This little snippet is taken from Richard Murphys blog of fun with socialist economic policies, and other hilarity
That matters because real security is not created by weapons alone. A country is secure when its society is stable, cohesive, and resilient. That depends on the quality of its health service, its education system, its social security arrangements, its infrastructure, and its housing. These are not peripheral issues; they are the foundation of any meaningful concept of defence.
I didn't read it at The Murphs, because reading that blog should come with a health warning about brain matter turing to goo, or something. I spotted it at
Tims place, where he respondes:
J. Foreigner won’t invade as long as we have Our NHS.
And, well, no?
True dat, on the surface, but there's a little case to be made here for agreeing with Murph. No seriously
The Daily Express seems to have an almost daily story up about how Putin is definately going to invade us and we will need to conscript people into the army, because we don't have much of one left. The general response to the idea of conscription, on most platforms, is that people would at best, refuse to fight for Starmer, and at worst, join up and point their guns in the other direction
If we had a country that was stable, cohesive and resilient, with good healthcare, education, social security, infrastructure and housing, do you think people would be more willing to fight for that if the need were to arise?
I think so
So I would agree with Murphs statement there, but not his idea of what all that stuff means and how it should be obtained
Our society is not stable, cohesive and resilliant, because we have imported millions of people who do not know how to behave in a society
I would kick them all out. The Murph would call anyone who stands against uncontrolled immigration, racist
Our health service is circling the drain. I would rebuild the NHS from the ground up, bin most of the management, financially run it more like a business and look to Europe for other ways to acieve decent health outcomes. The Murph would throw endless cash at the existing system
Our education system is bollocks. I would purge it of left wing politics, focus only on educating children on what they need for when they leave school, for life and for careers, stick to facts and not emotions, segregate by ability and punish those who are disruptive to others. The Murph would drop every child to the lowest common denominator, and make it impossible for bright kids to learn, because it's racist, or something
Our social security is beyond a joke. I would pay a person out of work, no more than they would get for working a 35 hour week at minimum wage. No extras, no top ups, no free stuff. And it would be temporary. The Murph would happily pay people to choose to not work, and would likely vastly increase what such people are already getting
Our infrastructure is non-existant. I would encourage business and innovation by getting the government out of the way. The Murph would increase taxes and red tape, while 'encouraging' business through taxpayer funded subsidies
And housing is over priced and unavailable, in many ways. I would encourage house building by getting the goverment out of regualations and reforming the planning laws. The Murph would probably ban landlords and bring in rent caps
So I could agree with the Murph on the general principle of his comment, but as to the implimentation, that's where we part
I wonder if Murphy considered that his insightful comment could have been read as, Vote Reform, get Starmer out?
