Advanced search

Charles Clarke has a good idea?

(40 Posts)
jackstarbright Mon 29-Nov-10 19:34:33

Well I think it's interesting anyway. He's arguing for co-payment for services (even healthcare) More user charges would be effective and fair.

"The OECD suggests, for example, that in 1999, Government income from charges, fees and sales was about 0.2 per cent of GDP in the UK, compared with over 3 per cent for Austria, Finland and Denmark."

Warning to Tory girls - intro is (obligatory) Coalition bashing - then it gets controversial interesting.

newwave Mon 29-Nov-10 21:07:52

He has a point however it needs to be shown sgainst the rest of those countries overall tax and benifits.

claig Mon 29-Nov-10 21:15:02

It is just typical Labour taxation, increasing taxation on the middle classes and those who are unfortunate enough to be ill and have to use the services. It looks like the progressives have dreamed up a new spin doctor name for taxation - co-payment. They make it sound like we're all in it together. It will be just another excuse for them to employ more bureaucrats and incompetent fatcats and tell us that we are co-paying for them, on top of the high taxes that they were so fond of levying on us. That way they can inflate the state like an ever expanding balloon and tell us how progressive co-payment is.

The Tories believe in reducing the burden of taxation on the public, and of eliminating the inefficiency and waste that accompanies the ever expanding state.

It looks like the socialist spin doctors have been hard at work rebranding taxation as co-payment, just as they rebranded themselves as progressives. It looks like they are desperat, but fortunately the Tories can smell their rat.

newwave Mon 29-Nov-10 21:19:44

claig, you may be right, far far better to tax bank bonuses at 60+%, scrap Trident and tax non doms. Maybe also get stuck into the hedge funds and privatised utilities as well.

claig Mon 29-Nov-10 21:24:47

agree newwave, go after the really wealthy, not the middle classes and those who need to use medical services because they have fallen ill.

What's wrong with the socialists, so many of them ex-Trotskyists, why are they so keen to tax the hard-working middle classes, their hated Daily Mail readers? Why haven't they got the courage of their convictions, why don't they tax the rich? Is it because they are all rich themselves, with their private schools, their hedge fund investments, their legal careers and speaking engagements?

newwave Mon 29-Nov-10 21:29:01

claig, you have answered your own question, Blair/Brown licked Murdochs arse and now Dave is keeping it fresh and clean.

Far to many top civil servants leave and end up in industries they used to regulate, same with poiliticians of both sides.

The only thing which may help is proportional representation and the outlawing of the parlimentary whip system.

claig Mon 29-Nov-10 21:32:41

agree newwave, proportional representation is a must to fumigate the rotting edifice that they fool us with. Never thought about outlawing the whip system, but that sounds good if possible, as it would allow them to vote with their consciences and represent the public and not prop up their party.

newwave Mon 29-Nov-10 21:34:26

maybe stop the lobby/vote system in Parliment and make all votes a secret ballot

claig Mon 29-Nov-10 21:36:24

good idea, they always say unions should have secret ballots. Why can't they?

newwave Mon 29-Nov-10 21:42:49

Boris today said strikes should need 50% plus yes votes (abstensions to be no to a strike) to have a strike even though he only got 20% of the electorate first preference votes.

Double standards or what

claig Mon 29-Nov-10 21:46:57

Good point, they question the legitimacy of strikes, but they often make wholesale changes on the basis of a minority of the electorate. How do laws get passed in parliament? Do they need a 50% yes vote? Half the time the chamber is nearly empty, so it looks like they have different rules.

jackstarbright Mon 29-Nov-10 22:25:04

What is interesting is: a senior Labour Politician discussing a move away from the principle of universal services free at the point of use.

Other counties have no problem with this - France, for example, funds their world leading health service in part by co-payments charged to the more affluent.

But in the UK - it's rarely discussed as an option - especially by Labour!

claig Mon 29-Nov-10 22:42:11

I think Labour have had this plan for years. As Clarke says, that is what congestion charging is all about. They often camouflage these things under a holier than thou green umbrella, but it's really about forcing people to pay more tax whenever they access services which they have already paid for with their taxes.

It's interesting that they have come up with this policy now. This is the result of their spinners thinking hard. But of course, they had really thought about it before the election, but didn't have the courage to put it to the public, because they knew the public would have seen through "co-payment". So they have brought it up now that they are in opposition. It is part of their long progressive propaganda march back to power. They think they will be able to fool us over the coming years. They told us before the election that they would have to make huge cuts the like of which we had never seen. But now they have found a magic formula, co-payment. Osborne is bad they say, because he is making huge cuts the like of which we have never seen. They wouldn't have done that, they tell us, they would have used a progressive policy, clever co-payment. Funny how they forgot to tell us that before the election.

newwave Mon 29-Nov-10 22:47:11


Funny how they forgot to tell us that before the election.

Ahem, Clegg and fees, "Dave" and child benefit, at least labour didn't lie through their teeth only by omission

claig Mon 29-Nov-10 22:48:51

They all lie. At least Clegg is penitent, unlike the shamless socialists.

jackstarbright Mon 29-Nov-10 23:01:50

Of course, tuition fees were Labour's other main 'co-payment' policy. At the time the idea that those who benefit from HE should contribute to the cost - seemed reasonable to most people - not sure quite what happened confused.

Is Charles Clarke close to Ed M? I can't believe this has his endorsement - it'll be very interesting if it did.

newwave Mon 29-Nov-10 23:05:41

Is Charles Clarke close to Ed M? I can't believe this has his endorsement - it'll be very interesting if it did.

Doubt it, Clarke is a dinosaur and Ed is looking for a new party image.

As for Clegg I will believe that if he votes against the fee rises, crocodile tears imo

claig Mon 29-Nov-10 23:11:45

Their co-payment will soon mean that smokers should pay for their hospital treatment, and obese people should pay for their treatment, and alcoholics should pay for liver transplants (which of course they won't be able to afford). It's a long progressive propaganda march, but that's where they intend to go, but they are not telling us yet. It's called co-co-payment, and they use the plight of people like George Best to progressively change the public's attitude.

They are like spinners, tricksters and magicians, they pull these policies out of their hat, when they think the time is right.

newwave Mon 29-Nov-10 23:14:48

claig, you come across as a sensible person but that last post is a trip into paranoia.

Any party trying that on would be wiped out at a following election.

claig Mon 29-Nov-10 23:19:31

Slowly, slowly catchee monkey. Didn't you nitice all the earnest talking heads on TV discussing George Best and was it his fault, should the NHS pay for his liver, was he ireesponsible? Then there were radio chat shows were the public said it was George's fault. Remember that really fat man who couldn't hardly move out of bed who was on benefits because he couldn't work? Remember all the earnest talking heads saying it was his fault and he shouldn't get benefits?

They managed to ban smoking in public places, and smokers congregate outside in the cold. They fine pensioners for not closing their bin lids. There's nothing that the punitive progressives won't do to the public. It starts with co-payment.

claig Mon 29-Nov-10 23:26:44

As jackstarbright said, it was the progressives who brought in tuition fees. That was co-payment, but they didn't call it that in the early days. At first teh fees weren't excessively high, but they knew full well that one day they would be as high as they are now. they knew they would be ratcheted up bit by bit in a progressive manner.

claig Mon 29-Nov-10 23:29:01

'Any party trying that on would be wiped out at a following election.'

Not if all parties agree, and there is no alternative. That's what happened with the increase in pension age, pushed by Harriet Harman and accelerated by Duncan Smith. Tuition fees are the same.

newwave Mon 29-Nov-10 23:29:48

In that case I have dodgy knees and ankles from far to much aerobics and have been in hospital because I fell off a mountain bike when coming down a very steep hill, would i be asked to pay ?.

Wont happen it would affect to many people.

claig Mon 29-Nov-10 23:34:30

Do you think the progressives care about people? Millions marched against the war and they took no notice. They took no notice of the million countryside alliance, and they will take no notice of the students.

They will convince the public slowly, slowly just as they have managed to do with global warming.

claig Mon 29-Nov-10 23:36:29

They'll convince the public that the students are a bunch of anarchist Trots, and the public will eventually believe them.

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now »

Already registered? Log in with: