'Nasty party' MP blows the gaff on the NHS

The scumbag 'nasty party' has ALWAYS opposed the NHS, right from its inception in 1948 when Churchill spoke against it whilst the 'Bill' was being debated in Parliament.

 

Really ?

What Would Churchill Do? Here’s an interesting quote. It’s from former British Prime Minister Winston Churchill explaining his view on health care and government in 1948. “The discoveries of healing science must be the inheritance of all. That is clear. Disease must be attacked, whether it occurs in the poorest or the richest man or woman simply on the ground that it is the enemy. And it must be attacked just in the same way as the fire brigade will give its full assistance to the humblest cottage as readily as to the most important mansion. …Our policy is to create a national health service in order to ensure that everybody in the country, irrespective of means, age, sex, or occupation, shall have equal opportunities to benefit from the best and most up-to-date medical and allied services available.”

more
Without Winston Churchill the NHS would not exist.

 

Then why did the bastard vote against it when the 'Bill' was being debated ??? - like all scumbag 'nasty party' members, he was a hypocrite !!!

 

As I understand it - (According to this article =
What resistance was there to the formation of the NHS? | Towards a New Jerusalem | West End at War
"There was a fierce battle to get it established. - In 1946 the Doctors voted 10:1 against." whereas they did it for selfish profit Churchill seemed to do it more out of a degree of ignorance
" sincerely believing that the NHS was a "first step to turn Britain into a National Socialist economy." To compare the NHS to Nazism in 1946 shows the extremity of vies at the time"

 

The 'S' word in anything gives any scumbag 'nasty party' member apoplexy - which is why that bastard Churchill voted against it !!!

 

colorful, Vlad...


I hadn't previously heard of him referred to in that way.

 

He was an unconvicted war criminal !!! - Following the end of WW1 which saw extensive use made of chemical weapons, the League of Nations banned chemical weapon use. In 1923 because the uk wanted access to the oil, they overturned the existing ruler in IRAQ and installed a puppet regime. The locals (rightly so) objected and civil war broke out, Churchill (as uk Foreign Minister) sanctioned the use of chemical weapons against the civil population in IRAQ !!!

 

I guess that sounds bad...


My personal policy has secretly been that if it didn't come up in history class though and wasn't in the newspaper, it's subject to scrutiny.



So, Winston Churchill, the revered Prime Minister was actually an unconvicted war criminal? It's certainly hard to swallow...

Ok. I understand. A conspiracy to be sure!

 

Churchill was an evil bastard, like his father before him !!!

 

Just glancing at his resume...

That's one accomplished evil bastard!

 

It would seem the resume you're reading is incomplete - at various times in the early 20th Century he was: Home Secretary (The siege of Sydney Street) and the General Strike (1926) Foreign Secretary (1923) and Chancellor of the Exchequer

 

There is nothing more certain than that no one is without blame in whatever they do and a Warrior does not achieve victory without there being a Dark side being employed.
One can point to the Genocide actively employed by the invading Colonists in the America in order to claim property land and riches at home - and similar Execution of destruction in Asian for Political gain
But perhaps the most obvious of all was the decision to drop Two Atomic bombs and sturated bombing of a Nations capital based on an Assessment of Tactical judgement.
War Criminals? or Celebrated Victors?.
History, - in lesser times was not only written by the Winners - but believed as Rightous choice.
Only in retrospect, can one be judgmental - and at least we can do so thanks to the freedoms of both speech and action in 'a lot 'of' the World which we live in.
Churchill did have Dark shadows that accompanied him, though don't all Leaders; pay the price for the choices they make?
- And therefore he is not alone
IMO

 

Why dont you ask him ? Oh yeah he died 56 years ago when things were different than they are today
But if the conservative party were determined to (as you claim ) to scrap the NHS why was it Labour that did the most damage ? or is that OK with your Agenda

EXPOSED: How Labour planned to privatise 40% of NHS as Corbyn takes aim at Johnson

 

(Sigh) I am neither a member of or supporter of the Labour Party - particularly with that cretin Keir Starmer as leader - its far too wishy washy for my taste, it needs a strng dose of 'Socialist' zeal !!!

So in answer to your question I am not amused by a weak and wishy washy Labour party trying to 'privatise' the NHS and would and have opposed it at every turn !!!

 

I’m sure we can all work out your true political leanings. You have, quite pathetically, taken Lenin’s name as your screen name. However, it’s also clear that were you forced to vote for one of the main three, you would vote Labour.

 

WRONG !!!

 

No, definitely correct

 

No, You're WRONG !!! I do know who I voted for and it wasn't any of your choices !!!

 

No, you’re definitely a Labour guy. You probably just forgot

 

Typical 'nasty party' member, won't accept the truth until it smacks them in the gob !!!