So is Labour really washed out? Page 3

Quote: Tim Walker @ October 3 2009, 12:04 AM BST

That's terrible, you can't blame Blair for those paedos.

It's OK to blame and despise him for the thousands of unnecessary deaths in pointless vainglorious wars and for being a dishonest charlatan who misled and arrogantly ignored the views of the citizens who elected him for ten years. It's OK to blame him for demeaning democracy and presiding over a decline in parliamentary standards, plus for instilling a general malaise in society that suggests it's OK to lie, cheat, spin and value style over substance. It's OK to blame him for being a heartless, preening, immoral c**t. That's OK, that's normal.

Just please don't blame for nursery paedos.

View original

It's a shame the shit didn't land on Blair rather than Gordon Brown, it was under his stewardship that most of the bad policy-making took place and he seems to have walked away just in time and left GB to take Labour in to what will probably be a heavy loss to the Tories.

It will just be one of the biggest piss-takes in history if Ireland vote the Lisbon Treaty through and we end-up with Blair as the unelected President of Europe. Especially as the position would never have been created unless Blair reneged on his manifesto pledge to give Britain a referendum.

Quote: Tim Walker @ October 2 2009, 11:40 PM BST

I largely agree with what you have said there. In terms of the bricks and mortar the investment has certainly borne fruit. However, taking into account that much of the actual hospital and treatment centre building work was done via PFIs, a lot of hard cash from the increased budgets has been swallowed up by management and other bureaucratic expansion.

There have been huge wastes of money in terms of the various NHS IT systems, some of which were frankly unnecessary in the first place. Much money has been wasted on new centres for surgery, which actually aren't very labour-intensive or cost-effective.

As regards frontline care for patients (and conditions for staff), superficially there have been improvements in the presentation of care and in specialist treatments (especially cancer services); but actually little progress in terms of day-to-day healthcare benefits. Money has been thrown at new treatments and new staff without always proper evaluation as to whether or not they were better than the previous treatments and strategies.

A lot of money is wasted because doctors and nurses rely more on expensive tests (which of course patients and relatives feel better about having done) rather than good clinical experience and examination. Worryingly, basic medical and nursing skills are in decline. Doctors especially (partly due to limited working hours as juniors) take many more years to gain the knowledge and experience they used to acquire quickly due to intensive post-graduate work and training.

In summary, I would say that the money has improved a few things greatly and many things superficially - but it's generally not been good value-for-money. (I would say that Labour has put the money there to greatly improve preventative care. This may ultimately save/improve a lot of lives. Labour will probably not be around to take the credit for it if it does.)

View original

Really interesting. More or less what I suspected. Thanks.

Really proves that they think they know better than the people who actually do the jobs. The whole of Labour is like some kind of sick joke. The state should be small, it should not stick its nose in unless invited. They've decided that they know how to run the NHS and treat patients (as evidenced by your analysis of juniors) rather than the doctors and nurses. Yet another example of their legislating common sense.

One of New Labour's biggest reforms was changing the ratio of female to male mps. They promised more power to women and this was delivered. I have to say, personally, while some results of this change have been good ones, more funded nursery places, proper maternity leave laws and the beginning even of paternity leave laws, these positives are totally swamped by the negatives - the insidious creation of the Nanny State, a foul institution that scrutinises every little thing we do and then delivers its demeaning and patronising stance on any social issue that seems to upset these oversensitive and fastidious female ministers; the passing of more petty social laws than any govnt anywhere in the world, some that have been rightly ridiculed in the press; they have created an unhealthy fear of saying the wrong thing in public, of even thinking the wrong things, they have forced communities to accept the sudden inflood of immigrants and then dispicably label the original community as 'racist' when they complain, they have somehow elevated the crime of 'racism' to being one more evil than mass murder; they have serously damaged our own national identity and pride to the extent that many normal Brits just don't feel they're allowed to celebrate being British anymore; they have helped change the English language for the worse just because some minorities don't like some long standing words and phrases, they have seriously diminished the traditional role of the male in both the workplace and the family, they have unfairly stigmatised fathers from broken marriages and made many of them bankrupt; they have made marriage such an unattractive institution now because of the fear men have of losing everything when the marriage collapses; they have severely handicapped industry with unfair laws about maternity and flexitime for female parents and finally they have probably put paid to any future govt handing such huge legislative power over to women ever again, with their generally petty and vindictive tenure. It has been a catastrophe for Britain.

