Happy new year! Have a great 1930!

[GoldWithFalmer]

Still voting Blue....Start & End of disscussion & for that matter thread....(for me anyway).

 

[Soulman]

Was it on this thread the lack of trained people in the NHS was mentioned, and recruiting from Oz.
Well perhaps if the NHS was not dealing with loads more people, due to the mass of immigration under Labour, then the money that is now being spent on the infrastructure, overcrowded roads, housing, schooling etc etc, to accommodate for this influx........could have been used to fund the smaller NHS, and the training that would be needed (or not if there were less population) for these people that have have been brought in from OZ, and who will actually add to the population which is helping the problem of the shortage in the aforementioned.

 

[drew]

Thanks for your reply. Yes, you are right, in that I did not back it up -just that I recall accounts of spending beyond their means. Of course, it "helps" if you can back it up with something, or perhaps just that it makes the post more pleased with him/herself. But your post was such that the attachment was presented as proof, and this is what I took issue with. I don't know if the issue is really what the tories would have done -is it worth debating something that did not happen?

My post suggested that the tories might be wrong, i did not say it proved they were wrong. It was, afterall, another opinion.

As for your final sentence, well that's up to you. I suspect speculating on what a party would or would not do, or what they say they would have done, is one way in which people can make decisions as to where they should put their cross come May!

 

[Bladders]

Is there a shitest thread of the year award?

This one is a real front runner

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Is there a shitest thread of the year award?

This one is a real front runner

as far as genuine "Happy New Year" greetings on NSC go, I'm struggling to think of a worse one over the years.

The accolades are piling up...and it's only day 1 of 2015!

 

[drew]

Was it on this thread the lack of trained people in the NHS was mentioned, and recruiting from Oz.
Well perhaps if the NHS was not dealing with loads more people, due to the mass of immigration under Labour, then the money that is now being spent on the infrastructure, overcrowded roads, housing, schooling etc etc, to accommodate for this influx........could have been used to fund the smaller NHS, and the training that would be needed (or not if there were less population) for these people that have have been brought in from OZ, and who will actually add to the population which is helping the problem of the shortage in the aforementioned.

And how does that argument measure up to the massive increase in overseas recruitment from the start of Labour's term in office in 1997?

Furthermore, with a squeeze on the NHS budgets, it is cheaper for a trust to employ an overseas trained nurse than pay £70k to train UK applicants. When monies tight you go for the cost effective measures! Also, your post implies that there are thousands more nurses in the NHS to cope with the larger numbers of immigrants receiving treatment yet, as of Nov 13, there were 6k less nurses working in hospitals than when (according to a bbc report http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-25005671 ). There may well be an increase in workload due to immigrants but some reports suggest the additional cost to the NHS is as little as a net £12m in 2011/12! Hunt has suggessted it is as high as £200m but has not provided any evidence to support that.

Fact is the NHS has always employed overseas trained nurses it's just that now it's used as an argument to support to support UKIP's attacks on immigration.

 

[Soulman]

And how does that argument measure up to the massive increase in overseas recruitment from the start of Labour's term in office in 1997?

Furthermore, with a squeeze on the NHS budgets, it is cheaper for a trust to employ an overseas trained nurse than pay £70k to train UK applicants. When monies tight you go for the cost effective measures! Also, your post implies that there are thousands more nurses in the NHS to cope with the larger numbers of immigrants receiving treatment yet, as of Nov 13, there were 6k less nurses working in hospitals than when (according to a bbc report http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-25005671 ). There may well be an increase in workload due to immigrants but some reports suggest the additional cost to the NHS is as little as a net £12m in 2011/12! Hunt has suggessted it is as high as £200m but has not provided any evidence to support that.

Fact is the NHS has always employed overseas trained nurses it's just that now it's used as an argument to support to support UKIP's attacks on immigration.

Again, as HG stated, just your opinion....and i have mine. Also why bring UKIP into the debate now, the debate has been about the way Labour and the Tories have run the economy, in case you have not noticed UKIP have had no say as to the way the country has been run the last few decades.....why, because they have NEVER been in power, a FACT that is true and not just your or my opinion.

 

[drew]

Again, as HG stated, just your opinion....and i have mine. Also why bring UKIP into the debate now, the debate has been about the way Labour and the Tories have run the economy, in case you have not noticed UKIP have had no say as to the way the country has been run the last few decades.....why, because they have NEVER been in power, a FACT that is true and not just your or my opinion.

I accept it is your opinion, that's fair enough. UKIP came into it as that is the direction you sent it on with your comments about migrants and I think you know that. Your affinity to that party seems quite clear from your comments on other threads! Apologies if I'm wrong.

 

[Soulman]

I accept it is your opinion, that's fair enough. UKIP came into it as that is the direction you sent it on with your comments about migrants and I think you know that. Your affinity to that party seems quite clear from your comments on other threads! Apologies if I'm wrong.

Again your opinion, i did not send the post in the direction of UKIP by my comments on migration, the mass immigration was on Labours watch...i think YOU knew that.
The thread was titled about 2015 and going back to the 1930's, by a staunch Labour supporter who lives in Germany, in other words an OPINION about the serving Tory government, the debate naturally turns to comparing Labour/Conservative.
As i stated in my post, i believe the mass immigration on Labours watch has contributed to the NHS discussion that has started........how you managed to bring a party that has NOT been in power to get your opinion over, when they had not been mentioned, just smacks of body swerving.
I stand by my opinion as to why i feel the NHS has taken in staff from Oz in THIS instant.
My affinity is to the party that shares the most of my OPINIONS, whether others feel they are right or wrong.

