Be Excellent To Each Other

Yeah, I'm incredibly depressed by recent events. The sheer opportunistic glee of these Bullingdon cunts as they set about destroying the NHS. Nobody voted for it, nobody asked for it and the only people who think it is a good idea are those who see a financial opportunity for themselves. It's an absolute fucking disgrace and I hope the Lib Dems are consigned to history for their part in all this.

The move on the personal allowance will mean that the Lib Dems will go into the next election saying they have delivered the first pledge of their 2010 general election manifesto.

The Tories are absolutely the ones to blame but pig-headed privatisation that flies in the face of the evidence is all I'd expect from them.

Well, obviously they're junior partners; they got a small fraction of the seats the Tores got.

I disagree with the Lib Dem leadership's stance on the NHS (as does the rest of the party, which voted against backing it at the conference), but other than that they've done a good job of delivering on their manifesto promises.

To say they should be eliminated because they (against the will of their members) reluctantly agreed to one (albeit awful) act is just ridiculous. They've enacted more decent policies in government than the Tories and the last Labour government combined, yet they're the bad guys, not the Conservatives.

:Belm:

To say they should be eliminated because they (against the will of their members) reluctantly agreed to one (albeit awful) act is just ridiculous. They've enacted more decent policies in government than the Tories and the last Labour government combined, yet they're the bad guys, not the Conservatives.

It could not have happened without the Lib Dems. They seem to be operating under the misapprehension that people supported them joining the coalition in order to enact their policies. They are wrong. They were supposed to be a brake on the Tories. The LD leadership pont to "300 amendments" to the NHS bill, which is the equivalent of ensuring that before the man chops your leg off without anaethestic, at least you'll now get a cup of tea and a biscuit first. On the major issues, public sector cuts, tuition fees, NHS privatisation, the forest privatisation, taxation of the rich, tax avoidance, they have either been invisible or willing partners.

But they are mainly copping it because of this:

First up, on tuition fees the implemented proposals are SIGNIFICANTLY fairer and less costly than what was proposed by either Labour (unlimited graduate tax) or the Tories (unlimited up front fees). Note that the abolition of them is STILL in the LD manifesto and that they have, in every possible way, acted as a brake on Tory excesses in that instance.

To say they should have avoided trying to implement their policies in government and instead just tried to stop the Tories really goes against the whole point of voting and forming governments. I voted LD because I wanted their policies implemented. They formed a coalition to implement their policies. Some things they disagreed with had to happen as a cost, but that's only to be expected (and indeed is morally correct) given the comparative representation in government.

And I disagree about the taxation points. The LDs have been very active in attempting to reduce tax for the poorest (increase in tax free allowance) and increase it for the richest (stamp duty increase, mansion tax, closure of loopholes).

The expectation that the LDs dictate policy on everything to the Tories is not only wildly optimistic, it's also wholly undemocratic.

The Lib Dems are getting the crumbs from the table, the Tories are flicking just enough in their direction to keep them in the right line in the lobby whilst they go about the real business of their dismantling and privatising agenda and enriching the already rich as much as they can and as quickly as they can.

I'm stunned the Lib Dems ever entered a coalition with the Tories in the first place, the only good thing that is going to come of it is they've showed their true colours as opportunistic charlatans and will be obliterated at the next election.

So, to confirm what you just said, you think that a party that, despite only having a small representation in Parliament (due to the style of voting in the country), shouldn't try to influence things if they get a chance? And that instead of the tangible good they have done, instead they should be replaced with more people who are causing the harm they are trying to stop?

Are you Andrew Lansley or George Osborne?

With surgical precision, the Tories are disembowelling the welfare state – sheep-like, decent Lib Dems can only watch.

I'm saying that the magnitude of the Tory carnage they are voting through the lobbies of Parliament far outweighs any possible advantage their various concessions and amendments could ever be worth.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... ing-moment

The entire purpose of a political party is to enact its policies.

Had the LDs not formed a coalition, they would have turned down their only chance to govern, and would likely have died even quicker than they are doing so at present.

Aye, the government might "achieve" less... but that's not necessarily a bad thing.

I think that enough people around the UK had just plain forgotten how fucking evil to the core the Tories are,

Yes, and how did that AV vote work out for them?



No. They could have extracted an incredibly high price from both Conservative or Labour. They were and still are power brokers. Remeber that the Coalition agreement is an agreement not to force an early election - the Tories are as trapped by it as the Lib Dems are.

