The Politics Thread

[BWFC_Insane]

5) General societal pressures and changes. Go to 1955. You take your sick 3 year old to the doctor. They brush you off and tell you they just need fluids and rest.

A lot of folk who were actually around in 1955 might take issue with that wild (and totally incorrect) statement.

Its hypothetical. I'm not saying doctors as a rule did that in 1955. You're missing the point. I'm saying they had less pressure on mistakes. "Matter of fact" healthcare was more practical then than now. You could have a leaner service for many reasons, but partly because the expectation was very different. Also partly (and my point) because the consequences generally were lower.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

5) General societal pressures and changes. Go to 1955. You take your sick 3 year old to the doctor. They brush you off and tell you they just need fluids and rest.

A lot of folk who were actually around in 1955 might take issue with that wild (and totally incorrect) statement.

Its hypothetical. I'm not saying doctors as a rule did that in 1955. You're missing the point. I'm saying they had less pressure on mistakes. "Matter of fact" healthcare was more practical then than now. You could have a leaner service for many reasons, but partly because the expectation was very different. Also partly (and my point) because the consequences generally were lower.

So, I can see thick skulled, any old I reckon bullshit, isn't that anathema to you either then.

[BWFC_Insane]

5) General societal pressures and changes. Go to 1955. You take your sick 3 year old to the doctor. They brush you off and tell you they just need fluids and rest.

A lot of folk who were actually around in 1955 might take issue with that wild (and totally incorrect) statement.

Its hypothetical. I'm not saying doctors as a rule did that in 1955. You're missing the point. I'm saying they had less pressure on mistakes. "Matter of fact" healthcare was more practical then than now. You could have a leaner service for many reasons, but partly because the expectation was very different. Also partly (and my point) because the consequences generally were lower.

So, I can see thick skulled, any old I reckon bullshit, isn't that anathema to you either then.

Perhaps before we can discuss that, you can show me the source for your quotes you previously posted?

[TANGODANCER]

5) General societal pressures and changes. Go to 1955. You take your sick 3 year old to the doctor. They brush you off and tell you they just need fluids and rest.

A lot of folk who were actually around in 1955 might take issue with that wild (and totally incorrect) statement.

Its hypothetical. I'm not saying doctors as a rule did that in 1955. You're missing the point. I'm saying they had less pressure on mistakes. "Matter of fact" healthcare was more practical then than now. You could have a leaner service for many reasons, but partly because the expectation was very different. Also partly (and my point) because the consequences generally were lower.

"They had less pressure on mistakes? I'm not quite sure how to answer that in the national term, but locally; maybe because in 1955 (I was 16) Bolton Royal Infirmary and Townleys were both in full spate and you never had more than a ten minute walk to a doctors or dentists (and you didn't ring for appointments because few folk had phones and public boxes were used for genuine emergencies of fire, police and ambulance services. You just turned up and got attended to. Of course, privatisation hadn't really become vogue back then and immigration was restricted to a small percentage of West Indian arrivals. ...Oh, just as an aside, the second World War had only ended ten years previously, that might be a consideration.

My point, is that comparisons are impossible, pointless and have no bearing whatsoever, because nothing is the same. 1955 was/is going on for sixty years ago. Were you even born?

[BWFC_Insane]

5) General societal pressures and changes. Go to 1955. You take your sick 3 year old to the doctor. They brush you off and tell you they just need fluids and rest.

A lot of folk who were actually around in 1955 might take issue with that wild (and totally incorrect) statement.

Its hypothetical. I'm not saying doctors as a rule did that in 1955. You're missing the point. I'm saying they had less pressure on mistakes. "Matter of fact" healthcare was more practical then than now. You could have a leaner service for many reasons, but partly because the expectation was very different. Also partly (and my point) because the consequences generally were lower.

