Bernard Hinault’s name has been mentioned a few times in recent days after Chris Froome’s Giro d’Italia win saw him join the Frenchman and Eddy Merckx as the only cyclists to have held all three Grand Tour titles at the same time. And it turns out, the Badger is not very happy about it at all.
“Froome does not belong on that list,” said Hinault, according to a report in Belgian newspaper Het Laaste Nieuws cited by The Guardian.
“He should never have been allowed to start in the Giro,” he continued, a reference to Froome’s ongoing salbutamol case.
“Why do we have to wait so long for a verdict? With what right does Froome get so much time to find an explanation? Is it because Sky has so much money?”
The Team Sky rider returned an adverse analytical finding for twice the permitted level of the anti-asthma drug salbutamol at last year’s Vuelta, which he won, making him the first man since Hinault in 1978 to win that race and the Tour de France in the same year.
Because salbutamol is a specified substance, rather than one that is completely banned, UCI rules permit Froome, who is confident of clearlng his name, while the rider seeks to provide an explanation about why the levels were so high.
The ongoing case has clearly left a bitter taste in Hinault’s mouth, however.
“This is all very sad,” he said.
“Froome is not part of the legend of the sport, because what image does he give cycling?”
UCI president David Lappartient has said that there is now less than a 50 per cent chance of the case being resolved before the Tour de France starts in six weeks’ time.
“He may also start the Tour later,” Hinault added.
“It’s a real scandal. This has to stop.”
There could be worse to come for the 63-year-old in July.
Should Froome successfully defend his title, he would equal the record held jointly by Hinault, Merckx, Miguel Indurain and Jaques Anquetil.
100 thoughts on “Bernard Hinault: “Froome is not part of the legend of the sport””
Dude’s got a point. It’s
Dude’s got a point. It’s taken a while, but I’m finally starting to give up on pro-cycling. This is just farcical.
Dope/caught/banned I can live with (even with a return to the sport), but this is taking the piss out the intelligence of cycling fans. As for the claim that Froome shouldn’t be questioned over the win, fuck off!
Come on “The Badger” !
Come on “The Badger” !
So Hinault, who I believe
So Hinault, who I believe failed drug tests during his career, doesn’t like the fact that another rider has joined him and that Belgian rider who also failed drug tests on the list of all time greats. It is the UCI who are at fault, not Froome, if the rules allow him to continue to race then you can’t blame him if he does.
I don’t disagree with the
I don’t disagree with the sentiments…. but I’m not sure that the pro cyclists from his era should be the ones casting the stones.
Whilst he has a point it is
Whilst he has a point it is unfortunately not based on anything other than his personal feelings and self importance.
We are only in this situation because of someone leaking Froome’s result. Due process rightly or wrongly would have not disclosed anything publicly untill it was fully resolved one way or another.
Any number of other pro’s could be in the same situation but we do not know. (I am not sure this is in the intrest of the sport…)
Also Froome has no other rights than any other rider. Its another argument if legal resources make it easier to avoid a sanction and points to bad rule making.
I find it troubling that those involved in the sport (not just Hinault) seem to wish that rules they have no problem with for many years be swept away in the name of a good salacious trial by media.
Sort your house out UCI! When doing so provide a transparent platform that both protects and provides no shadow to dirty riders.
He’s never one to sit on the
He’s never one to sit on the fence is the Old badger.
One of the only Champion bike riders ‘not’ to have been caught I believe. Doesn’t mean that he was clean, I’d bet he’s abused the ‘then easier to cheat’ rules.
peted76 wrote:
Apparently he refused a drugs test and got a one month ban.. things were certainly more lenient in those days!
peted76 wrote:
No he just refused a dope test and received a one month ban as a consequence. These days, I think the consequences of that action would be much more severe.
He’s part of the legend of
He’s part of the legend of the sport regardless of the eventual Salbutamol result.
4 TdF wins and a Giro is enough to get his name up there with the greats.
what an arrogant pratt: ‘He
what an arrogant pratt: ‘He was respected by riders but feared by many for his temperament. If he felt slighted by another rider he would use his strength to humiliate the offender. To the public, Hinault was often arrogant, remote, and shy of publicity. When an interviewer suggested he devote more attention to fans, Hinault replied, “I race to win, not to please people”. Sounds like LA to me
He’s just cheesed off one of
He’s just cheesed off one of his records has been equalled.
Anyone that knows anything about how he treated Greg Lemond and what a backstabbing b@stard he is (but still a very good cyclist) would have expected this.
Basically no surprise that The Badger has said something totally in character….
http://media.sbs.com.au
http://media.sbs.com.au/cyclingcentral/upload_media/1001_hinault7-640-getty.jpg
Basically if you’re not
Basically if you’re not French, Italian or a Belgie you’ll never be considered an ‘historic’ part of the old boys club. Even the French born son of a Polish immigrant was rubbished by the French after he won the TdF getting no accolades for doing so (or certainly brushed off as a one trick pony that got lucky).
Hinault is yet another in the line of backstabbing lying turds who proliferate sport, of the three – Froome Hinault, Merckx, not only has Froome failed the fewest drugs tests (given the era with limited number of tests this is why I beleive Merckx to be the biggest dope cheat in cycling history) he’s also the most genuine and not a nasty bully like Hinault and Merckx.
Basically they don’t like the fact that other countries have got in on the act, (only have to look at LeMond’s treatment by the French/Hinault and the vile actions by a few twats throwing piss and other nasty goings on whilst British riders are on course. Would you get this on British roads, no fucking way even if we hated a rider from other shores no way would that level of vitriol happen or be allowed to happen!
As a young naive 12/13 yr old and not knowing anything about what things were really like I used to look up to Hinault (amongst others) and thought he was fantastic, these days I think he’s a sad, bitter old fart who has no clue to how pathetic, cheap and hypcritical his words are.
Bog off!
Bitter old man.
Bitter old man.
Hinault…from an era where
Hinault…from an era where doping wasn’t so sophisticated, but neither was testing.
Meh.
5’8 and 62kg. What a beast.
5’8 and 62kg. What a beast.
It’s all very well beating selected crowd members and fellow cycling anorexics but I bet he never tried his hard man act on anyone built like a 100kg rugby player without 100 other cyclists about.
Yorkshire wallet wrote:
There’s video of him taking on a crowd of protesting farmers who were getting in the way of a race….
i like Hinault but i find it
i like Hinault but i find it really hard to think he and any top rider from that era never juiced. Sorry. total shite.
