Stive Pesley Posted December 2, 2019 Share Posted December 2, 2019 57 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said: @SchtivePesley I will assume the laughing emoji means that you have no answer then. No - the laughing emoji was because you totally ignored the content of my post and replied with a question that had nothing at all to do with what I said. And then expected me to answer your non-sequitur question? I don't think so. In other words - your usual "debating style". I used to find it annoying, but now I find it funny. Hence the laughing emoji ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteHorseRam Posted December 2, 2019 Share Posted December 2, 2019 38 minutes ago, SchtivePesley said: No - the laughing emoji was because you totally ignored the content of my post and replied with a question that had nothing at all to do with what I said. And then expected me to answer your non-sequitur question? I don't think so. In other words - your usual "debating style". I used to find it annoying, but now I find it funny. Hence the laughing emoji ? I am buying some new ones of those for my Mum for Christmas - garden sequiturs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteHorseRam Posted December 2, 2019 Share Posted December 2, 2019 4 hours ago, 86 Schmokes & a Pancake said: Errrr, no. The Tory manifesto of 1945, which I actually took time to read, does not endorse free healthcare at all. Indeed the opening clause of the health policy states, and I quote, 'The health services of the country will be made available to all citizens. Everyone will contribute to the cost, and no one will be denied the attention, the treatment or the appliances he requires because he cannot afford them.' The open and rather obvious contradiction being the conditions that no one will be denied care but that everyone will contribute. Hardly the same thing as free healthcare FOR ALL irrespective of whether one is able to 'contribute' or not. The manifesto also goes on to state that far from falling under state control, as per the NHS implemented by the Labour government, that, I quote, the 'whole service must be so designed that in each area its growth is helped and guided by the influence of a university' which neatly avoids any costs incurred through state oversight as well as shifting the blame for any mis-management from the government itself, even going so far as to state that 'The success of the service will depend on the skill and initiative of doctors, dentists, nurses and other professional people, and in its designing and operation there will be full scope for all the guidance they can give'. In other words, medical professionals will have to double up as managers and planners because actually tending to the sick is not enough of a burden. One might also ask the question, what experience did the universities of the time have in the running of hospitals, were one of a mind to do so! It then goes on to say that the 'voluntary hospitals which have led the way in the development of hospital technique will remain free' but offers no funding for said points of care. In other words, local fundraisers and philanthropists would continue to pick up the tab NOT THE TAXPAYER and certainly not the Exchequer. Very nice of the Tories to allow the only free healthcare to remain free though, despite the fact that they weren't paying for it in the first place! Likewise, it encourages the provision of nurseries, again with no commitment to government funding. Indeed the only promise of wholly free healthcare made in their manifesto was for maternity services which is the only provision the manifesto specifically confirms would be financed through national insurance contributions. Why is this and why when the Tory health secretary of the time, Henry Willink, endorsed Beveridge's report, did he incur the outrage of his fellow Tories (yes, they absolutely hated the idea)? Quite simply because they knew that the only way the state could fund a wholly free healthcare service was increased taxation for both individuals and businesses, with higher earners bearing the brunt. One might be forgiven for supposing that perhaps higher earners and business formed the core of their support but the scenario does seem remarkably familiar, does it not? Their offering, if you care to see it, addresses the issue of the middle classes being denied care, due to being forced to pay full cost, reduces the cost for the wealthiest members of society, yet makes no provision for the poorest members of society at all. It is in effect, health insurance in all but name and a far cry for a free NHS for all. Did they? By what metric? It makes you wonder why they were voted in then really. Perhaps folk didn't know what they were voting for! Interestingly, they actually promised and delivered the NHS so perhaps that's a tad more relevant? Presumably your research confirmed that the sector most likely to struggle to receive treatment was not the poor, who could often access services through the voluntary hospital network, but rather the middle classes who either had to pay the full cost of treatment, or, if that cost was beyond them, go