[Closed] not enough bickering about politics on the forum of late..

Same shit, different colour ties. What is there to argue about?

Isn't it because the real criminal is Blair and the Left can't accept they royally screwed that one up by voting him into his mis-use of power?

The left and right is a construction.. divide and conquer and all that

S'all the Eton Mafia

The problem is all the Tory boys have either left STW or are too ashamed to post on political threads 😉

shame coz cameron got caught with his pants on fire but is too arrogant to admit theyve got it wrong

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21714549

The "left" earlier today enjoying Tory car crash government.

[img] [/img]

Doesn't matter who you vote for, the government still gets in.. and all those slimy self serving power hungry posh politicians that WE vote for that stand for little or nothing as far as I'm concerned.

Money is power

The best way to change things is to vote....I know none of them really deserve it, but vote anyway...even if its monster raving looney. Blair got elected on a ridiculously low turnout..as do most of them.

Party I last voted for got 217 votes compared the the winners 16700

Sounds like we voted the same...

I assumed that it was because anyone who voted for BLiar in 2005 had been sent to The Hague to be tried for warcrimes and anyone who voted for Brown subsequently has had their crayons taken off them so that they don't hurt themselves.

<devils advocate>
Only because the leftwing bias in the [*whatever] means that decent thinking conservative views are effectively banned by the marxist junta that runs [whatever].

*STW, the BBC, your local library, primary school where they want teach your child pro european gayness!!!

</devils advocate>

😉

That might do it... depends who's about. At work today so a good argument might pass the time.

They come over here with their bloody newts.

The only difference between the 2main parties is that I get to hate the Tories as they fully live up to their pantomime villain billing, (BOOOOOO HISSSSSSSS) whereas when I look at the Labour Party under Blair and brown its with an air of weary contempt

And looking at the Labour Party now? Oh dear! Really..... What is the point?

Perhaps the lack of bickering reflects that it is hard to understand what any party stands for these days and the ironic contradictions between what they say (or what others say about them) and what they actually do.

So we have a re-run of the last budget with good old uncle Vince washing the dirty laundry in public and tryng to shape policy via the media etc. And the latest contraditiction is the Tories defending (ring fencing) spending on the NHS while the lIb Dems (Uncle Vince) argue that all departments including health should face th same impact of cuts. Its a funny old world.

The perceived spat between DC and the OBR is an odd one since they are talking about different things is direct and indirect effects. Government spending in isolation is an injection into the economy and hence a reduction in spending will (all other things being equal) will have a negative impact on growth. Not even DC can argue against that. But the lack of action over [i]perceived [/i] excess spending can also indirectly have a negative impact on growth indirectly via higher borrowing costs etc. Two very different points.

Why not tax assets and capital?

Would stop all the money pooling and stagnating the economy. No?

@binners- depressing isn't it?
The LibDems were a moment of hope, now firmly extinguished and all thats left is 'Tory Light' and a bunch of one trick ponies.
We need a comedian to stand, Izzard for PM

Ernie Lynch has an alternative solution up his sleeve. Albeit from an extremist standpoint but one day he might articulate exactly what it entails.

There is no left and right wing in British politics anymore, just right wing, and more right wing, and morererer right wing
Or, same colour shit, different colour tie..
We're doomed..

<devils advocate>
Only because the leftwing bias in the [*whatever] means that decent thinking conservative views are effectively banned by the marxist junta that runs [whatever].

*STW, the BBC, your local library, primary school where they want teach your child pro european gayness!!!

</devils advocate>

or could it just be that no-one likes a Tory..?

I'm assuming Dave and chums are praying we don't have a long hot summer this year. As I'd say some retro inner city rioting will probably be the order of the day. As large chunks of a completely disengaged, and increasingly desperate society decide they've had enough, and presume, quite rightly, that our brain-dead political system is definitely not going to provide any alternatives. No circuses to provide a distraction this year, remember

Which could be quite interesting, as I can't see the police mustering much enthusiasm for putting themselves in the firing line to defend our present political masters. And who can blame them?

Jolly lucky that Labour ended boom and bust, otherwise we might be in a spot of bother now.

It's an interesting idea that UK politics is right wing, sorry more right wing, given that most poltical parties are jostling for the centre ground. And we have an PM desperate to play done his OE tag, or should is say tie, hanging around his neck. I assume that right wing Is taken as being loosely synonymous with free-markets, low government intervention, possibly privatisation, decentralised government, low tax, supply side reforms etc. And yet we continue to live and work in a mixed economy where the state plays a large role in allocating resources and in employment. In most cases, this happens where governments are best placed to allocate resources, but in plenty of others where they are not. But is doesn't stop them. To counter this,even where the state is involved there has been a long, not recent, history of public/private sector partnership with differing degrees of success. Governments take large percentages of earnings from the population (and in a progressive manner that takes more from those who earn more) in order to fund their role. Hardly extreme right wing politics. Even now with a Tory-led coalition, the state plays a massive role in all aspects of lives and spending cuts have been more talk than action. And supply-side reforms.....?

And how many governments have actually cut their spending in absolute terms?

I'm off to play hockey vs Tamworth and even our formation is bereft of left and right wings, all down the centre, its bloody contagious!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/mar/08/britain-economy-long-term-fix

Cameroon when he says were all in it together, is correct for once,when he uses it to class the conservitavives with the failed lib dems, yes luv youre all in the shit together, without a long enough ladder to get out,

and where is mili brand, dead, in a deep sleep or coma for all the worthless political amunition he is firing, a total and abject waste of space that he is along with his advisors,we a descent fighter somebody to look up to,not some woozy public school boy who has never worked in a real industrial job in his life.

Roll on the STW revolution.

All of this means that, without addressing the underlying decay in productive capabilities, Britain cannot fix its ailing economy. To deal with this problem, it urgently needs to develop a long-term productive strategy through a broad-based public consultation involving not just the government and private sector firms, but trade unions, educational institutions and research institutes.

The strategy should first carefully identify the industries, and the underlying technologies, that will be the future motor of the economy and then provide them with the necessary support. This could be in the form of subsidies for R&D, loan guarantees for small firms, or preferences in government procurement, and should be targeted at "strategic" industries, although they could also be in the form of policies that are apparently not industry-specific.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/mar/08/britain-economy-long-term-fix

The trouble is that no government is really that interested in spending time and resources planning for the long-term, they just want quick fixes and easy point-scoring that they can take the credit for so they get re-elected, or go on to a nice consultancy role in industry.

It's a fundamental flaw with democracy.

It's an interesting idea that UK politics is right wing, sorry more right wing

And yet we continue to live and work in a mixed economy

Hardly extreme right wing politics

Overall though there is little to choose between the parties
the reality is that only swing voters matter
For example I will never vote Tory so Labour can count on my vote [ they cant I do an anti Tory vote] whatever they say so they can ignore their core vote and target those on the middle to jump ship. The tories have a bit of an issue with this as UKIP are stealing their core voter of the blue rinsed more jingostic [ closet racist] voter. I think this will cause them problems electorally tbh as it splits the rigth wing vote between one nation right wingers and the "nasty" party.

Grum is right politicians like to take the credit for things that are not their responsibilty - Brown ending boom and buist for example and then blaming other stuff when their plans dont work - euro zone for growth rates here. We all buy into this to some degree and they dontlook at making us bette rplaced in 20 years times but better placed at the next election
We alos get things like fuel duty where we shoudl try and discourage spending but no one can do anything as every voter [ pretty much] drives. it is also why the retires are so well protected - they vote so dont mess with them even if they are the ones who have taken the property bubble rise and the ones to recieve better pensions than we will even though they have not paid enough to cover their payments so they make us pay them

The Guardian piece seems to be a voice of reason IMO. We need to generate wealth in order to derive sufficient taxable income from people and businesses to fund the things we really value such as state provision of healthcare, education etc but there has to be some state support to get this moving, we are uncompetitive in so many areas. Spent quite a bit of time with Chinese engineering companies and they have few scruples re developing the sector, state support in terms of finance, protection, non prosecution of intellectual property theft, etc. Not suggesting we adopt all of the less desirable practices but it would help if we could level the playing field a bit.

Oops double post!

JY - as you have done, it is a good idea to step away from the UK and take a wider perspective. From that angle, it is very clear that the UK has had a long history of centerist-politics (does that word exist?). I am struggling to see any modern examples of major swings in political or even economic thinking. Where are UK's Francos, Mussolinis, Pincohets, Che Guevaras or Chavezs - Farrage and Crowe????? C'mon!

Yes we have [i]oscillated[/i] around a core eg, Beveridge versus Thatcher, but in both cases the reality was a long way from fact. One of the reasons, why I have been mistaken for a Thatcher apologist in the past, is the simple reason that I point out that in hard facts she achieved 'massively' less than either her critics or her supporters claim. Thatcherism itself, despite its longevity, was largely a myth in practice. Ditto, Ed Balls positions himself as a Keynesian economist and yet failed to live up to even the very basics of Keynesian teaching. Ronald Reagan, the great advocate of markets and supply-side economics spent government money like it was going out of style - Thatcher's twin, would you adam and eve it?

