UKIP - The Future - Volume 3
Discussion
The point being made is that UKIP have turned 180 ideological degrees in less than a year on the NHS. It is not what they're saying, rather the fact that such an about turn can be executed without explanation.
All parties (and businesses and private individuals; people) change their minds on things from time to time. If you weren't willing to change your mind on things, that would lead to bigger problems. People usually alter their opinions based upon a change of circumstances or the information they use to make value judgements. Having said that, people don't easily change their fundamental beliefs or perceptions. It takes something relatively seismic, for example, to make someone change their religious belief or even their favourite supermarket.
When UKIP want the NHS to become a private service, then a matter of months later alter their position and want it to remain free at the point of delivery, it isn't the content of the change that first interests me, it's the driver for it that's in question. What happened in the mind of UKIP that made it about turn over such a fundamental, ideological position?
All parties (and businesses and private individuals; people) change their minds on things from time to time. If you weren't willing to change your mind on things, that would lead to bigger problems. People usually alter their opinions based upon a change of circumstances or the information they use to make value judgements. Having said that, people don't easily change their fundamental beliefs or perceptions. It takes something relatively seismic, for example, to make someone change their religious belief or even their favourite supermarket.
When UKIP want the NHS to become a private service, then a matter of months later alter their position and want it to remain free at the point of delivery, it isn't the content of the change that first interests me, it's the driver for it that's in question. What happened in the mind of UKIP that made it about turn over such a fundamental, ideological position?
allergictocheese said:
The point being made is that UKIP have turned 180 ideological degrees in less than a year on the NHS. It is not what they're saying, rather the fact that such an about turn can be executed without explanation.
no they haven't.they have pushed out several idea, NONE OF WHICH ARE PARTY POLICY.
Sigh, the point being made by me is that to whatever extent UKIP have changed their tune, that change could have been driven by a recognition that the public are not ready for that debate yet. Therefore they have decided to shut up and concentrate on other issues where they may have more opportunities.
Part of the reason for the public not being ready is due to the hypocritical guff spouted by Labour and the lefties who, in the absence of anything else to say, have trotted out the claim that the NHS is only safe in their hands. Completely ignoring the complete arse they've made of it in Wales. The fact that in % terms they have privatised far more than tthe coalition. That in the way they ran riot with poorly setup PFI developments they've saddled the NHS and future generations with enormous costs, ongoing costs too. Left it with ridiculous levels of management and box ticking, more concerned with haranguing and destroying any member of staff or public who dares to question the sacred cow. Yet the NHS is only safe in their hands apparently.
Part of the reason for the public not being ready is due to the hypocritical guff spouted by Labour and the lefties who, in the absence of anything else to say, have trotted out the claim that the NHS is only safe in their hands. Completely ignoring the complete arse they've made of it in Wales. The fact that in % terms they have privatised far more than tthe coalition. That in the way they ran riot with poorly setup PFI developments they've saddled the NHS and future generations with enormous costs, ongoing costs too. Left it with ridiculous levels of management and box ticking, more concerned with haranguing and destroying any member of staff or public who dares to question the sacred cow. Yet the NHS is only safe in their hands apparently.
Zod said:
dandarez said:
turbobloke said:
allergictocheese said:
turbobloke said:
Deliberate misunderstanding there? The example referred to is of a complaint (email) and a vacuous reply, not a family member in paid work. Anyone could be forgiven for thinking there was a fanatic at work typing your replies with your PH log-in.
There are some of us who agree with some UKIP policies who haven't voted UKIP so the fanatic smear has a whiff of hypocrisy in view of the 'accidental' misunderstanding.
The inference from your post was that family interests were inappropriately influencing Cameron's decision making. There are some of us who agree with some UKIP policies who haven't voted UKIP so the fanatic smear has a whiff of hypocrisy in view of the 'accidental' misunderstanding.