without. The NHS implemented under the Atlee's government eradicated this inequality by ensuring that EVERYONE benefited, even the wealthiest members of society. Hark at those crazy Trots with their nonsensical, egalitarian principles, huh! Errr, no. Under a Liberal government, perhaps (Beveridge was a liberal), under labour, well, we have our proof. Under the Tories, sorry, not a chance in hell. Thank you all the same for your rather revisionist rewriting of history. Feel free to cite any clauses from the Tory manifesto (or anywhere else for that matter) that contradict the above. In the spirit of helpfulness and open debate, the link to the 1945 Tory manifesto is provided below. http://www.conservativemanifesto.com/1945/1945-conservative-manifesto.shtml Alright, own up … you are a modern historian aren't you? suede shoes and floppy hair Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GboroRam Posted December 2, 2019 Share Posted December 2, 2019 1 hour ago, G STAR RAM said: Had a long political debate with a friend over the weekend. He describes me as a staunch Conservative so was extremely surprised to hear many Labour policies I like the sound of. It's not always about having the best policies though, they also need to be realistic and deliverable. I'm wondering if you'll have a crisis of confidence in the voting booth, hand hovering over the Labour box... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norman Posted December 2, 2019 Share Posted December 2, 2019 5 hours ago, 86 Schmokes & a Pancake said: I love Jeremy Corbyn and his poo manifesto. 5 hours ago, 86 Schmokes & a Pancake said: 4 day week. Woohoo You speak in facts, when you have absolutely no idea what would have happened. How the duck would you know the Tories wouldn't have followed through with their manifesto which was basically the same? You see, you're arguing about manifestos in 1945. Let us not forget, it was the Tories that won us the war, otherwise we wouldn't have the a NHS. Or immigration. Or the EU. See, its a easy to do what you have just done. Basically the Tories are responsible for everything Labour supporters say Labour are brilliant for. I win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norman Posted December 2, 2019 Share Posted December 2, 2019 1 hour ago, SchtivePesley said: No - the laughing emoji was because you totally ignored the content of my post and replied with a question that had nothing at all to do with what I said. And then expected me to answer your non-sequitur question? I don't think so. In other words - your usual "debating style". I used to find it annoying, but now I find it funny. Hence the laughing emoji ? It always means you have no answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stive Pesley Posted December 2, 2019 Share Posted December 2, 2019 14 minutes ago, Norman said: It always means you have no answer. You win again! You're on a roll today mate! Stormin' Norman! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkFruitsRam7 Posted December 2, 2019 Share Posted December 2, 2019 48 minutes ago, Norman said: Let us not forget, it was the Tories that won us the war I think this comment is quite generous. Edit: I realise that the tone of the post was deliberately facetious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Comrade 86 Posted December 2, 2019 Share Posted December 2, 2019 55 minutes ago, Norman said: You speak in facts, when you have absolutely no idea what would have happened. How the duck would you know the Tories wouldn't have followed through with their manifesto which was basically the same? You see, you're arguing about manifestos in 1945. Let us not forget, it was the Tories that won us the war, otherwise we would the have a NHS. Or immigration. Or the EU. See, its a easy to do what you have just done. Basically the Tories are responsible for everything Labour supporters say Labour are brilliant for. I win. Yes you are quite correct, I have listed the facts, unlike your good self who chose instead to present a load falsehoods dressed up as the truth. I've asked you what you might disagree with so it's quite telling that the best you can come up with is some childish drivel about the war. The funniest thing being that in your latest revision of modern history you claim it was a Tory government that 'won the war' (like Mucker, facetious tone duly noted) when in fact it was a coalition that included the Liberal, Labour and Tory parties. Another FACT that seems to have escaped you. I'm actually embarrassed for you! And the reason that I have debated your understanding of the Tory manifesto of 1945, since you've now queried me bringing it up, is that YOU YOURSELF claimed all three parties advocated a free health service at the same time as the Labour manifesto that was ultimately implemented - the year said manifestos were issued was..... yep, you guessed it, 1945. That is to say, the reason I've referred you to said manifesto is because YOU BROUGHT IT UP IN YOUR OWN DUCKING POST, the post I both quoted and responded to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Comrade 86 Posted December 2, 2019 Share Posted December 2, 2019 8 minutes ago, DarkFruitsRam7 said: I think this comment is quite generous. Edit: I realise that the tone of the post was deliberately facetious. Yeah but Churchill, something, something, something... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G STAR RAM Posted December 2, 2019 Share Posted December 2, 2019 2 hours ago, SchtivePesley said: No - the laughing emoji was because you totally ignored the content of my post and replied with a question that had nothing at all to do with what I said. And then expected me to answer your non-sequitur question? I don't think so. In other words - your usual "debating style". I used to find it annoying, but now I find it funny. Hence the laughing emoji ? Nah, your point was these Tory voters have to donate to the NHS because of the Conservatives. So I asked if donations are not required when Labour are in government. As usual you failed to debate anything that questions Labour. I used to find that annoying, but now I find it funny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G STAR RAM Posted December 2, 2019 Share Posted December 2, 2019 1 hour ago, GboroRam said: I'm wondering if you'll have a crisis of confidence in the voting booth, hand hovering over the Labour box... Not a chance this time around. A 'fully costed manifesto' that omitted £58bn tells me all I need to know about how deliverable the current plans are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G STAR RAM Posted December 2, 2019 Share Posted December 2, 2019 53 minutes ago, Norman said: It always means you have no answer. Glad someone else has noticed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Comrade 86 Posted December 2, 2019 Share Posted December 2, 2019 10 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said: Glad someone else has noticed. Yeah, not a lot gets past Norman ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stive Pesley Posted December 2, 2019 Share Posted December 2, 2019 27 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said: A 'fully costed manifesto' that omitted £58bn tells me all I need to know about how deliverable the current plans are. But that £58bn was stolen from the women's pensions. Does it not bother you as to where that money ended up? 30 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said: Nah, your point was these Tory voters have to donate to the NHS because of the Conservatives. So I asked if donations are not required when Labour are in government ...which had absolutely nothing to do with my point, just your usual pudding-headed whataboutery Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G STAR RAM Posted December 2, 2019 Share Posted December 2, 2019 8 minutes ago, SchtivePesley said: But that £58bn was stolen from the women's pensions. Does it not bother you as to where that money ended up? Which has nothing to do with my point. Just your usual pudding headed inability to accept any criticisms of Labour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stive Pesley Posted December 2, 2019 Share Posted December 2, 2019 14 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said: and your inability to use the flippin quote system properly. Or form rational arguments Good luck putting your X in the box next week! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteHorseRam Posted December 2, 2019 Share Posted December 2, 2019 1 hour ago, Norman said: Let us not forget, it was the Tories that won us the war Not entirely true. The Tory Govt - the appeasement party - effectively blew up in May 1940,after the disastrous Norway campaign which forced Chamberlain to resign. Churchill formed a cross-party Govt, one third Labour, with Attlee as Deputy PM. Attlee effectively kept the factories going and the babies fed while Winston tried to get the USA to give us tons of kit and come in earlier. Tory back benchers actually held a vote of no confidence in Churchill, as they didn't like the way he was running the war. Plus the USSR did all the heavy lifting defeating the German army (then Commies damn them). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G STAR RAM Posted December 2, 2019 Share Posted December 2, 2019 7 minutes ago, SchtivePesley said: and your inability to use the flippin quote system properly. Or form rational arguments Good luck putting your X in the box next week! Oh dear oh dear... Go on then, I know I'm a pudding headed tory voting Leaver but have a go at explaining your point about NHS donations. Don't forget to make it as simple as possible for me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Ram for All Seasons Posted December 2, 2019 Share Posted December 2, 2019 10 minutes ago, WhiteHorseRam said: Tory back benchers actually held a vote of no confidence in Churchill, as they didn't like the way he was running the war. Up until the war, Churchill was known as the pillock who put the £ back onto the gold standard and made the British economy uncompetitive, leading to the depression of the Thirties. Perhaps Boris Johnson will be known as the pillock who ruined the British economy by cutting it of from its key European markets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.