China is also an excellent example of the same basic point. The major boost to China's economic prosperity involved large scale liberalisation and introduction of market principles (alongside heav levels of state planning). A major shift toward the "centre" politically and economically at its most obvious. When you read the latest 5 year plan, what do you feel?

So I would reject the idea that we have a recent history with any real evidence of major political shits either way. On the contrary, we have had an evolution in political and economic thinking that has spread remarkably consistently across UK governments. Opening another argument, it is often argued that the reason for this is the existence of the monarchy. One of the key arguments monarchists put forward is that it avoids extreme political shifts. Without arguing any causation, the correlation there is pretty clear!

edit: on the NHS, note the irony I pointed out above, that it is VC not DC/GO calling for the end of ring fencing of the NHS etc. A Lib Dem telling the Tories to cut spending on our national treasure in the same way as everything else, even tanks and bombs. Amazing!

So I would reject the idea that we have a recent history with any real evidence of major political shits

I dunno. Thatcher and Blair were both pretty reprehensible. 🙂

Ooops! 😉 Perhaps that typo is worth keeping!

we like to grumble about this kind of thing, but we were asked if we wanted to try something only just a tiny bit different, and we said, emphatically, 'no change please'.

it's [u]our[/u] fault. we've got the system of givernment we voted for.

you are right we are the worlds slowest country in terms of change- we slowly evolve hence we end up with archaic concepts like constitutional monarchy and still have an entrenched class system and stability bit we tread water.
We dont do radicals or even radicalism here that is for s No revolutions or loosing wars to bring about large scale change for sure - probably the emergence of the labour movement /fabians/unions or the suffragettes was the last examples of political radicalism...perhaps Beveridge but even the NHS was a result of long term steady change and none changed the entire landscape

Farage and Crowe raised a chuckle- are they not just both stuck in the past of little englander empire days and Union power rather than actually being radical. We are not likely to vote in a comedian led party at the next election now are we Eddie Izzard for PM? David Mitchel? Twitteratti Mr Fry? If we keep voting like this we will keep getting this

we like to grumble about this kind of thing, but we were asked if we wanted to try something only just a tiny bit different, and we said, emphatically, 'no change please'.

it's our fault. we've got the system of givernment we voted for.

We were offered a crap compromise, which was mercilessly campaigned against by our largely right-wing media - but yeah mostly people just fear change.

on the NHS, note the irony I pointed out above, that it is VC not DC/GO calling for the end of ring fencing of the NHS etc. A Lib Dem telling the Tories to cut spending on our national treasure in the same way as everything else, even tanks and bombs. Amazing!

Look deeper, THM.

I can't explain Cable's stance on equal distribution of cuts, but of course it was only last Tuesday that Cameron and Hunt narrowly missed getting away with sneaking past wording in section 75 of the Health and Social Care Act that over-rode the power of LCG's to decide which areas of health spending they might like to put out to tender, so that basically everyhting was potentially for sale. (there is a much more long winded version of this available of course)

So in Cameron and Hunt's position, why would you remove ringfences and allow cuts spending on health just as you were about to put as much of it as possible out to tender to private enterprise? Surely if your health secretary and his predecessor are massively beholden to party donors and supporters from private healthcare, you are going to want to put on as big a spread of goodies as possible for them when you are finally allowed to invite them to the party. Your guests would be most disappointed to find you had bought tesco value jam tarts when they were expecting proper ones. :/

Despite the act being voted through last year, section 75 and competition/tender rules would seem to still be very much a moving picture: I am not at all suprised at Cameron's reluctance to rock the boat with funding at this point in time.

VC is difficult to follow at the best of times - but I have some sympathies for him, as fighting two battles at the same time (1 versus the Tories and 2 v Nick Clegg) must be hard work. Hiding behind a government position while simultaneously detonating small explosions and engaging in friendly-fire. Hats of to his PR department for hiding what he is truly like and creating this friendly, sensible father figure image.

So on the bickering front - what do you reckon was going through Clegg, Cable etc's minds when they knew about that lovely Mr Huhne?

