The Theresa May General Election thread (edited)

ThePrettyDamned

Fretwired said:

ThePrettyDamned said:

Does this mean the NHS should be fully privatised? 

Genuine question, I'm not intending to load it at all. But if you took your theory to it's logical conclusion, we'd have a system similar to the US I'd imagine. 

No it shouldn't be fully privatised. But when you have £5 toilet rolls you should soon work out that there are things that could be like all non-drug purchasing. Government departments are appalling at buying things - the NHS would be better off outsourcing procurement to the likes of Amazon (if we forget the tax thing for a minute). Amazon can negotiate good prices and has the tech and infrastructure to store and deliver items - imagine a hospital with an internal Amazon website so staff could requisition stuff for next day delivery. There would be full reporting on costs and what's been delivered and the NHS wouldn't have to keep large stocks of things.

Get rid of the buildings and outsource their maintenance to a large estate management company like DTZ - they could raise cash to build new hospitals and lease them back to the government. Far cheaper than PFI.

And let companies sponsor ambulances and hospitals - I bet you could raise serious cash via advertising opportunities. Buses have done it for years.

Not sure about £5 bog rolls, but I have certainly seen the price of some stuff being very high (although ward essentials like gloves, tympanic thermometer tips etc were extremely low cost). 

I'm not trying to bait here, it's something I wrestle with a lot. I'm passionate about the NHS, and truly believe its wonderful despite the shortcomings but some of those shortcomings are nothing short of fucking stupid. 

I suspect there have been some really badly drawn up contracts. I do wonder how some of these things came about (for example, £1 for a box of 60 paracetamol - that should be significantly cheaper). 

ICBM

ToneControl said:

where's your evidence that it's a myth?

Fretwired has seen it first hand, so have I

Fretwired provided the evidence - that when the same workers did the same job, it could be done cheaper. The problem is not public ownership, it's incompetence. (Or intransigence and the lack of political will to deal with it, I admit.)

The problem with privatisation is that it's an absolute certainty that money will be taken out in profit, because without that no company would want the contract. Hence it cannot be cheaper to privatise something than to run it *properly* in public ownership.

Heartfeltdawn

capo4th said:

£5 every time you want to see a GP or visit A&E would raise a shed load of cash and stop people visiting their GP for an aspirin. 

Do you speak in anything other than stereotypes? 

Fretwired

ICBM said:

ToneControl said:

where's your evidence that it's a myth?

Fretwired has seen it first hand, so have I

Fretwired provided the evidence - that when the same workers did the same job, it could be done cheaper. The problem is not public ownership, it's incompetence.

The problem with privatisation is that it's an absolute certainty that money will be taken out in profit, because without that no company would want the contract. Hence it cannot be cheaper to privatise something than to run it *properly* in public ownership.

It's the public sector mindset. You want it with doctors and nurses but you need the efficiency of the private sector when it comes to things like procurement. Profit is not a problem if we are getting a well run service and value for money.

Heartfeltdawn

Fretwired said:

No it shouldn't be fully privatised. But when you have £5 toilet rolls you should soon work out that there are things that could be like all non-drug purchasing. Government departments are appalling at buying things - the NHS would be better off outsourcing procurement to the likes of Amazon (if we forget the tax thing for a minute). Amazon can negotiate good prices and has the tech and infrastructure to store and deliver items - imagine a hospital with an internal Amazon website so staff could requisition stuff for next day delivery. There would be full reporting on costs and what's been delivered and the NHS wouldn't have to keep large stocks of things.

Get rid of the buildings and outsource their maintenance to a large estate management company like DTZ - they could raise cash to build new hospitals and lease them back to the government. Far cheaper than PFI.

And let companies sponsor ambulances and hospitals - I bet you could raise serious cash via advertising opportunities. Buses have done it for years.

Shifting procurement to Amazon thus building up a huge corporation even further and chasing cost reductions... well, you end up with redundancies elsewhere. This is the balance you have to make. If you go bottom line for everything, you end up smacking someone else around and incurring a cost on the state there. 

Sponsorship - buses have done it for years but they don't tend to pick up people involved in road accidents or who have just had heart attacks. Time and a place and all that. You'd have more success by suggesting that the Met could be sponsored by Krispy Kreme or Danepak. 

What next, get the Met sponsored by Krispy Kreme? 

VimFuego

I can see ambulance chasers wanting to advertise on ambulances. Or mebbe fizzy drinks companies sponsoring diabetes clinics. The B&H Lung Cancer ward. Real life would be so surreal no one would believe it.

Fretwired

Heartfeltdawn said:

Shifting procurement to Amazon thus building up a huge corporation even further and chasing cost reductions... well, you end up with redundancies elsewhere. This is the balance you have to make. If you go bottom line for everything, you end up smacking someone else around and incurring a cost on the state there. 

