Sir_Crocodile
Member
I've seen no-one new on either the labour or tory benches who was much good.
she's terrible though. should not be in the shadow cabinet.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
UK PoliGAF thread of tell me about the rabbits again, Dave.
- Thread starter Chinner
- Start date
I've seen no-one new on either the labour or tory benches who was much good.
she's terrible though. should not be in the shadow cabinet.
Uhm, he lives in Europe. That would be the case even if the UK wasn't in the EU.
Ironically?
Jezbollah
Member
WayneMorse
Banned
You would like her, ideologically she's farther right than most of the Tory frontbench.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
You do realise that Dan Hodges is like, the definition of a shit-stirrer, yes? Guy hates the fact that his man lost, and now cries bitter salty tears onto the pages of the Telegraph on a regular basis. I'd trust his commentary on the Labour Party about as much as I trust Putin to give me an accurate reflection on the situation in eastern Ukraine.
I don't see anything wrong with this.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28729098
It''s UKIP commenting on copying the Adolf Hitler speaking style, which was powerful and provocative to listeners. It's not about the content. I can understand the 'political correctness' connotations with this. Perhaps they could have used less politically sensitive speakers to give an example, but it simply isn't wrong. Such subjects seem to only have a correct 'unmoral' stance on this, especially in the political circle. This kind of debate gets us nowhere.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28729098
It''s UKIP commenting on copying the Adolf Hitler speaking style, which was powerful and provocative to listeners. It's not about the content. I can understand the 'political correctness' connotations with this. Perhaps they could have used less politically sensitive speakers to give an example, but it simply isn't wrong. Such subjects seem to only have a correct 'unmoral' stance on this, especially in the political circle. This kind of debate gets us nowhere.
dapperbandit
Banned
The thing is, while there's nothing morally wrong with describing Hitler as a brilliant orator, the fact is that style of presentation is gone from western politics. I mean, nowadays politicians point with their thumb not their finger so they don't come across as rude or aggressive...wildly gesticulating, clenched and banging fists, that whole "murmur to roar" style of speaking is very unfashionable these days. So actually, regardless of how murky your political leanings are, copying Hitler's public speaking stlye probably isn't a great idea. People would think you'd gone mad if you imitated Hitler's body language at a press event these days.
But yes, what Zaph said. You don't need to be handing out ammuntion to your opponents like that.
But yes, what Zaph said. You don't need to be handing out ammuntion to your opponents like that.
QuicheFontaine
Member
Saw this in the Scottish Independence thread but didn't want to derail.
I heard on the radio this morning that there might be plans in the pipeline to charge people at the point of use for patients whose treatments needs are alcohol-related (by this, I think they meant people binge-drinking and ending up in hospital on a Friday night rather than liver disease etc.). What does UK poliGAF think of that idea?
Personally, I'm pretty concerned about it. The charge they were talking about was low - merely a token to disincentivise irresponsible behaviour. But I'm not sure I want the NHS to start making judgements over what constitutes irresponsible behaviour.
I mean, the argument might be that these people are putting an extra strain on the NHS and so should pay more money. But isn't that the same argument made against smokers? And in that situation we used the argument to tax the hell out of cigarettes. Alcohol is already heavily taxed, so aren't these people already chipping in extra?
I dunno, rambling thoughts on a Monday morning. I'm sure you all have more cogent views.
I heard on the radio this morning that there might be plans in the pipeline to charge people at the point of use for patients whose treatments needs are alcohol-related (by this, I think they meant people binge-drinking and ending up in hospital on a Friday night rather than liver disease etc.). What does UK poliGAF think of that idea?
Personally, I'm pretty concerned about it. The charge they were talking about was low - merely a token to disincentivise irresponsible behaviour. But I'm not sure I want the NHS to start making judgements over what constitutes irresponsible behaviour.
I mean, the argument might be that these people are putting an extra strain on the NHS and so should pay more money. But isn't that the same argument made against smokers? And in that situation we used the argument to tax the hell out of cigarettes. Alcohol is already heavily taxed, so aren't these people already chipping in extra?
I dunno, rambling thoughts on a Monday morning. I'm sure you all have more cogent views.
CyclopsRock
Member
I agree, I think it's bullshit. Universal should be universal. I don't want to have to pay a bunch of tax and then have to live my life according to some fucking busybody's desires if I actually want to receive the healthcare I've been forced to pay for. If they want to go that route I'd rather they just privatised the lot and allow people - like home insurance - to get their own care with discounts for those who decide to live in the voided world of no fun.
