Lies

by **Octavious** » Tue Dec 31, 2019 2:00 pm

It is not happening. There have been private elements to the NHS since its founding. GPs and dentists have always been private companies within the system, and private companies have run various other parts of the NHS throughout my lifetime. Labour even tried to privatise a hospital, but that was brought back into public ownership by the Tories.

This is nothing remotely akin to any scare story Corbyn's Labour talked about.

by **orathaic** » Tue Dec 31, 2019 1:34 pm

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/ ... s-21178712
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/nh ... 41881.html

I'm not saying I know anything that hasn't been reported online. But that said, if the Tories can sell off the NHS piece by piece while their supporters (like you) don't believe it is happening, then it wouldn't be suicide.

by **Octavious** » Mon Dec 30, 2019 9:44 pm

Let me tell you a fun story about the railways. These days safety critical staff have to take a series of pretty strenuous tests to prove that they know their job, and they have to repeat the tests every 3 years. Back in the British Rail days there was no requirement to repeat the tests after initially passing them, despite refreshers being an extremely obvious way of ensuring good standards of safety were maintained, and despite management repeatedly attempting to introduce them.

So what stopped these obvious improvements from happening? The unions refused, and the unions under the nationalised system were all powerful because governments were terrified of upsetting them and being blamed for everything grinding to a halt. So they weren't adopted, and there were accidents, and people died, and died some more. But privatisation happened and slowly things began to improve.

I won't pretend for a moment that the privatisation of the railways went brilliantly. There were plenty of cock-ups along the way, and the system adopted introduced a bucket load of uncertainty that pretty much killed off the UK train manufacturing industry. But the nationalised railway was shite, and we forget this at our peril.

There is no plan to sell the NHS. Increasing NHS budgets has been written into law. Killing the NHS is political suicide and the Tories lack many things but a sense of self preservation isn't one of them.

by **orathaic** » Mon Dec 30, 2019 8:49 pm

I would likewise dismiss the activism of Labour or the Lib Dems, as contrasted with decades of grass root non-party action. I suspect it is only the environmental movement which has formed it's own political party (and by just existing forced other parties to formulate policies on the environment, even if they have had little electoral success).

However I entirely disagree with you on the basis of right wing conservatism, I see it as maintaining the power and privilege of the powerful and privileged. Literally conserving the status quo, on a "if it ain't broke don't fix it" model. While also rejecting the social benefits of things which happen to help those less privileged but cost the wealth elite (like selling off the railways, or their next project the NHS).

But sure, I see them from what an outsider would think.

by **Octavious** » Mon Dec 30, 2019 5:19 pm

That's a very left wing centric view of Conservative gay policy. There has always been a strong pro-gay movement within the Tories, powered from the natural Tory instinct for promoting individual freedoms over state interference, and the sheer number of gay people who are Tories. I think there's a score of openly gay Tories in Parliament now. The Conservative way of promoting gay rights is somewhat less showy than the left wing methods, but to disregard it utterly because of that is to do a great disservice to the many gay Tories who have worked tirelessly over many decades.

by **orathaic** » Mon Dec 30, 2019 2:57 pm

That is liberal on drugs, not sure what it is on law&order. Equality is an odd one, as it depends on how you imagine it... Though given that it was Cameron's Tory party who brought in marriage equality, they aren't exactly anti-LGBT (though was he in coalition with the Lib Dems at the time? Did they claim credit for it? - personally I thi k it was a smart move co-opting the gay rights movement, bringing Conservative gay men in to the tent, rather than having them outside with the queer radicals pissing on the tent... I mean, I'm not necessarily happy about what amounts to stealing the victory of those queer radicals and all the decades of work they put in fighting for this kind of equality... Though I know many in the 70s/80s would have preferred abolishing marriage entirely, so this may have been the only victory they were ever going to see... It is the way of politics to co-opt other people's movements once they become popular enough... Perhaps similar to the Lib Dems and Green policies).

by **Octavious** » Sun Dec 29, 2019 10:45 pm

It still means economic liberalism, but as the UK is economic liberal already that doesn't feature much in their campaigning these days. Socially it is in favour of equality (as are everyone, to be fair) and for the Lib Dems practically speaking this manifests itself primarily as support for LGBT+ rights and somewhat bizarrely a suspicion of religion and old school feminism. Where they differ most from the Tories is in law and order, being heavily in favour of the decriminalisation of drugs and various other things, and deeply suspicious of the effectiveness of prison and punishment in general.

They're also very much internationalist in outlook, and increasingly big on the environment and fighting climate change.

by **orathaic** » Sun Dec 29, 2019 9:07 pm

@Octavious, yet a number of pro-Remain Tories joined the Lib Dems...

