[HillmanImp]

the internet suggests average pay of a married couple in their 40s is 35K for man and 20K for woman. total £55K

you can save for child 20 years before you send that child to private school - so that reduces cost probably by half. So its not £21K to send kid to George Osborne's school - if you really want to send your kids there - probably nearer £10K if you know from age of 20 you want to send your kids private (you will probably because you're parents did the same).

[GreatGodPan]

Originally Posted by Clarisse76

1. And you accuse me of hyperbole!

2. I don't want to be part of your state. It's bad enough I have neighbours. I want to work for the benefit of my family and friends and I want the state to leave me the hell alone. However, I accept that some things are better provided at a national level and so I'm willing to tolerate the state extorting a certain amount of tax from me in return for those things. And yes, the British people are more than capable of running a whelk stall and as long as they're operating it legally, they should be allowed to get on and do it without the state helping itself to all the proceeds.

3. No government has ever nor will ever 'fade away'. The idea is preposterous. Even if it wanted to, how is it going to achieve it? Which bit will go first? Tax collection? The military? Welfare? Re the BIB, I appreciate your admission that in order for your system to work extensive reprogramming of the populace will be required... presumably in state-owned gulags rather than privately-owned ones, amirite?

4. But their strengths don't always come from their education. As I said, some of the greatest motorcycle racers started when they were children and we both know that opportunity would have been provided courtesy of their parents, not their school. Unless you really are going to provide a universal education and include lessons in motorcycle racing, basket weaving, luthiering, close harmony singing, conversational Icelandic...

1. It is not hyperbole to state that in times of free market, laissez faire Capitalism the masses suffer more than in times when it's excesses are more tightly controlled.

2. It's bad enough you have neighbours?! Wow, you sound a positive gem! Only thinking of yourself and your friends - isn't that a little selfish? I presume you are not a Christian then.
And if you accept that some things are best paid for by the state why do you say the money to pay for it is "extorted" from you?

3. Under Socialism, people will get used to working and co-operating with one another, breaking down the selfishness that you openly displayed in your previous paragraph.It is a natural, organic process, but it will take many years.Only when the self self self fixation has naturally disappeared can man progress to a state where production need not be organised by the state, but left to local co-operatives and small groups of individuals producing what society needs, not what is seen to make a quick buck as now. That is when the state begins to retreat, and Communism will be born.

4. Agreed - parents do have a great role in education, especially in the early years, and have a big role in laying the foundation for the first years at school. No education can teach everything, but at the same time care must be taken against parents "pushing" kids into various activities just because they have an interest in them themselves - this can be very harmful.

[GreatGodPan]

Originally Posted by HillmanImp

the internet suggests average pay of a married couple in their 40s is 35K for man and 20K for woman. total £55K

you can save for child 20 years before you send that child to private school - so that reduces cost probably by half. So its not £21K to send kid to George Osborne's school - if you really want to send your kids there - probably nearer £10K if you know from age of 20 you want to send your kids private (you will probably because you're parents did the same).

I don't understand any of this.

[HillmanImp]

Originally Posted by GreatGodPan

I don't understand any of this.

(there are very common savings schemes for parents, or grandparents, who want to put money aside for private education for their kids). Spreading the payments out like this, is the equivalent of spending about £10K a year (or a lot less)...

Basically, i'm saying, if you are SERIOUS, about sending your kid private, its quite possible for an average 40 year old married couple (eg your child is born when you are 29 - also a very average age)

[Clarisse76]

Originally Posted by GreatGodPan

1. It is not hyperbole to state that in times of free market, laissez faire Capitalism the masses suffer more than in times when it's excesses are more tightly controlled.

2. It's bad enough you have neighbours?! Wow, you sound a positive gem! Only thinking of yourself and your friends - isn't that a little selfish? I presume you are not a Christian then.
And if you accept that some things are best paid for by the state why do you say the money to pay for it is "extorted" from you?

3. Under Socialism, people will get used to working and co-operating with one another, breaking down the selfishness that you openly displayed in your previous paragraph.It is a natural, organic process, but it will take many years.Only when the self self self fixation has naturally disappeared can man progress to a state where production need not be organised by the state, but left to local co-operatives and small groups of individuals producing what society needs, not what is seen to make a quick buck as now. That is when the state begins to retreat, and Communism will be born.

