UKIP - The Future - Volume 3
Discussion
968 said:
NicD said:
I am afraid it is you who need the credit. All you do is make outrageous slurs with no facts and then bleat about insults.
you started with claiming Mr Farage lied as he breathed. i.e. everything he speaks is a lie. I strongly object to that unless you have evidence to back it up.
If you listed the instances where he was untruthful together with the fact based evidence, we would have no choice but to accept it.
and so for your other rants, you need to get a grip. This is a discussion forum, not somewhere for you to blow off.
So because I criticise Farage, you have to take it personally? How adult of you. As for getting a grip, yes this is a discussion thread and I can voice my opinion which is critical of ukip as much as you can continue to believe anything he says without question, like a true zealot. you started with claiming Mr Farage lied as he breathed. i.e. everything he speaks is a lie. I strongly object to that unless you have evidence to back it up.
If you listed the instances where he was untruthful together with the fact based evidence, we would have no choice but to accept it.
and so for your other rants, you need to get a grip. This is a discussion forum, not somewhere for you to blow off.
FiF said:
Reading the assertion, once again, that this is simply a UKIP fan boy thread thought it might be worthwhile reading back a bit to check out a recent impression.
It's been the case that it has seemed for sometime that rabid anti-UKIPers, together with posters who have stated they aren't UKIP supporters / voters but have sympathy with a few of their policies, completely outnumbered the clear UKIP supporters.
So an unscientific survey has shown that impression is correct. Furthermore there are a number of what seemed to be UKIPers who have stopped posting. Is that they have changed allegiance, is it that they are just determined to make their mark at the ballot box? I don't know but as others have observed there does seem to be some support that, for some reason doesn't totally tie in with the polls. Again completely unscientific impression but one which concern me about the accuracy of the polling in some areas.
Amongst all this we have the completely accurate post from NoNeed yesterday evening who observed distaste for the rubbish and untruths that were being posted against UKIP potentially hardening support. Yet that sensible advice has clearly been ignored with further vacuous frothing this morning.
I agree with your observations.It's been the case that it has seemed for sometime that rabid anti-UKIPers, together with posters who have stated they aren't UKIP supporters / voters but have sympathy with a few of their policies, completely outnumbered the clear UKIP supporters.
So an unscientific survey has shown that impression is correct. Furthermore there are a number of what seemed to be UKIPers who have stopped posting. Is that they have changed allegiance, is it that they are just determined to make their mark at the ballot box? I don't know but as others have observed there does seem to be some support that, for some reason doesn't totally tie in with the polls. Again completely unscientific impression but one which concern me about the accuracy of the polling in some areas.
Amongst all this we have the completely accurate post from NoNeed yesterday evening who observed distaste for the rubbish and untruths that were being posted against UKIP potentially hardening support. Yet that sensible advice has clearly been ignored with further vacuous frothing this morning.
I've not bothered with the thread much of late. Too many insults and too many people who seem to determined to try and derail any debate that occurs. I will probably vote ukip and I support most of their policies, but the idea of going onto a thread about the conservatives, greens or labour and just delivering insults or trying to make fun of people's grammar or age etc.. it's just unfathomable to me! I can only assume these people are quite insecure.
Anyway, recently I have been in correspondence with my local conservative candidate. The interesting thing for me is how much she has in common with my local UKIP candidate with the exception of MMGW. If the antis on here are determined to label anyone supporting ukip as mentally challenged then for at least some of the cons/labour this is true as well. The policies that UKIP have at the moment are clear enough for me on the EU, immigration, climate change and energy provision. Other areas are vague but no more so than the direction of travel indications that other parties attach to manifesto promises.
To persuade me that I should vote conservative the best my local conservative candidate could come up with was that if I vote UKIP I make a labour win more likely. It's a pretty uninspiring message. Whilst we seem to have a reasonable conservative candidate, supporting her gives support to a conservative leadership that prioritise foreign aid over Policing and who I don't trust to deliver on the EU. I actually feel quite sorry for the con candidate, she is putting a massive effort into overcoming the unpopularity of her parties leadership, but ultimately has to admit that if elected the cons current direction will be unchanged.
Edited by brenflys777 on Sunday 1st February 14:25
Scuffers said:
JustAnotherLogin said:
Scuffers said:
JustAnotherLogin said:
Really?
So is that the policy to introduce county health boards, elected every 4 years?
Abolish primary care trusts, ambulance trusts, ambulance service trusts
Put out to tender key services such as long term care and GP surgeries
I ask because that is what is in the last UKIP manifesto that mentions the NHS, and you said they "have only ever had one policy, period". So I assume that must still be it
you should know better.So is that the policy to introduce county health boards, elected every 4 years?
Abolish primary care trusts, ambulance trusts, ambulance service trusts
Put out to tender key services such as long term care and GP surgeries
I ask because that is what is in the last UKIP manifesto that mentions the NHS, and you said they "have only ever had one policy, period". So I assume that must still be it
try again.
Your statement was very very clear, I was merely pointing out that it was completely false.
What in it is contrary to current UKIP policy?
I thought Farage had changed his mind on that?
Certainly no mention of it on the UKIP site or those 100 reasons
brenflys777 said:
I've not bothered with the thread much of late. Too many insults and too many people who seem to determined to try and derail any debate that occurs. I will probably vote ukip and I support most of their policies, but the idea of going onto a thread about the conservatives, greens or labour and just delivering insults or trying to make fun of people's grammar or age etc.. it's just unfathomable to me! I can only assume these people are quite insecure.
People fear change. It makes them feel insecure, so you are absolutely right.As for the insults - I don't worry about them. A stranger's opinion on the Internet isn't important.
So much hypocrisy flying about over the NHS privatisation.
4.6% of the current 5.9% NHS privatisation was under Labour.
4.6% Good
5.9% OMFG
It's a discussion which needs to be held, true. It's good that people are prepared to have that discussion and decide things and indeed change their minds. But the current dialogue is both unhelpful and disingenuous.
4.6% of the current 5.9% NHS privatisation was under Labour.
4.6% Good
5.9% OMFG
It's a discussion which needs to be held, true. It's good that people are prepared to have that discussion and decide things and indeed change their minds. But the current dialogue is both unhelpful and disingenuous.
FiF said:
So much hypocrisy flying about over the NHS privatisation.
4.6% of the current 5.9% NHS privatisation was under Labour.
4.6% Good
5.9% OMFG
It's a discussion which needs to be held, true. It's good that people are prepared to have that discussion and decide things and indeed change their minds. But the current dialogue is both unhelpful and disingenuous.
I have a strong suspicion that the real figures are much higher. Do these numbers include PFI?4.6% of the current 5.9% NHS privatisation was under Labour.
4.6% Good
5.9% OMFG
It's a discussion which needs to be held, true. It's good that people are prepared to have that discussion and decide things and indeed change their minds. But the current dialogue is both unhelpful and disingenuous.
As far as I can see, my GP's practice is a private company. The local hospital is cleaned by Carillion. Its car park is operated by a private company. Many consultants operate on a self-employed basis.
I would be very, very surprised if the true figure was less than 20%.
don4l said:
I have a strong suspicion that the real figures are much higher. Do these numbers include PFI?
As far as I can see, my GP's practice is a private company. The local hospital is cleaned by Carillion. Its car park is operated by a private company. Many consultants operate on a self-employed basis.
I would be very, very surprised if the true figure was less than 20%.
Well it's the numbers being bandied around and there has been no rebuttal from either side as far as I can tell. As far as I can see, my GP's practice is a private company. The local hospital is cleaned by Carillion. Its car park is operated by a private company. Many consultants operate on a self-employed basis.
I would be very, very surprised if the true figure was less than 20%.
Regardless of the numbers, the relative positions will be similar, which doesn't really alter the point.
Scuffers said:
JustAnotherLogin said:
Increased privatisation?
I thought Farage had changed his mind on that?
Certainly no mention of it on the UKIP site or those 100 reasons
Try harder...I thought Farage had changed his mind on that?
Certainly no mention of it on the UKIP site or those 100 reasons
You asserted that UKIP has only ever had one policy on the NHS
I pointed out that in 2010 the UKIP policy included privatisation
You suggest that is still UKIP policy
I pointed out that it is nowhere in the UKIP policy documents
Are you suggesting that privatisation is or is not current UKIP policy? Can you do a straight yes no answer to a simple question?
Because your last response looks like that of someone who has been caught talking crap and is trying to bluff their way out with twaddle
NicD said:
JustAnotherLogin said:
I've pointed out several huge fallacies in Congdon's numbers.
could you summarise these please?Biased estimation
Omission of any benefits to get a single sided picture
Grossly unrepresentative projection
To take an example (which may be more helpful). He makes an estimate of the cost of meeting the regulations. He uses as his starting point in one point the estimate made by a pro-EU group of the worst 100 regulations. Then does a rough estimate of all the others that massive increases the number, even though statistically by the time you have taken off the top 100 the rest are likely to be small. To support this he takes the estimates form a few industries (the ones that are complaining) and assumed that every other industry is suffering the same (even though they are not complaining).
