Fun Online Polls: Charlie Gard; influencing the govermnent.

The results to last week's Online Poll were as follows:

If it were up to you, would you allow Charlie Gard's parents to take him to the USA for treatment?

Yes - 80%
No - 20%

I was with the majority on this. I'm not a doctor or a priest, I'm not related to Charlie and I don't have to pay for it. Last time I looked, paying for expensive and probably futile medical care is not a crime in this country and most people have no moral objection to it. It'd be a different matter if parents wanted to take a daughter abroad to have her fanny mutilated, or some religious wierdos deliberately withheld medical treatment from a child, then it's fine if 'the state' steps in...

Phil: Yes they have that right, but they fund it themselves. There has to be a limit on what 'everyone' will pay for - there's the flaw in the NHS, eventually it's expected to cure everything for everyone...

Bill: I'm with Phil. There has to be a limit or the NHS ends up paying for fringe stuff like cryogenics. If it isn't an immediate health issue or involves non-essential cosmetic treatments, then fine, pay for it privately. Go where you like for treatment if the NHS doesn't provide it in the UK.

Well yes of course, the NHS has to do its own cost-benefit analysis, and it would appear that enough is enough in this case. But value to the taxpayer is quite different to value to the parents.
---------------------------------------------------------
This week's Fun Online Poll goes back to a comment by Mike W here

Given the theoretical framework and arguments have been worked through here, the point is to carry the fight where you stand and how you see fit.

I support everyone here that is prepared to carry the HG/LVT/CI cause into the Tories, the Liberals, even UKIP. It is just not something I could do myself with passion or conviction. I'm sure your point of view is just the political 'mirror' to mine. Good Luck.

I support the thinking behind the YPP too. It's just I think this has to be done within a major party or LVT will seem too marginal/ technocratic. This is simply a strategic choice and nothing to get too worked up about.

Mike W seems to think that being a Labour party member and agitating for it there is our best bet. Maybe it is, but as I responded:

I know plenty of people in various political parties large and small who have spent years or decades agitating for Georgism and achieved nothing. I wasted a few years in UKIP (I learned a lot about day to day politics, but that's another story) and achieved nothing.

My view is, only the Tories or Labour will ever be in government so those are the ones you have to influence. As the last couple of elections showed, if you want to influence them, what you do is vote for somebody else with a clearer manifesto and they will shape their policies accordingly.

Which is why we set up YPP. Whether a YPP candidate ever gets elected is nigh on irrelevant. As the Greens and UKIP have shown, once enough people are voting for you - 5% to 10% - the Tories and Labour will adjust their policies to suit and so [the Greens and UKIP] have achieved a lot, even if only indirectly, and right now that'll do me.

So that's this week's Fun Online Poll:

Which is the better strategy for influencing Labour or Tory policies?

Vote here or use the widget in the sidebar.