Big A, little A, bouncing B
The system might have got you but it won't get me

1 - 2 - 3 - 4

External control are you gonna let them get you?
Do you wanna be a prisoner in the boundaries they set you?
You say you want to ba yourself, by christ do you think they'll let you?
They're out to get you get you get you get you get you get you get you

Hello, hello, hello, this is the Lord God, can you hear?
Hellfire and damnation's what I've got for you down there
On earth I have ambassadors, archbishop, vicar, pope
We'll blind you with morality, you'd best abandon any hope,
We're telling you you'd better pray cos you were born in sin
Right from the start we'll build a cell and then we'll lock you in
We sit in holy judgement condemning those that stray
We offer our forgiveness, but first we'll make you pay

External control are you gonna let them get you?
Do you wanna be a prisoner in the boundaries they set you?
You say you want to be yourself, by christ do you think they'll let you?
They're out to get you get you get you get you get you get you get you

Hello, hello, hello, now here's a massage from your queen
As figurehead of the status quo I set the social scene
I'm most concerned about my people, I want to give them peace
So I'm making sure they stay in line with my army and police
My prisons and my mental homes have ever open doors
For those amongst my subjects who dare to ask for more
Unruliness and disrespect are things I can't allow
So I'll see the peasants grovel if they refuse to bow

External control are you gonna let them get you?
Do you wanna be a prisoner in the boundaries they set you?
You say you want to be yourself, by christ do you think they'll let you?
They're out to get you get you get you get you get you get you get you

Introducing the Prime Sinister, she's a mother to us all
Like the dutch boy's finger in the dyke her arse is in the wall
Holding back the future waiting for the seas to part
If Moses did it with is faith, she'll do it with an army
Who at times of threatened crisis are certain to be there
Guarding national heritage no matter what or where
Palaces for kings and queens, mansions for the rich
Protection for the wealthy, defence of privilege
They've learnt the ropes In Ireland, engaged in civil war
Fighting for the ruling classes in their battle against the poor
So Ireland's just an island? It's an island of the mind
Great Britain? Future? Bollocks, you'd better look behind
Round every other corner stands P.C. 1984
Guardian of the future, he'll implement the law
He's there as a grim reminder that no matter what you do
Big brothers system's always there with his beady eyes on you
From God to local bobby, in home and street and school
They've got your name and number while you've just got their rule
We've got to look for methods to undermine those powers
It's time to change the tables. The future must be ours

Big A, little A, bouncing B
The system might have got you but it won't get me

Be exactly who you want to be, do what you want to do
I am he and she is she but you're the only you
No one else has got your eyes, can see the things you see
It's up to you to change your life and my life's up to me
The problems that you suffer from are problems that you make
The shit we have to climb through is the shit we choose to take
If you don't like the life you live, change it now it's yours
Nothing has effects if you don't recognise the cause
If the programme's not the one you want, get up, turn off the set
It's only you that can decide what life you're gonna get
If you don't like religion you can be the antichrist
If your tired of politics you can be an anarchist
But no one ever changed the church by pulling down a steeple
And you'll never change the system by bombing number ten
Systems just aren't made of bricks they're mostly made of people
You may send them into hiding, but they'll be back again
If you don't like the rules they make, refuse to play their game
If you don't want to be a number, don't give them your name
If you don't want to be caught out, refuse to hear their question
Silence is a virtue, use it for your own protection
They'll try to make you play their game, refuse to show your face
If you don't want to be beaten down, refuse to join their race
Be exactly who you want to be, do what you want to do
I am he and she is she but you're they only you

screw your parties and politics, you're all sheep. anarchy and peace.

I reckon it's time they ditched the left versus right charade and let everyone scrabble for popularity based on having real principles and sticking to them.

For starters they should remove everything but the names from ballot papers - if you can't impress or upset your constituents enough that they remember you name you have no place representing them.

Would you reject the idea tha there was a post war left wing consenus re beveridge, nationalisation, NHS, cradle to grave etc?

It seems to me there is still a consensus as regards the NHS and cradle to grave welfare. All three main parties are in favor of free at the point of use healthcare and the provision of a social safety net.

Yes, there is debate around the questions of to what extent the NHS should be privatized and the level of benefits welfare recipients should receive, but in big picture terms this is marginal stuff.

There is also broad agreement on the question of how the above should be paid for - though an asset tax would open a new front there!

but yeah mostly people just fear change.

Personally (and speaking in more general terms, not in relation to the vote for PR), I think this fear is engendered not just by opponents of change but also by its proponents. Talk of 'smashing the state' is scary if you have no conception of what would replace it, of what it would mean in practical terms. Take tazzymtb's song above - what would the practicalities of the society dreamt (spellcheck says that's not a word - it is, isn't it?) of by its author be?

there area a lot of self sufficient communities totally outside of mainstream society and taking nothing from the state. If you think of a big society as a herd animal then it's a more difficult concept.

Hats of to his PR department for hiding what he is truly like and creating this friendly, sensible father figure image.

in big picture terms this is marginal stuff.

C'mon JY, surely I don't need a smiley every time I use sarcasm?!?! Hiding what he is truly like, is hardy praise now is it? I dont trust him, I don't like the way he plays his politics (like bullies, it's very snide and underhand), his economics is outdated and misguided and his disruptive behaviour is irresponsible for a senior member of government. I hope that is clear!!!