4. Agreed - parents do have a great role in education, especially in the early years, and have a big role in laying the foundation for the first years at school. No education can teach everything, but at the same time care must be taken against parents "pushing" kids into various activities just because they have an interest in them themselves - this can be very harmful.

1. Yes, you're right. It isn't hyperbole. It's bullshit.

2. More of socialism's trademark hypocrisy, I'm afraid. If Jeremy Clarkson moved next door to you, would you welcome him into your house with open arms? No, you wouldn't. Yet you expect me to just bring every yahoo who lives nearby into my monkeysphere because mere proximity alone is apparently enough to make someone deserving of my friendship. And since when does Christianity have the monopoly on unselfishness? Have you spent the day converting to it or something?

3. HOW IS THIS RETREAT OF THE STATE GOING TO HAPPEN? You don't know, do you? You haven't given it a second's thought, have you? You have no earthly idea how we're going to get from having a government to not having a government. Go on, admit it!

4. So, to sum up: firstly, socialism won't provide every possible educational opportunity. Secondly, under socialism, parents won't be able to pay for better educational opportunities for their children. So basically any educational opportunity that the state doesn't provide would be banned in the interests of equality. See, this is exactly the sort of stuff that leads me to describe socialism as propaganda. Socialists paint this wonderful picture of equality and egalitarianism, but as soon as you scratch beneath the surface and look into the reality of socialism, it soon becomes apparent what a vile and degenerate little regime it is. Still, at least you've explained how the mediocrity that is endemic to socialism is engineered, so thanks for that I guess.

[GreatGodPan]

Originally Posted by HillmanImp

(there are very common savings schemes for parents, or grandparents, who want to put money aside for private education for their kids). Spreading the payments out like this, is the equivalent of spending about £10K a year (or a lot less)...

Basically, i'm saying, if you are SERIOUS, about sending your kid private, its quite possible for an average 40 year old married couple (eg your child is born when you are 29 - also a very average age)

No, I disagree -the average couple can't afford to do so, as most couples don't have a joint income of £55k.

Even if they did I find your view that they could send a child to Osborne's school is far fetched.

[David Tee]

OK, this loosely fits under the banner of Sports and Pollitics...

I watched the Murray / Tsonga semi-final - the last set not only from behind my sofa but also between my fingers. Thank God, Buddha etc., Murray won....

Three minutes later our leaderwanabee tweets:

Ed Miliband ‏@Ed_Miliband
Many many congratulations to Andy Murray. An amazing achievement after 74 years of hurt for British men's tennis at Wimbledon.

And the first thought I have is - what an utter creep. This one tweet represents Ed's entire commentary on Wimbledon so far.

My second thought is more charitable. Ed has bothered to tweet but Downing Street haven't. Maybe he's being genuine and I'm way too partisan to spot it.

I've decided I'll know for sure if Andy loses in the final and Ed insists on a judge-led inquiry.

[GreatGodPan]

Originally Posted by Clarisse76

1. Yes, you're right. It isn't hyperbole. It's bullshit.

2. More of socialism's trademark hypocrisy, I'm afraid. If Jeremy Clarkson moved next door to you, would you welcome him into your house with open arms? No, you wouldn't. Yet you expect me to just bring every yahoo who lives nearby into my monkeysphere because mere proximity alone is apparently enough to make someone deserving of my friendship. And since when does Christianity have the monopoly on unselfishness? Have you spent the day converting to it or something?

3. HOW IS THIS RETREAT OF THE STATE GOING TO HAPPEN? You don't know, do you? You haven't given it a second's thought, have you? You have no earthly idea how we're going to get from having a government to not having a government. Go on, admit it!

4. So, to sum up: firstly, socialism won't provide every possible educational opportunity. Secondly, under socialism, parents won't be able to pay for better educational opportunities for their children. So basically any educational opportunity that the state doesn't provide would be banned in the interests of equality. See, this is exactly the sort of stuff that leads me to describe socialism as propaganda. Socialists paint this wonderful picture of equality and egalitarianism, but as soon as you scratch beneath the surface and look into the reality of socialism, it soon becomes apparent what a vile and degenerate little regime it is. Still, at least you've explained how the mediocrity that is endemic to socialism is engineered, so thanks for that I guess.