Unfortunately for him, but
Unfortunately for him, but fortunately for everyone else, Hinault doesn’t dictate ‘the legend of the sport’.
Get in the sea, badger.
Maybe Road CC should change
Maybe Road CC should change it’s title to Froome Fan Boys CC
dreamlx10 wrote:
It would make for a stark contrast to all the blind hate on most forums and the particularly toxic stuff spewed on social media. But if you think we’re fanboys then you’d be very much mistaken.
I always admired Hinault on the bike but he proved time and again, even as a young rider, to have an attitude and perspective shared by very few others (if any). The 1986 Tour was probably the most visible expression of that. His biography by Will Fotheringham is a good read.
Oh I’m no Froome fan – I’m
Oh I’m no Froome fan – I’m one of those apparently rare indifferents, given his Marmite nature.
But it’s the hypocrisy and sanctimony of Hinault attempting to stay relevant by attacking the latest addition to the grand slam club as ‘not part of the legend’ that sticks in the craw. No grovelling at the altar of Froome is necessary.
It’s almost as if post the
It’s almost as if post the big doping years and the ‘texan heist’, cycling can’t have a great champion? With Sky, Wiggins and (possibly) Froome pushing the limits on what’s acceptable/legal I find myself doubting things, but then I say to myself that I should be doubting champions in other sports if that’s the case. Ultimately we have to trust the authorities to make the rules and regulations unambiguous, and carry out thorough testing to support it.
As an aside, I heard someone say Froome made his time up on the epic break during the descents; sounds like great riding to me?
Bit of the old Andy Murray/Lewis Hamilton factor with Froome; the British public just haven’t really embraced him (yet?). If he’d said ‘riding up windswept dales’, rather than ‘riding up hills in Africa’ in a post stage interview, it might have helped.
Not particularly a Froome fan
Not particularly a Froome fan, or even team Sky, especially in recent years, but Hinault really should be careful what he says, there’s always been enough suspicion around his performances given the era he was from, and the refusal of a test which is a pretty big red flag.
As much as I do think it’s a bit stupid for Froome’s case to be ongoing like it is (there should probably be a specified time limit in which to prove that doping had not taken place) I can see why he’s riding, it’s probably going to be the only time in his career that he could achieve this record, and if he does prove his innocence (surely getting him into a lab for a couple of days straight after the giro to see what response his body has to the allowed dose would be a fairly straightforward way to test it) he wouldn’t have wanted to opt not to ride the race and then have the regret of losing the chance at the record.
Unless he and Sky have got some new secret doping techniques, I believe he was riding the giro clean, after all, it would be a career ending move to get caught for something else, and given the number of other riders that have moved on from Sky, namely people like Porte and Landa etc, I’d have thought that any new secret drug or technique they had would be common knowledge by now.
Then again who knows, maybe they’re all in on it together, but the way sky have dominated certain races you’d think they’d have more to gain by outing them.
I’m not a Froome fan, when he
I’m not a Froome fan, when he wins he rarely mentions or thanks his team members and it seemed to me he tried to deny Wiggins his win, however I think it is ridiculous that the alleged doping incident is ongoing. If Froome is clean he needs to be congratulated so he can take his place in the records without any stain on his career.
What are the authorities playing at?
Pity he doesn’t move to the UK and pay his taxes here.
OldMixte wrote:
Froome is always thanking his team. See how he gets on his radio at the end of a race, he’s usually thanking his team mates.
Why should he move to the UK when he spends most of his time abroad anyway? Look at all the big name British pros and you’ll find they all have lived abroad for a large part of their careers. Wiggins lived in Girona, I believe Simon and Adam Yates live in Andorra, Cavendish spends a lot of time in Tuscany. They’re not on footballer salaries and I don’t begrudge them trying to make the most of their earnings by living in tax havens. They’ll be lucky to get a couple of decades as a pro cyclist and should earn as much as they can, while they can.
OldMixte wrote:
Uh ? I’m not a massive Sky fan myself but he seems to be generally very appreciative of his team mates when i’ve heard him interviewed..
OldMixte wrote:
Well he was tested every day of this tour so he’s probably clean.
Yorkshire wallet wrote:
OldMixte wrote:
You must have selective hearing or watching in an alternative universe, as Froome is one of the best for thanking his team mates during live interviews, Twitter and FB.
Always humble and grateful for their work
maviczap wrote:
Perhaps you listen to different interviews, I saw the interview on the Giro on Quest, and it seemed to me it was all me, me, me, so similar to the others I’ve heard.
But I say again it is wrong that he is racing unders suspicion they need to sort that out, his Giro winning ride was spectacular, so all credit to him for that.
Perhaps we should have a rule that you can only compete for the UK if you pay your taxes in the UK? That would help the NHS.
OldMixte wrote:
What would help the NHS more than anything you or I could ever dream up is to have an electorate that doesn’t vote for the Tories and their destructive policies.
But many people are selfish and seduced by promises of lower taxation, cutting “red tape” (i.e. employment & pension rights), tighter immigration controls, forcing disabled & long term sick people into work and all the other nasty, divisive policies that have been put in place since Cameron and his filthy rich chums moved into Downing Street.
Froome is employed by Team Sky, not the UK government. However, he is British, as were his parents. In one sense it could be argued that he’s more British than Bradley Wiggins, whose father was Australian.
British pro cyclists living abroad have included Mark Cavendish (who is Manx so technically not from the UK) and Lizzie Deignan. Would you want them to ride for, say, Monaco at the Worlds and the Olympics? Adam and Simon Yates live in Andorra now for at least part of the year. Are they British or Andorran?
Meanwhile should non-British riders living in the UK like Marcin Bialoblocki and Ryan Mullen (raised here but races for Ireland) ride for GB instead of their own nationalities because they presumably pay taxes here? Is Stephen Roche not Irish because he has lived most of his adult life in France?
I don’t think you have really thought it through.
Simon E wrote:
You clearly don’t live in Wales. We’ve had the glorious Labour party running our NHS for 20 years now.
For some reason it underperforms relative to the English NHS (run by evil Tories) on most objective measures.
Don’t let that fact dissuade you from your ideological rant though.
Rich_cb wrote:
But many people are selfish and seduced by promises of lower taxation, cutting “red tape” (i.e. employment & pension rights), tighter immigration controls, forcing disabled & long term sick people into work and all the other nasty, divisive policies that have been put in place since Cameron and his filthy rich chums moved into Downing Street.
