Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DarrenBCFC)
    Ok I was to busy to argue that day so here is my post.

    Basically what it says was Camerons mates who ow business slipped him a bit of money for a massive return

    It is to do with the privitisation of the NHS. Circle Health donated £1.5 M- and has had a return of £1.5BN - Is that a 1000% return on investment - that is not a donation it's a pre agreed deal. Also bit rich of him privitising the NHS when his moronic son used the NHS resources

    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news...handed-3123469
    Your comments so far have been poorly organised, muddled and economical with the truth. You can now add extremely distasteful to that list.

    I assume that, by privatisation, you mean outsourcing some NHS services to the private sector. The percentage of these services being provided by private firms now lies near 6% and is, before you say it, not a first step towards privatisation. The reason these services are being outsourced is that it is firstly meant to be better for the taxpayer and secondly that it is meant to be more efficient. Whether you think these things are likely to be accurate or not, it is not ironic that Cameron is doing this to the NHS when his 'moronic son used the NHS resources'. Absolutely disgusting.

    And you may like to do some research on the difference between correlation and causation. You, along with the Mirror (that venerable British institution), assume that because the donation and the contract came to and from the same people, that the donation caused the rewarding of the contract. If, having thought about it more deeply, you still think the government gave the contract because of the donation it received, then why not have the balls to do something about it? The allegation you make is a very serious one, so instead of whining on a student forum, why don't you formally invite a Parliamentary committee to investigate for themselves? Here's a link to the contact us page of the Health Select Committee (which is not run by the government, by the way): http://www.parliament.uk/business/co...ee/contact-us/
    So please, if you think you actually have a case, have the courage to do something about it.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ibzombie96)
    Your comments so far have been poorly organised, muddled and economical with the truth. You can now add extremely distasteful to that list.

    I assume that, by privatisation, you mean outsourcing some NHS services to the private sector. The percentage of these services being provided by private firms now lies near 6% and is, before you say it, not a first step towards privatisation. The reason these services are being outsourced is that it is firstly meant to be better for the taxpayer and secondly that it is meant to be more efficient. Whether you think these things are likely to be accurate or not, it is not ironic that Cameron is doing this to the NHS when his 'moronic son used the NHS resources'. Absolutely disgusting.

    And you may like to do some research on the difference between correlation and causation. You, along with the Mirror (that venerable British institution), assume that because the donation and the contract came to and from the same people, that the donation caused the rewarding of the contract. If, having thought about it more deeply, you still think the government gave the contract because of the donation it received, then why not have the balls to do something about it? The allegation you make is a very serious one, so instead of whining on a student forum, why don't you formally invite a Parliamentary committee to investigate for themselves? Here's a link to the contact us page of the Health Select Committee (which is not run by the government, by the way): http://www.parliament.uk/business/co...ee/contact-us/
    So please, if you think you actually have a case, have the courage to do something about it.
    Who would do nothing- they would get bribed by the government its a real co-incidence that he has awarded his mate who bankrolled him a contract for £1.5BN - like thatcher he is very corrupt. Also I'm not going to defend labour for this one because under blair and brown they had some sort of honour for donations scheme- but it is not nearly as bad as what the conservatives have done. Also if you read further down the article he awarded another one of his mates £102M for £247K. It will force waiting times up if he gets his own way-members of his own party disagree with him - there would be no NHS if he was a dictator.It Really his he is an hypocrite - it may be out of taste but it is a truful comment. Tell me what it is then. The majority of the NHS is free- but he has now sold it off- well gave it away, these services are now not available on the NHS- meaning it is being privitised but your a typical tory brainwashed and disillusioned
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by DarrenBCFC)
    Who would do nothing- they would get bribed by the government its a real co-incidence that he has awarded his mate who bankrolled him a contract for £1.5BN - like thatcher he is very corrupt. Also I'm not going to defend labour for this one because under blair and brown they had some sort of honour for donations scheme- but it is not nearly as bad as what the conservatives have done. Also if you read further down the article he awarded another one of his mates £102M for £247K. It will force waiting times up if he gets his own way-members of his own party disagree with him - there would be no NHS if he was a dictator.It Really his he is an hypocrite - it may be out of taste but it is a truful comment. Tell me what it is then. The majority of the NHS is free- but he has now sold it off- well gave it away, these services are now not available on the NHS- meaning it is being privitised but your a typical tory brainwashed and disillusioned
    Suppose I were to buy a house thanks to some government initiative and then I made a donation to the tories, did I do this because their policy allowed the purchase?

    And tell me, which services are no longer available because the operation switched to the private sector and in these cases, supposing you present them, who is to blame?

    Cases do exist, but not the fault of the operator, not without preposterous argument at least.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DarrenBCFC)
    Who would do nothing- they would get bribed by the government its a real co-incidence that he has awarded his mate who bankrolled him a contract for £1.5BN - like thatcher he is very corrupt. Also I'm not going to defend labour for this one because under blair and brown they had some sort of honour for donations scheme- but it is not nearly as bad as what the conservatives have done. Also if you read further down the article he awarded another one of his mates £102M for £247K. It will force waiting times up if he gets his own way-members of his own party disagree with him - there would be no NHS if he was a dictator.It Really his he is an hypocrite - it may be out of taste but it is a truful comment. Tell me what it is then. The majority of the NHS is free- but he has now sold it off- well gave it away, these services are now not available on the NHS- meaning it is being privitised but your a typical tory brainwashed and disillusioned
    It is very hard to argue with you when you assert that the government bribes everyone. Look, on these committees, there are plenty of opposition MPs who are very keen to get noticed by the Labour elite - it is therefore in their interest to hammer the government and it would presumably take quite a lot of money to make them quit their examinations of the government. Do you not see that? So please, take up your problems with the Health Select Committee - I'm sure they will be delighted to hear your impressively-researched and coherent argument.

    And is it that unlikely that a donor to a political party (which are nearly always rich organisations such as big firms or unions etc) is involved in a business interest that is in some way connected to the government? I would suggest not.

    I'll tell you what it is: it's called outsourcing. That's not the same as privatisation.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by contradicta)
    Why do you dislike Farron?
    Personal preference really.

    Said a few nasty things about Scotland during and after the Independance referendum.

    Has had a host of car crash interviews with the Daily Politics, which doesn't portray him with the quality of leadership material.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Suppose I were to buy a house thanks to some government initiative and then I made a donation to the tories, did I do this because their policy allowed the purchase?

    And tell me, which services are no longer available because the operation switched to the private sector and in these cases, supposing you present them, who is to blame?

    Cases do exist, but not the fault of the operator, not without preposterous argument at least.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Its different i'm not getting into hypothetical s they did it to win contracts its cameron and his chums doing deals - it would not suprise me if Cameron was shareholder in that business
    This sums cameron up very accurately https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YBumQHPAeU
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    I doubt i could even name six
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by DarrenBCFC)
    Its different i'm not getting into hypothetical s they did it to win contracts its cameron and his chums doing deals - it would not suprise me if Cameron was shareholder in that business
    This sums cameron up very accurately https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YBumQHPAeU
    You assume that your version of events is correct irrespective of whether there is even any evidence to suggest truth.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ibzombie96)
    It is very hard to argue with you when you assert that the government bribes everyone. Look, on these committees, there are plenty of opposition MPs who are very keen to get noticed by the Labour elite - it is therefore in their interest to hammer the government and it would presumably take quite a lot of money to make them quit their examinations of the government. Do you not see that? So please, take up your problems with the Health Select Committee - I'm sure they will be delighted to hear your impressively-researched and coherent argument.

    And is it that unlikely that a donor to a political party (which are nearly always rich organisations such as big firms or unions etc) is involved in a business interest that is in some way connected to the government? I would suggest not.

    I'll tell you what it is: it's called outsourcing. That's not the same as privatisation.
    Yes it is- its just the codge word right wingers use for it . It is no longer available on the NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE so it is privitising
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DarrenBCFC)
    Yes it is- its just the codge word right wingers use for it . It is no longer available on the NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE so it is privitising
    My god you really don't help yourself here. Privatisation is a technical term - a firm is privatised when it passes from state ownership to private ownership. This is not happening, so it follows that the NHS is not being privatised. Do you understand?

    And by the way, I'm not typical Tory or typical right winger.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by DarrenBCFC)
    Yes it is- its just the codge word right wingers use for it . It is no longer available on the NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE so it is privitising
    Again, you're yet to substantiate this bogus claim
    What has been privatised rather than merely outsourced?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ibzombie96)
    My god you really don't help yourself here. Privatisation is a technical term - a firm is privatised when it passes from state ownership to private ownership. This is not happening, so it follows that the NHS is not being privatised. Do you understand?

    And by the way, I'm not typical Tory or typical right winger.
    You are you never say anything bad about them
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ibzombie96)
    My god you really don't help yourself here. Privatisation is a technical term - a firm is privatised when it passes from state ownership to private ownership. This is not happening, so it follows that the NHS is not being privatised. Do you understand?

    And by the way, I'm not typical Tory or typical right winger.
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Again, you're yet to substantiate this bogus claim
    What has been privatised rather than merely outsourced?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Please both kindly tell me how taking what was once a public service and allowing a private company to run it and make money from it is outsourcing and not privatising, and why that's okay. Thanks.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DarrenBCFC)
    You are you never say anything bad about them
    That's not consistent with saying I am a typical Tory. I don't agree with some things they did and plan to do, but what I write about on this forum is usually intended to correct people's mistakes - if you actually researched your statement, you will have noticed that I take on those on the left and on the right.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    In no particular order

    George Osbourne
    Theresa May
    Nicky Morgan
    David Cameron
    Iain Duncan Smith
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Guills on wheels)
    Please both kindly tell me how taking what was once a public service and allowing a private company to run it and make money from it is outsourcing and not privatising, and why that's okay. Thanks.
    Because all the assets are still in the public sector. ..

