f they were both wealthy, as they claim, why not become paid-up subscribers?
With their wealth, the subscription costs would be an irrelevance to them
The subscription cost is as irrelevant to me as most people who post here I would imagine. However I have no interest in paying it and would rather give the money to something more worthwhile thanks.
It’s pretty well known that the rich got rich by being tight and are less likely to give to charity, pay for stuff they don’t have to etc.
Nice generalisation. You haven't got a clue what I do but you carry on thinking that if it makes you feel better.
What he seemed like was a Troll trying to trigger the snowflakes
Sadly not a troll I suspect. There are a lot of people who think like that. I am surrounded by tories at work and where I live and the general thinking is that the poor/less fortunate have simply not worked or tried as hard as they have.
They have no ****ing clue that they are where they are mostly down to luck and privilege, no clue at all.
I'm 67, a remainer and probably going to vote Labour although I did want to vote Liberal but that may allow the Conservatives into power so I will do a bit of tactical voting. I have very strong concerns regarding the leadership of the Labour Party and their policies however I am far more worried about the Conservatives winning with their lack of policies and the threat of leaving the EU with no deal.
I do feel however that some comments on here regarding Thatcher and blaming her for the destruction of British industry is a bit of a myth, British industry destroyed itself during the 60's and 70's through bad management and the overwhelming power of the unions. The other thing that many younger people forget and certainly didn't experience was the failure of nationalization it didn't work then and I doubt very much if it will work in the future, if Labour do get into power.
One question, if the coal mines had been kept open over the last thirty years would Corbyn be fighting to close them now because of climate change or is he secretly thankful to Thatcher that she did the job for him?
The Times - Amazon ready to cash in on free access to NHS data (paywall)
More info on this Twitter thread
The NHS isn't even for sale, it's being given away free.
One question, if the coal mines had been kept open over the last thirty years would Corbyn be fighting to close them now because of climate change or is he secretly thankful to Thatcher that she did the job for him?
I'd assume he'd close them down, but in an orderly manner and invest heavily in a transition to green industries to replace the loss of jobs from the mine closures.
Essentially what the 2019 Manifesto states.
You do realise that the NHS funding has risen an average of 4% pa since it’s inception. This Tory government has averaged .5% pa.
Indeed. Yet in spite of that desperate level of underfunding Labour decided on a wafer thin increase of 3bn. Labour are also going to chronically underfund the NHS and it's not because they don't have the cash - they claim they had 58bn spare.
Have you read anything written by any of the current government about how provision of, and payment for, healthcare should be transformed in future.
People have spent the last three decades saying the Tory's are going to privatize the NHS during every election campaign (and at times in between). All that crying wolf means nobody believes they are going to do it this time - to the point where people trust the Torys on the NHS more than Labour.
This is not just another Tory Government about to be elected,
So all the other times you said they were going to privatise the NHS they didn't. But this time they really, really are, you really, really promise.
Not an easy message to sell!
I’d assume he’d close them down,
You're right - Harold Wilson closed over twice as many mines as Thatcher. Between WW1 and today we all basically stopped using Coal and switched to Gas/Oil/Nuclear.
Every prime minister from WW1 onwards closed mines, by the time Thatcher took over the days of coal were already well in the past.
the silly idea that centrism would be a vote winner in these desperate times
It’s FPTP, so in most seats, as the election nears, people swing towards the top two candidates in their seats. In an ideal world… most of these swing people in Tory/Labour battle grounds would be coming over to Labour… but many are going to the Conservatives, even if they are against Brexit and don’t want Johnson in no10. If Labour could appeal to a wider a section of the public, they would be walking this election. If the take away from losing this election is “centrism* is a vote loser, let’s further abandon voters who aren’t left wing enough for us”, there won’t be a Labour government again in our lifetimes.
[* whatever the hell that means]
People have spent the last three decades saying the Tory’s are going to privatize the NHS
If by “people” you mean people who are now ministers, then you have got the point, well done.
So all the other times you said they were going to privatise the NHS they didn’t. But this time they really, really are, you really, really promise.
Not an easy message to sell!
Someone gives you a specific example of privatisation in the NHS (plasma), and you stick your heads back in the sand, talk about “crying wolf”, and repeat the propaganda. Multiple governments have privatised vital chunks of the NHS… it is a process not a one off event.
It’s FPTP, so in most seats, as the election nears, people swing towards the top two candidates in their seats. In an ideal world… most of these swing people in Tory/Labour battle grounds would be coming over to Labour… but many are going to the Conservatives, even if they are against Brexit and don’t want Johnson in no10. If Labour could appeal to a wider a section of the public, they would be waking this election.
This. The Tory party is an omnishambles and has been for years. (Even if they weren't 9 years in Government *alone* would be enough to condemn most Governments to lose just out of voter feeling it's 'time for change'.)
Any Labour leadership since Foot would be looking at a landslide right now. The only thing that could have saved the Torys is Corbyn/Abbot/McDonnell.
Multiple governments have privatised vital chunks of the NHS… it is a process not a one off event.
I'd agree. The NHS is effectively 7pc "private". 1pc of that was done under various Tory Governments over the years 6pc under the Blair government.
So you're not saying the NHS will be completely privatized. You're saying some stuff may be outsourced as it always has been. eg the NHS doesn't mine the minerals that go into drugs.
Now you've qualified your claim, what percentage of the NHS are you estimating will be private after a Blue term in office, and what percentage are you estimating will be private after a Corbyn/Momentum term in office?
Corbyn & co may have baggage but the rw press painted Milliband as dangerous commie too, even tho some of his 'redisst' policies have since been adopted by the Tories!
Didn’t someone on here say that it costs £80 to change a lightbulb at the hospital his wife works in?
Privatisation in action.
rw press painted Milliband as dangerous commie
IIRC I recall one very lame attempt at a weak story about his Dad which fizzled out straight away because it was obviously bollocks. Then there was the bacon roll story which can't have cost him many votes and (critically) quashed rumours among the Labour core vote that he was Jewish! In short the media had nothing on him.
In contrast there has been an endless stream of true, verifiable stuff about the current leadership which they admit they actually did. ...and because it's true it's been widely reported on Radio an TV, which people see in large numbers, in contrast to the RW press which very few people read.
Premier Icon
zippykonaSubscriber
Didn’t someone on here say that it costs £80 to change a lightbulb at the hospital his wife works in?
Privatisation in action.
Not really. It’s just badly negotiated 3P/ PFI. Without which none of those new hospitals would have been built.
Im not apologising for the financing model - it can work as long as one side doesn’t have access to significantly better lawyers.
Didn’t someone on here say that it costs £80 to change a lightbulb at the hospital his wife works in?
Privatisation in action.
Are you arguing that only a state owned entity can affordably change a lightbulb? Seems unlikely since most of us work for private firms that have their lightbulbs changed without drama.
Or are you arguing that state owned entities are rubbish at negotiating contracts and private hospitals get their bulbs changed at lower cost?
Every prime minister from WW1 onwards closed mines, by the time Thatcher took over the days of coal were already well in the past.
It wasn't the fact she closed mines - after all, there's only so much coal - it was the way that she did it. The miners weren't stupid, they understood their own business. She pulled the plug on all the mines, viable or otherwise, and made zero effort to instigate a managed shift in industry to give people something else to move on to. The Tower colliery is an example. Closed, then bought out by the workers and continued working for another 30 years. It closed recently because now it finally is out of coal.
She did this she was a Tory and Tories do not give a shit - this is their basic underlying principle. The whole ethos of the Tories is small government, which means letting the markets take care of everything. So yes, in theory, given a large labour force with no jobs they will either move elsewhere or some other company will move in to employ them. This is fine if you treat people as resources, but they aren't, they are people, and if you just let the market deal with everything they will get totally ****ed over and their quality of life will suffer. It's up to you whether or not you think it matters if people are suffering when you could help them.
This. The Tory party is an omnishambles and has been for years. (Even if they weren’t 9 years in Government *alone* would be enough to condemn most Governments to lose just out of voter feeling it’s ‘time for change’.)
Any Labour leadership since Foot would be looking at a landslide right now. The only thing that could have saved the Torys is Corbyn/Abbot/McDonnell.
For me there's two parts to this, firstly the overall toxicity of Corbyn because of his past and current affiliations, which his supporters seem happy to overlook. But then there's the economic policies Labour are proposing, and the capital flight and economic downturn which would ensue.
I could just about hold my nose and vote for Corbyn - he'd be an embarrassment, but perhaps no worse than the current government. But with McDonnell behind him, Labour are positively dangerous. With the current Tories beyond the pale, I won't be voting for them either. Tragic.
If you listen to many older people from northern colliery towns, you'd have thought that the past in these places was some sort of industrial utopia that the Tories destroyed in the 80s.
Read JB Priestley's travelogue, Journey Through England, which is a book that strongly influenced the creation of the welfare state, and you'll find that the opposite was true. These were grim, depressing places in the 1930s; they've just traded one type of grimness for another.
JP
If anyone thinks this echo chamber is representative of the population as a whole they are seriously deluded. Fact is the tory vote is substantially more popular amongst the boomers and only becomes more so as population segments get older despite the protestations of the forum members.
Nobody is accusing you personally, get over it. I'll be voting SNP but have little appetite for another referendum if this goes the right way. That doesn't make me a nationalist just as mush as being a certain age doesn't automatically make you a tory. I'm honestly amazed this needed to be said at all.
firstly the overall toxicity of Corbyn because of his past and current affiliations, which his supporters seem happy to overlook.
Yes so much this! Good mates with Pinochet, pol pot, the apartheid regime, Saudis, Orban the list of odious fellow travelers is endless
But then there’s the economic policies Labour are proposing, and the capital flight and economic downturn which would ensue.
But then again, none of that may actually happen.
But with McDonnell behind him, Labour are positively dangerous.
Yeah, really dangerous. They may even make society a bit better, god forbid.
Andrew Rawnsley pointing out in today’s Observer what has been glaringly obvious to all but the most terminally deluded for the past four years
If Boris Johnson gets back to number 10 he’ll have Jeremy Corbyn to thank
So thanks in advance to the common room for the hard Brexit we’ve got coming and whatever the Tory’s decide to do with that for the next five years
You’ll be happy though. You’ll have plenty to wave your placards about. I look forward to being asked to sign your internet petitions as we head back to some Dickensian era of inequality.
Also depressing
https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1203611424380964865?s=19
I don't really get it, I spent a good part of my 18-24 years being hissed &/or stoned but I think I've only missed voting in one election, when Id just graduated and started my first job but hadn't registered to vote in a new town
I see the usual establishment centre-left suspects like Andrew Rawnsley are lining up their pitch for labour to move back to Blairism. They've been waiting and hoping for this, and doing everything they can to make it happen for 4 years.
Whatever happens on thursday one thing is clear, labour's future is no longer with the tired middle aged reactionaries in the west midlands and the north, or the self-serving boomer liberals in the cities. It's with the radical young who want a completely different approach centred around combating climate change and generational injustice. It gives me quite a lot of hope as I think this is a generation which will not be bought off or ignored. Anyone over 40 not voting in the interests of their kids can go **** themselves.
Andrew Rawnsley pointing out
Amazing binners. Rawnsley has been one of the leading media figures who has done everything to smear and misrepresent Corbyn. Hardly a surprise you're such a big fan of his.
Hope? Jesus H ****ing Corbett! Have a word with yourself. You should familiarise yourself with the concept of democracy. You know... actually needing to get elected before you get to do anything
Tony Blair did
Waving placards and railing about the injustice of it all on Internet forums changes nothing!
Have fun wallowing in your moral indignation during the next 5 years of Tory rule 🙄
Also depressing
Yep, and lay that over the voting (tory vs Labour) by age and there is the answer. If the 18-34s all went out to vote it would be a different story.
Have fun wallowing in your moral indignation
If I'm morally indignant about anything, it's people on the 'left' (or rather people who think they are), who don't recognise that we need to completely change the economic system to combat climate change and social injustice. You often go on about Tony Blair and his acolytes. Do you really think they would change the economic system to combat climate change? Do you really think they will challenge the power of billionaire plutocrats? Will they challenge the power of offshore-based corporations who suck money out of economy and leave trillions sitting in tax-free bank accounts? Will they change a political system which is corrupt to it's core? Of course they won't, and they never will, because they're fully paid up members and beneficiaries of it. I know one thing for certain, if the billionaire-owned media hate Corbyn so much, then that's all the reason I need for supporting him, because it means he's a threat to them. Funny how they all love Tony Blair though.
hey may even make society a bit better, god forbid.
There's an awful lot of good that could be done without going to the extremes of public ownership, union influence and appropriation of private assets that Labour are proposing. And as I said I would readily support that.
Good look with permanent opposition in the Corbynite political wilderness.
We’re all relishing the Tory hegemony as a little satellite of Trumps America
The sixth formers can all wrap themselves up in their blanket of sanctimonious pious placard-waving that will change nothing.
The far right neoliberal ultras are looking at people like you and the rest of the Corbynite fantasists and they can’t believe their luck
If you listen to many older people from northern colliery towns, you’d have thought that the past in these places was some sort of industrial utopia that the Tories destroyed in the 80s.
I grew up in a pit village in the 50s and 60s. Many of my dad's colleagues died of lung complaints. No one there thought it was utopia - but it was work.
Huge chunks of NHS service delivery have been sold off, that has been the major contributor to inefficiency in the past 10 years, not the fabled army of bureaucracy.
OK, as some-one who works in the Healthcare sector, let's have a look at one example of delivery in the private sector and how that's effected efficiency . In 2016 I was part of a pilot scheme that used un-used GP consulting rooms to bring Ophthalmologists out into the community, recruited some diagnostic technicians and we set up a community based service. Pts are directed to us from High street opticians in the same way that they would have gone to the trust, pts are triaged and those that need to seen quickly or are routine (much in ophthalmology is routine) go to the community service. This cut waiting list time from 18 to 4 weeks (as an incentive there some onerous financial penalties for missing targets), plus we saw patients in a "one stop" model, ie they got diagnosed, got results, got seen by the doctor, got a treatment plan and recalled appt sorted in one visit, as opposed to the two or three 18 week wait appts it used to take at the Trust. More people had their sight restored and stabilized in the 9 months of the first year than were treated at the trust in the previous 5 years. Working with the sight loss charities we did outreach work where we funded the ECLO service and could direct patients to it. We also ran a programme counselling older patients with advancing sight loss (we started the programme developed by the trust, that they'd never managed to implement)*
Now, there were some issues, as you've pointed out there is in fact a lack of management at most Trusts, they are woefully undermanged to the extent that I pretty much had to step in to manage the dept pathway. We also recognised that recently qualified eye doctors weren't seeing the numbers of routine patients in the Trust, so we established a programme to have them come to the community service model instead.
This model is being repeated all over the country in Eye, ENT, sexual health, dermatology services and so on. Patients are being seen quicker, diagnosed earlier, and it saves money. (including taking into the capped profit we're allowed to make) People are having better sight for longer, and it's a more efficient use of the meagre resources we have and working with the system we've been handed.
Also, bear in mind this point about the Public face of the NHS...Where most people interact with it (that's mostly: The GP, the Optician, the Dentist and the Pharmacy) have been from the beginning of the service, and remain to this day: Profit making organisations mostly held in private hands. I could bore on for England about the damage that the UDA system of payments has done to NHS dental care, but my point is this. Never in it's history has the NHS not been partly run by private organisations for profit.
I'm not arguing that entirely privatised healthcare is the way forward, but neither is the wholly state funded model either. Most countries see somewhere in the middle as the best way, the most successful European healthcare services have a blend of public and private (top up) insurance models, as it does seem to (as the lecture I went to in Spain recently pointed out) make people invest some care into their own health (but it is also true that they tend to invest more of their GDP in healthcare) we are not far from that.
It's my belief that the NHS is a handy motif for both parties to use, like most things the truth is mostly duller than the headlines and soundbites suggest.
* it was a part of contract that we had to provide these services and they had to entirely funded by us
I’m not arguing that entirely privatised healthcare is the way forward, but neither is the wholly state funded model either.
How was your scheme funded?
Also.
Of the US healthcare corps I've spoken to (and I'm willing to bet it's more than most on here have) have ZERO interest to replicate the healthcare system as it currently operates in the states. Why? Folk in the US aren't stupid' that's why. They look at the European model, and they see a system that works, costs hugely less than theirs and has significantly better outcomes for more people than theirs has. Most states are beginning to enrol more and more people into partly state funded models, MediCare and MedicAid and maternity services are being expanded, in many states they are slowly moving towards a European model.
Doesn't make for scary headlines though, sorry.
How was your scheme funded?
From the public purse, like your GP is.
The CCG used the money that's there, incentivised innovation, and risk, and have better local outcomes. In exactly the same way that they do with GP services.
If you listen to many older people from northern colliery towns, you’d have thought that the past in these places was some sort of industrial utopia that the Tories destroyed in the 80s.
Hmm.
A quick google reveals that Journey through England (which I've not read) was published in 1934. At that time in South Wales the coal industry was huge, supplying steam coal to keep the Empire running. Employers held all the cards as usual so people who needed the work were being exploited, and yes, conditions were miserable as they were in many industrial areas across the UK. People who'd been rich enough to invest in industry in the first place were raking in obscene sums of money, whilst those doing the work suffered terrible conditions.
