Forum Topic

> All the people coming into our Country are taking away our National Health Service what we have paid for many years. No, that's the Conservative Government of the last 14 years who are slowly asset stripping it by selling it off to their mates or companies that will give them lucrative jobs in the future.The plan is roughly:1. Starve the NHS of funding so that it starts to crumble2. Blame immigration/middle-managers/lazy-employees or just the population for being sicker than they somehow need to be3. Introduce a privatised option for a service (often heavily subsidised) and claim that the presence of the private option will boost competition between the two services and that both will flourish (ha!)4. Continue to under-fund the NHS option so that it performs considerably worse5. State that the privatised option is working so much better (it is, but only because it's being propped up and the NHS option is chronically under-funded) and that the sensible option is to shift everything over to the private option and sell off the NHS departments/assets for a cheap price to the private option (as they can't possibly pay market rates for such things)6. Meanwhile you distract the population by directing their anger at the employees who want to be paid fairly (e.g. junior doctors who have a real terms pay cut of 20% over the last 10 years) or focus on the few employees (consultant surgeons) who earn really good money, or agency nurses who have huge fees only because the Government has created the staff shortage in the first place.7. Leave it for someone else to sort out once you're eventually kicked out of GovernmentThis works exactly the same for other privatised industries:* Rail: Sell it off, subsidise the private companies, get the public angry at the train drivers for asking for pay rises, etc* Energy: Sell it off, subsidise the private companies, (a bit different) blame everything on foreign wars forgetting the fact that other countries aren't quite as badly affected as they had kept reasonable stores of energy and had built their own power stations rather than paying foreign countries to build and run their power stations (at escalating costs)* Water: Sell it off, subsidise the private companies, let them pay out huge dividends rather than investing that profit in infrastructure as they had promised to do, and then direct the public anger at the companies for hiking their future bills rather than the original privatisation decision or the complete inability to regulate the companies (and their dividend payments) along the way.* Royal Mail: etc...The real annoying thing is that with each privatisation they've done they've sold whatever it is off for a fraction of what it would be worth now. It was so short-termist it beggars belief.But, yeah, keep thinking it's to do with immigration.

John Kettlekey ● 392d

Perhaps we need to categorise people as poor, comfortably off, rich and mega rich. Not sure exactly where one draws the boundaries but I agree the definition of working, middle and upper class are outmoded (although I think Sir Kier uses the term working people, not the Marxist "class" term) - where do you fit Richard Branson, Alan Sugar, Richie Sunak, Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, or even Eugene Kaspersky in the old class structure. I'm not sure a one dimensional model even fits the require: where do we fit differences such as manual workers, information and knowledge workers, managers, executives, sales engineers ... these days, do we define people by what they do and how much they earn rather than family wealth?I think what Starmer is remembering is the 50s and 60s when many families lived from week to week on a wage that barely covered food, clothes and accommodation and perhaps one two week holiday by the sea in summer - something I also remember from my childhood. The sad thing is, after 14 years of various Tory governments many are now reduced to are struggling to live on their incomes and having to use foodbanks, facing evictions, etc and, as Ed points out, social mobility seems to have stalled along with Mr Gove's attempts at levelling up. We seem to have regressed to a point I thought we'd left four or five decades ago ... although comparisons are difficult because of other changes and some things unimaginable then, such as Internet access to claim benefits easily and bank accounts for everyone, have become essential to live in the current world.

Michael Ixer ● 393d

> If you give people the vote at 16 there really isn't any argument for having the 18 limit for other things people haven't mentioned above such as credit and gambling.There are plenty of things that aren't aligned to 18 years old.You can get a license to ride a 50cc motorbike at 16 years old.You can elope to Scotland and get married at 16 years old.You can get a license to drive a car at 17 years old.We were about to have the cut-off for smoking rise each year so that anyone born in 2009 or afterwards would never be allowed to smoke.18 is just an arbitrary cut off. There has to be an arbitrary cut off but there's more evidence that it should be 16 than the existing cut off of 18.Nothing magic happens at midnight on the day they turn 18. They don't suddenly become politically aware at that time. The research shows that there's a huge jump in political awareness between 14 and 16 and not much of a jump between 16 and 18 (and onwards). 16 year olds that aren't interested in politics are unlikely to vote anyway or, yes, they may vote for Count Binface or similar, but then the polls show that plenty of 18+ people do that already.A bunch of other countries have voting ages below 18. For local elections it's 16 in both Wales and Scotland for example.Labour wanting to lower the voting age is nothing new, if I remember correctly it has been it the last two general election manifestos. Hardly much of a fuss about it then.It's no surprise that Tory supporters object to it as Conservative support in the younger age groups is very low. Whilst it's no surprise that the majority of other party supporters (including Labour) agree with it given the much greater support for those parties amongst the younger generations.

John Kettlekey ● 393d

Votes at 16, ridiculous idea. I would hazard a guess that the vast majority of kids of that age are not engaged with political issues one iota and couldn't give a t### which party is in power. Perhaps Starmer could offer them a new smartphone so they could vote online ...?🙄Temporary (12 month) conscription is a very good idea in my opinion. It isn't all about focusing on military training as most would be deployed in various public service roles and would learn skills which could help them find a job in the future. It would give young people a sense of purpose and pride in their abilities and achievements. For those children who had not benefited from proper parental guidance it would teach them about self discipline and taking responsibility for their actions. It would also take them off the streets and provide distractions from drugs and possibly prevent them from getting involved in drug-related crimes. It would help (mainly) teenage boys to channel their anger and frustrations into something positive and hopefully stop them stabbing each other. James Cleverly on the BBC today::Mr Cleverly told the BBC's Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg programme the move was about "coming together"."It's about addressing the fragmentation that we have seen in society," he said."Too many young people are living in their own bubble, whether that's a digital bubble or a social bubble."We want to get back to a situation where young people are mixing with people - in different areas, different economic groups, different religions - to try and find a way of addressing the kind of fragmentation that we see too much of."The Conservatives say the scheme would involve 30,000 selective military placements where "the brightest and best" would get involved in cyber security, logistics, or civil response operations full-time for a year.Everyone else would do 25 days, or one weekend a month for a year, with non-military organisations including the fire service, the police, the NHS or charities.The armed forces placements were "a small element" of the plan, Mr Cleverly said, as "nobody will be compelled to do the military bit"."There's going to be no criminal sanction - There's no one going to jail over this," he told Sky News. Mr Cleverly insisted the plan was "fully funded", with £1.5bn diverted from levelling up's UK Shared Prosperity Fund from 2028. A further £1bn would come from plans to crack down on tax avoidance and evasion.

Sue Hammond ● 394d