— Rich_cb You clearly don’t live in Wales. We’ve had the glorious Labour party running our NHS for 20 years now. For some reason it underperforms relative to the English NHS (run by evil Tories) on most objective measures. Don’t let that fact dissuade you from your ideological rant though.— Simon E
https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/nhs-wales-badly-run-by-labour-or-underfunded-by-westminster
Oh dear!
don simon wrote:
I don’t think that link is quite as convincing as you think.
The Welsh NHS needs more money.
The Welsh Assembly Government could assign more money to the NHS, as the link acknowledges, they choose not to.
So the underfunding of the Welsh NHS is a political decision made by Welsh Labour. They choose to prioritise spending elsewhere.
Rich_cb wrote:
What a surprise! Rich_cb choosing to ignore what suits….
I’m content that your one line soundbite follows form and has no substance…. Back to the real world now….
don simon wrote:
This is from your link:
“The devolved administrations receive a block grant to spend on devolved policy areas (including healthcare).”
Welsh healthcare spending is decided in Wales by the Welsh Assembly Government.
They could increase that spending without recieving a single extra penny from Westminster. They choose not too.
If any of that is untrue please feel free to correct me.
As usual you’ve waded into a debate you know little or nothing about.
Rich_cb wrote:
Rich_cb is selective quoting shocker, this quote then goes on to point out the lack of parity which is the basis of the article.
I apologise as you are the expert on everything and I look forward to you getting the personal jibes in too rather than reading the whole fucking article. Oops, too late on that one…
I’m going to sit back and watch you try and demonstrate something or other in another pointless argument, my little internet warrior hero.
don simon wrote:
The level of spending on healthcare is decided by the Welsh Assembly Government.
If Wales is spending too little, and I happen to agree that we are, then the fault lies primarily with the Welsh Assembly Government.
The block grant is large enough to allow a significant increase in health spending. The Welsh Assembly Government chooses not to do this.
As I said, if any of that is wrong feel free to correct me.
Otherwise it’s just another debate which you have lost.
Rich_cb wrote:
I apologise as you are the expert on everything and I look forward to you getting the personal jibes in too rather than reading the whole fucking article. Oops, too late on that one…
I’m going to sit back and watch you try and demonstrate something or other in another pointless argument, my little internet warrior hero.
— Rich_cb The level of spending on healthcare is decided by the Welsh Assembly Government. If Wales is spending too little, and I happen to agree that we are, then the fault lies primarily with the Welsh Assembly Government. The block grant is large enough to allow a significant increase in health spending. The Welsh Assembly Government chooses not to do this. As I said, if any of that is wrong feel free to correct me. Otherwise it’s just another debate which you have lost.— don simon
Alternatively, you have again hijacked a post about cycling and think your opinion is more valid than anyone elses regardless of evidence.
Please kindly join the cheese eating surrender monkey in a pointless bunker of hate…
alansmurphy wrote:
What evidence contradicts my opinion?
Don’s link actually backs up my point.
I didn’t start the discussion about the NHS I just added to it.
Much like you are now doing.
Rich_cb wrote:
Alternatively, you have again hijacked a post about cycling and think your opinion is more valid than anyone elses regardless of evidence.
Please kindly join the cheese eating surrender monkey in a pointless bunker of hate…
— Rich_cb What evidence contradicts my opinion? Don’s link actually backs up my point. I didn’t start the discussion about the NHS I just added to it. Much like you are now doing.— alansmurphy
I’ll not get into it with you as you have never commented on this site on anything to do with cycling.
This is a thread about Hinault’s beliefs on Froome, you have not said a single thing on this and took your usual approach of selective arguing.
Very boring, I reckon you’d prefer the Daily Mail!
T’ra
alansmurphy wrote:
Other than my earlier comment about Froome I haven’t mentioned him…
I replied to an unrelated post with my opinion, you appear to have done the same but are now taking the moral high ground.
If I’m wrong show it, otherwise what on earth was the point in commenting?
Rich_cb wrote:
True.
@alansmurphy – I replied to OldMixte, who was the first to mention the NHS. Rich_cb had a different perspective on that. So flame me, I won’t mind.
Usually if you want to bring a discussion back to the subject of the title you will get a better response by being polite, otherwise you’ll just prolong the slanging match. And if you can’t tolerate discussions going OT then you really shouldn’t play on the internet for any length of time.
What often gets lost in all this chit-chat about Froome is his record in GTs. Yes, I know you can argue about the Salbutamol case or make insinuations about Sky’s medical / nutrition practices and TUEs and snide comments about marginal gains, but in the end what he has done is pretty bloody amazing. I don’t mean that in the sense of it being suspicious. Taking it at face value, without real evidence for illegal performance enhancement, I really think it is special. I’m looking at it not as a fan of Froome or Sky but as a someone who follows the sport and is trying very hard to separate the race performances from the noise.
Contador and Valverde have been lauded as two stellar riders of their generation yet both returned to the pro ranks after bans, unrepentant and tight-lipped. While there are still questions about how and for how long they cheated, even the most begrudging cycling fan can admire how they race.
Froome, who has not had a Clenbuterol positive and no blood bags in a dodgy doctor’s fridge with his name on them, isn’t afforded this respect. He gets spat it, has piss thrown at him (that was back in 2015) and more. I also don’t like the endless game of creating unflattering monikers to describe his somewhat aesthetically poor yet very effective way of pedalling a bike, though I realise it is “just a bit of fun”. But each of these shows deep disrespect for the person as well as his achievements. I think that is a shame.
To those who think this kind of abuse is fair game: how would they feel if the shoe was on the other foot?
Simon E wrote:
True.
@alansmurphy – I replied to OldMixte, who was the first to mention the NHS. Rich_cb had a different perspective on that. So flame me, I won’t mind.
Usually if you want to bring a discussion back to the subject of the title you will get a better response by being polite, otherwise you’ll just prolong the slanging match. And if you can’t tolerate discussions going OT then you really shouldn’t play on the internet for any length of time.
What often gets lost in all this chit-chat about Froome is his record in GTs. Yes, I know you can argue about the Salbutamol case or make insinuations about Sky’s medical / nutrition practices and TUEs and snide comments about marginal gains, but in the end what he has done is pretty bloody amazing. I don’t mean that in the sense of it being suspicious. Taking it at face value, without real evidence for illegal performance enhancement, I really think it is special. I’m looking at it not as a fan of Froome or Sky but as a someone who follows the sport and is trying very hard to separate the race performances from the noise.
Contador and Valverde have been lauded as two stellar riders of their generation yet both returned to the pro ranks after bans, unrepentant and tight-lipped. While there are still questions about how and for how long they cheated, even the most begrudging cycling fan can admire how they race.
