UKIP - The Future - Volume 3
Discussion
JustAnotherLogin said:
Well the UKIP 2010 manifesto section 6 states
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
So you are criticising a policy that returned exactly no MP's at a previous election or aren't people allowed to learn and improve. Labour promised to cut £20 Billio from the NHS budget in their 2010 manifesto as well as introducing more private services and competition to help.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
Are they wrong for changing that one too?
JustAnotherLogin said:
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
and as you well know, Farage (and UKIP) dropped the 2010 manifesto (for a multitude of reasons)if your now trying to claim I meant they are still sticking to the same policies as back then, then you are misrepresenting what I said.
Now, ignoring that, define privatisation?
there are two distinct things being talked about:
1) who provides the services?
2) how you pay for them?
talking about insurance based systems is the latter.
private hospitals is the former.
I actually have mixed feelings on both of these, way I see it, the NHS is too big, and out of control and put simply, cannot go on like it is as we (the country) simply cannot afford it.
I think it's a shame what has happened at Hinchingbrooke, (as it would appear they were running a good service only to be scuppered by the CQC etc), however, I would not want to see a 'Serco' or the like take over on-mass.
However, the reasons we are where we are is the piecemeal approach to the job, GP's are one end of the problem, and local authority social services the other.
Whatever though, things have to change, the NHS in it's current form is doomed
And let's not forget that changing policy is not a new thing. Back to the EU and looking back to the 70s Con/Lab were almost diametrically opposed to what they stand for today. Lib Dems have been remarkably consistent it must be said, agree with them or not.
Of course there are changes in policy that should, and at times do, attract well deserved derision. Mainly due to the moment of some self aggrandising announcement and member of the public with an ounce of common sense can see the pitfalls, or that despite the good intentions the practicalities mean that it just won't work or the law of unintended consequences will prevail.
All parties suffer from that, including UKIP, being completely objective about it. Changing policy is no bad thing imo. Being willing to discuss things in an adult way when confronted with hysterical shrieking is a good thing, albeit patience testing.
Of course there are changes in policy that should, and at times do, attract well deserved derision. Mainly due to the moment of some self aggrandising announcement and member of the public with an ounce of common sense can see the pitfalls, or that despite the good intentions the practicalities mean that it just won't work or the law of unintended consequences will prevail.
All parties suffer from that, including UKIP, being completely objective about it. Changing policy is no bad thing imo. Being willing to discuss things in an adult way when confronted with hysterical shrieking is a good thing, albeit patience testing.
MGJohn said:
don4l said:
Furthermore, do you really think that a party should never change its policy on any subject?
Good question and one I have argued in the past. There are those, far too many, who see a change as a sign of weakness. I believe exactly the opposite.
Scuffers said:
now your getting as pathetic as the twonks on twater!
more recently, when we opened the door to Romania, did he not predict the numbers, was absolutely pilloried for it at the time, 12 months later he was proved to be spot on.
Farage UKIP conference 2013.more recently, when we opened the door to Romania, did he not predict the numbers, was absolutely pilloried for it at the time, 12 months later he was proved to be spot on.
"The Home Office don’t have any idea at all. The previous estimate was 13,000 in total. Migration Watch thinks 50,000 a year. It could be many times that.
No one knows. It’s no way to run a policy."
So in his speech the great leader quotes a Home Office figure of 13,000. Which is actually the figure provided by the Home Office for immigration when the A8 joined under the Labour Government. The current Government was very careful not to provide estimates.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...
He then suggest figures much greater than 50k a year. Where as so far the figure is running at less than 50k per year.
So yes the great leader was 100% rights I mean wrong.
What is it about UKIP and Romanians. I gather the great leader would not want to live next door to me!! OK no he back tracked from than statement as well.
Scuffers said:
if your now trying to claim I meant they are still sticking to the same policies as back then, then you are misrepresenting what I said.
Am I?Scuffers said:
NHS, Ukip have only ever had one policy, period.
Hard to interpret that any other way. No big deal that they changed, not sure why you have take 3 pages to fail to admit that you just got it wrong. Oh no. I'm wrong. I do know
JustAnotherLogin said:
I did list loads of examples before. To summarise (which won't help you much):
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.
There is actually a wider problem with the estimates.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.
Please look at Richard Norths EUreferendum site for more background.
The problem with the estimates is it assumes all regulation emanate at an EU level and if we left the EU would not be implemented. This is wrong. Much EU regulation emanates from international bodies who are trying to standardise regulations so as to assist free trade.
Therefore most of these regulations would have to be implemented in the UK whether we where in or out of the EU.
As Richard North points out the problem with the EU is that on all these international bodies we are represented by the EU so we have little influence. If we where not in the EU we would have direct membership and a voice.
He shows why the myth of Norway "EU regulation by fax" is wrong because Norway as a member of the EEA and not the EU still has membership of these bodies.
Mrr T said:
Scuffers said:
now your getting as pathetic as the twonks on twater!
more recently, when we opened the door to Romania, did he not predict the numbers, was absolutely pilloried for it at the time, 12 months later he was proved to be spot on.
Farage UKIP conference 2013.more recently, when we opened the door to Romania, did he not predict the numbers, was absolutely pilloried for it at the time, 12 months later he was proved to be spot on.
"The Home Office don’t have any idea at all. The previous estimate was 13,000 in total. Migration Watch thinks 50,000 a year. It could be many times that.
No one knows. It’s no way to run a policy."
So in his speech the great leader quotes a Home Office figure of 13,000. Which is actually the figure provided by the Home Office for immigration when the A8 joined under the Labour Government. The current Government was very careful not to provide estimates.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...
He then suggest figures much greater than 50k a year. Where as so far the figure is running at less than 50k per year.
So yes the great leader was 100% rights I mean wrong.
What is it about UKIP and Romanians. I gather the great leader would not want to live next door to me!! OK no he back tracked from than statement as well.
Even the Grauniad thinks it's 47,000 for setpember 2013 to september 2014:
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/dec/30/no-...
(with a headline that it's no surge!)
either way, the 50,000 figure is probably actually under what actually happened in 2014.
JustAnotherLogin said:
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
You have told us what they said in 2010, but you haven't told us how they have contradicted this recently. Furthermore, You have failed to explain why a party should not allow its policies to evolve with time.
Your viewpoint is not only unsubstantiated, it is also foolish.
All major parties reassess their policies on a continuous basis.
Scuffers said:
Mrr T said:
Scuffers said:
now your getting as pathetic as the twonks on twater!
more recently, when we opened the door to Romania, did he not predict the numbers, was absolutely pilloried for it at the time, 12 months later he was proved to be spot on.
Farage UKIP conference 2013.more recently, when we opened the door to Romania, did he not predict the numbers, was absolutely pilloried for it at the time, 12 months later he was proved to be spot on.
"The Home Office don’t have any idea at all. The previous estimate was 13,000 in total. Migration Watch thinks 50,000 a year. It could be many times that.
No one knows. It’s no way to run a policy."
So in his speech the great leader quotes a Home Office figure of 13,000. Which is actually the figure provided by the Home Office for immigration when the A8 joined under the Labour Government. The current Government was very careful not to provide estimates.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...
He then suggest figures much greater than 50k a year. Where as so far the figure is running at less than 50k per year.
So yes the great leader was 100% rights I mean wrong.
What is it about UKIP and Romanians. I gather the great leader would not want to live next door to me!! OK no he back tracked from than statement as well.
Even the Grauniad thinks it's 47,000 for setpember 2013 to september 2014:
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/dec/30/no-...
(with a headline that it's no surge!)
either way, the 50,000 figure is probably actually under what actually happened in 2014.
However, your leader said the figures was likely to be many times that. So lets agree he was wrong.
Mrr T said:
47k is close to 50k so the migration watch estimate was correct.
However, your leader said the figures was likely to be many times that. So lets agree he was wrong.
I've done a quick Google and I cannot find any evidence to support your assertion.However, your leader said the figures was likely to be many times that. So lets agree he was wrong.
I'm sure that you are not just making stuff up, so would you kindly post a link to your source?
don4l said:
Mrr T said:
47k is close to 50k so the migration watch estimate was correct.
However, your leader said the figures was likely to be many times that. So lets agree he was wrong.
I've done a quick Google and I cannot find any evidence to support your assertion.However, your leader said the figures was likely to be many times that. So lets agree he was wrong.
I'm sure that you are not just making stuff up, so would you kindly post a link to your source?
Scuffers said:
now your getting as pathetic as the twonks on twater!
more recently, when we opened the door to Romania, did he not predict the numbers, was absolutely pilloried for it at the time, 12 months later he was proved to be spot on.
more recently, when we opened the door to Romania, did he not predict the numbers, was absolutely pilloried for it at the time, 12 months later he was proved to be spot on.
Mrr T said:
don4l said:
Mrr T said:
47k is close to 50k so the migration watch estimate was correct.
However, your leader said the figures was likely to be many times that. So lets agree he was wrong.
I've done a quick Google and I cannot find any evidence to support your assertion.However, your leader said the figures was likely to be many times that. So lets agree he was wrong.
I'm sure that you are not just making stuff up, so would you kindly post a link to your source?