1. I agree. Laissez faire Capitalism is. It leaves the individual and his/her job open to the vagaries of market forces with a very small state-provided safety net.

2. No, where did I say that? I was merely countering your overtly selfish "me, my family and friends versus the world" schtick.

3. I gave it quite a bit of thought actually, particularly 40 years ago when I was quite heavily into Marxist theory. The well-known rifts and schisms amongst Marxists about the development of society both under Socialism and the later Communistic phase are well-documented, and have probably been the subject of thousands of books. All have their own different ideas.
The general fact remains that, after a fairly long period of Socialism, the involvement needed by the state in such areas as production of goods and services will fall off - as people will not be needed to be told what to do! Regarding armed forces - well, that depends on the rest of the world doesn't it? If surrounding non-Communist states are as hostile in the future as surrounding states were whenever Socialist states were formed in the past then there may be a case for keeping some.

4. Socialist education provide every possible "educational opportunity"? Well, I don't regard motorbike racing as such an opportunity, any more than beer mat collecting is. If a kid wants to get into those things in his spare time so be it. What it will provide is something that will give him/her a sound, proper education based on a study of both the Humanities (which will lay a foundation to enjoy a cultured life) and the practicalities, which will enable the pupil to be able to interrelate maturely and knowledgably in the job they go into. Job training must be given at work, however, not by the school.
Mediocrity is encouraged by the present system of course, as the children of the few can be bought a better education even if they have little ability. By having true equality in education the able are truly nurtured and brought on, together with their less academically-gifted pupils.
By opposing this equality you condemn many kids in the future to a life on the scrap heap - and a small minority to an unfair advantage.

[GreatGodPan]

Originally Posted by David Tee

OK, this loosely fits under the banner of Sports and Pollitics...

I watched the Murray / Tsonga semi-final - the last set not only from behind my sofa but also between my fingers. Thank God, Buddha etc., Murray won....

Three minutes later our leaderwanabee tweets:



And the first thought I have is - what an utter creep. This one tweet represents Ed's entire commentary on Wimbledon so far.

My second thought is more charitable. Ed has bothered to tweet but Downing Street haven't. Maybe he's being genuine and I'm way too partisan to spot it.

I've decided I'll know for sure if Andy loses in the final and Ed insists on a judge-led inquiry.

Jeeze David, get out more...........

[HillmanImp]

Originally Posted by GreatGodPan

No, I disagree -the average couple can't afford to do so, as most couples don't have a joint income of £55k.

Even if they did I find your view that they could send a child to Osborne's school is far fetched.

I disagree. Two of my brothers (I'm the youngest of 7) went to this school:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beaumont_College

(if you look at the list of people who went there at the same time its almost like the "Who's who"...)

My mothers autobiography:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/East-End-Mem.../dp/0750939966

[razorboy]

Originally Posted by HillmanImp

the internet suggests average pay of a married couple in their 40s is 35K for man and 20K for woman. total £55K

you can save for child 20 years before you send that child to private school - so that reduces cost probably by half. So its not £21K to send kid to George Osborne's school - if you really want to send your kids there - probably nearer £10K if you know from age of 20 you want to send your kids private (you will probably because you're parents did the same).

I am not sure where you get these figures but they make a lot of assumptions, EVen if they are taking the median rather than the mean then 50% will be on less than that and people do not necessarily come straight in at this level so an average over 20 years will be less.

[Clarisse76]

Originally Posted by GreatGodPan

1. I agree. Laissez faire Capitalism is. It leaves the individual and his/her job open to the vagaries of market forces with a very small state-provided safety net.

2. No, where did I say that? I was merely countering your overtly selfish "me, my family and friends versus the world" schtick.

3. I gave it quite a bit of thought actually, particularly 40 years ago when I was quite heavily into Marxist theory. The well-known rifts and schisms amongst Marxists about the development of society both under Socialism and the later Communistic phase are well-documented, and have probably been the subject of thousands of books. All have their own different ideas.
The general fact remains that, after a fairly long period of Socialism, the involvement needed by the state in such areas as production of goods and services will fall off - as people will not be needed to be told what to do! Regarding armed forces - well, that depends on the rest of the world doesn't it? If surrounding non-Communist states are as hostile in the future as surrounding states were whenever Socialist states were formed in the past then there may be a case for keeping some.

