Why do conservatives hate people?

First topic message reminder :

Ok, I get how conservatives selfishly grub onto money, and how they have a political philosophy of extreme individualism vs. social justice.

But here in America they can't just leave it at that. They have to go after poor people so vociferously. So it's not about protecting themselves or their money. It's about hating other people.

So why?

You are simply deluded. The only thing keeping the economy afloat during labour years was the PFI investment borrowing and The personal debt based spending spree.


All based on borrowing, labour was spending All The money on increased public sector workers, NHS and other quango pen pushers, tax credits for all, child benefit for foreigners arriving here wins children weren't even in The country, Iraq and Afghanistan wars.


Eventually PFI costs started mounting up, investment through PFI borrowing dried up and public ran out of credit and were all spent out.


If you want to look at some selective figures and claim that everything was just running along nicely then you are a bigger idiot than we already think you are.



Lies and spin is all you got. Typically labour, masters of deceipt.

To whom are you referring, Tommy? When I originally started this thread, I intended to get away from fiscal matters and the core philosophy of conservatism...individualism. I didn't mean to keep strictly to America, but I did mention that that was where my experience was.

Now, you are discussing fiscal matters, arguing how the individualist conservative platform is superior, and discussing UK budgets. I don't want to turn away the UK--iindeed, I would like to hear the foreign perspective most of all--but I related the discussion to the US so that y'all could see where I was coming from.

We have enough to understand that there are vast differences between RW and LW on economics. I wanted to explore why conservatives promote policies that reject healthy bodies, reject well fed bodies, reject learning for youth, deny women equal rights and right to their own bodies, humiliate and impoverish Black people and disenfranchise Hispanic people, pursue policies that seem to want to grind human beings up in foreign wars, or domestically give everyone a firearm so they can kill each other...and, well, do everything that is bad for the average human being. All they offer in return is a dream--and it is no more than a dream--at becoming rich, because that for them is the ultimate good. Oh...and did I mention that they would rather that the average person have no say (vote) in the matter.

I don't want to detract from your concern for the revenues and budgets for the recent past UK administrations, but there is a bigger picture here. By no means is the economic picture unimportant. Understand me. I just want to discuss other things as well.

Your Democrats sound more like our Conservatives.


It was our Labour party who took us into Iraq and Afghanistan, and have been dumbing down our education system for years.


They are the ones who want big state and big state control, and are anti democracy.

Tommy Monk wrote:You are simply deluded. The only thing keeping the economy afloat during labour years was the PFI investment borrowing and The personal debt based spending spree.

That's rubbish. Go on, tell me what % of public spending did PFI take up overall.

Tommy Monk wrote:All based on borrowing, labour was spending All The money on increased public sector workers, NHS and other quango pen pushers, tax credits for all, child benefit for foreigners arriving here wins children weren't even in The country, Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

More rubbish. Labour didn't employ any more public sector workers than the Tories did. If you think they did then give me the numbers.

Welfare spending went up under the Tories - it was lower under Labour.

139 Labour MPs tried to stop stop the war but were defeated because almost every Tory MP backed it and they swear even today that they were right to do so

Tommy Monk wrote:Eventually PFI costs started mounting up, investment through PFI borrowing dried up and public ran out of credit and were all spent out.

PFI was a Tory concept to stop the huge cost overuns  and late delivery on capital projects. A few examples from the NAO....

The initial cost estimates of Guy’s and St Thomas’s Hospital rose by £124 million to £160 million and the completion date slipped by over three years (NAO, 1997-8b);

The cost of the Trident submarine shiplift and berth at Faslane rose from an estimate of £100 million to a final cost of £314 million and was delivered two and a half years late (NAO, 1993-4);

The London Underground Jubilee Line extension was delivered two years late and cost £1.4 billion more than original estimates; and...

The top 25 equipment projects in the Ministry of Defence experienced cost overruns amounting to £2.8 billion with average delays of three and a half years (NAO, 2003-4).

A recent National Audit Office study found that only 30 per cent of conventional procurement construction projects were delivered on time and only 27 per cent were within budget (NAO, 2001-2a). An independent report commissioned by the Treasury found that outturn costs of conventional procurement construction projects were between 2 and 24 per cent higher than the estimate in the business case (HM Treasury, 2002).


You see, it doesn't mater which way you look at it the money needs to be borrowed and it always cost more than what was budgeted for.

The NAO reported that up until 2008 PFI was delivering good value overall but since then it wasn't and yet Osborne has signed off 61 PFI projects. I even gave you a video to look at. Did you watch it?

Tommy Monk wrote:If you want to look at some selective figures and claim that everything was just running along nicely then you are a bigger idiot than we already think you are.

Who's 'we'

The figures are not selective - they are factual in every case.

Tommy Monk wrote:Lies and spin is all you got. Typically labour, masters of deceipt.

You've fallen for the Tory patter hook line and sinker Tommy.

At least you are no longer denying that Labour had paid down the public debt and that the additional spending since the financial collapse was over and above what was planned so we're getting somewhere with you. You'll learn,,,,,,,,,eventually.

Some reading for you to comment on. Read it - all of it.

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/aug/04/labour-economic-record-clean-bill-of-health

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/9356622/Labours-PFI-landmines-continue-to-explode-in-the-NHS.html

http://www.newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-economy/6408-calls-for-labour-to-apologise-for-pfi-legacy-as-bill-tops-p13bn

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/exclusive-how-private-firms-make-quick-killing-from-pfi-9488351.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/8282455/PFI-70m-bill-for-schools-that-had-to-close.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2040348/60-hospitals-face-crisis-Labours-PFI-deals.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/hospital-pfi-project-went-ahead-despite-warnings-7893794.html

http://socialistworker.co.uk/art/34301/How+PFI+schemes+damage+future+of+public+services

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2012/jul/05/pfi-cost-300bn



"...A decade ago, there were 5,221,000 public sector employees. In 2009, there were 6,070,000 – an increase of 849,000...."

http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/how-many-public-sector-jobs-did-labour-create/2860


And I see you conveniently ignored the other bit of my post....

