Be Excellent To Each Other

If the NHS was in good shape, then we could thank our wonderful Conservative government. But if the NHS is in bad shape, then clearly it is bad, and must be reformed by our wonderful Conservative government, perhaps by adding more laissez-faire market forces because the invisible hand fixes all and externalities don't exist. Remember that socialism has failed and socialised healthcare is bad, except in places like Austria, Spain, Canada, Italy, and Finland; and privatised healthcare is good, in places like 404_NOT_FOUND.

"Because it's not privatised", he'll retort, before citing examples from numerous countries which have publicly-funded universal healthcare. Then repeating the "no country ever based their health system on the British NHS" myth. Again.

Edit: beaten to it (far better) by Doccy G.

https://twitter.com/RichardJMurphy/stat ... 3717757952

Do you know what happens if an NHS trust declares it has an A&E crisis? The government fines it, reducing the resources it has to cope

— Richard Murphy (@RichardJMurphy) January 7, 2017

This is fine

As an aside, an interesting point about the health system in [chooses European country at random] Italy:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Italy


So, that myth about the British NHS being an anomaly that no one imitated...

Ah, just logged out and I see the, ahem, special influence and effect, still vainly trying to get me involved in discussion. Quite incredible but not surprising I guess.

No, have fun guys and count me out I'm afraid; the NHS is worse performing by some margin than some other countries' systems (but not others), for comparable cost, fact. Either deal with that, or not - I care not either way because it's your problem my old fruits, not mine. Keep believing the same old shit year in year out regardless of empirical facts because, hey, it's comfortable right? Bless.

Yeah, and S.E. Corbyn, Abbott & co. are the answer, right Gaywood?
You really are beyond any sensible discussion, sorry. One minute you're telling me you're not reading my posts, but you're still mentioning months old discussions and my name every other political post you make. It's like being shadowed by some rather inept, slighted teenager still sulking because I refused to top up their phone last August or something, I can't take you seriously, sorry.

I really don't understand why thinking that the government are doing a poor job of managing the NHS (obviously true, wherever you lay the blame for it), means you support Dianne Abbott or Jeremy Corbyn.

Because politics only has two teams and if you don't like Team A it's obvious you are in love with Team B. That's just common sense, end of mate.

It's an empirical fact.

Love how Cavey has to resort to ad hominems rather than answer the question (which he can't, because that would be criticising his beloved Tories).

Heh. Well, I'm not saying that's globally the case, but it's clearly true of my protagonists in my opinion. Myp has come right out and said he supported Jeremy Corbyn (and, by implication, his "team"), but that he was surprised when his election pretty much resulted in insta-implode. (Perhaps he should read this thread more ) Gaywood? Well, frankly, in his case I personally think it's very much "the lady doth protest too much" lol. I'm supposed to believe his politics are not compatible with the hard left of Labour, but all he ever seems to spout is the usual "where are our great coal mines and industry" type boilerplate, and a never-ending grievance narrative as against even most moderate Tories, myself included. From where I'm sitting, if it quacks like a duck and waddles like a duck, well, you know the rest.

As for anyone else involved in this latest enlightening little one-sided exchange (which seems to centre around some very late in the day attempted point-scoring against me personally?), I make no comment whatsoever, for obvious reasons - and as I have previously discussed with you directly. I am NOT going there.

I've said it before and I'll say it again - not that it remotely matters of course. IMO at least, people need be honest, even if only to themselves, about reconciling long-held and oft-quoted pretty left wing views, as against the pretty absurd, empirical reality of said views now playing out for all to see, and the politicians behind them. Yes, it's embarrassing for sure, but take consolation they're in opposition, not in government.

I expect this sort of thing from Gaywood and whoever else is involved, but you Myp? I have to say this is well beneath you.
It's even pretty shit trolling, tbh.

This is neither "debate", nor "banter" - political or otherwise.

I just said it how I saw it. Rather than answer the question you attacked the people criticising the government for the mess the NHS is in. That is a literal ad hominem.

Do you honestly believe the government has done a good job wrt healthcare in the last 7 years? It's a simple question. And if so what do you think of the Red Cross comments and actions?