4. Socialist education provide every possible "educational opportunity"? Well, I don't regard motorbike racing as such an opportunity, any more than beer mat collecting is. If a kid wants to get into those things in his spare time so be it. What it will provide is something that will give him/her a sound, proper education based on a study of both the Humanities (which will lay a foundation to enjoy a cultured life) and the practicalities, which will enable the pupil to be able to interrelate maturely and knowledgably in the job they go into. Job training must be given at work, however, not by the school.
Mediocrity is encouraged by the present system of course, as the children of the few can be bought a better education even if they have little ability. By having true equality in education the able are truly nurtured and brought on, together with their less academically-gifted pupils.
By opposing this equality you condemn many kids in the future to a life on the scrap heap - and a small minority to an unfair advantage.

1. And how is that different from socialism? Are the proles forced to buy the mediocre, sub-standard garbage that state-owned factories would inevitably churn out?

2. But you are guilty of it as much as I am. How many of your neighbours do you know beyond nodding hello to them when you pass them in the street? How many pop around on a regular basis for a chat and a cup of tea? How many do you trust enough to lend £250 to to tide them over until payday because they had an unexpected mechanic's bill? Not many, I'd wager!

3. It's not a fact, it's a theory. And an incredibly weak one at that (unless you're factoring eugenics in to get rid of those pesky genes for laziness, selfishness, irrationality and all the other flaws that humanity exhibits so consistently).

4. Yeah, because socialism's contribution to the pantheon of the arts is without equal, isn't it? I mean, who can deny the colossus of talent that is Gloria Estefan? Her influence I'm sure will be felt many centuries from now

[GreatGodPan]

Originally Posted by Clarisse76

1. And how is that different from socialism? Are the proles forced to buy the mediocre, sub-standard garbage that state-owned factories would inevitably churn out?

2. But you are guilty of it as much as I am. How many of your neighbours do you know beyond nodding hello to them when you pass them in the street? How many pop around on a regular basis for a chat and a cup of tea? How many do you trust enough to lend £250 to to tide them over until payday because they had an unexpected mechanic's bill? Not many, I'd wager!

3. It's not a fact, it's a theory. And an incredibly weak one at that.

4. Yeah, because socialism's contribution to the pantheon of the arts is without equal, isn't it? I mean, who can deny the colossus of talent that is Gloria Estefan? Her influence I'm sure will be felt many centuries from now

1. It is the exact opposite of Socialist production. Where in free market Capitalism nothing is planned, so that mini booms and busts occur regularly in industries depending on shortages and gluts, with planned production such things would not happen. Why would state-owned factories/financial houses/shops automatically produce and sell sub-standard goods and services? If anything that is more liable to happen now, as the motive for production is quick profit, and built in obsolescence is the order of the day, so the consumer has to buy another item in a very short time scale.

2. Of course we have all suffered from the "me" decades of the last 40 years or so. Society is instilling in us an even greater desire to behave selfishly, and to worship the nuclear family. It was different when I was very little in the late '50s/early '60s - people did indeed leave their backdoors open for neighbours and friends to "pop in", and there was more of a feeling of community.
Whereas I probably know more of my neighbours than you do yours all of us must fight against this modern sickness of insularity and being too much for themselves.

4. I was not aware that a person who fled as a small child with their parents from Castro's Cuba to Florida can be construed as a Socialist - if she read your comment she'd probably be having an apopleptic fit!

[Clarisse76]

Originally Posted by GreatGodPan

1. It is the exact opposite of Socialist production. Where in free market Capitalism nothing is planned, so that mini booms and busts occur regularly in industries depending on shortages and gluts, with planned production such things would not happen. Why would state-owned factories/financial houses/shops automatically produce and sell sub-standard goods and services? If anything that is more liable to happen now, as the motive for production is quick profit, and built in obsolescence is the order of the day, so the consumer has to buy another item in a very short time scale.

2. Of course we have all suffered from the "me" decades of the last 40 years or so. Society is instilling in us an even greater desire to behave selfishly, and to worship the nuclear family. It was different when I was very little in the late '50s/early '60s - people did indeed leave their backdoors open for neighbours and friends to "pop in", and there was more of a feeling of community.
Whereas I probably know more of my neighbours than you do yours all of us must fight against this modern sickness of insularity and being too much for themselves.