"...tax credits for all, child benefit for foreigners arriving here whos children weren't even in The country..."

And not forgetting the benefit claimants claiming up to £100,000 a year under labour!!!




And then there's more of your.. 'Oh the tories did it too....' waffle, but.....


"...Labour opposed PFIs before it got into government in 1997. Deputy leader Harriet Harman called them backdoor privatisation. But Labour extended and expanded PFI schemes after it was elected...."

http://socialistworker.co.uk/art/34301/How+PFI+schemes+damage+future+of+public+services



"...103 PFI deals were struck by Labour for the NHS with a combined value of £11.4 billion/ By the time that they are paid off, they will have cost more than £65 billion. These are the same schemes that Andy Burnham said in 2007 were “the right schemes and offer value for money." This profligacy with taxpayers’ money was condemned as ‘staggering’ by Labour MP Margaret Hodge, the chairwoman of the Public Accounts Committee, when it was revealed last year as part of a report on Government use of PFI. These PFI contracts constitute a vast drain on the public finances..."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/9356622/Labours-PFI-landmines-continue-to-explode-in-the-NHS.html

This is what Hodge says now....

"...Ms Hodge said: “It is a scandal, a total scandal that the public sector has privatised these projects so badly. We have all been ripped off.”

The Labour MP acknowledged that many of the worst PFI and PPP cases were negotiated by the Labour government under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, saying: “I’m afraid we got it wrong. I was a supporter at the time.....”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/exclusive-how-private-firms-make-quick-killing-from-pfi-9488351.html




And as to the Iraq war, Parliament voted on the information that Blair and labour presented to them, namely the 'dodgy dossier'!!!


They were misled by labour who basically lied to get support for this war, while many at the time said there was no legal case and it was illegal in international law.


Nearly two thirds of labour MPs voted for it.

The others voted on it based on labours and Blairs lies!!!!


Lies and spin is all you got. Typically labour, masters of deceipt.

"...103 PFI deals were struck by Labour for the NHS..."

Plus all the other PFI deals labour struck off......


How many others?

Do you know???

Start with schools if you want!!!???

???

Tommy Monk wrote:Your Democrats sound more like our Conservatives.


It was our Labour party who took us into Iraq and Afghanistan, and have been dumbing down our education system for years.


They are the ones who want big state and big state control, and are anti democracy.

Yes, I have often made the point that the UK presents an inconvenient example, because your Labour Party became such lap dogs for GWB and the Neo-Cons.

The true picture of conservatives is in America, where conservatives seem to hate people and applaud huge corporations and inhumane policies. It's capitalism vs. humanism. That is partly the reason why I emphasized that I was coming from the American perspective. The case for conservatism is more purely expressed in the US.

Nevertheless, you Tories have your dislike for real human beings, as expressed in your austerity programs, your antipathy toward giving a person in need a helping hand, or welfare, and attempts to privatize (read as: more corporations) well-functioning programs such as the NHS.

Irn Bru wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:You are simply deluded. The only thing keeping the economy afloat during labour years was the PFI investment borrowing and The personal debt based spending spree.

That's rubbish. Go on, tell me what % of public spending did PFI take up overall.

Tommy Monk wrote:All based on borrowing, labour was spending All The money on increased public sector workers, NHS and other quango pen pushers, tax credits for all, child benefit for foreigners arriving here wins children weren't even in The country, Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

More rubbish. Labour didn't employ any more public sector workers than the Tories did. If you think they did then give me the numbers.

Welfare spending went up under the Tories - it was lower under Labour.

139 Labour MPs tried to stop stop the war but were defeated because almost every Tory MP backed it and they swear even today that they were right to do so

Tommy Monk wrote:Eventually PFI costs started mounting up, investment through PFI borrowing dried up and public ran out of credit and were all spent out.

PFI was a Tory concept to stop the huge cost overuns  and late delivery on capital projects. A few examples from the NAO....

The initial cost estimates of Guy’s and St Thomas’s Hospital rose by £124 million to £160 million and the completion date slipped by over three years (NAO, 1997-8b);

The cost of the Trident submarine shiplift and berth at Faslane rose from an estimate of £100 million to a final cost of £314 million and was delivered two and a half years late (NAO, 1993-4);

The London Underground Jubilee Line extension was delivered two years late and cost £1.4 billion more than original estimates; and...

The top 25 equipment projects in the Ministry of Defence experienced cost overruns amounting to £2.8 billion with average delays of three and a half years (NAO, 2003-4).

A recent National Audit Office study found that only 30 per cent of conventional procurement construction projects were delivered on time and only 27 per cent were within budget (NAO, 2001-2a). An independent report commissioned by the Treasury found that outturn costs of conventional procurement construction projects were between 2 and 24 per cent higher than the estimate in the business case (HM Treasury, 2002).


You see, it doesn't mater which way you look at it the money needs to be borrowed and it always cost more than what was budgeted for.

The NAO reported that up until 2008 PFI was delivering good value overall but since then it wasn't and yet Osborne has signed off 61 PFI projects. I even gave you a video to look at. Did you watch it?

Tommy Monk wrote:If you want to look at some selective figures and claim that everything was just running along nicely then you are a bigger idiot than we already think you are.

Who's 'we'

The figures are not selective - they are factual in every case.

Tommy Monk wrote:Lies and spin is all you got. Typically labour, masters of deceipt.

You've fallen for the Tory patter hook line and sinker Tommy.

At least you are no longer denying that Labour had paid down the public debt and that the additional spending since the financial collapse was over and above what was planned so we're getting somewhere with you. You'll learn,,,,,,,,,eventually.

Some reading for you to comment on. Read it - all of it.

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/aug/04/labour-economic-record-clean-bill-of-health

Just another uninformed rant after finally accepting that Labour paid down the public debt below what they inherited from the Tories and that public spending post recession rose because of it. Now that that's been drilled into you after several pages of denial and diversion you just throw everything else into the mix just to get out of the mess you got yourself into in the first place.

You can't even comment on the points I have raised particularly how cost overruns and late delivery on capital projects end up costing billions more that was originally budgeted for and which had to financed one way or the other. You just grab a whole load of newspaper headlines which you haven't even bothered to read.

And if the last Tory government had did what they should have been doing during their 18 years in office and had built and paid for the schools and hospitals that were needed to replace or refurbish those that they left crumbling and decaying whilst spending all the oil revenue money and the proceeds from the sell off of the national assets on nothing and just running the country instead of investing it in the future then they wouldn't have had to come up with PFI in the first place. And now they're back with their hands on the till they're jumping into PFI contracts and signing them off like they're going out of fashion and will cost tens of billions of pounds in the future. The Treasury have even knocked back requests for funding from state owned institutions asking for funding through traditional means on the commercial market and had them rejected and told to re-apply under PFI. I even gave you a report on what they are up to but what did I get back? - not a peep.

I'm going to go through all that bit by bit when I have more time but for now take this as your starter for 10. It's a reality check on PFI and it doesn't come from newspaper hacks. It comes from responsible people that do actually know something about the NHS and how it is funded (which you will note that 1% of NHS expenditure is through PFI) and it exposes the lies and the spin that the Tories and their press have been bleating about as they look for ways to put up a convincing case for even more privatisation.

Read it and comment...

Reality check: is PFI really to blame for NHS financial difficulties?

http://www.theguardian.com/global/2011/sep/22/reality-check-nhs-pfi#C

I'll go through the rest of your rant bit by bit later on but for now do the decent thing just admit that the Tories are up to their necks in PFI and it's their legacy of 18 years in power that lies at the heart of the difficulties in financing our national infrastructure.

Tommy Monk wrote:"...A decade ago, there were 5,221,000 public sector employees. In 2009, there were 6,070,000 – an increase of 849,000...."

http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/how-many-public-sector-jobs-did-labour-create/2860

I’m glad you posted that link because if you hadn’t I would have.

Around 200,000 jobs added to the publicsector were from the nationalised banks and the jobs in the educational sector were  later moved out of the public sector and into the private sector which Cameron claimed were part of the one  million new private sector jobs created when they were not. Lies and spin and as Cathy Newman said ‘ the Tories were just as fond of employing public sector jobs as Labour were’.

Tommy Monk wrote:And I see you conveniently ignored the other bit of my post....

"...tax credits for all, child benefit for foreigners arriving here whos children weren't even in The country..."

And not forgetting the benefit claimants claiming up to £100,000 a year under labour!!!

Much of it is  part of the welfare payments which always goes up under the Tories and also because of the opening of our borders due to the Tories signing the Single European Act and the Maastricht Treaty taking us into the EU.

Tommy Monk wrote:And then there's more of your.. 'Oh the tories did it too....' waffle, but.....


"...Labour opposed PFIs before it got into government in 1997. Deputy leader Harriet Harman called them backdoor privatisation. But Labour extended and expanded PFI schemes after it was elected...."

http://socialistworker.co.uk/art/34301/How+PFI+schemes+damage+future+of+public+services



"...103 PFI deals were struck by Labour for the NHS with a combined value of £11.4 billion/ By the time that they are paid off, they will have cost more than £65 billion. These are the same schemes that Andy Burnham said in 2007 were “the right schemes and offer value for money." This profligacy with taxpayers’ money was condemned as ‘staggering’ by Labour MP Margaret Hodge, the chairwoman of the Public Accounts Committee, when it was revealed last year as part of a report on Government use of PFI. These PFI contracts constitute a vast drain on the public finances..."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/9356622/Labours-PFI-landmines-continue-to-explode-in-the-NHS.html

This is what Hodge says now....

"...Ms Hodge said: “It is a scandal, a total scandal that the public sector has privatised these projects so badly. We have all been ripped off.”

The Labour MP acknowledged that many of the worst PFI and PPP cases were negotiated by the Labour government under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, saying: “I’m afraid we got it wrong. I was a supporter at the time.....”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/exclusive-how-private-firms-make-quick-killing-from-pfi-9488351.html.

Read the PFI response I gave earlier.

Osborne opposed PFI when in opposition as well, didn’t he?

And what Hodge is talking about there is a response to the flipping of PFI contracts to third parties. All part of the PFI structure introduced by the Tories, used by the Tories, used by Labour and now being used by the Tories. [/quote]

Tommy Monk wrote:And as to the Iraq war, Parliament voted on the information that Blair and labour presented to them, namely the 'dodgy dossier'!!!


They were misled by labour who basically lied to get support for this war, while many at the time said there was no legal case and it was illegal in international law.


Nearly two thirds of labour MPs voted for it.

The others voted on it based on labours and Blairs lies!!!!


Lies and spin is all you got. Typically labour, masters of deceipt.

They didn’t just vote on the basis of a dodgy dossier and as Cameron said that was only one element in the decision to back the war. Ian Duncan Smith who was leader of the opposition didn’t even want to bother with a UN vote, he wanted to get stuck in and accused Blair of being soft by failing to tackle the problem. He even went to Washington to conduct his own investigation so he wasn’t depending on any dodgy dossier and all three party leaders were presented with the exact same intelligence reports
Why do you think that every single LibDem, every single Nationalist and 139 Labour MPs didn’t believe that there was sufficient evidence but almost every single Tory did? Can you explain that? What’s your answer?

Here’s some reading for you

Saddam must be ousted now, says Duncan Smith (The rush to war)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1388060/Saddam-must-be-ousted-now-says-Duncan-Smith.html

Call for Tories to explain Iraq support


http://www.danrogerson.org/2010/01/31/call-for-tories-to-explain-iraq-support/

Iraq — Case for war not established — rejected

Count the votes....

http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/division.php?date=2003-03-18&number=117

22 Oct 2003 : Column 734 6.7 pm Mr. George Osborne (Tatton)

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmhansrd/vo031022/debtext/31022-29.htm

So what’s your answer?