I actually don't think you realise how little 'liberal democrat' means. I mean Liberal 100 years ago (in the UK) meant an economic liberalism, or free market force. For businesses not being restricted by the state. In the US it gained a far more left wing connotation. More social than economic freedom. Liberal as opposed to progressive, meaning freedom from state control over what people do in their bedrooms, or other social behaviours.

What does it mean in the UK? I've no clue. And after the Lib Dem/Tory coalition I'm not sure the Lib Dems know either.

by **Octavious** » Sat Dec 28, 2019 9:03 am

orathaic wrote: ↑
Fri Dec 27, 2019 9:14 pm
As for the Lib Dems, I actually don't know what they stand for, though I suspect they are Tories-lite.

The clue is in the name. They stand for liberal democracy, and see themselves as centrist progressives. From the outside they tend to resemble the party you're not. For hard lefties they do seem to look like Tory-lite, and are accused of being yellow Tories on a regular basis. I can assure you that there are no Tories that consider them to be anything close to being Tory, who instinctively lump them in with the other progressives (Green and Labour) and view them as being pretty much exactly the same as Labour without the unions.

But they are genuinely centrist, and I suspect their existence has been a major reason why our two main parties don't usually dare to stray far from the centre. It us likely no coincidence that the post coalition Lib Dem weakness has coincided with the Tories and Labour feeling freer to move away from the centre. Hopefully this period of politics will be short lived.

by **Octavious** » Fri Dec 27, 2019 9:37 pm

orathaic wrote: ↑
Fri Dec 27, 2019 9:14 pm
I jist took the green party as an example because I think it is simple to understand their core beliefs, and uncontroversial (I guess the SNP could be the other simple example, with their belief that Scotland is better off independent).

But my point is merely that no matter the honest or not (and I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt to all parties, as you did). No 'reasonable' argument will make it past your core beliefs.

So it doesn't matter to many how honest or not a politician is. It only matter how confident you are they are close to your core beliefs.

Of course, what has happened recently is campaign's to discredit parties. Life long Labour voters not going out to vote for the party. The Trump campaign targeting specific racial groups to get them not to turn up and vote for Hillary.

As for the Lib Dems, I actually don't know what they stand for, though I suspect they are Tories-lite. Still, despite the diversity of parties in the last UK general election, most people had only a few choices, maybe 5, of whom 2 could probsbly be dismissed immediately (as not worth voting for because they has no chance).

Then forgive me for saying so but it was a poor example as their core beliefs are so far removed from the centre.

Most people's core beliefs are broadly centrist. Indeed, that's why the concept of a political centre exists. The centre is the personification of the beliefs of your typical citizen. The core beliefs of the Lib Dems, Centre Right Tories, and Centre Left Labour politicians are by in large consistent with my own. I could not vote for either Corbyn nor Boris, but could happily vote for Cameron or Nick Clegg or (slightly less happily but still feasibly) Tony Blair. I don't think I'm at all unusual in this. The divisions in US politics seem considerably more profound.

by **flash2015** » Fri Dec 27, 2019 9:17 pm

Octavious wrote: ↑
Fri Dec 27, 2019 8:56 pm
I would argue that there's a difference between acknowledging that a party has formed its policy based on reason and saying that you find those policies reasonable. I am quite willing to believe that the Green Party's policies are an honest reflection of reasoned debate based upon their core beliefs and assumptions. They may not be, but it makes no difference to me either way so there's no motivation for me to investigate more deeply, so why not give them the benefit of the doubt?

As I do not share the core beliefs and assumptions of the Greens, it follows that I find their conclusions and policies based upon those conclusions unreasonable. Lib Dem policies, by way of contrast, are built on a foundation of assumptions closer to my own, and as such seem to me to be more reasonable.

If Lib Dem policies are closer to your own, why did you not vote for them then? Why did you take so much enjoyment in Boris winning if your position was actually closer to the Lib Dem one?

by **orathaic** » Fri Dec 27, 2019 9:14 pm

I jist took the green party as an example because I think it is simple to understand their core beliefs, and uncontroversial (I guess the SNP could be the other simple example, with their belief that Scotland is better off independent).

But my point is merely that no matter the honest or not (and I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt to all parties, as you did). No 'reasonable' argument will make it past your core beliefs.

So it doesn't matter to many how honest or not a politician is. It only matter how confident you are they are close to your core beliefs.

Of course, what has happened recently is campaign's to discredit parties. Life long Labour voters not going out to vote for the party. The Trump campaign targeting specific racial groups to get them not to turn up and vote for Hillary.