It was very far from clear what "the question" is. Tell me, where is it in the posts above? (I cannot see A-X's posts)
As far as your ad hominem comment is concerned, though - ironing, much? Given that pretty much the last page is just stuff about me and completely unbidden (this NHS discussion was weeks/months back) and point-scoring bollocks, have you even got a straight face here?

Understand, Myp, I have better things to do with my time than to indulge angry, bitter people, or people with an axe to grind with me personally as they (probably) see it, who appear to have precisely zero intent on having an actual debate or banter with me. I owe these people nothing.

Note this is not "not answering the question", notwithstanding the above comments about what "the question" is even supposed to be and where it's clearly asked - it's "keeping my sanity". I'm here for laughs and giggles, and maybe a bit of knockabout debate. That's it.



No, to answer your question above. But, clearly that's the bloody case, given that my original argument and contention months ago was that the NHS, as an administered entity by the Tories (currently) as well as Labour before it, is far from an optimal, best performing bangs-per-buck proposition? I contend that a big part of why we're collectively where we are with healthcare in this country is very much to do with the inherent, metapolitical structure of the NHS how it was originally conceived - and inherently IS - it is a LEGACY ISSUE, and therefore not something that the Tories or anyone else are going to solve by tinkering round with it. Hence I'm advocating wholesale, meaningful, absolute and root-and-branch reform, emulating the best that Europe has to offer. (I don't know what you mean by 'Red Cross comments')

But seriously, I am not re-running the debate yet again. I've made my views perfectly clear in posts way back now.

Ok

Cavey - you said above "modern Tories (myself included)" - where exactly does the current Tory party represent your ideals and values? To my mind you're fooling yourself if you think they're doing a good job of enacting small-c conservative politics.

I don't get the leap of logic Cavey made from claiming that anyone who supports the NHS (national consensus politics for nearly 70 years) is automatically a Labour supporter, which automatically makes them supporter of the extreme left. Crazy.

Look, one has to be pragmatic. Does today's Government entirely, or even largely reflect my views? No. I find myself considerably to the left of their present day stance. But, however poor, it's still a damn sight closer fit than either Corbyn's Labour or Fallon's Lib Dems, so that's consensus politics for you. If I don't like it, I can always form my own Party of Europhile Patrician Tories or something.

For me, the Lib Dems' implosion is unfortunate. Fallon's a bit of a dick in my view, but Vince Cable was right up my street.

Did you vote Lib Dem, then?

Election before last, yes. (I mentioned this a few times; some 'hard line Tory' I make, huh)

I'll vote LibDem next time, at this rate (admittedly rather reluctantly). Labour's got a leader who's a toxic blend of uselsss, extreme and eurosceptic, and the Tories have become unpleasantly nationalist and authoritarian.

That makes a lot of sense. A lot of your posts in here make it sound like you're fully behind the current Tory government and their objectives, which I suspect is one reason why you get a very 'tribal' response.

Heh. I'm the *one* dissident Tory in a sea of red, and it's been that way since 2004 (at WoS), so I'm not really hankering after consensus. (Just as well).
To be honest it's how I like it *most* of the time, else I'd hardly have spent the last 13 years (wow) spouting this crap here and at our previous abode. Mostly it's a pleasant diversion from real life.

Still, after all this time, I guess people either know where I'm coming from, or not, as the case might be.

"I'm the only Tory in the village"
/Little Britain

There are definitely more Tory voters here; just not as vocal

Ah, sorry, I forgot you, Curio.

Get tae fuck!

Mehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Hunt in the Commons today, suggesting further watering down the four-hour A&E target because it can no longer be met:



That's not what it historically meant: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-ho ... epartments

You are aware that there are colours other than red and blue, right?

(I would say a mix of the two, for a start, but you get a trashy UKIP purple, the buggers).

Depends what you mean by 'sea of red'. If you mean mostly left-leaning liberals then sure. If you mean dyed-in-the-wool Labour supporters who lick Tony Blair and Jeremy Corbyn's bum then no.

Not many people who are big on both Blair and Corbyn.

TBH, I was a member of Labour for 15 years, and I've never admired or worshipped any Labour leader or politician. I identified (and still identify) with social democracy, not careerist politicians. Political parties aren't fan clubs for whoever is the current leader, and they don't work when they are.

