Well you actually raise a really good point when it comes to healthcare. European countries get far better results for their money than we do, but the NHS is a sacred cow that can neither be criticised nor changed without howls of protest. Barely anyone wants to see a US style health insurance system, but the inability of us as a society to have a mature discussion on how best to change things to deliver good results is extremely frustrating.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
The Conservative Party
- Thread starter dave_blue12
- Start date
Well you actually raise a really good point when it comes to healthcare. European countries get far better results for their money than we do, but the NHS is a sacred cow that can neither be criticised nor changed without howls of protest. Barely anyone wants to see a US style health insurance system, but the inability of us as a society to have a mature discussion on how best to change things to deliver good results is extremely frustrating.
salfordbluetrue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 2 Jul 2013
- Messages
- 4,455
So after years of selling off the profitable easy to run bits of health and education it is the fault of those trying to give the poor a better life because they are lazy and skiversYes.
But it's slightly more subtle than that. When I go to parts of Europe and I see social infrastructure and hospitals etc which on face value are much better than ours, I could very easily be persuaded into thinking "Ok, I wouldn't mind paying a bit more in taxation in order to provide these sorts of benefits". You pays your money, takes your choice etc.
However, our track record of successfully running a piss up in a brewery is one of dirty glasses, cloudy eggy beer, and rude staff who turn in sick and bugger off half way through.
The worrying reality is just how much of the extra taxes that Labour would take, would actually end up delivering improved services? Versus how much of it would be eaten up with bureaucracy, red tape, pay rises (deserved or not, that's not the question), reduced efficiency? Labour are ideologically in favour of a big public sector where more of the things described in Ifwecouldjust's post are provided by the state. Now we can debate whether the state is better than the private sector or not, but that's a significant difference in the parties' ideologies.
I am told that the public sector work just as hard as people in the private sector, but honestly, I remain unconvinced. Personally I see much higher rates of sick days, reduced customer service, increased holidays and reduced productivity. Capitalism and its relentless pursuit of profits has its issues, but at least it provides an imperative to "get things done", which to me, seems relatively lacking in the public sector.
Ifwecouldjust.......
Well-Known Member
Aside from the point about the quality of their universities, they also have a youth unemployment rate of 33%.
Ours is far worse.... but Spain doesn't massage the figures by forcing kids up to the age of 18 to stay in full time education or take an apprenticeship / traineeship.
Ifwecouldjust.......
Well-Known Member
No, I don't. It just amused me how you seemingly picked a random stat out of the air about Spanish university fees and then another random one when that didn't find any supporters.
307,000 homeless people is shocking and appalling. What would you suggest we do about it?
Maybe bring in a Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 and force authorities to take action perhaps?
The Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 is one of the biggest changes to the rights of homeless people in England for 15 years. It effectively bolts two new duties to the original statutory rehousing duty:
Shelter supports the legislation because it extends entitlements to help, places a renewed focus on the prevention of homelessness and local joint working, and has the potential to provide more client-focussed, personalised statutory homelessness services.
- Duty to prevent homelessness
- Duty to relieve homelessness
Surely the evil Tories cannot be behind this???
Typical Tories ....Step 1 ... create a problem through ill thought out and harsh policies
Step 2 ... Claim the credit for solving the problem they created in the first place.
Ours is far worse.... but Spain doesn't massage the figures by forcing kids up to the age of 18 to stay in full time education or take an apprenticeship / traineeship.
Ours is not remotely far worse. And education and training to 18 is not "massaging the figures", it's a standard aspiration. Do you think not kicking kids up chimneys at 6 years old is massaging the figures too?
Ifwecouldjust.......
Well-Known Member
Ours is not remotely far worse. And education and training to 18 is not "massaging the figures", it's a standard aspiration. Do you think not kicking kids up chimneys at 6 years old is massaging the figures too?
You're not comparing like for like is what i am saying...
You're not comparing like for like is what i am saying...
