| New Labour and Blairism consigned to the dust bin of history 11:52 - Sep 12 with 21401 views | mingthemerciless |
Well that's a turn up for the book. No more austerity lite from the Labour Party hopefully. |  | | |  |
| New Labour and Blairism consigned to the dust bin of history on 18:26 - Sep 17 with 2230 views | D_Alien |
| New Labour and Blairism consigned to the dust bin of history on 17:16 - Sep 17 by SJE_Dale |
Funny how we seemingly can't afford a free NHS anymore but have absolutely no issue in spending 100 billion in renewing Trident. |
It'd be a projected £100bn over the 40-year lifespan of the replacement system
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-scotland-32236184
I guess you could say I reckon it's worth it. |  |
| |
| New Labour and Blairism consigned to the dust bin of history on 19:02 - Sep 17 with 2196 views | SJE_Dale |
I would say I'm indifferent on the case for Trident. I can understand why some people see the need for it I just think fundamentally it is a shame that projects like this do take precedent over others. Wouldn't have it myself mind. | | | |
| New Labour and Blairism consigned to the dust bin of history on 21:23 - Sep 17 with 2153 views | 49thseason |
Im fairly sure that the £55m a day we spend on Europe would pay for an awful lot of NHS treatments for the people who actually paid their taxes on the basis of a largely free service. Not to mention the £29m a day we spend on overseas aid. |  | | |
| New Labour and Blairism consigned to the dust bin of history on 21:39 - Sep 17 with 2143 views | mingthemerciless |
Trident is a complete waste of money unless you happen to a) be in the submarine service. B) work at the shipyard in Barrow.
Describe to me a scenario were we use it independently of the US ? In fact describe to me a scenario were we use it a all ?
Complete white elephant. | | | |
| New Labour and Blairism consigned to the dust bin of history on 21:43 - Sep 17 with 2136 views | SuddenLad |
| New Labour and Blairism consigned to the dust bin of history on 21:39 - Sep 17 by mingthemerciless |
Trident is a complete waste of money unless you happen to a) be in the submarine service. B) work at the shipyard in Barrow.
Describe to me a scenario were we use it independently of the US ? In fact describe to me a scenario were we use it a all ?
Complete white elephant. |
A deterrent to others and there if we need it. Beyond that............. |  |
| “It is easier to fool people, than to convince them that they have been fooled†|
| |
| New Labour and Blairism consigned to the dust bin of history on 21:50 - Sep 17 with 2133 views | mingthemerciless |
| New Labour and Blairism consigned to the dust bin of history on 21:43 - Sep 17 by SuddenLad |
A deterrent to others and there if we need it. Beyond that............. |
It's only a deterrent if other people think you're prepared to use it. We all know that will never happen. We've got much better things to spend our money on. All of Western Europe barring the French seem to manage fine without nuclear submarine force. | | | |
| New Labour and Blairism consigned to the dust bin of history on 21:51 - Sep 17 with 2130 views | SuddenLad |
| New Labour and Blairism consigned to the dust bin of history on 21:50 - Sep 17 by mingthemerciless |
It's only a deterrent if other people think you're prepared to use it. We all know that will never happen. We've got much better things to spend our money on. All of Western Europe barring the French seem to manage fine without nuclear submarine force. |
For now......... | |
| “It is easier to fool people, than to convince them that they have been fooled†|
| |
| New Labour and Blairism consigned to the dust bin of history on 23:49 - Sep 17 with 2097 views | D_Alien |
| New Labour and Blairism consigned to the dust bin of history on 21:50 - Sep 17 by mingthemerciless |
It's only a deterrent if other people think you're prepared to use it. We all know that will never happen. We've got much better things to spend our money on. All of Western Europe barring the French seem to manage fine without nuclear submarine force. |
You fail to follow your own logic there, ming, if you don't mind me saying so?
The very reason we'll never need to use it, is because we have it.
As for the rest of Europe, have a look into the politics of NATO, the UN, and Test Ban Treaties. When you've read up on all that, rejoin the discussion.
