Christmas Tree

Let me get this straight CT, are you admitting you are, like me, biased, or are you suggesting the fact that you are a 'dyed in the wool' tory does not affect your personal opinion? Im saying that I dont let my political tilting get in the way of discussing policy details. I have said this to you on numerous occasions but you dont seem to comprehend it. Even Tory and Labour back benchers dont agree with everything their partys say or do, just because their in that party. Going back to the original Targets conversation, I started by asking for your inside opinion, NOT spouting that it was definitely the right idea. Nothing wrong with bias but when Newcastle get thumped five nil off Liverpool, I dont claim we were the better side. Well, either you are deluded, or you don't understand what bias is. Your political outlook will naturally temper any political discussion, how could it be any other way? You are no different to me in this respect apart from the fact you can't see it. Theres a great deal of difference between tempering an outlook and bias. Your accusations that Cameron will cut the NHS budget even though they have announced they wont is bias. Your accusations that he is bullshitting about the Cancer drug fund, even though it is shortly to come into existance is bias. Im surprised you cant see the difference to be honest. You should look first of all at whether the idea is a good one first, not which party suggested it.

Let me get this straight CT, are you admitting you are, like me, biased, or are you suggesting the fact that you are a 'dyed in the wool' tory does not affect your personal opinion? Im saying that I dont let my political tilting get in the way of discussing policy details. I have said this to you on numerous occasions but you dont seem to comprehend it. Even Tory and Labour back benchers dont agree with everything their partys say or do, just because their in that party. Going back to the original Targets conversation, I started by asking for your inside opinion, NOT spouting that it was definitely the right idea. Nothing wrong with bias but when Newcastle get thumped five nil off Liverpool, I dont claim we were the better side.

It's a glib reply - there are only 500k vancancies in the UK which I would presume would either be unobtainable to the parents or would pay a lot less than an amount on which a large family could live. Again would you force them to work for a wage which would mean third world lifestyles? If they can't get work would you sleep easily if the family's benefits were reduced to a level where they say had to raid bins? Its pretty hard to even start to think about a sensible reply when you argue like that. Bizzare.

How can you possibly know that this early on? You might be right, it is just possible that depite his background and being an Etonian he cares for the common man etc, Thatcher hated etonians but he's only been in power a month or so! The certainty which you make statements likes that just makes you sound like a Cameron fanboy and shows your bias, which you apparently have no self-awareness of. Yet you seem pretty certain he's the antichrist without policy to back it up.

Can you name the legislation that was passed since 1997 that allows that? I'm getting sick of the people who keep talking about the benefits culture as some kind of deliberate ploy by Labour to get votes by looking after "their own" - have the days of 3.5 million unemployed been forgotten by the twats already? Of course there may be an underlying capitalist need for a pool of unemployed and I'm not saying there isn't an impetus to incease incapaity benefit but to suggest its something new and wasn't happening under Thatcher is fucking ridiculous. The unemployed days of Thatcher were summed up in a lot minds by a program called "Boys from the Black Stuff" where a guy called Yosser would walk from site to site with the famous words "Gis a Job". His equivalent today says "Gis a Handout". The situation above regarding the Stockton family that can afford £2,000 a year to spend on their kids christmas presents is not unusual. You seem to be in some sort of denial that the only blame for this situation is Labour. Labour have added the new benefits, increased them and increased them again. If nothing else, surely you agree that £36,000 a year for a family on benefits is wrong and should be tackled? Don't fucking quote the Blackstuff as some kind of nostalgic tribute to Thatcherism - I notice you don't refer to the rest of the show which illustrated a UK exactly the same as its heading for now - think of the main character slaughtering his pets for food for his family - a Tory ideal I'm sure. I wasnt, I was comparing how tough it was to be out of work then, compared to now. "only blame for the situation is Labour" - have a fucking word with yourself man - I have a second cousin who left school in 84 and never worked for about 15 years thanks to various fiddles - how the fuck is Labour to blame for him? The difference they had to "fiddle" then. Now they dont need to fiddle. Of course its wrong - but until global sterilisation is introduced and capitalists are paying worthwhile wages I don't see an alternative - would you see the kids starve? Personally I've never heard of anyone in this country starving other than child abuse. and yes their is an alternative to paying scoungers with five kids £36,000 a year....Its called reducing the benefits to a level that makes the alternative, work, a good option. (I'm also still waiting for the legislation that increased benefits). Benefits have doubled under Labour since 1997. Whether it is by new legislation or increases in the budget is immaterial, its still plain wrong. Benefits should be a safety net, not a way of life.