Read it all and commit it to memory as it will serve you well in the future.

More denials, waffle, lies and spin.


And more of 'it was the Tories wot done it' rubbish.

Tommy Monk wrote:More denials, waffle, lies and spin.


And more of 'it was the Tories wot done it' rubbish.

Right, so your way is to call upheld facts 'waffle, lies and spin' because you can't dispute them. Facts are facts Tommy.

And I've put up many, all waffled off with denials, deflection, lies and spin, And "it was the Tories wot done it" rubbish.

No you haven't, Irn has given you fact after fact, you have been the one waffling.

I have put up fact after fact, graphs and links to support, just denied and waffled off with weak excuses and more of "It was the Tories wot done it..." rubbish.




I even posted figures to show massive rise in public sector workers under labour, after it was flatly denied, then he only puts up an excuse for a fraction of them while ignoring the other 80% of them.





There is no sensible debate with anyone with that level of denial.



You are obviously both brainwashed and deluded labour monkeys.


Idiots.

Tommy Monk wrote:I have put up fact after fact, graphs and links to support, just denied and waffled off with weak excuses and more of "It was the Tories wot done it..." rubbish.




I even posted figures to show massive rise in public sector workers under labour, after it was flatly denied, then he only puts up an excuse for a fraction of them while ignoring the other 80% of them.





There is no sensible debate with anyone with that level of denial.



You are obviously both brainwashed and deluded labour monkeys.


Idiots.

The graph that you put up claiming it showed public sector borrowing other than than the bail outs was what the borrowing would have been and that it wasn't affected by the banking collapse. I told you that that was nonsense and it was and you know it. I gave you several examples of factors that kicked in because of that and if you deny that these didn't affect the borrowing figures then you really don't have a clue.

As Cathy Newman said 'the Tories were just as fond of employing public sector jobs as Labour were’. That was from your link so you made a big mistake in using it just because you looked at the headline and not the detail.

Check the figures in percentage terms relating to the number of jobs in the public sector to the private sector and you get the picture. It's really that simple.

Irn Bru wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:I have put up fact after fact, graphs and links to support, just denied and waffled off with weak excuses and more of "It was the Tories wot done it..." rubbish.




I even posted figures to show massive rise in public sector workers under labour, after it was flatly denied, then he only puts up an excuse for a fraction of them while ignoring the other 80% of them.





There is no sensible debate with anyone with that level of denial.



You are obviously both brainwashed and deluded labour monkeys.


Idiots.

The graph that you put up claiming it showed public sector borrowing other than than the bail outs was what the borrowing would have been and that it wasn't affected by the banking collapse. I told you that that was nonsense and it was and you know it. I gave you several examples of factors that kicked in because of that and if you deny that these didn't affect the borrowing figures then you really don't have a clue.

As Cathy Newman said  'the Tories were just as fond of employing public sector jobs as Labour were’. That was from your link so you made a big mistake in using it just because you looked at the headline and not the detail.

Check the figures in percentage terms relating to the number of jobs in the public sector to the private sector and you get the picture. It's really that simple.

For fuck sake...he still has the audacity to rabbit on even after you've supplied accurate and credibly sourced information!!

I think a lot of this would be stored up top with you anyway Irn, your definitely the kind who would be taking in interest in politics throughout your life and ever since I've known you , I've never once seen you stuck for an answer or proved wrong on politics.

Your a wealth of knowledge.

Your a Labour monkey and an idiot btw Irn (because Tommy says so  )

Tommy, your making an arse of yourself man and you wouldn't be the first   


I'm not very savvy on politics either Tommy, but i would now just shut my gob , unless something I did know popped into my head, ken!  

The graph I put up showed borrowing going through the roo, it showed total national debt which jumped massively.


IT showed a break down of What this debt was with bank bail out in separate colour, and base core govt borrowing still going through the roof.



This was rising all through the years shown by that graph and other graph shows borrowing was rising as far back as 2002.



One thing I have seen with You labour lefties is that you will lie and spin anything to protect your beloved labour party.




The latest clear example of this is the denial of massive increase in public sector workers under labour.


I showed the figures that it was about 900,000 extra at huge cost, but iron first denied this fact, then when faced with the proof, just waffled an excuse about some of THe rise but ignored the other 700,000+ that grew in public sector under labour.



Then we have Sassy and JD popping up, both also in denial and backing the lie.





What about the massive public sector rise?


How many PFI deals did labour sign off?


Hodge already admits that they were the worst deals ever, why is it so hard for The rest of you to do this?

Instead of trying to deflect onto Tories by saying it was them wot done it????




You are 3 labour monkeys, and not very wise....!!!!






Hear no evil, see no evil speak no evil!!!!






There is no chance of sensible debate with such levels of denial....


I'm done here.

OK, so putting fiscal matters on the back burner, why do conservatives so hate the average person.

One theory is that the conservatives are such abject hero worshipers that they transform their admiration for the wealthy into disdain for the non-wealthy. People become symbols: the wealthy are wealthy because they are rewarded for being "good"; on the other hand, the poor are poor because they are being punished for being bad.

Or, another theory says corporations are prettier than people. Conservatives just champion the glitz and impressiveness of organization over the person...so Wall Street gets the welfare, and screw the little guy. Or, big oil gets the concessions, but screw early childhood education or nutrition for the children of the poor (eg, school lunches). Why the glorification of corporations and organizations?

Why is it if I can figure out how to get into subsidized housing, with all the sweat and paperwork and all, I am spat upon. But if Exxon figures out how to wring out some tax concessions from the government, they are financial geniuses. Or, BP is beauty, while the NHS is scum. Either was it's the same skill. What's the difference?

You are confusing your republicans with our conservatives, who are in reality, much more like your democrats.


It was our conservatives who proposed the NHS in 1944 white paper....



The conservatives here want to give the opportunity to succeed to all.


That is why they set up grammar schools that labour have been doing away with.


Our conservatives want people to be in charge of their own lives.


Our labour party want big overarching state control of everything.


And to give generous Hand outs to those who refuse to work and higher taxes on everyone else to pay for it.

The conservative white paper proposed nothing of the sort.

Until 1945 the safest assumption in London was that the hospital services would be based upon the local authority, with a regional advisory council to coordinate planning with the counties surrounding the capital. The Conservatives had produced a White Paper along these lines in 1944. Labour’s election victory in July 1945 led to a dramatic change. Aneurin Bevan, the new Minister of Health, had wide responsibilities including the problems of post-war housing. Nevertheless he moved rapidly and within days was submitting lists of questions for his civil servants to answer. He took quiet soundings from professional bodies and associations, and senior civil servants soon came to understand the new Minister’s thinking.1 Bevan believed that the state should guarantee a free health service for all2, which automatically deprived the voluntary hospitals of their traditional sources of money. Public funding implied public control. Bevan had at his disposal a wide range of expert reports; service considerations were covered by the hospital surveys, which confirmed the haphazard growth, the unevenness and the deficiencies of the existing arrangements; there was a report on medical education from Goodenough, and reports on London from the county council and the joint coordinating committee.

Bevan's proposals

Bevan took radical new proposals to Cabinet in October 1945. His chief opponent was Herbert Morrison, a defender of local government in general and the London County Council in particular. Bevan’s scheme excluded local authorities from a role in hospital management, for he had come to believe that as 80% or more of the cost would fall upon central funds, full central control was needed. Local government already had enough to do. National ownership would be combined with regional planning and local administration. With the exception of the teaching hospitals, which would have boards of governors directly accountable to the Minister, hospital services would be managed by regional boards on his behalf. The regions would be based upon university medical centres, ‘the natural focal points of specialist medicine and therefore of the hospital services’.

In January 1946 the proposals were circulated on a confidential basis to key associations and interests. Bevan did not intend to reopen the long drawn out discussions of the previous four years, and the confidential meetings he held with the local authority associations, the British Medical Association, the King’s Fund and the British Hospitals Association were not so much for the purpose of consultation, but to prepare people for what was to come.1 The British Hospitals Associ­ation, once it was aware of what was in the wind, chaffed at the temporary ban on wider discussion. The details were made public on 19 March 1946 when a summary of the National Health Service Bill was presented to Parliament. Sir Bernard Docker, the chairman of the Westminster Hospital and of the British Hospitals Association, opposed the plan at once, saying that it was not in the interests of the patient to eliminate all sense of local pride, interest and responsibility in local hospitals, as must be the case if local management committees were autocratically appointed and made responsible only for minor day-to­day affairs. Lord Latham, the Leader of the London County Council, said that his council had devoted much thought and effort to the task of making its hospitals the finest in the world, and it was therefore with great reluctance that the council would see them pass into the ownership of the state. However the council would insist that the interests of the people of London were fully safeguarded by adequate council represen­tation on the proposed regional hospital boards.

http://www.nhshistory.net/bevan.htm

All that changed was The funding arrangements.


Which whatever way you look at it, it would still be coming from the tax payer


The original proposal was by conservatives in the 1944 white paper.



You lefties just can't stand the truth and The destruction of your web of lies..... you prefer to live in your delusions......

Tommy Monk wrote:You are confusing your republicans with our conservatives, who are in reality, much more like your democrats.


It was our conservatives who proposed the NHS in 1944 white paper....



The conservatives here want to give the opportunity to succeed to all.


That is why they set up grammar schools that labour have been doing away with.


Our conservatives want people to be in charge of their own lives.


Our labour party want big overarching state control of everything.


And to give generous Hand outs to those who refuse to work and higher taxes on everyone else to pay for it.

You have a great reframing of the question, but what I fear you mean is that Conservatives want to do a little social engineering, so that the world is made safe for capitalism. There is a difference between "being in charge of your own lives" and conforming to the capitalist model. The two are not synonymous. Freedom is unlimited, whereas the Tory idea of self-determination is doing it our way.

Democrats differ from Republicans in that Republicans also want conformity to a certain script...the hard work doctrine, capital investment and the economic dream. Same as your Tories, innit? The problem is that the that script leaves out so, so many people...the sick, disadvantaged and certain races. It is far from even.

Democrats...and to an extent the Labour Party...work without a script. They are just political parties working for political interests. Whereas the Torie-Republicans work--through their dream--for the monied class, the Democrats and Labour just work for the everyday person...in any and every situation.

So the disadvantaged need some help. That isn't called for in your script, Tommy. So...it's much simpler to call the disadvantaged the slackards and bums of society. They live off our money. They don't need help; they need a good whipping. And the Conservative Party is going to give it to them. Cut back on help for the sick. Cut back on food for the poor. No more for education. Cut back on housing. Austerity is the new religion. Privatization is the new priestly order.

Oh, and if you can do anything to help the rich get richer...well, that proves we were right, don't it?

Tommy Monk wrote:All that changed was The funding arrangements.


Which whatever way you look at it, it would still be coming from the tax payer


The original proposal was by conservatives in the 1944 white paper.



You lefties just can't stand the truth and The destruction of your web of lies..... you prefer to live in your delusions......

That was a total different concept based on fee paying hospitals. You are just making yourself look stupid now.

No it wasn't Sassy.


It was going to be paid by local authorities, but then it was decided that funding should be from central govt.



Either way it would be funded by tax money.





And quill, do you think it is right for people on benefits to be able to claim £100,000 a year...???


This was happening under labour.


And you forget that Torys brought in grammar schools so the brightest from all backgrounds and financial levels could get on and achieve top education and top jobs in The country.


I remember one particular woman who came from very humble beginnings, she was The daughter of a grocery shop owner, went through grammar school system and on to great things....


Have you guessed who it was yet...???


Margaret Thatcher!!!!


Labour have almost completely destroyed the grammar school system, and The rest of our education system has been dumbed down so much by labour that many start work with string of qualifications but still can't read or write properly and don't have a basic understanding of maths.