    There is this thing called a 'dictionary ', it tells you the definition of words. Might be worth using one from time to time.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Guills on wheels)
    Please both kindly tell me how taking what was once a public service and allowing a private company to run it and make money from it is outsourcing and not privatising, and why that's okay. Thanks.
    I've already said - in fact, you've quoted my answer in your post. It is simply definitive; privatisation occurs when a firm goes from state ownership to private ownership (ie sold off). When a state-owned firm (in this case the NHS) gives contracts to private firms for some services, it is outsourcing. I can't really boil it down to anything simpler for you, because it is simply a matter of definition.

    Outsourcing is, as a principle at least, ok because it makes taxpayers' money go further. The NHS gives out a contract for, say, £50 million to a firm - as this firm seeks to maximise profits, it will try and run as efficient a shop as possible, within the strict quality limits set out in the contract. If the government were to run its services by itself, the culture of efficiency is completely different - here, the manager of an NHS unit is given, effectively, a lump sum which he/she can spend the entirety of if they wish. If a private firm is contracted out to provide that NHS unit, they will run a more efficient operation and the government can actually decrease the amount of money it gives slightly.

    I think your disparaging remark about private firms making money from the NHS is really quite unacceptable. You should only care about the quality of care the NHS gives its patients - what happens behind the scenes is nobody's business. If the firm operating the specific NHS service is making a profit or a loss, you have no reason to give a rat's arse - if the frontline service is the same, what right do you have to complain that the firm running the service is making profit from it?
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    Spoiler:
    Show
    1. Ed Miliband
    2. Ed Miliband
    3. Ed Miliband
    4. Ed Miliband
    5. Ed Miliband
    6. Ed Miliband

    Cos he's TOO relatable. In a bad way.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Because all the assets are still in the public sector. ..

    There is this thing called a 'dictionary ', it tells you the definition of words. Might be worth using one from time to time.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    hey, you ****ing tory knob, stop trying to act like you're actually clever or something.

    Also; that doesn't make sense; if the assets are in the public sector then why are private companies taking up these jobs?


    (Original post by ibzombie96)
    I've already said - in fact, you've quoted my answer in your post. It is simply definitive; privatisation occurs when a firm goes from state ownership to private ownership (ie sold off). When a state-owned firm (in this case the NHS) gives contracts to private firms for some services, it is outsourcing. I can't really boil it down to anything simpler for you, because it is simply a matter of definition.

    Outsourcing is, as a principle at least, ok because it makes taxpayers' money go further. The NHS gives out a contract for, say, £50 million to a firm - as this firm seeks to maximise profits, it will try and run as efficient a shop as possible, within the strict quality limits set out in the contract. If the government were to run its services by itself, the culture of efficiency is completely different - here, the manager of an NHS unit is given, effectively, a lump sum which he/she can spend the entirety of if they wish. If a private firm is contracted out to provide that NHS unit, they will run a more efficient operation and the government can actually decrease the amount of money it gives slightly.

    I think your disparaging remark about private firms making money from the NHS is really quite unacceptable. You should only care about the quality of care the NHS gives its patients - what happens behind the scenes is nobody's business. If the firm operating the specific NHS service is making a profit or a loss, you have no reason to give a rat's arse - if the frontline service is the same, what right do you have to complain that the firm running the service is making profit from it?
    Thanks for the calmer explanation. I can see why I place the two together; outsourcing for me is still wrong as we shouldn't be looking to use private companies to make our services run better; that should be our responsibility to improve ourselves.

    Because no company should be allowed to make money off the government. Profit is fundamentally wrong; they should be working to improve the health service for the greater good of the people rather than their own, squirrelled away purposes. If it involves a public service, especially as one as vital as the NHS then it is our business to know how it is run. This money being spent is, after all, our taxes.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Guills on wheels)
    hey, you ****ing tory knob, stop trying to act like you're actually clever or something.

    Also; that doesn't make sense; if the assets are in the public sector then why are private companies taking up these jobs?
    You think you need to actually own assets to manage them?

    Clearly cleverer than you though if you thought the NHS was actually being privatised...

    And for the exact reason above. A public sector monopoly is inherently inefficient, the ordinate sector wants to make money so will try to cut costs via increased efficiency, given their contact should have lower limits on quality, so they can't cut quality (much).

    Which would you rather have: a service outsourced to the private sector or the service being discontinued?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.