election reults of the 3 parties. manifesto commitments.

Except the Conservatives didnt get 25 million votes.

...and he said this




...and by that poster i took his meaning at its word, that he would not cut the NHS, either in its services, its budgets or its staff, now he may have a different definition of what "cut" means but from where I'm sitting there's an awful lot of cutting going on in our NHS and in two years time he's going to have to answer for this broken promise - this poster is going to haunt him for the rest of his political career.

George Osborne is a great bloke. Speaks a lot of sense.

no, the 3 main parties did. 88% of voters opted for more nhs privatisation. that's pretty impressive, no wonder these reforms are being implemented, it's what "the people" want. along with screwing the poor/disabled and benefit cuts. 88% of voters wanted to buy mp's porn films and clean their moats.

sorry, i was wrong it was around 26 million people.

Once again, source?

Could you remind us again what the manifesto's said about NHS privatisation in 2010 ?

I put a picture of the Conservatives election poster on the previous page just to help you along.

Why not link to evidence of real NHS cuts......

Simply type "NHS Budget Cuts" into a search engine and you're overwhelmed with evidence, most of which is denied by Ministers, as in this article which randomly came at the top of the list when I ran the search [urlhttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2232158/NHS-axe-60-000-staff-budget-cuts-warns-union.html[/url

You might also refer to the thread I started a few days ago on the Leeds Childrens Heart Surgery case which is seeking to close two regional heart units this year, and its not because they don't need them anymore...

just google uk election 2010. then look at the breakdown of votes.

i've put up one parties commitment to more nhs privatisation.



the other 2 parties commitments are out there if you just google.

The formation of a Foundation Trust (note the use of the word Trust) is not the same as selling whole tranches off to private companies to run for their own benefit, the ability of a Foundation Trust to use a private company to provide services where beneficial is not the same as selling off the most cost effective tranche of the service to a private company for their own benefit.

christ, you sound like a politician.

You seem to be struggling somewhat with the basic concepts of democracy.

really? in what way?

Well for a start, you're using the total votes cast for the three main parties as an indicator of the support enjoyed by the two parties forming this coalition government. Granted that could be a numeracy issue rather than a fundamental misunderstanding of democracy.

Then you've quoted a few snippets from individual party manifestos and conflated these with the policies of a coalition government.

You've also failed to notice significant differences between the manifesto statements and the policies actually implemented.

Lastly you've made the rookie assumption that people who vote for a particular party support every single item in their manifesto. And ignored the fact that in our particular version of democracy you vote for an MP rather than a party and this can have a significant effect on party support.

That's just off the top of my head.

The type of system they're looking to create here seems to work ok in France, where the level of healthcare has been lauded by the WHO as 'close to the best in the world' under a very similar system. Its not exactly the same as being implemented here but there are many similarities. Given the generally much more socialist nature of French politics then I wonder, if a system of semi-private healthcare is accepted there and indeed seems to work very well, then why can't it work here ?

That man is scum.

What is being proposed here is nothing like the French healthcare system

It damn well ought to and I hope it does (for both of the promises contained therein, one of which he lied about and the other of which he hasn't delivered) but, unfortunately, I'm not so sure it will.

Remember Saatchi and Saatchi's poster of "Labour's not working" showing a huge dole queue snaking away into the distance? ... Thatcher's policies had a pre-known effect of increasing unemployment and, before her first term was up, at least three times as many people were on the dole ... it never bothered her though.

Oh, that's unfair.

Unfair on scum, that is.

There are lots of similarities in the general principle. In France, a lot of the healthcare delivery is not state controlled - there is effectively a free market for patients to see whichever doctor they want. The government administers the central pot of money via the 'national insurance' schemes and the patient gets a bill from the healthcare service provider which is then reimbursed at various % levels depending on your financial status (e.g. some get 100% reimbursement, others get as low as 50%). France does not have a 'NHS' but it has a state administered healthcare system which is delivered to a large extent by private 'contractors'. So to say it is nothing like the French system is completely wrong - I agree that it is not a carbon copy but the fundamentals are pretty similar.

Sorry to scum.

Leeds heart stuff you are putting a spin on it which suggests it is being done for financial and not clinical reason - there is no evidence to suggest the former is the case. I am against closing Leeds but the logic of having larger specialist units stands up to scrutiny.