Former Chancellor and Defence Minister Denis Healey has dies aged 98:
www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/oct/03/denis-healy-former-labour-chancellor-dies-aged-98
A giant of his time and probably the last survivor of the political generation who saw active service in WW2.
|
|
Yes, RIP, genial bruiser and big Labour beast. Very agreeable for a tough bloke.
|
98 years old, a very long innings.
The thing I most remember about him was when he was being interviewed by Sue Lawley and railing against private health care. He got quite upset when she reminded him that his wife had recently had private treatment herself.
|
>> He got quite upset when she reminded him
>> that his wife had recently had private treatment herself.
>>
Oh they do.. when their hypocrisy is pointed out.
|
>> Oh they do.. when their hypocrisy is pointed out.
IIRC the issue was Edna Healey needing a hip replacement at a time when waiting lists were at their peak.
How long would you let your wife suffer before your principles were suspended?
|
>> How long would you let your wife suffer before your principles were suspended?
>>
Well that's the thing... it would never happen.. because I wouldn't have daft backward principles that didn't stand up to scrutiny or that I'd need to drop to help a loved one out.
Same problem with schooling... 'everyone has to go to the local state school, oh except my kids of course'.
Perhaps that isn't hypocrisy either as it's the children going not the politician parent?
Last edited by: Westpig on Sat 3 Oct 15 at 19:09
|
>> Well that's the thing... it would never happen.. because I wouldn't have daft backward principles
>> that didn't stand up to scrutiny or that I'd need to drop to help a
>> loved one out.
Well that's he other thing. My question was hypothetical.
Just suppose you had some principle, be it political, religious or practical where is the point at which you'd suspend or forgo it for a loved one?
|
>> >>
>> Just suppose you had some principle, be it political, religious or practical where is the
>> point at which you'd suspend or forgo it for a loved one?
>>
While denying that right to everyone else. That's what's commonly known as hypocrisy.
|
I don't consider it hypocritical to deal with the world as it is, just because you have stated that you wish it were different.
I can't possibly know what was in Denis Healey's mind, but I can't condemn him for that.
Benn (whom I also admired) sent his children to a compo IIRC. But how many people had the option of sending their children to school at Holland Park? Not too much of a sacrifice in his case.
|
>> Well that's he other thing. My question was hypothetical.
>>
>> Just suppose you had some principle, be it political, religious or practical where is the
>> point at which you'd suspend or forgo it for a loved one?
>>
I'm having difficulty doing that.
My family would come first, there's no question of that... but what I'm saying is I can't imagine a scenario where i'd be backed into a corner like that... because I'm not a die hard, set in stone, unwilling to compromise type of person.
See if you can think of one..and I'll answer it truthfully.
|
>> See if you can think of one..and I'll answer it truthfully.
Given that these questions are, as I've already said, hypothetical it's probably easy to find 'wiggle room' by saying you'd never find yourself there
But let's say you're on record as vehemently opposed to abortion. Now though your 15yo daughter is pregnant by a local ne'er do well AND he has a genetic disorder likely to affect the unborn child.
Do you sign he surgical consent paperwork for her termination?
>> because I'm not a die hard, set in stone, unwilling to compromise type of person
Neither was Denis, hence paying for his wife's treatment (which anyway probably took place in a BUPA hospital rather the the Private Patient Unit in the local NHS General)
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sat 3 Oct 15 at 21:36
|
>> >>
>> But let's say you're on record as vehemently opposed to abortion. Now though your 15yo
>> daughter is pregnant by a local ne'er do well AND he has a genetic disorder
>> likely to affect the unborn child.
>>
>> Do you sign he surgical consent paperwork for her termination?
>>
>>
>> >>
It's quite simple. If your previous stance was that abortion should not be allowed in any circumstances then you are a hypocrite for changing your tune when it is you who are effected. If had you stated previously that impregnation by the local ne'er do well coupled with the unborn child having a genetic disorder should be an exception you are not.
Healy fought against private medical practice full stop, he did not add a rider that it should be allowed if someone who could afford to pay for it needed to queue jump because they personally were in pain. His stance was hypocritical.
