The disappearance of the NHS

Has anybody read my link to pulse? It's not a political one, it's written by GPs and for the medical profession.
It's about a Tory MP starting to work for KPMG which benefits from the privatisation of the NHS.
That is much more serious than tit-for-tat about which party anybody belongs to, or which party did what in the past. It happened yesterday.

durhamjen

No I don't agree with a lot of what you say. You don't agree with much I say. So we both agree on something!

It's your prerogative to put links up to groups/associations you feel akin to. It is my prerogative to challenge/debate what they say..

If that' s some peoples idea of being partisan then so be it.

For those reading our posts I do not engage with other web sites so I do not know what you are talking about.

The NHS is disappearing. Who can be open minded about that?
The difference is I have never pretended to be open minded. You all know my opinions. I am a socialist. Nothing wrong with that.
Shame more Labour party members are not.

Well you certainly aren't, durhamjen!

He's still an MP.

Come off it POGS. You openly admit to never agreeing with me, on quite a few websites. You are not openminded. Neither are you, Ana.

On the subject of partisanship, what do you think of this?
Should it be allowed?

pulsetoday.msgfocus.com/c/11NVSB5qZ3PvimrwxfRanz14

I'd agree with you there, Eloethan, although I still disagree with the use of 'partisan' in your comment to POGS as it implies a fixed viewpoint not just a bit of a bias.

Semantics aside, the constant criticism of 'this government' and jeering at any new policies put forward is very tiresome, especially given labour's past record and lack of any apparent solution to the country's problems.

Are there many people who can honestly say they were completely open-minded, and weighed up all the "evidence" on a particular issue - e.g. capital punishment, sentencing of criminals, feminism, climate change, etc., etc. - before they formed a concrete opinion?

Do we arrive at our opinions through reading every piece of research or analytical commentary that was ever written on a particular subject? I'm not sure if that would even be possible. I think people's opinions are initially influenced by what their parents believe and then by their peer group, and these factors combine with experience to give us a sort of "template" which tends to influence how we think about other issues.

Speaking personally, I acknowledge that I have a left wing bias. However, I do try to find out in more depth about various issues and read different newspapers/watch different TV channels so that I can at least understand how people have arrived at ideas different from my own. What I find difficult to believe is that there are people who have no pre-conceived ideas and are completely "neutral" in forming an opinion on each and every issue.

Eloethan

I think it's perfectly reasonable to say that a link is partisan to a particular party.

A lot of posters appear to be proud of being members of a political group /party so
I fail to understand why they should be concerned if it's mentioned, after all we have all been given the knowledge by them because they want us to know. It would be a tad churlish to complain about a situation that you have created.

If you feel that by saying look at varying sources for your information is wrong then I disagree again, I have no problem with that either.

Had I directed a poster to a partisan link of an opposite nature then I could be called a hypocrit but I didn't I suggested looking at varying sources for information. I didn't advise somebody to look at a link /group/association that would fit only my view of the subject .

Yes, that's what I understood 'partisan' to mean, rosequartz, which is why I questioned its use in the post I referred to. There are undoubtedly some GN members who are, but not all...

In politics, a partisan is a committed member of a political party. In multi-party systems, the term is used for politicians who strongly support their party's policies and are reluctant to compromise with their political opponents.

There could be some partisan participants to this thread, but I would think that most are not totally inflexible.

I am not, nor ever will be, a member of a political party, least of all 'committed'.

There are policies of each of the parties with which I could agree or disagree. I would choose to vote for the party with which I disagree least!

I just wish the sneering, backbiting and political footballs being kicked around would stop, but I suppose that is too much to hope for. As soon as the party in government announces plans for the future of the country the first item on the news seems to be how the opposition is decrying it for some reason or another.

It seems rather a strong term, that's all, implying inflexibility of viewpoint (to me, anyway).

But does that necessarily mean that everyone's view is partisan?

I would say it's probably impossible to be impartial since we all live in this world - and are therefore not "disinterested parties" - and every single person has a different life experience which will colour the way he/she interprets information.

On a less theoretical level, it is very difficult to obtain impartial information since our media is controlled by people who have a specific agenda to maintain the current power structure even when it works to the detriment of the majority of the world's population.

Is there such a thing as an impartial view? Wouldn't that be a case of having no opinion, therefore no view? Perhaps that should be in the Philosophy forum.

All views are partisan - including yours.

So are you saying that it's impossible for anyone to have an impartial view of anything, Eloethan?

It's a cynical move on George Osborne's part. While we may wish that this £1 billion were available every year rather than as a one-off payment, we certainly wouldn't wish for it to come from this source since it depends on bankers having fleeced the system and we've had quite enough of that.

So, it is a one-off payment, made six months before an election.

What we need is for the NHS to be properly financed and this can only be done through the collection of various forms of taxes - including, of course, income tax.

The Daily Mail reported in October that there is £34 billion owed to HMRC. The Health Service is in deficit to the tune of £30 billion. In the same article, it was reported that the squeeze on wages has created a £25 billion budget "black hole" through lost income tax receipts. So, not only do businesses fail to pay their tax but they also fail to pay their workers properly, resulting in lost tax receipts and the cost to governments/taxpayers of subsiding these low wages. What you might call a "triple whammy".

POGS All views are partisan - including yours.

'Ed Balls and his mates are our only hope' !!!
Be careful of what you wish for.

Durhamjen re your post 11.59.

I know!

I was pointing out your link was 6 years out of date , that was fair enough.

I am still hoping those who want to read up on PFI contracts and how they have 'cocked up' up a lot of our public sector establishments, who are having to deal with mess to date, will be wise enough to look at information that does not comply with a partisan view and establish for themselves how disasterous some PFI contracts are.

Most people are not stupid and I think the 'cat is right out of the bag' on the subject of PFI's as we see it with our own eyes with the our schools, hospitals etc.

The money George Osborne has promised for the NHS is causing quite a stir isn't it.

My interpretention is the £1 billion odd received to the Treasury from the Libor/Banking Fines was mentioned in his last Chancellors Statement as going to be used for good causes and I think he has chosen the NHS to be the main beneficiary. He could have put the money into the Treasury or paid the debt down.

The bulk of the rest of the sum mentioned is coming from "Under Spends" in other governments departments.

The Labour way to raise £2 Billion as we know relied on The Mansion Tax, Taxing Tobacco Companies and Bankers Bonus.

The Mansion Tax will cause problems for many people who are asset rich but cash income poor. The view taken by Labour is , so what, pay your dues when you snuff it. So another death tax then for some. I don't have a green eyed monster in my soul so I don't feel unsympathetic to those who may have to move their home because of the Mansion Tax or owe thousands if they die or move home.

As for the other 2 ways of collecting more tax are also questionable as to their worth.

I have heard Ed Balls being challenged time and again on his policies but the man has a rhino skin and brushes aside any criticism. He cannot even say how quick the money will 'roll in' from the Mansion Tax, it is so complicated and full of uncertainties.

Still, it's a good story for some.

An entreaty for heavenly help suggests either divine optimism or a desperate last throw of the dice!

so rose what would you suggest?

As I said somewhere else - heaven help us!

So Ed M and his mates had better get their act together. Our futures and that of the NHS depends on them. They are our only hope.

Speechless!

Ordinary people need to be clear in their minds where GO says the money for all this spending is going to come from. I hear it suggested that it will largely come from the "working poor" - presumably no votes from this section for the Tories so he can destroy lives willy nilly with no come back - lets hope that some other sections of society will be more concerned for a greater degree of fairness and refuse to vote for such a vile government.