"They had less pressure on mistakes? I'm not quite sure how to answer that in the national term, but locally; maybe because in 1955 (I was 16) Bolton Royal Infirmary and Townleys were both in full spate and you never had more than a ten minute walk to a doctors or dentists (and you didn't ring for appointments because few folk had phones and public boxes were used for genuine emergencies of fire, police and ambulance services. You just turned up and got attended to. Of course, privatisation hadn't really become vogue back then and immigration was restricted to a small percentage of West Indian arrivals. ...Oh, just as an aside, the second World War had only ended ten years previously, that might be a consideration.

My point, is that comparisons are impossible, pointless and have no bearing whatsoever, because nothing is the same. 1955 was/is going on for sixty years ago. Were you even born?

You keep missing the point. Its a fact that pressure on doctors and nurses has risen over the years. I realise choosing an arbitrary year in the 1950's has riled you. Though I think you're sort of missing the point. Nowadays if something goes wrong there is a full blown inquiry, press coverage, massive fall out. It means that there is a lot of effort and resource and money poured into trying to manage and mitigate against things going wrong or mistakes being made.

In the past, that burden was reduced. That doesn't mean it was worse. You can argue it both ways. But the amount of money poured into risk management and mitigation. How many hospitals in 1955 for example, do you think squirreled away money to cover litigation costs?

[Hoboh]

Might as well just admit you are wrong Tango, don't forget anything that does not fit with our resident Karl and his Marxist mates are unclean thoughts and should be purged, usually via bricks or mouthy social media blitz.
Same mob moan about pressure yet cannot compute more=greater.
Viva la republic Corbynista del dumpe.

[TANGODANCER]

Might as well just admit you are wrong Tango, don't forget anything that does not fit with our resident Karl and his Marxist mates are unclean thoughts and should be purged, usually via bricks or mouthy social media blitz.
Same mob moan about pressure yet cannot compute more=greater.
Viva la republic Corbynista del dumpe.

You're probably right Hoboh. I was going to ask him what happened to the word "accident" sometime between 1955 and now, ( you know, all those daft things our parents said to us like "watch where you are going, pick your feet up, be careful etc, etc) that lost its meaning in favour of a whole new industry of blame and compensation fat-cat lawyers who are capable of blaming
the weather forecasters if it rains.........but I won't bother. Pointless...

[BWFC_Insane]

Might as well just admit you are wrong Tango, don't forget anything that does not fit with our resident Karl and his Marxist mates are unclean thoughts and should be purged, usually via bricks or mouthy social media blitz.
Same mob moan about pressure yet cannot compute more=greater.
Viva la republic Corbynista del dumpe.

You're probably right Hoboh. I was going to ask him what happened to the word "accident" sometime between 1955 and now, ( you know, all those daft things our parents said to us like "watch where you are going, pick your feet up, be careful etc, etc) that lost its meaning in favour of a whole new industry of blame and compensation fat-cat lawyers who are capable of blaming
the weather forecasters if it rains.........but I won't bother. Pointless...

Do you even understand the point I'm making? Because you're more or less making it there yourself.....the health service in general has to use money defending itself for "mistakes" or "accidents" or "negligence" that it never did in the past.

[TANGODANCER]

Do you even understand the point I'm making? Because you're more or less making it there yourself.....the health service in general has to use money defending itself for "mistakes" or "accidents" or "negligence" that it never did in the past.

How many times do you feel it necessary to insult intelligence with daft questions? The point "I" was making was why try to go back sixty years for comparisons to today, why indeed go back at all? We can all read, we all live here and know exactly what's going on in the world. If you want relevance, try asking "why"? this situation is as it is. Whichever way you stir the pot a £ sign always floats to the top. That's nothing to do with eras, just more and more hands in the treasure chest grabbing the lucre as more important than all else. That's a fact that can't be denied even if you went back as far as Methusalah.

[BWFC_Insane]

Do you even understand the point I'm making? Because you're more or less making it there yourself.....the health service in general has to use money defending itself for "mistakes" or "accidents" or "negligence" that it never did in the past.