If the purpose behind universal healthcare is that people's ability to get help shouldn't be dependent on their income, then I don't see how these sorts of charges, no matter how seemingly sensible, can possibly go hand in hand with that. What happens if people refuse to pay? Or if they can't pay? I mean from a philosophical point of view, not a practical one. If you choose to live a virtuous, body-as-a-temple life of drudging greyness, your reward is an extended stint of shitting yourself in a depressing, two-story asylum run by lovely Polish people feeding you gruel through your colostomy bag whilst you struggle to remember your dead wife's name and the faces of your children. Don't take my easy escape away from me, NHS.
If the purpose behind universal healthcare is that people's ability to get help shouldn't be dependent on their income, then I don't see how these sorts of charges, no matter how seemingly sensible, can possibly go hand in hand with that. What happens if people refuse to pay? Or if they can't pay? I mean from a philosophical point of view, not a practical one. If you choose to live a virtuous, body-as-a-temple life of drudging greyness, your reward is an extended stint of shitting yourself in a depressing, two-story asylum run by lovely Polish people feeding you gruel through your colostomy bag whilst you struggle to remember your dead wife's name and the faces of your children. Don't take my easy escape away from me, NHS.
StealthGoblin
Banned
Personally I'd put a tax on foods with high-saturated fats, more tax on alcohol and more tax on cigarettes and directly give that tax money to the NHS. That way the NHS could divert more of its funds to paying Nurses more, helping to fund research or building more specialist units. It'll make food companies create healthier foods that are cheaper in price as their profits will take a dive if they continue to make unhealthy food.
Keep the NHS free at the point of use, but we do need to target the causes of problems more.
Other things I'd do, don't give money for jobseekers allowance, child allowance etc. Give it out as vouchers/coupons that will be used for the essentials. I'm a primary school teacher and the parents of our children are by and large poor, unemployed with high numbers of children. The children's uniforms are all tatty, their diets are poor and they don't support them at home. Yet they've got mobile phones, playstations, 3D TVs etc when we do home visits.
broadwayrock
Member
Nicktendo86
Member
Couldn't agree more on this point, I'm sure there is a better way we can handle benefits than just dumping money onto someone's account for them to spend on what they like. Would also like housing benefit be paid directly to landlords.
CyclopsRock
Member
They already pay about 3x more in alcohol duty than they cost the NHS, though. That might be a lot, but they're already paying for it.
QuicheFontaine
Member
I think that's my niggle: it's a behavioural incentive couched in an economic justification (that, as you say, doesn't really add up anyway!).
If the govt wants to say "We're charging you for getting drunk and tripping down some steps, because you're an irresponsible idiot and it's your fault", then just come out and say it. The obvious reason they aren't doing that is because people probably wouldn't support that as much as some vague "They're costing you money"-type message.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Different groups, though. I've think I've been drunk an entirety of twice in my life, simply because I find it the most unenjoyable sensation in the world - I can't understand why anyone would willingly put themselves in less control of their body. On the other hand, I enjoy a good cider or a beer or white wine (fuck red) as much as the next person. I still pay alcohol duty, however, just by virtue of purchasing alcoholic drinks, despite the fact my drinking of alcohol in no way contributes to NHS costs, and probably reduces them as I slightly reduce my risk of a heart attack or stress-related stroke. Charging people who end up in A&E for alcohol-related issues is a much more direct link between abuse of alcohol and the costs of that abuse than alcohol duty is, if the latter got cut and the former increased, I wouldn't mind on a purely philosophical level provided that the former took into account ability to pay, etc. My main concern is not that it's unfair, but rather it'll have really worrying repercussions: if you're poor and sustain an alcohol-related injury, you become more likely to just not seek medical attention at the point you get a £100 fine.
QuicheFontaine
Member
Uhh, we've got a big problem with binge-drinking in this country, and your solution is to make alcohol cheaper?
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Uh, no. Re-read what I said. Alcohol duty isn't a tax on binge-drinkers specifically, it's a tax on alcohol drinkers regardless. If you were to put a fine on alcohol-related A&E incidents, you'd actually be targeting binge-drinking much more effectively than the status quo. In other words, making alcohol cheaper than the status quo isn't a problem if you can make binge-drinking more expensive than the status quo. I still wouldn't do it, for the other reason I've listed in my previous post, I just think that alcohol duty is not at all effective in combating binge-drinking, and is really just a massive money-maker for the government.
