SocketRocket
Ryder Cup Winner
It may or may not have happened but if you think that's the point of it you are hugely missing the point. Never mind
Socialism ?
- Thread starter SocketRocket
- Start date
SocketRocket
Ryder Cup Winner
I am not or never have been a member of any political party and have voted Labour a number of times in the past. I am not against a move to the centre left as long as the correct people are holding it, most of the current and recent Labour politicians are not of a standard I could currently support. I am giving Starmer the chance to show his merits and have not criticised him to date, time will tell.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 1147
Guest
Is the formation of the NHS an act of socialism?
PJ87
Journeyman Pro
After world war two labour took over and created the NHS , built over a million homes ..
Bad moves there ofc ?
A comprehensive welfare state was created with the National Insurance Act 1946, in which people in work paid a flat rate of national insurance. In return, they (and the wives of male contributors) were eligible for flat-rate pensions, sickness benefit, unemployment benefit, and funeral benefit. Various other pieces of legislation provided for child benefit and support for people with no other source of income.
Once again.. damn socialism
SocketRocket
Ryder Cup Winner
No, those are indeed some good things produced by an early labour government and well worthy of praise.
Kellfire
Blackballed
It doesn’t exist because people are self serving and don’t trust each other. Again, I’m sure you know that but are happy to feign ignorance.
I bet you even think capitalism in its current form is working.
PJ87
Journeyman Pro
Considering the NHS is one of the finest things about this country and is respected the world over one could easily make the case for the fact that socialism is one of the greatest things to have ever happened to this country.
Foxholer
Blackballed
Not according to any definition I've seen!
To me, it's an intrinsic part of the 'Welfare State' portion of any government. The way it has run/been funded has been changed since its instigation, not always (imo) for the better! And that applies to both Labour and Tory modifications
rudebhoy
Q-School Graduate
I'd say so.
The Tories voted against the formation of the NHS 21 times before the bill was passed. Churchill famously said it's formation was the first step towards a Nazi economy. Smearing the NHS with Nazism in the immediate aftermath of WW2 shows how much the Tories opposed it.
PJ87
Journeyman Pro
Always the way really, the Tories historically were well off people who had enough money to sort themsleves out without worrying about anyone else.
Labour wanted to provide a fairer society so they were against it. Why do I need fund health care for the common man? I can afford it
Modern Tories are less so but still unfortunately have a bit of selfishness in their policies
SocketRocket
Ryder Cup Winner
Natzis were a socialist party. National Socialists, their policy was everything being state controlled.
rudebhoy
Q-School Graduate
Dear me. What absolute rubbish. Suspect you know that though, and are just trying to provoke a reaction. Well done. You are fast becoming the board's resident troll.
PJ87
Journeyman Pro
Which wasn't the evil part about the Nazi party... Was kind of killing all the Jews ..
Wolf
Well-known member
One slight problem in that socialism is left leaning. The Nazis were so far right wing its beyond comprehension. They were socialist in name only.
Not a good example to use here, I'm afraid that's a trao brain fart of a comparison to use
SocketRocket
Ryder Cup Winner
What's that to do with them being Socialist. You used them in your argument.
Swinglowandslow
Well-known member
A good way to put it....and completely true up until a few decades ago.
I believe, however, that both Parties have changed somewhat.
Tories are now less selfish, a case of having to be with more openness and communication within the Nation. And a breakdown of the class system.
Modern Labour have however taken empathy beyond fairness. Idleness and life on benefits as a choice is not condemned by them in a convincing way.
They don't seem to realise that if someone who works and pays taxes sees others making a virtue out of using the system of welfare to not work and a political party failing to sufficiently condemn such behaviour, then that person is going to gravitate to the "opposition", even though he doesn't agree with "laissez faire" politics.
He Most likely would 100% agree to a labour government if , within its policies, he saw his efforts rewarded and his taxes not used inappropriately
Today, "Saying it as it is "has to be tempered with agenda requirements, and voting requirements, or is derided as fascism or communism, or some such accusation.And, unlike in the 40s and 50s, MPs don't seem so much driven by conviction so much as a career choice.
Most people want Fairness. Historically, Tories have stopped or ignored it, and Labour have demanded and tried to practice it, the latter never better than in the late 40s,
But that is now changing, in both cases.
Kellfire
Blackballed
We just need Venezuela now!
SocketRocket
Ryder Cup Winner
I'm not defending them, just responding to someone using them in their argument. Many countries call themselves Socialist but are very dictatorial and oppressive.
Wolf
Well-known member
Problem with this as a defence is you stated, The Nazi party were socialist, when in fact they weren't, it was just name only. Bit like saying the North Korean Democratic People's Republic is an actual Democracy and not a dictatorship.
PJ87
Journeyman Pro
I didn't at all.. I didn't mention Nazis that was yourself
Might want to fact check your own posts
