The Conservative Party

Ifwecouldjust....... said:
So your saying the the current Conservative Party in the UK who

Are advocating the return of the death penalty

Propose Sinking dinghies full of asylum seekers in the middle of the channel

Have had the Prime ministers plane decorated in a Union Jack

Looking to deport as many people as legally possible (and changed the law to make it easier)

Social Security measures have killed in excess of 150,000 since 2010 (UN Rapporteur)

Refused to feed disadvantaged kids in the middle of a pandemic

Reduced disability benefits by £30 a week

Are a moderate party? really ?
Click to expand...
@Psychedelic Casual says “Far Right Conservative Nationalistic” doesn’t make any sense.

They're all completely different political ideologies.

Far Right assumes Facism which has nothing to do with Conservatism as much as Liberalism has nothing to do with Communism. Nationalistic can be both far right and far left.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I dont know how to quote it from the original source so copied and pasted it.

I think you are a little bit wrong here pal.

Fascism is inherently Conservative, it is probably more Catholic authoritarian conservatism, hence the Pope's refusal to condemn Fascism in WW2, Fascism is also normally ethno nationalist, again as Hitler's Aryan race theory showed. It could also be argued Fascism is imperialistic. Mussolini was definitly an Imperialist where as Lenin saw Imperialism as the final stage of capitalist development.

The nationalism associated with the left is National Socialism, another trope aimed at discrediting the left by associating it with Nazism. National Socialism was not leftist although Dinesh D'Souza a prominent RW American conservative claims the roots of the American left are in Nazism. Hitler himself did claim he was a Socialist, but no Socialist bans trade Unions and Hitler had an inbuilt hatred of Communism and of course the Jews, who he associated with Communism maybe due to Marx being Jewish. You could argue some of his policies were Socialist but i would argue they were more militarist. He didnt build the autobahns for the people he built them to transport his armies quicker. Fascism under Hitler also had an element of class warfare which again you would associate with the left, but his idea of class was to persecute a particular class of capitalists, the Jews. Hitlers Fascism was comfortable with capitalism although it has to be said it was from a militaristic approach, he used the capitalist system to build his military in a form of state capitalism which is possibly not that far removed from China today.

You can also have Social Fascism, Stalin is what i would consider a purveyor of Social Fascism, he believed that social democracy would inevitably lead to fascism. Trotsky was bitterly against social fascism, as he believed it had to be defeated because social democracy was not compatible with dictatorship of the proletariat.

Liberal Communism is also a thing, Slavoj Zizek elucidates on it, to be honest i cant really get my head around it but then Zizek is a clever fucker and im a kid who left school with one O level.

I found this about liberal communism and Zizek

What is a liberal communist? - Thought Leader
 
Rascal said:
@Psychedelic Casual says “Far Right Conservative Nationalistic” doesn’t make any sense.

They're all completely different political ideologies.

Far Right assumes Facism which has nothing to do with Conservatism as much as Liberalism has nothing to do with Communism. Nationalistic can be both far right and far left.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I dont know how to quote it from the original source so copied and pasted it.

I think you are a little bit wrong here pal.

Fascism is inherently Conservative, it is probably more Catholic authoritarian conservatism, hence the Pope's refusal to condemn Fascism in WW2, Fascism is also normally ethno nationalist, again as Hitler's Aryan race theory showed. It could also be argued Fascism is imperialistic. Mussolini was definitly an Imperialist where as Lenin saw Imperialism as the final stage of capitalist development.

The nationalism associated with the left is National Socialism, another trope aimed at discrediting the left by associating it with Nazism. National Socialism was not leftist although Dinesh D'Souza a prominent RW American conservative claims the roots of the American left are in Nazism. Hitler himself did claim he was a Socialist, but no Socialist bans trade Unions and Hitler had an inbuilt hatred of Communism and of course the Jews, who he associated with Communism maybe due to Marx being Jewish. You could argue some of his policies were Socialist but i would argue they were more militarist. He didnt build the autobahns for the people he built them to transport his armies quicker. Fascism under Hitler also had an element of class warfare which again you would associate with the left, but his idea of class was to persecute a particular class of capitalists, the Jews. Hitlers Fascism was comfortable with capitalism although it has to be said it was from a militaristic approach, he used the capitalist system to build his military in a form of state capitalism which is possibly not that far removed from China today.

You can also have Social Fascism, Stalin is what i would consider a purveyor of Social Fascism, he believed that social democracy would inevitably lead to fascism. Trotsky was bitterly against social fascism, as he believed it had to be defeated because social democracy was not compatible with dictatorship of the proletariat.

Liberal Communism is also a thing, Slavoj Zizek elucidates on it, to be honest i cant really get my head around it but then Zizek is a clever fucker and im a kid who left school with one O level.

I found this about liberal communism and Zizek

What is a liberal communist? - Thought Leader
Click to expand...
There is a lot of overlap between ideologies and Hitler did specifically talk about the aristocracy having to give to the German poor in some of his speeches, which is obviously inherently socialist in principle.