[Post edited 17 Sep 2015 23:58]
| |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| New Labour and Blairism consigned to the dust bin of history on 00:40 - Sep 18 with 2071 views | downunder |
| New Labour and Blairism consigned to the dust bin of history on 21:51 - Sep 17 by SuddenLad |
For now......... |
Fairly certain Austria and Switzerland will be countries that never buy a Nuclear submarine. [Post edited 18 Sep 2015 0:41]
|  | | |
| New Labour and Blairism consigned to the dust bin of history on 11:36 - Sep 18 with 1996 views | rochdaleriddler |
so voting tory makes you a better person, and harder working eh, I detest older working class tories, the ones that have had the most out of the welfare state in terms of university education,healthcare, yet now want it ending for others. Continually spouting ever more Daily Fail headlines, without ever giving their head a wobble and wonder why the short termism /quick buck mentality of every tory government leads to boom and bust, profit for the few and a divided nation. Rochdale is a low wage low skill economy and will always struggle whilst this is true. similar southern towns have larger economies. |  |
| |
| New Labour and Blairism consigned to the dust bin of history on 12:53 - Sep 18 with 1971 views | rochdaleriddler |
| New Labour and Blairism consigned to the dust bin of history on 15:31 - Sep 12 by D_Alien |
Yes, and that's a worry.
Do I trust Corbyn to act in the best interests of his country?
Quite frankly, no. |
The best interests of his country? is that the London and south east like bullingdon dave and tim nice but dim Osbourne, are you including the whole uk, workers and bosses?. I would like all british natural monopolies to be owned by the state run in the interests of the uk, but they are all multinational owned, the profits flow to the few, generally outside the uk.Is that in the best interests of the uk? There really is not much agreement about what is in the natural intetest. Arming factions in the middle east and reaping the rewards with terrorism here, flogging RBS shares back to the crooks who brought the economy down. that's what years of Blair and Cameron have done in the 'national interest' | |
| |
| New Labour and Blairism consigned to the dust bin of history on 13:54 - Sep 18 with 1947 views | D_Alien |
| New Labour and Blairism consigned to the dust bin of history on 12:53 - Sep 18 by rochdaleriddler |
The best interests of his country? is that the London and south east like bullingdon dave and tim nice but dim Osbourne, are you including the whole uk, workers and bosses?. I would like all british natural monopolies to be owned by the state run in the interests of the uk, but they are all multinational owned, the profits flow to the few, generally outside the uk.Is that in the best interests of the uk? There really is not much agreement about what is in the natural intetest. Arming factions in the middle east and reaping the rewards with terrorism here, flogging RBS shares back to the crooks who brought the economy down. that's what years of Blair and Cameron have done in the 'national interest' |
It seems to have escaped your notice that the party in government are elected, and have to stand for re-election every few years (every five, now it's fixed term parliaments).
So what you're actually saying is that the governments of the day acted against the wishes of the electorate, who must've been bloody fools to re-elect them? Blair, in 2001 and 2005; Cameron, just four months ago.
Yeah, yeah, the population are just fools, aren't they?
I guess that now McDonnell's apologised for honouring the IRA we can all sleep easier in our beds? That's what I meant when I posted about "the best interests of the country". I was referring primarily to the safety of it's people - the very first duty of government.
[Post edited 18 Sep 2015 13:56]
| |
| |
| New Labour and Blairism consigned to the dust bin of history on 16:08 - Sep 18 with 1892 views | rochdaleriddler |
| New Labour and Blairism consigned to the dust bin of history on 13:54 - Sep 18 by D_Alien |
It seems to have escaped your notice that the party in government are elected, and have to stand for re-election every few years (every five, now it's fixed term parliaments).
So what you're actually saying is that the governments of the day acted against the wishes of the electorate, who must've been bloody fools to re-elect them? Blair, in 2001 and 2005; Cameron, just four months ago.
Yeah, yeah, the population are just fools, aren't they?
I guess that now McDonnell's apologised for honouring the IRA we can all sleep easier in our beds? That's what I meant when I posted about "the best interests of the country". I was referring primarily to the safety of it's people - the very first duty of government.
[Post edited 18 Sep 2015 13:56]
|
yep a lot of the population are fools, swayed this way and that by the media, which aint as free as we believe it to be, This current government and the last have cut defence spending, and police funding so they are failing in their duty to protect us | |
| |
| New Labour and Blairism consigned to the dust bin of history on 17:47 - Sep 18 with 1862 views | D_Alien |
| New Labour and Blairism consigned to the dust bin of history on 16:08 - Sep 18 by rochdaleriddler |
yep a lot of the population are fools, swayed this way and that by the media, which aint as free as we believe it to be, This current government and the last have cut defence spending, and police funding so they are failing in their duty to protect us |
Your logic, also, is flawed.
Cuts in defence spending and to police budgets don't equate to failing to protect us.
UK defence spending, at around 2.2% of GDP, is pretty average by international standards and double that of Germany for instance, who spend around 1.1% of GDP on defence.
The spending has to follow the perceived threats, both short and longer term, in costing what type of armed forces we require. Clearly, numbers of "boots on the ground" is diminishing, and rightly so. What's required needs to be smarter and leaner. Would you agree with that?
Underpinned of course, by the nuclear deterrent, which when averaged out at about 2.5bn per year over the projected 40 years when renewed, accounts for around 4% of the annual expenditure on defence - that's why I regard it as pretty good value.
As for police spending, again, it's about budgeting for what the perceived criminal activity is likely to entail. Bobbies on the beat might make us feel safer, but in fact the crime rate - especially violent crime - is falling year on year. Against this backdrop, police activity is changing.
In sum - your argument that we're not being protected is false.
[Post edited 18 Sep 2015 17:52]
| |
| |
| New Labour and Blairism consigned to the dust bin of history on 18:01 - Sep 18 with 1847 views | BigDaveMyCock |
| New Labour and Blairism consigned to the dust bin of history on 17:47 - Sep 18 by D_Alien |
Your logic, also, is flawed.
Cuts in defence spending and to police budgets don't equate to failing to protect us.
UK defence spending, at around 2.2% of GDP, is pretty average by international standards and double that of Germany for instance, who spend around 1.1% of GDP on defence.
The spending has to follow the perceived threats, both short and longer term, in costing what type of armed forces we require. Clearly, numbers of "boots on the ground" is diminishing, and rightly so. What's required needs to be smarter and leaner. Would you agree with that?
Underpinned of course, by the nuclear deterrent, which when averaged out at about 2.5bn per year over the projected 40 years when renewed, accounts for around 4% of the annual expenditure on defence - that's why I regard it as pretty good value.
As for police spending, again, it's about budgeting for what the perceived criminal activity is likely to entail. Bobbies on the beat might make us feel safer, but in fact the crime rate - especially violent crime - is falling year on year. Against this backdrop, police activity is changing.
In sum - your argument that we're not being protected is false.
[Post edited 18 Sep 2015 17:52]
|
Uk percentage of GDP spent on healthcare (approx 9.5%) is below that of most first ranking European countries and considerably less than the U.S (17%). The NHS isn't, relatively speaking, expensive especially when one considers its coverage. | |
| |
| New Labour and Blairism consigned to the dust bin of history on 18:06 - Sep 18 with 1838 views | D_Alien |
| New Labour and Blairism consigned to the dust bin of history on 18:01 - Sep 18 by BigDaveMyCock |
Uk percentage of GDP spent on healthcare (approx 9.5%) is below that of most first ranking European countries and considerably less than the U.S (17%). The NHS isn't, relatively speaking, expensive especially when one considers its coverage. |
Absolutely agree, and to a large extent it's a reflection on the non-insurance based model. When insurance is involved, loads of additional and often unnecessary tests are carried out - defensive medicine, if you like.
I'd argue we should be spending more on healthcare as a percentage of GDP, but only if the additional funding can be demonstrably proven to add benefit. That's the difficult bit. (Even trying to define "benefit" isn't straightforward.) | |
| |
| New Labour and Blairism consigned to the dust bin of history on 20:31 - Sep 18 with 1785 views | 49thseason |
| New Labour and Blairism consigned to the dust bin of history on 18:06 - Sep 18 by D_Alien |
Absolutely agree, and to a large extent it's a reflection on the non-insurance based model. When insurance is involved, loads of additional and often unnecessary tests are carried out - defensive medicine, if you like.
I'd argue we should be spending more on healthcare as a percentage of GDP, but only if the additional funding can be demonstrably proven to add benefit. That's the difficult bit. (Even trying to define "benefit" isn't straightforward.) |
Health and Education are both chronically institutionalised. You can give GPs as many shiny new buildings as you like but if the staff are a bit "too busy" to pick up the phone , if your GP thinks Email is the devils work and when everyone insists on having the same hour for lunch not much is going to change. As for hospitals, I would bet that 90% of the "managers" have never worked outside the NHS and consequently are utterly clueless how to make tangible improvements, In simple terms they have no experience of how to shave a percent here and a percent there - profit is an alien word and the whole ethos is "spend it before someone takes it away"
Equally, schools don't have to be run the way they were when we were kids. In fact a regime in Secondary schools that increasingly looks like work would not go amiss. The obsession with GCSEs and A levels is beyond laughable and is doing nothing to produce the creative, flexible and resilient workforce that business requires.
Pouring in millions upon millions of pounds to do the same things over and over again and yet expecting them to change is fundamentally stupid. Would it be so bad to introduce some charges? To make people aware of the cost of things? We are not children, we know life is unfair, but so many seem incapable of accepting some basic responsibility for themselves and then want to blame everyone else when the going gets tough.
We need to toughen up as a country otherwise the rest of the world will eat our lunch for us. Its high time we told our politicians what we want rather than just choosing what they offer. | | | |
| New Labour and Blairism consigned to the dust bin of history on 21:03 - Sep 18 with 1773 views | mingthemerciless |
It's pretty obvious you've never worked in a secondary school. | | | |
| New Labour and Blairism consigned to the dust bin of history on 21:15 - Sep 18 with 1769 views | pioneer |
Charging in NHS usually comes up once in each Tory government...and rejected, although we should remember there are already many areas of the NHS which have charges (dentists, drugs) and they happen to be the ones that work less well (dentistry for example)
The problem with charges is that if the system works properly it means those with health care needs will be charged and those without wont (because they wont be using it). Now the vast majority of sickness is among the poor and/or elderly who don't have the capacity to pay - hence the well established 'inverse care law' of systems that impose charges....those with most needs get least care. Seems a pretty inefficient way to use our highly paid doctors if you ask me.
So do we want our doctors to be treating the least sick/well in exchange for NHS charges, or do we want them to be treating the most sick in exchange for taxation funded remuneration? Its a bit like playing Bunney at full back really. Why would we want him there when he is doing no good? Use him where he can do good (answers on a post card please)
Oh and those exemptions - to set up a system of monitoring and collecting charges and exemption status usually costs more than the entire revenue raised. That is why the Tories always reach the same conclusion on hospital charges - cost more than they generate.
Remember what the NHS was originally about - that no one no matter how well off or poor should fear the financial consequences of the health care that they need. Would you prefer that they do? And of course the idea for the NHS emerged out of reports produced during the second world war when it was discovered that large numbers of working class folks were not fit enough to be conscripted. Yes even the rich have a personal interest in the poor being healthy (enough to be conscripted) - even if its only to see them on the end of a rifle.
The basic problem is the system is not planned and managed in accordance with meeting needs, even though that is supposed to be the objective of the system. Again a bit like expecting Bunney to score when we don't show him where the goals are. | | | |
| New Labour and Blairism consigned to the dust bin of history on 11:10 - Sep 19 with 1667 views | 49thseason |
| New Labour and Blairism consigned to the dust bin of history on 21:03 - Sep 18 by mingthemerciless |
It's pretty obvious you've never worked in a secondary school. |
You would be wrong then.I have been involved with schools in a variety of roles including teacher in a secondary for forty years. | | | |
| New Labour and Blairism consigned to the dust bin of history on 11:38 - Sep 19 with 1660 views | Nigeriamark |
| New Labour and Blairism consigned to the dust bin of history on 21:15 - Sep 18 by pioneer |
Charging in NHS usually comes up once in each Tory government...and rejected, although we should remember there are already many areas of the NHS which have charges (dentists, drugs) and they happen to be the ones that work less well (dentistry for example)
The problem with charges is that if the system works properly it means those with health care needs will be charged and those without wont (because they wont be using it). Now the vast majority of sickness is among the poor and/or elderly who don't have the capacity to pay - hence the well established 'inverse care law' of systems that impose charges....those with most needs get least care. Seems a pretty inefficient way to use our highly paid doctors if you ask me.
So do we want our doctors to be treating the least sick/well in exchange for NHS charges, or do we want them to be treating the most sick in exchange for taxation funded remuneration? Its a bit like playing Bunney at full back really. Why would we want him there when he is doing no good? Use him where he can do good (answers on a post card please)
Oh and those exemptions - to set up a system of monitoring and collecting charges and exemption status usually costs more than the entire revenue raised. That is why the Tories always reach the same conclusion on hospital charges - cost more than they generate.
Remember what the NHS was originally about - that no one no matter how well off or poor should fear the financial consequences of the health care that they need. Would you prefer that they do? And of course the idea for the NHS emerged out of reports produced during the second world war when it was discovered that large numbers of working class folks were not fit enough to be conscripted. Yes even the rich have a personal interest in the poor being healthy (enough to be conscripted) - even if its only to see them on the end of a rifle.
The basic problem is the system is not planned and managed in accordance with meeting needs, even though that is supposed to be the objective of the system. Again a bit like expecting Bunney to score when we don't show him where the goals are. |
Unfortunately changing the NHS ( or our education system) is a very difficult task due to the size of the organisation and people attitudes. Just about everyone wants an NHS. Just about everyone knows that it needs changing to factor in things like increases in diseases associated with an ageing population, lifestyle diseases ( obesity, diabetes etc) , more emphasis on prevention etc etc. However a number of people advocating changes hope/don't specifically want change to their own role in that organisation
In 1996 5 of us were asked by a health authority to look at how Mental Health Services could be better provided to their patients. We were given complete access to staff and told to make any recommendations we wanted.
Identifying what needed to be done wasn't that difficult. However the issues were more on implementation. All of a sudden everyone was concerned about their status, turf, would their power be diminished, why was another department changing less than them etc etc. No one mentioned at all benefits to the patient anymore because it became secondary to their own needs. We were only asked to make recommendations and I did not follow up butt I would imagine in the interests of keeping the peace a very watered down version of change would have taken place
Not having a go at anyone involved because resistance to change is human nature, but it makes me believe that any changes to the NHS, although needed, will be implemented slowly, too late, or not at all. Who is in government will also not make any difference because making major changes to the NHS is perceived as risky |  | | |
| New Labour and Blairism consigned to the dust bin of history on 11:41 - Sep 19 with 1660 views | mingthemerciless |
| New Labour and Blairism consigned to the dust bin of history on 11:10 - Sep 19 by 49thseason |
You would be wrong then.I have been involved with schools in a variety of roles including teacher in a secondary for forty years. |
You amaze me. My wife taught in secondary schools all her working life and she worked as hard or harder than any of my colleagues in the Engineering Industry. When I left the Engineering industry ten years ago I got a job in a local secondary school. Whatever you want to say about teachers the vast majority work really hard.
You should know this more than most. | | | |
| New Labour and Blairism consigned to the dust bin of history on 18:36 - Sep 19 with 1599 views | 49thseason |
| New Labour and Blairism consigned to the dust bin of history on 11:41 - Sep 19 by mingthemerciless |
You amaze me. My wife taught in secondary schools all her working life and she worked as hard or harder than any of my colleagues in the Engineering Industry. When I left the Engineering industry ten years ago I got a job in a local secondary school. Whatever you want to say about teachers the vast majority work really hard.
You should know this more than most. |
I would never attempt to say that the vast majority of teachers dont work very hard. Unfotunatelly what they are asked to do and in many cases forced to do are not things that ensure we get the outcomes that industry and society need.
Too many kids come out of our schools with lots of knowledge but at a complete loss as to how to solve problems and what to do when they dont know what to do. The lack of real world learning is a huge void in our current education system leading to boredom and causing kids to switch off. Check out High Tech High School in San Diego and compare what they achieve vs similar schools in the UK. | | | |
| New Labour and Blairism consigned to the dust bin of history on 19:48 - Sep 19 with 1576 views | mingthemerciless |
| New Labour and Blairism consigned to the dust bin of history on 18:36 - Sep 19 by 49thseason |
I would never attempt to say that the vast majority of teachers dont work very hard. Unfotunatelly what they are asked to do and in many cases forced to do are not things that ensure we get the outcomes that industry and society need.
Too many kids come out of our schools with lots of knowledge but at a complete loss as to how to solve problems and what to do when they dont know what to do. The lack of real world learning is a huge void in our current education system leading to boredom and causing kids to switch off. Check out High Tech High School in San Diego and compare what they achieve vs similar schools in the UK. |
You make some good points but surely there should be more to education than just equipping kids for the world of work alone.
When you say " Real World Learning " what is it you have mind ? | | | |
| New Labour and Blairism consigned to the dust bin of history on 19:50 - Sep 19 with 1572 views | ColDale |
| New Labour and Blairism consigned to the dust bin of history on 19:48 - Sep 19 by mingthemerciless |
You make some good points but surely there should be more to education than just equipping kids for the world of work alone.
When you say " Real World Learning " what is it you have mind ? |
I'd argue that preparing kids for the outside world of work is something schools should be doing. Unfortunately, the culture these days is to train kids to pass exams rather than instil them with knowledge. |  | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
