sound somewhat haughty and superior.

I suppose the main thing that annoys me is I often struggle to understand what you are on about. Now you could argue that’s because I’m not very bright, but I have studied history to a reasonable level and did a module or two on economics.

It seems to me that you try to show off your own specialist knowledge of economics, but in a way that isn’t clearly expressed, or generally relevant to the issue being discussed. Good writers can express ideas clearly, and tailored to the audience they are presenting them to, rather than just going ‘check out how much I know about this, your understanding is terribly limited and blinkered compared to my amazingly well informed and neutral view’.

Take it as you will Grum, but it’s a basic fact. Or may be I am now searching for the consistency you prefer 😉

Plus, I am not searching for the consistency you prefer

Again, eh? 😕

But the benefit of age and experience is that you can see merits in different poltical and economic schools of thought

Maybe so. But given that the incumbent political class are using economic ideology as a kind of blunt instrument, it is remiss to pretend that ‘the models’ operate in the way that the textbooks would have it – and that this is somehow without consequence. And, tbh, it all too easily bleeds into dogma. Hence, soundbites about how (for example) the NHS is run “primarily for the benefit of its staff” is not, IMO, an especially measured judgement of what is actually happening on the ground. It might well be in accordance with certain schools of thought, though.

No teeth, I would agree with your sentiments at the end of the para for sure. But then, on the radio, Sir ? Nicholson did list his three top priorities, and what was first – staff. That is in itself a very telling admission. On the ideology point, from my first post here onwards, the point I am making is that this ideology stuff is IMO overblown. The Tories actual policies a very different from the ideology that they are painted with (ditto Balls, Reagan, Thatcher etc) Perhaps that is why UKIP have stolen some of their vote?

(BTW, the link to the Trance was a good one!! But I might shock you and buy it next week, then again……ER…. :wink:)

I certainly don’t hold a candle for Nicholson, or anything he might say (or claim). It is inconceivable, IMO, that the upper echeolons of DOH didn’t know that things were going badly wrong at Mid.Staffs. But he is an enforcer – which is why the current administration need him, for their frankly unworkable plans. As for what is happening on the ground: TACs are being screwed with (again), even as frontline nursing staff continue to work above and beyond their contracted hours, so as to keep the show on the road – if the NHS is being run for their benefit, it has a funny way of demonstrating it…

The Tories actual policies a very different from the ideology that they are painted with.

I disgree, tbh. There is a kind of phony war going on right now in the NHS. Policy wonks are so obsessed with the idea that the “monopoly must be broken”, they are blind to the damage that will be done to integrated services. In one of his missives on healthcare, Cameron cited a pretty dodgy LSE paper on the role of “competition” (it mishandles AMI mortality data, for starters). If this was part and parcel of a properly considered move towards a strictly-regulated, better-funded continental model, I’d not be so bothered. But it isn’t!

THM spends half his considerable amount of posting/typing time on laying claim to some kind of sagely ‘meta’ position inaccessible to us mere plebs, and the other half denying his obvious right-wing bias. All with frequent doses of somewhat nauseating insults poorly-dressed up as compliments. (See his last post. Oh, and the one before, and the one before that too.) He uses smilies sometimes too, but I don’t think he needed them here.

Pretty much sums up my view
You spend all this attacking vince and burnham and said next to nothing on the tories and what their goal was

You get accused of being patronising then tell us about your age and wisdom wrapped up in gentle ad homs – its like a self awareness vacuum or a clever troll.

you then do some more insults with a wink lest we are not sure

I think folk are basically saying they see through your charade so why not just say what you mean rather than do this. you have had a good run well done now be honest or I suspect face this on these threads.

Attacking burnham when presented with that was a flimsy political tactic worthy of flashy – that is not a compliment 😉 now it is not an insult either BRILLIANT

DD Quelle surprise, but 100% for consistency.

winky smiley
Smiley smiley
Etc

As long as you continue to patronise and obfuscate in a vain attempt to hide your right wing bias, someone will point it out thm. You must really miss winding up TeeJ all the time.

You took your time JY! But don’t hold back especially with the personal stuff! This is a bickering thread after all!

But any argument requires that the founding premise is correct. So this mini-debate started when I commented on the odd fact that VC and DC a saying things that you might not expect. A correct premise. Then JW introduces one good point and another false premise. When that was pointed out, guess what, the personal stuff starts. Why because the premise was floored.

Attacking Burnham? One throw away line???? But note the similarities between what Burnham did in practice and what the Tories do now. There is nothing new nor politically exclusive about private and public sector working together as Burnham know s well. So does it take a courage of conviction to point that out or shall we hide between petty party politics?

Great BS line there DD but full marks for consistency again. But enough this is getting out of hand. I will fight my corner but this is getting to the point where the forum rules are being tested. For that alone, I will step out. The last time JW went on an outing sesh was the last night of the long knives and no one wants that again.

Andy Burnham earlier…

You took your time JY! But don’t hold back especially with the personal stuff! This is a bickering thread after all!

Well I think i made these comments first tbh on the other page- is this a wisdom fail,should I patronise you , talk down to you re quote it ?
What personal stuff I put a wink in so there is none 😉

the personal stuff starts. Why because the premise was floored.

I can only assume you have a totally different version of the internet from me what I saw was him exposing you for what you are whilst you floundered and did personal stuff as per usual [ whilst denyng it as per usual and bigging up how insightful you were/are]

Attacking Burnham? One throw away line???? But note the similarities between what Burnham did in practice and what the Tories do now.

Jezzez man you cannot actually help yourself can you you did it again.
OK I get it you do it, you cannot see you do it and no amount of folk pointing this out to you will make you realise this, TJ would be PROUD. Like him it is not personal [ he took it that way too] but it is happening

does it take a courage of conviction to point that

You are awesome * Swoons* we dont deserve your insights and we are just too dumb to see them 🙄

I will fight my corner but this is getting to the point where the forum rules are being tested.

As only you’d know. 😀

Much better than the slightly creepy stalker approach.

Ooh!

The last time JW went on an outing sesh was the last night of the long knives and no one wants that again.

*coughs*

Besides, iirc you, tj and z-11 made that one go postal without need for anyone else’s help. I think that night must have secured your big hitter badge: I also think people remembering and reminding you stuff you posted before goes with the territory when you keep returning to post again and again on threads like that. Nevertheless I’m flattered and not particularly creeped out you remembered my small contribution.

But hey, let’s not let Yunki’s fabulous argu-thread go all nichey on the third page.

To change the record, I will confess my pleasant suprise at this bit of news:

In his most significant political intervention since taking office, Archbishop Welby warned that “children and families will pay the price” if plans to change the benefits system go ahead in their current form.

Mr Welby and the Archbishop of York, Dr John Sentamu, have backed a letter to The Telegraph written by 43 bishops who say the benefits cuts will have a “deeply disproportionate” effect on children.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9920509/Lib-Dems-back-Archbishops-warning-on-welfare-cuts.html

When Welby came in, I was (as a premier member of the bleedingheartleftytrackworld sub-group) deeply cynical that Rowan Williams’ successor should be an Eton old-boy with a background in the oil business, and predicted a nice quiet lack of challenges to (what I consider) the old-boy network in government. Yet less than a year in, Welby is sticking his neck out and also seems to have some of ythe Lib Dems behind him too. Putting aside my reservations about the links between church and state, it is most entertaining to see the man some bemoaned as Cameron’s ‘ringer’ already sticking his oar in.

What do we reckon?

What do we reckon?

“Who will rid me of this troublesome priest?”