At least you're coming around. We're just beginning our touchy-feely phase and it'll be a couple of years before we snap out of it.

And the rest Mr Butt - a black liberal, possibly even socialist president, a liberal female sec of state! It may take a revolution to stop the changes your present govt has in store for you.

Quote: Alfred J Kipper @ October 3 2009, 5:15 AM BST

It may take a revolution to stop the changes your present govt has in store for you.

View original

No, we do a really good job of changing captains every 4-8 years, ensuring that our ship stays on a somewhat middle-of-the-stream course.

Unless President Obama takes a hint from the Clinton presidency and veers to the right, it's very likely that he'll lose badly in 2012.

Yes I think you're right, that is if he survives that long, I don't mean that in a nasty way, just a realist one - the gun is a well used tool of protest in America, is it not.

Quote: Alfred J Kipper @ October 3 2009, 4:38 AM BST

One of New Labour's biggest reforms was changing the ratio of female to male mps. insidious creation of the Nanny State,

View original

Now that really is unfair unles you're wrapping Thatcher, Pankhurst and Boudica in the same label. What we're talking about is the insidious personalisation of politics. So it's 2 Jags weeping over his bulimia and Davey C cuddling his diabled son. Not women being nannies

I don't care if politicos are corrupt, choir boy f**king, nazis providing they do the job we pay them to.

I am sick of being told I should vote for some becaue they're nice or funny.

Thatcher Bevin and Churchill were all shitbags in real life.

Quote: Alfred J Kipper @ October 3 2009, 5:15 AM BST

And the rest Mr Butt - a black liberal, possibly even socialist president, a liberal female sec of state! It may take a revolution to stop the changes your present govt has in store for you.

View original

Barrack is so far to the right of even UKIP, hell he's more conservative than the BNP if one compare policies. We forget quite how foreign the US is,

Quote: Aaron @ October 2 2009, 11:17 PM BST

Taking into account inflation. And that there are many more, more expensive and more advanced drugs, treatments and methods of diagnosis that would have all been funded by whichever party was in power. How much of Labour's NHS "increases" have actually reached the front line? I get the feeling that most of the rest of the cash has gone to the bureaucracy, middle-managers, multiple levels of administration, rather than actual improvements in care. (This isn't just my view from reading political articles, but having spoken to family and friends who work in the NHS.)

But what's your impression? Has their funding really been as impressive and effective to front-line care as they make out, or has it largely been squandered/irrelevant as above?

View original

Doesn't anyone realise a massive beuracracy with a multi billion budget and nigh on a million employees needs a lot of managers? The only alternative would be to scrap the whole NHS (nb private US healthcare spends something like 2-3 times the amount the NHS does on admin,)

Quote: Aaron @ October 3 2009, 12:38 AM BST

Really interesting. More or less what I suspected. Thanks.

. The state should be small, it should not stick its nose in unless invited.

View original

The state should be the right size. Or what do we cut? Prisons, schools, social services, the army?

Quote: Dolly Dagger @ October 2 2009, 11:51 PM BST

I strongly disagree with their stance that mothers should work outside the home, whilst the under-qualified and badly paid look after the children in group care.

View original

There never was a mystery stay at home handout for mums. We got greedier and want double income life styles. Also gender equality means having to do equal labour, tough.

Quote: Tim Walker @ October 2 2009, 11:40 PM BST

Worryingly, basic medical and nursing skills are in decline. Doctors especially (partly due to limited working hours as juniors) take many more years to gain the knowledge and experience they used to acquire quickly due to intensive post-graduate work and training.

View original

The fear of being done in by an overworked and over tired junior dr was prevlanet in the 80s there were whole drama series just about it.

Quote: sootyj @ October 3 2009, 12:01 PM BST

The fear of being done in by an overworked and over tired junior dr was prevlanet in the 80s there were whole drama series just about it.