Instead they have meekly rolled over on any aspect of policy that actually fucking matters. Are we supposed to be grateful that they acted as a brake on Tory excesses by only allowing them to triple the fees?

For the one absolutely vital policy on AV that could have significantly increased the LD vote, the Tories fought tooth and nail against it. The Lib Dems response is to act like a battered housewife and meekly acquiesce. You can see the level of disappointment from the public in their polling figures.

Are we supposed to be grateful that they acted as a brake on Tory excesses by only allowing them to triple the fees?

WTF are you on about - the Lib Dems tripled the fees. Clegg was all over the telly.

Yeah, woe betide anyone who thinks that, actually, de facto nationalised, centralised, government-run monoliths like the NHS represent a pretty shit, ridiculously and demonstrably outmoded, inefficient, wasteful and above all ineffective way of running things (just as per nationalised industries have been in general, at least in the UK). That just maybe, we could learn important lessons from Continental Europe, who by and large have vastly better healthcare systems than we do - with demonstrably much better treatment, survival rates and so on - complete with their participation of the Private Sector?

That actually, it's an unmitigated scandal that we, in the UK, have one of the worst cancer survival rates and other stats, 'postcode lotteries' and all the rest

That would only make sense if the disillusioned voters were flocking to Labour. They're not. In the last six months, the ICM polls showed that Labour dropped, the LDs went up by 1% (admittedly at a level far below their last election time levels) and the Tories went UP by 4%!

Other polls show other percentages, but in the last six months not a great deal has changed, indicating that there is no final exodus of LD supporters further than the muppets who left over tuition fees.

*groan*

Yeah, woe betide anyone who thinks that, actually, de facto nationalised, centralised, government-run monoliths like the NHS represent a pretty shit, ridiculously and demonstrably outmoded, inefficient, wasteful and above all ineffective way of running things (just as per nationalised industries have been in general, at least in the UK).

Oh really? Better tell that well known "evil" Tory, Simon Hughes of the LibDems that then.

No, woe-betide anyone who persists in holding such a view based on little more than political ideology and blind prejudice.

Those European countries with "vastly better" healthcare also spend vastly more money.

Do you think that most doctors are died in the wool left-wingers or something?

Had the LDs not formed a coalition

Starkey had it right on QT the other day - doctors are entirely self-interested, the end.

Brown told him to go and fuck himself.

and I am not getting into another "stat war" with you or anyone else on this

Hands up all those who have actually read the bill itself. Anyone?

Now hands up who are basing their opinions on 2nd/3rd hand subjective 'analysis' they've read from a variety of pundits/unionists coming at it with wildly differerent political bents. Foregone conclusion the second set of people are the majority.

This is not the 'destruction' of the NHS, or the privatisation of the same. Anyone touting such sensationalist and wholly non-descriptive terms is as much of an idiot as the people they purport to decry. I have not decided my own position on the bill, but I know better than to start wading into the argument over my head on one side or the other.

I see a lot of people screaming that the pubilc was not consulted. There is no cause for asking 'the public' about a piece of proposed legislation, ignoring the fact that 99% won't have read it, and 95% are too politically inept to care. And since when did the public know anything about anything? Expecting the man on the street to ignorantly weigh in on the complexities of a huge organisation (5th largest employer in the world, y'know) is amibitious at best, and just mind-bogglingly stupid at worst. "PUBLIC NOT CONSULTED, THIS IS NOT DEMOCRACY" is a great thing for an antagonist to sling around but it's not making them look as big and clever as they'd like to think.

It's all incredibly democratic. The elected, ruling party of the government, in cooperation with their coalition, have been explicitly entrusted by their voters to represent them on changes to legislation. PMQs for the last 6 weeks has been a comparison of Royal Medical bodies who support the bill, vs. another list of those against. It's certainly split opinion (again, amongst those that base their opinions on footnotes), but to say the 'medical profession' don't support it is a lie. Some do, some don't. It's value is arguable and I see nothing to justify the blatant, widespread fearmongery about how it's the DOOM of the NHS we've complained about relentlessly up to now.

The very fact that the Government has been ordered by a court to publish the risk register associated with the planned changes and has refused to do so should be enough of a red flag on its own.

My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, and my noble friend Lord Wilson of Dinton in advising the House not to support the Motion. I do not want to go into any more detail on the risk registers. They need to be comprehensive and candid; if there is a risk of publishing them, the compilers will be less likely to make them as comprehensive and candid as they need to be in order to be of value. When the Information Commissioner suggests that, even if this is published, people will be equally comprehensive and candid in future, I am afraid that I think he is guilty of wishful thinking.