4. I was not aware that a person who fled as a small child with their parents from Castro's Cuba to Florida can be construed as a Socialist - if she read your comment she'd probably be having an apopleptic fit!

1. Firstly, two words: British Leyland. The state is essentially incompetent. Secondly, obsolescence is mostly perceived.

2. Why? Because you say so? And who decides how much is too much?

4. Well I tried to think of other examples of great artistes that socialism has brought us, but alas drew a blank. Which sort of underlines my point...

[GreatGodPan]

Originally Posted by Clarisse76

1. Firstly, two words: British Leyland. The state is essentially incompetent. Secondly, obsolescence is mostly perceived.

2. Why? Because you say so? And who decides how much is too much?

4. Well I tried to think of other examples of great artistes that socialism has brought us, but alas drew a blank. Which sort of underlines my point...

1. Maybe you'll remember such a statement when a loved one is being operated on by a state-employed surgeon, or your burning home is being put out by firemen or or or.......
Obsolescence is not perceived when a company stops making parts to repair an object that was only made a few years previously.......

2. I believe selfishness is something to be fought against. Don't you?

4. (?) Which is? Socio economic systems don't make art, individuals do.

[Clarisse76]

Originally Posted by GreatGodPan

1. Maybe you'll remember such a statement when a loved one is being operated on by a state-employed surgeon, or your burning home is being put out by firemen or or or.......
Obsolescence is not perceived when a company stops making parts to repair an object that was only made a few years previously.......

2. I believe selfishness is something to be fought against. Don't you?

4. (?) Which is? Socio economic systems don't make art, individuals do.

1. I have never known anything other than a completely shambolic NHS, regardless of whether Thatcher was cutting it or Blair was throwing money at it.
You're buying the wrong stuff. One of my motorbikes is 15 years old and the other 12. Parts, both original and pattern, are widely (and cheaply) available for both.

2. Heh. Looks suspiciously to me like another of your rabbit holes. How about you start by defining exactly what you mean by selfishness, along with some examples of what you consider to be selfish behaviour?

4. You said capitalism encourages mediocrity. I have yet to see any evidence that socialism delivers higher quality products or art than capitalism. Evidence to the contrary, however, abounds.

[GreatGodPan]

Originally Posted by Clarisse76

1. I have never known anything other than a completely shambolic NHS, regardless of whether Thatcher was cutting it or Blair was throwing money at it.
You're buying the wrong stuff. One of my motorbikes is 15 years old and the other 12. Parts, both original and pattern, are widely (and cheaply) available for both.

2. Heh. Looks suspiciously to me like another of your rabbit holes. How about you start by defining exactly what you mean by selfishness, along with some examples of what you consider to be selfish behaviour?

4. You said capitalism encourages mediocrity. I have yet to see any evidence that socialism delivers higher quality products or art than capitalism. Evidence to the contrary, however, abounds.

1. Yet nevertheless you will continue to rely on the work done by people who work for the state.
15 years! That was yesterday!

2. What about people who bewail they have neigbours and want to work solely for their family and friends, for starters?

3. We haven't had the chance to put it to the test, have we, as we haven't had Socialism in the UK?

[Clarisse76]

Originally Posted by GreatGodPan

1. Yet nevertheless you will continue to rely on the work done by people who work for the state.
15 years! That was yesterday!

2. What about people who bewail they have neigbours and want to work solely for their family and friends, for starters?

3. We haven't had the chance to put it to the test, have we, as we haven't had Socialism in the UK?

1. That doesn't alter the fact it's badly organised, inefficient and occasionally dangerously inept. And that particular buck stops with the state.

2. What's selfish about wanting to live in a house that's not surrounded by other houses? What's selfish about wanting to spend the time I have and the money I've earned with/on the people I choose? Demanding random strangers give up their time and money for my benefit because I've decided I'm more deserving than their family/friends - now that would be selfish.

3. No, however other countries have been dumb enough to put it to the test for us, and we should learn from their mistakes to ensure that their sacrifice wasn't in vain

[GreatGodPan]

Originally Posted by Clarisse76

1. That doesn't alter the fact it's badly organised, inefficient and occasionally dangerously inept. And that particular buck stops with the state.

2. What's selfish about wanting to live in a house that's not surrounded by other houses? What's selfish about wanting to spend the time I have and the money I've earned with/on the people I choose? Demanding random strangers give up their time and money for my benefit because I've decided I'm more deserving than their family/friends - now that would be selfish.

3. No, however other countries have been dumb enough to put it to the test for us, and we should learn from their mistakes to ensure that their sacrifice wasn't in vain

1. Please don't forget state services here are run by a Capitalist state - where the element of profit is increasingly being brought into public services. Oil and water.

2. There's nothing wrong about wanting to live not being literally surrounded by others (indeed, I wouldn't like to live next door to people with noisy motor bikes), but I took your earlier comment to mean that the family unit and friends meant all to you, and the rest of society didn't matter - which would be selfish view to take, in my opinion.

3. I am speaking of what Socialism would be like in 21st century Britain, not what it was like in other countries in the past.

[razorboy]

Capitalism needs a strong society, the more people have the opportunity to participate the greater the demand for goods and services, I also believe that shared values of honesty, integrity and mutual support is good for business as it builds stable workforces and ensures business can be done with confidence that the other party is not just out to swindle youi

Society also needs the creation of wealth to achieve the things it wants (or needs) to do

In essence it is not either/or but both that we need and it is a real shame the argument gets too polarised,

Ultimately it is not the system that counts but the fact that it is run by human beings who are capable of great energy and creativity or extreme lazyness, empathy or greed and selfishness, wisdom or stupidity. Look in any organisation and you will see this indeed anyone with even a smidgeon of self awareness will see it in themselves

[Clarisse76]

Originally Posted by GreatGodPan

1. Please don't forget state services here are run by a Capitalist state - where the element of profit is increasingly being brought into public services. Oil and water.

2. There's nothing wrong about wanting to live not being literally surrounded by others (indeed, I wouldn't like to live next door to people with noisy motor bikes), but I took your earlier comment to mean that the family unit and friends meant all to you, and the rest of society didn't matter - which would be selfish view to take, in my opinion.

3. I am speaking of what Socialism would be like in 21st century Britain, not what it was like in other countries in the past.

1. Regardless, the one consistent factor is that it's run by the state, and hence ineptness abounds.

2. Why would it? Since when am I morally obliged to interact with the rest of society? I leave them alone, they leave me alone. Fair exchange no robbery.

3. What makes you think it would be any different? Don't you know what Einstein said about trying the same thing over and over again and expecting different results? Socialism is an unmitigated failure - always has been, always will be. Suck it up.

[smudges dad]

Originally Posted by Clarisse76

1. Regardless, the one consistent factor is that it's run by the state, and hence ineptness abounds.

2. Why would it? Since when am I morally obliged to interact with the rest of society? I leave them alone, they leave me alone. Fair exchange no robbery.

3. What makes you think it would be any different? Don't you know what Einstein said about trying the same thing over and over again and expecting different results? Socialism is an unmitigated failure - always has been, always will be. Suck it up.

3. When you look at the homeless in the streets, millions of unemployed and high streets full of charity shops, do you see capitalism as a glorious success?

[Clarisse76]

Originally Posted by smudges dad

3. When you look at the homeless in the streets, millions of unemployed and high streets full of charity shops, do you see capitalism as a glorious success?

In isolation, no. In comparison to socialism, yes.

[GreatGodPan]

Originally Posted by Clarisse76

1. Regardless, the one consistent factor is that it's run by the state, and hence ineptness abounds.

2. Why would it? Since when am I morally obliged to interact with the rest of society? I leave them alone, they leave me alone. Fair exchange no robbery.

3. What makes you think it would be any different? Don't you know what Einstein said about trying the same thing over and over again and expecting different results? Socialism is an unmitigated failure - always has been, always will be. Suck it up.

1 "The state" is you and me.

2 Sounds a bit iffy to me.

3 Why do you think Socialism in the UK today would be anything like what has been before in other countries? How can we repeat something over and over that we haven't tried?

[Clarisse76]

Originally Posted by GreatGodPan

1 "The state" is you and me.

2 Sounds a bit iffy to me.

3 Why do you think Socialism in the UK today would be anything like what has been before in other countries? How can we repeat something over and over that we haven't tried?

1. No it isn't. You're retired (IIRC) and I work in the private sector. Aside from having the opportunity to take part in a sham of an election every five years, how is the running of the NHS anything to do with us?

3. Because if it was something completely different it wouldn't be socialism, would it?