QuicheFontaine
Member
I read what you said, specifically:
That's just a terrible suggestion. You may well be "targetting" them more effectively with a specific charge on alcohol-related A&E incidents, in the sense that there will be a greater correlation between people paying for the treatments and those receiving them. However, do you really think people will think of it as "binge-drinking being more expensive"? I'd say no, no-one factors in the cost of going to A&E before or during a night out because no-one thinks they're actually going to end up there. Make alcohol cheaper, people will drink more.
CyclopsRock
Member
But it's like car drivers and pollution, right? Cyclists don't contribute any pollution and they don't pay any fuel duty. Land Rovers produce a lot and they pay a lot of fuel duty. Prius drivers produce a lot of less polution and they pay a lot less fuel duty by dint of the fact that they don't need to buy as much petrol to go the same distance. You pay alcohol duty, yeah, but no where near as much as the guys that end up in A&E, because they're not enjoying the odd cider or glass of Chateux-neuf, they've buying 8 jager bombs and 7 pints of piss. The comparisons breaks down, I admit, because the Prius driver does still produce externalities in proportion to it's fuel use (And therefore payment of duty) where as you don't (probably - maybe you Hulk out after 2 bottles of Westons and kick in a bus stop) and yet still pay the relatively less alcohol duty, but hey ho.
It's also, philosophically I think, not really any different to charging people for the police time they take up - but it makes no sense to limit that to alcohol. After all, the implication is that everything that's illegal is both harmful and costly (for the prosecution if nothing else), so why not charge everyone? Alcohol related crimes such as the aforementioned bus-stop-smashing is easily more justifiable to me than someone going to the hospital (because of the greater externalities) because they had one too many WKDs, but what about if they punch someone? What if they are on drugs rather than alcohol? And what if they aren't? Afterall, you said "Charging people who end up in A&E for alcohol-related issues is a much more direct link between abuse of alcohol and the costs of that abuse", so clearly you think that making this link is a good thing. This probably sounds a bit hostile which it isn't meant to be, I'm genuinely curious as to where you'd draw the line and why.
There's no scientific consensus on saturated fat being bad for you.
As for the rest of your 'How dare the poor have indoor toilets?', can't say I really agree.
I can't see a alcohol-related A&E fee system working. By the time it's actually implemented, you still have the concern of who's actually going to 'judge' each case and what the appeal process is like (e.g. if you've had a few drinks and you're walking home, should you pay if someone else picks a fight with you? What if you're tipsy at home and you cut yourself with a broken glass? Fine deserved?). How do you then enforce the fine? I'm going generalise and say most alcohol related A&E use comes from the lower and working class - you're going to struggle to get any money from them freely. Then what? Bar them from using the NHS until it's payed? Take them to court and overburden the justice system even more? Garnish wages/benefits? Even if the system works perfectly, what about knock-on effects like people being stupid and treating their injury at home until the alcohol leaves their system? You'll end up with sober people coming into A&E 12 hours later and requiring more treatment thanks to infection etc.
I can't imagine a system like this resulting in a net gain for the NHS. Working in A&E must be stressful enough as it is, do we really want to split their focus on healing and reporting people for suspected alcohol related injuries?
I can't imagine a system like this resulting in a net gain for the NHS. Working in A&E must be stressful enough as it is, do we really want to split their focus on healing and reporting people for suspected alcohol related injuries?
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
I mean, this is true to a point, but not quite. Regardless of the amount you use, more petrols is bad. If I use 20 litres of petrol spread out as 1 litre per day for 20 days, that's equally as bad as if I use 20 litres all in one day, then do no driving at all for the next 19 days. However, if I have 14 units alcohol in a week spread out as 2 units per day for that week, that's far, far less harmful than having 14 units of alcohol in one day and none for the next 6 (probably because I'd be catatonic). In that sense, alcohol is not directly comparable to petrol, because it's not inherently bad, it's bad only in excess.
Zaph's response is basically how I'd have responded to this. My post earlier wasn't saying "this is a great idea, let's do it!", it was simply a response to "people already pay alcohol duty, so this is unfair". My view is that alcohol duty has no discernible impact on drinking, and this is born out by various studies in the past that show little to no correlation between duty increases and binge-drinking decreases - so people aren't paying alcohol duty because of binge-drinking, they're paying it because the government wants money. Purely from a "people should be held accountable" perspective, the fine is fairer than the duty in that it targets people abusing alcohol more accurately than the duty does.