View original

Trust me, the pendulum has swung too far the other way. I was part of the last generation of docs to work the occasional 100+ hour week. Tiredness was an issue, but errors occur more frequently now than then, due to basic lack of knowledge and experience. And if you're referring to Cardiac Arrest it was great fun, but it wore its political heart too much on its sleeve. There used to be more medics in the hospital at night and weekends, we may have had to work long hours but we worked as a very well structured team. You used to work with the same people on-call and it was very good for morale, unlike today where there are less doctors in the hospital out-of-hours and you never work with a regular team.

The fears related to tiredness were over-stated and used as a political football by those who weren't actually on the ground (I'm looking at you, you BMA bunch of shysters). They used to liken junior doctor tiredness to driving when exhausted. Not only was this not true, there was never a single study to support the proposition that tiredness was a major contributory factor to serious treatment errors. It was used as a defence by docs who screwed-up, but there was no evidence to support the claims in general.

And let's not forget Labour's biggest exercise in money wasting frippery - devolution. Urgh.

I don't know what's happening in the Welsh Parliament, as it's never, ever on the the news - maybe they all just meet up and race cars - I honestly have no idea.

But the Scottish Parliament, dear God no. From their £400 million 'wacky funhouse' offices to sending terrorists home to parades, the Scottish Parliament seems to exist for the sole purpose of taking money out of the pockets of English taxpayers and giving it to the Scots.

Ironically, these devolved governments were set up to spread political change on a more proportionally regional level, but whenever one of the National parties comes up with a new law - the local voters all protest it, saying they prefer the established British law already in place.

I've never know a larger waste of time and resources - at least the Millennium Dome has pop concerts.

Quote: sootyj @ October 3 2009, 12:01 PM BST

There never was a mystery stay at home handout for mums. We got greedier and want double income life styles. Also gender equality means having to do equal labour, tough.

View original

It's tough on the children and later on society. It's been constantly proven that children fare better and are less anti-social when raised between birth and six years by at least one constant carer.

75% of mothers want to be at home full or part time with their young children, but the cost of living - particularly mortgages - means it's impossible for many families.

Labour's solution is to offer subsidised child care. So everyone loses out. If anyone thinks it's a soft option staying at home looking after young children should try it for a week. Most dads I know who have done are depserate to get back to work outside the home. Separating mothers (be they single and on benefits or supported by a partner) and young children is not going to help society. All Labour have done have devalued the role of a mother to something that can be done by anyone (most child care workers are those with the least academic success).

Quote: Dolly Dagger @ October 3 2009, 1:19 PM BST

It's tough on the children and later on society. It's been constantly proven that children fare better and are less anti-social when raised between birth and six years by at least one constant carer.

75% of mothers want to be at home full or part time with their young children, but the cost of living - particularly mortgages - means it's impossible for many families.

Labour's solution is to offer subsidised child care. So everyone loses out. If anyone thinks it's a soft option staying at home looking after young children should try it for a week. Most dads I know who have done are depserate to get back to work outside the home. Separating mothers (be they single and on benefits or supported by a partner) and young children is not going to help society. All Labour have done have devalued the role of a mother to something that can be done by anyone (most child care workers are those with the least academic success).

View original

If you're suggesting Brown could magically lower mortgage rates and property rates. Then I hate to say it but he ain't Skeletor. People used to rent don't blame the poor sod for our property mad greed oriented society.

Quote: Tim Walker @ October 3 2009, 12:20 PM BST

Cardiac Arrest it was great fun, but it wore its political heart too much on its sleeve.

View original

Casualty actually, it used to be like an advert for living Marxism.

NHS has always been swings and round abouts. That and not enough money.

The breaking up of teams is a very strong example of NewLab paranoia. Social services is always through the duty desk with cases being closed swiftly. Hence it's eay to have 2-3 social workers in 2-3 month.

Similar issues with the police. It's like the government is terrified of revolouton or something

Quote: Dolly Dagger @ October 3 2009, 1:19 PM BST

It's tough on the children and later on society. It's been constantly proven that children fare better and are less anti-social when raised between birth and six years by at least one constant carer.

View original

Yes, despite all the evidence which demonstrates how extra care at these early ages dramatically improves society later on, in terms of everything from reduced crime, lower prison populations, and better mental health, still short-sightedness prevents those in charge from adopting these practises. I suppose it's because votes are easier to come by if they say they are 'tough' on the causes of crime, rather than 'investing' in caring.

