General politics discussion thread

[JNLister]

Amusing (and genuine) exchange at Deputy PM's question time today:

 

5. Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab): What meetings he has scheduled in his official capacity for Friday 6 May 2011. [50762]

 

The Deputy Prime Minister: On 6 May, I will be in government and the right hon. Gentleman will be in opposition.

 

Mr Spellar : I fully understand the Deputy Prime Minister

[Carbomb]

It's not a question of whether Labour made the NHS better, it's a question of how much they spent doing it. Anyone can throw money at problems, that requires no skill whatsoever. It always worried me that Labour would cite increased spending on various things as being a good things. Why didn't they say how much they'd improved things and then say how much it all cost? That would be the normal way of doing things. After all, it's us that are paying for it all in the end.

 

What I want to know, Happ, is why, if you're determined to castigate Labour for reckless over-investment, you don't reserve equal vitriol for the Conservatives for reckless under-investment. After all, Labour wouldn't have had to throw money at the problem if it had been there in the first place, same with the transport and education systems. 18 years of under-investment means repairs and improvements are going to cost much more than just what wasn't invested.

Has it occured to you that the Tories weren't under-investing, just running the country in a way that could be afforded?

 

Some people seem to think that for some reason we have a god-given right in this country to exect absolute top notch services, with tons of public sector jobs propping up deprived areas, and that we can just let someone else worrying about paying for it all.

 

People like you have tried this argument before, so don't try and make out it's something I haven't heard of. It's bullshit. Extreme fucking bullshit. Education is a right, and it's the responsibility of government to make sure our children are educated properly. Health is generally recognised as a human right, so it's logical that the government is responsible for making sure the health services are capable of looking after those who need help.

 

But what does that mean? Education is a right? Exactly what education? Do you mean it should all be free at point of use? To what level? For how long?

 

Yes, it should all be free, quite frankly. And don't try and turn this into a Labour vs. Tory thing, because I hate Labour as much as I hate the Tories for what they've done to further education. But what I'm specifically referring to is the quality of primary and secondary state education: there is no excuse, no matter how much you might search for one, for the condition the Tories left schools in. None at all.

 

Health is a "human right", but to what extent. Is there a limit of how much should be spent on it, or should no expense be spared? Does the fact that it is a "human right" mean we should put up with it being run ridiculously inefficiently?

 

You're assuming that I grant your premise that that's what the Tories were doing, which I don't. What they were doing was deliberately under-investing so they could de-value the hospitals enough to sell to their buddies in the private sector.

 

And even if I did grant the premise, the fact is the Tories DIDN'T run it more efficiently either - they UNDERINVESTED. They didn't find ways of making it cheaper, they just let things go to pot. Do you really think waiting lists the length they were under the Conservatives is acceptable? Do you really think it's acceptable that people had to be put in corridors because there were not enough wards open?

[Happ Hazzard]

It's not a question of whether Labour made the NHS better, it's a question of how much they spent doing it. Anyone can throw money at problems, that requires no skill whatsoever. It always worried me that Labour would cite increased spending on various things as being a good things. Why didn't they say how much they'd improved things and then say how much it all cost? That would be the normal way of doing things. After all, it's us that are paying for it all in the end.

 

What I want to know, Happ, is why, if you're determined to castigate Labour for reckless over-investment, you don't reserve equal vitriol for the Conservatives for reckless under-investment. After all, Labour wouldn't have had to throw money at the problem if it had been there in the first place, same with the transport and education systems. 18 years of under-investment means repairs and improvements are going to cost much more than just what wasn't invested.

Has it occured to you that the Tories weren't under-investing, just running the country in a way that could be afforded?

 

Some people seem to think that for some reason we have a god-given right in this country to exect absolute top notch services, with tons of public sector jobs propping up deprived areas, and that we can just let someone else worrying about paying for it all.

 

People like you have tried this argument before, so don't try and make out it's something I haven't heard of. It's bullshit. Extreme fucking bullshit. Education is a right, and it's the responsibility of government to make sure our children are educated properly. Health is generally recognised as a human right, so it's logical that the government is responsible for making sure the health services are capable of looking after those who need help.

 

But what does that mean? Education is a right? Exactly what education? Do you mean it should all be free at point of use? To what level? For how long?