Froome, who has not had a Clenbuterol positive and no blood bags in a dodgy doctor’s fridge with his name on them, isn’t afforded this respect. He gets spat it, has piss thrown at him (that was back in 2015) and more. I also don’t like the endless game of creating unflattering monikers to describe his somewhat aesthetically poor yet very effective way of pedalling a bike, though I realise it is “just a bit of fun”. But each of these shows deep disrespect for the person as well as his achievements. I think that is a shame.
To those who think this kind of abuse is fair game: how would they feel if the shoe was on the other foot?— Rich_cb
Let’s not forget that not all those that think the Froome scandal is not healthy for the sport agree with piss throwing either.
While Froome doesn’t have a Clen positive or blood bag, he does have an abnormal finding. Something you may choose to associate with cheating, or not. Either way, there’s something not straight.
don simon wrote:
— don simonAs the case is not resolved I’m trying to keep an open mind.
I also think that some extra puffs of Salbutamol will not transform a donkey into a racehorse, as EPO was described (though for plenty of riders it was far from the only illegal aid being used).
And while I agree that scandals are not good for the sport cycling has lurched from one crisis to another for decades. Cheating and skullduggery were rife in the earliest years of the Tour. Simpson, Merckx and many more raced with the aid of amphetamines, painkillers and other concoctions. To my knowledge very little detail has been released about the 1980s (excepting Paul Kimmage spitting in the soup), and the 1990s-2000s… well, we know more than enough about that period!
Has there ever been a ‘clean’ era? It appears not. While it’s not a great consolation, at least the current headlines involve the likes of asthma medication.
Do you mean the dockers who blocked the road during Paris-Nice? http://inrng.com/2012/03/the-story-of-the-hinault-photo/
And there was the 1985 Tour, when he smashed his nose in a sprint yet went on to win the race. And not forgetting the ejection of podium interlopers in his later years. He might only be 5’8″ but he was called The Badger with good reason.
Simon E wrote:
True.
@alansmurphy – I replied to OldMixte, who was the first to mention the NHS. Rich_cb had a different perspective on that. So flame me, I won’t mind.
Usually if you want to bring a discussion back to the subject of the title you will get a better response by being polite, otherwise you’ll just prolong the slanging match. And if you can’t tolerate discussions going OT then you really shouldn’t play on the internet for any length of time.
— Rich_cb
It is not uncommon for a discussion to go off on a small tangent Simon.
It is also, unfortunately, not uncommon for Rich_cb (we all know what the ‘cb’ stands for) to wade into an unrelated point and behave like a tosser. He has an opinion, fine, often boring but fine. He then attempts to belittle others with the most nonsensical argument you are ever likely to see by providing shit evidence and ignoring any counter evidence. It feels like arguing with Tommy Robinson after a Muslim nurse has just saved his life “but all the others are murdering extremists”… As demonstrated by his arrogance towards Don (who just likes a ruck for a laugh)…
alansmurphy wrote:
Pot meet Kettle.
You’ve waded in to this debate and tried some really poor guilt by association nonsense.
‘You’re just like Tommy Robinson’
‘You’d prefer the Daily Mail’.
It’s laughable.
If you’ve got proof that the Welsh Assembly Government do not control the Welsh Health budget please post it, otherwise I’ll just assume you’re resorting to ad hominems because you have no other option.
Rich_cb wrote:
I apologise as you are the expert on everything and I look forward to you getting the personal jibes in too rather than reading the whole fucking article. Oops, too late on that one…
I’m going to sit back and watch you try and demonstrate something or other in another pointless argument, my little internet warrior hero.
— Rich_cb The level of spending on healthcare is decided by the Welsh Assembly Government. If Wales is spending too little, and I happen to agree that we are, then the fault lies primarily with the Welsh Assembly Government. The block grant is large enough to allow a significant increase in health spending. The Welsh Assembly Government chooses not to do this. As I said, if any of that is wrong feel free to correct me. Otherwise it’s just another debate which you have lost.— don simon
Which it obviously isn’t, as there is a clear underfunding of the NHS is Wales rather than the mis management by Labour, that’s not to say that Labour don’t make any mistakes. It would bew stupid to just blame one cause. But, there is no denying that the current funding formula puts Wales under pressure. Which budget do you suggest the money is taken from in order to make up the shortcomings? And then how do you propose to make up for the shortcomings of the hole that you’ve just made in that budget? Ad infinitum.So, we can indeed attribute the cause of the problem in Welsh NHS as being the funding, something you have closed your eyes to. I imaginCan’t be arsed…
don simon wrote:
Look at the entire Welsh Assembly Budget. Has the Welsh Assembly Government implemented any policies that are not in place in England?
Examples off the top of my head: subsidised tuition fees, free prescriptions, free hospital parking.
The tuition fees policy alone costs hundreds of millions per year.
Implementing that policy was a choice made by the Welsh Assembly Government.
They could have chosen to spend that money on the NHS and it would have made up a significant portion of the shortfall identified in your link.
The block grant is large enough to properly fund the Welsh NHS, unfortunately the Labour party prioritise spending on other areas and as a consequence the Welsh NHS is underfunded and underperforming.
Rich_cb wrote:
Which it obviously isn’t, as there is a clear underfunding of the NHS is Wales rather than the mis management by Labour, that’s not to say that Labour don’t make any mistakes. It would bew stupid to just blame one cause. But, there is no denying that the current funding formula puts Wales under pressure. Which budget do you suggest the money is taken from in order to make up the shortcomings? And then how do you propose to make up for the shortcomings of the hole that you’ve just made in that budget? Ad infinitum.
So, we can indeed attribute the cause of the problem in Welsh NHS as being the funding, something you have closed your eyes to. I imagin
Can’t be arsed…
— Rich_cb Look at the entire Welsh Assembly Budget. Has the Welsh Assembly Government implemented any policies that are not in place in England? Examples off the top of my head: subsidised tuition fees, free prescriptions, free hospital parking. The tuition fees policy alone costs hundreds of millions per year. Implementing that policy was a choice made by the Welsh Assembly Government. They could have chosen to spend that money on the NHS and it would have made up a significant portion of the shortfall identified in your link. The block grant is large enough to properly fund the Welsh NHS, unfortunately the Labour party prioritise spending on other areas and as a consequence the Welsh NHS is underfunded and underperforming.— don simon
don simon wrote:
Once that emoji appears you know Don has lost the argument.