However on this point-

“Fascism is also normally ethno nationalist.”

Conservatism as an ideology doesn’t engage in this. If we look at Edmund Burke and his modern conservative ideology, it’s very different to ethno-nationalism and ethno-politics in general.

Of course there are conservative aspects to fascism that do overlap but as two standing ideologies, especially in the modern sense, they’re different.

It is true that fascism spawned out of right wing Catholicism, but it was a significant move away from conservatism and the conservatives ended up being enemies of fascism in Central Europe.

Just as National Socialism borrows from Socialism but socialists are very much different to Nazis and in fact were targeted by them.

In 21st century Britain, its incredibly disingenuous to compare conservatives to fascists but it happens all too often by people who are ignorant and bitter.
 
Handwank saying we should all act like we have the virus. If your child had the virus, or you, would you send them to school?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vic
Fred_Quimby said:
Handwank saying we should all act like we have the virus. If your child had the virus, or you, would you send them to school?
Click to expand...
You also wouldn’t leave the house at all.

If it’s the case we should do that, why aren’t we in a national lockdown?

Doesn’t make any sense
 
Ifwecouldjust....... said:
they absolutely tore him a new one with '' We went into this pandemic over 40000 nurses short''........... waffle waffle blabber.
Click to expand...

This 40000 is a common misrepresentation of the reality and one Labour tried to press home during the election. If you go on NHS jobs today there are around 15000 live jobs. If you narrow that down to band 5 and 6 nurses (i.e. those that are qualified and work on a ward or specialist patient facing role) and remove the bank roles you’re looking at 1300 nurses. If I extrapolate that out (assuming 40000 was the total live jobs) the truer number was probably around 3000 nurse vacancies.

In 2010 there were 541k nurses today (all settings) there are 669k so approximately 130k more in 10 years or 13k a year on average. Nothing to see here.

They should have driven home community hospitals. The tories have closed around 100 of these since 2010 - even if some of these were originally earmarked for closure under previous Labour government they had the opportunity to reverse that decision so I hold them responsible - that is a disastrous and unjustifiable policy that they should be accountable for.
 
metalblue said:
This 40000 is a common misrepresentation of the reality and one Labour tried to press home during the election. If you go on NHS jobs today there are around 15000 live jobs. If you narrow that down to band 5 and 6 nurses (i.e. those that are qualified and work on a ward or specialist patient facing role) and remove the bank roles you’re looking at 1300 nurses. If I extrapolate that out (assuming 40000 was the total live jobs) the truer number was probably around 3000 nurse vacancies.

In 2010 there were 541k nurses today (all settings) there are 669k so approximately 130k more in 10 years or 13k a year on average. Nothing to see here.

They should have driven home community hospitals. The tories have closed around 100 of these since 2010 - even if some of these were originally earmarked for closure under previous Labour government they had the opportunity to reverse that decision so I hold them responsible - that is a disastrous and unjustifiable policy that they should be accountable for.
Click to expand...
Vacancies and under staffing are two different issues.

Staffing on my ward has been cut by almost a half, Matron is expected to do the jobs that the much maligned backroom staff used to do. Night staffing has been cut by 50%. Now there is one Staff nurse and two supports on at night instead of 2 staffs and 5 supports. The contracts were changed without consultation, so that they work longer hours, some do 7am to 9pm shifts. They now all have to do nights, even Matron does nights, which means even less coverage as she uses that time to do the paper work she would do during the day.

Staffs are in short supply because of the cut in nursing bursaries, one of the most short sighted moves any government has ever made. So the younger staff arnt coming through. One of the supports on my ward is still working at 74 years old because they cant get staff because the hours and conditions are brutal and the training support is now non existant.

Specialist nurses are being trained up to write prescriptions because of the lack of Doctors, meaning even less time for specialist nurses to spend with patients.

The specialist leg ulcer clinic has had staff cut by 50% meaning longer waits and longer treatment times when the patient is actually seen,

The Lansley overhauls were nothing short of a disgrace, they showed a distinct lack of understanding of how a ward works, supports now have to beg and borrow equipment from other wards because the cuts have left a lack of simple stuff like dressings. Some treatments are rationed because of cost. Its false economy as inferior products are used that don't do the same job.

That is just one ward in one hospital, if that is replicated then the 40,000 figure is bollox its probably nearer 100,000 that are needed.
 
Our daughter trained for 3 years to be paediatric nurse, loved every minute of the training. Got a job in the bone marrow ward in St Mary's; started well but then they were short staffed, few or reduced breaks - so often didn't have time for food or a drink, reduced number of days off, it all got to much for her. She used to get home in tears. In the end she collapsed on her ward and ended up in A & E. Needless to say the NHS lost a kind, loving nurse.
 