Sponsorship - buses have done it for years but they don't tend to pick up people involved in road accidents or who have just had heart attacks. Time and a place and all that. You'd have more success by suggesting that the Met could be sponsored by Krispy Kreme or Danepak. 

What next, get the Met sponsored by Krispy Kreme? 

Agree, but if it means the NHS can employ more doctors and nurses it creates employment in the frontline.

As for sponsorship the police have had it for years - the Met had police cars sponsored by Harrods. I don't think alcohol advertising on an ambulance would be good, but supermarkets could as people would understand they are helping to fund paramedics and they could promote healthy food.

Fretwired

VimFuego said:

I can see ambulance chasers wanting to advertise on ambulances. Or mebbe fizzy drinks companies sponsoring diabetes clinics. The B&H Lung Cancer ward. Real life would be so surreal no one would believe it.

You missed out undertakers and funeral plans ... ;-)

Heartfeltdawn

Fretwired said:

Agree, but if it means the NHS can employ more doctors and nurses it creates employment in the frontline.

As for sponsorship the police have had it for years - the Met had police cars sponsored by Harrods. I don't think alcohol advertising on an ambulance would be good, but supermarkets could as people would understand they are helping to fund paramedics and they could promote healthy food.

Intriguing. A mention from a 1996 article:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/a-police-car-is-on-its-way-but-first-a-word-from-our-sponsors-1362314.html

The idea of a police car being sponsored by Threshers is amusing Bring on the WKD Panda!

cj73

Referees are already sponsored by supersavers....

VimFuego

um, specsavers?

snakemanStoo

cj73 said:

Referees are already sponsored by supersavers....

Maybe you should have gone to ...

cj73

mobbed i should check posts before committing     

Drew_TNBD

ICBM said:

Fretwired said:

According to Marx it is what it means - working class was anyone who depended on wages solely for their income and included everything from manual labour to white collar knowledge-based jobs. These days the definition is blurred in the UK. A plumber might have been seen as working class 50 years ago but these days a self-employed plumber probably has a good income, a mortgage, disposable income for gadgets and holidays and sees himself as part of the middle class as he is skilled.

I have just had my roof replaced - the guy that did it works with his brother and they have a small roofing firm. He left school at 16 and learned his trade on the job - if you spoke to him most people would say he is working class. He however sees himself as middle class and he votes Tory. He has a nice detached house, his wife is a manager in a care home, he has two kids at a decent school, drives a Jag, has a classic Porsche for the summer and takes the family overseas on holiday.

He grew up in a council house so as he now owns his own house he sees himself as middle class and identifies more with Tory values than those of Labour. Thatcher managed to catch the blue collar vote back in the 70s with people who didn't identify with the term working class.

Your roofing friend is right - he's middle class. If you own property - including your house, even mortgaged - you're no longer working class regardless of your family origins. That's the key reason Thatcher (or rather the ideologues who formulated her strategy) encouraged home ownership, to permanently break down working-class solidarity. Property ownership - especially of your own home - means you have too much to lose, as well as more individualistic aspirations.

(I'm middle class by the way - by family as well as home ownership.)

I don't really agree with that to be honest. Having a mortgage doesn't automatically elevate you into the middle classes, especially when 85% of your wage goes on said mortgage.

I actually think someone else kinda came close to it... but to me, the only differences between 'middle class' and 'working class' are purely cultural. The middle classes tend to look down on the working classes because of how they live their lives. The middle classes are basically snooty neighbours who make constant value judgements on their fellows.

AliGorie

Torys going - Blair Witch meets Monty Python today -
yes this really happened, I saw the propaganda edits on MSM

https://www.buzzfeed.com/jamieross/theresa-may-held-a-campaign-event-in-a-village-hall-in?utm_term=.dhnXqmogEA#.tgaqxygZLP

the kids party hall booking -
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C-l2XjAWAAANmu0.jpg:large

very weird behavior - expect more

Fretwired

Drew_TNBD said:

ICBM said:

Fretwired said:

According to Marx it is what it means - working class was anyone who depended on wages solely for their income and included everything from manual labour to white collar knowledge-based jobs. These days the definition is blurred in the UK. A plumber might have been seen as working class 50 years ago but these days a self-employed plumber probably has a good income, a mortgage, disposable income for gadgets and holidays and sees himself as part of the middle class as he is skilled.

I have just had my roof replaced - the guy that did it works with his brother and they have a small roofing firm. He left school at 16 and learned his trade on the job - if you spoke to him most people would say he is working class. He however sees himself as middle class and he votes Tory. He has a nice detached house, his wife is a manager in a care home, he has two kids at a decent school, drives a Jag, has a classic Porsche for the summer and takes the family overseas on holiday.