Better luck next time.
Rich_cb wrote:
— don simon Once that emoji appears you know Don has lost the argument. Better luck next time.[/quote]
There are no winners , only losers in an argument (which, sadly is how you seem to see things). Equally in a debate it is not your position as a debater to decide whether you have won or whether someone has lost.
don simon wrote:
When you stop arguing your point and resort to obsfucation and emojis it’s pretty clear you have no comeback.
It’s pretty much routine in any discussion with you. Bluster, evidence you’re wrong, emoji, flounce off.
don simon wrote:
.
Rich_cb wrote:
I’m afraid that sounds suspiciously like Tory campaign rhetoric.
Sadly, I haven’t lived there for the last 18 years. I don’t know what powers the Assembly has and Wales still has MPs in Parliament. However, even a truly incompetent Labour administration would not run down and privatise every public service they can, flogging it off to investors on the cheap.
And I don’t see how the AMs can run the NHS in Wales directly; isn’t that’s the job of the Trusts and their management? But performance is a separate issue from the machinations of central government. Shropshire NHS Trust, used by lots of people living in Mid-Wales, has been underperforming for many years despite it our MP’s claiming it to be his no.1 priority, and the “Future Fit” proposals have been widely criticised.
Simon E wrote:
You either hold politicians responsible for the state of the NHS or you don’t.
You can’t criticise the Conservatives for the state of the English NHS then absolve the Welsh Assembly Government of responsibility for the NHS in Wales.
Ultimately the Welsh NHS is run by the Welsh Assembly Government. They decide how much of the budget to allocate to healthcare, they take responsibility for policy decisions etc.
If you look at waiting times for operations many are far far longer in Wales. If you look at waiting times in A+E, people wait longer in Wales.
As someone who’s lived in Wales my whole life and actually works for the Welsh NHS it is very frustrating to see the architects of that poor performance avoid the blame time and time again.
Rich_cb wrote:
So an AM in Cardiff has the same powers as the Health Minister in London?
Yeah, right!
Not to mention the lobbyists and corporations desperate to get their hands on more of a very lucrative market.
I understand that and sympathise with anyone slogging away in the NHS in the current economic and political situation.
You haven’t declared any political affiliations. Also, simply being employed there, or living in Wales for part or all your life, doesn’t necessarily give you greater insight than anyone else. My parents are 80 and have lived in North Wales all their lives but on its own that is meaningless. Each region is very different so, while I’m open to the possibility that the Assembly’s decisions may be partly to blame, I doubt you know how each Trust and hospital is run. All the above mean that I have to take your statements as opinions rather than facts.
Meanwhile if you feel that Froome paying UK taxes is going to help then why not drop him a note? He visited Wales with Michelle last year to meet some of her family so perhaps a polite request might see him dig into his pockets to help a worth cause.
Simon E wrote:
Health is completely devolved.
That means that the Welsh Health Minister (Vaughan Gething AM) makes the decisions regarding the Welsh NHS.
That’s why we have different funding models, different junior doctor contracts, different targets etc etc.
The Welsh NHS budget has no direct link to the English NHS budget.
An increase in the English NHS budget will not automatically produce an increase in the Welsh NHS budget and vice versa.
The size of the Welsh NHS budget is decided by the Welsh Assembly Government (Labour).
Living here and taking an interest in politics and the NHS in particular means I understand how devolution actually works. I therefore understand who is ultimately responsible for the state of the Welsh NHS. Clue: It’s not Jeremy Hunt.
Simon E wrote:
Yes, in their respective countries. Scotland’s NHS is likewise devolved.
According to the Nuffield Trust, after adjusting for population age, Wales chooses to spend least on its NHS (although it’s very close to England’s levels).
Not sure how we got here but anyway, there you are.
OldMixte wrote:
So you have watched part of one interview and ignore the fact that multiple other people have seen multiple other interviews and formed the opinion that he’s very respectful and gracious.
It isn’t wrong that he is racing whilst ‘unders suspicion’ (sic). It is wrong that the AAF was leaked, the rules are being followed. If you don’t like the rules that is fine, not liking Froome beacuse of the rules is ridiculous!
alansmurphy wrote:
— alansmurphyI’m afraid the Froomeophobes, self-appointed asthma experts and dedicated trolls don’t care about facts. If the comments on the telly about his own performance fit the narrative they have then that’s all they will hear.
Thanks Rich_cb & Duncann for useful comments about NHS funding.
BehindTheBikesheds, why dont
BehindTheBikesheds, why dont you cut the diplomacy and tell us what you really think about Hinault
Welsh boy wrote:
Northern cloth, I can’t do it any other way, home, work, play, that’s what a lot of people like about me, some others don’t. I think It’s not just difficult but has a negative effect on your psyche for you to hide your true feelings or to say stuff you don’t mean (all the time/often) knowing it’s a lie or a half truth that probably isn’t really helpful for the most-part.
Not saying I can’t be tactful but sometimes tact isn’t always the brilliant people skill that some think it is, often simply delays the inevitable and in the meanwhile SNAFU. Ttoo often it legitmises negative traits/responses and can lead people into thinking they can be cuddled like a child who puts on the waterworks after they’ve done something wrong, whatever.
So yeah, Hinault is a dick.
And his competitors, seemed
And his competitors, seemed to be having a right good chat with Mr Dumoulin last week too!
“(surely getting him into a lab for a couple of days straight after the giro to see what response his body has to the allowed dose would be a fairly straightforward way to test it)”
Well… If they could have done that then I think they would. They are going to have to try and recreate a whole lot of fatigue, temperatures, climbs, attacks, TT efforts, dehydration, fuelling et al not only to return the same result but also demonstrate they’ve not just found a lab test that will fudge it.
Medication is a bloody tricky thing. As I diabetice my sugars should be between 5 and 9 – obviously riding can drop these dramatically and in dramaticly different ways based on temperature, efforts etc. Ahhh, why not start a little high to prevent a dangerous sugar drop? Well if I start at 12 instead and do a hard effort, my body goes into some weird kind of shock, breaks the glucose in my body down (from energy stores) and sends my sugars even higher. Many times, the body isn’t an exact science…
alansmurphy wrote:
Agreed. If he had been tested once and failed once, then the next steps would be easy.
But presumably he’s been tested many, many times and failed once. That could be a freak result, and difficult to replicate the conditions for.
