D
Sponsored Links
D
Deleted member 18243
Sorry Carmanmirandara but that is an incredibly stupid thing to say. I presume you are of advancing years, and as such you should know that elected British governments bin their manifesto proposals as soon as they get in power. What aspects of Britain have the Conservative Party conserved? (None, Christians are now in the minoriry ( What has the Labour Party done for British labourers? (Undercut them with foreigners). You are a goldfish.
All these are Blairites. Tony Blair initiated the radical changes that we are suffering the consequences of today. All subsequent governments consolidated his policies rather than scrapping them. David Cameron proudly boasted himself the "Heir to Blair".
I think you're taking the term 'Conservatism' at an odd tangent: yes, it can mean to conserve, but Conservatism isn't intended to reflect that ideal in the same way the Green Party would use it, for instance. Traditionally, Conservatives have advocated traditional family values and preservation of Christian faith in regard to the Establishment.
You talk about the Party as though it's a pickling plant.
D
Deleted member 174758
For starters, and in conjunction with the unions: Statutory holiday pay, employment rights as enshrined in the 1975 Employment Act (which the Tories have undercut) and a guaranteed minimum wage
So which policies are we still suffering from today, then? Name 4 if you can.
If you want to name radical political actions which have really damaged the UK in the longer term you should have named Margaret Thatcher (a Tory), or Duncan Sandys (1957 White Paper on Defence - another Tory)
Last edited by a moderator:
Sponsored Links
But words only.
So many talk about the NHS as though it's some kind of uniquely brilliant institution that's beyond argument, almost a modern-day national religion. It's massively inefficient, has an endless appetite for ever-increasing amounts of money while paying numerous unproductive staff massive wages and may well be what tips this country into bankruptcy if it doesn't get dealt with soon.
Perhaps "an" NHS of some form may be a good thing, but this one is terminally ill and probably needs killing off and starting again, as it's rotten to the core.
My suggestion would to make membership conditional upon reasonable lifestyle choices, or charge fees to those who don't look after themselves. It could be done as a charge on their estate if they have one, payment upon death. And return to treating only actual illnesses and injuries, not talking therapy and gender realignment.
Is a disfigurement or abnormality considered an illness or an injury?
Would you deny treatment for congenital heart defects, clubfoot, cleft lip or palate, etc?
I didn't say it was unique. I said Labour built it in the face of bitter Conservative opposition.
We might have ended up like the Americans....
As you know, Conservatism dislikes public services, public funding, and public ownership, so the NHS is one of the services that has been underfunded for more than ten years, resulting in backlogs, staff shortages, and the first strikes we have ever seen by nurses and paramedics.
I wouldn't deny anyone treatment for anything. But we need to come up with an affordable way to decide which ones everyone else should pay for, and which should be paid for by the recipient of the treatment.
There's nothing obviously right or wrong about the things that are currently private or NHS. I pay quite a lot per year for my specs. I would definitely cease to be able to be able to work, eat, travel or do much else without them, they are vital. My need for them was an accident of birth, a disability. Most others aren't afflicted by this disability and don't need to deal with the hassle or pay for them. I could say "it's not fair", demanding that everyone else pays for them. But I don't, as I accept that public spending is not a bottomless pit of limitless cash and sometimes life's tough and you just deal with it.
I also pay quite a large contribution towards my NHS dentistry, and have to pay a substantial fee if I get a doctor's prescription.
Having treatment outside the NHS and paying fees within it is nothing new. But many seem to have decided that it must forever remain in exactly the state it is currently in, which it accidentally and randomly arrived at over time.
Given that new conditions and treatments are constantly being developed, and life expectancy and population only rises, the cost of the NHS will only ever increase without limit if nothing is changed.
There's nothing obviously right or wrong about the things that are currently private or NHS. I pay quite a lot per year for my specs. I would definitely cease to be able to be able to work, eat, travel or do much else without them, they are vital. My need for them was an accident of birth, a disability. Most others aren't afflicted by this disability and don't need to deal with the hassle or pay for them. I could say "it's not fair", demanding that everyone else pays for them. But I don't, as I accept that public spending is not a bottomless pit of limitless cash and sometimes life's tough and you just deal with it.
I also pay quite a large contribution towards my NHS dentistry, and have to pay a substantial fee if I get a doctor's prescription.
Having treatment outside the NHS and paying fees within it is nothing new. But many seem to have decided that it must forever remain in exactly the state it is currently in, which it accidentally and randomly arrived at over time.
Given that new conditions and treatments are constantly being developed, and life expectancy and population only rises, the cost of the NHS will only ever increase without limit if nothing is changed.
Not the current government, which is running it down.
@seanmars
As you know, Conservatism dislikes public services, public funding, and public ownership, so Asylum Processing is one of the services that has been underfunded for more than ten years, resulting in enormous backlogs. Nor can this increase solely be seen as a consequence of increased demand: although applications have doubled in the past five years, the backlog has increased fourfold in the same time.
As you know, Conservatism dislikes public services, public funding, and public ownership, so Asylum Processing is one of the services that has been underfunded for more than ten years, resulting in enormous backlogs. Nor can this increase solely be seen as a consequence of increased demand: although applications have doubled in the past five years, the backlog has increased fourfold in the same time.
I'm pleased to see you reconsidered.
Were you just reaching for the low hanging fruit?
That's a rhetorical question.
@seanmars
As you know, Conservatism dislikes public services, public funding, and public ownership, so the NHS is one of the services that has been underfunded for more than ten years. More than 7mn people are now waiting for non-urgent or elective treatment. Part of the problem of course is that a “non-urgent” problem may become more acute and require more intensive care than it would have had it been dealt with earlier. The crisis in the NHS is also probably contributing to the UK’s very tight labour market.
As you know, Conservatism dislikes public services, public funding, and public ownership, so the NHS is one of the services that has been underfunded for more than ten years. More than 7mn people are now waiting for non-urgent or elective treatment. Part of the problem of course is that a “non-urgent” problem may become more acute and require more intensive care than it would have had it been dealt with earlier. The crisis in the NHS is also probably contributing to the UK’s very tight labour market.
Sponsored Links
