Oh, I wouldn't agree with what I wrote. Probably... Was just disagreeing with the idea that the NHS is capitalist.
However, it does somewhat irritate the way our money seems to be wasted...
Captive State
Dude - if those guys at your gate had broken your jaw, or if you got hit by a car, not only would you be awful glad of A&E not to mention the Scottish Ambulance Service or even the SNBTS (blood transfusion folks), I'm sure you would expect good service too.wangi wrote:Oh, I wouldn't agree with what I wrote. Probably... Was just disagreeing with the idea that the NHS is capitalist.
However, it does somewhat irritate the way our money seems to be wasted...
Cos I'm sure you don't have a "please don't save my life" card.
Please don't tell us you grudge your NI money. There are an awful lot of hard working NHS staff, many of whom are very dedicated. Governments and managers and stupid schemes and expensive branded drugs cost the service a fortune, but please - it's a jewel and you never know when you, or a member of your family, might need it. I sincerely hope none of you ever do, but it is there for you.
[quote="Porty"
I love the NHS, I have reason to, so does Gemini maybe she just doesn't appreciate what the alternatives are?[/quote]
Alternatives - do you mean Private Health Care? If yes - then yes I do know about Private Health Care, having HAD to use it after an RTA - due to the lack of NHS resources!
You obviuosly have been very fortunate in your dealings with the NHS and good for you - but I fear this only reflects the mnority.
I love the NHS, I have reason to, so does Gemini maybe she just doesn't appreciate what the alternatives are?[/quote]
Alternatives - do you mean Private Health Care? If yes - then yes I do know about Private Health Care, having HAD to use it after an RTA - due to the lack of NHS resources!
You obviuosly have been very fortunate in your dealings with the NHS and good for you - but I fear this only reflects the mnority.
Dadaist - I agree, but that doesn't mean what we've got cannot be improved. It obviously fails some people and has a large inefficiency (inherent to all our government departments)...
But, back to the capitalist agenda - I believe that nurses should be paid "the going rate" / "whatever needs to be paid to attract them" - not some mythical figure because they are "nice folk" doing a "really important job"...
But, back to the capitalist agenda - I believe that nurses should be paid "the going rate" / "whatever needs to be paid to attract them" - not some mythical figure because they are "nice folk" doing a "really important job"...
Lee Kindness
Alternatives - do you mean Private Health Care? If yes - then yes I do know about Private Health Care, having HAD to use it after an RTA - due to the lack of NHS resources!Gemini wrote:[quote="Porty"I love the NHS, I have reason to, so does Gemini maybe she just doesn't appreciate what the alternatives are?
You obviuosly have been very fortunate in your dealings with the NHS and good for you - but I fear this only reflects the mnority. [/quote]
The alternatives I meant were no public health service, like in the US and a broken or inadequate public health service in most of the former socialist/communist countries.
I disgaree wih you, i think most people are happy with the NHS. One of the issues is the fact that by definition people are ill or mal-functioning when they need to use it. this can make people, irrational, illogical and unreasonable.(I certainly don't mean in the example you gave) Think about what the NHS has to deliver? No business, institution or organisation can get it right all of the time. Particularly if it has been under-funded for decades.
In any case what does it matter what the majority think? What does Thom Yorke think? Lets wait til he is ill before we ask him.
Last edited by Porty on 14 Aug 2004, 11:48, edited 1 time in total.
I agree with your in as much as I would hate to have the American Style Health Care System replace the NHS, having heard some horrific stories from my family in the USA. However, in my humble opinion, I believe that the NHS is in crisis - too many chief's etc. My neighbour and friend ex NHS worker told me that one particular guy on a NHS Board of Trustees ...( not a million miles from here ) walk's away with approx. £30.000 for attending a couple of meetings per year! How many more Trustees (and others) are creaming Public Money from the NHS?
Maggie's Mob were the instigator's in the decline of the NHS, my beef with Labour is that they are perpetuating this decline in the NHS and other much needed vital services.