Fred_Quimby said:
Our daughter trained for 3 years to be paediatric nurse, loved every minute of the training. Got a job in the bone marrow ward in St Mary's; started well but then they were short staffed, few or reduced breaks - so often didn't have time for food or a drink, reduced number of days off, it all got to much for her. She used to get home in tears. In the end she collapsed on her ward and ended up in A & E. Needless to say the NHS lost a kind, loving nurse.
Click to expand...
The pressure put on them is ridiculous. Its no wonder so many are dissilliousioned mate. They are on the whole great people, who i admire and who have worked wonders for me during some pretty hard times. It breaks my heart to see them treated so poorly. How can you expect a person to do a 14 hour shift with barely enough time for a brew.
 
Has anyone managed to mount even a devil's advocate defence of Johnson telling everyone schools were absolutely safe and then closing them 1 day later?
 
Rascal said:
Vacancies and under staffing are two different issues.

Staffing on my ward has been cut by almost a half, Matron is expected to do the jobs that the much maligned backroom staff used to do. Night staffing has been cut by 50%. Now there is one Staff nurse and two supports on at night instead of 2 staffs and 5 supports. The contracts were changed without consultation, so that they work longer hours, some do 7am to 9pm shifts. They now all have to do nights, even Matron does nights, which means even less coverage as she uses that time to do the paper work she would do during the day.

Staffs are in short supply because of the cut in nursing bursaries, one of the most short sighted moves any government has ever made. So the younger staff arnt coming through. One of the supports on my ward is still working at 74 years old because they cant get staff because the hours and conditions are brutal and the training support is now non existant.

Specialist nurses are being trained up to write prescriptions because of the lack of Doctors, meaning even less time for specialist nurses to spend with patients.

The specialist leg ulcer clinic has had staff cut by 50% meaning longer waits and longer treatment times when the patient is actually seen,

The Lansley overhauls were nothing short of a disgrace, they showed a distinct lack of understanding of how a ward works, supports now have to beg and borrow equipment from other wards because the cuts have left a lack of simple stuff like dressings. Some treatments are rationed because of cost. Its false economy as inferior products are used that don't do the same job.

That is just one ward in one hospital, if that is replicated then the 40,000 figure is bollox its probably nearer 100,000 that are needed.
Click to expand...

I don’t disagree with you at all but that is not where the number of nurses short comes from. Politicians will only use statistics they can point to not antidotal evidence however accurate it may be.

The country does need an honest discussion about responsibilty, if you create a problem you fix it. I’d start with figuring out why attendance at A&E has been significantly lower since COVID and find who needs to pay, for example is it because folk aren’t turning up because they’ve had a few extra drinks? Ok tax booze more and give the extra cash to the NHS. If it’s more malign stuff then it will probably be down to folk not using A&E as an extension to their GP and if that is because they can’t get an appointment then get developers to start picking up the tab for this stuff when they shove another 10000 people on a brand new housing estate that all need to go to the same GP clinic. I’d even think about taxing imports from China to help pay for this COVID mess but that would need some careful analysis.

You can’t obviously eliminate all cause and effect but take a chunk out of it will then let the tax payer pay for the system that doesn’t run doctors, nurses and support staff into the ground or leave patients suffering unnecessarily.

Of course the NHS can be more efficient etc like any large business but I think this old “here is more cash for more efficiency” has been done to death and doesn’t really deliver on the ground in the way some consultant thought it might on a spreadsheet.
 
metalblue said:
Of course the NHS can be more efficient etc like any large business but I think this old “here is more cash for more efficiency” has been done to death and doesn’t really deliver on the ground in the way some consultant thought it might on a spreadsheet.
Click to expand...
The NHS is more inefficient because of the madness of Lansley's reforms. He totally fucked the NHS up and we are paying the price.

I do a lot of work for Health Innovation Manchester where we look at ways that innovation can make the NHS more efficient and time and time again, the answer is the same, the service is already so threadbare further efficiencies would mean loss of service. I have been on committees that have looked into combining services to make efficiences and there are practical barriers to doing it. Its all very well saying cut back office staff, but cutting those staff makes more work for frontline staff, its all very well saying outsource cleaners because they are cheaper, but then the ward Matrons have no control over the cleaners and jobs get missed that Matron needs doing because the outsourced company only have a contract to do A so it doesnt do B and then frontline staff end up doing B and it falls on them again.

There are also other issues, it can take upwards of 7 years for a new innovation to be established into the whole NHS because the service is so fragmented after that clown Lansley got involved. We have a project called the ARC in Manchester that works with other ARCs across the country to try and speed up innovation, then we meet cost barriers. I cant say more than that about ARCs for legal reasons but it frustrates the fuck out of me.

There is no shortage of innovation and idea's there is a shortage of money and of will to implement them. This is because the NHS is not a business, it is a service that has to bend to peoples requirements and needs, it has to anticipate issues, like we are doing at the moment with what will surely be a mental health crisis off epic proportions. The barriers we have found that hinder progress in this area is astonishing, because there are fucking idiots who go on about translators in the NHS.

Then we have the clowns in Government saying there are beds in these nightingale hospitals. A bed without doctors and nurses, is just a bed, it may as well be in a hotel for all it is worth. Because if you dont have the staff or the equipment then the nightingales are basically empty hotels.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top