 

Yes, it should all be free, quite frankly. And don't try and turn this into a Labour vs. Tory thing, because I hate Labour as much as I hate the Tories for what they've done to further education. But what I'm specifically referring to is the quality of primary and secondary state education: there is no excuse, no matter how much you might search for one, for the condition the Tories left schools in. None at all.

So should someone be able to do degree after degree, all at the expense of the state? Or just 4 years as at present with the loan system?

 

I went to secondary school under the Tories and I can ASSURE you, I left school with a better education than the majority of kids leaving school today. The problems with education aren't anything to do with having modern buildings and the latest equipment. They're to do with the ridiculous obsession with inclusion, with devaluing qualifications at every level to the point where even a degree means next to nothing. Labour just treated people like morons, and too many people just fucking lapped it up, thinking that because their kids had degrees, they'd have the same opportunities that people with degrees had in the 70s and 80s.

 

 

You're assuming that I grant your premise that that's what the Tories were doing, which I don't. What they were doing was deliberately under-investing so they could de-value the hospitals enough to sell to their buddies in the private sector.

 

And even if I did grant the premise, the fact is the Tories DIDN'T run it more efficiently either - they UNDERINVESTED. They didn't find ways of making it cheaper, they just let things go to pot. Do you really think waiting lists the length they were under the Conservatives is acceptable? Do you really think it's acceptable that people had to be put in corridors because there were not enough wards open?

What Labour were doing were making things better with no thought to it being sustainable long term, knowing that the Tories would take the blame when time came when it needed to be sorted out.

[Chris B]

What about people working for low wages in the private sector, that have to pay increasingly large council tax bills in order to fund the inordinately high wages and benefits of those in the public sector? How are they benefitting from Labour's increases in public sector spending?

 

It's not a question of whether Labour made the NHS better

 

Then why didn't you ask a different question, you utter fucking troll? Every time in this thread, you do the same thing. You never respond to a point. You just change the goalposts and ask different, run-on questions.

 

Every person trying to answer your questions ends up looking like they're talking to an inquisitive six year old, who has no attention span and yet keeps pretending that THIS is the question they want answered.

 

 

And what's pissing me off is that you're not even doing it because you lack any ability to focus on a conversation. You're doing it because you're blatantly trolling, which means you're fucking PRETENDING to be an idiot.

[Carbomb]

So should someone be able to do degree after degree, all at the expense of the state? Or just 4 years as at present with the loan system?

 

Yes, people should be able to do as many degrees as they want. And the number of universities should be reduced to make it affordable. There are too many crappy "new unis" around, and Blair's obsession with sending the majority of the population to uni is untenable, because we now we're experiencing a severe shortfall in skilled, apprenticed blue-collar workers.

 

I went to secondary school under the Tories and I can ASSURE you, I left school with a better education than the majority of kids leaving school today. The problems with education aren't anything to do with having modern buildings and the latest equipment.

 

Yes, they fucking are. Maybe you got a decent education under the Tories, but I ended up having to go to private school because the state schools in my area were among the worst in the country - shortage of resources, out-of-date textbooks, decrepit facilities, classrooms that were almost a health hazard.

 

They're to do with the ridiculous obsession with inclusion, with devaluing qualifications at every level to the point where even a degree means next to nothing. Labour just treated people like morons, and too many people just fucking lapped it up, thinking that because their kids had degrees, they'd have the same opportunities that people with degrees had in the 70s and 80s.

 

Again, I'm telling you: don't turn this into a Labour vs. Tory debate, because that's not the issue we're discussing. I'm going to keep telling you until you get it: I hate Labour as much as I hate the Tories, and they've got their own list of shame as to what they've done to services in this country.

 

You're assuming that I grant your premise that that's what the Tories were doing, which I don't. What they were doing was deliberately under-investing so they could de-value the hospitals enough to sell to their buddies in the private sector.

 

And even if I did grant the premise, the fact is the Tories DIDN'T run it more efficiently either - they UNDERINVESTED. They didn't find ways of making it cheaper, they just let things go to pot. Do you really think waiting lists the length they were under the Conservatives is acceptable? Do you really think it's acceptable that people had to be put in corridors because there were not enough wards open?

What Labour were doing were making things better with no thought to it being sustainable long term, knowing that the Tories would take the blame when time came when it needed to be sorted out.

 

This appears to be your fall-back position. Can't justify what the Tories did, so try to re-direct it to what Labour did wrong.