Their eagerness to make everyone the same just means dragging everyone down to the same level as the lowest common denominator.

They don't really want the poor to be richer, they want the richer to also be poor.


They were happy to give unemployed people up to £100,000 in benefits, And tax all The working and already struggling people more to pay for it.

Tommy Monk wrote:And quill, do you think it is right for people on benefits to be able to claim £100,000 a year...???

This was happening under labour.

And you forget that Torys brought in grammar schools so the brightest from all backgrounds and financial levels could get on and achieve top education and top jobs in The country.

I remember one particular woman who came from very humble beginnings, she was The daughter of a grocery shop owner, went through grammar school system and on to great things....

Have you guessed who it was yet...???

Margaret Thatcher!!!!

Labour have almost completely destroyed the grammar school system, and The rest of our education system has been dumbed down so much by labour that many start work with string of qualifications but still can't read or write properly and don't have a basic understanding of maths.

Their eagerness to make everyone the same just means dragging everyone down to the same level as the lowest common denominator.

They don't really want the poor to be richer, they want the richer to also be poor.

They were happy to give unemployed people up to £100,000 in benefits, And tax all The working and already struggling people more to pay for it.

I'm not following you.  This person claimed £100,000 a year for what?  If it was for medical expenses, or any other subsidised need, then of course it is warranted.  We want to save lives or help the sick.  Or are you saying it was for discretionary spending?  The devil is always in the details.

I'm not surprised that Tories supported lower education or that Thatcher was the product of hard working family.  But you give no facts for your allegation that Labour "destroyed" grammar education or that Labour "dumbed down" higher education.  As a former university professor--and a member of the graduate admissions committee, and the chairman of the graduate admissions standards committee--I have to say I have, and still receive tons of literature and studies on university achievements around the world.  I have found no evidence that UK universities have been "dumbed down" and I continue to be very impressed by graduates of British universities.

There a lot of myths at work here.  I've seen no overt evidence that LW parties want to create sameness, drag everybody down or that they simply seek mediocrity.  They do seek some redistribution to pay for institutions that serve to provide a social safety net.  But that is a matter of whether you support the welfare of all, or merely applaud the achievements of the very wealthy.  I see no intrinsic benefit in wealth for the sake of wealth, but I do see an intrinsic benefit in using our (collective) wealth to help the less fortunate along in every way we can.

Not claiming for medical expenses.


We have a NHS with all that paid remember.


The Torys have brought in a cap Of about £27,500 which is still more than the average working wage, and was opposed by labour.



They have dumbfd down the education system.


Not universities so much.


But if you check out the international league tables you will see how we slipped markedly during labour years from 97-2010.

Well, we have to know what the funds were earmarked for before we go off hollerin' about it. An agency doesn't just give away £100,000 without a reason. Otherwise we would all be rich.

As far as education, you would have to make a case based upon test scores for the relevant years. That kind of generalisation is highly dubious. It's the kind of unsubstantiated claim that you see go unchecked everyday in political rhetoric.

Tommy Monk wrote:Not claiming for medical expenses.


We have a NHS with all that paid remember.


The Torys have brought in a cap Of about £27,500 which is still more than the average working wage, and was opposed by labour.



They have dumbfd down the education system.


Not universities so much.


But if you check out the international league tables you will see how we slipped markedly during labour years from 97-2010.

Yes Tommy, but remember and tell Quill about the caveat on the PISA rankings. The one that the Office for National Statistics ripped the Tories and the media for ignoring.

This one...

http://www.statisticsauthority.gov.uk/reports---correspondence/correspondence/letter-from-andrew-dilnot-to-rt--hon--david-miliband-mp---03102012.pdf

There was advice in the publication that was ignored and now here you are doing exactly the same thing.

Tut tut

Tommy Monk wrote:No it wasn't Sassy.


It was going to be paid by local authorities, but then it was decided that funding should be from central govt.



Either way it would be funded by tax money.





And quill, do you think it is right for people on benefits to be able to claim £100,000 a year...???


This was happening under labour.


And you forget that Torys brought in grammar schools so the brightest from all backgrounds and financial levels could get on and achieve top education and top jobs in The country.


I remember one particular woman who came from very humble beginnings,  she was The daughter of a grocery shop owner, went through grammar school system and on to great things....


Have you guessed who it was yet...???


Margaret Thatcher!!!!


Labour have almost completely destroyed the grammar school system, and The rest of our education system has been dumbed down so much by labour that many start work with string of qualifications but still can't read or write properly and don't have a basic understanding of maths.


Their eagerness to make everyone the same just means dragging everyone down to the same level as the lowest common denominator.

They don't really want the poor to be richer, they want the richer to also be poor.


They were happy to give unemployed people up to £100,000 in benefits, And tax all The working and already struggling people more to pay for it.

The Margaret Thatcher you mention practically destroyed grammar schools. Labour didn't take any decisions to close any when they took over in 1997.

Details here....

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/education-the-end-of-the-grammar-school-1179844.html

And of course the Tories dumped her for their own good.

Tommy Monk wrote:All that changed was The funding arrangements.


Which whatever way you look at it, it would still be coming from the tax payer


The original proposal was by conservatives in the 1944 white paper.



You lefties just can't stand the truth and The destruction of your web of lies..... you prefer to live in your delusions......

Bollocks

Statement by the Labour Party in 1934 declared:

The nation needs a medical service planned as a whole;

It must be preventive as well as curative; and neither paid private doctoring nor National Health Insurance can ‘deal adequately with the prevention of ill-health’;
The service must be complete and it must be open to all, so that poverty shall be no bar to health;

It must be efficient and up-to-date providing for team work-and only the community can achieve this by a planned disposition of hospitals, doctors, etc;

It must offer a fair deal to doctor and patient alike and only a system of whole time, salaried and pensionable doctoring will do.


The Beveridge Report 1942

The Beveridge Report of 1942 pointed to the establishment of a comprehensive national health service as a necessary underpinning to a national social insurance scheme. Labour had a long-standing commitment to a national health service, which was reaffirmed in the National Service for Health policy document of 1943.