He grew up in a council house so as he now owns his own house he sees himself as middle class and identifies more with Tory values than those of Labour. Thatcher managed to catch the blue collar vote back in the 70s with people who didn't identify with the term working class.

Your roofing friend is right - he's middle class. If you own property - including your house, even mortgaged - you're no longer working class regardless of your family origins. That's the key reason Thatcher (or rather the ideologues who formulated her strategy) encouraged home ownership, to permanently break down working-class solidarity. Property ownership - especially of your own home - means you have too much to lose, as well as more individualistic aspirations.

(I'm middle class by the way - by family as well as home ownership.)

I don't really agree with that to be honest. Having a mortgage doesn't automatically elevate you into the middle classes, especially when 85% of your wage goes on said mortgage.

I actually think someone else kinda came close to it... but to me, the only differences between 'middle class' and 'working class' are purely cultural. The middle classes tend to look down on the working classes because of how they live their lives. The middle classes are basically snooty neighbours who make constant value judgements on their fellows.

A mortgage gives you access to an appreciating asset and wealth ... my father was born into a poor working class family ... he was the first person in his family to get a degree, became a lecturer and he lives in a house worth £1 million. Is he still working class?

Fretwired

BBC bias .. I think I agree with this .... she's bloody annoying as well ..

https://www.change.org/p/the-bbc-the-immediate-sacking-of-laura-kuenssberg-from-the-bbc?recruiter=69896997&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=autopublish&utm_term=mob-md-share_petition-no_msg

Heartfeltdawn

Drew_TNBD said:

I actually think someone else kinda came close to it... but to me, the only differences between 'middle class' and 'working class' are purely cultural. The middle classes tend to look down on the working classes because of how they live their lives. The middle classes are basically snooty neighbours who make constant value judgements on their fellows.

So it's no different from the working-class people I've been involved with for a decade then. Let's see, I've been accused of being posh for reading, listening to classical music, preferring cricket to football and, perhaps curiously, for not having a driving licence. On my first day in my last job, one working class co-worker thought I was gay because I used long words. 

Heartfeltdawn

Fretwired said:

BBC bias .. I think I agree with this .... she's bloody annoying as well ..

https://www.change.org/p/the-bbc-the-immediate-sacking-of-laura-kuenssberg-from-the-bbc?recruiter=69896997&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=autopublish&utm_term=mob-md-share_petition-no_msg

How times change. 

http://www.thefretboard.co.uk/discussion/59096/lets-ban-something-start-a-petition/p1

Garthy

ThePrettyDamned said:

capo4th said:

littlegreenman said:

capo4th said:

Sporky said:

capo4th said:

Most people work to live and pay the bills therefore the majority of people are working class.

That's not what the term means.

Enlighten me 

It's probably a sliding scale tbh.

I earn just over £20k in the North, but with no kids, car or mortgage I can do what I want, when I want with little need to have to scrimp or save for the stupidly expensive trips away I regularly take. In terms of available disposable income for "fun stuff", e.g. Ibanez guitars, Cannondale bikes, Broadband Internet, trips to Europe ad hoc, etc... I'm probably still "middle class", just.

My neighbour, who's on 50% higher income but with 2 kids, a car and a mortgage, struggles every month to make ends meet without the "mod cons" I take for granted. I'd class him and his wife and kids as "working class".

Call it lifestyle choices perhaps, but I don't struggle whereas a lot of people do, even on more money.

We both "work" for what we have...

But I'll guarantee he works a lot harder for very little gain compared to what I have to.

This is true whatever your income is you max out. 

Lifestyle choices.

Family members working ? Both working or looking after children? 
Childcare costs
Mortgage / size / location of house
House / modernised / Unmodernised 
Drinking / Clubbing / Pub / Fridge
Holidays / Travel adventure choices
Schooling education
Children's lifestyle / Sport / Entertainment / Activities
1 2 3 or 4 children?
Transport payments / Car payments / Bike / Bus
Dirty house / Cleaner
Guitars Squire / Gibson / Fender
Television Sky / Terrestrial / Broadband providers.
Entertainment / Live music / Digital downloads / LPs
Clothes / Shoes
Heating on/off
Food / Diet / McDonald's / Nando's 

Most people are maxed out with money worries and just have different choices that are income dependant. The Labour Party are selling dreams in return for votes that are simply unachievable.

Do people really think by getting rid of May and voting in Corbyn that he would actually change anything? The man has dreams and good for him, unfortunately he is not the man or the party to implement them. 

I think people just want May out to be honest, as opposed to voting corbyn in.

If May gets anything but a landslide, it's an embarrassment. 

Every opinion poll predicts a landslide although we know how wrong they've been lately, although with tighter races. The Guardian are predicting a massacre:

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/apr/27/lib-dems-shouldnt-count-on-remain-votes-the-data-looks-bleak