Ken Livingstone opposes the "privatisation" of the NHS but is happy to use private healthcare himself

[longfingernails]

www.cityam.com/latest-news/ken-admits-he-uses-private-healthcare

I have absolutely no problem with him using private healthcare. Once again, it is the sheer hypocrisy which is so nauseating.

It's the same with the £260 taxpayer-funded shoes on expenses, the homophobic dog-whistling, supporting supporters of FGM, and the tax-avoiding via Silveta Ltd.

I do wonder whether he paid for his private healthcare himself, or whether Silveta Ltd paid for it? And if the latter - was it tax deductible?

I can't see anything hypocritical about this at all. How he disposes of his own money is up to him. His views on the NHS still remain valid.

I dont see a problem with this - at certain times dh has had private healthcare through his job and when you have it you're a fool for not using it.

I dont now receive benefits but I think they should be ringfenced - is that ok by you or not?

I disagree. It's the same with Diane Abbott and private schools - she doesn't want them to exist, but was happy to send her own son to one.

There's sticking to your principles though and then there's not being able to see for months while you wait for a cataract operation - better to take the operation and campaign like mad for an improved health service.

This is a non-starter - try another.

longfingernails it's not the same at all, KL has never said he doesn't want private medical providers to exist.He doesn't want to see the NHS privatised, which is a completely different thing.

Ah. Another diggy, sneery post from LFN. Give it a rest.

Or go and play on Style and Beauty for a while.

Hmmm maybe. The Ken Livingstone hypocrisy on this may not be as strong as the Ken Livingstone hypocrisy on tax, or the Ken Livingstone hypocrisy on FGM, or the Ken Livingstone hypocrisy on homophobia. You might be right.

Why don't you just start a thread saying "AIBU in thinking KL is a twunt". You'll get lots of support. Poorly though out arguments just make you look ridiculous.

Its like the threads we had at the election all over again [sigh]

Redbindy Even the leftiest of lefties like ttosca couldn't bring themselves to defend Ken Livingstone's tax affairs. Anyway Politics is more fun than AIBU.

Why are you naming MNetters who aren't even on this thread?

And do you realise just how unpleasant the tone of your posts are?

There is a huge difference between using private healthcare and trying to abolish public healthcare, i.e. the NHS, entirely.

Anyone who wants to use private healthcare is free to do so. I couldn't care less. What I care about is whether there is free public healthcare for all those who need it.

Um, didn't really follow the story with Ken's tax affairs, since the London mayoral position has little impact on wider national policies towards health, education, etc.

If Ken evaded tax illegally, then he should be prosecuted. If he avoided tax legally, then if those tax loopholes are substantial and reducing revenue to the public purse, then we should consider closing them.

He avoided tax legally by funnelling money through Silveta Ltd. Again, it's not the action itself, it's the hypocrisy.

Though the £260 shoes on expenses are just unconscionable. Frankly I'm surprised that it hasn't been a bigger election issue.

John Edwards had to step down as a Democratic nominee for President essentially because he had a $400 haircut - and he paid for that himself!

And it's quite funny - John Edwards now gets $13 haircuts
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2131179/John-Edwards-spotted-getting-12-95-haircut-SuperCuts.html

Though that might just be PR for the fact that he is about to go on trial for allegedly making secret payments to donors to try to hide his secret child (actually John Edwards sounds like a typical left-winger).

lnf-

Do you think tax avoidance, then, is OK so long as you're not hypocritical about it?

I think taxes should be low enough that it isn't an issue. I never judge anybody for making rational choices - I do, however, take a very dim view of hypocrisy. This is why I find Cameron nauseous when he wrings his hands about the ECHR and pretends to be Eurosceptic, but then does nothing about it.

It boils down to this: the state is far too large. I think the public sector should be no more than 25% of GDP.

pretends to be Eurosceptic & It boils down to this: the state is far too large

Likely result of pulling out of europe is the ceation of a much larger welfare state. So how's that work?

Red Ken is a hypocrite in so many ways - why pick this particular one?

which colleague of his did he criticise as a tx avoider (for paying via a company) - the man published his accounts as paid as a private individual with earnings of circa £400k an tax paid of circa £210k

Red Ken was paying as a LTD company and only paid £35k ....

yes, legal...but hypocrisy.

We have private health cover with DHs job and have used it yet I work for the NHS and oppose its privatisation. I don't see that as hypocritical at all.

There is a difference between choosing to use private care and being forced to use it whether you can afford it or not.

I don't think LFN cares whether people go without health care, as long as he/she gets a small state and gets to pay less tax.

On the contrary. I believe in free basic healthcare for all. NICE currently rations healthcare by fiat; I would make NHS rational more of a democratic process. I also don't believe that the government needs to provide healthcare - it merely needs to provide the funding for it where necessary. No other country has copied the NHS model - and for very good reason.

I genuinely believe that a small state will serve to make life better for the poor as well as the rich. A small state means a bigger private sector - more companies, more entrepreneurs, more jobs, more money, better quality of life.

rational should be rationing