But worst of all, as I said previously. He adds up the cost to each UK business and says that total is the cost to the UK. But ignores the benefit to many UK companies of providing services to fulfill those regulations. That money does not all disappear. most of it is spent in the UK and thus contributes to our GDP.
Those are a few mistakes in just one section.
JustAnotherLogin said:
Now you have lost me.
You asserted that UKIP has only ever had one policy on the NHS
I pointed out that in 2010 the UKIP policy included privatisation
You suggest that is still UKIP policy
I pointed out that it is nowhere in the UKIP policy documents
Are you suggesting that privatisation is or is not current UKIP policy? Can you do a straight yes no answer to a simple question?
Because your last response looks like that of someone who has been caught talking crap and is trying to bluff their way out with twaddle
I'm not aware of UKIP's policy on privatisation within the NHS. As long as it is free at the point of delivery, then it really doesn't matter very much.You asserted that UKIP has only ever had one policy on the NHS
I pointed out that in 2010 the UKIP policy included privatisation
You suggest that is still UKIP policy
I pointed out that it is nowhere in the UKIP policy documents
Are you suggesting that privatisation is or is not current UKIP policy? Can you do a straight yes no answer to a simple question?
Because your last response looks like that of someone who has been caught talking crap and is trying to bluff their way out with twaddle
You think that you have discovered a major change in UKIP's policy. You probably also believe that you have furnished us with evidence to back up your position. However, "Cognitative Bias" means that you can see that you are right, while we don't see any evidence at all (our cognitive bias??).
If you want to demonstrate that UKIP's stance has undergone a substantial shift, then you need to provide irrefutable evidence. Your failure to do this, despite repeated invitations, suggests to me that you are talking s
te.Furthermore, do you really think that a party should never change its policy on any subject?
Your beloved Labour believed in nationalising all major industries in the 1970's. Under Tony Blair they privatised loads of industries, including most of Britain's military research.
Your equally beloved Conservatives believed in increasing Police spending in the 1980's, and yet they made substantial cuts in the last five years.
Were Labour and the Conservatives any less deserving of office because they changed their minds?
So, prove to us that UKIP have changed their policy... and then tell us why this would be a bad thing.
Alternatively, you could do what I expect you to do... you could ignore this post.
JustAnotherLogin said:
Scuffers said:
JustAnotherLogin said:
Increased privatisation?
I thought Farage had changed his mind on that?
Certainly no mention of it on the UKIP site or those 100 reasons
Try harder...I thought Farage had changed his mind on that?
Certainly no mention of it on the UKIP site or those 100 reasons
You asserted that UKIP has only ever had one policy on the NHS
I pointed out that in 2010 the UKIP policy included privatisation
You suggest that is still UKIP policy
I pointed out that it is nowhere in the UKIP policy documents
Are you suggesting that privatisation is or is not current UKIP policy? Can you do a straight yes no answer to a simple question?
Because your last response looks like that of someone who has been caught talking crap and is trying to bluff their way out with twaddle
When you find something in the UKIP position that a coach and horses can be driven through, they pretend either not to understand or to suggest that your reasoning is in some way at fault.
I am old and ugly enough to have seen this kind of thing in many walks of life (especially when I was dealing with formal complaints for an organisation I worked for 1996-2004, so the way I dealt with those complaints may have ultimately been carefully scrutinised by an Ombudsman). And when I see it on the UKIP thread in PH, I press the "ignore" button.
They probably then think that they have won the argument because I haven't played their little game. We can all dream...
Yes Steve, I'm thinking of you too
don4l said:
I have a strong suspicion that the real figures are much higher. Do these numbers include PFI?
As far as I can see, my GP's practice is a private company. The local hospital is cleaned by Carillion. Its car park is operated by a private company. Many consultants operate on a self-employed basis.
I would be very, very surprised if the true figure was less than 20%.
ALL GPs are private contractors to the NHS. They always have been, nothing has changed there.As far as I can see, my GP's practice is a private company. The local hospital is cleaned by Carillion. Its car park is operated by a private company. Many consultants operate on a self-employed basis.
I would be very, very surprised if the true figure was less than 20%.
NO Consultants work for the NHS on a self-employed basis. All consultants who are contracted to the NHS work for the NHS full time. We may do private practice outside our contracted NHS hours, as self-employed businesses. Some consultants who work for private companies treat NHS patients as a part of the private company that has tendered for NHS work.
