The Post General Election Thread

[malg]

There isn't the poltical will, there's a reason the Great Depression and the 2nd World War gave birth to the NHS.

As for....



The NHS is not a monopoly, you can go private. What I think you're saying is why should we fund the NHS through general taxation rather than social health insurance.

Even those with private insurance use the NHS. You just have to look at A&E departments who have professional footballers admitted during games, and during the wee small hours when private health care is asleep. Oh, and there are plenty of actors and actresses who are worth a fair few quid who use the NHS as well.

Not sure what you and urmston are advocating, privately run NHS hospitals? mandatory universal health insurance? What?

Either way, public ownership of the NHS is not just a mechanical arrangement, it is a political covenant between the State and the people, the one untouchable in politics since the 2nd World War, that access to good healthcare is a right of all citizens, paid for through general taxation and free of the vagaries of the market and ones ability to pay.

You're reading far too much into my post. I was just pointing out that even those who are well off need the NHS.

 

[JoeMercer'sWay]

It's not rocket science you look at money you have if you can afford it, I'd love to have another child however my job and that of my wife dictate it cannot happen, the major factor is money and also the burden on our supportive families. If you haven't got the IQ to work it out frankly you shouldn't having kids anyway.

So you think poor planning or making a mistake is the same thing as a lack of intelligence?

See this is where I start to enjoy these types of debates because you do get to see the stripped down arguments and they expose their contempt. Your problem is that you think you are better than people because you have a bit of money and they don't. therefore they must be thick and/or lazy.

I can afford to have more kids and in fact the missus is currently pregnant. Obviously this means that I am better and smarter than you are, which means you should listen to my opinion and presume it correct.

At what point did I say if you have more money you are smarter? I said you look at what you have and you plan accordingly, if you plan poorly I'd say you are not as clever as you think regardless of how much you have, make a mistake, which we all do, there are choices and don't expect the state to bail you out all the time. I have contempt for the hundreds of scrotes I've seen who are now third generation scroungers, I have nothing but admiration for those who work 2 or 3 jobs and give everything for their kids, but that's the choices both have made. Both are in similar circumstances but one decides to do something about it.

what if you have 2 kids, can afford a third but then have triplets? or have 1 or zero children and have quadruplets or quintuplets, or have 1 kid and give birth to twins? No planning and care can account for that.

 

[Blue Maverick]

It's not rocket science you look at money you have if you can afford it, I'd love to have another child however my job and that of my wife dictate it cannot happen, the major factor is money and also the burden on our supportive families. If you haven't got the IQ to work it out frankly you shouldn't having kids anyway.

So you think poor planning or making a mistake is the same thing as a lack of intelligence?

See this is where I start to enjoy these types of debates because you do get to see the stripped down arguments and they expose their contempt. Your problem is that you think you are better than people because you have a bit of money and they don't. therefore they must be thick and/or lazy.

I can afford to have more kids and in fact the missus is currently pregnant. Obviously this means that I am better and smarter than you are, which means you should listen to my opinion and presume it correct.

Look at my story a couple of pages back Damocles, my mum must of had a low IQ and been a shit person to have 5 of us!

As I don't know your personal circumstances I'd say not, I'd hope your parents looked at what they could provide for your nd your siblings and did so, but if it was now and they didn't get child tax credits and child benefit after the second child would they have done the same, answer is yes and they could do it then fair play answer no and they are then relying on handouts etc then I'd say it wouldnt be the most intelligent decision.

 

[Blue Maverick]

So you think poor planning or making a mistake is the same thing as a lack of intelligence?

See this is where I start to enjoy these types of debates because you do get to see the stripped down arguments and they expose their contempt. Your problem is that you think you are better than people because you have a bit of money and they don't. therefore they must be thick and/or lazy.

I can afford to have more kids and in fact the missus is currently pregnant. Obviously this means that I am better and smarter than you are, which means you should listen to my opinion and presume it correct.

At what point did I say if you have more money you are smarter? I said you look at what you have and you plan accordingly, if you plan poorly I'd say you are not as clever as you think regardless of how much you have, make a mistake, which we all do, there are choices and don't expect the state to bail you out all the time. I have contempt for the hundreds of scrotes I've seen who are now third generation scroungers, I have nothing but admiration for those who work 2 or 3 jobs and give everything for their kids, but that's the choices both have made. Both are in similar circumstances but one decides to do something about it.

what if you have 2 kids, can afford a third but then have triplets? or have 1 or zero children and have quadruplets or quintuplets, or have 1 kid and give birth to twins? No planning and care can account for that.