 

Again: do you really think the condition the NHS ended up in under the Tories was acceptable? Don't bring Labour into this again, answer the question.

[Happ Hazzard]

Then why didn't you ask a different question, you utter fucking troll? Every time in this thread, you do the same thing. You never respond to a point. You just change the goalposts and ask different, run-on questions.

I did ask a different question, right after the one you quoted. You edited it off your post.

 

Yes, people should be able to do as many degrees as they want. And the number of universities should be reduced to make it affordable. There are too many crappy "new unis" around, and Blair's obsession with sending the majority of the population to uni is untenable, because we now we're experiencing a severe shortfall in skilled, apprenticed blue-collar workers.

Fine, reduce Universities to just the Russell group. Do you let people who already have several degrees apply to do further degrees under the same criteria as school leavers, despite the fact that it might mean the average age of students shoots up into the 30s or 40s?

 

Do you pay people's living costs, or just the cost of the course?

 

How do you convince employers to take on newly qualified British people when the country is flooded with experienced immigrant workers who will work for minimum wage or little more?

 

Yes, they fucking are. Maybe you got a decent education under the Tories, but I ended up having to go to private school because the state schools in my area were among the worst in the country - shortage of resources, out-of-date textbooks, decrepit facilities, classrooms that were almost a health hazard.

I can only speak for the area I went to school in. Schools weren't great in terms of resources, but there wasn't the utter contempt for education and disrespect of teachers and authority that there is today. And as a result, kids left school somewhat employable, as opposed to completely unemployable. There's many other factors that have led to this, but the degrading of education under Labour has been one of the main factors.

 

Do kids in Africa fail at school because they are taught in substandard buildings? No, because they know that education is the only way to get on in the world and they value it accordingly. Teachers are respected, not spat on and beaten up. While we regard the "human rights" of demented little scrotes of more value than the right of their peers to get a good education.

 

Again, I'm telling you: don't turn this into a Labour vs. Tory debate, because that's not the issue we're discussing. I'm going to keep telling you until you get it: I hate Labour as much as I hate the Tories, and they've got their own list of shame as to what they've done to services in this country.

For someone who hates Labour as much as the Tories, you seem to defend Labour policies a fair bit.

 

A 6/10 health service that is affordable is better than a 7/10 health service that is not. Labour spent ridiculous amounts of money on the NHS on things that did nothing to improve public health, failed computer systems, pay rises for doctors that were far in excess of what was actually required to give them.

[Chris B]

Then why didn't you ask a different question, you utter fucking troll? Every time in this thread, you do the same thing. You never respond to a point. You just change the goalposts and ask different, run-on questions.

I did ask a different question, right after the one you quoted. You edited it off your post.

 

You asked 'what benefits did they see'. Someone answered THAT EXACT QUESTION that you asked and, in response, you said 'that's not the question'. You then asked another question, which I edited off my post because it had nothing to do with the point I was making. Except in the sense that it was yet another example of you changing the goalposts and asking a different, run-on question.

 

Again.

[Carbomb]

Fine, reduce Universities to just the Russell group. Do you let people who already have several degrees apply to do further degrees under the same criteria as school leavers, despite the fact that it might mean the average age of students shoots up into the 30s or 40s?

 

Do you pay people's living costs, or just the cost of the course?

 

How do you convince employers to take on newly qualified British people when the country is flooded with experienced immigrant workers who will work for minimum wage or little more?

 

First off, enough with your reductionism. Who said to reduce it to the Russell group? Before Blair, there were around 250 universities in this country which did perfectly well with the state-funded/grants system.

 

Secondly, what's this "might mean"? How does a return to the old system mean a rise of new problems that there weren't before? And what's the problem with the average age of students going up anyway?

 

Thirdly, I want you to provide figures as to how this country is "flooded" with immigrants before I answer that question, because I suspect you're setting up one of your strawmen again.

 

I can only speak for the area I went to school in. Schools weren't great in terms of resources, but there wasn't the utter contempt for education and disrespect of teachers and authority that there is today. And as a result, kids left school somewhat employable, as opposed to completely unemployable. There's many other factors that have led to this, but the degrading of education under Labour has been one of the main factors.

 

Do kids in Africa fail at school because they are taught in substandard buildings? No, because they know that education is the only way to get on in the world and they value it accordingly. Teachers are respected, not spat on and beaten up. While we regard the "human rights" of demented little scrotes of more value than the right of their peers to get a good education.