However, that's purely philosophical, and it's just a shit idea practically, because it discourages people from seeking medical attention, creates an expensive appeals process, probably is statistically likely to punish the poorest, puts an extra burden on NHS staff, and all sorts of other practical implications. I feel the same way about it as I do means-tested winter fuel allowance - philosophically, I think it's absolutely wrong that we give the already wealthy even more, but then the costs of adjudicating borderline cases and the implications for people who accidentally get missed are just too big. It's not practical to carry out the principle.
CyclopsRock
Member
Since we all seem to be on the same page re: practicality, I thought I'd pick up on this: Held accountable for what? We've established that, whether it stops binge drinking or not (And I'd agree that it doesn't) it does bring in a lot of money, and moreso than the cost to the NHS, what exactly is there to be accountable for? Being naughty boys and girls? Unlike the police examples where there may be externalities not covered by alcohol duty (especially if the person in question isn't caught), in this situation there are only two things that get damaged: The person themselves, and the NHS funds, which the person is already paying back and then some. So, yeah - what is there to be held accountable for?
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
The NHS funds. But what I'm saying is that at the moment, you don't pay the NHS funds because you are causing the damage. The link between binge-drinking and paying more NHS funds is not particularly strong - see my first example about two people who over a week consume an equal amount of alcohol, but one is perfectly fine and the other would be in need of immediate hospital treatment. So, accountability here is being held accountable for how much you cost the NHS, and people currently are not held accountable, they're just charged regardless on the basis of a weak correlation.
Hasn't this been a huge failure in America? Bad parents are not going to become good parents because of a voucher system.
I'm an advocate of the Guaranteed Income system, so this just doesn't sit right with me.
CyclopsRock
Member
That's all very fair enough! You've convinced me. We're still stuck, however, without a fair solution.
Fuck it, let's privatise the NHS. That'll make people accountable!
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Uh... so, a small minority of health-problems are ones for which you can consider people accountable, like binge-drinking and to a lesser extent obesity, but the vast majority are simply acts of God insofar as that you can't help catching a flu or breaking a bone or being born with a genetic disease or suffering from Alzheimer's. They're a burden that must be shared. Nice false equation, though.
CyclopsRock
Member
Hahaha, I wasn't making a false equation. I was actually being serious - you have convinced me and there isn't a practical solution. And I was joking re: privatising the NHS, though not that it would be a solution to accountability - but, rather, that highlights why there's no practical solution to accountability in a universal healthcare system.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Apologies, I didn't pick up the humour and got somewhat snappy. I blame the ISIS threads - finding it difficult to separate joke-y bad arguments and bad serious arguments after that.
Nicktendo86
Member
Its not just about making parents better, its about stopping people from profiting from the welfare state. I can't buy sky TV as I can't afford it and work fucking hard yet my wife's aunt has never worked a day in her life and pays for sky from her benefits, how is that right?
It's wrong that you can't afford it, not that she can.
StealthGoblin
Banned
What a ridiculous dismissal.
If you cannot afford luxuries. you should not buy them. The benefits system is there to help people get by in times of need. I fail to see how 'poor' people require 3D TVs, games consoles, expensive food and expensive clothes.
Remember, some of these people are not the first generation of benefit entitled people in their family and they have no reason to want to attempt to come off of those benefits if they are getting everything they want.
Here is an interesting anecdote, in my class last year 59% of the children were on free school meals. 10 out of the 30 had either an Xbox One or a PS4 on launch day. I saw three of them given their consoles at the end of the day when I let them home from school. One girl who has been on free school meals since reception went on a 2 week holiday to Disneyland Florida.
Good parenting guys.
All i'm saying is that we need to find a way to make sure that people are spending their benefit credits effectively or on things that are essential.
Its not a 'jobseekers so buy luxury items' allowance. In addition, child allowance should be spent on the children.
You know, I came from one of those backgrounds where we had fuck all. The difference is my mother used the money wisely. I've now got two degrees and am in a good job. I'll be forever thankful to her for that.
So if the voucher system is off the table, what do people propose as a way to make people spend their benefits wisely?
WayneMorse
Banned
I don't know how people could believe Dave in 2010 when he said he was firmly committed to protecting the NHS. A core tenet of Thatcherism is to move the NHS into a more American style system and eventually the end of universal healthcare in Britain.
CyclopsRock
Member
I dunno how to tell you this Wayne, but Thatcher hasn't been leader of the Tories for about 25 years now. She also didn't do too much privatising for someone with a large majority and lengthy tenure!
