Turn on thread page Beta

Cuts Margaret Thatcher could only dreamt of watch

Announcements
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    It's certainly pragmatic. As for wanting to make cuts - yes, indeed we do, otherwise we wouldn't.



    Well, yeah, as I've said the Conservatives have an ideological commitment to sound budgets.
    Who are you trying to kid? Or are you just incredible naive.

    There is always a choice in how you can achieve a sound budget. It is the way they look at achieve it that I have a problem with.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by wallace32)
    Who are you trying to kid? Or are you just incredible naive.

    There is always a choice in how you can achieve a sound budget. It is the way they look at achieve it that I have a problem with.
    And what in particular do you have a problem with? Cutting the Navy down a bit? Continuing to increase the NHS budget? Targeting waste and unnecessary middle-management regulation? Attempting to reduce quangos and thus the number of people earning extremely high salaries as public servants?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    And what in particular do you have a problem with? Cutting the Navy down a bit? Continuing to increase the NHS budget? Targeting waste and unnecessary middle-management regulation? Attempting to reduce quangos and thus the number of people earning extremely high salaries as public servants?
    Increasing the budget but getting rid of nurses? Shutting the sure start centres which famalies rely on? Taxing the bankers less than before? Privatising the countryside AND the NHS? Dismantling our defense capabilities?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ikoghoo)
    Back in 2010 it was £20bn, but I was researching this whilst prepping for medical school interviews, and the figure that I always heard was £40bn.
    Does it matter what is in Labour's manifesto? We're talking about what's happening now, instead of the Tories shaping up the NHS and getting rid of the bureaucracy they say is creating waste, they are sacrificing standards, and trying to make up the shortfall by their favorite thing, privatization.
    I'll point out you that there people just like you who were claiming the tories were trying to privatise the NHS in the 90s when they bought in gp fundholding and the internal market and labour at the time were opposing those polcies and making the same claims yet when they came in power in 1997 they continued with the internal market and even expanded it out even further and after initially scrapping gp fundholding they bought it back again in 2005 yet not one claim of privatisation was made.

    And now fast forward till 2010 the claims of tory NHS privatisation come flooding back again before the general election despite Labour having the same polices in their manifesto.

    It's exactly the same with the foresrty sell off. Not one word when Labour sold off
    large parts of our forestry 12 years ago without consultation yet when the tories try and do the same thing but with consultatation theres all this fuss.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    I don't need to, I've seen the spending review and the budget. NHS funding in England is to increase gradually from £104 bn to £114 bn in 2014, ahead of inflation. Moreover, £1 bn has been diverted from a proposed capital investment account into delivering care services.

    Spending on the NHS is rising ahead of inflation.
    General inflation or medical inflation? Medical costs are inflating quite a way above normal inflation worldwide. Spending increases above normal inflation but below medical cost inflation is a cut.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    There isn't some sort of limit on the number of people who can be well-off. Acquiring wealth doesn't have a one-in, one-out policy: and I'm proud to say that, largely as a result of the Conservatives efforts in the 1970s, more people have become better off in this country.
    Depends on your definition of 'more people' though doesn't it?



    The idea that Thatcher increased the wealth of rich and poor is a myth - she only increased the wealth for wealthier
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tulley11)
    Increasing the budget but getting rid of nurses? Shutting the sure start centres which famalies rely on? Taxing the bankers less than before? Privatising the countryside AND the NHS? Dismantling our defense capabilities?
    Getting rid of nurses is an operational issue for local NHS trusts. The government has requested efficiency savings be made available in order to free up money which will in turn be used to provide treatments which were previously unavailable.

    As for SureStart, I have no idea. We don't have it in Scotland, and I can't say it's made a massive impact on me.

    Privatising the countryside? I hate to tell you - but the countryside already is privatised, and always has been. Privatising the NHS? I wish, but I'm afraid not.

    As for defence, well, tough choices. We've pulled out of Iraq and scaled back our presence in other countries in line with the strategic needs of the areas in question. I think it's an ideal time to cut our defence expenditure. And no, it's not to the level where it compromises our ability to defend ourselves from invasion.

