How many Tories are there?

I take your point rammy but there is no doubt that we spend a lot less on health than any comparable European country. Yes there needs to be some serious thinking about the future of the NHS but under the Tories the NHS has been starved of funds. The 1% that they put into the NHS every year doesn't even match inflation let alone the increasing demands of an aging population. The Tories are systematically destroying the NHs so that they sell off the profitable bits to their chums.

rammywhite wrote:Corbyn himself isn't a problem- he's a nice old bloke who hasn't really moved on from the sixth form politics of his youth.
It's the wrecking balls Watson and McDonnel that he brings with him  who are the problem and worst of all Comrade Len McLuskey in the background pulling their strings

Watson beens sidelined since the failed coup, so can't agree with that. McDonnells economic ideas at least provide answers to the real problems of inequality and lack of growth, continued austerity is only enhancing those issues.

McCluskey pulling the strings, a fair point in as much as any poltical party is beholden to their benefactor - as Unite are the largest union you could make an argument that McCluskey holds more sway than most. But the main driver behind the party now is it's membership (the largest in Europe). 

It's an easy choice between a party driven by unions and members, or one by shady billionaires looking to undermine democracy?

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/dec/30/company-boss-david-ord-tory-donor-receives-knighthood

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/nov/05/lord-ashcroft-offshore-trust-wealth-tory-peer-paradise-papers

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng-interactive/2015/apr/01/tory-100-industry-captains-party-donors-tax-avoiders

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/lobbyists-linked-to-100000-tory-donations-7593588.html

When you're the opposition it's easy to spout a load of bollocks. It doesn't matter who is in charge, things will not change until a radical plan is agreed upon. And sadly, with the way our politics is in 2018, that will never happen. Tories say one thing, Labour disagree, and vice versa.

What radical change are you after then Nat?

T.R.O.Y wrote:What radical change are you after then Nat?

I've already stated my radical plan - an end to free treatment for non-life threatening conditions.

Natasha Whittam wrote:When you're the opposition it's easy to spout a load of bollocks. It doesn't matter who is in charge, things will not change until a radical plan is agreed upon. And sadly, with the way our politics is in 2018, that will never happen. Tories say one thing, Labour disagree, and vice versa.

It's not about what they say it's about what they do.

Tories restrict spending increases on NHS to 1% every year which means less every year in real terms whereas when Labour are in power they give far more money to the NHS.

Tories like to claim the NHS has been in a continuous state of crisis, caused by external factors and no government could solve the issue. This is a distortion of the facts.

Under Labour performance targets were (on the whole) being met, and investment was keeping up with demand - it’s as simple as that. 

Yes healthcare was still a political issue (it is in any developed country), but what we have seen since 2010 is a sustained corrosion of the service.

Stop trying to make out the NHS was all hunky-dory under Labour, it wasn't. The NHS has been in a mess for 30 years or more.

On a happier note, I see May has decided against another vote on fox hunting - she clearly values my vote.

Exactly, you prove my point ignore the facts and just claim it was as bad under Labour providing no supporting evidence. 

I'm not suggesting that the NHS was perfect, in fact I think PFI has opened up a very dangerous area which private companies can exploit. 

But when you look at the state of the NHS when Labour came in, and then what they left behind the improvement is clear. Look at waiting times, and the article below from the FT. Yes not a perfect approach, but they had a radical plan, instigated it and got results. 

How new Labour succeeded with NHS policy
https://www.ft.com/content/168e1278-2b24-11df-93d8-00144feabdc0

The government have no reform policies for the NHS, they're throwing the minimum they can get away with at it and watching it burn. You know that as well as I do.

Nat never responds with facts. Just abuse and a few repeated slogans and cliches.

xmiles wrote:Nat never responds with facts. Just abuse and a few repeated slogans and cliches.

Rich coming from a poster who spoils every thread with his anti-Tory bullshit. It's clear some posh guy pushed you around when you were a kid.

I go off experiences, my own and people I know. If you think any facts produced by the government or opposition are "fact" you are more naïve than I thought.

Natasha Whittam wrote:

xmiles wrote:Nat never responds with facts. Just abuse and a few repeated slogans and cliches.

Rich coming from a poster who spoils every thread with his anti-Tory bullshit. It's clear some posh guy pushed you around when you were a kid.

I go off experiences, my own and people I know. If you think any facts produced by the government or opposition are "fact" you are more naïve than I thought.

Thus completely proving my point!

Try producing some actual evidence to back up your wild assertions next time.

Natasha Whittam wrote:

xmiles wrote:Nat never responds with facts. Just abuse and a few repeated slogans and cliches.

Rich coming from a poster who spoils every thread with his anti-Tory bullshit. It's clear some posh guy pushed you around when you were a kid.

I go off experiences, my own and people I know. If you think any facts produced by the government or opposition are "fact" you are more naïve than I thought.

Ridiculous comment.

Levels of investment and performance targets are public record, not produced by either party.

At it's inception, NI contributions were ring fenced for the NHS and only later did they start dipping into the pot for pensions, benefits and more recently general Government borrowing. If they put 1% on to NI and ring fenced it for the NHS there wouldn't be a problem because rising wages would follow rising costs and generate rising NI contributions to match - but no party wants to be seen as raising taxes. In most other countries, the tax is relatively transparent e.g. in France where most people pay 30% but expect and get a superb healthcare system in return but the swing nature of our electoral system means nobody will address the elephant in the room. All that's needed is a sensible conversation about how we choose to run our country and disperse our expenditure.

xmiles wrote:Try producing some actual evidence to back up your wild assertions next time.

My Great Aunt Ethel doesn't post on Nuts.

Sad  and Boring all this labour labour labour super labour, bunch of fuckin nutbags all of them. Run the country my arse they could.

Seems that a "Clique" posts simply for the purpose of being argumentative then gang up on anyone who dares to proffer a different slant on the original post. Sort of like bullying and harassment in a "Nuts" sort of way.
   I am a died in the wool Tory and a Brexiteer and sleep very well at night and don't really give a flying feck what others think of my personal ideals. Except my boss of course. For him I'm positively neutral and fawning.

The thread became about the NHS, an overflow of another live topics at the moment. Sorry if you feel bullied in some way, I doubt very much that’s anyone’s intention. But why do you think anyone’s being deliberately argumentative?

To me that would assume some posts are baseless, but most posts seem to include supporting evidence of some form?

I see some posts with good friendly banter but also some posts that seems to be started with the sole intention of piling in with ad hominem arguments that target the poster rather than the argument. It's unfortunate on a website that can be excellent but more often than not descends into personal attacks with little regard for the subject content. I suppose that's just the internet, but it's a bit naughty.

wanderlust wrote:At it's inception, NI contributions were ring fenced for the NHS and only later did they start dipping into the pot for pensions, benefits and more recently general Government borrowing. If they put 1% on to NI and ring fenced it for the NHS there wouldn't be a problem because rising wages would follow rising costs and generate rising NI contributions to match - but no party wants to be seen as raising taxes. In most other countries, the tax is relatively transparent e.g. in France where most people pay 30% but expect and get a superb healthcare system in return but the swing nature of our electoral system means nobody will address the elephant in the room. All that's needed is a sensible conversation about how we choose to run our country and disperse our expenditure.

If it was a choice of 1% extra NI or the NHS going private then I would pay the extra NI as long as it was for the NHS only and not to bail out some other flagging department.