Scuffers said:
now your getting as pathetic as the twonks on twater!
more recently, when we opened the door to Romania, did he not predict the numbers, was absolutely pilloried for it at the time, 12 months later he was proved to be spot on.
more recently, when we opened the door to Romania, did he not predict the numbers, was absolutely pilloried for it at the time, 12 months later he was proved to be spot on.
I'm happy to be corrected, but at this point you appear to be inventing stuff.
don4l said:
Mrr T said:
don4l said:
Mrr T said:
47k is close to 50k so the migration watch estimate was correct.
However, your leader said the figures was likely to be many times that. So lets agree he was wrong.
I've done a quick Google and I cannot find any evidence to support your assertion.However, your leader said the figures was likely to be many times that. So lets agree he was wrong.
I'm sure that you are not just making stuff up, so would you kindly post a link to your source?
Scuffers said:
now your getting as pathetic as the twonks on twater!
more recently, when we opened the door to Romania, did he not predict the numbers, was absolutely pilloried for it at the time, 12 months later he was proved to be spot on.
more recently, when we opened the door to Romania, did he not predict the numbers, was absolutely pilloried for it at the time, 12 months later he was proved to be spot on.
I'm happy to be corrected, but at this point you appear to be inventing stuff.
Scuffers posted that the greater leader had made the claim and had been proved right.
I posted to show that the claim was incorrect.
So how am I making things up????
I have never said the great leader made the claim I was just pointing out if he had it was not correct.
So if you want a link to the guote please discuss it with Scuffers not me.
Mrr T said:
don4l said:
Mrr T said:
don4l said:
Mrr T said:
47k is close to 50k so the migration watch estimate was correct.
However, your leader said the figures was likely to be many times that. So lets agree he was wrong.
I've done a quick Google and I cannot find any evidence to support your assertion.However, your leader said the figures was likely to be many times that. So lets agree he was wrong.
I'm sure that you are not just making stuff up, so would you kindly post a link to your source?
Scuffers said:
now your getting as pathetic as the twonks on twater!
more recently, when we opened the door to Romania, did he not predict the numbers, was absolutely pilloried for it at the time, 12 months later he was proved to be spot on.
more recently, when we opened the door to Romania, did he not predict the numbers, was absolutely pilloried for it at the time, 12 months later he was proved to be spot on.
I'm happy to be corrected, but at this point you appear to be inventing stuff.
Scuffers posted that the greater leader had made the claim and had been proved right.
I posted to show that the claim was incorrect.
So how am I making things up????
I have never said the great leader made the claim I was just pointing out if he had it was not correct.
So if you want a link to the guote please discuss it with Scuffers not me.
He appears to have said "could be", which is completely different.
This thread seems to have become full of tit-for-tat... 
Small Upset in France - Not Many Interested. But should they be?
Small Upset in France - Not Many Interested. But should they be?
don4l said:
Mrr T said:
don4l said:
Mrr T said:
don4l said:
Mrr T said:
47k is close to 50k so the migration watch estimate was correct.
However, your leader said the figures was likely to be many times that. So lets agree he was wrong.
I've done a quick Google and I cannot find any evidence to support your assertion.However, your leader said the figures was likely to be many times that. So lets agree he was wrong.
I'm sure that you are not just making stuff up, so would you kindly post a link to your source?
Scuffers said:
now your getting as pathetic as the twonks on twater!
more recently, when we opened the door to Romania, did he not predict the numbers, was absolutely pilloried for it at the time, 12 months later he was proved to be spot on.
more recently, when we opened the door to Romania, did he not predict the numbers, was absolutely pilloried for it at the time, 12 months later he was proved to be spot on.
I'm happy to be corrected, but at this point you appear to be inventing stuff.
Scuffers posted that the greater leader had made the claim and had been proved right.
I posted to show that the claim was incorrect.
So how am I making things up????
I have never said the great leader made the claim I was just pointing out if he had it was not correct.
So if you want a link to the guote please discuss it with Scuffers not me.
He appears to have said "could be", which is completely different.
don4l said:
JustAnotherLogin said:
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. [b]Is that a problem? No. I never said it was[b]. I just said Scuffers statement was untrue. Something that he and you seem to be going all around the houses to avoid admitting
You have told us what they said in 2010, but you haven't told us how they have contradicted this recently. Furthermore, You have failed to explain why a party should not allow its policies to evolve with time.
Your viewpoint is not only unsubstantiated, it is also foolish.
All major parties reassess their policies on a continuous basis.
Should they not evolve? Do you want to look at the bit I've highlighted in bold from my post that you've quoted. I'd say for the 3rd time that its not an issue, but you would probably still be incapable of parsing and understanding it.
You may want to read the bit after that too. Are you in some way scared to admit what UKIP policy on the NHS is? Or was?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff