Bye Bye Gordon!

[SteveBentley]

Interestingly it seems Clegg has managed to get a concession that reform of politics will include a ban on non-domiciled persons sitting in Parliament, which I take to include both houses. How the hell has he pulled that one off, given the implications for Lord Ashcroft?

[mattx]

It's not just the banking sector bailout. The previous govt had been spending more than they had been brining in for many, many years now. The media are only just now beginning to report on just how bad the UKs defecit is now that Labour has no hold over them.

 

Quick history lesson - which I think I have repeated on more than one occasion - it was THATCHER & REGAN who were responsible for the deregulation of banks etc back in the 80's.....

You seem to forget that - funny.

DC wnats "less government intervention" - the same thing Maggie did back in the 80s which led to poor social conditions and cuts in social services such as health care and education. As the Tories have already sold most of the countries silver back in the 80's I am wondering how they are going to continue's Friedrich Hayek's The Constitution of Liberty vision.

 

http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/3687/murdcamclegg.gif

Edited May 12, 2010 by mattx

[contink]

Funny how Labour supporters are so... (blah, blah...)

 

Stop believing your own propoganda.

Ass-U-me all you like... Did I say I supported labour or even vote for them?

 

 

As to propaganda, how much BS have you swallowed yourself... Wonderful to judge from 5,000 miles away in a pair of tight fitting stilletos instead of up close in those of Gordo or anyone else in the hot seat.

[localzuk]

Funny how Labour supporters are so damn blind to what state Labour have left ths country in. People have been dying whilst under the Labour Government, are we to forget the fact that people are refused life extending cancer drugs due to cost yet we can afford to give people to bone idle to work a free laptop and free internet connection? Labour supporters need to get real and smell the roses, the reason education seems to have been improved is down to the fact that Labour has dumbed down the GCSE's to such a point where a blind deaf monkey could pass them.

 

Stop believing your own propoganda.

 

I think you're entering into the 'propaganda' arena there also... You say 'life extending cancer drugs', I say 'pills that would mean a person would stay alive for 3 more months, whilst being in pain and not having any quality of life, whilst costing the NHS tens of thousands of pounds that could have been used to fund much more'. You say 'bone idle to work, a free laptop and free internet connection', I say 'providing the tools needed in the 21st century to effectively find work, and to operate within the modern society' (I don't disagree about some of the people on benefits being cheats and bone idle though - but this is a small percentage compared to those that actually need help).

 

Stop believing your own propaganda.

[Disease]

I think you're entering into the 'propaganda' arena there also... You say 'life extending cancer drugs', I say 'pills that would mean a person would stay alive for 3 more months, whilst being in pain and not having any quality of life, whilst costing the NHS tens of thousands of pounds that could have been used to fund much more'. You say 'bone idle to work, a free laptop and free internet connection', I say 'providing the tools needed in the 21st century to effectively find work, and to operate within the modern society' (I don't disagree about some of the people on benefits being cheats and bone idle though - but this is a small percentage compared to those that actually need help).

 

Stop believing your own propaganda.

 

1. Be interesting to see if you had the same view if the person who needed the drugs was say your mother or father?

 

2. We all know that those laptops/PC's will either be sold on Ebay or down pub to buy Booze Fags and Drugs.

 

[localzuk]

1. Be interesting to see if you had the same view if the person who needed the drugs was say your mother or father?

 

2. We all know that those laptops/PC's will either be sold on Ebay or down pub to buy Booze Fags and Drugs.

 

 

The point I was making is that everyone's perspective will be fed by propaganda. Your view is based on one side of the argument, others will be based on the other side.

 

(Personal view - if a person has a chance of living for more time but would have no quality of life, then I'd be happier for them to pass than sit and suffer).

[Disease]

Indeed but if they want that chance of extra life they should get it, they paid into that system for that reason. Edited May 12, 2010 by Disease

[RingOfFlame]

(Personal view - if a person has a chance of living for more time but would have no quality of life, then I'd be happier for them to pass than sit and suffer).

 

Not really your decision to make. If someone wants to continue living to spend time with loved ones and there is medication that can give them that then they should be allowed to have it. They may well still be in pain, but being with the people you love will over ride that. Maybe you feel this way because if you were in this situation you would not have anyone or anything to live for?

 

I pity you, I really do.

