thanks - could never get into light opera or any opera for that matter - sorry for being a heathen !

No apologies required.

What makes you think governments - to any serious degree of consistency - have [iever[/i behaved as though they were elected to serve the people?

Government has two indisputable roles:

1. To maintain the system of class control and class exploitation. It is prepared to grant concessions when pesky [iDemocracy[/i gets in the way. But purely on its own terms. Take the issue of gender politics. For years women fought for emancipation, universal suffrage etc. and through various forms of democratic pressure we arrived at a point where a woman was elected prime minister. But what [ikind[/i of woman? To what [iclass[/i did she identify? It's the same story with African Americans. Under Bush Jnr we saw a black Secretary of State. We now have a black President. But again, to whom do these people associate? Certainly not the working class.

2. To protect the owners of society from their own greed. Left unchecked a capitalist system must ultimately devour itself. We saw this several years ago when Enron, Halliburton and such started expropriating not just the workers and taxpayers' money but investments and investors. Why bother making televisions when you have to deal with stupid labour organisations, build expensive factories, spend a fortune on marketing etc. Far easier to siphon money from investment funds and pensions. They were caught red-handed stealing billions of dollars and - for the most part - got away with it.

Another good example of the perils of government kowtowing to the investor class is Argentina. An entire country that collapsed when government failed to protect capitalism from itself.

There's a perfectly rational and well thought out plan being executed here by the Tories. And they are going for broke. I mean, they're after the lot. Education. The NHS. Social Security. It's all up for grabs. Indeed, the label "Conservative" has now reached the point where it's become something of a sick joke. These people are anything but Tories. A true conservative resists change because of the inherent risk whereas Cameron and his lackeys are as radical as it gets. I guess they had good teachers in Blair and Brown.

Looking to government for salvation is a complete waste of time. The only answer lies with Democracy because the one thing all governments cannot ignore - no matter how much they'd like to - is public opinion. Which is why they spend so much time and effort manipulating it. Unfortunately the electorate has become so brainwashed by the media and political spin it sees democracy only as a procedural rather than a substantive process. A century ago people didn't vote because they thought it would make them better citizens. They voted because they had genuine grievances and were demanding reform. Unless we follow suit there won't be anything left to fight for.

you're not expecting the british people to actually stand up and protest are you ? it takes a war to do that FFS !

try the french approach,if you don't like the system,get out on the streets and burn sheep or blockade petrol depots etc it doesn't always work but it scares the out of the government !

sorry,the british 'reserve' won't allow that,will it ?

Well, the British certainly stood up and were counted in the run-up to the Iraq war. It didn't change the outcome of course (Blair showed that despite being an odious wretch he had bigger balls than any politician in the last fifty years) - but it mortally wounded the Blair presidency, which was never as effective thereafter.

The irony is the consequences of the Iraq invasion to British citizens were/are nowhere near as damaging as those the working and middle classes will suffer if the Tories get their way. It seems that we will not stand idly as people in faraway lands are shafted up one side and down the other but when it's us on the receiving end we suddenly develop a masochistic streak and become meek as lambs.

What about the August riots?

yes,the british people did stand against the invasion but didn't have a lot of choice when the Blair puppet had to follow his boss in the Oval Office and invade a country that 'allegedly' were stockpiling nuclear arms (which were NEVER found of course).But what did britain actually get out of Iraq domestically ? maybe a few arms dealers did ok out of it.but what another waste of money ! The french and the rest were ok as the british did the dirty work for them as per usual but the british ended up footing the bill in pounds sterling but more importantly in human loss.
Don't think any government will change the fabric of british thinking - i'm pretty non political and a permanent fence-sitter,like most froggies waiting for the best side to back or,put it another way, a coward...but when something domestically has to be done I am out on the streets trying to change the system - sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't aka the Pension Age dispute, but at least we tried...

so,what were the few days of street violence actually about ? - the main incidents involved violence to fellow britains and damage to peoples property - another Brixton riot situation in which nothing was actually acheived, or was it ? what did the wanton vandalism actually acheive ?
If you want a REAL riot then go back to 1968 in Paris where the riots prompted the President to flee the country and rule from Germany,in fear of his life and the real threat of revolution was averted when de Gaulle was persuaded to call a General Election to stabilize the situation - France never looked back from that period and started their rebuilding of society

Many thousands of us did try in 83/84. We lost but we proudly tried....In Yorkshire, Lancashire, Scotland, South Wales, Durham, Nottinghamshire and Kent!

sounds like it's time for another go then mate ?