The obvious interpretation of my post follow for the self-identified hard of thinking
1) the payment of £300,000 to CMD's FiL who happens to be a rich landowner includes money from the hikes we all face in energy bills that pay for subsidies to unnecessary, costly and ineffective windymills
2) this hike in energy bills has a disproportionate impact on many pensioners, there are pensioners who cannot afford to heat their homes adequately, choosing to eat or heat, and in some cases buying large books for 50p from charity shops as cheap fuel to burn
3) when complaining to CMD about the nonsensical nature of Tory Party policy on energy and the environment - which is based around climate fairytales, and results in redistribution of wealth from poor pensioners to rich landowners - a risible reply may well have come from CMD's SiL Alice Sheffield, and I pointed out she was paid from Party funds.
Presumably you're obtuse enough to consider my mention of Alice was because I considered the nature of the reply from her desk was due to her influence on CMD
when she's clearly a button clicking stamp licker (probably not noticing they come with adhesive these days).There was no other inference to be drawn, notwithstanding strenuous efforts to find one as a figleaf for an already-failed contrived posting scenario.
Meahwhile, there was a question somewhere about which if any Party has an energy policy that is a) viable and not based on renewables (shown to be a fail) and b) would put an end to windymill proliferation.
Brilliant! I do love articulate replies. Well done. 10/10.JustAnotherLogin said:
And that is my point. I wish any of the major (or significant minor) parties would present a coherent plan for what we should do with the NHS. I know 968 is a doctor (or something in the NHS), and I know there is usually none so resistant to change as those involved, so he may disagree. But the NHS as we have it now (or have had it in the recent past) is doomed to fail. Demand is rising exponentially, whilst available funds are rising geometrically (at best).
At the moment all the parties are kicking the can down the road. I would actually have more respect for UKIP if they did present a coherent policy to address this problem. However the one policy they did have they seem to have shoved under their seat and pretended it never existed. At least 2 Kippers on here are trying to deny there has been a policy change, if indeed their ever was a policy, or is one now, or whether 1=2.
A nettle too painful to grasp, but rarely one that needed grasping so much
Not possible in my opinion for any party or intelligent human for that matter. It has become unreasonably complicated. To attempt so would only suck money from where it is actually needed.At the moment all the parties are kicking the can down the road. I would actually have more respect for UKIP if they did present a coherent policy to address this problem. However the one policy they did have they seem to have shoved under their seat and pretended it never existed. At least 2 Kippers on here are trying to deny there has been a policy change, if indeed their ever was a policy, or is one now, or whether 1=2.
A nettle too painful to grasp, but rarely one that needed grasping so much
I would suggest a new NHS v0.2 is created on a small scale and run in parallel with NHS v0.1 as an experiment. If successful then expand parts of 0.2 and close down parts of 0.1
BGARK said:
Not possible in my opinion for any party or intelligent human for that matter. It has become unreasonably complicated. To attempt so would only suck money from where it is actually needed.
I would suggest a new NHS v0.2 is created on a small scale and run in parallel with NHS v0.1 as an experiment. If successful then expand parts of 0.2 and close down parts of 0.1
Problem is one side will say that's already been tried and failed, whilst pointing to Hinchingbrooke, whilst also conveniently forgetting the part that they played in ensuring it failed. I would suggest a new NHS v0.2 is created on a small scale and run in parallel with NHS v0.1 as an experiment. If successful then expand parts of 0.2 and close down parts of 0.1
Meanwhile another side will have difficulty disconnecting donations and decisions ostensibly to the benefit of the donor outfit.
See page 4 of the relevant thread, look for John Lewis of hospitals. Labour has managed to bury their part in the saga.
FiF said:
brenflys777 said:
The debate on how it's achieved will have to wait until the public/politicians are prepared for grown up debate without the petty points scoring that often appears on PH as well as the campaigns. IMO.
Pointless posturing beyond parody at times. At least the people on here are doing it for free. For the same level of attrition loop bickering for which politicians have over the years arranged themselves quite generous remuneration in comparison to the lack of worth provided by the majority.
I would have more respect for UKIP if they proposed an alternative
Whereas as far as I can see they have run away from it, and all the Kippers are desperately trying to avoid answer the question as to whether is is still policy or not.
JustAnotherLogin said:
FiF said:
brenflys777 said:
The debate on how it's achieved will have to wait until the public/politicians are prepared for grown up debate without the petty points scoring that often appears on PH as well as the campaigns. IMO.
