On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 10:07:14 +0000, Mike.......
wrote:
>Following up to john_kulp@... (John Kulp) wrote:
>
>>>recent govts have spend a fair bit more money, much of it on pointless
>>>internal markets and accountancy, introduced by Thatcher, that is what
>>>much of the debate you talk about is on. The Germans and French have
>>>done a better job.
>>
>>Why isn't it changed then? That's what elections are all about aren't
>>they?
>
>elections are about lots of things, a major vote winner is always low
>taxes, then the people who voted for low taxes complain about poor
>services till the next election.....
True, but I meant them as a vehicle for getting effective change the
electorate wants.
>
>>>BTW dont confuse new labour with socialists. Blair was pro Thatcher
>>>Pro Bush. Labour in name only, I would dearly love to know the inside
>>>story on his rise to power.
>>
>>If that is the case, so would I. He won a lot of elections didn't he?
>>Isn't that, then, what the majority want in the UK?
>
>If you ask Brit's if they support the NHS they will nearly all say
>yes.
Sure, why not? It largely works as I understand it.
>When an election comes along with the media of people like Aurochs
>supporting Blair and weak opposition who dont particularly support the
>NHs, he wins. That result doesn't tell us much about liking the NHS.
>(or for that matter the Iraq war).
You mean like those census statistics posted by Alan don't tell us
much about the US healthcare system? |