WayneMorse
Banned
You don't think Dave or Blair follow Thatcher's political ideology?
CyclopsRock
Member
I think the centre ground shifted in the 80s and they're products of that, but Thatherism was basically "done" by 1997 - if Thatcherism was all about privatisation of the NHS, they havent done a very good job if they've collectively had the 32 years between 1979 and now (minus a few for Brown) to do it. Thatcher had a zeal and desire to give power to individuals and private companies and it's this that drove her privatisations. I don't think either Blair or Cam have that.
Nicktendo86
Member
Didn't she even turn away at the thought of privatising royal mail?
I understand the political ammunition given to other parties, I just wish nonsensical points like this were not picked up to cause debates about MP's resigning.
JesseEwiak
Member
First of all, ignoring the fact you could afford a PS4 by saving $10 a week for a year...
So, what should be the limit for toys for kids? $10 a year? $20? What if I find something in the 50% off bin? Do I go by the original price since nobody will know better or am I allowed to use the discounted price?
anonymous_abc
Member
Nicktendo86
Member
Unemployment down AGAIN today, big drops. Wages still being squeezed though.
£0, we should punish all kids if their parents need benefits.
Nicktendo86
Member
Ipsi mori poll has Tories and labour neck and neck on 33 points today.
CyclopsRock
Member
Interesting fact: UKIP raised more money in the last quarter than the Lib Dems. And the Tories raised more than everyone else put together, natch.
Nicktendo86
Member
Ukip got the biggest individual donation as well.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
I'm totally in line with the sympathies behind this, but I think your logic is dead wrong.
Why, for example, would the NHS divert these funds to paying nurses more? There's a ready supply of nurses already. And why again would food companies change their recipes to something that their customers don't want to buy? What would happen is that fried breakfasts get more expensive, but probably not less frequent.
That's a lot of peer pressure there. And child pressure. And very often they don't even know that these "luxuries" are not the norm - because they *are* the norm.
Part of it (but only part of it) is that these "'poor' people" spend much more time at home than we do, and probably have more need for the things that make home more entertaining - or educational or whatever. If anything I'd be inclined to push much more educational rather than populist programming on the BBC rather than deny people the means of access to it.
I think you need to be careful about what you consider luxury items. Some of this stuff is more-or-less essential to modern-day living (I can avoid it being a sort of stick-in-the-mud oldie, but mostly it is all to the good).
Look, like you I am a bit alarmed sometimes at what some people on benefits can buy that other people not on benefits can't. But on the other hand, who is in charge here? For sure, there are some bad parents (and there are among the upper and middle classes as well as in the underclass) but there are good ones as well, and I have an awful feeling that if the State intervenes too much in what you can and cannot do it will get things wrong at least as much and possibly more than it would by staying well out of things.
I see your concerns, but I don't think you have the right answer (not that necessarily there *is* a right answer).
Nicktendo86
Member
So the eurozone is still in the toilet, really dire figures this morning.
http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/business-28783850BBC said:
Nicktendo86
Member
God it's dead in here, summer recess be damed!
Yougove have the tories/labour neck and neck as well today, 35% each. At this stage Labour really should have what, consistant 7% leads if they hope to win in May?
Yougove have the tories/labour neck and neck as well today, 35% each. At this stage Labour really should have what, consistant 7% leads if they hope to win in May?
CyclopsRock
Member
Again I think the most interesting thing is that the polls - even when they have one or the other party in the lead - are more and more showing that Tory and Labour are, cumulatively, scoring pretty high. Yougov has them both on 35 but in 2010 they got 35% (T) and 29% (L). And lib dems, somewhat hilariously it seems now, got 23%. I think this is actually troubling for the Tories because I think they were hoping that as UKIP's vote falls away a bit, they'd see the gains, but tbh they haven't really moved forwards much in the last, what, 4 or 5 months? Yet UKIP's has been slowly going down.
Ultimately though, I guess it comes down - as always - to the marginals. UKIP's vote doesn't have to be huge for them to cost Tory's seats in the marginals. Whilst this is pretty crap polling for Labour, the boundaries and threat of UKIP mean they can basically coast in on the Tories failures rather than their own successes.
Ultimately though, I guess it comes down - as always - to the marginals. UKIP's vote doesn't have to be huge for them to cost Tory's seats in the marginals. Whilst this is pretty crap polling for Labour, the boundaries and threat of UKIP mean they can basically coast in on the Tories failures rather than their own successes.