Big Al;

Johnny Speight put another word of wisdom in the mouth of Alf Garnett that I like to quote when a meeting is about to put something to the vote..

"If you want to achieve TRUE democracy, you have to be prepared to shoot a few people."

This thread is about American interpretations of the word "conservative." Methinks the likes of Ken Clarke would be dismissed as a socialist by many of our cousins over the pond. Here, it means more of an idealogical theme around preserving old ways. You could be cynical and take that to mean maintaining a stratified class system, although there is no real difference between any of our mainstream parties. Hence the conservative and liberal parties can convince themselves they can run a government of shared promises and group failure.

I agree with Joe Offer mind, that people both sides of the pond who call themselves conservative tend to want more radical change than most.

Just to answer Joe Offer's question about handing over healthcare to the private sector. It started in 1948 and GPs (general practitioners in primary care) dentists, pharmacists and opthamologists have never been in the National Heath Service, always been contractors. Likewise, the Labour government of Tony Blair introduced contracting to the private sector to get waiting times down without the cost of permanent infrastructure. In order to do that, private providers had to be given the wherewithal to compete once the waiting lists had steadied.

The present government have seemed to increase this plurality of supplier, making NHS providers all apply for "foundation" status, which is to run as a business but with the taxpayer as the shareholder. Or level playing field as it is called.

For me, just out of interest as someone who used to chair (President in American English(!)) a health authority, I fear for the training aspect in such a market. I don't think this government or any previous one has seriously seemed to go against the "free at point of delivery" funding of healthcare, but the population seems, regardless of political colour, to embrace the fundamental aspect of free universal healthcare. The arguments have always been around who physically provides it. It has always been a larger percentage of the private sector than many commentators would openly be comfortable with.