How many times do you feel it necessary to insult intelligence with daft questions? The point "I" was making was why try to go back sixty years for comparisons to today, why indeed go back at all? We can all read, we all live here and know exactly what's going on in the world. If you want relevance, try asking "why"? this situation is as it is. Whichever way you stir the pot a £ sign always floats to the top. That's nothing to do with eras, just more and more hands in the treasure chest grabbing the lucre as more important than all else. That's a fact that can't be denied even if you went back as far as Methusalah.

To understand reasons for increasing demand you have to look back to see what is different.

You're actually agreeing with me. So why are you getting so upset? We're making the same point. I think you just see me write 1950's...and instantly jump in without actually considering what I'm saying.

I'm saying that when the NHS was established and through its first 3 decades of existence nobody could have forseen the need in the future for tens of millions of pounds to be reserved annually for compensation and legal defence. It wasn't envisaged. Not saying thats a good or a bad thing. Just the reality of where we are versus where we used to be.

[TANGODANCER]

^^
I surrender..

[Montreal Wanderer]

^^
I surrender..

Bur....But....But.... our doctor made house calls in 1955 (we had a phone!). Mind you the milkman, baker, etc. all came round as well.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

^^
I surrender..

Bur....But....But.... our doctor made house calls in 1955 (we had a phone!). Mind you the milkman, baker, etc. all came round as well.

You were fxcking posh then! I've got a 1964 yellow phone book for Stockport, Buxton, and Macclesfield. It's about twenty pages thick.
My dad worked as an ambulance driver at the time (hence why I've still got the phone book - he retained it as a keepsake to remind him of his privileged occupation) and through his job was issued with a telephone. His number was three digits long.

[Montreal Wanderer]

^^
I surrender..

Bur....But....But.... our doctor made house calls in 1955 (we had a phone!). Mind you the milkman, baker, etc. all came round as well.

You were fxcking posh then! I've got a 1964 yellow phone book for Stockport, Buxton, and Macclesfield. It's about twenty pages thick.
My dad worked as an ambulance driver at the time (hence why I've still got the phone book - he retained it as a keepsake to remind him of his privileged occupation) and through his job was issued with a telephone. His number was three digits long.

I suppose we were posh by some standards - alas, times have changed. Our phone number was Bolton 3357 (which was how you answered it) and had no dial.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Gerry Adams & Jerry Corbyn. One endorses the other. Nice. Goes to show wankers flock together.

[BWFC_Insane]

Gerry Adams & Jerry Corbyn. One endorses the other. Nice. Goes to show wankers flock together.

Fascinated to know. Were there a GE tomorrow, who would you vote for?

[boltonboris]

Gerry Adams & Jerry Corbyn. One endorses the other. Nice. Goes to show wankers flock together.

Fascinated to know. Were there a GE tomorrow, who would you vote for?

I'd dip my balls in pigs blood and teabag the ballot slip - What a clusterfuck we've got with politicians at the moment. Absolutely nobody to get behind

[BWFC_Insane]

Gerry Adams & Jerry Corbyn. One endorses the other. Nice. Goes to show wankers flock together.

Fascinated to know. Were there a GE tomorrow, who would you vote for?

I'd dip my balls in pigs blood and teabag the ballot slip - What a clusterfuck we've got with politicians at the moment. Absolutely nobody to get behind

You surely vote for the party offering the policy package you agree with most? I think the nonsense re Corbyn, blown up by the right wing media is in the main just absolute nonsense.

Bit like when they called the last one "red Ed and a major threat to the nation". Now May has stolen lots of ideas branded as "dangerous communism" by the Mail etc....

I always come out somewhere between Lib Dem and Labour and I think the complete and utter failure of over 30 years of neoliberal deregulation and unfettered free market economics is driving me further left than I might usually be.

I still don't think Corbyn can win outright unless the talk of a Boris/Gove/Rees Mogg triumvirate has substance. If that happened, especially if Rees Mogg was involved, then the entire centre will be driven to vote for a Corbyn run Labour.