Comparing the unemployment rates of people when full time compulsory education ends is entirely reasonable and like for like. Still, if you prefer, you can choose Spain's graduate unemployment rate of 16% and the UK's of 4% which comes to the same differential.
Chippy_boy
Well-Known Member
Thanks for that promising legislation. Will watch with interest.
I wasn't just mentioning things for the sake of it. People were talking about public spending. Henkeman pointed out that there were more students these days and that is why the free system I was lucky enough to get was no longer viable. I can accept that but was nevertheless surprised that Spain could afford to be so generous. You put me right on that. Their universities are below UK standard. But just to point out that the UK is not a land flowing with milk and honey I felt it interesting to compare the 2 countries in terms of homelessness.
My main point is not about Spain or indeed the UK but about the fact that as the wealth piles up around the world little reaches those at the bottom.
We scoff at the Azerbaijani woman who spent 16m in Harrods,proceeds of her banker husband. But as sure as night follows day there will be UK capitalists who have cast envious eyes at the enormous wealth of oligarchs from Russia and elsewhere and are busy creating the conditions where they too can take their fellow citizens for the economic ride of a lifetime
Fair enough.
However, what I find interesting is the way you've worded your last paragraph. The Azerbaijani woman's husband is a criminal and the way he gained his wealth would be illegal here and in pretty much every other country. UK capitalists may very well be eyeing up ways to (legally) make money, but that is a good thing. You seem to portray it as a bad thing, and worse that it's done by shafting the poor downtrodden workers. It's this chip on shoulder mentality which to be fair you may not have, but it's certainly prevalent amongst a significant number of people on the left. A resentment of anyone successful and a greedy, self-serving desire to "give me more of what you've got". I find it very unpalatable tbh.
Typical Tories ....Step 1 ... create a problem through ill thought out and harsh policies
Step 2 ... Claim the credit for solving the problem they created in the first place.
See this is utter bollocks. The rate of homelessness in England is barely a third of what it was 15 years ago.
SWP's back
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2009
- Messages
- 91,432
Being Spanish, was she shocked to see people working?If yo
If you think the number of people sleeping rough on the streets in the UK is unimportant so be it.
My Spanish wife was working in Liverpool last week and was genuinely shocked by what she saw.
Chippy_boy
Well-Known Member
What I find interesting is that people are very quick to compare things to the US, which nobody would want. But less prepared to compare us to say the Netherlands, or perhaps even Belgium which I believe has one of the best healthcare systems in the world but where they have mandatory health insurance for all citizens.Well you actually raise a really good point when it comes to healthcare. European countries get far better results for their money than we do, but the NHS is a sacred cow that can neither be criticised nor changed without howls of protest. Barely anyone wants to see a US style health insurance system, but the inability of us as a society to have a mature discussion on how best to change things to deliver good results is extremely frustrating.
Chippy_boy
Well-Known Member
In Liverpool? Wouldn't we all be?Being Spanish, was she shocked to see people working?
Fame Monster
Well-Known Member
See this is utter bollocks. The rate of homelessness in England is barely a third of what it was 15 years ago.
And that rate was a hangover from the homelessness problems of the 80s and 90s, which the Tories arguably created by slashing the state under Thatcher. After 2003, homelessness came down dramatically under Labour until it then rose again for the first time since 2003 after the crash and under the Tory/Tory-led Government and has risen year-on-year until it slightly decreased again last-year under May. It is a complex issue, you're right but there are certain nasty policies authored by the Tories that contribute to homelessness including 'right-to-buy' and the continued selling off of social housing. Hopefully, the recent policies announced by May will start to turn the corner on homelessness because it's a stain on our country.
What I find interesting is that people are very quick to compare things to the US, which nobody would want. But less prepared to compare us to say the Netherlands, or perhaps even Belgium which I believe has one of the best healthcare systems in the world but where they have mandatory health insurance for all citizens.
Exactly the point. I'm a long way from an expert on anything NHS, but I find it hard to believe we couldn't get better results for the same money than we do. And why not look at an insurance system like they have in Europe instead of our current one? Why is that beyond the pale?
Chippy_boy
Well-Known Member
And that rate was a hangover from the homelessness problems of the 80s and 90s, which the Tories arguably created by slashing the state under Thatcher. After 2003, homelessness came down dramatically under Labour until it then rose again for the first time since 2003 after the crash and under the Tory/Tory-led Government and has risen year-on-year until it slightly decreased again last-year under May. It is a complex issue, you're right but there are certain nasty policies authored by the Tories that contribute to homelessness including 'right-to-buy' and the continued selling off of social housing. Hopefully, the recent policies announced by May will start to turn the corner on homelessness because it's a stain on our country.
Deary, deary me. Giving people the right to buy their own homes is a "nasty policy"? I've heard it all now.
The bitterness coming out of some of you lot, you badly need to get laid I think.
And that rate was a hangover from the homelessness problems of the 80s and 90s, which the Tories arguably created by slashing the state under Thatcher. After 2003, homelessness came down dramatically under Labour until it then rose again for the first time since 2003 after the crash and under the Tory/Tory-led Government and has risen year-on-year until it slightly decreased again last-year under May. It is a complex issue, you're right but there are certain nasty policies authored by the Tories that contribute to homelessness including 'right-to-buy' and the continued selling off of social housing. Hopefully, the recent policies announced by May will start to turn the corner on homelessness because it's a stain on our country.
It's such a complicated issue. I'm not going to blame Evil Blair for presiding over a rise, but equally nor do I think you can ignore them being in power for six years to that point and still blame the Nasty Tories from a decade earlier. It's playing party politics with a complex issue.
The councils have had to be forced in the most recent legislation to deal with it, and some of the worst offenders have been Labour councils. Again, that doesn't mean they are vile, vicious types who don't care either.
A stain it may be and is, but trying to load that specifically on one strain of government is partisan nonsense.
SWP's back
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2009
- Messages
- 91,432
Haha. Fucking hell. What a load of shite.It is a complex issue, you're right but there are certain nasty policies authored by the Tories that contribute to homelessness including 'right-to-buy'
Fame Monster
Well-Known Member
Deary, deary me. Giving people the right to buy their own homes is a "nasty policy"? I've heard it all now.
The bitterness coming out of some of you lot, you badly need to get laid I think.
It's not their own home though, is it? They're social homes, for people who need them the most. And when they're sold off, they don't get replaced because local authority budgets are slashed and councils are prevented from borrowing money to replace them (scheduled to change, thankfully). It's a nasty, nasty backdoor policy which is one of the reasons why we've seen a proliferation of people living on the streets. By the same token, do you think governments should force all landlords to sell their homes?
Fame Monster
Well-Known Member
It's such a complicated issue. I'm not going to blame Evil Blair for presiding over a rise, but equally nor do I think you can ignore them being in power for six years to that point and still blame the Nasty Tories from a decade earlier. It's playing party politics with a complex issue.
The councils have had to be forced in the most recent legislation to deal with it, and some of the worst offenders have been Labour councils. Again, that doesn't mean they are vile, vicious types who don't care either.
A stain it may be and is, but trying to load that specifically on one strain of government is partisan nonsense.
Blair presided over a slight rise then a steep fall. Since right-to-buy, the Tories have presided over steep rises every time they've been in Government - including steep rises in rough sleeping. If you can make any issue party political, it's this one.
Blair presided over a slight rise then a steep fall. Since right-to-buy, the Tories have presided over steep rises every time they've been in Government - including steep rises in rough sleeping. If you can make any issue party political, it's this one.
25% is not a "slight" rise. While those evil Tories have presided over barely any kind of rise at all and at a vastly lower level.
I'm all for holding government of either hue to account for their failures, but this is still partisan bollocks.