[localzuk]

Indeed butif they what that chance of extra life they should get it, they paid into that system for that reason.

 

At the expense of the majority? That's not how the NHS has ever worked. There has always been limits on care, it just isn't economically viable to grant access to every drug and every test etc... to patients that want it because it *may* help them. That's why we have review boards on whether or not drugs are actually beneficial, and that's why doctors make the decisions on what patients actually get given. Otherwise, what would be to stop me going into a hospital and demanding an MRI when I have a headache? I've paid into the system...

[localzuk]

Not really your decision to make. If someone wants to continue living to spend time with loved ones and there is medication that can give them that then they should be allowed to have it. They may well still be in pain, but being with the people you love will over ride that. Maybe you feel this way because if you were in this situation you would not have anyone or anything to live for?

 

I pity you, I really do.

 

Lovely to see you again I have lots to live for, if you knew me you'd know that. My views seem to upset a good number of people, but that's life. I don't need pity, all I ask is people make reasoned decisions rather than reacting via emotion. Sure, a loved one dying is a horrible thing (I have had a grand parent pass away very recently, so I know how it feels, but at the same time I was happy that she had finally passed, as she was in such discomfort throughout the last few years, being unable to remember anything, being in constant pain etc... who would want a loved one to go through that?), but I realise you can't always have what you want and have to make a decision based on what is available.

 

Would YOU want to live for the last couple of years of your life being unable to remember your name, or who your children were, being unable to move without the assistance of a team of caregivers? Being so fragile that a simple trip over a step leads to broken limbs and more pain? That getting up in the morning is such an excruciating event that you have no desire to do so?

[creese]

all I ask is people make reasoned decisions rather than reacting via emotion.

 

Isn't that what makes us human? God help us if a machine was devised to decide who lived and died. What was that film with Jenny Ageter (?)

[torledo]

Quick history lesson - which I think I have repeated on more than one occasion - it was THATCHER & REGAN who were responsible for the deregulation of banks etc back in the 80's.....

You seem to forget that - funny.

 

he wasn't talking about that. specifically, he mentioned that labour have ran a budget deficit [i take it you know what one of those is] for successive years, even before the recession.

 

this was at the same time when there was arguably an unprecedented adoption of PFI for public capital works projects [labour extented the idea into all sorts of areas].....and PFI allows them to off-balance sheet the eventual costs of such projects.

 

So imagine how bad the deficit would have been had they actually paid up front in full for these things. The mind boggles.....

[RingOfFlame]

Without being in that situation it is hard to comment. But if for example I was and say my son or daughter was pregnant, would I want to carry on to see my grandchildren? Yes I would.

 

As for you scenario lets change old person for 20something, your younger brother or sister, who, with the aid of very expensive drugs could continue living a normal life, but without them dies? You are happy for them to just pass?

[Rydra]

Without being in that situation it is hard to comment. But if for example I was and say my son or daughter was pregnant, would I want to carry on to see my grandchildren? Yes I would.

 

As for you scenario lets change old person for 20something, your younger brother or sister, who, with the aid of very expensive drugs could continue living a normal life, but without them dies? You are happy for them to just pass?

 

In my opinion, those 2 situations are different.

Your first option is a life-extending option, where you are going to die within a short space of time anyway, and it is simply prolonging the event.

The 2nd, to me sounds like life-saving treatment, and I rarely hear of life-saving treatments being refused?

[localzuk]

Isn't that what makes us human? God help us if a machine was devised to decide who lived and died. What was that film with Jenny Ageter (?)

 

No, what makes us human is our ability to use our intelligence to make decisions. Sure, emotion pays a part in it, but emotion shouldn't be the single guide which we make decisions via.

 

In my opinion, those 2 situations are different.

Your first option is a life-extending option, where you are going to die within a short space of time anyway, and it is simply prolonging the event.

The 2nd, to me sounds like life-saving treatment, and I rarely hear of life-saving treatments being refused?

 

Agreed. Life saving drugs aren't withheld, only ones which 'could, maybe' extend a life of someone who is about to die of a terminal illness, whilst not giving them any form of quality of life.

[RingOfFlame]

Ok I'll rephrase. Lets change old person for 20something, your younger brother or sister, who, with the aid of very expensive drugs could continue living for a number of months / years, but without them dies tomorrow? You are happy for them to just pass?