 

[drew]

I stand by my opinion as to why i feel the NHS has taken in staff from Oz in THIS instant..

So where is the evidence to support that view?

Also, didn't the debate swing to the NHS and immigration because you sent it in that direction!

 

[Soulman]

So where is the evidence to support that view?

Also, didn't the debate swing to the NHS and immigration because you sent it in that direction!

My opinion on what i have seen happen. Evidence?? this board is not a court of law, your opinions are not fact, just based on what you think and what you read.
The debate did "swing to the NHS and immigration"... because as i have stated TWICE now, i believe that the NHS subject, that was NOT brought into the debate by me, has been greatly attributed to by Labours policy (which they have since admitted was wrong) on mass immigration. Again, i did not mention UKIP, but in your own post happen to shoehorn them in, and then assume and insinuate. Perhaps go back a few posts eh.

 

[Raleigh Chopper]

Without immigration the NHS would cease to function from the kitchens and cleaners to specialist doctors and surgeons.
Which way do you want it?

 

[drew]

My opinion on what i have seen happen. Evidence?? this board is not a court of law, your opinions are not fact, just based on what you think and what you read.
The debate did "swing to the NHS and immigration"... because as i have stated TWICE now, i believe that the NHS subject, that was NOT brought into the debate by me, has been greatly attributed to by Labours policy (which they have since admitted was wrong) on mass immigration. Again, i did not mention UKIP, but in your own post happen to shoehorn them in, and then assume and insinuate. Perhaps go back a few posts eh.

Nobody said it was a court of law but if you offer an opinion then it is quite normal to back it up with some evidence. For example, do you know how many nurses have been recruited from Oz? That is of course one side of your argument, the other being the suggestion that immigrants are the ones putting a strain on the economy. Have you anything to support that? It is of course up to you if you want to back up your opinion but if not, then some people might just perceive that you don't like immigrants and look to blame all our economic ills on them!

The NHS was mentioned but only in respect of the training of staff and the requirement for nurses to take a degree course. You decided to introduce immigration to the debate, which you are entitled to do as it is your opinion, and with that comes the inevitable link to UKIP.

 

[Soulman]

Nobody said it was a court of law but if you offer an opinion then it is quite normal to back it up with some evidence. For example, do you know how many nurses have been recruited from Oz? That is of course one side of your argument, the other being the suggestion that immigrants are the ones putting a strain on the economy. Have you anything to support that? It is of course up to you if you want to back up your opinion but if not, then some people might just perceive that you don't like immigrants and look to blame all our economic ills on them!

The NHS was mentioned but only in respect of the training of staff and the requirement for nurses to take a degree course. You decided to introduce immigration to the debate, which you are entitled to do as it is your opinion, and with that comes the inevitable link to UKIP.

Feel free to put whatever slant on my posts. I have explained at least twice what my opinion is, but it obviously does not suit your views so you prefer to put what you think in your replies.
We disagree, which is fine, refreshing to have different views and at least no expletives.
I work daily with many immigrants, have done for years, i stand by my view that the amount, not immigration on the whole, has put a strain on our services.
Obviously you are very pro Labour, but after working on many hospitals and schools through the periods of both parties, and seeing the two parties swop control, then i could never vote Labour again.

 

[Raleigh Chopper]

I am not necessarily pro labour but if like me you had friends and a sister who work for the NHS and you hear about what is actually happening and not what the government want you to hear, then I cannot vote Tory this time.
Plus the fact that Cameron not once but twice used his dead son as a reason to try and convince us that there would be no top down changes to the NHS and then did the opposite.
Some of the most vile policies carried out in the name of austerity against the most vunerable in society and then failed to get anywhere near clearing the debt in 5 years as they said they would do.
Also failed on nearly every other target and still blaming labour for the mess after the global recession.
Labour made some huge mistakes but another 5 years of Cameron and Osborne, god help us, no thanks.
A prime opportunity for a decent party to emerge and we get UKIP.
What a mess.

 

[Pizza]

so you're saying they didnt cut enough, right? because the debt will continue to increase while we have such a budget spending deficit by the state. when reciting the poor performance under Osborne, remember that the Balls policy was to cut less... so the deficit would have been larger and the debt grown further. neither party has offered policies to encourage and support growth, they both hope the problem will disappear through the economic cycle, which isnt happening.

You don't understand macroeconomics.

 

[jimbob5]

Still voting Blue....Start & End of disscussion & for that matter thread....(for me anyway).

Blue economics caused world banking crash. Red economics bailed it out.

 

[Tubby Mondays]

I am not necessarily pro labour but if like me you had friends and a sister who work for the NHS and you hear about what is actually happening and not what the government want you to hear, then I cannot vote Tory this time.
Plus the fact that Cameron not once but twice used his dead son as a reason to try and convince us that there would be no top down changes to the NHS and then did the opposite.
Some of the most vile policies carried out in the name of austerity against the most vunerable in society and then failed to get anywhere near clearing the debt in 5 years as they said they would do.
Also failed on nearly every other target and still blaming labour for the mess after the global recession.
Labour made some huge mistakes but another 5 years of Cameron and Osborne, god help us, no thanks.
A prime opportunity for a decent party to emerge and we get UKIP.
What a mess.

That is a very sound way of looking at it and making a decision.

I work in the NHS as well and what has happened to it in the last 4 years beggars belief. I could not have thought so much damage could have been done in such a short time unless I had witnessed it myself.

And all in the name of ideology and truly frightening to go from user satisfaction at its highest to crucial treatment targets being consistently missed.