Actually, I would have agreed that it was rhetoric, but denied that it was meaningless. Since meaning was inferred from what I wrote, I think that this is fair enough. But suppose you had called it "mere" rhetoric? My response would be that a few months back I wrote a piece that actually discussed hard numbers -- one to which you failed to respond. That's the problem; when the facts (i.e., hard numbers) are spelt out, the rest is silence.
My point was that to panic and get into a state of moral outrage over something as nice as NHS Direct (a bit like taking sugar out of our coffee) is indicative that most people are of the school of "oh yes, cuts are necessary", but seem to imagine that this can be done without it having any impact -- a head-in-the-sand approach that infuriates me. No, the cuts being discussed by the coalition are NOT inevitable. Indeed, a "cobbled together" "solution" is far more likely, one that will send us down the path of Greece. If you want to carry on borrowing from the future (and, without doubt, most voters do) then go ahead and do it. But for heaven's sake stop thinking that this is a "solution". It isn't.
Our ways of life, including the NHS as we now know it, pensions as we now understand them, the ratio of our working life to non-working life as we have become accustomed to, have all been based on a lie. The voter doesn't want to admit that and so, as a result, blames anyone who tries to say that it's the case, rather than admitting that the system that we have established is unsustainable.
This is really just a first-world version of bread and other staple subsidies introduced by governments in developing economies to keep people happy. Easy and popular to introduce, hard to get rid of.
If "rhetoric" is required to stimulate a response, then rhetoric is what we need. Because none of the population seems to want to read the figures.
And, of course, no offence taken. Rock on demagogy :-)
no subject
My point was that to panic and get into a state of moral outrage over something as nice as NHS Direct (a bit like taking sugar out of our coffee) is indicative that most people are of the school of "oh yes, cuts are necessary", but seem to imagine that this can be done without it having any impact -- a head-in-the-sand approach that infuriates me. No, the cuts being discussed by the coalition are NOT inevitable. Indeed, a "cobbled together" "solution" is far more likely, one that will send us down the path of Greece. If you want to carry on borrowing from the future (and, without doubt, most voters do) then go ahead and do it. But for heaven's sake stop thinking that this is a "solution". It isn't.
Our ways of life, including the NHS as we now know it, pensions as we now understand them, the ratio of our working life to non-working life as we have become accustomed to, have all been based on a lie. The voter doesn't want to admit that and so, as a result, blames anyone who tries to say that it's the case, rather than admitting that the system that we have established is unsustainable.
This is really just a first-world version of bread and other staple subsidies introduced by governments in developing economies to keep people happy. Easy and popular to introduce, hard to get rid of.
If "rhetoric" is required to stimulate a response, then rhetoric is what we need. Because none of the population seems to want to read the figures.
And, of course, no offence taken. Rock on demagogy :-)
PJ
____________