What's best for Britain - Kill or Cure?

Question

The government say the NHS is costing too much - yet they can find £Billions for Trident nuclear missiles, that 'Eurofighter' junk-heap and pointless Middle Eastern wars! What are your priorities?

Answer 1

Health care must be financed instead of spending millions for missilles. Prioritize the health of the people rather than the useless nuclear warheads.

Answer 2

Prevention is the answer, surely. Many billions have already been found for the NHS and still it struggles. Trident is necessary for now and its replacement is also necessary for now. What happens as this century draws to a close may change that priority. And the Eurofighter can hardly be described in your terms, unless you helped build it and know something I don't. As for pointless Middle Eastern wars, I agree but it's not so long ago that Iran was at war with Iraq, Iraq invaded Kuwait and was on the point of taking on Saudi Arabia. These wars had nothing to do with our defence expenditure at the time.

Answer 3

The NHS is costing too much due to too much "managing" by incompetants! Billions have been poured into it's coffers without any improvement in performance.We need to make it more efficient and use the money to pay the real people i.e. Nurses and Doctors. Having said that we still need to protect ourselves from any aggressor, whoever and wherever they may be,so we need to maintain a credible defence force.As for the wars in the Middle East they were none of our business and we should not have got involved in them! The Eurofighter is not necessarily a pile of junk but is the result of collaboration between a number of countries with very different requirements and priorities and is therefore not the ideal aircraft for any of it's roles.Remember, if you design a horse by committee you end up with a camel! The Eurofighter is therefore a Jack of all trades and probably Master of none.

Answer 4

There is no one or the other. A nuclear deterrent is paramount for this country's security, no matter what people say. This is probably the only thing that Blair has said that I agree with. Especially when you consider the fascist's foreign policies.

The NHS, on the other hand is not only suffering from lack of funding but also from severe mismanagement due to the government's badly operated quick fix plans. The money for the NHS could be recuperrated in a number of ways, not least the winding down of the governments HUGE intake of unneeded civil service.

It's all well and good saying that the government shouldn't renew the trident system but when every Tom, Dick and Harry with them also, and the government's pre-disposition to shoot first talk later, renewing them is the only sensible answer.

Also, you make it sound like the money WOULD be spent on health, education etc. It wouldn't, they hardly bothered with these matters before and when they did they threw money into holes as long as they have a pithy catchphrase.

Answer 5

The NHS can run perfectly well on the money it has. It's been mis-managed since Thatcher introduced business management. She was advised by American war strategists to implement war like business strategy to public services as well as her large scale capitalist privatisation policy.

Unfortunately, and quite obviously, the NHS isn't really like a war and instead of improving the thing, all she managed to do was introduce very expensive managers with no experience in medicine. The current Labour clowns are just flailing and spinning out P.R. yarns about targets being met.

MRSA, a result of mis-managed dirty hospitals, kills over 1000 people a year. If Al-Quaeda killed 1000 UK citizens every year, how much would the government spend on weapons then?

Stop Trident now.
We have no-one left to bomb.

Answer 6

Cure. But it would be good to see the results of the latest UK paranoia. We still see ourselves important enough to buy such hardware. Will it deter Abdul from Wolverhampton, or some person who was born Jerry Smith in Leeds, who decided to read the Koran and become Waseem?
Roxy - Mr. Blair was helped by the Tories to win the argument, but we're told it's not over yet.
Talking of war, other than Trident - people who are wounded in the Eastern 'conflict' now wonder if the NHS will even consider looking at them upon arrival.

Answer 7

whats the point in having more nuclear weapons it only takes one to ruin a country. why dont the fat cats that sit on there arses all day listen to the people of this county n sort out the nhs instead of spending loads on missiles and the stupid Olympic games which by the looks is gonna cost more than has ever been put into the nhs

Answer 8

I'm really cross with Labour for pursuing Trident, after years against it in opposition. I agree that healthcare, education and decent social housing should be priorities (and would produce a society in which unrest and division were reduced) and I don't hold with their views that a deterrent is necessary. If we sorted out the world's problems (poverty, discord, alienation) we wouldn't need these weapons of mass destruction - which after all, are designed never to be needed. Madness.

Answer 9

without defence we would all speaking french or german by now and that is just off the last 2 centuries.

No one can tell what will change in the next 50years, so we should have a credibal defence. When the next global war kicks off fighting over gas, water, food, shade :-), britain will be glad we have decent deterent, the peace camps won't save you, bit an army camp might, or a navy submarine many miles away, threatening Shanghia.

Answer 10

Its obvious what the biggest majority of Brits want and it isn't spending billions on Trident nuclear subs