I find last night's report of Russia's blackmail material over Trump not particularly credible, but wildly amusing.

I have certain keywords blocked on Twitter for my sanity* so I never see tweets about them, but even with that blocking I still see stuff that's about Trump even without mentioning him.

So from what I can glean he's either confessed to liking being peed on, or has peed on a girl, or drinks his own pee for sexual kicks.

*President, Farage, Trump, Brexit, .@, Corbyn, Dawkins, and Nazi.

If not this I can't help but think that someone somewhere will have something on such an outright sleazeball that'll come back to bite him. Don't really rate his chances of serving a full term.

Watching that narcissist fail so badly that James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, and Richard Nixon all have someone to look down on as 'worst president ever' would be immensely satisfying.

Boasting about sexually assaulting women didn't stop him getting into the White House so it'd have to be something pretty explosive.

Videos of him watching prostitutes 'do things' to each other in a Moscow hotel won't cut it, I fear.

It's not really about 'stopping Trump' at this stage. It's about trying to pry away that house and senate majority from supporting him and a real indication that he's controlled by Russia is one of the few things that would potentially fracture the GOP party solidarity.

I wouldn't even count on that.

Imagine if he came straight out in his press conference today and said he was absolutely in league with Putin, and that he needed to be to use strong allies to MAGA and end weak leaders taking America backwards, etc.

To us that sounds like madness. To his supporters that is great, and shows how smart and clever and strong he is. The GOP will; on the whole, not give a flying fuck as long as they can implement their policies. So if Vlad allows them to deny poor people voting rights, roll back LGBT progress and ban abortion, they'll do it, Trump will take the flak and the Senate will rejoice.

Unless there are a minimum of three principled Rep Senators. Which there may be, but if they're up for election in two years will they dare defy Trump?

McCain might. Rubio might. Most would see it as a happy trade off to enact their (very) right wing politics.

I'll certainly be looking at the shit around vaccines with interest. 95% of Repubs support vaccination, so Trump destroying their credibility and literally killing thousands of children should be an even harder red line to cross, but we shall see.

The problem is that Trump's supporters like Trump. The more Trump-like Trump becomes, the more Trump-likers like Trump.

Hah. Rubio is currently grilling Tillerson about Putin being a war criminal.

It's great, but if he then fucking approved him it's just theatre.

I'm sorry, how many peppers did pepper picker Trump pick you say?

Tongue twister or no, though, Nik's post nails it. It's no use seeing these things through our collectively sane lens - we're talking about people who, despite everything, actually voted for Trump as President and Leader of the Free World, in all seriousness and with a straight face. Can you even imagine that mindset?

We absolutely cannot call this using our own standards and mind-states as a backdrop and benchmark.

In a very real sense Trump cannot lose here, he already hit rock bottom during his campaign yet was still elected. As I see it, he pretty much has a free hand now, at least for a reasonable grace and honeymoon period.

I still think that if ever a president looked like the sort to get himself impeached it must be this fucker. That's not to say he will of course, nobody knows that. It just wouldn't really surprise me if that's how it ends for him.

Unfortunately his most ardent supporters would see it as the Establishment fighting back.

It seems every day there is something new about him that would be enough to destroy other politicians.

And he really shouldn't have ranted on the Twitter about it. Most undignified.

But, it's accessible. He's just like us!

Twitter's undignified full stop, just a great steaming pile of irrelevant shite and self obsessed drivel as far as I'm concerned.
14 year old schoolgirls "tweeting" about who they fancy the most or which karaoke merchant they're seeing next at the O2 or wherever is one thing, but the PM or President of the US...? Hardly appropriate, and completely self-undermining.

"I've pressed the button by mistake :-/"

If only there were other accounts to follow, aside from the 14 year old schoolgirls and the President of the United States.

It's full of that but also fantastic for breaking news and pictures of cats.

It will be interesting to see what happens a few months in when much of the stuff he promised has utterly failed to appear. No wall, no millions of new jobs, no great resurgence of America. I wonder how long his supporters will stick around for.

You just described the entire Internet dude.