Last edited by: Robin O'Reliant on Sat 3 Oct 15 at 22:12
|
">> because I'm not a die hard, set in stone, unwilling to compromise type of person
Neither was Denis, "
Which means he was a hypocrite.
|
>> Neither was Denis, hence paying for his wife's treatment (which anyway probably took place in
>> a BUPA hospital rather the the Private Patient Unit in the local NHS General)
>>
and when a BUPA treatment goes wrong where does the patient end up ?
My first wife made a rather grand salary boosting her NHS salary working in a BUPA hospital transferring patients to the NHS when it went wrong at a premium price.
|
"How long would you let your wife suffer before your principles were suspended?"
I had always considered myself a staunch socialist since birth - a true socialist, not a 'poncy middle-class' socialist. When my 1-year old daughter was in grave trouble down at Great Ormond St, we asked if there was any way we could 'speed things up' - we were, after all, covered by the company's medical insurance. We were told that by paying, we could go to the deluxe suite on the top floor where all the signage was in arabic, but things couldn't be done any quicker.
After that, I started to question my socialist principles - by even thinking of jumping the queue, I could be seen as a hypocrite - and I was not prepared to live with that on my conscience. In the coming years, I looked around me and realised the significance of what Orwell was saying in 'Animal Farm'.
I always thought that Denis Healey was a decent bloke - and I still do; I didn't see the interview that's being talked about, but I guess that he was, at least, sensitive to being called a hypocrite. To the likes of Diane Abbott et al, it's all just water off a duck's back.
|
He was being interviewed on the radio only last week...something about the ongoing Labour leadership. Sounded a bit shaky, part of my upbringing - shaped today's UK no doubt about
that !!
|
>>The thing I most remember about him was when he was being interviewed by Sue Lawley and railing against private health care. He got quite upset when she reminded him that his wife had recently had private treatment herself.
It was Anne Diamond IIRC.
Also it was Healey's wife, not the man himself, so I'm not sure how that qualifies as hypocrisy.
|
"so I'm not sure how that qualifies as hypocrisy."
The psychologists call it 'hypocrisy by proxy' ;-)
|
>> >>
>> Also it was Healey's wife, not the man himself, so I'm not sure how that
>> qualifies as hypocrisy.
>>
The fact that he excused it (almost in tears) on the grounds that his wife was in pain and wanted to be seen quickly. Never mind the rest of us who can't afford the private health care which he claimed to want abolished. He was quite rude to the interviewer for bringing it up.
|
>> Never mind the rest of us
>> who can't afford the private health care which he claimed to want abolished.
I do not know Healey's personal position but for most of us the healthcare issue wasn't about the principle of a fully self sustained parallel private system.
It was the fact that you could get same procedure and surgeon in same hospital sooner if you paid. And without a transparent separation of costs.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sat 3 Oct 15 at 19:27
|
>> >>
>> It was the fact that you could get same procedure and surgeon in same hospital
>> sooner if you paid. And without a transparent separation of costs.
>>
And whilst jumping the queue in front of the less well off - like Mrs Healey did.
|
Changing your long-held principles in the face of personal convenience is just about acceptable, may be admirable if you admit to having been wrong all those years. People should be willing to admit previous mistakes, and often it's personal experience that causes the revelation.
But what is hypocritical is maintaining those principles for everybody else, but relaxing them to suit your own convenience.
|
If however your agenda was to improve the NHS such that the level of service was the same as private, and thus there was no point in private healthcare then one could be a pro NHS type and still take advantage of private treatment.
I've absolutely no idea if this was anything like the case and I'd not expect any newspaper to have reported it as such since a hypocritical politician is much better copy.
|
"If however your agenda was to improve the NHS such that the level of service was the same as private,...."
Ah yes - today I'll have jam and, if you behave yourselves, we can all have jam tomorrow - but, in the meantime, I'll carry on eating jam........
I recall, when I was a youngster in the 1950s, our prefab - the local 'Labour Party Committee Room' was visited by the ultra-fizzy champagne socialist, Woodrow Wyatt - our prospective Labour candidate. I remember asking my mother why WW was so posh - yet he represented ordinary working people.