As for the Lib Dems, I actually don't know what they stand for, though I suspect they are Tories-lite. Still, despite the diversity of parties in the last UK general election, most people had only a few choices, maybe 5, of whom 2 could probsbly be dismissed immediately (as not worth voting for because they has no chance).

by **Octavious** » Fri Dec 27, 2019 8:56 pm

I would argue that there's a difference between acknowledging that a party has formed its policy based on reason and saying that you find those policies reasonable. I am quite willing to believe that the Green Party's policies are an honest reflection of reasoned debate based upon their core beliefs and assumptions. They may not be, but it makes no difference to me either way so there's no motivation for me to investigate more deeply, so why not give them the benefit of the doubt?

As I do not share the core beliefs and assumptions of the Greens, it follows that I find their conclusions and policies based upon those conclusions unreasonable. Lib Dem policies, by way of contrast, are built on a foundation of assumptions closer to my own, and as such seem to me to be more reasonable.

by **orathaic** » Fri Dec 27, 2019 8:39 pm

I don't know, like the green party reason that we must take drastic action no or everyone suffers.

Yet policies based on this reason are not particularly popular with most parties.

And I suspect every party has similar beliefs that they build reasonable policies on.

by **Octavious** » Fri Dec 27, 2019 8:22 pm

orathaic wrote: ↑
Fri Dec 27, 2019 8:12 pm
Let's be fair, if there was an honesty party with policies you disliked, however reasonable, you would likely not vote for them. Because policy is going to trump honest most any day. Or it will for a majority of the population.

Well, obviously. No one is going to vote for a set of policies they actively don't want. I don't think anyone has suggested otherwise. But I think that from the perspective of pretty much everyone a policy that is considered to be reasonable is also a policy that is hard to deeply dislike.

by **orathaic** » Fri Dec 27, 2019 8:12 pm

Octavious wrote: ↑
Fri Dec 27, 2019 7:21 pm
Yes. I vote based on what I believe the people I vote for will actually do. I am also convinced that all parties and leaders will tell what I consider to be lies. If there was an honest party with reasonable policies I'd vote for them without hesitation, but I've not had that opportunity for some time.

In the last election it became so abysmally poor I spoiled my ballot with a message to the effect of "shame on the lot of you".

Let's be fair, if there was an honesty party with policies you disliked, however reasonable, you would likely not vote for them. Because policy is going to trump honest most any day. Or it will for a majority of the population.

by **Octavious** » Fri Dec 27, 2019 7:21 pm

Yes. I vote based on what I believe the people I vote for will actually do. I am also convinced that all parties and leaders will tell what I consider to be lies. If there was an honest party with reasonable policies I'd vote for them without hesitation, but I've not had that opportunity for some time.

In the last election it became so abysmally poor I spoiled my ballot with a message to the effect of "shame on the lot of you".

by **Jamiet99uk** » Fri Dec 27, 2019 7:15 pm

This is very depressing, isn't it. So back at that time, you advocated for, supported, and voted for someone you considered a liar?

by **Octavious** » Fri Dec 27, 2019 7:09 pm

On the immigration target of 10s of thousands? Of course that was a lie. It was a commitment to a policy that had zero chance of happening. What else would you call it?

by **Jamiet99uk** » Fri Dec 27, 2019 6:58 pm

Octavious wrote: ↑
Fri Dec 27, 2019 6:21 pm
Ora, if several major political parties says Labour's spending plans are bollocks, it's not proof by any stretch of the imagination but it is worth looking in to.

If your own knowledge of economics and how the world works backs up the claim it's bollocks, that's not conclusive by itself but is a pretty big pointer.

If that is further backed up by the overwhelming number of independent experts who specialise in this stuff, that's enough evidence to sway most independently minded people that it is indeed probably bollocks.

You seem to be confusing "lies" with "badly made policy".

If Labour made spending commitments which they firmly believed were the right idea, but which it turns out couldn't be delivered upon without huge increases in national debt, you might say that's bad policymaking. I don't see how it's lying.

David Cameron, who you once greatly admired, said in 2010 that if elected he would reduce net migration into the low tens of thousands. At the time, several commentators suggested that this would be very difficult. As history now records, Cameron's government failed to meet their target. Does that mean that in 2010, David Cameron was lying?

Lies

Post a reply

Expand view Topic review: Lies

Re: Lies

Re: Lies

Re: Lies

Re: Lies

Re: Lies

Re: Lies

Re: Lies

Re: Lies

Re: Lies

Re: Lies

Re: Lies

Re: Lies

Re: Lies

Re: Lies

Re: Lies

Re: Lies

Re: Lies

Re: Lies

Re: Lies

Re: Lies