The true figure is certainly less than 20%. The amount of contracts awarded to the private sector has been a fraction of the total.
don4l said:
I have a strong suspicion that the real figures are much higher. Do these numbers include PFI?
As far as I can see, my GP's practice is a private company. The local hospital is cleaned by Carillion. Its car park is operated by a private company. Many consultants operate on a self-employed basis.
I would be very, very surprised if the true figure was less than 20%.
Why do you say that many consultants operate on a self employed basis? Admittedly it was a long time ago since I worked in NHS Finance but most of the Consultants were employees. Quite a few did "foreigners" for the local BUPA but their main job was NHS. Unless you're referring to locums? If so, they weren't locums through choice.As far as I can see, my GP's practice is a private company. The local hospital is cleaned by Carillion. Its car park is operated by a private company. Many consultants operate on a self-employed basis.
I would be very, very surprised if the true figure was less than 20%.
968 said:
don4l said:
I have a strong suspicion that the real figures are much higher. Do these numbers include PFI?
As far as I can see, my GP's practice is a private company. The local hospital is cleaned by Carillion. Its car park is operated by a private company. Many consultants operate on a self-employed basis.
I would be very, very surprised if the true figure was less than 20%.
ALL GPs are private contractors to the NHS. They always have been, nothing has changed there.As far as I can see, my GP's practice is a private company. The local hospital is cleaned by Carillion. Its car park is operated by a private company. Many consultants operate on a self-employed basis.
I would be very, very surprised if the true figure was less than 20%.
NO Consultants work for the NHS on a self-employed basis. All consultants who are contracted to the NHS work for the NHS full time. We may do private practice outside our contracted NHS hours, as self-employed businesses. Some consultants who work for private companies treat NHS patients as a part of the private company that has tendered for NHS work.
The true figure is certainly less than 20%. The amount of contracts awarded to the private sector has been a fraction of the total.
I find that rather hard to believe.
don4l said:
JustAnotherLogin said:
Now you have lost me.
You asserted that UKIP has only ever had one policy on the NHS
I pointed out that in 2010 the UKIP policy included privatisation
You suggest that is still UKIP policy
I pointed out that it is nowhere in the UKIP policy documents
Are you suggesting that privatisation is or is not current UKIP policy? Can you do a straight yes no answer to a simple question?
Because your last response looks like that of someone who has been caught talking crap and is trying to bluff their way out with twaddle
I'm not aware of UKIP's policy on privatisation within the NHS. As long as it is free at the point of delivery, then it really doesn't matter very much.You asserted that UKIP has only ever had one policy on the NHS
I pointed out that in 2010 the UKIP policy included privatisation
You suggest that is still UKIP policy
I pointed out that it is nowhere in the UKIP policy documents
Are you suggesting that privatisation is or is not current UKIP policy? Can you do a straight yes no answer to a simple question?
Because your last response looks like that of someone who has been caught talking crap and is trying to bluff their way out with twaddle
You think that you have discovered a major change in UKIP's policy. You probably also believe that you have furnished us with evidence to back up your position. However, "Cognitative Bias" means that you can see that you are right, while we don't see any evidence at all (our cognitive bias??).
If you want to demonstrate that UKIP's stance has undergone a substantial shift, then you need to provide irrefutable evidence. Your failure to do this, despite repeated invitations, suggests to me that you are talking s
te.Furthermore, do you really think that a party should never change its policy on any subject?
Your beloved Labour believed in nationalising all major industries in the 1970's. Under Tony Blair they privatised loads of industries, including most of Britain's military research.
Your equally beloved Conservatives believed in increasing Police spending in the 1980's, and yet they made substantial cuts in the last five years.
Were Labour and the Conservatives any less deserving of office because they changed their minds?
So, prove to us that UKIP have changed their policy... and then tell us why this would be a bad thing.
Alternatively, you could do what I expect you to do... you could ignore this post.
Encourage County Health Boards to put out
to tender key NHS services ranging from Long
Term Care to local hospitals and GP surgeries.
This will be done by franchising key services
- run on a fixed budget - to charitable associations,
not-for-profit and profit-making private
companies, partnerships and individuals. This
will bring in private sector efficiency and innovation,
while fixed assets, responsibility and
direction remain firmly in public hands
You say that you are not aware of UKIP proposing privatisation of the NHS. Nor am I. That seems a significant change from 2010. Is that a problem? No. I never sai it was. I just said Scuffers statement was untrue. Something that he and you seem to be going all around the houses to avoid admitting
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff