Dominic Cummings says Tory MPs 'don't care about the NHS'

trish I agree with your post. Good points

Isn't the fact that Cummings and cronies make up a small self selected bunch the whole point, given the influence that they are exerting on government policy? Cummings was the mastermind behind the psychological LeaveEU campaign because he knows how to manipulate public opinion.

It's ironic that he pushes the argument about unelected, out of touch elites, when he belongs to the very same group. Combined with his views on eugenics and survival of the fittest, I find it a tad concerning.

The Labour Party, or at least those who think that there is still some kind of noble working class, has become increasingly irrelevant. The argument about the NHS is about whether people believe in a health service which provides first class healthcare for everybody. That, of course, means that those who can afford it pay more through taxation, even if they don't make more use of it. When the NHS was first set up, there were people who objected because they knew they'd have to pay more than others … and there still are. Over the last ten years, it appears to have been government policy not to provide a good healthcare service for all.

M0nica it doesn't matter who says something if it is true, and it is true. There are not "millions" of MPs, and Tory MPs have consistently attacked the NHS such as when they voted down pay rises for nurses. If you wish to show that the Tories do support the NHS post something they have done to improve or support it.
Labour MPs have always supported it. Their demographic doesn't matter.

monica absolutely right, but unfortunately Cummings et al are running the country.

bradfordlass ( where are you bradfordlass) was saying exactly what so many people think, but I think that it a little harsh to accuse her of calumny. You sound as if you have taken it personally!!

WW Cummings and cronies are but a very small self selected bunch. The fact that one person, or a small coterie in a group of millions makes an unacceptable comment, is no evidence that the millions share those views any more than the person stupid enough to think that can be taken to be typical of any broad social group they can be included in.

I referred to the socio demographic profile of the Labour Party, because now many,, if not most of its MPs come from the professional classes www.parliament.uk/business/publications/research/olympic-britain/parliament-and-elections/representatives-of-society/ and I presume they are there because of their commitment to those who did not have the opportunities and priviliges they had, which proves yet again the prejudice shown by Bradfordlass in her sweeping generalisation.

maizie if you take away the ability for government to manage the funding and for the users of the system to pay into a huge trust fund or whatever, then we do indeed see the monies “paying” for the system.

We would of course need to agree over those unable to pay for whatever reason. The government could be required to pay into the trust accordingly.

My biggest concern is to take it out if governments hands and for it to be entirely run by the nation.

We could add to what Cummings said the clip of Tory MPs cheering when they voted down a pay rise for the public service employees who are now keeping our country running. I never understand why people don't realise that Tory policy still is to create a "small state"with little taxation and public services cut to the minimum. The only time they do express support for these services is when an election is due, or when there is no where else to turn like today.
I do wonder the carnage of WW2 brought socialism to the fore and made people aware of what was needed. Could this virus do the same for the 21st century?

What I am saying is that in my opinion, the NHS needs to be removed to an arms length from any future government. That it needs an identifiable (dedicated) form of funding (call it tax or subscription etc).

My point is that if you call it 'tax', or 'subscription' the assumption is that 'the public' (or, the 'taxpaying public') get the impression that they are paying for the service. Giving rise to the problems noted.

I think it's time that we had a rethink about the function of government. Is it to care for and protect all the citizens of the country being governed or is it for forwarding the interests of a particular section?

I don't see anything in the original statement that makes it a 'calumny'. MOnica. The tories have been hell bent on shrinking the state and privatising everything for 4 decades now. Nor do I see the relevance to this of 'many people right across society are involved in helping others and supporting progressive causes'. They, poor s-ds, however worthwhile their involvement, seem to me to be propping up a corrupt regime which has no interest at all in social justice or caring for our citizens.

monica I think on re-reading your post, you did in fact mean the post by bradfordlass was a gross calumny.

However, given the sort of statement emanating from individuals like Cummings and his cronies, why on Earth are you surprised that people don’t come to those sort of conclusion?

By the original statement I assume you meant Cummings and not bl73?

So if I understand what you are saying.

That many people right across the U.K. are helping across society.

Yes absolutely, but we, as a society, came to the conclusion post WW11 that charity and philanthropy whilst to be commended and which play an important part in the glue of society, was not the answer to things like the health of the nation.

I am unclear what the socio demographic level of the Labour Party has to do with anything?

Whitewavemark2 Of course we have, but given that many people right across society are involved in helping others and supporting progressive causes and when you look at the rise in the socio demographic level of Labour Party MPs, it only illustrates what a gross calumny the original statement was.

maizie ok put very simply I accept your premise, that government creates money “pump primes” the economy in the form of Q/E in order to stimulate what is a stagnating economy. That unsurprisingly, given the enormous economic crises that will be facing us once this virus is defeated, is exactly what the Tories have done. (With gritted teeth I am sure?)

However, I am arguing about something different.

What I am saying is that in my opinion, the NHS needs to be removed to an arms length from any future government. That it needs an identifiable (dedicated) form of funding (call it tax or subscription etc).

We need a national conversation as to what we want our health service to do and decide on the level of funding it will need.

In my opinion, as long as any government can make day to day decisions regarding its running there will be continual crises done the line. It needs to be run by an independent non-profit making body (charity) but the legal requirements etc are set and decided by government. In effect the government will keep an overall eye but simply not able to interfere on any basis.

Now all we want to ensure this never happens again is a form of dedicated tax that gives us the type of health care we all want and clearly need.

I don't think so, Wwmk2. The primary, and most important reason being that taxation doesn't fund spending. The minute you believe that it does you are ripe to be manipulated by all the lies which justified 'austerity'.

The secondary reason is that the NHS would be dependent on a sum which would fluctuate according to how many people were being taxed and what their incomes were.

Another one which strikes me is that, knowing how very uncaring people can be about their fellow citizens, I think it would generate a belief that taxpayers had more 'rights' to healthcare than non-taxpayers and that after that, it should only go to non taxpayers who 'deserve' it. Look how vile some people can be about folk on benefits...

With regard to my first point here's Richard Murphy:

First, it assumes that the government spends other people’s money. It doesn’t. It spends its own. That’s because it actually creates all money at the end of the day (even that put into circulation by private banks is done under government licence). And because it creates all money there is technically no limit on the amount it can produce if it so wants

Second, this means that the assumption that the government behaves like a household with regard to debt is just wrong. Households can’t create their own money out of thin air to repay their debts but governments with their own currency and central bank (as the UK has) can do just that. £435 billion of quantitative easing since 2009 proves this and yet everyone pretends that this has not happened, which is ludicrous. The fact is that governments and households are not the same at all because households may be constrained by the need to repay debt but governments are not.

Third, so long as the creation of government debt keeps pace with inflation and it does not overheat the economy by trying to create more than full employment then government debt is not a problem any more than having money in your pocket is a problem. And that’s unsurprising because the money in your pocket is government debt. And all UK government debt is just a giant savings account for those who want an ultra-safe place to deposit their money, and what’s wrong with that?

www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2020/04/03/answering-the-question-how-are-you-going-to-pay-for-it/

P.S. I quote from Murphy because I read his blog regularly and he makes explanations quite easy to understand. There are plenty of other people who are saying the same thing about government money creation and debt.

monica I take your point, but I do think we have moved beyond such a paternalistic world view.

I am thrilled that Hancock is writing off NHS debt that it has built up as a result of enforced Tory austerity.

Now all we want to ensure this never happens again is a form of dedicated tax that gives us the type of health care we all want and clearly need.

A dedicated health tax administered by an independent body and written into law which prevents various government from interfering into something they are patently not qualified to do will ensure our NHS a future.

With regards to Cummings. Of course we all know of his weird world view and the fact that there are numerous Tories who would get rid of the NHS at the stroke of a pen. That was and is always a danger, but if there is one thing to come out of this whole ghastly covid business, is how having the type of healthcare system we have compared to say the USA is that we can move our resources around as is seen fit including staff.
We have all seen the mayor or NYC begging for help for the different health care providers in his city from health care providers in other parts of the USA. Hundreds of nurses carrying “patients before profit” signs. No sign of nationwide coordination between the health providers, and the poor dying in the streets.

Thank god we don’t have that sort of system.

Cummings and his ilk must never prevail.

Bradfordlass I think that is a gross calumny of the many many people from comfortable backgrounds who have always been concerned about those less well off than them. All the main social reformers from Elizabeth Fry to William Wilberforce and Mrs Pankhurst came from well-off backgrounds and that tradition continues still.

Hasn't it always been the case that those from a richer, more privileged background, traditionally think that the grassroots is where the worms are?

One of the reasons Keir Hardy started The Scotish Labour Party was because he saw that working class families had no representation.

Exactly, and straight from the horse's mouth! It deserves it's own thread for discussion in the Corona Virus section, don't you think?