Absolute bullshit. I said last night that not all targets were necessarily good, so don't make a strawman argument. The second part is true to an extent though, and its a point you have failed to address again, and again, and again. If you remove the clinical audits, how can you monitor the effectiveness of the Healthcare service? If nothing else, please answer that point. How did it manage it its many decades before target? Nobody has suggested that all targets should be removed. I think that Cameron has suggested that moving targets to take account of patient outcome as opposed to patients treated within a timescale is a better option. While better minds than mine will have to address this, my view would be to find a better means of measuring performance overall and let the Doctors and nurses concentrate on patient care. I fully understand if Im in casualty with something not serious then I may be in for a very long wait. The medical staff should feel free to use their expertise to prioritise the patients and not some silly 4 hour rule.

Can you name the legislation that was passed since 1997 that allows that? I'm getting sick of the people who keep talking about the benefits culture as some kind of deliberate ploy by Labour to get votes by looking after "their own" - have the days of 3.5 million unemployed been forgotten by the twats already? Of course there may be an underlying capitalist need for a pool of unemployed and I'm not saying there isn't an impetus to incease incapaity benefit but to suggest its something new and wasn't happening under Thatcher is fucking ridiculous. The unemployed days of Thatcher were summed up in a lot minds by a program called "Boys from the Black Stuff" where a guy called Yosser would walk from site to site with the famous words "Gis a Job". His equivalent today says "Gis a Handout". The situation above regarding the Stockton family that can afford £2,000 a year to spend on their kids christmas presents is not unusual. You seem to be in some sort of denial that the only blame for this situation is Labour. Labour have added the new benefits, increased them and increased them again. If nothing else, surely you agree that £36,000 a year for a family on benefits is wrong and should be tackled? I would say that was wrong fwiw, whilst bearing in mind it is anecdotal Its what the couple said to the Newsnight interviewer in their home. and I'd imagine a fairly large amount of it is Housing Benefit or Council tax relief. I find it hard to believe the '£2000 for christmas presents' bit mind - I'd need to see a breakdow of how that was possible without criminal activity. Its what the couple said to the Newsnight interviewer in their home. It certainly contradicts your earlier poverty coments as well. They were Labour figures quoted in parliament, not mine. If the Conservatives can fix this then good. Problem is to incentivise people to work you need to supply actual jobs. That didn't happen in the 1980s and it is going to be hard for it to happen now. I think we should review this thread in 4 years by which time we will have some idea if the Conservative policies have worked or not - agree? No, we will all be too excited watching the majority of Newcastles first team battling it out at the world cup having just won the premiership. Polotics will be of no interest.

I think we are pretty much on song with this one.

Can you name the legislation that was passed since 1997 that allows that? I'm getting sick of the people who keep talking about the benefits culture as some kind of deliberate ploy by Labour to get votes by looking after "their own" - have the days of 3.5 million unemployed been forgotten by the twats already? Of course there may be an underlying capitalist need for a pool of unemployed and I'm not saying there isn't an impetus to incease incapaity benefit but to suggest its something new and wasn't happening under Thatcher is fucking ridiculous. The unemployed days of Thatcher were summed up in a lot minds by a program called "Boys from the Black Stuff" where a guy called Yosser would walk from site to site with the famous words "Gis a Job". His equivalent today says "Gis a Handout". The situation above regarding the Stockton family that can afford £2,000 a year to spend on their kids christmas presents is not unusual. You seem to be in some sort of denial that the only blame for this situation is Labour. Labour have added the new benefits, increased them and increased them again. If nothing else, surely you agree that £36,000 a year for a family on benefits is wrong and should be tackled?

Well it was in the Tory manifesto and is due to start April 2011. At PMQ's last week he was aked for an update and he said he was doing everything possible to bring it forward to this Autumn instead. Dont know how they can be more straight or open than that. A bit more detail on how this can be achieved would be good like. Did he not say? Cant see to much on this other than the facts in policy, queens speech and pmq's of last week. One report somewhere says it will cost an xtra £200 million, which if true is basically chicken feed for a government to find.

Unfortunately Fish you only ever pop in here with the usual bias so your views are somewhat tainted and typical. Feel free to take part in an actual debate rather than a bit of cat calling from the sidelines. Get yer hands dirty. Rentons arguments have left him up so many dead ends tonight its quite shocking for a seemingly intelligent bloke. But thats what happens when you let bias get in the way of real facts. Shame Your style of 'debate' is simply to trawl the internet cherry picking opinions that suit your views. For every quote you give, I could quote somebody else giving the contrary viewpoint if I chose to. I don't do it because I'd rather give my own opinion, and frankly its boring. You still haven't answered how you feel that scrapping waiting list targets will be of benefit to you. I'd like your opinion please. I did. You asked me if they were good or bad and I said....... I dont know Thats why I did some research which included the opinions of the Royal college of Nursing, The BMA Consultants, The Royal college of surgeons and at the very start YOU. Im interested in the facts of a discussion where you are just constantly biased and that clouds your judgement all the way through this thread. If you can find equally authorative bodies with a counter opinion I would be delighted to hear them, before making my mind up. Thats because I am interested in the policy, not the party. However when the Royal college of surgeons say things like this below, then it is apparent that some targets are causing a problem and their removal will benefit us all. I'm not playing the cut and paste game I'm afraid, it's a waste of time. Any good article should provide you with the counter viewpoint, what value do I add by repeating it? So far you have quoted people representing Doctor's unions, Nurse's unions, Royal Colleges, and Patient groups. Each have their own motives and agenda for saying what they say, and there is a spectrum of opinion in each group, which you have cherry picked to suit your own agenda (and misrepresented on a couple of quotes I might add). The real point has been made by Chez though already. If you don't audit what you are doing, you have no way of knowing if what you are doing is useful or not. There are bad targets, certainly, but there are good ones too (waiting list times are certainly good ones). Removing targets is the easiest way to reduce quality of service, because no one will be able to show that services have been worsened. I don't see how that can be reasonably disputed. See the quotes from....Doctor's unions, Nurse's unions, Royal Colleges, and Patient groups. All you have done recently is type complete bullshit about Cameron and then cried off or changed the subject when you are proven incorrect. Surely you can see your bias is totally fogging your judgement. (Im sure you do btw, but it just makes your points look childish).

Once again Fish why dont you get involved with YOUR views????????? But, once again, I'll do my bit Off the top of my head I totally disagree that they refused to means test child benefit or pension credits. Both should have been abolished and redistributed through Tax credits and pension credits to those in need, not the rich. Much better for you to list any policies that you "strongly" dont like (putting aside the budget) and I'll tell you why I agree or disagree with you.

Is it? How do you know that then? I get the impression the majority of readers on this thread will come to a completely different conclusion given your sickening fawning over Cameron and Osborne, after what, a month of government? You are too blind to see your own bias though, as you have demonstrated several times. Nicely ignoring all the relevant bits of that post with your usual lets throw an insult in and change the subject. Dear me Renty, dear me.

Unfortunately Fish you only ever pop in here with the usual bias so your views are somewhat tainted and typical. Feel free to take part in an actual debate rather than a bit of cat calling from the sidelines. Get yer hands dirty. Rentons arguments have left him up so many dead ends tonight its quite shocking for a seemingly intelligent bloke. But thats what happens when you let bias get in the way of real facts. Shame Your style of 'debate' is simply to trawl the internet cherry picking opinions that suit your views. For every quote you give, I could quote somebody else giving the contrary viewpoint if I chose to. I don't do it because I'd rather give my own opinion, and frankly its boring. You still haven't answered how you feel that scrapping waiting list targets will be of benefit to you. I'd like your opinion please. I did. You asked me if they were good or bad and I said....... I dont know Thats why I did some research which included the opinions of the Royal college of Nursing, The BMA Consultants, The Royal college of surgeons and at the very start YOU. Im interested in the facts of a discussion where you are just constantly biased and that clouds your judgement all the way through this thread. If you can find equally authorative bodies with a counter opinion I would be delighted to hear them, before making my mind up. Thats because I am interested in the policy, not the party. However when the Royal college of surgeons say things like this below, then it is apparent that some targets are causing a problem and their removal will benefit us all. In response to that pearl of wisdom, I'd like to ask you to lick my ball bag. In a non- partisan manner, of course. ( bevvied). Putting aside my belief that the task you refer to may actually be a physical impossibility, I would point my learned friend in the direction of posters much more qualified than myself in this matter.

and that does my head in. The system is clearly fucked if that can happen. They even went on to tell the presenter how they borrow £2000 each December "so the kids can have all the right labels". Im sure most reasonable people, regardless of political persuasion, realise that benefit pay outs like this are just perverse. I take my hat off to the people who go out to work, even though they could get virtually the same staying at home on benefits.

Well it was in the Tory manifesto and is due to start April 2011. At PMQ's last week he was aked for an update and he said he was doing everything possible to bring it forward to this Autumn instead. Dont know how they can be more straight or open than that.

Unfortunately Fish you only ever pop in here with the usual bias so your views are somewhat tainted and typical. Feel free to take part in an actual debate rather than a bit of cat calling from the sidelines. Get yer hands dirty. Rentons arguments have left him up so many dead ends tonight its quite shocking for a seemingly intelligent bloke. But thats what happens when you let bias get in the way of real facts. Shame Your style of 'debate' is simply to trawl the internet cherry picking opinions that suit your views. For every quote you give, I could quote somebody else giving the contrary viewpoint if I chose to. I don't do it because I'd rather give my own opinion, and frankly its boring. You still haven't answered how you feel that scrapping waiting list targets will be of benefit to you. I'd like your opinion please. I did. You asked me if they were good or bad and I said....... I dont know Thats why I did some research which included the opinions of the Royal college of Nursing, The BMA Consultants, The Royal college of surgeons and at the very start YOU. Im interested in the facts of a discussion where you are just constantly biased and that clouds your judgement all the way through this thread. If you can find equally authorative bodies with a counter opinion I would be delighted to hear them, before making my mind up. Thats because I am interested in the policy, not the party. However when the Royal college of surgeons say things like this below, then it is apparent that some targets are causing a problem and their removal will benefit us all.

Explain how it is possible then? It would only be possible under two scenarios: 1) The healthcare budget is massively increased. 2) Money from other areas of the healthcare budget is diverted to pay for the drugs which have proven not to be cost effective. The former option simply won't happen during a recession, and in fact would never happen under a Conservative government. It would be fiscal suicide. The latter option would be so unfair and frankly idiotic it doesn't bear thinking about it. This would be a classic example of a political party using the NHS for their own political aims, rather than acting fairly or rationally. Labour have been guilty of this in the past as it happens but never to this extent. This is the last I'll say on this matter CT because frankly I don't think you know what you're talking about. Breathtaking Renton, simply breathtaking You accuse Cameron of lying about cutting the health budget --- Your proved incorrect. You then accuse Cameron of bullshitting about cancer drugs --- Your proved incorrect. I then ask your opinion about plans to cut targets as you happen to work within the NHS. You tell me its not your concern and that your quite detached from it. You then have lunch with "Clinicians" and say they are all agreed its a sneaky prelude to cutting services. You then ask again whether I think its a good or bad idea. Im honest enough to say I dont know, but here is the opinion of two very subtantial bodies within nursing (I left out the institute of surgeons who also agree with Cameron btw). I was simply trying to get at the facts and have an honest discussion with you, but just because you've had a bad night Cameron bashing you want to run home with the ball. Fair enough but its clear as day to the majority which one of us is so blinded by bias, they really are losing their grip on reality. Never mind.

Newsnight tonight interviewed a Stockton family on benefits. £36,000 a year, all from benefits. Thanks Labour

Unfortunately Fish you only ever pop in here with the usual bias so your views are somewhat tainted and typical. Feel free to take part in an actual debate rather than a bit of cat calling from the sidelines. Get yer hands dirty. Rentons arguments have left him up so many dead ends tonight its quite shocking for a seemingly intelligent bloke. But thats what happens when you let bias get in the way of real facts. Shame

Exactly. Another pointless rent-a-quote from Mr Tree. CTY - from the perspective of YOU - a potential patient - do you think indefinite waiting lists are a good idea? You labourites are bloody amazing You ask about targets because you think they are a Tory scam. The Royal college of Nursing and BMA Consultants agree that getting rid is a good thing, but because you are so desperate to win an argument you dismiss it. Gold.

My opinion, as you ask for, is that if it can be done then it is a great thing indeed. Moving onto fact, the policy WAS to start this program from 2011. It has changed The policy is now to try and bring this forward to this Autum. Putting the economics to one side, do you approve of this policy? Do I approve of giving everybody the treatment they need? Of course I do. Is it possible? No - it's not. You can't just brush the economics aside - it's the key to the whole matter. No country in the World can afford to give its citizens all the healthcare they desire or need. There will have to be some system of copayment, where the rich can be treated and the poor will not be. Cameron either knows this, and is lying, or he is a fucking idiot. Take your pick. Bearing in mind your track record with regard to Cameron and lying, I think I'll stick with Cameron. Of course its possible if a government decides to channel money into it.