Labour Leadership Contest

[accyman]

when i found this news out yesterday it started raining

maybe tehres a rainbow in this somewhere

[Redraine]

According to Cashy :- "If were gonna go back in history then the only fact we have an NHS is down to a Labour Government"
Come off it mate! You are accusing Wynonie of being brainwashed, but maybe you should re-read the history. If it hadn't been for Churchill there would have been no NHS.
We’re so used to Labour politicians churning out the line that Labour gave us the NHS, that we’ve begun to unthinkingly accept it.
The NHS owes its existence to the climate of wartime British politics, not least the vastly expanded access to basic healthcare which came with conscription, and the subsequent rise in expectations.the wartime coalition of 1940-5 fostered a remarkable degree of consensus. In social policy, this resulted in the seminal 1942 report Social Insurance and Allied Services, chaired by the Liberal economist William Beveridge – better known as the Beveridge Report. In this, Beveridge set out a comprehensive state plan of social care. Section 19 of the report is the first public mention of a “National Health Service.”
The point is that a Conservative post-war government under Churchill was fully signed up to introducing the NHS. A Liberal post-war government under Sinclair was fully signed up to introducing the NHS. The NHS was not Labour’s great achievement, it was an inescapable conclusion.
It wasn’t until a report commissioned by a Conservative-led coalition, and chaired by a Liberal economist, that the Labour party showed any serious inclination towards social reform, and only after the other two parties had embraced it.
These exaggerated claims that the NHS owes its whole creation to the Labour party are only possible through ignorance and misrepresentation of the past, of what was a cross-party consensus. The NHS was Britain’s triumph, not Labour’s.

[JCB]

Originally Posted by Redraine

According to Cashy :- "If were gonna go back in history then the only fact we have an NHS is down to a Labour Government"
Come off it mate! You are accusing Wynonie of being brainwashed, but maybe you should re-read the history. If it hadn't been for Churchill there would have been no NHS.
We’re so used to Labour politicians churning out the line that Labour gave us the NHS, that we’ve begun to unthinkingly accept it.
The NHS owes its existence to the climate of wartime British politics, not least the vastly expanded access to basic healthcare which came with conscription, and the subsequent rise in expectations.the wartime coalition of 1940-5 fostered a remarkable degree of consensus. In social policy, this resulted in the seminal 1942 report Social Insurance and Allied Services, chaired by the Liberal economist William Beveridge – better known as the Beveridge Report. In this, Beveridge set out a comprehensive state plan of social care. Section 19 of the report is the first public mention of a “National Health Service.”
The point is that a Conservative post-war government under Churchill was fully signed up to introducing the NHS. A Liberal post-war government under Sinclair was fully signed up to introducing the NHS. The NHS was not Labour’s great achievement, it was an inescapable conclusion.
It wasn’t until a report commissioned by a Conservative-led coalition, and chaired by a Liberal economist, that the Labour party showed any serious inclination towards social reform, and only after the other two parties had embraced it.
These exaggerated claims that the NHS owes its whole creation to the Labour party are only possible through ignorance and misrepresentation of the past, of what was a cross-party consensus. The NHS was Britain’s triumph, not Labour’s.

You could have given us the full content from the website by and for Lib Dem supporters.

Anyway , here it is.......Setting the Record Straight: Labour and the NHS

[Redraine]

Didn't want to bore you.

[JCB]

If the Conservatives were so keen on the introduction of the NHS why did they vote against the formation of the NHS 21 times before the act was passed, including both the Second and Third reading.

On 2th July, 1946, the Third Reading was carried , 261 voting for , 113 voting against .

And the 113 voting against weren't the socialists .

[Redraine]

Originally Posted by JCB

If the Conservatives were so keen on the introduction of the NHS why did they vote against the formation of the NHS 21 times before the act was passed, including both the Second and Third reading.

Dunno, I was only 2 y.o. at the time, but I'll do some research and get back to you, although I imagine you know the answers already! I would hazard a guess
it was because they realised the act as drafted by Labour couldn't be funded fully in those times of real austerity, unlike today's light austerity. I do know the government had to introduce prescription charges when reality eventually dawned on them. Familiar story, eh?

[accyman]

Originally Posted by Redraine

I do know the government had to introduce prescription charges when reality eventually dawned on them. Familiar story, eh?

pitty they cant come to the same conculsion more than once and make the rest of teh UK pay prescription charges and not just england

imagine how much revenue could be created to help the NHS if the jocks ,and welsh paid their way instead of just draining the NHS pot

[cashman]

Originally Posted by JCB

Graham Jones has resigned from his position as a shadow party whip .

East Lancashire MP quits shadow whip job over Jeremy Corbyn?s landslide victory (From Lancashire Telegraph)

Am very disappointed in Graham Jones, after reading the Observer today, I am convinced he has no idea what a socialist is. Corbyn has only been elected, by the wishes of the membership. nothing else, the fact hes showing no regard fer that is abysmal imho. Whilst i certainly do not agree by any stretch, all of corbyns aims, I intend to support him, as the right wing of Labour is now Tory copies. DISGRACFUL IMHO.

