I suppose we have to think of context - the 1942 Beveridge Report set the scene - many historians would argue that Tory ambivalence to the report helped cause the surprise Tory defeat after the war.
Those Physicians took the line that the NHS was a ‘National Socialist’ experiment and something akin to what Hitler might have thought up - one BMA chairman referred to a *“medical fuhrer.” if the NHS bill was made law, I know it sounds silly in 2022
Whether Churchill did actually say the quote often ascribed to him I don’t know - but I do know the words of the Tory amendment to the bill:
. discourages voluntary effort and association; mutilates the structure of local government; dangerously increases ministerial power and patronage; appropriates trust funds and benefactions in contempt of the wishes of donors and subscribers; and undermines the freedom and independence of the medical profession to the detriment of the nation
It’s possible to see why Churchill disliked the bill - he saw it as Authoritarian in nature - something he had fought against in a life or death battle the previous years.
History is a fascinating subject and something I can spend hours reading and listening to - wonder will generations to come find our present times quite as interesting?
Its correctly stated that Labour had adopted a national health service as a manifesto commitment. But the Conservatives did not adopt opposition to an NHS. Looking at the reasoning quoted in Wiki on why Labour won a landslide victory ion 1945, health care wasn’t an issue, everyone knew it was coming anyway. Housing and employment with the back-up of a welfare state apparatus, plus a rejection of 1930’s Conservative foreign policies were far more prominent.
As far as the NHS is concerned, it remains an idea that is high in principles, third-rate in delivery and inevitably unaffordable.
No surprise that Douglas Ross wants Boris Johnson to resign.
Ross has for a long time been campaigning with no concern for the continuation of the Union, but with the target objective of him becoming the first Prime Minister of an independent Scotland.
With friends like him the people of Scotland are sunk. His objectives can only be met by very bad misgovernment by the SNP in the devolved administration and by the UK government in Westminster in matters relating to Scotland. Its entirely consistent with his interests to see the UK government fall and be replaced by Labour, who then abolish the Union, simply so that he can gain the seat of power. A clearer example of naked ambition and seeking advantage without regard to anyone else’s costs would be hard to find.
Maybe closer to home for the PM - in fact next door.
The home Sec and others went on the airwaves to give full backing to the PM after his apology - but the Chancellor was absent.
Took another 8 hours for hi to issue for him to tweet 20 words which could hardly be described as gushing support.
“The PM was right to apologise and I support his request for patience while Sue Gray carries out her enquiry,”
Falstaff often asks who John Gault is - a better question would perhaps be who is Sue Gray?
Check out her bio.
Nope - in the olden days that was true - but nowadays current generation have different values.
Sky News: Director general of government’s COVID taskforce held office drinks party when indoor socialising was banned
Apparently another wee party in Dec '20 held indoors - same time as we were meeting our grandkids outside in cold and at a distance - and keeping an eye out for cops at the same time.
Ah well - at least Kate Josephs has said she is “truly sorry” so all is well.
Currently getting £190k p.a. from Sheffield City Council - so London’s loss is the North’s gain.
This is a thread that is concerned with the politics of Great Britain, not forex. Of course if a contributor wishes to relate GB politics with GBP or any other currency, they should freely do so and the readers will decide on the merit of what is posted. That’s the idea of a forum after all so go ahead if you have a contribution.
Pretty much the same as every other Nationalised Industry - ever undertaken - whether by “Democracies” - or indeed by their natural home - the Marxist Regimes of the World !
I think there’s a place for the BBC but not a privileged position.
The state should have no part in arranging the finances of a media company. I’d be very happy for the state to contribute towards the costs of some productions which could be said to be of British cultural and social importance - documentaries, religious and arts programming for example - which might otherwise be unviable. But it doesn’t require a state broadcasting corporation to achieve these ends.
I’d like to see the entire empire broken up and sold off along the lines of the Thatcher privatisations of the 80’s.
There are lots of business models out there that BBC could follow - they already earn 1.5bn from commercial activity - e.g. as soon as you go into Ireland or France and log onto bbc news - adverts are there like the rest of them.
Absolutely. The various divisions will stand on their own financial feet in ways which were just unavailable in 1923. Some programmes may need government support. Mass entertainment and TV coverage of sport should not be matters of government interest.