Then you could apply under exceptional circumstances, I'm talking about the normal everyday goings on you've got two kids already decide to have another then you don't get any benefits. Christ we can all give extreme examples I'm not a heartless fucker but if you wanted me to be then I could say abortion problem solved!! There are always going to be extremes and they can be dealt within accordingly and with compassion but if you know you don't get anything after the second deal with it.

 

[worsleyweb]

Damocles I liked your long post and that women should be proud of herself. I only didn't respond as I have been organising a football tournament today and I got that on the touch line and scrolled to see how long it was and said to myself good god and then my phone died!

You may think I don't have a heart but I do. (I rescued a hedgehog today and took it to hospital) I want there to be a safety net for those who don't take the piss and money spent on education for kids in crap areas and for people to do well in life. Unfortunately I beleive that people like that women you quote have been let down by people taking advantage of the system. The cuts of 12 billion are only going to take us back to where we were maybe a few years ago. It is small percentages and efficiency. It is the right thing to do. Ducado is taking as if everyone in the public sector is going to loose their jobs etc! It is going to be brutal etc etc. people will still get benefits when they are in need but as cameron said benefits should not be a lifestyle choice which I think they are. It is a vicious circle as somone born of shit parents in let's say a council estate in rocahdle have a tough start in life and maybe know no better. We won't achieve utopia but clearly a lot of people in this country don't trust the leftist idealism at presnt.

As someone has said in a post since your novel - the public sector have had it a lot easier than the private sector over the last ten years. We can't runa deficit for ever and a culture change where those people who do take the piss realise it is not acceptable has to happen and I would suggest there are far more than you calculate. Some of the graphs posted show that it is just going back to where we should be. I like the idea of an efficent and lean public sector. Is that a bad thing?

You will always find example like the lady you quote. I had an incredibly dysfunctional childhood and live in a hostel for several months with my mum and brother but through sheer determination and graft I have managed to produce a secure future for my slightly modern family. I have a good work ethic but i don't judge anyone by material success. I do judge people if they have a feeling of entitlement.

. think I started this new debate by saying the cuts won't be that brutal - 5 billion from tax and maybe it is a good idea to stop housing benefits for under 25s.i still do inspite of your great story. maybe they could do an interview process or put in controls to weed out the piss takers if possible?

I don't think that opinion makes me a bad person or someone who you can't debate with? Let's hope our country is a better place in 5 years.

Ps I am typing this whilst giving a kid a piggy back so bear with any spelling mistakes l!!!

 

[Blue Maverick]

I love it when the country is doing well it's all down to the private sector when it's bad it's because of the public sector, over the last ten years Id say the public sector has suffered just as much and certainly people on the frontline have, bin collections down, less police, nurses, fire fighters, waiting times up, roads not done, this is all part of it and we have all suffered because of the consequences of a shit government and private sector greed.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

As someone has said in a post since your novel - the public sector have had it a lot easier than the private sector over the last ten years. We can't runa deficit for ever and a culture change where those people who do take the piss realise it is not acceptable has to happen and I would suggest there are far more than you calculate. Some of the graphs posted show that it is just going back to where we should be. I like the idea of an efficent and lean public sector. Is that a bad thing?

Have to say that's a much better and more considered post than some of your other efforts so it gets a 'like' from me.

Just to pick up on the part I quoted though, we've only run a budget surplus (where we don't need to borrow to meet expenditure) in 6 years since 1979 and four of those were under Blair.

 

[kas_tippler]

The Socialist Workers Party were' kicking out the tories' today outside Levenshulme market today. Wouldn't know a days work between them, typical academics locked in a time warp.
The normal working man/woman isn't interest in their flaky Marxist ideals.

 

[OB1]

My rather Laboured point (heh) is that the idea of just creating apprenticeships whilst cutting the benefits is stupid because the majority of young kids who go on benefits don't WANT to be on benefits, but are forced to due to the lack of jobs. Out of those three million, how many do you think will touch Leigh or any of the thousands of towns like it across the UK that have been left to rot.......

Thousands of towns like it, it that possibly the daftest thing you have ever posted?

Have you any idea how many towns there are in the UK?

 

[Ducado]

I have never said that everyone in the public sector will lose their jobs, we don't know what they are planning but you can't make a 12 billion saving through welfare alone, so its services that have already been cut to the bone that are going to get cut, and like I said they pulled this stunt before with disastrous consequences, for most people this will mean less police, a struggling NHS, crumbling infrastructure, more children at risk, more elderly people at risk some may be OK with this., it would have been nice if the Tories had been honest with the electorate rather than stonewalling every time they were asked