"Ah", she said, "that's because he wants us all to be rich and posh like him".
As a kid, I went along with that, and it was some years before I realised the truth .......... a sort of Santa Claus revelation.
As, I think it was Crankcase said, if you're not a lefty at 18, then you have no soul; if you're still a lefty at 30, then you have no brain. Actually, it took me a bit longer than 30, I admit. I wonder when it'll dawn on Brompto?
|
>> As, I think it was Crankcase said, if you're not a lefty at 18, then
>> you have no soul; if you're still a lefty at 30, then you have no
>> brain. Actually, it took me a bit longer than 30, I admit. I wonder when
>> it'll dawn on Brompto?
I have no soul then.
|
As, I think it was Crankcase said, if you're not a lefty at 18, then
>> you have no soul; if you're still a lefty at 30, then you have no
>> brain. Actually, it took me a bit longer than 30, I admit. I wonder when
>> it'll dawn on Brompto?
>>
>>
I wonder how many people still class themselves as left or similar? And i don't mean politicians or hardcore political followers. Just regular people.
|
>> I wonder how many people still class themselves as left or similar? And i don't
>> mean politicians or hardcore political followers. Just regular people.
>>
Those that don't think for themselves..."my grandad was and my dad was, so I am"
|
|
Missed the edit, i meant left or right or any other description.
|
>> Those that don't think for themselves..."my grandad was and my dad was, so I am"
>>
I wonder how many of them are out there?
|
>> If however your agenda was to improve the NHS such that the level of service
>> was the same as private, and thus there was no point in private healthcare then
>> one could be a pro NHS type and still take advantage of private treatment.
Yes, but what sort of dream world would that be?
Last edited by: Westpig on Sun 4 Oct 15 at 10:37
|
>> But what is hypocritical is maintaining those principles for everybody else, but relaxing them to
>> suit your own convenience.
>>
Yes.. and that nicely sums up my problem with these people.
If their principles are so flawed that when it comes to a circumstance where their own family need to go outside of them... then their principles are wrong, aren't they?
Why on earth would they think it acceptable for them and them alone to circumvent the principle and not everyone else?.... and if they think it IS acceptable for everyone else to circumvent it as they wish to /did... then it's back to the drawing board for the principle, surely?
Last edited by: Westpig on Sun 4 Oct 15 at 10:27
|
>> Yes.. and that nicely sums up my problem with these people.
>>
>> If their principles are so flawed that when it comes to a circumstance where their
>> own family need to go outside of them... then their principles are wrong, aren't they?
Still not convinced that Labour's public position, let alone that of Healey personally, was ever for the outright abolition of private health care. A scan of his autobiography doesn't tell me much on his personal view neither does Google.
The issue in Labour Manifestos in 74 and 79 was the removal of pay beds from NHS hospitals which was where the real queue jumping was taking place. Even in 83 (by which DH's influence was on the wane) while committing to rebalance the public/private compromise for consultants and to take 'useful' parts of private practice into the NHS there was no promise to close down private medicine completely.
So I'm still not clear there even was any hypocrisy.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sun 4 Oct 15 at 10:57
|
Not sure if this Michael White piece is the Guardian's formal obituary, but it's an interesting insight into the man.
www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/oct/03/denis-healey-one-of-best-prime-ministers-britain-never-had
An for balance here's what the Telegraph has to say:
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/11708200/Denis-Healey-politician.html
|
|
Whatever you think of Healey he was one of the last of a generation of politicians who were prepared to speak their minds, without every word being carefully scripted by spin doctors in advance.
|
>>
>> Still not convinced that Labour's public position, let alone that of Healey personally, was ever
>> for the outright abolition of private health care.
>>
I thought it was, in 1945, when they nationalised hospitals etc? They tried to make all doctors part of the NHS, but after a battle finally compromised and permitted some private health in hospitals?
|
>> I thought it was, in 1945, when they nationalised hospitals etc? They tried to make
>> all doctors part of the NHS, but after a battle finally compromised and permitted some
>> private health in hospitals?