Debate on the matter commenced under the Coalition Government and led to the White Paper 'A National Health Service' published in February 1944, that proposed a comprehensive and free service. The British Medical Association resisted the proposal that some general practitioners should become salaried state employees under the scheme. Henry Willink, Minister for Health under Churchill, produced a compromise White Paper, which enabled general practitioners to continue as independent contractors or private practitioners.

And now the Tories want to try and pinch the NHS for themselves. What a bunch of chancers.

Who put forward the first white paper on NHS....????


Did we go up or down in international rankings under labour???


Were there people claiming up to £100,000 a year in benefits under labour???

Tommy Monk wrote:
Who put forward the first white paper on NHS....????

A coalition government.

And the White Paper isn’t a bill and didn’t go anywhere near what Labour had in mind for an NHS system of healthcare.  For one thing it left open that some doctors and some hospitals could remain independent and within the control of those who already ran them but they expected the government to pay for the service they provided to patients. That was dumped under severe pressure from some organisation who the Tories in the coalition had been secretly plotting with to keep it in there.

The NHS model that we got under Labour was a long way from what was in that white paper. Here, read some stuff from the digital archives. Page No’s 1, 2 3 etc. It’ll help you a lot.

http://contentdm.warwick.ac.uk/cdm/ref/collection/tav/id/1125

Tommy Monk wrote:
Did we go up or down in international rankings under labour???

If you follow the advice and the caveats mentioned in the letter I provided from the UK National Statistics Authority and do as the author suggested and compare it with other assessments carried  out  instead of blindly following the rhetoric in the media then the answer is no.

Here’s the TIMSS report  mentioned in the letter – outstading

http://www.nfer.ac.uk/publications/TMO01/TIMSS2007Chapter1.pdf

Even Michael Gove admitted as much when in an interview in 2011, he said

“It is important to recognise that it is not just grade inflation that is responsible for improvements in our schools. I do believe that our schools have got better, incrementally in some case, quickly in others, over the course of the last 15 years.”

Well over those 15 years 13 of them were under Labour, Tommy.

Tommy Monk wrote:
Were there people claiming up to £100,000 a year in benefits under labour???

There certainly were and there still is. Of course most of that probably went on Housing benefit which goes back to the deregulation of private sector rents under the Tories and the shortage of council housing due to the Tories starving councils of funds by banning them from using the proceeds from the sale of their housing stock to replace them. The deregulation reduced protection for tenants and ended the right for an independent assessment of "Fair Rents" to be carried out. This caused expenditure on housing benefit over the period from 1986/87 to 1997/8 to rocket up from £3.8 billion to £12.2 billion

Amazing huh!

So even though a NHS was talked about for years, it was a Tory led govt that introduced the first white paper for it in 1944.


And yes we did drop down considerably in tif international tables in education.


Gove highlights grade inflation. And The fact that schools got better which they did with improvements in facilities and IT etc.

Totally different to the fact we dropped in tables.



There was unemployed people claiming up to £100,000 per year, there is now a car per household at about £27,000.



Never get a straight answer from labour.


Just lies and spin.

Tommy Monk wrote:So even though a NHS was talked about for years, it was a Tory led govt that introduced the first white paper for it in 1944.


And yes we did drop down considerably in tif international tables in education.


Gove highlights grade inflation. And The fact that schools got better which they did with improvements in facilities and IT etc.

Totally different to the fact we dropped in tables.



There was unemployed people claiming up to £100,000 per year, there is now a car per household at about £27,000.



Never get a straight answer from labour.


Just lies and spin.

The Beverage report leading to the white paper drawn up was the result of a Labour initiative and I've already told you that the white paper presented by the coalition government was unsatisfactory and I've told you why. What do you think a white paper does?

Gove agrees that education under Labour improved. What's a tif table?

Didn't drop down any tables with the caveat applied. Did you read the letter and what did you think of the TIMSS report. You didn't say


No comment on the post I gave you then on the benefits? No surprise in that.

You're struggling

A NHS was talked about for years and years with no one doing anything.


It took a Tory led govt to put forward the white paper.


Gove didn't say education improved, he made a point of grade inflation and only said schools improved.

Education didn't.

And we did drop down tables.

Fuck the excuses or 'caveat' as You Are trying to 'rebrand' it as.



You're doing a Didge again.

I answered the benefits.


We are talking about regular unemployed people plus housing benefit claiming up to £100,000 a year. A figure that they would never dream of earning through work, paying for a completely disproportionate higher standard of living than those expected to pay taxes for it.


Labour allowed this.



You can lay on as many coats of bullshit as You like.


Still bullshit.

So you're now admitting the £100,000 a year included other things...just as I said.

Shame, Tommy. You didn't come clean.

What are You talking about????

This was not paying for medical bills as You suggested.

This was unemployed people claiming benefit for living costs.

This usually includes general money for food and bills etc, and rent.


Labour allowed people to move into luxury accommodation in rich areas and then claim off the tax payer to fund this.


Remember that most working people wouldn't be able to afford anything like this as average wages are about £25,000 and The higher rate of tax starts about £44,000.


These people were then also able to turn down regular work because it wouldn't pay enough to live on with these massively high costs they had.....


There is no hiding anything.


Everyone over here knows that benefits usually include rent.


Most people here who claim benefits are also claiming housing costs.


There is now a maximum weekly amount you can claim in rent for each size of home. ANd YOu will only be paid the rate for your own personal needs.

ie you will not get a 3 bedroom place paid for if you Are a single person. You will only get The 1 bedroom rate.


Don't make me out to be a liar or deliberately hiding the truth quill, because I'm not.

Do any families get more than £100,000 a year in benefits, as George Osborne has claimed?

A freedom of information request by Full Fact showed that in August 2010, there were fewer than five housing benefit claimants receiving the equivalent of £100,000 a year.

And how many were getting more than most people were even earning through work...??



One is too many, you can't have a addedptp system that makes people better off than workers who are paying for it.


Don't you understand that basic principle...???

Tommy Monk wrote:And how many were getting more than most people were even earning through work...??



One is too many, you can't have a addedptp system that makes people better off than workers who are paying for it.


Don't you understand that basic principle...???

The basic principle is that £260million PER DAY!!!is being swindled out of the British public by tax evaders and yet a snivelling cap doffer such as yourself is concerned about the £400,000 a year going on 4 families.

Wake the fuck up.

Fuck off Scrat!


You can't have a rosicj security system funding more extravagant lifestyles than those who work to pay for it.



And I said people up to £100,000 a year.


How many were getting more than the cap rate that is in place now...????



It's not just about The 4 claiming the most.



But you were happy to fork ou nearly half a million sounds a year of tax payers money on 4 families.....


Twat!

Tommy Monk wrote:Fuck off Scrat!

You can't have a rosicj security system funding more extravagant lifestyles than those who work to pay for it.

And I said people up to £100,000 a year.

How many were getting more than the cap rate that is in place now...????

It's not just about The 4 claiming the most.

But you were happy to fork ou nearly half a million sounds a year of tax payers money on 4 families.....

Twat!

Tommy, behave yourself.  You're not gaining points by berating people.

My point is that you were implying someone was getting unemployment benefits to the tune of £100,000/year.  I suggested something else could be involved...I suggested the example of medical costs.  You went off on how my example was inapt because you have the NHS.  It came to my mind because it would be a factor in the US...but you were right, it was a misplaced example.

But it was only an example...and you chose to argue with the example.  You deflected, rather than take the point head on.  Something else was involved, you now admit.  There was a housing subsidy at issue as well.  Why didn't you come clean and say that...you knew that's where I was heading.

Tommy, you know you are going to get caught.  We have got some very good minds on this board--Irn, Didge, Scrat, many more--so why not come out and take on the points straight up.  Better than embarrassing yourself.

I did, it is obvious that people claim housing benefit for rent too.



And widely understood to be part of THe overall claim.



I never said that people were just getting all The money in cash just to spend on whatever they wanted every week/month etc.




I thought you were implying it was for all of this plus medical bills which makes the total claim so high.



I'm not trying to hide or mislead, I just assumed you would have automatically associated rent as part of overall claim as is common knowledge here.




Let me put it in perspective, you can rent a privately owned one bedroom flat for about £100-150 a week, £5,000-7,500 A year.


A nice 3 bed semi detached house, front and back garden, driveway and garage in plenty of nice areas in London for about £1,000-1,200 a month.



I might like to live in millionaires row in Chelsea or Notting Hill, which is fine if I am working and can afford to pay The rent myself, but shouldn't be able to do so funded by the tax payer if not working.



I'm sorry you misunderstood what the overall claims included.


I should have maybe been clearer as You don't live here and didn't know what was being discussed.



I was always talking about housing benefit claim as being part of overall claim.





So now we've cleared this up, do you think it is right for unemployed people to be able to claim up to £100,000 a year in benefits???

Irn Bru wrote:

There certainly were and there still is. Of course most of that probably went on Housing benefit which goes back to the deregulation of private sector rents under the Tories and the shortage of council housing due to the Tories starving councils of funds by banning them from using the proceeds from the sale of their housing stock to replace them. The deregulation reduced protection for tenants and ended the right for an independent assessment of "Fair Rents" to be carried out. This caused expenditure on housing benefit over the period from 1986/87 to 1997/8 to rocket up from £3.8 billion to £12.2 billion

You never really commented on this and the reasons why housing benefit is high other than rambling on about families with a motor car. Would you like to do so now and make clear that according to an article in the Daily Mail quoting the DWP saying

“Only a very small minority of people receive such high rates of housing benefit. The average payment is £81 a week.”

Your a chancer Tommy. Tell Quill about the bigger picture and I'm sure he'll think more of for doing so.

Irn Bru wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:No it wasn't Sassy.


It was going to be paid by local authorities, but then it was decided that funding should be from central govt.



Either way it would be funded by tax money.





And quill, do you think it is right for people on benefits to be able to claim £100,000 a year...???


This was happening under labour.


And you forget that Torys brought in grammar schools so the brightest from all backgrounds and financial levels could get on and achieve top education and top jobs in The country.


I remember one particular woman who came from very humble beginnings,  she was The daughter of a grocery shop owner, went through grammar school system and on to great things....


Have you guessed who it was yet...???


Margaret Thatcher!!!!


Labour have almost completely destroyed the grammar school system, and The rest of our education system has been dumbed down so much by labour that many start work with string of qualifications but still can't read or write properly and don't have a basic understanding of maths.


Their eagerness to make everyone the same just means dragging everyone down to the same level as the lowest common denominator.

They don't really want the poor to be richer, they want the richer to also be poor.


They were happy to give unemployed people up to £100,000 in benefits, And tax all The working and already struggling people more to pay for it.

The Margaret Thatcher you mention practically destroyed grammar schools. Labour didn't take any decisions to close any when they took over in 1997.

Details here....

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/education-the-end-of-the-grammar-school-1179844.html

And of course the Tories dumped her for their own good.

You never really commented on this Tommy. Perhaps you missed it.

On the education topic. Perhaps you should read this as well as all the other stuff I gave you

No hard evidence that England has slid down international performance tables, study says

http://www.ioe.ac.uk/60021.html

It's only from The Institute of Education University of London.

Read it and comment please.

Anyway it's late and I'm sure you have a full day ahead at work tomorrow.

Night

More diversions and more 'it was the Tories wot done it' waffle...!!!
You're the bloody chancer here!!!
I never said anything about anyone having a car you doughnut!!!
You'd be lucky to get a bed sit for £81 a week!!!
Let alone anything else for less if that is The average.
What are you talking about you idiot???
We were talking about people being allowed to claim up to £100,000 a year in benefits under labour.
What effect do you think labours mass immigration had on housing costs and rents????
What did labour do about building more social housing...???