 

Social problems are a major factor but it does not, at any point, cover the fact that schools were under-invested in under the Conservatives, and thus badly affected. And anyway, if you REALLY want to get in the whole thing about social problems, that's a result of Thatcher's "there is no state" philosophy and the consequent rise of the UK's "ME" generation.

 

And how do you know how well kids in Africa are doing at school? Do you even know how many kids in Africa have access to basic education? And even if they're in substandard buildings, they're not being taught using inappropriately out-of-date materials.

 

Again, I'm telling you: don't turn this into a Labour vs. Tory debate, because that's not the issue we're discussing. I'm going to keep telling you until you get it: I hate Labour as much as I hate the Tories, and they've got their own list of shame as to what they've done to services in this country.

For someone who hates Labour as much as the Tories, you seem to defend Labour policies a fair bit.

 

No, that's you ignoring everything I've said. AGAIN. Point out, in the last few posts, where I've directly defended Labour.

 

Fucking read: CRITICISING THE TORIES IS NOT THE SAME AS DEFENDING LABOUR.

 

A 6/10 health service that is affordable is better than a 7/10 health service that is not. Labour spent ridiculous amounts of money on the NHS on things that did nothing to improve public health, failed computer systems, pay rises for doctors that were far in excess of what was actually required to give them.

 

It wasn't a 6/10 health service, for fuck's sake. It was 3 at best, and either way, it was completely unacceptable by any reasonable standard of healthcare. It's not like there was only a slight difference.

 

Again: not defending Labour - they probably did over-invest for the return we got. But that does NOT excuse the under-investment of the Tories. And in this respect alone, I'd say saving human lives or at least ensuring people can enjoy a standard of living which is enshrined in their human rights is more important than the bottom line. Both sides of the problem need to be dealt with.

[patiirc]

Afaik First of the ex-Polytechnic's from 1992 set out their plans to charge the full 9k tuition fees here

 

9k for a Degree in Preston

 

Oh and indeed, dear, this is not going to end well

[Chris B]

Afaik First of the ex-Polytechnic's from 1992 set out their plans to charge the full 9k tuition fees here

 

9k for a Degree in Preston

 

Oh and indeed, dear, this is not going to end well

 

I wouldn't pay 9k for a house in Preston.

[JNLister]

Afaik First of the ex-Polytechnic's from 1992 set out their plans to charge the full 9k tuition fees here

 

9k for a Degree in Preston

 

Oh and indeed, dear, this is not going to end well

 

[Happ Hazzard]

Fine, reduce Universities to just the Russell group. Do you let people who already have several degrees apply to do further degrees under the same criteria as school leavers, despite the fact that it might mean the average age of students shoots up into the 30s or 40s?

 

Do you pay people's living costs, or just the cost of the course?

 

How do you convince employers to take on newly qualified British people when the country is flooded with experienced immigrant workers who will work for minimum wage or little more?

 

First off, enough with your reductionism. Who said to reduce it to the Russell group? Before Blair, there were around 250 universities in this country which did perfectly well with the state-funded/grants system.

 

Secondly, what's this "might mean"? How does a return to the old system mean a rise of new problems that there weren't before? And what's the problem with the average age of students going up anyway?

 

Thirdly, I want you to provide figures as to how this country is "flooded" with immigrants before I answer that question, because I suspect you're setting up one of your strawmen again.

 

I can only speak for the area I went to school in. Schools weren't great in terms of resources, but there wasn't the utter contempt for education and disrespect of teachers and authority that there is today. And as a result, kids left school somewhat employable, as opposed to completely unemployable. There's many other factors that have led to this, but the degrading of education under Labour has been one of the main factors.

 

Do kids in Africa fail at school because they are taught in substandard buildings? No, because they know that education is the only way to get on in the world and they value it accordingly. Teachers are respected, not spat on and beaten up. While we regard the "human rights" of demented little scrotes of more value than the right of their peers to get a good education.

 

Social problems are a major factor but it does not, at any point, cover the fact that schools were under-invested in under the Conservatives, and thus badly affected. And anyway, if you REALLY want to get in the whole thing about social problems, that's a result of Thatcher's "there is no state" philosophy and the consequent rise of the UK's "ME" generation.

