The British have always had a soft spot for the underdog, but there was also a time when Britain loved success too. There was a time, not too long ago either, when a British company announcing good profits was considered a good thing. I can certainly recall the days when big British companies like ICI and BP were proud of the profit they made and the British people were proud of these companies, but these days it is seen as a bad thing.
Perhaps that is because of the nature of the industries that are making the big profits these days. The banking sector has never been particularly well liked - more of a necessary evil - but seeing how Britain has virtually given up on manufacturing industry and relies heavily on services - and financial services in particular - shouldn't we give them more of a break?
Profit means wealth. Profit for British companies means British wealth. But all we hear these days are cries of "fat cats", talk about "noses in the trough" and demands for "windfall taxes" to penalise companies who bring wealth, jobs and income to this country.
Britain, today, hates success - hates profit. At the heart of all this lies one thing.
Britain has been a socialist nation for more than 50 years. It wasn't quite the end of the war that saw Britain become a socialist nation, it was a little after that when the Conservative Party abandoned the old ideas of conservatism effectively turning Britain into a one party state. Since then, we have been a socialist state with increasingly socialist tendencies - which is also why the "centre ground" is now well to the left of where it was 50 years ago.
Socialists hate success. We see that in the world of celebrity where we appear to fall in love with some "star" on their way up, only to tear them apart when they attain success. I've seen all sorts of people pontificate on the reasons for this, but they never ever seem to figure out that the main emotions behind it - envy and jealousy - are emotions which socialism feeds on, so it is natural for a socialist nation to hate successful celebrities.
And it only happens in nations where socialism is not just a political entity, but is ingrained into the national psyche. Americans don't hate celebrities like we do - yet - because socialism is still not totally ingrained into them although, through educational indoctrination, it is rapidly getting there. Britain is a socialist nation. All our main political parties are socialist, the bulk of our print media is socialist and our broadcast media is entirely socialist with the BBC the worst of the lot.
Socialists hate success. Socialists hate profit - but they love an underdog. Especially if it is THEIR underdog. Which is why socialists love the NHS.
The NHS has ferociously faithful support for no good reason. It's apparent success in the early years - from it's inception in 1948 until the late sixties - was due mostly to the fact that it took twenty hears or so for government interference to ruin the health system it inherited and nationalised, but it has actually been in terminal decline ever since that fateful day when it became the jewel in the crown of socialist Britain.
There were many problems with health care in Britain prior to the creation of the NHS, but the stark fact was that, at the time and by virtually every measure, Britain was top in the global health care league. Now, sixty years on, we languish somewhere around the middle - barely above some third world nations in some respects.
I've never had a problem with the general idea behind the NHS - free at the point of use for all British subjects - but what I do have a problem with is why does it matter if, in providing that service to all and free at the point of use, it makes a profit?
It only matters if you're socialist - because socialists hate profit - but to any clear thinking person not swayed by political doctrine and dogma then surely all that matters is the basic principle that it remain free at the point of use? If the hospitals themselves are privately owned and make a profit from providing health care does that really matter? A hospital that makes money from operations won't cancel operations because that cuts profit. Isn't it better to have a health care system that sees patients as a postive boost to finances rather than an expensive drain on resources?
Other countries do it. What is more, they do it and now have better health care for their citizens than Britain - even though they started way behind us. Why? They don't have an NHS, that's why.
Don't be fooled by the people who tell you that Britain spends less per head on health care than those other nations and that is why the NHS has fallen behind. The way spending on health is calculated in each nation varies and Britain does not include the billions spent each year on social health care as part of the NHS budget (it's part of local government spending).
The NHS is untouchable for all parties. It's portrayed as a national treasure when in reality it is a national disaster stumbling from one crisis to another, riddled with bureaucracy and mismanagement and is the reason why Britain continues to fall behind in health care compared to just about every other developed nation.
Because socialists hate profit.