    Taxing bankers less? After leaving the 50% income tax band, an increase in VAT and a banking levy? I think not. Anyway, banking is an important and essential part of our economy - I fully support bankers, and wonder why you've singled them out for your ire.
    Offline

    12
    (Original post by joe3469)
    Get back at the Tories and Con Dem Coalition by voting in the student room model house of commons election

    http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show....php?t=1592900

    Preferably for the Socialist Party. Only we will oppose and reverse Thatcher's greedy market fundamentalist ideology
    Your brand of socialism is dead and buried, welcome to the 21st Century. Even Labour are pro-markets and would have cut public spending now. Socialists had their moment of glory 1900-1970's and it led to fascism in many countries and to economic ruin in the countries that maintained democracy.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    @Lib.

    Isn't it strange how the very companies who will benefit most from the private sector providing more of the care under the hidious NHS reform plans are the ones who happened to sponser Andrew Lansley as an MP?

    Who mentioned invasion? Lets face it, we won't get invaded again. HOWEVER, the guy who is running the RAF in Libya (forgot his name) says that we need an increase in the RAF budget to run both Afghanistan & Libya. Cameron has specifically kept the fighters on duty until Libya, then theyre decommissioned. I wonder what we'll do if we need to bomb another country? Oh, and I believe that the Labour Government pulled us out of Iraq.

    Surestart provides services which significiantly help parents and toddlers, however, the Coalition has decided that people don't need this and are shutting the majority of them, again hitting the working class. Might as well include public libaries here as well.

    Banking might be important however it caused the largest part of the economic crisis and they have the cheek to reward themselves with huge bonuses. Can't you understand why people are angry when they're losing their occupations?

    Oh, and you do realise that the Heath is regarded as the 'best Tory PM the working class ever had' (I did a dissertation on him, I heard it numerous times). He hardly dealt with the economy - it was in ruin with him.

    The forests aren't privatised actually, someone below me commented on it. They u-turned when they realised the public was totally against their favourite policy.


    Candyflipper. I'd hardly say that socialism was at its peak in those dates. I'd start from the point of nationalisation in the 50's to 79 when Thatcher got in. Oh, and your statement about socialism leading to facism is ridiculous. Does that mean that the Conservatives are racists and homophobes (see the Rivers of Blood speech and Section 28). Very hypothetical, and I doubt the Torys are ALL racist. It's on the same theory as you though.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Ignore the angry face as well. Apologies
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    No tulley11, it's mostly Labour run councils with 10s of millions of pounds in their reserves that are shutting children centres such as manchester council who have £130 million in their reserves and Lambeth who are increasing their reserves by £10 million whilst at the same time shutting children centres and Libraries.

    As for private companies running NHS services you seem ignorant of the fact that they already do run NHS services under reforms bought by Labour and you seem equally ignorant that under the proposals in Labours manifesto they wanted to increase the number of NHS services run by the private sector just like the coalition.

    Also, if GP commission is such a bad idea why did Labour set up a pilot for it in 2007 in Cumbria that is still going on till this day?

    I suggest you actually read what's in Labours manifesto.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Captain Crash)
    Depends on your definition of 'more people' though doesn't it?



    The idea that Thatcher increased the wealth of rich and poor is a myth - she only increased the wealth for wealthier
    Also bear in mind that that graph shows household income. It covers a period in which ever increasing numbers of (often married or cohabiting) women were entering the workplace every year, thereby adding to household income but masking the stagnation of real wages per person.