I am anti private health care - and believe that everyone is entitled to the same level of Health care regardless of their Circumstances (where not these the reasons why the NHS was formed ?)
However, unfortunately, the waiting lists are very long for non essential surgery - many people who have the means opt for private health care (I don't blame them) it's their money.
A recent scenario where private health care means were not available - 78 yr old woman - in excrutiating pain - needing a knee replacement. Advised 9 months waiting time, by the time she had her surgery the knee joint had further deteriorated -obviously, she also contracted MRSA!
We could forever debate the state of the NHS, the bottom line is, all people want is a decent health service that is efficient.
Maggie's Mob were the instigator's in the decline of the NHS, my beef with Labour is that they are perpetuating this decline in the NHS and other much needed vital services.
I am anti private health care - and believe that everyone is entitled to the same level of Health care regardless of their Circumstances (where not these the reasons why the NHS was formed ?)
However, unfortunately, the waiting lists are very long for non essential surgery - many people who have the means opt for private health care (I don't blame them) it's their money.
A recent scenario where private health care means were not available - 78 yr old woman - in excrutiating pain - needing a knee replacement. Advised 9 months waiting time, by the time she had her surgery the knee joint had further deteriorated -obviously, she also contracted MRSA!
We could forever debate the state of the NHS, the bottom line is, all people want is a decent health service that is efficient.
Agreed and the best chance of getting it is with New Labour. The worst chance is with Socialism. Even Maggie would have done better than they would. There is evidence abundant.Gemini wrote:We could forever debate the state of the NHS, the bottom line is, all people want is a decent health service that is efficient.
You can state your own subjective opinion as many times as you like - it doesn't add anything to the debate. It's just like taking potshots.
PFI and PPP are happening now, and there are plenty of details to go over but you refuse to even read anything about them, let alone discuss anything in detail.
I'm not sure who you think "they" or "Socialism" is - worryingly I think you equate "us" with something along the lines of North Korea. Personally, all I'd like to see is the NHS kept in public ownership so that the taxpayer doesn't get robbed by a bunch of carpetbaggers. That hardly makes me Kim Il Sung.
I would have more respect for you, Porty, if you'd actually discuss the *specifics* of what New Labour have done with PFI and hospitals.
At the moment you sound like a stuck record - even Maggie was capable of coming up with a detailed argument.
PFI and PPP are happening now, and there are plenty of details to go over but you refuse to even read anything about them, let alone discuss anything in detail.
I'm not sure who you think "they" or "Socialism" is - worryingly I think you equate "us" with something along the lines of North Korea. Personally, all I'd like to see is the NHS kept in public ownership so that the taxpayer doesn't get robbed by a bunch of carpetbaggers. That hardly makes me Kim Il Sung.
I would have more respect for you, Porty, if you'd actually discuss the *specifics* of what New Labour have done with PFI and hospitals.
At the moment you sound like a stuck record - even Maggie was capable of coming up with a detailed argument.
Quote Porty:Agreed and the best chance of getting it is with New Labour. The worst chance is with Socialism. Even Maggie would have done better than they would. There is evidence abundant.[/quotePorty wrote:Gemini wrote:We could forever debate the state of the NHS, the bottom line is, all people want is a decent health service that is efficient.
I think the facts speak for themselves here - you cannot produce any abundant evidence because there isn't any!
The only real evidence in abundance can be found in books like Captive State etc. Are you afraid that you may learn something new by reading it? The book has not been banned for anything libelous - therefore you would not be drummed out of the boy scouts for taking a peek.
Strangely enough I was once in the Young Socialists Party - that was Old Labour - Socialist!
The reason why Tony Blair won the last two elections was due to the misleading information to the Labour electorate - it is only dawning on the same electorate now that they have been conned - big time.
You appear to be stating that there is no abundant evidence of the failure of the economics of socialism. You can't be serious. Labour will be the next government or I will eat my avatars hat.Gemini wrote:I think the facts speak for themselves here - you cannot produce any abundant evidence because there isn't any!
The reason why Tony Blair won the last two elections was due to the misleading information to the Labour electorate - it is only dawning on the same electorate now that they have been conned - big time.