The pre war structure was a mish-mash of private, voluntary and local government provision so what happened under Atlee/Bevan was not nationalisation in the sense applied to the mines. It's true though, that in order to get the Doctors on board Bevan compromised with them on the right to private practice and on General Practice being run as contracts by individuals or partnerships.
|
>> The issue in Labour Manifestos in 74 and 79 was the removal of pay beds
>> from NHS hospitals which was where the real queue jumping was taking place.
Whether it's an outright ban, discouraging, making it more difficult, looking down your nose at it... it's hypocrisy if you avail yourself of it, despite the above.
The daft thing is, if you embraced the private system, integrated it with the public system, the private payers could subsidise the public ones and everyone would get a better deal.
The problem with that though is left wing dogma doesn't like the 'inequality' of some being able to afford private and many not...well tough, that's the real world and it always will be so, even the Communist system had plenty of 'haves and have nots'... so accept it and use it to your advantage... give tax breaks to those that want to use private, same with schooling... the more people that opt out and go private the more space and resources for the rest of us, because despite their tax break, they'll still be paying for something they won't be using.
... and I write as someone who will be using the State ones, that's what my income dictates.
|
Denis Healey has died and is no longer in politics. I thought at first that the fact people here were still arguing with him about ideology and realpolitik identified them as shallow and mean-spirited.
On reflection though it seems more a tribute to his undying spirit.
|
>> On reflection though it seems more a tribute to his undying spirit.
>>
Agree with you there AC. Modern politics is woefully short of people like Healey; you might not have agreed with him or even liked him but I think he earned respect for being a lot more than a shallow opportunist like so many today.
|
>> Agree with you there AC. Modern politics is woefully short of people like Healey; you
>> might not have agreed with him or even liked him but I think he earned
>> respect for being a lot more than a shallow opportunist like so many today.
Agree wih above. In some ways I regret rising to the bait of RR's post about the Healey/Diamond interview in 1987.
Even if the allegation of hypocrisy on the occasion of his wife's hip surgery were proven it's still a complete distraction from the rest of his career.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sun 4 Oct 15 at 13:13
|
|
Comparisons with Ken Clarke are interesting on more than one level. Both enjoyed long and successful marriages to wives who managed to combine support with successful academic and literary careers. The streak of mischievous fun which raises them above many of their political colleagues is also evident in both men, as is their love of some of the finer things in life.
|
>>>> I wonder how many people still class themselves as left or similar? And i don't
>> mean politicians or hardcore political followers. Just regular people.
>>
Those that don't think for themselves..."my grandad was and my dad was, so I am"<<
Well, I do and I know a lot of others who do as well - people who have usually spent their lives caring about others than themselves and the social issues that shape everyone's lives. I don't think I am unusual, except perhaps in the context of an internet site where nobody actually knows anyone else.
The judgement above could, in my experience, only come via something like the brain of a police officer, sad to say. And what do they know about thinking for themselves?
|
>> people who have usually spent their lives caring about others than themselves and the social
>> issues that shape everyone's lives.
Ah, so it's only the 'left' that thinks like that, is it?
>> The judgement above could, in my experience, only come via something like the brain of
>> a police officer, sad to say. And what do they know about thinking for themselves?
Oh dear. Hit the nail on the head have I?
|
Well, I do and I know a lot of others who do as well -
>> people who have usually spent their lives caring about others than themselves and the social
>> issues that shape everyone's lives. I don't think I am unusual, except perhaps in the
>> context of an internet site where nobody actually knows anyone else.
Thanks for responding MH, i can honestly say i don't know anyone like that. I can't say politics comes up very often though. But still never met anyone that votes a certain way because of their family so i guess it's unusual to me.
|
>> Denis Healey has died and is no longer in politics. I thought at first that
>> the fact people here were still arguing with him about ideology and realpolitik identified them
>> as shallow and mean-spirited.
I don't subscribe to the theory that once someone has died, they've now become a saint.
Fair enough there ought to be some manners involved, but other than that someone like a senior politician is fair game for comment... and I suspect if they were still around they'd revel in it.
|
>> I don't subscribe to the theory that once someone has died, they've now become a saint.