    @leetay. Stop it. Being anti-Tory doesn't necessarily mean you're pro-Labour; trying to undermine tulley's criticisms of the Conservatives by pointing to the flaws of NL doesn't help a thing.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CandyFlipper)
    Your brand of socialism is dead and buried, welcome to the 21st Century. Even Labour are pro-markets and would have cut public spending now. Socialists had their moment of glory 1900-1970's and it led to fascism in many countries and to economic ruin in the countries that maintained democracy.
    :lolwut:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CandyFlipper)
    Your brand of socialism is dead and buried, welcome to the 21st Century. Even Labour are pro-markets and would have cut public spending now. Socialists had their moment of glory 1900-1970's and it led to fascism in many countries and to economic ruin in the countries that maintained democracy.
    Lol. In what glory was that period for socialism?
    The 3 main "socialist" revolutions I acknowledge in that period (from respective ideologies Left Communism, Anarcho-Syndicalism and Leninism) were all failures : The 2 most favourable, the Spartacists in Germany and the CNT-FAI in Spain lost through force yet the most famous Bolshevik one in 1917 which unfortunately due to excess authoritarianism, Russia's premature stage in the dialectic and the actions of a power hungry tyrant, created the mirror image of an ideal socialist society (state-capitalism) and set a precedent for most of the following so called socialist states. So in someways you are correct to link socialism to fascism as thats essentially what 20th century "communism" (despite some minor boons in anti-imperialism, women's rights, health and education) was, but to use that to discredit socialism as an ideal is grotesquely unfair, "Road to Serfdom" is one the most retarded works I have ever looked at. Also linking the democratic/moderate left to proper fascism like in "Liberal Fascism" is equally special.
    Real socialism never really got off its feet other than the post-war Labour government and occasional democratic socialist reforms in other European countries. That shows success of the Labour movement in standing up for working people, if you free market fundies had your way working people would still be much worse off.
    I also find your premise socialism is dead fallacious, socialism now is as alive as ever.
    Look towards Venezuela and several other Latin American countries with recently elected socialist presidents.
    Look at the massive resistance the austerity measures are facing across the European trade union movement.
    Do people really want to live a world where so much is owned by so by such a tiny percentage?
    Surely there is a better more fair and democratic way to run economy which puts people before profit.
    Oh yeah and even if Nu Labour and Con Dem say pretty much the same thing on the economy, it just goes to show how bull**** the mainstream post-Thatcher political landscape is.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joe3469)
    It just annoys me to the core. Why should workers face hard times because of the bankers mistakes? We effectively nationalise the losses and privatise the profits, it is a completely unethical system.
    The government is expected to make a profit when it sells its stake in the banks.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joe3469)
    Do people really want to live a world where so much is owned by so by such a tiny percentage?
    Surely there is a better more fair and democratic way to run economy which puts people before profit.
    Oh yeah and even if Nu Labour and Con Dem say pretty much the same thing on the economy, it just goes to show how bull**** the mainstream post-Thatcher political landscape is.
    I fail to see how restricting peoples individual freedoms re setting up businesses and doing business in a free market is going to help the working man. After all the working man can set up his own business. It is not exactly hard and you certainly don't need to be a genius.

    The problem is most people are unwilling to put the time and effort in that is required to run a business so rather than accepting that they don't deserve the money that those that do get they whinge and whine about it not being fair.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joe3469)
    So in someways you are correct to link socialism to fascism as thats essentially what 20th century "communism".
    Sorry I have to stop you there.

    Socialism is the result of the more scientific rationalistic philosophy that began with the likes of Mills and Hume. The thoughts of Marx were a natural progression from these initially classically liberal thought.

    In contrast, fascism was born out the very different romantic philosophies of Byron, Nietzsche and Rousseau. This very different branch of philosophy led to the development of nationalism and fascism.

    Socialism and fascism are historically and philosophically very different entities and they occurred completely independently of each other. Don't like libertarians or pro-capitalists make you believe otherwise.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cromulent)
    I fail to see how restricting peoples individual freedoms re setting up businesses and doing business in a free market is going to help the working man. After all the working man can set up his own business. It is not exactly hard and you certainly don't need to be a genius.
    It's not as simple as that. Setting up a business requires significant capital to start off with. If your business fails (as many do) losing this is more of a problem to the working man than a wealthy man.

    So, not only are the barriers to entry high for a working man, but the stakes are higher for setting up a business.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Captain Crash)
    It's not as simple as that. Setting up a business requires significant capital to start off with.
    Depends entirely on the business. Mine did not and I can tell you I am not a rich man.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by leetay)
    No tulley11, it's mostly Labour run councils with 10s of millions of pounds in their reserves that are shutting children centres such as manchester council who have £130 million in their reserves and Lambeth who are increasing their reserves by £10 million whilst at the same time shutting children centres and Libraries.

    As for private companies running NHS services you seem ignorant of the fact that they already do run NHS services under reforms bought by Labour and you seem equally ignorant that under the proposals in Labours manifesto they wanted to increase the number of NHS services run by the private sector just like the coalition.

    Also, if GP commission is such a bad idea why did Labour set up a pilot for it in 2007 in Cumbria that is still going on till this day?

    I suggest you actually read what's in Labours manifesto.
    It's also the Labour run councils (or, the ones in the North) which are getting the biggest hits in their funding, whilst the ones in the South such as Buckinghamshire are getting less than half of the cuts than Barnsley is getting.

    I am not ignorant of those facts, Labour brought private companies in, correct, HOWEVER they did not bring in reforms which will effectively bring in privatisation of the NHS. The NHS isn't there to be profit run, it's there to save lives.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you think parents should charge rent?
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.