|
|
Copeland
Feb 16, 2017 17:18:08 GMT
via mobile
Post by Merseymike on Feb 16, 2017 17:18:08 GMT
Not sure that is true but yes - I carry no torch for the mistakes of New Labour. They certainly created the conditions for 'any eligible provider'. I am not defending them. Panorama, I think it was, did an analysis of it, a few years back, admittedly. They found that of the 6% of health service that had been privatised, 4.4% was done by Labour and 1.6% was done by the Conservatives or the coalition. There's been a lot of additional involvement in primary care during the coalition years though it may come down to definition. Is something still free at the point of use but run by a private company 'privatised '? |
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Feb 16, 2017 18:30:09 GMT
Panorama, I think it was, did an analysis of it, a few years back, admittedly. They found that of the 6% of health service that had been privatised, 4.4% was done by Labour and 1.6% was done by the Conservatives or the coalition. There's been a lot of additional involvement in primary care during the coalition years though it may come down to definition. Is something still free at the point of use but run by a private company 'privatised '? Since "privatisation" is a term widely used by the Labour Party perhaps you should define it? |
|
|
|
Post by justin124 on Feb 16, 2017 19:02:06 GMT
Not sure that is true but yes - I carry no torch for the mistakes of New Labour. They certainly created the conditions for 'any eligible provider'. I am not defending them. Panorama, I think it was, did an analysis of it, a few years back, admittedly. They found that of the 6% of health service that had been privatised, 4.4% was done by Labour and 1.6% was done by the Conservatives or the coalition. That does not particularly surprise me because - at least until Autumn 2008 - the Blair/Brown Governments were De Facto Tory Government anyway - much more right wing than pre-Thatcher Tory Administrations of the 20th century. |
|
|
|
Post by Chris Whiteside on Feb 16, 2017 19:07:25 GMT
I think it's perfectly legitimate to put forward the argument that, if the Conservative Party candidate wins a byelection and gains a seat in an area where the Conservative government is proposing to close hospital facilities, they will conclude that it is politically safe to carry on with the closures.
Given that it is the "success regime" rather than ministers that is proposing to downgrade maternity, and the Conservative candidate has made very clear indeed that she opposes the proposal, I do not agree that the circumstances in which this argument might be true apply in Copeland.
|
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,796 
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Feb 16, 2017 19:13:32 GMT
There's been a lot of additional involvement in primary care during the coalition years though it may come down to definition. Is something still free at the point of use but run by a private company 'privatised '? Since "privatisation" is a term widely used by the Labour Party perhaps you should define it? Burger King is a private company. If I take a voucher I get a burger free at the point of use. |
|
|
|
Copeland
Feb 16, 2017 19:17:33 GMT
via mobile
Post by Merseymike on Feb 16, 2017 19:17:33 GMT
There's been a lot of additional involvement in primary care during the coalition years though it may come down to definition. Is something still free at the point of use but run by a private company 'privatised '? Since "privatisation" is a term widely used by the Labour Party perhaps you should define it? Really not interested in political one-upmanship. It's an interesting topic but the term is used in a range of ways. I have already said I didn't support the policies of the party I left in 2003 on this issue and my critique would be of that New Labour party just as much as your party and the Conservatives |
|
johnr
Labour & Co-operative
Posts: 1,944
|
Post by johnr on Feb 16, 2017 20:16:32 GMT
They've been posting it on social media without an imprint. They have also been circulating paper copies and I have seen one which was handed in to the Conservative campaign centre earlier today.
It does indeed have an imprint on the back, designed to look handwritten. The back is otherwise blank.
In which case I would suspect it is in breach of electoral law. Though my knowledge these days is rusty. No, that would be perfectly legal. There is no requirement that the imprint has to be on a page including text, nor that it has to be in a certain font or typeface. |
|
|
|
Post by An Sionnach Flannbhuí on Feb 16, 2017 20:21:11 GMT
It is couched as a personal letter in handwriting with the intention to mislead and to deceive electors into thinking it is a genuine letter by a member of the public (or a known local, or the candidate) to seem like a direct appeal person to person. It is in every way 'fake'. And it is intended to deceive. But clearly branded by the Labour party. The Labour name and logo are very large in your image. I fail to see who could be decieved into thinking this is anything other than an election communication on behalf of the Labour party and candidate. And as for it being personally addressed and in the style of natural handwriting, again that is something that ALL political parties have done for many, many years. My parents received something similar from the Conservative candidate in 1979 - the first election they voted Tory. I think there are crosswires here. JohnR is referring to the "NHS is not safe in Tory hands" glossy leaflet. While Carlton43 is referring to doktorb's post of the "It broke my heart but one of my boys didn't make it. If I had to travel to Carlisle, I would have lost them both." hand-written letter. From what I have seen, the "my baby would have died if the EVIL TORIES had their way" letter is the most disgusting thing I've seen in politics. If Labour win the by-election, Corbyn will survive, but the Tories will have vast excuse to clamp down on political campaigning in some way as a result. |
|
|
|
Post by An Sionnach Flannbhuí on Feb 16, 2017 20:33:11 GMT
I think it's perfectly legitimate to put forward the argument that, if the Conservative Party candidate wins a byelection and gains a seat in an area where the Conservative government is proposing to close hospital facilities, they will conclude that it is politically safe to carry on with the closures. And if the Conservative government is not proposing to close hospital facilities, and if it is just a whiff of a rumour of a White Paper, is it OK to put forward to that argument? Is it OK to campaign as a candidate in Doncaster on a platform of a whiff of a rumour of one's political opponent maybe possibly will turn a blind eye to child abuse, and then say it's alright to ask these questions? |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Feb 16, 2017 21:34:06 GMT
Yes, AC, it is all down to the quality of the deal hammered out for each PFI. Some have been pathetic in the quality of negotiating skill deployed. The idea can be very good if handled well. As to the WFP which I enjoyed (and enjoyed in Italy when I lived there) always beware the political consequential damage of withdrawing any benefit your own side get and enjoy!!! Do I think it is justified? No. Do I think it and the Bus Pass are sacrosanct? No. As a rational and financially comfortable senior with political views would I personally resent or endorse the withdrawal? I would resist and resent it. I know that I shouldn't. We need austerity and to sop up these trivial forms of expenditure. I agree. But don't do it. You will lose goodwill, support and votes and the cost is not worth it. We are the demographic that is most Conservative, most loyal and with the highest TO. Don't upset us for the sake of a principle. Just don't. Warning!!! 'we need austerity' 😂 Give me one example of a country that used austerity successfully and didn't give up and use Keynesian style investment instead. How many pages would you like? Not much Keynesian policy before...................................................Keynes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Feb 16, 2017 21:37:53 GMT
These bastards with their fake letters and tendentious nasty literature need to be beaten and we must get on with giving them a severe wrap in the mouth next week. does this leaflet trigger you, do you need a safe space as I wouldn't want you to beat any Labour activists. Personally the fact you don't like it is v encouraging for us I would think! Well. Let us meet with the weird sisters again here upon the blasted heath same time next week. Mine's an Eye of Newt (Livingston IPA) and perhaps a half of Ditch Born Drab (non-alcoholic) for you? |
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Feb 16, 2017 21:39:23 GMT
In which case I would suspect it is in breach of electoral law. Though my knowledge these days is rusty. No, that would be perfectly legal. There is no requirement that the imprint has to be on a page including text, nor that it has to be in a certain font or typeface. I thought there was a requirement that the imprint should be on the face of the document? |
|
|
|
Post by curiousliberal on Feb 16, 2017 21:40:12 GMT
For someone who railed against the supposedly malign influence of Islam in the UK, you are surprisingly in favour of something awfully similar to the dhimmi (assuming you are not trolling). Why? Do I really have to confess I was trolling?  Benji mentioned on the Islam thread he was an atheist, so I thought it a great idea to tax him in order to save his beloved NHS. I hadn't read that thread. My apologies for being rather obtuse. |
|
|
|
Post by Devil Wincarnate on Feb 16, 2017 21:42:11 GMT
Yes, AC, it is all down to the quality of the deal hammered out for each PFI. Some have been pathetic in the quality of negotiating skill deployed. The idea can be very good if handled well. As to the WFP which I enjoyed (and enjoyed in Italy when I lived there) always beware the political consequential damage of withdrawing any benefit your own side get and enjoy!!! Do I think it is justified? No. Do I think it and the Bus Pass are sacrosanct? No. As a rational and financially comfortable senior with political views would I personally resent or endorse the withdrawal? I would resist and resent it. I know that I shouldn't. We need austerity and to sop up these trivial forms of expenditure. I agree. But don't do it. You will lose goodwill, support and votes and the cost is not worth it. We are the demographic that is most Conservative, most loyal and with the highest TO. Don't upset us for the sake of a principle. Just don't. Warning!!! 'we need austerity' 😂 Give me one example of a country that used austerity successfully and didn't give up and use Keynesian style investment instead. Germany's Hartz Vier reforms/Agenda 2010. |
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Feb 16, 2017 21:45:17 GMT
Since "privatisation" is a term widely used by the Labour Party perhaps you should define it? Really not interested in political one-upmanship. It's an interesting topic but the term is used in a range of ways. I have already said I didn't support the policies of the party I left in 2003 on this issue and my critique would be of that New Labour party just as much as your party and the Conservatives It's not about "one-upmanship". It's about accurate use of language in politics. The Labour Party - before New Labour - would use the spectre of privatisation as a warning of what might happen under the Conservatives. But what does it actually mean? Some of it's clear. Moving hospital cleaning from in-house staff to "SodexPriusABC Logistics Corp" is clearly privatisation. But so is moving the gardening of hospital grounds from in-house staff to "GreenTree Garden Maintenance", which is surely not controversial? What about moving some clinical functions from hospital staff to the voluntary/charitable sector? |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Feb 16, 2017 21:47:18 GMT
'we need austerity' 😂 Give me one example of a country that used austerity successfully and didn't give up and use Keynesian style investment instead. Germany's Hartz Vier reforms/Agenda 2010. Don't confuse him DW. |
|
maxque
Non-Aligned
Posts: 9,312
|
Post by maxque on Feb 16, 2017 21:48:08 GMT
'we need austerity' 😂 Give me one example of a country that used austerity successfully and didn't give up and use Keynesian style investment instead. Germany's Hartz Vier reforms/Agenda 2010. Aren't those more and more unpopular and unlikely to survive an SPD-led government, being widely blamed for making German jobs very precarious? |
|
|
|
Post by Devil Wincarnate on Feb 16, 2017 21:56:56 GMT
Germany's Hartz Vier reforms/Agenda 2010. bare with me while I find out who the fuck he was and wtf he did! Hartz prepared a series of reforms at the request of the (social democratic) Chancellor, Gerhard Schroeder. These were part of a larger parcel of reforms called "Agenda 2010", which were an attempt, arguably successful, to stimulate the German labour market. They were controversial in the sense that they tore apart the SPD for a while but enjoyed reasonably wide understanding and popularity across Germany, despite some protests. It's now a reasonably accepted set of reforms. Although note my avatar for where my sympathies tend to to lie. |
|
john07
Labour & Co-operative
Posts: 15,809
|
Post by john07 on Feb 16, 2017 22:05:55 GMT
'we need austerity' 😂 Give me one example of a country that used austerity successfully and didn't give up and use Keynesian style investment instead. How many pages would you like? Not much Keynesian policy before...................................................Keynes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Apart from the FDR New Deal? |
|
right
Conservative
Posts: 18,821
|
Copeland
Feb 16, 2017 22:32:21 GMT
via mobile
Post by right on Feb 16, 2017 22:32:21 GMT
These bastards with their fake letters and tendentious nasty literature need to be beaten and we must get on with giving them a severe wrap in the mouth next week. does this leaflet trigger you, do you need a safe space as I wouldn't want you to beat any Labour activists. Personally the fact you don't like it is v encouraging for us I would think! It certainly is, but remember what happened to Project Fear when they realised it was the only pro EU message that reverberated and they started overdoing it by promising recessions by Christmas and punishment budgets as well as worrying about new world wars and the end of western civilisation. |
|