 

And how do you know how well kids in Africa are doing at school? Do you even know how many kids in Africa have access to basic education? And even if they're in substandard buildings, they're not being taught using inappropriately out-of-date materials.

 

Again, I'm telling you: don't turn this into a Labour vs. Tory debate, because that's not the issue we're discussing. I'm going to keep telling you until you get it: I hate Labour as much as I hate the Tories, and they've got their own list of shame as to what they've done to services in this country.

For someone who hates Labour as much as the Tories, you seem to defend Labour policies a fair bit.

 

No, that's you ignoring everything I've said. AGAIN. Point out, in the last few posts, where I've directly defended Labour.

 

Fucking read: CRITICISING THE TORIES IS NOT THE SAME AS DEFENDING LABOUR.

 

A 6/10 health service that is affordable is better than a 7/10 health service that is not. Labour spent ridiculous amounts of money on the NHS on things that did nothing to improve public health, failed computer systems, pay rises for doctors that were far in excess of what was actually required to give them.

 

It wasn't a 6/10 health service, for fuck's sake. It was 3 at best, and either way, it was completely unacceptable by any reasonable standard of healthcare. It's not like there was only a slight difference.

 

Again: not defending Labour - they probably did over-invest for the return we got. But that does NOT excuse the under-investment of the Tories. And in this respect alone, I'd say saving human lives or at least ensuring people can enjoy a standard of living which is enshrined in their human rights is more important than the bottom line. Both sides of the problem need to be dealt with.

 

How does the "Me generation" and "there is no state" result in lack of respect for education? If kids want to get ahead in life, they should know that they alone have the power to control this. Not "the state", not "society", so stop devolving responsibility and take control of your own life and take advantage of every opportunity you get.

 

If you're saying "the Tories were worse than Labour", then that is, IMO, defending Labour. And it's not in question that Labour did SOME things better than the Tories, the question is whether the country is better off overall after Labour's 13 years in power, and I do not see how anyone can answer yes, no matter how much better the health service is (or was, since Labour did not care about whether the improvements they made would be possible in the long term).

[tiger_rick]

I'm better off. Fuck the rest of you.

[Carbomb]

How does the "Me generation" and "there is no state" result in lack of respect for education? If kids want to get ahead in life, they should know that they alone have the power to control this. Not "the state", not "society", so stop devolving responsibility and take control of your own life and take advantage of every opportunity you get.

 

Are you for real? Do you not see the correlation between the rise of a generation of selfish twats who believe that "me" is the only thing that's important, and a proliferation of kids with a shit attitude stemming from "parenting" by said "me" generation, i.e. parents who would rather berate teachers and expect them to teach their kids the difference between right and wrong rather than do it themselves? A huge problem in education at the moment is that teachers get no support from parents when disciplining badly behaved kids.

 

If you're saying "the Tories were worse than Labour", then that is, IMO, defending Labour. And it's not in question that Labour did SOME things better than the Tories, the question is whether the country is better off overall after Labour's 13 years in power, and I do not see how anyone can answer yes, no matter how much better the health service is (or was, since Labour did not care about whether the improvements they made would be possible in the long term).

 

Your opinion, then, is bollocks. It's NOT defending Labour. That's like saying you'd be defending Stalin if you said Hitler was worse.

[Loki]

What about people working for low wages in the private sector, that have to pay increasingly large council tax bills in order to fund the inordinately high wages and benefits of those in the public sector? How are they benefitting from Labour's increases in public sector spending?

 

It's not a question of whether Labour made the NHS better

 

Then why didn't you ask a different question, you utter fucking troll? Every time in this thread, you do the same thing. You never respond to a point. You just change the goalposts and ask different, run-on questions.

 

Every person trying to answer your questions ends up looking like they're talking to an inquisitive six year old, who has no attention span and yet keeps pretending that THIS is the question they want answered.

 

 

And what's pissing me off is that you're not even doing it because you lack any ability to focus on a conversation. You're doing it because you're blatantly trolling, which means you're fucking PRETENDING to be an idiot.

 

Quite!

 

I do wonder what enjoyment can be got out of pretending to be fucking stupid, on an internet forum , week after week, month after month. Make a massive generalisation, have it disproved, ignore the response and move on to the next Daily Mail headline. Everybody can see what you're doing, Happ.

 

To then have the gall to behave like this in one area of the forum, and then whinge and moan when people treat you like an idiot in another part, is pretty sad.