Pointless posturing beyond parody at times. At least the people on here are doing it for free. For the same level of attrition loop bickering for which politicians have over the years arranged themselves quite generous remuneration in comparison to the lack of worth provided by the majority.
I would have more respect for UKIP if they proposed an alternative
Whereas as far as I can see they have run away from it, and all the Kippers are desperately trying to avoid answer the question as to whether is is still policy or not.
Whilst UKIP might gain more respect from you, as I mentioned in a previous post, they are creating the opportunity for Labour to totally misrepresent what they say. Their message has IMO become dumbed down to a simple 'free at point of use, more NHS funding' one because it's not a good time to debate the specifics of a possible solution.
The only doubt about UKIPs current policy on NHS seems to be from people who abhor UKIP. The current policy 'free at point of use, more funding' is straightforward but disappointing. I can't see any UKIP politicians trying to desperately avoid answering questions about the NHS, quite the opposite.
It's Tuesday already so maybe UKIP has changed their mind again about NHS. It's so hard to keep up.
Dartmouth says TTIP would include NHS one minute, Bours says it won't the next.
Farage and Nuttall say they are thinking about privatisation one minute, blogs deleted and major backtracking the next.
Nobody knows what UKIP's current policy on the NHS is other than "Erm... status quo?"
Dartmouth says TTIP would include NHS one minute, Bours says it won't the next.
Farage and Nuttall say they are thinking about privatisation one minute, blogs deleted and major backtracking the next.
Nobody knows what UKIP's current policy on the NHS is other than "Erm... status quo?"
Guam said:
This thread is like that Song in the Rocky Horror Picture show "Timewarp"
All we now see is the same attack dogs repeating the same stuff over and over again as if any responses will differ.
Frankly roll on the GE and then lets see how pissed off the average Joe is.
The constant bleating on this thread by the usual suspects will have its answer in some 95 days.
Bring it on I say!
Unusually I am going to agree with you All we now see is the same attack dogs repeating the same stuff over and over again as if any responses will differ.
Frankly roll on the GE and then lets see how pissed off the average Joe is.
The constant bleating on this thread by the usual suspects will have its answer in some 95 days.
Bring it on I say!
The UKIP thread is now on its third volume (is that 500 pages per volume? Can't remember) and most of it is going around in circles.
The UKIP - philes are going to stick to their beliefs no matter what
The anti-UKIP mob are going to stick to their beliefs no matter what
No views are going to be changed on either side, and we've now had at least 1200 pages of going round a series of mulberry bushes.
Yesterday I was reading an interesting article by somebody completely divorced from UK and indeed European politics (as I am South Africa at the moment). This journalist was mainly talking about domestic SA circumstances, and made the point that support for the ANC has fallen to such an extent that they may have to form a coalition after the next election (there may be areas in the UK where a dog turd wearing a blue or a red rosette could get elected, but that ain't nuthinn compared to SA politics since 1994 - the possible need for the ANC to look at coalition is big-time stuff down here)
The international point being made in the article was that this is an international phenomenon. Countries that have been used to one party rule (like SA) or two-party "ping pong" like the UK and the USA, to name but two examples, are finding that their voters are beginning to drift away to minor parties and, if those minor parties are strong enough to withstand the change (in essence meaning the additional scrutiny of the media when a fringe party becomes more mainstream, which in turn means them kicking out the nutters and starting to behave like a "real" political party) then these disparate voices will begin to be listened to as part of future coalitions.
But this in turn might lead to an interesting dilemma for UKIP and indeed UKIP supporters. All the other major parties in England, Wales and Scotland (don't know about NI) are all pretty staunchly pro-European. I accept that that is an arguable point amongst Tory back benchers but it is true for ministers.
This being the case, which other party or parties are likely to think that their interests, and those of their electors, are likely to be improved by a coalition with UKIP? It just started to strike me that a lab/ con coalition (and at least one has been known in local government - in Bristol about 25 years ago) is probably more likely than a con/ukip or lab/ukip coalition. What do the rest of PH think?
Just another angle to think about, for a little bit of a change for this thread
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff