|
|
Post by Merseymike on Nov 4, 2014 0:29:27 GMT
If you don't want to use the NHS, that's your choice, go somewhere else and don't use the NHS, but don't get in the way of me choosing to use the NHS. That is totally ludicrous. Firstly the idea that you would actually choose the NHS rather than far superior private hopsitals and secondly the idea that one cannot believe in restricting your right to something you have not paid for (I respect the fact that you disagree with Neil however). You have to be able to afford the private hospital but also what private hospitals do is quite limited. Effectively they cherry pick profitable activity which the NHS cannot do |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 4, 2014 0:39:41 GMT
That is totally ludicrous. Firstly the idea that you would actually choose the NHS rather than far superior private hopsitals and secondly the idea that one cannot believe in restricting your right to something you have not paid for (I respect the fact that you disagree with Neil however). You have to be able to afford the private hospital but also what private hospitals do is quite limited. Effectively they cherry pick profitable activity which the NHS cannot do Lots of jobs in the private sector offer health care insurance as part of the renumeration package. |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Nov 4, 2014 0:41:19 GMT
If you don't want to use the NHS, that's your choice, go somewhere else and don't use the NHS, but don't get in the way of me choosing to use the NHS. That is totally ludicrous. Firstly the idea that you would actually choose the NHS rather than far superior private hopsitals and secondly the idea that one cannot believe in restricting your right to something you have not paid for (I respect the fact that you disagree with Neil however). There speaks somebody who hasn't checked the statistics on how often NHS hospitals have to save the lives of private patients. |
|
cefin
Non-Aligned
Posts: 906 
|
Post by cefin on Nov 4, 2014 0:41:40 GMT
That's fair enough. We disagree. I can live with that  Indeed. I think what we share is a dislike of 'fudge'. I am a pro-European. For me that means taking a positive and enthusiastic part in European policy - not semi-detached whinging from the sidelines. If I was an anti-European I would wish to leave, not look for ways of making something I didn't agree with more palatable Its the same here - the internal market and the commissioning system is the worst of all worlds. Either have the NHS and run it properly, command-and-control, with proper financial management (and for years it was by far the most efficient system in the developed world because of the lack of contract-based administrative cost), or have a private system . We always seem to want to dodge real political choices in this country
Well the labour party didn't dodge political choice did they?
They were handing out PFI contracts like confetti to private organisations. That's why it's costing the NHS £400 to change a light bulb in many hospitals right now.
I make that about £399.20 less to spend on health care every time a light bulb is changed thanks to the labour party's privatisation of the Health service!
|
|
john07
Labour & Co-operative
Posts: 15,816
|
Post by john07 on Nov 4, 2014 0:48:47 GMT
That is totally ludicrous. Firstly the idea that you would actually choose the NHS rather than far superior private hopsitals and secondly the idea that one cannot believe in restricting your right to something you have not paid for (I respect the fact that you disagree with Neil however). There speaks somebody who hasn't checked the statistics on how often NHS hospitals have to save the lives of private patients. Exactly. The private sector are fine at the likes of cosmetic surgery and routine (cheap) operations. When anything life threatening goes wrong in such cases they transfer the patent to an NHS hospital. They don't do anything like A&E or other loss making activities. |
|
Pimpernal
Forum Regular
A left-wing agenda within a right-wing framework...
Posts: 2,873
|
Post by Pimpernal on Nov 4, 2014 8:18:42 GMT
It wasn't good, it appealed to you. Those things are different. The 2010 UKIP manifesto would be a lot less appealing to UKIP's 2015 target voters. The difference is to some extent academic, because few voters are familiar with the main contents of manifestos and I suspect that'll be particularly true of UKIP supporters this time round, but it is real. In any case, substantive detail on the NHS from UKIP is unlikely because a) there are undoubtedly differences of opinion within the party - I have no reason to believe Nuttall was lying when he expressed enthusiasm for privatisation, and a lot of reason to believe Carswell was when he claims The Plan didn't do the same thing, but the voters they need aren't going to back that prospectus and b) UKIP don't need substantive detail to get votes, and it might actually hinder them when they can't just repudiate anything that might be inconvenient. Okay not better but at least representing a coherent philosophy. At the moment they can't really decide whether they are a hard right party or a party of the populist centre so their policies are a total mess. O love the way that because UKIP operates outside the self-imposed paradigms of the existing parties, its platform is therefore a 'total mess'. On the contrary, it is utterly reflective of the values and policies I have long argued for... |
|
Pimpernal
Forum Regular
A left-wing agenda within a right-wing framework...
Posts: 2,873
|
Post by Pimpernal on Nov 4, 2014 8:25:01 GMT
Presumably you insure your house with a state owned insurance provider then? Is there one? |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Nov 4, 2014 9:31:04 GMT
Okay not better but at least representing a coherent philosophy. At the moment they can't really decide whether they are a hard right party or a party of the populist centre so their policies are a total mess. O love the way that because UKIP operates outside the self-imposed paradigms of the existing parties, its platform is therefore a 'total mess'. On the contrary, it is utterly reflective of the values and policies I have long argued for... Some of us would not see those two statements as mutually exclusive... |
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Nov 4, 2014 10:18:56 GMT
Indeed. I think what we share is a dislike of 'fudge'. I am a pro-European. For me that means taking a positive and enthusiastic part in European policy - not semi-detached whinging from the sidelines. If I was an anti-European I would wish to leave, not look for ways of making something I didn't agree with more palatable Its the same here - the internal market and the commissioning system is the worst of all worlds. Either have the NHS and run it properly, command-and-control, with proper financial management (and for years it was by far the most efficient system in the developed world because of the lack of contract-based administrative cost), or have a private system . We always seem to want to dodge real political choices in this country
Well the labour party didn't dodge political choice did they?
They were handing out PFI contracts like confetti to private organisations. That's why it's costing the NHS £400 to change a light bulb in many hospitals right now.
I make that about £399.20 less to spend on health care every time a light bulb is changed thanks to the labour party's privatisation of the Health service!
What makes you think I agreed with that? |
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Nov 4, 2014 10:20:38 GMT
You have to be able to afford the private hospital but also what private hospitals do is quite limited. Effectively they cherry pick profitable activity which the NHS cannot do Lots of jobs in the private sector offer health care insurance as part of the renumeration package. 'Lots'=small number of professional posts. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 4, 2014 10:47:06 GMT
It's not that they can't decide. It's that they want to be both. The incoherence doesn't matter until you try to put it into practice. A strategy lifted directly from the LibDem playbook ....  |
|
Pimpernal
Forum Regular
A left-wing agenda within a right-wing framework...
Posts: 2,873
|
Post by Pimpernal on Nov 4, 2014 15:25:28 GMT
Some of us would not see those two statements as mutually exclusive... Definitely one of the best (and most deserved) put downs I've read on here for a while! Deserved in what way out of interest? Personally, it made me grin when I read it, but that's probably beyond your ken... |
|
|
|
Post by libertykipper on Nov 5, 2014 18:32:53 GMT
Will this be the last by-election before the general election, or do MPs not have the same six-month rule as councillors?
|
|
Andrew_S
Top Poster
Posts: 28,238
Member is Online
|
Post by Andrew_S on Nov 5, 2014 18:37:52 GMT
Will this be the last by-election before the general election, or do MPs not have the same six-month rule as councillors? The rule doesn't exist for Westminster. There were by-elections just before the 1979 and 1997 general elections for example. |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Nov 5, 2014 18:48:44 GMT
Will this be the last by-election before the general election, or do MPs not have the same six-month rule as councillors? The rule doesn't exist for Westminster. There were by-elections just before the 1979 and 1997 general elections for example. In the 'Good Old Days' before fixed term parliaments. Anything in the Act pertaining to by-elections? |
|
|
|
Post by Devonian on Nov 5, 2014 19:02:52 GMT
Will this be the last by-election before the general election, or do MPs not have the same six-month rule as councillors? Officially by elections can be held at any point up until the dissolution of Parliament. The guidelines state that by elections should normally filled within a few months of a vacancy (if my memory serves me correctly its three months) but that this convention can be relaxed in the fifth year of a Parliament. What this has mean in practice is that after 1997 by elections have not been held after Christmas in the final year of a Parliament but have been then rolled into the General election. The last Thursday before Christmas is the 18th December. A by election must be held 21 to 27 working days after a writ is moved. 21 working days before 18th Dec is, by my reckoning 19th November. So a vacancy would have to occur and a writ moved within the next two weeks in order, in practice, for there to be another by election. This means of course that any Tory MP who defects after the Rochester by election won't be calling a by election himself because the effective deadline is, quite conveniently, the day before the Rochester election. |
|
|
|
Post by justin124 on Nov 5, 2014 20:39:12 GMT
If a vacancy were to occur there is still nothing to stop an MP from moving the writ for a byelection. Would the Government seek to vote down such a move?
|
|
neilm
Non-Aligned
Posts: 25,023
|
Post by neilm on Nov 5, 2014 21:18:53 GMT
That would be interesting. Unlikely because they'd want UKIP (for it would be they) to spend lots of cash just before a GE.
|
|
Crimson King
Lib Dem
Be nice to each other and sing in tune
Posts: 9,858
|
Post by Crimson King on Nov 5, 2014 22:30:25 GMT
as I have said before, I suspect there will be some more defections after this by election(assuming a UKIP win) but there will be no resignations to fight the seats because the defectors could legitimately argue that events have shown that not fighting the by was not due to fear of losing, so why put the electors to the trouble and expense of a by so close to the GE.
|
|
Andrew_S
Top Poster
Posts: 28,238
Member is Online
|
Post by Andrew_S on Nov 5, 2014 22:51:18 GMT
as I have said before, I suspect there will be some more defections after this by election(assuming a UKIP win) but there will be no resignations to fight the seats because the defectors could legitimately argue that events have shown that not fighting the by was not due to fear of losing, so why put the electors to the trouble and expense of a by so close to the GE. My prediction is John Baron. |
|