[Eric]

Originally Posted by Redraine

According to Cashy :- "If were gonna go back in history then the only fact we have an NHS is down to a Labour Government"
Come off it mate! You are accusing Wynonie of being brainwashed, but maybe you should re-read the history. If it hadn't been for Churchill there would have been no NHS.
We’re so used to Labour politicians churning out the line that Labour gave us the NHS, that we’ve begun to unthinkingly accept it.
The NHS owes its existence to the climate of wartime British politics, not least the vastly expanded access to basic healthcare which came with conscription, and the subsequent rise in expectations.the wartime coalition of 1940-5 fostered a remarkable degree of consensus. In social policy, this resulted in the seminal 1942 report Social Insurance and Allied Services, chaired by the Liberal economist William Beveridge – better known as the Beveridge Report. In this, Beveridge set out a comprehensive state plan of social care. Section 19 of the report is the first public mention of a “National Health Service.”
The point is that a Conservative post-war government under Churchill was fully signed up to introducing the NHS. A Liberal post-war government under Sinclair was fully signed up to introducing the NHS. The NHS was not Labour’s great achievement, it was an inescapable conclusion.
It wasn’t until a report commissioned by a Conservative-led coalition, and chaired by a Liberal economist, that the Labour party showed any serious inclination towards social reform, and only after the other two parties had embraced it.
These exaggerated claims that the NHS owes its whole creation to the Labour party are only possible through ignorance and misrepresentation of the past, of what was a cross-party consensus. The NHS was Britain’s triumph, not Labour’s.

This is all very nice; but as history shows, agreements made in wartime are quite often tossed into the garbage can when hostilities cease. One can see several examples of this: The Treaty of London, 1915 was ditched, and the Sykes-Picot Agreement, 1916, was implemented at the Paris peace talks of 1919, amidst a dog's breakfast of conflicting assurances: One thinks immediately of the Balfour Declaration, 1917, and the promises make to Sharif Hussein bin Ali.

Anyway, enough of history; anybody with the time to waste can easily inform himself ... the bottom line is that tories are opposed to things like the NHS, whether these tories are your bunch of assholes, or the Republican Party in the USofEh, or our own Conservative Party of Canada. It is up to progressive parties not only to protect, but also expand free, universal health care. In prosperous countries such as the UK free health care should be a right. We might as well add a strong social safety net and all that implies for education and housing. Tories everywhere don't give a flying [deleted] about stuff like this. The only hope for the little guy is a strong, democratic socialist party committed to making things better for everyone ... apart from the very rich who can damn well take care of themselves, and, by the by, pay more taxes on the obscene amount of loot they control.

[cmonstanley]

this is why churchill was voted out in the biggest election shock ever. he and the tories were against the nhs even the doctors who in them days were tory voters. as Bevan said i had to feed them with gold for them to agree . during the war in 1942/43 the country leaned to the left. the beveridge report was printed on pamphlet and distributed to the forces overseas to keep heighten morale as it was low. so the promise was made and churchill made a fatal mistake of saying for this to work it would need a socialist gestapo hence the tory slaughter in the election.

[Wynonie Harris]

Originally Posted by Wynonie Harris

If Corbyn is elected Labour leader, Cameron and his cronies are going to have the freedom to carry right on with their "lack of policy and broken pledges", for at least the next ten years because there's no way Labour are going to achieve power in 2020 with Corbyn at the helm. By 2025, it'll probably be too late anyway, the NHS and the welfare state will have been largely dismantled and there'll be very little left to save. The Labour party really needs to wake up and smell the coffee by coming up with a potential leader who's electable. Alan Johnson would be my choice, but if doesn't want to, who knows?

I keep saying it again and again, Corbyn as Labour leader is giving the Tories a free hand to carry on destroying the NHS, the Welfare State and lots of other things, too. He may appeal to socialists, but there aren't enough socialists in the British electorate to sweep him to power in 2020.

Can't understand the national anthem fuss, though. Agnostic republican doesn't sing "God Save The Queen". How surprising.

[cashman]

No wyn, but may well be enough folk brassed off wi the way politics has gone, and i feel there could well be. and thats just speaking to folk around accy.

[Wynonie Harris]

Well, he's still a novelty and PMQ's shows he certainly has a different way of doing things. The novelty will have long worn off by 2020 (if he lasts that long) and it could well be a completely different political landscape.

[lindsay ormerod]

Myself and daughter delighted by results last week and even gave a round of applause after Corbyn's speech. I have been a member of the Labour party sporadically, I prefer real Labour, this is what we haven't seen since John Smith passed away , someone a bit different from the normal production line. I hope that Corbyn gets the chance to make a difference, I really think he can.

And as an aside, suddenly everyone cares about politics when 2 weeks ago no-one a gave a monkeys....

[accyman]

Originally Posted by lindsay ormerod

And as an aside, suddenly everyone cares about politics when 2 weeks ago no-one a gave a monkeys....

perhaps thats because its a recent event and in the news , media and press a lot ?

could say the same about football

no one really cares until its world cup time then all of a sudden its football fever even for them who dont usually bother with league football etc

everyone suddenly becomes an expert too lol