And so he shouldThat Labour landlord would have a problem with (2) then.
And so he shouldThat Labour landlord would have a problem with (2) then.
Thought it was the Liberals who made the NHS free at the point of use for all?Revisiting this.
Sorry but your comment suggests very clearly the rationale behind eugenics, which is that prolonging the life of all (or at least their reproductive capacity), could be deleterious to human evolution.
The Nazis proactively pursued this with their concepts of Untermenschen and the master race.
I guess you hadn't thought it though!
Also true that the concept was kicked about by UK thinkers of all factions but no action was proposed or taken and the obvious inhumanity of it won the argument.
In the event Labour made clear that the NHS was for all, without qualification.
Arguably it is still under consideration in terms of the Qaly but the emphasis is on the value of interventions to the individual, not to the future of a master race.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality-adjusted_life_year.
Really? That's a new one. How could that be?Thought it was the Liberals who made the NHS free at the point of use for all?
Parents going without meals so their kids can eat, kids still going hungry - are these just fictitious stories, or does that not qualify as poverty in your book?Real poverty doesn't exist in the UK.
No Jacob that really won't wash. There have been various "brands" of eugenics over the years, but YOU specifically mentioned the Nazis.Revisiting this.
Sorry but your comment suggests very clearly the rationale behind eugenics, which is that prolonging the life of all (or at least their reproductive capacity), could be deleterious to human evolution.
The Nazis proactively pursued this with their concepts of Untermenschen and the master race.
I guess you hadn't thought it though!
Also true that the concept was kicked about by UK thinkers of all factions but no action was proposed or taken and the obvious inhumanity of it won the argument.
In the event Labour made clear that the NHS was for all, without qualification.
Arguably it is still under consideration in terms of the Qaly but the emphasis is on the value of interventions to the individual, not to the future of a master race.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality-adjusted_life_year.
You'll just have to read it again. I'm sure you'd get it eventually....
Perhaps you could abandon the usual soap in the bath slipperiness of your answers and tell us all exactly how Terry's post implied any such thing.
...
Child allowance for two children is over £40 - there's something wrong if you can't feed your children for that. If you have more children than that you should have thought about it before you had them.Parents going without meals so their kids can eat, kids still going hungry - are these just fictitious stories, or does that not qualify as poverty in your book?
That's child poverty sorted then.Child allowance for two children is over £40 - there's something wrong if you can't feed your children for that. If you have more children than that you should have thought about it before you had them.
Because it was largely the idea of William Beveridge, a liberal.Really? That's a new one. How could that be?
No Jacob I don't get it, please explain.You'll just have to read it again. I'm sure you'd get it eventually.
I doubt Terry realised that he was suggesting such a thing - I give hime the benefit of the doubt!
OK, but only the Labour party implemented it, mainly thanks to Aneurin Bevan.Because it was largely the idea of William Beveridge, a liberal.
Actually, I'm coming round to right-wing politics, it's really bloody easy, isn't it? People struggling and without are struggling without because it's their own fault; I don't need to take responsibility for them. That's a weight off. Naughty people are naughty people because they're just plain naughty - put them in jail, punish them and keep doing it til they wise up. Too many people coming to my country? Send 'em all away, none of my business, not my problem. (Forget history.) All I need to focus on is me and mine, pay the taxes that facilitate my lifestyle, complain about any other money taken from me. And try to get one over on everyone else - it's the law of the jungle.That's child poverty sorted then.
It should be.That's child poverty sorted then.
Just remember to punch down. It's easy!Actually, I'm coming round to right-wing politics, it's really bloody easy, isn't it? People struggling and without are struggling without because it's their own fault; I don't need to take responsibility for them. That's a weight off. Naughty people are naughty people because they're just plain naughty - put them in jail, punish them and keep doing it til they wise up. Too many people coming to my country? Send 'em all away, none of my business, not my problem. (Forget history.) All I need to focus on is me and mine, pay the taxes that facilitate my lifestyle, complain about any other money taken from me. And try to get one over on everyone else - it's the law of the jungle.
Easy peasy, I'm liking this new mind-set.
And there we have it, in a nutshell, Jacob. Some people make/find their opportunities and a lot don't. My perception, grown from prolonged experience, within the working class maybe a little more comprehensive than yours, but we have to accept each other's perceptions,right?I've worked in "industrial circles" all my life! I've done some very cr.ap jobs but mostly in short stints in between being self-employed. Though now I am yesterday's working man!
Not particularly. A moment or two of being grateful for the opportunity and the support around you might be more appropriate.
Indeed, and a good example of a government enacting an idea because it was a good one, regardless of the fact that it wasn't their own.OK, but only the Labour party implemented it, mainly thanks to Aneurin Bevan.
Eccentrics? Are you referring to the majority of the working class as eccentrics? After all, there have to be those with the ambition that manage those that don't, right? There has to be a big workforce managed by a lesser number of experienced managers. We find our own levels.Yes we all know of eccentrics and others on the fringe of society but in general poverty in all its various manifestations is not a life style choice.
It's possibly the silliest and laziest idea ever to come from the right!
All credit to Beveridge but it is possible for more than one person to come up with the same idea you know!Indeed, and a good example of a government enacting an idea because it was a good one, regardless of the fact that it wasn't their own.
.....
No, when Bevan set it up, he set it up to be free at the point of use.Thought it was the Liberals who made the NHS free at the point of use for all?
And Democratic in North Korea.as the Chinese use "communism".
Enter your email address to join: