Tim Montgomerie, the editor of the ConservativeHome.com blog has suggested that the NHS budget should lose its ring-fenced status; I think he is fundamentally wrong, and is completely mistaken in this proposal, wrong about the nature of the NHS and wrong about the rationale for its very existence, I also think that similar suggestions come from a dark cavernous recess of highly dubious instrumental reason and fetid dogma, rather than being the result of any well thought out, coherent, cohesive and humane rationale. Of course, I could be wrong. This is speculation and opinion after all. Occasionally, some things are idle taxi driver speculation at best, never to be taken to the level debate.
Here are my responses to an article that appeared on The Guardian's highly respect blog "Comment is Free".
The strapline on Tim's article is "If Osborne is brave enough to share out the pain equally – health cuts included – a VAT rise won't be needed". Let's look at some other things we might look at before we touch the NHS:
1. Cancel Trident
2. Nationalise the banks
3. End privatisation in Health and Education
4. Tell everyone what the deal is, how much needs to be cut - take the "we're all in this together" approach, and just don't cut because it's politically expedient but because it's an economic necessity - socialise profit and loss, and make it fair.
5. Introduce real democracy - there's an economic war on, and real democracy, from grassroots - community - up, is needed more than ever.
99. Close down parasitic think tanks.
Time goes on to say that " George Osborne's favourite slogan is "we're all in this together" and he has gone a long way to prove it". But what does that really mean:
Ring fencing essentially necessary public service is not fiscal irresponsibility but social responsibility. If the UK needs to cut into NHS spending it means that every other avenue of saving has been explored, which is clearly bollox. This is not thinking out of the box, it is thinking inside the darkest recesses nastiness. Old grassroots Tories saw that gradual socialization was not only inevitable but desirable, their major concerns were with controls and the speed of change. In that respect the old Tories were not mean minded, just very cautious - I didn't agree with that stance either, but at least it was socially responsible and intellectually responsible, as well as being relatively coherent.
Tim says that "Fairness is ingrained in the British psychology", but then goes on to completely miss the point of the reason being something taken on face value and used a s a sound bite.
The worst Tories of the Thatcherite era were clearly people who just took an instrumental reasoned approach to everything, without considering for one moment the human consequences, as if their pornographic market dogma were all that mattered. There is no place for anti-social dogma in world that cries out for justice, reason and humanity, no matter if the dogma comes from the left, the right, the centre or an intellectual cesspit. It's a mistake to misuse terms like Nazi, but in strict terms, how does the inhumane instrumental reason of the Nazis differ from the inhumane instrumental reason of anyone else?
Then ... the anonymous
spanows jumps in:
spanows:
21 Jun 2010, 10:13PM
@MartynInEurope
If the UK needs to cut into NHS spending it means that every other avenue of saving has been explored, which is clearly bollox.
or perhaps teh stawman in your sentence is the real bollox. You seriously believe that the NHS budget has no flexibility? No waste? Not trimming possible?
I didn't agree with that stance either, but at least it was socially responsible and intellectually responsible, as well as being relatively coherent.
So you would prefer a Tory government, not this coalition?
You are mistaken
spanows. Just because some people hate the non-Tory voting poor, doesn't mean we all do. There is no place for anti-social dogma in world that cries out for justice, reason and humanity, no matter if the dogma comes from the left, the right, the centre or an intellectual cesspit.
hmmm, know what? I believe you'd accept anti-social dogma from the left.
You know
spannows, some people will question my ideology, and hats of to them too, because I have no ideology beyond social
justice, no matter who provides it. Does that mean that I respect dogma, dogma that is nothing better than the putrid ideas of those who would go against their own, their country men and women and against the welfare of their own? No,for them let's be clear about this, I have no respect, zero respect, null respect, zilch respect, iteratively and absolutely no respect, and I don't have a problem stating as much. In a democracy, decent people with decent arguments deserve respect, people who just want social
aggro by pursuing hate via a socially divisive, racist and
aggro position, deserve zero respect.
Now, FUCK OFF!
Print | posted on Monday, June 21, 2010 11:05 PM