[quote=alansmurphy]
“(surely getting him into a lab for a couple of days straight after the giro to see what response his body has to the allowed dose would be a fairly straightforward way to …)
But it’s not nearly that simple or straightforward. Reproducing a tiny amount of metabolites is seriously difficult
Pot / kettle. This from a man
Pot / kettle. This from a man who refused to do a dope control and was suspended for 1 month? How is he any better than any of the prominent dopers? Never tested positive? Oh, hang on, that sounds familiar…
Hinault is entitled to his
Hinault is entitled to his opinion, which seems a lot more restrained than the vitriol poured on him in these comments, some distinctly xenophobic, others fatuous muckraking.
I don’t agree with his headline assertion.
I reckon it must be time
I reckon it must be time someone asks Bernard Hinault his opinion on the NHS……………….
The badger has a point.
The badger has a point. Froome does not belong in the club… yet. Once the outstanding case is resolved, we can then acknowledge his achievements. Until then, we are all in limbo.
There are, as already mentioned here, two issues. Firstly the leak and bringing this whole episode to the public eye when it should not have been so.
Secondly the delay in coming to a conclusion. I imagine there is much politics taking place behind closed door to drg this process out. If I think who gains the most from that, I’d say its SKy and Froome, so I’d suspect it will be them.
Its a farce and needs to be addressed so there is no further repeat.
Maybe Froome and Hinault
Maybe Froome and Hinault should race it out…
“I’m not a Froome fan, when
“I’m not a Froome fan, when he wins he rarely mentions or thanks his team members”
Absolutely false. In fact I’m struggling to think of another rider that so readily mentions his team members!
I modestly propose that my
I modestly propose that my own mature and magnanimous approach of letting things go immediately after having had the last word should be adopted by everyone?
Duncann wrote:
But what if someone else gets the last word in?
hawkinspeter wrote:
I undermined the joke by not expressing it very well. I should have written “after I have had the last word” – the point being that if others follow my example then it never ends.
It amused me at the time…
The Badger! My Dachshund
The Badger! My Dachshund would sort him out.
He never said that about
He never said that about Jacques Anquetil who openly admitted to using banned performance improving drugs…… oh, he is French, so that is ok then.
80 posts on a thread where
80 posts on a thread where Rich_cb is resposible for about a third of them and still no graphs???
Surely there’s a correlation between Team Sky results and waiting times in the Welsh NHS?
CygnusX1 wrote:
Oh come on.. I’m more surprised we’ve not brought helmets into this by now, what with all those Welshies getting free perscriptions for paracetamol based on 1) the lunacy of welsh car drivers 2) the queues in A&E for people falling off bikes and banging their heads !
Here’s a pie chart which demonstrates my argument perfectly! – https://goo.gl/images/TYS5Ui
Rich_cb is 100% correct
Rich_cb is 100% correct regarding NHS comments, why people are arguing with him to the contrary is both unhelpful and stupid as it deflects from the topic matter. He doesn’t need any graphs because he was correct in his first post about the NHS and every post thereafter.
The same thing happens in Scotland, they spend a heck of a lot more per person than the NHS average and yet the Scots are the unhealthiest of the home nations by far not to mention their bad teeth! Life expectancy of those under the SNP is around 3 years shorter, that’s a very significant number and yet more money is spent by NHS Scotland under both SNP and SLP and still hasn’t improved matters in almost 20 years, it continues to get worse comparatively.
it’s all too easy for the lefties on here to blame the cons but ignore the truth/reality and stick their fingers in their ears just as many have done here chatting shit to rich_cb..
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
it’s because of Burke & Hare. The SNP are stooges of the Romanian Vampyrical McLabour Party and Body Shop and go around the wee granitey streets of auld Scotland killing people and eating their babies with boiled neeps, and that’s why the numbers don’t add up.
I can guarantee you Jimmy that the day after a Tory win in Scotland all the dead will rise again from their cold graves, aye including Greyfriars Bobby’s owner, and they will once again walk this earth for all eternity so the life (if you can really call it that) expectancy figures will put England to shame and there’ll be nay mair need for an NHS and we can spend the money on border posts instead. Och aye. Vote Tory and live forever.
Simply placing the blame of
Simply placing the blame of NHS underfunding at the feet of Labour, is both over simplistic and wrong. It has been demostrated as being complex and not solely a Labour problem. It still hasn’t been demonstrated by the wise one where which budget will supply the money to fix the Welsh NHS and that’s always the problem with smart arse critics, they’ve got no fucking solutions.
Look at that twat Farage, for another one.
don simon wrote:
The trouble is that it is actually quite simple.
The NHS in Wales in underfunded by about 9.5% based on the English funding model mentioned in your link.
Based on the current budget of roughly £7bn that gives a shortfall of circa £650m.
Have Welsh Labour implemented any Wales-only policies that have used resources that could otherwise have been used to address that shortfall?
Yes.
I have already given you the example of subsidised tuition fees, there are also non means tested maintainance grants for students.
These policies alone cost £100’s of millions per year. There are many more.
Welsh Labour have therefore made the choice to prioritise supporting university students over properly funding the NHS.
When the Welsh NHS underperforms Welsh Labour has to be held accountable for the choices they have made and the way that they have prioritised spending.
Instead they pretend that the blame lies entirely in Westminster.
Rich_cb wrote:
Simply placing the blame of NHS underfunding at the feet of Labour, is both over simplistic and wrong. It has been demostrated as being complex and not solely a Labour problem. It still hasn’t been demonstrated by the wise one where which budget will supply the money to fix the Welsh NHS and that’s always the problem with smart arse critics, they’ve got no fucking solutions.
Look at that twat Farage, for another one.
— Rich_cb The trouble is that it is actually quite simple. The NHS in Wales in underfunded by about 9.5% based on the English funding model mentioned in your link. Based on the current budget of roughly £7bn that gives a shortfall of circa £650m. Have Welsh Labour implemented any Wales-only policies that have used resources that could otherwise have been used to address that shortfall? Yes. I have already given you the example of subsidised tuition fees, there are also non means tested maintainance grants for students. These policies alone cost £100’s of millions per year. There are many more. Welsh Labour have therefore made the choice to prioritise supporting university students over properly funding the NHS. When the Welsh NHS underperforms Welsh Labour has to be held accountable for the choices they have made and the way that they have prioritised spending. Instead they pretend that the blame lies entirely in Westminster.— don simon
You see the problem (for you) here is that, you have failed to convince me of anything. My viewpoint hasn’t changed one bit. I think that as far as a discussion goes, there hasn’t really been one, but as an argument to convince me that you are correct, simply because you are only in part correct, you have failed dramatically again. Simply you are wrong.