Neither do I Wp. It would take a better theologian than me to canonize Denis Healey!
All I meant was that when someone is dead, their life achievements have to be seen as complete. They can't be usefully extended by third parties speculating.
|
>> All I meant was that when someone is dead, their life achievements have to be
>> seen as complete. They can't be usefully extended by third parties speculating.
>>
Maybe not, but would he not be pleased that we are at least talking about it?
|
|
I'm sure he'd take it as no more than his due Wp.
|
"today I'll have jam and, if you behave yourselves, we can all have jam tomorrow - but, in the meantime, I'll carry on eating jam" pretty much sums it up.
It is the most blind of politic allegiances that cannot concede the hypocrisy of this.
Healey wanted to be judged by what he said and what he did. He said so himself. And so I am judging him by what he said and did.
At the most limited, in his personal life he understood the need to sacrifice belief for family. Why didn't the therefore understand that everybody else needed that facility?
He didn't say "wouldn't it be nice if we didn't need private healthcare, so I am going to improve the NHS until we don't need it anymore".
He said, "its wrong, its immoral, people shouldn't use it, and people that do are valuing themselves above society" and then he used it himself.
He, like *all* politicians, expects a higher standard of behaviour from "the people" than they expect of themselves.
And people who can easily smell the whiff of anti-semitism in the face of everything to the contrary but then cannot see hypocrisy despite much greater indications, simply because they are swayed by what they wish to be true, do nothing more than undermine their own credibility.
Clearly the dog whistle is capable of different volumes and is of varying import.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Sun 4 Oct 15 at 19:16
|
>> He said, "its wrong, its immoral, people shouldn't use it, and people that do are
>> valuing themselves above society"
Using quotes there Mark. Have you got a source for the words?
|
Yes, I wrote them. And as you are quite well aware they are fairly and evenly representative of his statements and his "beliefs".
Look! I used quotes around the word "beliefs", can you see why? Oh look, I did it again, but for a different reason.
And you are dodging the issue.
The man, in common with all politicians, was a hypocrite. Had he been Tory or UKIP you would have been trumpeting that hypocrisy from the rooftops. But you're not. You're left wing, so was he at least insofar as what he said, and thus you adopt a different stance.
You are so biased it is laughable. The guilt of London drivers, right wing politicians, UKIP, authorities, etc. etc. is clear to you. As is the sanctity of cyclists, lefties and any others who you philosophically agree with.
Quite what you will do when a left wing cyclist lies about his health so that he can borrow a tipper truck and then is arrested for running down Corbyn on his bicycle is beyond me.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Sun 4 Oct 15 at 19:32
|
>> Quite what you will do when a left wing cyclist lies about his health so
>> that he can borrow a tipper truck and then is arrested for running down Corbyn
>> on his bicycle is beyond me.
Will Ladbrokes give you odds on that?
|
>> Quite what you will do when a left wing cyclist lies about his health so that he can borrow a tipper truck and then is arrested for running down Corbyn on his bicycle is beyond me.
Brilliant.
|
>> Yes, I wrote them. And as you are quite well aware they are fairly and evenly representative of his statements and his "beliefs".
God what balderdash.
>> You are so biased it is laughable.
OFFS!
|
I don't want to know what you mean by SC, FMR.
Healey's long obit in today's comic said that he 'liked being interviewed'. I did interview him, not to much effect, at the Brighton Labour Party conference in 1981, just after he had narrowly beaten Tony Benn for the deputy leadership. Boringly, I asked how he thought the conference had gone. He replied that it had been a good conference. I asked why.
'Stopped the rot in the party,' he replied in characteristic orotund tones.
|
|
And, yeah yeah, 'all politicians are hypocrites'. WTF does anyone well-informed expect? Eh? Eh? God this is boring.
|
>> And, yeah yeah, 'all politicians are hypocrites'. WTF does anyone well-informed expect? Eh? Eh? God
>> this is boring.
>>
You been on the sherbet?
|
>>You been on the sherbet?
Wacky baccy more like.
:}
|
Denis Healey Dies - Armel Coussine