There is a process with this risk register. I understand that we have not yet seen the reasons for the decision reached by the Tribunal. When that is known, the Government have the right to appeal. I hope that they exercise it because the considerations against publication, as they have been stated more than once today, are very cogent. That process is likely to take a great deal longer than the three weeks that the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Owen, gives the Bill. The only sensible course now is to disentangle the business of the risk register and the business of passing the Bill, to let the Bill go forward and not to support the Motion.

I add my support to what the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, and others who have spoken against the Motion said. I am deeply concerned about the implications of the Motion for the Civil Service.

Every day in government, Ministers consider policy issues and depend on the Civil Service for advice. Anyone who has been a Minister understands the private space in which civil servants give their best advice. There is a major public interest in advice being given without fear of it becoming part of the political arena, in the press or in Parliament. If risk registers are published, the very act of publishing them will draw them into the public arena and politicise the advice. This is not about lying, or about being dishonest in any way, but the duty of civil servants is to the Ministers they serve and to the Government of the day. They have a job to do and they must do it to the best of their ability, but they must do it in a way that does not cause difficulty for the Government.

It is in all our interests that risk registers are honest and look at the worst case, and put it in terms that leave the Minister in no doubt about the risks that are being taken. If those documents are going to appear in the public arena, they are bound to be sanitised in some form. Advice will either be put in a way that does not fully expose the dangers, or worse still it will not be given. There is a real risk that important advice will be driven off the paper into oral remarks, which are not what the Minister needs. The Minister needs a document that he or she can read after the meeting, and ponder and mull in the stillness of their own room. If we push these documents into the political debate, we will lose a crucial part of the role of the Civil Service. If we do it a lot, over time there is a real risk that Ministers will want around them civil servants who are themselves political, because they have become part of the political debate.

This is a very dangerous pressure to put on the constitution. I understand the worries about the Bill, but this is not the right way to attack it. It would be a dreadful mistake if this House were, in the heat of the moment, to set a precedent that affected the Civil Service in its ability to serve the Government of the day.

Across all parties there is an understanding about the need to observe the conventions under which the Civil Service operates. I appeal to the House not to add its weight to this issue of the risk register in a way that might do damage, because the damage would be not only to this Bill and this department. Whitehall is watching; it is really concerned about this issue, and if this goes the wrong way it will have implications and reverberations across government in ways that I am sure this House would not want. I urge the House not to support the Motion.

The single provision that scares me most is the allocation of up to 49% of beds in hospitals to those being treated by an external private medical authority. Got a pre-existing chronic condition? Well, then you either pay massively inflated amounts of cash to get medical coverage, or you make do with only 51% of the space that was previously available for treatment.

The cap on how much hospitals can earn from private patients rises from as little as 1.5% to 49%.

I don't think you'll get much support for that. Labour were desperate to cling to power and I recall they were extremely whiny and upset about how 'quickly' (although I think the period was around 5 torturous days) the LD's opted for a coalition with the party who had gained the largest number of MPs in the election. Labour were even firing around possibilities of rainbow coalitions to try to make up the numbers. It was embarassing and desperate, and doomed.

On this, Tony Baldry said we should read these:

Greater transparency across government is at the heart of our shared commitment to enable the public to hold politicians and public bodies to account

EH?

bbc SAYS

The very fact that the Government has been ordered by a court to publish the risk register associated with the planned changes and has refused to do so should be enough of a red flag on its own.

Hmm - I thought it was deliberately tied to availability of beds, not cashflow. But the same thing applies.

Now, if I was trying to get my system published in an incredibly political back-stabbing sensationalist bullshit world, I might reasonably try to withhold my documentation from my opponents because I know absolutely full well that my small, but acknowledge risks will be blown up out of all proportion and used in an attempt to score political points that are completely out of touch with the actual, real risk of something happening.

But naturally, in this game that perfectly sound logic is lost against a backdrop of 'GOVERNMENT DEFY COURTS. BILL REMAINS EVIL BASED ON SPECULATION OF PEOPLE WHO HAVEN'T READ IT'. etc etc etc.

"Hmmm, I have mistated a fact because I haven't done any proper checking. Despite that, y'know, it's all still bad".

I'm only going to be interested in the opinion of someone who isn't mutating or misremebering something they heard somewhere else. This is largely a debate of the gibberingly misinformed.