As a postscript, I would, if I had any respect for you, thank you for your taking of my one sentence resume of your modus operandi and throwing it back at me.
What is it they say about immitation being the sincerest form of flattery?
Back to the Daily Mail for you sunshine.
don simon wrote:
There are none so blind as those that refuse to see.
The Welsh Assembly Government spend hundreds of millions subsidising Welsh students.
That is a fact. You cannot dispute that.
The Welsh Assembly Government could reassign the money currently used to subsidise students and use it to fund the Welsh NHS.
That is also a fact. You cannot dispute that either.
Those two facts form my entire argument.
You may not be convinced of it but that is a reflection of your own bias, nothing more.
Rich_cb wrote:
You see the problem (for you) here is that, you have failed to convince me of anything. My viewpoint hasn’t changed one bit. I think that as far as a discussion goes, there hasn’t really been one, but as an argument to convince me that you are correct, simply because you are only in part correct, you have failed dramatically again. Simply you are wrong.
As a postscript, I would, if I had any respect for you, thank you for your taking of my one sentence resume of your modus operandi and throwing it back at me. What is it they say about immitation being the sincerest form of flattery?
Back to the Daily Mail for you sunshine.
— Rich_cb There are none so blind as those that refuse to see. The Welsh Assembly Government spend hundreds of millions subsidising Welsh students. That is a fact. You cannot dispute that. The Welsh Assembly Government could reassign the money currently used to subsidise students and use it to fund the Welsh NHS. That is also a fact. You cannot dispute that either. Those two facts form my entire argument. You may not be convinced of it but that is a reflection of your own bias, nothing more.— don simon
That’s quite bold and arrogant, so guess what? I’m simply going to say that you’re wrong.
What you can do is go into a bit more detail about the Welsh Government and the funding process. Don’t need the Barnett Formula, you can start with the First Minister and how they get that position and take it right down to the make up of the Assembly and what they do. You can then explain how Labour are able to reassign funds, as you say, which is your entire argument.
I can’t be arse linking, but you can. Otherwise I’m more than happy to sit here saying that, as usual, you are wrong.
don simon wrote:
It’s not arrogant to state a fact.
It’s arrogant to wade into a debate you clearly know absolutely nothing about and start declaring that established facts are wrong.
Here is a link which sets out in some detail the role of the Welsh Assembly. Have a read. You might just learn something.
http://www.assembly.wales/en/abthome/role-of-assembly-how-it-works/Pages/role-of-assembly-how-it-works.aspx
Rich_cb wrote:
Very interesting, thanks.
Is it really that subsidised tuition fees and non means-tested grants have taken money away from NHS funding? Is it such a direct relationship? After all, there are other things in the Assembly’s remit.
Rhetorical question: if NHS Wales had that additional money how would it be used?
Also, it prompts me to wonder whether the case for subsidising students is because it brings other benefits to the economy of university towns and cities.
Simon E wrote:
The vast majority of the Welsh Assembly’s funding comes in the form of a block grant from Westminster.
How that block grant is divided is entirely down to the Welsh Assembly Government.
Education and Health/Social Care are the two largest components of the budget.
Every penny spent on education is therefore not available to be spent on health and vice versa.
There are undoubtedly benefits to the tuition fees policy but there are also detrimental effects for other areas.
If Welsh Labour acknowledged that the Welsh NHS is underfunded but made the argument that students were a higher priority I’d at least respect their honesty.
Where does it say in that
Where does it say in that article that Labour are able to force the changes to funding? That’s your argument; that Labour, as the welsh Gov, have the power to reasign funds from Education to the NHS. They don’t and that means that you’re wrong.
The answer is simple. they can’t.
So unless you can do as I have asked and point to relevant passages that demonstrate your position, take your arrogance and shove it up your arse!
don simon wrote:
Did you read the entire link?
It’s in the Governance section.
Are you seriously arguing that the Welsh Assembly Government doesn’t set the budgets for Education and Healthcare in Wales?
Rich_cb wrote:
Where does it say in that article that Labour are able to force the changes to funding? That’s your argument; that Labour, as the welsh Gov, have the power to reasign funds from Education to the NHS. They don’t and that means that you’re wrong.
The answer is simple. they can’t.
So unless you can do as I have asked and point to relevant passages that demonstrate your position, take your arrogance and shove it up your arse!
— Rich_cb Did you read the entire link? It’s in the Governance section. Are you seriously arguing that the Welsh Assembly Government doesn’t set the budgets for Education and Healthcare in Wales?— don simon
Yes, I am. In that you blame Labour. You have not demonstrated the process, you have not linked to it. You “Waded” into the discussion with an outlandish claim that you cannot support, it looks very much like you are trying to wrangle out of your initial claims.
Come back when you’ve got some evidence to support the following:
You clearly don’t live in Wales. We’ve had the glorious Labour party running our NHS for 20 years now.
For some reason it underperforms relative to the English NHS (run by evil Tories) on most objective measures.
Don’t let that fact dissuade you from your ideological rant though.
That Labour is solely responsible for the poor management for the Welsh NHS and underfunding play NO part.
Ultimately the Welsh NHS is run by the Welsh Assembly Government. They decide how much of the budget to allocate to healthcare, they take responsibility for policy decisions etc.
Safe to say that you are happy to interchange Labour with Welsh assembly Government. What is the welsh assembly Gov? I’ve already asked for this, which you haven’t done.
The Welsh Assembly Government could assign more money to the NHS, as the link acknowledges, they choose not to.
So the underfunding of the Welsh NHS is a political decision made by Welsh Labour. They choose to prioritise spending elsewhere.
Back to erroneously blaming Labour. (You really are confused, aren’t you?
This is from your link:
“The devolved administrations receive a block grant to spend on devolved policy areas (including healthcare).”
Welsh healthcare spending is decided in Wales by the Welsh Assembly Government.
They could increase that spending without recieving a single extra penny from Westminster. They choose not too.
Back to being confused again. Is it the responsibility of the Welsh Assembly Gov (I’m now convinced you don’t know the difference between the Welsh Gov and the Assembly, nor what they do… But hey, keep banging on…
The Welsh NHS budget has no direct link to the English NHS budget.
I assume that this is in line with Barnett himself saying that the Barnett formula is shite. But it is still a funding formula that is used and england is the base for the calculation, otherwise no, there’s no link…
You haven’t demonstrated the make up of the welsh Gv, you haven’t touched on the Welsh Assembly, or it’s role. You haven’t said how it’s impossible for Labour to steamroller any policy, no matter how much it would like to. I’d target my ire at the two who have pushed the Labour minority into the majority, if I were you.