Why can't you and The Dadaist address the issues that we are debating, which to remind you is a) whether or not CS, will cause any political explosions and b) should we take the British Government seriously?
Last edited by Porty on 15 Aug 2004, 18:52, edited 1 time in total.
I'm happy that it's you that gets to decide what we are and aren't debating, and not us. Please let me know if you ever want to debate anything even remotely specific - you'll find I'm an interesting debating partner and that I do it not because I want to score cheap political points but because I actually want to learn and change as I go through life.
a)
"Captive State" wasn't written for our political masters or the media - it's for normal people to decide whether they do or don't buy it. If your only measure of success is a "political explosion" then cool - but in my mind if an investigative piece is well-researched and a good read, and lifts the lid on machinations that an organisation didn't want known, or if a prticularly clever author puts together some pieces of a jigsaw in a way that nobody else had noticed, then great. To me, if the picture of what New Labour have done is made clearer by Monbiot's research, then yes - I would count that as a small act which some marketing type would be entitled to describe as a politcal explosion.
b)
As a student I voted for Tony Blair in 1997. Within a few days they had stuck the knife into students even while we were still celebrating getting rid of the Tories. Since then, as well as bringing private capital into public life in a way that Andrew Marr recognises has made his natural following - Tories - proud, Tony Blair has deliberately taken us into 2 wars that we didn't need to have anything to do with - attacking with impunity and killing innocents on someone else's orders. Do I take the British Government seriously? Yes, most definitely. But Thom Yorke's point is that he doesn't take what they *say* seriously when you compare it with what they *do* - and that's what CS is all about. It deals with facts - something which anyone who has read this entire thread knows that you have not, thus far. So in direct answer to your question - I take what the British Government does in my name very seriously indeed. I don't take what it says seriously any more - as invariably what it says is a lie.
I have taken the time to directly answer your 2 questions. Now let's go back to where Gemini and I posed you some questions - that is, if you want to debate properly which I doubt you do. I'm starting to have a problem taking *you* seriously, which is a shame as this debate could be informative.
a)
"Captive State" wasn't written for our political masters or the media - it's for normal people to decide whether they do or don't buy it. If your only measure of success is a "political explosion" then cool - but in my mind if an investigative piece is well-researched and a good read, and lifts the lid on machinations that an organisation didn't want known, or if a prticularly clever author puts together some pieces of a jigsaw in a way that nobody else had noticed, then great. To me, if the picture of what New Labour have done is made clearer by Monbiot's research, then yes - I would count that as a small act which some marketing type would be entitled to describe as a politcal explosion.
b)
As a student I voted for Tony Blair in 1997. Within a few days they had stuck the knife into students even while we were still celebrating getting rid of the Tories. Since then, as well as bringing private capital into public life in a way that Andrew Marr recognises has made his natural following - Tories - proud, Tony Blair has deliberately taken us into 2 wars that we didn't need to have anything to do with - attacking with impunity and killing innocents on someone else's orders. Do I take the British Government seriously? Yes, most definitely. But Thom Yorke's point is that he doesn't take what they *say* seriously when you compare it with what they *do* - and that's what CS is all about. It deals with facts - something which anyone who has read this entire thread knows that you have not, thus far. So in direct answer to your question - I take what the British Government does in my name very seriously indeed. I don't take what it says seriously any more - as invariably what it says is a lie.
I have taken the time to directly answer your 2 questions. Now let's go back to where Gemini and I posed you some questions - that is, if you want to debate properly which I doubt you do. I'm starting to have a problem taking *you* seriously, which is a shame as this debate could be informative.
So, that will be a no then?Dadaist wrote: a)"Captive State" wasn't written for our political masters or the media - it's for normal people to decide whether they do or don't buy it. If your only measure of success is a "political explosion" then cool - but in my mind if an investigative piece is well-researched and a good read, and lifts the lid on machinations that an organisation didn't want known, or if a prticularly clever author puts together some pieces of a jigsaw in a way that nobody else had noticed, then great. To me, if the picture of what New Labour have done is made clearer by Monbiot's research, then yes - I would count that as a small act which some marketing type would be entitled to describe as a politcal explosion.
Porty wrote:Gemini wrote:I think the facts speak for themselves here - you cannot produce any abundant evidence because there isn't any!
Why can't you and The Dadaist address the issues that we are debating, which to remind you is a) whether or not CN, will cause any political explosions and b) should we take the British Government seriously?
In answer to your two points: CS has not caused widespread political explosions - yet! perhaps this discussion will prompt other members of the Forum's curiosity into what the Book is all about, and perchance may read it? - sadly unlike you!
It's not the case of Should we take this British government seriously - it's more like - CAN we!
I have graciously responded to your questions from my point of view.
It would be good manners to do likewise.
I am aware that PFI and PPP are not golden egg laying goose that new labour anticipated. It will likely have severe financial implications starting in only a few years from now. They have cocked up. However, one thing in their favour is that they are looking at the problems and trying to sort them in the best way they can. At least they are doing something about modernising the NHS and the infrastructure in Schools. You may question their methodology,personally I don't doubt their intent. I believe the majority of people agree, which is why they will get re-elected.
Budgets have to be balanced and there is not a bottomless pit of money. Labour look to be screwing up our chances of balancing future budgets. Short-termism seems appropriate. What are the alternatives and how would you implement them?
Budgets have to be balanced and there is not a bottomless pit of money. Labour look to be screwing up our chances of balancing future budgets. Short-termism seems appropriate. What are the alternatives and how would you implement them?
It's the only answer I am capable of giving to what in my opinion is a rhetorical, badly worded and cynical question which you are repeatedly posing in order to stall any real debate.Porty wrote:So, that will be a no then?Dadaist wrote: a)"Captive State" wasn't written for our political masters or the media - it's for normal people to decide whether they do or don't buy it. If your only measure of success is a "political explosion" then cool - but in my mind if an investigative piece is well-researched and a good read, and lifts the lid on machinations that an organisation didn't want known, or if a prticularly clever author puts together some pieces of a jigsaw in a way that nobody else had noticed, then great. To me, if the picture of what New Labour have done is made clearer by Monbiot's research, then yes - I would count that as a small act which some marketing type would be entitled to describe as a politcal explosion.
Wahey!!! About face!! You'll have to let me chew over this. Thanks dude, I was starting to think you were just taking the **** with this debate.Porty wrote:I am aware that PFI and PPP are not golden egg laying goose that new labour anticipated. It will likely have severe financial implications starting in only a few years from now. They have cocked up. However, one thing in their favour is that they are looking at the problems and trying to sort them in the best way they can. At least they are doing something about modernising the NHS and the infrastructure in Schools. You may question their methodology,personally I don't doubt their intent. I believe the majority of people agree, which is why they will get re-elected.
Budgets have to be balanced and there is not a bottomless pit of money. Labour look to be screwing up our chances of balancing future budgets. Short-termism seems appropriate. What are the alternatives and how would you implement them?
I'll be having a think, as my immediate answer is I ain't got a clue but there has to be a way. How do the Canadians do it? Who else apart from the barbed wire posse (the remaining soviet bloc) have free health care? Could money be found if there were a genuine political will?
Go read back the thread. You've got bad forum manners dude. You've ducked quite a few points thus far but hey, we're nice folks.Porty wrote:What do you mean? What questions would you like me to respond to?Gemini wrote:I have graciously responded to your questions from my point of view.
It would be good manners to do likewise.
Its not really an about face. I never intended to debate the content of CS, I did say much earlier in the thread that I had no problem with the content. It was the claims being made about the book that I disagreed with. Look at the Michael Moore books, sold millions, made no difference. Same goes for Fast Food Nation and No Logo.Dadaist wrote: Wahey!!! About face!! You'll have to let me chew over this. Thanks dude, I was starting to think you were just taking the **** with this debate.