[boltonboris]

there's no viable centre ground

Despite it perhaps being overblown, Corbyn and McDonnell ARE hard left. Additional taxation will possibly hurt more people than it helps. His anti-globalist stance will see big business and it's beneficiaries (the every day lad and lass on works on the phones) affected adversely. When the Mirror and Guardian reported McDonnel was going to Davos to "schmooz" he denied it and said he was going to "educate".. feck me...

Lets not get started on the bungs from Iran and his round of applause for the Socialist regimes of Cuba and Ecuador

On the flip side, May is opening our doors to gun toting gangs so she can get Macrons help in Brexit negotiations. she's got scant regard to anyody who genuinely needs help and is shopwing her true colours now that sh'e got nowhere to turn, that she's limited and canot get the respect of her peers and public

JRM is nut-job. He doesn't "speak a lot of sense" and hat he does generally say, is thinly veiled threat to anybody that isn't hard right - He does;t sit well with me. His mild demeanor and comedy gegs don't disguise anything

Waiting in the wings with JRM is Boris feck* Johnson, who I am still absolutely convinced was a remain implant who's now just seen an actual opportunity to keep him in high cabinet, so he's winging it and leaving a trail of destruction in his path.

All the Labour back benchers have a penchant for anti-semitism or just general abuse of people and they're all shit scared of Momentum, that they won't think for themselves.

It's all he said, she said and they're all fvckin lapping it up. It's always been like this, but it's never been as bad as this

[BWFC_Insane]

there's no viable centre ground

Despite it perhaps being overblown, Corbyn and McDonnell ARE hard left. Additional taxation will possibly hurt more people than it helps. His anti-globalist stance will see big business and it's beneficiaries (the every day lad and lass on works on the phones) affected adversely. When the Mirror and Guardian reported McDonnel was going to Davos to "schmooz" he denied it and said he was going to "educate".. feck me...

Lets not get started on the bungs from Iran and his round of applause for the Socialist regimes of Cuba and Ecuador

On the flip side, May is opening our doors to gun toting gangs so she can get Macrons help in Brexit negotiations. she's got scant regard to anyody who genuinely needs help and is shopwing her true colours now that sh'e got nowhere to turn, that she's limited and canot get the respect of her peers and public

JRM is nut-job. He doesn't "speak a lot of sense" and hat he does generally say, is thinly veiled threat to anybody that isn't hard right - He does;t sit well with me. His mild demeanor and comedy gegs don't disguise anything

Waiting in the wings with JRM is Boris feck Johnson, who I am still absolutely convinced was a remain implant who's now just seen an actual opportunity to keep him in high cabinet, so he's winging it and leaving a trail of destruction in his path.

All the Labour back benchers have a penchant for anti-semitism or just general abuse of people and they're all shit scared of Momentum, that they won't think for themselves.

It's all he said, she said and they're all fvckin lapping it up. It's always been like this, but it's never been as bad as this

If you listen to folk from Scandinavian countries they would say Corbyn is pretty centrist and offers their usual diet of "social democracy". The "hard left" stuff is a reflection of the way people are conditioned by our right wing media who regularly distort the facts. He's hard left compared to May, but I mean, in reality he's a long way from communism.

My issue with him is mainly he's not pragmatic enough and wedded to ideology alongside his support of weak shadow cabinet members. Plus his "dis-honesty" on Europe really sours me to him. I can take differing opinions I can't take him pretending to be pro-EU whilst in reality being probably the biggest Brexiteer behind Farage.

On balance though I think he'd do some (at least short term) good, and redress some of the balances that have for over 30 years been entirely neglected. We simply cannot continue the race to a 1% elite and 20% extreme poverty that we're on. We cannot keep shirking our societal responsibilities on public services in the name of failed austerity. We cannot keep allowing the economy to be run by large corporations and multi-nationals and "the city". And we cannot allow for the continued neglect of anything outside the south east corner of our country. I think Corbyn and Labour would address these things. Its a pity that we don't have something more significant in the centre of politics to temper it somewhat. But we are where we are I guess.