What about the monarchy...?

Can good ol' Queen Liz save us from this untouchable gang of organised criminals..?

There's plenty of anger, IME... but also utter contempt. Hunt might well be leading the charge for the backdoor privatisation of the NHS, but judging by his fatuous speeches, I don't think he really grasps what is happening on the ground. Oh, he might well [i]envisage[/i] (in his received PPE wisdom terms) how a fragmented NHS makes a yardsale that much easier, but I doubt he (even as SOS for Health) would be able to explain [b]exactly[/b] how these godawful, muddleheaded reforms will be improving patient care and clinical outcomes. It's why he should be very careful about his rhetoric on Mid.Staffs and 'coasting' hospitals.

I heard the lib dems say they were the sand in the political oyster. So that's the bit of sh@t nobody wants then. Its a shame as they made the best sense before the election then sold out completely to grub their way into power. They are all appalling but I still vote but it's a very depressing situation.

they should remove everything but the names from ballot papers

Yep. Would cause total chaos and change the way politics is done. I like it.

"I don't want being in government, to be a blip for the Liberal Democrats. I want it to become a habit."

He added: "You can't change a country overnight. You can't deliver on the liberal promise in just one government. It takes time.

They cannot deliver on their own promises FULL STOP

It is odd the party is clearly left of centre but Clegg is right of centre
Its a shame they were so keen to show they could govern that they forgot the important bit of showing that they would do what they said when not in the government

Hard to trust them tbh and in a coalition situation a vote for the lib dems is like a game of chance tbh- economic cuts they opposed, NHS reforms no one suggested, a pledge on education broken.
At least you know what you get with the rest whether you like it or not

As a general rule just avoid anyone who describes themselves a right or left. All extremists are tedious.

We are not likely to vote in a comedian led party at the next election now are we Eddie Izzard for PM?

Actually, he's now talking about running for London Mayor in 2020.
And we've voted in bigger clowns for that post.
With one of them using it as a stepping stone position, for a future leadership challenge.
Maybe it's not as far fetched as you think?

Although some might say he's no comedian these days.

I love all the fuss about the Italian comedian when you have Reagan and Scwarzenegger in the USA. So yes, why not Izzard too? 😀

THM you were so busy damning Cable back there ^^ that you forgot to comment on whether you thought Cameron's current stance on health ringfencing might have had a teeny tiny bit to do with section 75 or not.

I wouldn't have bothered mentioning it again, only you brought it up in the first place, and your post was so soon after mine it looks as though you were only replying to the half of it you could retain the high ground about. 😉

I've come to the conclusion that actually we're pretty lucky in this country with the politicians we have. Go meet your MP, they might not be your own personal cup of tea but chances are they'll be decent and hard working and genuinely do want to do the right thing. Two Eds, Cameron, Clegg, Hague, Cable I think they're all pretty good people. Even Hattie is probable quite a laugh when she's had a couple of drinks.

Flame away, none of that is going to be popular in the echo chamber that is STW.........just a lot of hate.

Do you really not thtink they are trying to get to a tipping point and change it so it is nothing like it is now?

No. I don't see any moves away from a free at the point of use NHS or the provision of welfare based on need. I think universal benefits could well go, but whether it will be Labour or the Conservatives who finally do for them is up in the air!

Go meet your MP, they might not be your own personal cup of tea but chances are they'll be decent and hard working and genuinely do want to do the right thing.

Mcboo, my MP:
-was a lib dem concillor but stood for parliamnent under a different party so hge could be in a better position to do the Lord's work. (think Gladstone!)
-when he doesn't vote along strict party lines, he votes like a southern-state fundamentalist christian ie on gay issues/genetics/stem cell research etc,
-often speaks out in the media about how compared to all the other religions in the UK, christians are ignored, unrepresented and marginalised,
-has been in the papers about when the ASA banned an advert about churches healing illnesses (citing his own miraculous cure in church as evidence that the ASA should have let the church in question make whatever claims they liked in the adverts)
-and gets his interns supplied by a Christian Charity that offers a prayer-based cure for homosexuality (with an evidence base that says that no one has actually been 'cured', and indeed a number of 'patients' were instead traumatised and attempted suicide within a year.)

But apart from that he is a great guy!

ohh ffs you know you're all wrong. again. all wrong. surely I'm right. I've just got to go figure out what "I'm Right" is, then it's all cool! and you're wrong...

eddie izzard was campaigning with ken at the last mayoral elections

I saw them do a Q and A session at UCL,
he was very impressive, hes naturally quick and was up to speed with relevant info, stats etc
just a shame he was tied to such a lame duck as ken

considering borris only scraped it by a few % against an obviously past it red ken and with all the london papers (and most of the nationals) behind him i doubt borris would stand a chance againt izzard

but borris will be looking for camerons job by then

Joining the Hutterites could be an option.

considering borris only scraped it by a few % against an obviously past it red ken and with all the london papers (and most of the nationals) behind him i doubt borris would stand a chance againt izzard

Maybe. Although I think there's the possibility that the electorate is becoming so polarised that this kind of split will become more and more common, ala America - though thankfully with both sides being moderates, unlike in the US!

Sorry Julian rugby was more interesting! But good effort to keep the bickering count high. Please help me descend to the lower ground and outline clearly the sneaky amendments. All I have been able to see from a quick search is the proposal to force CCG to [b]consider[/b] private providers [b]alongside[/b] NHS providers. Please tell me that there is more to it that than, before I join in the faux outrage and "privatisation by the backdoor" camp. There really must be proper story here?

I don't see myself as that educated on politics, I just want people to be nice, so stop smoking yo bastards and open a window

THM, all you need in [url= https://dnwssx4l7gl7s.cloudfront.net/38degrees/default/page/-/documents/38degrees%20legal%20brief%20SI257.pdf ]this linky here.[/url]

If you can be bothered to read it all, the QC tasked with translating it into plain English confirms that sec25 would have in effect forced CCG's/LCG's to tender out services they were quite happy with not tendering. The moral outrage of which you speak stems from repeated promises before the bill was passed that this was not going to be the case. Democracy, eh? 😉 There is also some other stuff in it about the possibility of private enterprise forcing a fragmenting of services tendered out so they could 'cherry-pick' the lowest-risk (clinical and financial) parts and leave the difficult or not-so-profitable ones aside for acute hospitals trusts to pick up. Which is also not what the Commons voted for, and not what Lansley and others repeatedly promised during the last 18 months.

As such, yes to me it's totally unsuprising that Cameron was happy to leave funding alone recently as there would be more to offer private enterprise had all this sneaked through. As I said, they only climbed down from this one on monday or tuesday this week though.

Julian, that is an interesting link thank you. I can see clearly now why Burnham has been accused of crying wolf. It seems an apt description. It is also interesting to see where the EU stands on this. So great link and excellent and impartial use of the word, "possibility."

Of course if any minister was guilty of what you may be insinuating then the result would be clear and welcome. A stretch at HM pleasure for corruption.

It's why he should be very careful about his rhetoric on Mid.Staffs and 'coasting' hospitals.

Whilst the Mid Staffs report has being doing the rounds Andy "save the NHS" Burnham has been conspicuous by his absence....... nothing to do with all those reports/ representations on what was happening at the time that were sent to him going into file 13

the "infection" is now spreading to Bolton hospital and I imagine other will be outted soon

The NHS should be about outcomes for patients and everything should be driving to improve them, and it should be free at point of use for those eligible for the care, not health tourists http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/the-northerner/2012/aug/23/health-tourist-nigeria-manchester

Of course if any minister was guilty of what you may be insinuating then the result would be clear and welcome. A stretch at HM pleasure for corruption.

THM, the evidence in hansard and the recent wording of section 75 speaks for itself doesn't it? That's not my opinion, it is clear in black and white that section 75 contradicts senior ministers in various places. The climb-down this week would also not have been necessary if there was no case to answer, surely?

Whether it is tantamount to corruption punishable by law? Hmmmm...I expect this sort of thing happens inadvertently or otherwise with less 'heavy' issues quite often, but that no-one normally expects such scrutiny. There is btw a mechanism for scrutinising legislation after it is passed: I expect it would not exist if there was never/had never been a need to use it.

Again, 'possibility' of forced fragmentation of services/tenders/contracts is [i]still[/i] more/different than what Howe and Lansley are on record as promising last year. Hey, perhaps it's just the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing?

THM please don't muddy waters by making this a left vs right thing please, I have no sympathy for Burnham (who is right of centre anyway IMO) either: the Act as it stands now is not what clinicians and patients want, but then neither were Johnson/Burnham's changes (much of what we see in the NHS was happening regardless of the outcome of the last election).

Julian, sorry I don't get the right v left thing. You asked me to comment on section 75. I didnt know the details but a search immediately brings up Burnham again and again. He is the one who is making the most about it, so it seems perfectly sensible to comment on that. In the same way that you have bought individual Tories into the debate. Or is this just a one party issue? But your own comments hardly suggest major levels of outrage, so perhaps we are on the same boat here?

There do appear to be discrepancies in the communication of aspects of this policy here, at least if the QC you quote is to be believed. And I have no reason to doubt it. And this is in some ways part of the tragedy of the NHS, that sensible questions have to be disguised because no party can be seen to be questioning this national treasure - with the exception that dear old Vince in his dotty old man role can actually be useful and ask the emperors new clothies question here! So there is a point to him after all.

The S75 debate is interesting. I imagine turning the key aspects on their head ie reversing them and then trying to argue why the opposite would be good idea. Not an easy exercise!

The fragmentation issues is a real one, however, and one that should deserve better thought.

Who else but the shadow health secretary [i]would[/i] you expect to make a big deal about section 75? Particularly given the fairly incontravertible and major discrepancies betweem what the House of Commons was led to believe they were voting for and what was, (until Tuesday this week) being made law.

I tried to give you an alternative explanation for your pointing out the recent and unexpectedly opposite stances of VC and DC on health ringfencing. Such an interesting observation that you mentioned it in 2 different posts. I brought individual tories 'into the debate' beacuse they are key players in the discrepancies between what was recorded as promises to parliament, and what appears in section 75. And yet since then, all you seem to have done is "whatabouting" with regards to Cable and then Burnham.

I don't see it as a left vs right thing either but you seem to be sending it that way by avoiding commenting on the notion that Cameron may have been playing his cards close to his chest (with regards to the ringfencing of health funding) in anticipation of section 75 going through un-molested, and instead giving some amusingly insincere compliments on my post/link and gunning for the shadow health secretary.

And you wonder why people think you are a Conservative apologist! 😀

Julian, I actually don't give it anywhere near the level of attention that you think. It's a minor issue IMO and apart from responding the title of this thread, can't quite see what you are trying to do/point you are trying to make. If you think the only motive for DC ring fencing NHS is in anticipation of S75 then so be it. There is a certain logic to the point. But I think that there are wider and more obvious reasons. Since this is largely a red herring in the grander scheme of things I will leave it at that.

The link was very helpful - just not in the way you intended. For that my thanks were genuine.

Julian, I actually don't give it anywhere near the level of attention that you think. It's a minor issue IMO

And the latest contraditiction is the Tories defending (ring fencing) spending on the NHS while the lIb Dems (Uncle Vince) argue that all departments including health should face th same impact of cuts. Its a funny old world.

But when no one rose to it the first time you made it again two posts later. 😕

edit: on the NHS, note the irony I pointed out above, that it is VC not DC/GO calling for the end of ring fencing of the NHS etc. A Lib Dem telling the Tories to cut spending on our national treasure in the same way as everything else, even tanks and bombs. Amazing!

Is this "no honestly I'm not really that interested in the point I so clumsily laboured earlier on in the thread" some sort of "surrey defence"? 😉

And yes I am posting within the spirit of the thread title. Great fun. And in the sprit of the thread title, please don't think anyone doesn't realise which [url= http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/03/lib-dems-avoid-conference-grief-on-nhs/ ]peerless paragon of politically neutral reporting and comment[/url] you borrowed your "Boy who cried wolf" analogy from. 😀

Wow, Julian, you obviously put a lot of effort into this! Another interesting link (no I don't read The Spectator, but nice try) but not as good as your previous one. Really there is no need to bother with the smileys, the intention is clear, but it washes right past!

Wow - thats brilliant Julian

you've just critisised someone for using a biased source with your comment [i]"peerless paragon of politically neutral reporting"[/i]

Yet you yourself have relied for much of your attack on a report by another "politically neutral" source in the form of 38 degrees

Even better than that - the 38 Degrees report on the health service reform relies on an "independent" legal opinion by a QC

And just [b]who[/b] is David Lock QC I hear you ask?

Funnily enough, he's the [b]former Labour MP for Wyre Forest[/b]

Outstanding!

And, even better, what did he say in his maiden speech at the house of commons?

[i]The market beloved of Adam Smith and the Conservative party is an amoral device, and many issues in health care require moral decisions.[/i]

Impeccable!

You couldn't have relied on a better impartial source of opinion to base your attack on, could you Julian?

*adds Yunki to list of naughty boys that Santa won't come to visit for starting this! we could all be discussing tyres and gear dangler set ups*

it's a dirty job, but someone's gotta do it.. 😀

At least I wear my bleeding lefty heart on my sleeve!

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.

Nevertheless on a 'fun' thread like this it is just too much to leave alone. THM's speed in replying to my posts would suggest he thinks so too, I expect he thinks/knows he is making a fool out of me and enjoying himself as well. FWIW I just read with interest his posts on ecomomics these days: there is as much point me challenging him on that as there is in him challenging me on health.

rattrap, I left out links to the Grauniad, unison and TUC websites in favour of the 38 degrees one! Unsuprisingly I didn't find much to support the issue in the middle/right leaning press, mostly just reports about people's responses/reactions to it rather than the issue itself.