Quote: Alfred J Kipper @ October 3 2009, 4:38 AM BST

One of New Labour's biggest reforms was changing the ratio of female to male mps. They promised more power to women and this was delivered. I have to say, personally, while some results of this change have been good ones, more funded nursery places, proper maternity leave laws and the beginning even of paternity leave laws, these positives are totally swamped by the negatives - the insidious creation of the Nanny State, a foul institution that scrutinises every little thing we do and then delivers its demeaning and patronising stance on any social issue that seems to upset these oversensitive and fastidious female ministers; the passing of more petty social laws than any govnt anywhere in the world, some that have been rightly ridiculed in the press; they have created an unhealthy fear of saying the wrong thing in public, of even thinking the wrong things, they have forced communities to accept the sudden inflood of immigrants and then dispicably label the original community as 'racist' when they complain, they have somehow elevated the crime of 'racism' to being one more evil than mass murder; they have serously damaged our own national identity and pride to the extent that many normal Brits just don't feel they're allowed to celebrate being British anymore; they have helped change the English language for the worse just because some minorities don't like some long standing words and phrases, they have seriously diminished the traditional role of the male in both the workplace and the family, they have unfairly stigmatised fathers from broken marriages and made many of them bankrupt; they have made marriage such an unattractive institution now because of the fear men have of losing everything when the marriage collapses; they have severely handicapped industry with unfair laws about maternity and flexitime for female parents and finally they have probably put paid to any future govt handing such huge legislative power over to women ever again, with their generally petty and vindictive tenure. It has been a catastrophe for Britain.

View original

Well said that man!

If I was a woman, I'd be really insulted by these drives for women MPs and all of their pushing for equal representation. It's pure sexism. And indeed, in some cases racism. I couldn't give a shit if my MP were a black female lesbian dwarf, or a stereotypical old-Etonian white guy in his mid-/late-50s, as long as they're COMPETENT IN THE JOB.

Quote: sootyj @ October 3 2009, 12:01 PM BST

The state should be the right size. Or what do we cut? Prisons, schools, social services, the army?

View original

And the "right size" is far smaller than it currently is. It should not interfere with our day-to-day lives. Prisons certainly don't need cutting. That's one part of the public sector that should grow - in physical terms, not financial.

Quote: sootyj @ October 3 2009, 12:01 PM BST

Doesn't anyone realise a massive beuracracy with a multi billion budget and nigh on a million employees needs a lot of managers?

View original

But it should not be "a massive bureaucracy". Yes, of course managers are needed, but there are so many of them at so many different levels, often duplicating tasks - it's pathetic. The Labour Party's idea of employment is to bloat the public sector, creating worthless, meaningless, useless and soul-destroying jobs. Good to get people into employment, but to do so in such an artifical manner is not sustainable. As is gradually being proven.

Quote: Renegade Carpark @ October 3 2009, 1:03 PM BST

And let's not forget Labour's biggest exercise in money wasting frippery - devolution. Urgh.

I don't know what's happening in the Welsh Parliament, as it's never, ever on the the news - maybe they all just meet up and race cars - I honestly have no idea.

But the Scottish Parliament, dear God no. From their £400 million 'wacky funhouse' offices to sending terrorists home to parades, the Scottish Parliament seems to exist for the sole purpose of taking money out of the pockets of English taxpayers and giving it to the Scots.

Ironically, these devolved governments were set up to spread political change on a more proportionally regional level, but whenever one of the National parties comes up with a new law - the local voters all protest it, saying they prefer the established British law already in place.

I've never know a larger waste of time and resources - at least the Millennium Dome has pop concerts.

View original

Couldn't agree with you more. Such an atrocious waste of money.

Quote: sootyj @ October 3 2009, 6:17 PM BST

Similar issues with the police. It's like the government is terrified of revolouton or something

View original

They're not terrified of revolution. They're terrified of being shown up for the weak-on-crime, prison-wimps that they are. ASBOs? CSOs? F**k right off. What a load of f**king nonsense.

But perhaps a bigger issue today are those treacherous, short-sighted idiots across the sea. I know that the Irish have the whole "stupid drunk" stereotype, but this is a new low.