leicsmac

Fair enough. I just hope that we or others can revisit this conversation in a decade or two, as that will mean that such a path won't be as bad as I think it could be. I just really hope that kind of relativism won't lead us all into a very deep, very dark hole, because I think people don't really grasp just how bad things could get.

Well, when the consequences of that do come to pass (and they will), all anyone else can do is make sure it is known for the historical record exactly who was responsible for them.

Then I guess it will be darkly hilarious how a long time of traditional democratic checks and balances were abandoned for everyone just because some people made a noise about one issue. Talk about incoming unintended consequences. Speaking personally though, I'd rather not accept a future like that in all its rather dubious glory as a fait accompli.

It appears to be so, yes. However, I'm not sure that eliminating the system of checks and balances that guard against governments acting in an...unethical fashion, would be the best way to address the matter.

Well, no wonder Reform want to circumvent the entire legal system regarding such matters. Edit: @Sampson has it exactly right in the post earlier today.

Thanks for the additional info there. Seems like it's more "complex" goods bearing the brunt for now, then.

Got it, I'll have a look later. Just curious as to whether this is mostly hitting crops and other vegetables etc.

Any particular food items with more drastic increases?

Tbf I was trying to be as inoffensive and non-judgemental as possible there, hence the flowery language. I think you know me well enough to know there's some policy related viewpoints where the only opinion I have on them is "well, your value structure is that you're a death-worshipping pissbag".

Also, a nice warm welcome at Windsor Castle last night:

... and so with that (assumed to be) true and all things being equal there, it should come back to the actual meat of the policies where decisions on their merits are made. And clearly, the thoughts on those appear to depend on the value structure of the individual.

Letting things ride without more younger faces won't end well either. Successive governments have ignored the problem because they likely know there's no good solution to it.

This touches on a much wider issue that is also approaching, an age demographic crisis.

I don't think that it's irrational to have the well founded fear that those with power will use the idea of NHS reform to further line their own pockets via a system where it becomes much more difficult for poorer people to gain even a fair baseline of healthcare. Edit: the same goes for social care, and depending on the degree that those with power ignore the way the Earth is changing, it may become the same with even the most basic resources.

Was his signature really worth even that?

And on the broader topic, it comes down to where the balance is between everyone having the freedom of choice to do as they wish (with their "property") and how much that freedom might or does impinge on the idea of an ethical society, or indeed impinge on the idea of the survival of society itself.

There isn't any. I'd wager the vast majority of the high end art world is just using it to launder highly dirty money.

Of course, there's then the additional factor of this being a sector where human life and suffering are key parts. It's frightening how many people want to put a value number figure on those concepts. The same is true of every single country, I think. But a better future is still possible.

My claim was not the initial one so I'm not sure where the burden of proof really lies here. However, I will say again and look for agreement:. - The NHS should always be looking to adapt and reform to various pressures as needed - There are positive changes that could come while maintaining the same kind of system - The plans that Reform have for it can't really be ascertained unless and until they have power.

Empirical scientific evidence? No. A reasonable educated assumption based on their behaviour so far? Yes. But then, assumptions are all we both have, and everyone else, has. As I've said above, either of us could be right on this one and we won't know until if/when they have enough power to set policy. But again as per above, I really don't think it's worth the chance, and I'll add that should it happen, I really do hope that you're right and I'm wrong. More lives than a lot of people can imagine depend on it, both in the NHS and other policy areas. "One of us is going to be wrong. I think that it is you. I hope that it is me." Edit: WRT inequality, a similar argument exists there. I don't think for a second that their policies will do anything other than make inequality worse than it is now. Other people disagree, but the only way to be sure is to have it happen.

Allow me to rephrase then: I think (and could substantiate) that they are ideologically driven to the point they would prioritise an American policy option over any one practised in Europe. Don't worry, I didn't take that as an insult and I shall look a little more into this, but I'm still wondering where this confidence in this party to implement solutions that decrease, rather than increase, inequality comes from. But on the topic of being informed and researching, I do wish that a lot of potential Reform voters would also do some more of the same in some scientific policy matters.

The entire existence of that party is born from the idea of Brexit and antipathy towards the way the rest of Europe does things - if you want me to find specific examples I can do so, but it's a bit like having to prove the Earth is an oblate spheroid. WRT the manifesto promises, it wouldn't be the first time a party has violated those once in power, would it? You could be right and I might be wrong about this, or the other way round, but I honestly don't see the point in taking the chance in the first instance when if we get it wrong so much unnecessary suffering will result. Ditto with the stance of that party on some other issues, too. The road to hell in history is paved with people saying that things "wouldn't be that bad".

And therein lies the fundamental difference in worldview that drives a lot of the disagreements today. What defines the measure of a person and how that tallies to if they should be allowed to survive in any kind of comfort. And a lot of advanced Asian nations use a similar insurance based system and are very good, too. However, I would ask again that given their obvious affinity for American style systems and their dislike of European ones (which is a matter of factual record, not speculation), what makes someone think they would follow the latter and not the former?

Given their affinity for the current American model of practically everything, is there a compelling counter reason to suggest it wouldn't end up that way?

Fair point well made.