Yourself and Gemini are going a bit bonkers because I won't answer your questions. I have read and re-read your posts and I can't find any that I have not addressed!
Getting a trifle lost in this polemic. New Labour/ Old Labour. Tony Benn ....
wasn't he the cabinet minister during the (old) Labour Government's active involvement in the Biafran war that led to one million people being exterminated. Wasn't he the energy minister who oversaw the blocking of the Factory Act applying to North Sea working practices that led to Piper Alpha?
wasn't he the cabinet minister during the (old) Labour Government's active involvement in the Biafran war that led to one million people being exterminated. Wasn't he the energy minister who oversaw the blocking of the Factory Act applying to North Sea working practices that led to Piper Alpha?
Porty
I think you're insulting all the people who have read these books. Any change worth its salt comes from ordinary people and not the mass media or government. Sure, when people vote in elections they decide who is the current caretaker government, but as you well understand - corporate power is becoming increasingly globalised and unaccountable. Government is shrinking in its influence - turning the world into one big Westminster Council.
If someone is exposed to an idea they wouldn't have got off Fox or CNN or Sky then great. Klein, Schlosser and Moore each as authors have their own agenda - in two of your examples they are democrats (I haven't a clue what Klein believes but I think she has a thing for the Zapatistas) but whilst the authors conclusions might suck (and Schlosser's are rubbish in my opinion) - the facts contained inside the books get studied and debated and become part of the public realm of information.
Although you'll probably laugh at them - there has been in the past few years a global movement against capitalism. It's as flawed as any human organisation inevitably is, but it does exist. At the climax of one of its gatherings, the European Social Forum in Florence a couple of years ago, the culmination of the event was a march through the city by approximately 1,000,000 people. Mainly it was against the Iraq war. As you well know, we failed to stop it but we tried.
Are you saying that you only support things once they are proven to not be futile, even if they are worthy?
I think you're insulting all the people who have read these books. Any change worth its salt comes from ordinary people and not the mass media or government. Sure, when people vote in elections they decide who is the current caretaker government, but as you well understand - corporate power is becoming increasingly globalised and unaccountable. Government is shrinking in its influence - turning the world into one big Westminster Council.
If someone is exposed to an idea they wouldn't have got off Fox or CNN or Sky then great. Klein, Schlosser and Moore each as authors have their own agenda - in two of your examples they are democrats (I haven't a clue what Klein believes but I think she has a thing for the Zapatistas) but whilst the authors conclusions might suck (and Schlosser's are rubbish in my opinion) - the facts contained inside the books get studied and debated and become part of the public realm of information.
Although you'll probably laugh at them - there has been in the past few years a global movement against capitalism. It's as flawed as any human organisation inevitably is, but it does exist. At the climax of one of its gatherings, the European Social Forum in Florence a couple of years ago, the culmination of the event was a march through the city by approximately 1,000,000 people. Mainly it was against the Iraq war. As you well know, we failed to stop it but we tried.
Are you saying that you only support things once they are proven to not be futile, even if they are worthy?
You are absolutely correct, I was talking rubbish, of course these books made a difference to those that have read them. They did to me. Don't know what came over me.Dadaist wrote:PortyIf someone is exposed to an idea they wouldn't have got off Fox or CNN or Sky then great. Klein, Schlosser and Moore each as authors have their own agenda - in two of your examples they are democrats (I haven't a clue what Klein believes but I think she has a thing for the Zapatistas) but whilst the authors conclusions might suck (and Schlosser's are rubbish in my opinion) - the facts contained inside the books get studied and debated and become part of the public realm of information.
Im really not happy about you calling me bad mannered. What questions did I not address? You accussed me of not reading the article, you were certain I had not read it. How did you know?
Happy to oblige you, Porty.
1. I asked you what your reasons were for being against the Iraq war. I wondered specifically what your personal reasons were because if they were out of a regard for humanity it would have flown in the face of your pronouncements (vague as they were) over the "success" of the New Labour government - although as a New Labour supporter I could have understood if your opposition was because it brought them into disrepute and hence made them less electable - a cold logic but one I could understand. If it were out of concern for humanity, I seriously would wonder why on earth you'd vote for them again - it would be like voting for war on purpose.
2. By failing to discuss any specifics for 6 odd pages you dodged the implicit contradiction that you were saying that Capitalism "funded" the NHS - and not denying it stole from it at the same time.
3. Other than talking about vague "success" and gloating over their previous victories and the ones that your crystal ball point to in the future, you failed to define anything in the supposed "good job" that New Labour are doing, which is all the more galling in the context of refusing to comment on the specifics of their errors. By this stage you had gone beyond comedy and into the realm of the party political broadcast.
4. Then, to top it all, you start talking about "evidence abundant" to support your side of the case. After your refusal to get into any detail, to not only start to mention that *your* side of the argument has a factual basis but to fail to come up with anything transcends irony and farce and becomes tragic. That's when I got really fed up.
My assumption that you hadn't read the article came from me trying to put myself in your shoes. I thought that if I hated him and his work to the extent that you did, I'd at least try and digest some of it in order to criticise it - that is, I would maybe find something in it to quote which I felt supported my side of the argument. And so when you said nothing, I assumed that you hadn't read it because you couldn't care less and had automatically assumed that because you disagreed with it, you didn't need to read it. If I was wrong, I take it back.
1. I asked you what your reasons were for being against the Iraq war. I wondered specifically what your personal reasons were because if they were out of a regard for humanity it would have flown in the face of your pronouncements (vague as they were) over the "success" of the New Labour government - although as a New Labour supporter I could have understood if your opposition was because it brought them into disrepute and hence made them less electable - a cold logic but one I could understand. If it were out of concern for humanity, I seriously would wonder why on earth you'd vote for them again - it would be like voting for war on purpose.
2. By failing to discuss any specifics for 6 odd pages you dodged the implicit contradiction that you were saying that Capitalism "funded" the NHS - and not denying it stole from it at the same time.
3. Other than talking about vague "success" and gloating over their previous victories and the ones that your crystal ball point to in the future, you failed to define anything in the supposed "good job" that New Labour are doing, which is all the more galling in the context of refusing to comment on the specifics of their errors. By this stage you had gone beyond comedy and into the realm of the party political broadcast.
4. Then, to top it all, you start talking about "evidence abundant" to support your side of the case. After your refusal to get into any detail, to not only start to mention that *your* side of the argument has a factual basis but to fail to come up with anything transcends irony and farce and becomes tragic. That's when I got really fed up.
My assumption that you hadn't read the article came from me trying to put myself in your shoes. I thought that if I hated him and his work to the extent that you did, I'd at least try and digest some of it in order to criticise it - that is, I would maybe find something in it to quote which I felt supported my side of the argument. And so when you said nothing, I assumed that you hadn't read it because you couldn't care less and had automatically assumed that because you disagreed with it, you didn't need to read it. If I was wrong, I take it back.
Hate him and his work! What are you talking about? You must have a persecution complex. His work is excellent. I don't hate anyone.Dadaist wrote: I thought that if I hated him and his work to the extent that you did, I'd at least try and digest some of it in order to criticise it -
If you don't think there is evidence abundant that socialist economics dont work, then you are beyond help. I didn't think I needed to point out UK's current position among the World's strongest economies as a measure of success. I am against the War in Iraq on every level. If there had been WMD I would still have been against it. I dont give a flying **** what it does do or not do for Labour's electability? My assertion is that they will still get elected. Im not using a crystal ball, Im opening my eyes and looking at reality. I can recommend it.
Listen gadgie. Twice now you have serioulsy misrepresented what I said. I never said Socialists hate New Labour and I dont know where you got my hatred for Monbiot from? You are too familiar with the word hate. Since you are so particular about content and evidence backed statements ,would you care to point out to everyone where I state that Im voting Labour at the next election? Once you've done that, you could maybe tackle where I said I voted for them the last time?Dadaist wrote: If it were out of concern for humanity, I seriously would wonder why on earth you'd vote for them again - it would be like voting for war on purpose.