38 degrees rattled the Labour government's cage in their early days, and there is no reason from what they have campaigned on more recently (and indeed the last Labour election manifesto) to think that they wouldn't still be upsetting a labour-led government if we still had one. They are biased because they challenge the government: will they have a right wing bias if Labour win next time? I wouldn't call them 'neutral' by any stretch but they do seem to be populated by green/liberal types. Many conservatives backed their challenge of the Forestry sell-off btw. What is interesting is that the demographic of their members (professional, literate etc) do spend a remarkable amount of energy campaigning for things that actually people who don't vote or use the internet much.

And just who is David Locke QC I hear you ask?

Funnily enough, he's the former Labour MP for Wyre Forest

Touché!

Do you think they would have got a Conservative-voting QC to agree to help them in this case? FWIW they say they paid his firm £10k for the work(I hope they got a few more bits of paper than the 11 on the pdf for that though!), and as a QC he has a lot to lose professionally by hamming it up too much for the lefties.

Crikey Julian relax! You are wasting time and effort personalising things. Its not healthy, even when discussing the NHS. Plebs, bias, nauseating - your blood pressure must really be rising? Let it go, its not worth it.

But feel free to go back and look where the jibes started, and I have no issue with any "challenge" on economics (this is a forum after all) but please don't make accusations about others when as rattrap pointed out you are merely describing your own behaviour. Much nicer to keep it real and polite.

Healthy, NHS, blood pressure... thy hospital-themed pun-chalice overfloweth. (genuine 😆 )

But really what did you expect on a thread that started with that picture?

Nevertheless, I'm glad to see you have put your days of personalising things behind you, and are willing share your insight in this through pointing out the errors of [s]other people's[/s] my ways. There was an interesting 'confessional' thread about this by your own fair hand last year wasn't there? Perhaps I should look it up sometime.

Andy "save the NHS" Burnham has been conspicuous by his absence

Burnham is keeping his trap shut because he knows full well that Mid.Staffs happened on NuLav's watch (e.g. see [i]Private Eye[/i]'s 'Return to the killing fields') - and indeed, it was a partial consequence of their policies. Meanwhile, the tabloids are baying for Sir David Nicholson's blood - but (with grimly amusing irony) this Gov probably [i]needs[/i] him for the implementation of the ConDem reforms (so big you'll be able to see 'em from space, as he put it).

As for the privatisation of the NHS, it's blatantly obvious that this was always the Tory intent: it's why Lansley spent the opposition years preparing a [i]Blitzkrieg[/i] plan, it's why DOH uses such disingenuous language about the reforms, it's why Section 75 was being sneaked thru and it's why the likes of Monitor are stuffed to the gills with ex-Mckinsey types - all waiting for their big moment. Personally, I don't think any of 'em really grasp what a mess this is turning into (although they may have very clear ideas about how the private healthcare lobby will be gaining from it). Personally, I'm sick to the back teeth with the political wailing and nashing of teeth - whether it be NuLav trying to distance themselves from past mistakes, or Tories [url= http://conservativehome.blogs.com/platform/2013/03/sir-david-nicholson-must-go-says-nickdebois-mp-patient-care-must-become-a-top-coalition-priority.html ]badmouthing the NHS[/url], whilst failing to explain [b]how[/b] the nascent reforms will be improving matters in acute care (or indeed, their own links to the private healthcare lobby - de Bois is a good example). Platitudes about "choice and competition" are going to sound very fugging hollow as working relationships across the service are weakened - while the likes of Virgin, Serco, Circle etc profit off the back of NHS infrastructure, acute capacity and workforce training. It's an utter top-down cluster-fug, & I'm willing to bet that it won't do anything for the kind of patients who were failed by Mid-Staffs.

Oh, and Hunt makes my skin crawl. 👿

Sorry THM, but I'm with julianwilson. It's not just that I disagree with you on stuff, I just find your posts on politics often come across as somewhat superior and a bit disingenuous. You always claim political neutrality (as well as the moral high ground) but generally espouse a broadly right-wing viewpoint. Why not have the courage of your convictions?

Whenever anyone tries to engage you on a tricky point you have a tendency to shift the goalposts, ignore it and focus on something else, or obfuscate the issue with some largely irrelevant technical economics jargon. Gets pretty wearing after a while.

Erm, with grum and julianwilson here.

Add in a large dash of patronisationshire sauce to taste.