I’m getting bored of this now and really do have other things to do.
Do you really want me to continue? Or are you going to continue making an arse of yourself?
don simon wrote:
That Labour is solely responsible for the poor management for the Welsh NHS and underfunding play NO part.
Ultimately the Welsh NHS is run by the Welsh Assembly Government. They decide how much of the budget to allocate to healthcare, they take responsibility for policy decisions etc.
Safe to say that you are happy to interchange Labour with Welsh assembly Government. What is the welsh assembly Gov? I’ve already asked for this, which you haven’t done.
The Welsh Assembly Government could assign more money to the NHS, as the link acknowledges, they choose not to.
So the underfunding of the Welsh NHS is a political decision made by Welsh Labour. They choose to prioritise spending elsewhere.
Back to erroneously blaming Labour. (You really are confused, aren’t you?
This is from your link:
“The devolved administrations receive a block grant to spend on devolved policy areas (including healthcare).”
Welsh healthcare spending is decided in Wales by the Welsh Assembly Government.
They could increase that spending without recieving a single extra penny from Westminster. They choose not too.
Back to being confused again. Is it the responsibility of the Welsh Assembly Gov (I’m now convinced you don’t know the difference between the Welsh Gov and the Assembly, nor what they do… But hey, keep banging on…
The Welsh NHS budget has no direct link to the English NHS budget.
I assume that this is in line with Barnett himself saying that the Barnett formula is shite. But it is still a funding formula that is used and england is the base for the calculation, otherwise no, there’s no link…
You haven’t demonstrated the make up of the welsh Gv, you haven’t touched on the Welsh Assembly, or it’s role. You haven’t said how it’s impossible for Labour to steamroller any policy, no matter how much it would like to. I’d target my ire at the two who have pushed the Labour minority into the majority, if I were you.
I’m getting bored of this now and really do have other things to do.
Do you really want me to continue? Or are you going to continue making an arse of yourself?
I think it is you that is confused.
The Welsh Assembly Government is the devolved government of Wales. It is commonly referred to as ‘The Welsh Assembly’.
Labour are currently in power so using ‘Labour’ and the ‘Welsh Assembly Government’ interchangeably is perfectly acceptable.
Labour are able to pass budgets as they command a majority in the Senedd (The Welsh Parliament).
The Barnett formula determines the size of the block grant to Wales. It does not determine the size of the Welsh Healthcare budget.
That is determined by the Welsh Assembly Government which is currently run by Welsh Labour.
Welsh Labour could therefore increase funding to the Welsh NHS.
They choose not too.
I love how people simplify
I love how people simplify the NHS issues as either a labour problem or a tory problem.
Instead of looking for answers, we spend our whole time looking to pass blame.
The NHS problems are deep and significant. There is a simple answer – increase spend – however this is not a long term solution… the waste in the NHS is biblical and I fully understand why there is reluctance to further fund this waste. Taking Rich’s point to its conclusion… after you stop subsidising students, where does the money come from then? Which service is next? Its a totally unsustainable approach to simply pour higher and higher percentages of total budget into the NHS.
You need to fix the waste in the NHS first and foremost.
Any conversation that isn’t centred on this, is simply wasting time / pissing in the wind (IMO)
Or we could say its all Labour / Tories fault and do nothing.
So, you’re saying that the
So, you’re saying that the Welsh Assembly Gov (appointed members) is the same as the National Assembly for Wales (elected members where Labour hold 29 out of 60 seats), then?
The Welsh Assembly Government is a very specific entity, so specific that there is legislation in place to ensure that people aren’t confused, unfortunately some people still get confussed inspite of the Act being passed 12 years ago (2006).
As far as I’m aware Senedd is the fucking building…
Your still failing to link to anything to support any of the crap that you’re spouting.
EDIT!
I’m proper fucking bored of this now. OK, nice and simple for you richie baby.. Let’s see if you can understand this.
In Wales the devolved Government probably looks something like an appointed Welsh Government made up of the First Minister and his cronies. Brenda/Queenie/Her Maj does the appointing.
These cronies include lots and lots of ministers who set out policies, including bugets like the NHS. If these appointed cronies were allowed to do what the fuck they wanted, we’d have a problem calling Wales a democracy.
So, in 2006, the National Assembly was separated legally from the Welsh Government. The budgets are passed to the National Assembly for approval and to make sure that no one is taking the piss like buying themselves expensive cars and that sort of shit.
This assembly is made up of 60 seats, 29 which are Labour. This is not an absolute majority so Labour (boo! hiss!) can not force legislation through without the support of non Labour AMs.
They sit in a building called the fucking Senedd.
It’s there, it’s simple, it’s done. There is no possible way that you can be confused now.
This thread can now die the death it deserves.
You nade a shit statement that you could not support with evidence.
You have, again, refused to be corrected where evidence is available (go fucking Google it yourself).
You insist on digging holes for yourself.
You try and insult people with little sideswipes.
You’re a waste of space.
Who the fuck is this Hinault fella? And what’s he done?
don simon wrote:
I clearly did not say that.
The Welsh Assembly Government is created by the political party that can command a majority in the Senedd. The members are ceremonially appointed by the Queen but she plays no role in their selection.
As you have said there are 60 seats in the Senedd. The presiding officer does not traditionally vote so that leaves 30 seats required for a working majority.
At present Labour have 29 seats so have an agreement with the solitary Liberal Democrat AM to get their policies passed.
In the previous Assembly Labour commanded an overall majority of their own.
The First Minister, Finance Minister and Health Minister are all Labour AMs.
Given that it is a Labour Finance Minister who proposes the budget which is then supported by all the Labour AMs it does not seem unreasonable to blame Labour for budget decisions.
The underfunding of the Welsh NHS is not a new problem.
During the previous Assembly the Labour majority voted to cut NHS funding in real terms.
Again it does not seem unreasonable to blame the party that voted to cut NHS funding for the underfunding that this caused.
In summary the Welsh Assembly Government has the power to increase Welsh NHS funding but chooses not to.
The Labour party make up all but one post of the Welsh Assembly Government.
I therefore blame the Labour party for the current underfunding especially given their track record of cutting NHS spending in the previous Assembly.
Seems a shame not to nudge
Seems a shame not to nudge this thread over 100 comments…
I’m sorry; I forget…. Is
I’m sorry; I forget…. Is this thread about the airspeed of the European or African Swallow?