So what happened next? The Labour movement became stronger, worker rights were won, and conditions improved. By the 60s, where most of the old northern people you are talking about were young, things were fairly buoyant. They finally had better conditions, more modern housing and importantly, a sense of identity and purpose. This happened because of the post-war settlement, and Labour governments that wanted to improve conditions for the workers.
This is what Thatcher tossed in the bin. That's why the miners' strikes were so important. It wasn't just the loss of work, it was the systematic way that communities were being gutted and thrown in the bin, deliberately.
So I think your reference to the poverty 1930s industrial towns actually demonstrates the benefits of a strong left leaning governemnt - it improved things.
Of the US healthcare corps I’ve spoken to (and I’m willing to bet it’s more than most on here have) have ZERO interest to replicate the healthcare system as it currently operates in the states. Why?
Of course USA firms don’t want to repeat the USA system here… they have people in power here now who will support them getting their hands on just the functions they can transform to create private profits, without having to go near those areas that will only ever be a financial black hole. Cream off profits where they can be made, leave the state looking after the rest. The “NHS is safe in our hands” mostly means that we will always have something branded NHS, and there will always be elements of it that remain in state hands. But don’t be fooled into thinking “safe” means what you want it to mean.
In the plasma example, how “safe” is that element of the NHS now?
And, I refer you back to the John Major python quote… these are not just the same old Tories that we will be trusting as regards the NHS.
Doesn’t make for scary headlines though, sorry.
The headlines are simplistic. But what I am worried about is the gradual reduction and erosion of NHS services and the more widespread adoption of insurance-based provision. This is what I think the Tories would rather see, and what would be worse for us.
That and that no-one should profit from people being ill, from a moral standpoint.
But what I am worried about is the gradual reduction and erosion of NHS services and the more widespread adoption of insurance-based provision.
Like it as not, we are starting to see the healthcare explosion that Japan has. We have an increasing elderly population that over most of their lifetimes have not had enough intervention, have had mostly zero incentive to look after their own health, and are increasingly suffering lifestyle diseases that at best can be mitigated rather than cured. People are living longer, but are suffering more illnesses. What used to kill folk in their late 60's and early 70's 30 years ago have been mostly eradicated but Type 2 diabetes while it can be managed, we're not curing enough people. we passed the point where more of the elderly population in the UK are taking more than 1 drug per day ie, there are more elderly that take more than 1 drug a day than take none or only 1.
Do you throw more and more public money at a problem that most healthcare experts realise is only getting worse? Or do you try different things? Most European countries are trying different things.
From the public purse, like your GP is.
That's what I expected. But you also made the point "I’m not arguing that entirely privatised healthcare is the way forward, but neither is the wholly state funded model either". Your scheme was state funded but outsourced. Having been to similar clinics myself they worked very well and I don't necessarily see a big problem there. I think the major concern of "privatising" the NHS is that it becomes funded by insurance companies. It's clear that where that happens the cost to the user increases massively.
We have an increasing elderly population that over most of their lifetimes have not had enough intervention, have had mostly zero incentive to look after their own health, and are increasingly suffering lifestyle diseases that at best can be mitigated rather than cured.
Yes I agree. Wouldn't it be nice to have a healthcare system set up in such a way to encourage people to be healthy?
getting their hands on just the functions they can transform to create private profits, without having to go near those areas that will only ever be a financial black hole.
One, In order to provide services to the NHS you need to registered as a Provider or an Integrator, to get registered, you have to be a wholly UK owned business. No provider license? no public money. Two, If you think that there are untrammeled profits to be made in the UK healthcare sector you are sorely misguided. Three, Healthcare provision in the US is seperate from the Insurance Companies, and it's them you need to be wary of...Four CCG's and Trusts aren't stupid, they do have contract managers and rules and what you can do and can't do, and the local CCG is answerable to it's local GPs and public, without the support of those, they cannot act. If you want to get involved in decisions that affect how your local CCG spends money, feel free to go along to any of their public meetings.
Wouldn’t it be nice to have a healthcare system set up in such a way to encourage people to be healthy?
yes agree 100%, it does however involve hugely more education, intervention and personal cost than in surveys; most UK citizens are willing to bear. It's taken 30 or more years to move to these systems in Europe, they are only just seeing the benefits, and arguably we're behind the curve.