Politics Society Update

The Politics Society reconvened after half-term, with some new members, to discuss issues such as the health of the NHS and the London 2012 Olympics.

With the idea of a ‘cradle to grave’ society with a great deal more social support than in the United States, the discussion title “Should we still have a free health care system or is the NHS an ideal no longer fit for 2009?” provided an evening’s emotional debate centred around the Health Service’s aim to provide free health care at the point of need to those ordinarily resident in the UK. Members gave examples of where the NHS had helped them, whether it be with sporting injuries or members of their families, it became clear that the NHS had a positive impact on the vast majority of members, moreover, providing treatment that many could not afford. However, the NHS it soon became clear was not completely free from criticism, with the introduction of new computer systems that failed and the UK’s highest absenteeism rates the Health Service clearly has problems internally as well as externally. Other problems discussed included the ‘postcode lottery’ with depending on where you live affecting the treatment you receive. Therefore, the society came to the conclusion that this is an example of where decentralisation had a negative effect on the people. 

The question of funding the NHS was addressed by a number of suggestions. Firstly, create an insurance scheme like the United States. Secondly, create a tier system, where the more you pay the quicker you get seen.

The society came to the conclusion that the NHS actually, despite the media emphasising its failings was indeed still fit for 2009 with many preferring the UK’s approach to health care than the American health care system.

Last night (25^th November), the society met again to discuss the title “Are the 2012 Olympics a disaster for the UK?” with some political background from the 1968 Mexico Olympics where two American athletes were expelled from the village for displaying the ‘black power’ salute, at an event that is meant to be politically neutral.

In the midst of recession many questioned the legitimacy of spending £5.3billion with three years to go, already 40% over budget. In response, it was suggested that actually, this will improve not only sporting facilities in the capital, but the infrastructure, with the rejuvenation of the Tube, Rail and Bus networks therefore leaving a lasting legacy. Moreover, although costs will not be recovered, the games will leave 3,600 low cost apartments in the East of London, but, as one member of staff pointed out, this could easily fail as happened with the Barcelona Olympics where people didn’t actually want to live in that part of the city.

The idea of increasing national obesity was raised with one member suggesting that watching the Olympics would not stop her from eating chocolate!

The issue of security was raised, following the 7/7 attacks and Britain’s involvement in overseas wars, one member put forward that this is surely opening up Britain to attack. Furthermore, based on the Beijing Olympics there were over one hundred world leaders at the opening ceremony, then surely to those who wish to commit acts of terror this would provide a good opportunity. However, others dismissed this statement suggesting that with the increased threat there will also be increased security.

Moreover, although there are very few events being held outside of London, we were informed that there were many benefits to the Olympics. For example, Repton alongside a number of similar schools in the midlands is being considered as a training venue for a number of sports.

Overall, when it came to a vote, the motion was dismissed with two abstentions, with the overall regeneration, increased facilities and opportunities across the country the Olympics were indeed not a disaster for the UK.