[creese]

No, what makes us human is our ability to use our intelligence to make decisions. Sure, emotion pays a part in it, but emotion shouldn't be the single guide which we make decisions via.

 

I hope I make far more decisions based on emotion than I do based on money.

[localzuk]

Ok I'll rephrase. Lets change old person for 20something, your younger brother or sister, who, with the aid of very expensive drugs could continue living for a number of months / years, but without them dies tomorrow? You are happy for them to just pass?

 

It depends on what quality of life they would have. If they would be alive but in constant pain/not be able to operate within society without extreme care etc... then yes, I would be happier for them to pass than to be forced to live on in pain.

 

I hope I make far more decisions based on emotion than I do based on money.

 

It isn't about 'money' it is about realising the realities of life. Resources are scarce. One person having things spent on them which could be spent on helping 100 people is a problem to me. It is utilitarianism really.

[creese]

It isn't about 'money' it is about realising the realities of life. Resources are scarce. One person having things spent on them which could be spent on helping 100 people is a problem to me. It is utilitarianism really.

 

Resources cost money. That's what stops them being plentiful. So it is down to money.

 

Would you prefer to save 100 chavs as opposed to one Einstein?

[RingOfFlame]

It depends on what quality of life they would have. If they would be alive but in constant pain/not be able to operate within society without extreme care etc... then yes, I would be happier for them to pass than to be forced to live on in pain.

 

Well contrary to what you have said above you obviously have not had to deal with a close family member having a terminal illness and I repeat again that I pity you and your outlook on life. You truly must be a sad lonely individual, and will remain so no doubt.

[SteveBentley]

I have been in that situation, and think localzuk's position is perfectly understandable and I don't think such an outlook is deserving of pity in the slightest.

 

If you've been through seeing a loved one in constant pain, confined to a hospital bed with no hope of recovery, not knowing what's going on around them you'll know that they're really just existing, not really living any sort of life. Forcing treatment upon them which will make the agony last longer with no hope of curing or even alieviating the underlying position is bordering on cruelty imo.

 

It's a decision which should be taken on the merits of each individual case, with medical opinion being the primary factor in the decision taken, and I wouldn't be in favour of a blanket ruling that you *can't* prolong somebody's life in that situation. But I certainly wouldn't want a blanket ruling that you *must*.

 

I hope it's a decision I never have to make, but it needs to be a considered decision based on the circumstances, not an across the board rule.

[DrCheese]

Ok I'll rephrase. Lets change old person for 20something, your younger brother or sister, who, with the aid of very expensive drugs could continue living for a number of months / years, but without them dies tomorrow? You are happy for them to just pass?

 

If the NHS paid out billions for "Just a few more weeks" for those close to death then it would quickly bankrupt the country, with little to no benefit for the majority of those paying into the system, save a few families. It would be incredibly selfish for people to demand otherwise.

 

You truly must be a sad lonely individual, and will remain so no doubt.

I don't think that's fair in the slightest. In an ideal world we could afford to provide all this end of life care, but we simply can't. We HAVE to make these hard decisions.

Edited May 12, 2010 by DrCheese

[torledo]

For all those of you who voted Tory........please remember that when you lose your jobs due to devastating Tory Spending cuts, please come and say good bye on the way out and we can give you the 1 fingered salute.

Hope none of you rely too much on Working Families Tax Credits or your kids on EMA..............

 

A sad sad day for Britain, how long before they put Maggie back in front of the cameras????

 

don't you mean tory AND libdem spending cuts ?

 

therefore should your sentence not start 'for all those who voted tory and libdem.....'

[SteveBentley]

Here's a thought - if we do somehow get through to 2015 with this coalition Government holding up, will people be able to vote for a continuation of the status quo?

[tmcd35]

Here's a thought - if we do somehow get through to 2015 with this coalition Government holding up, will people be able to vote for a continuation of the status quo?

 

Vote exactly the same way you did this time and hope everyone else does the same?

 

Better still when the referendum for AV comes vote in favour as AV (and better still PR) increases the likelihood of a hung parliament. *IF* this parliament runs the full 5 years then I would expect a LibDem PM inside of the next 4 or 5 parliaments. I think Clegg has a lot riding on this coalition and needs it to succeed.