[url=http://costhome.eu/management/images/b/bc/How_NHS_compares_BMJ.pdfHealthcare systems cost comparison[/url

Leave a gap at the top of that list for my name please pal. If you've ever sat in a soup kitchen and seen silent tears running down the side of a big hairy @rsed miners face, b'cos he couldn't pay his mortgage, feed his kids, or put the heating on, then you'd know there was nothing wrong with the indomitability of the British working classes. Unfortunately it seems Thatcher Blair and Cameron have successively put payed to any last vestiges of that. These lot hate NHS, always have. It's ours, created by one of ours, and that's what they despise!

you've forgotten Mr Major who also did his best to destroy britain that is,when he wasn't at Lords or bonking Mme Currie!

can't imagine having to struggle like you describe - i've never had to you see ? we were never rich but we always managed as a family thanks to my dad working all hours to keep us afloat - If only I had a magic wand WZ ? ....

sounds fantastic !

I wonder how much these impressive figures take into account the weekly number of NHS patients receiving treatment in french and other EU hospitals ? Our lmain hospital in Limoges receives a plane load per week ! Apparently it was started about five years ago by Mr Bliar to reduce waiting lists etc etc within the NHS.

our local hospital also boasts a regular ex-pat clientele with one consultant,an orthopaedic surgeon telling me 40% of his customers are brits,the vast majority of whom are covered by the European Health Card where the UK reimburses the french system for any work done...

After Thatcher it was impossible to hate Major! Even so, 'caring conservatism?' Don't make me larfff! No magic wand required mate, just a certain amount of dignity for those wedged, skint, or the ones in between. A free NHS for all is a good starting point in my books.

[url=http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/nhs-reforms-a-mess-says-former-chief-executive-7441304.htmlNHS reforms 'a mess' says former chief executive[/url

Quite apart from Conmaneron's planted stooges in the NHS and the array of Archie Andrews, LibDem puppets sat on his knee, has anyone got a good word for these proposals?

EDIT:

[url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/9106880/Read-this-and-prepare-to-fight-for-your-NHS.htmlThat well-known, rabid leftie, Max Pemberton appears not to[/url

While I accept that the Torygraph is not exactly a champion of Conmaneron, it's come to something when they're set against tory ideology

quite agree mate but it's all got to be paid for so how does any government in the world manage to do that ?

maybe even [ithey[/i can't defend the indefensible...

It's knocking about somewhere matey. Phoney Tony managed to conjure up billions and billion to go war in Iraq to kill tens of thousands of women and children.

This reminds me very much of the American reactionary right wing's never-ending attacks on social security in America. For YEARS they've been saying social security is about to go bust (George Bush Jnr. back in 1978 when he failed in his attempt to run for Congress in Texas was claiming social security would go broke by 2007) and yet this is a policy which has produced billion dollar surpluses year on year. 1.2 TRILLION DOLLARS over thirty years. How many corporations can you say that about?

The NHS, like US social security is attacked not because it doesn't work but because it [idoes[/i. The surefire way of making it go bankrupt is to privatise the whole thing and watch the money vanish without trace.

so the NHS [iis[/i working then ? that's great news !



so why are changes being considered ?

just leave well alone then if all is ok ?

More than likely for political reasons, its well documented that in 1997 the NHS was a shambles and needed money spending on it - the money was spent, the service has improved beyond recognition all be it with acknowledgement from within that its top heavy with managers - there is no reason to tinker with it now other than for a political desire to allow privatisation of certain sectors simply because thats your political slant, if you accepted that a nation needs a national service for healthcare then you should be well capable of finding cost savings without selling parts of it off.

A recent report on cancer care shows that the coalition have, in fact, been telling porkies about the NHS needing to improve because of cancer care – well, either that or they really are clueless on even some basic factoids.



The ideologies of privatisation and 'small state' and greed being good – and paying back favours for friends who have funded certain politicians for some years and just happen to be involved in the private medical sector, and who are licking their lips at the prospect of all that filthy lucre that's going to go into their pockets.

Just to remind everyone – David Cameron lied to the electorate when he said that there would be no more "top-down" reforms of the NHS.

On Muggy's point – [url=http://www.alternet.org/visions/154194/a_conservative_explains_why_right-wingers_have_no_compassion/?page=entire'a conservative explains why right-wingers have no compassion'[/url.

Yes.
The old days of too few doctors and nurses, overly-long waiting lists and widespread public dissatisfaction were improved dramatically.
More doctors and nurses were recruited and trained.
Waiting lists came right down.
Outcomes from treatment were improved.
Public satisfaction was at an all-time high.

Cameron promised before the election "I'll cut the deficit not the NHS" and "No more top-down re-organisation of the NHS".
Maybe those nasty far-right LibDems made him aim at the opposite.
Or maybe he's just a lying @rse.

Elderly patients dying on trolleys in hospital corridors ...