Ongoing Election chat.
PLEASE NOTE:-
To try and maintain some kind of logical order of discussion, if you start a new subject then reply to this post and try and remember to change the default subject header.
435985
Last edited by: VxFan on Mon 11 May 15 at 21:50
|
NoFM2R quoted:>>>>and fear in England of a Labour/SNP coalition.
and asked:>>I'm not there, but was it so great? None of my friends / relatives / colleagues seemed to >>think so.
You might be surprised. On the doorsteps of Hampstead and Kilburn (a Labour-held marginal that we didn't manage to take from them) I met a goodly number of life-long Labour and Liberal voters who when I said to them "It's basically Cameron or Salmond isn't it" agreed and said they'd therefore be voting Tory. Until I put that proposition to them they said "unsure" or "well, I've always voted Labour".
I was truly astonished and disillusioned that what I was seeing on the doorstep didn't seem to translate into a move in the opinion polls.
If any polling organisation had asked "Would you prefer Cameron or Salmond in the driving seat" then I think they'd have come up with quite different predictions.
|
The most likely way that I forsee the Union splitting is for England to vote to leave Europe in the referendum.
I think that is not likely however, as the political powers will all push for continued European Union.
The SNP may have gotten 50% of the vote but they know a portion are 'No' voters who feel Labour no longer represent their interests - I would be very surprised at any attempt for Sturgeon to go for a second referendum in this parliamentary cycle.
Last edited by: Lygonos on Mon 11 May 15 at 12:11
|
The sums on an IN/OUT Referendum are really quite simple.
Just look at the GE results.
% share of Votes x Probability of Voting IN - my estimates based on party policies so voted for.
Labour 30.4% x at least 85% 25.8%
UKIP 12.6% x Nil 0.0
LD 7.9% x100% 7.9
SNP 4.7% x at least 50% 2.3
GRN 3.8% x 90% 3.4
Sub Total IN 39.4%
So For an IN vote to succeed Conservative voters -36.9% - need to poll at least 10.7%
That means 29% of all Cons voters must vote IN... I personally expect that the real % would be nearer 50% - 18.4%- giving an IN total of 57.8% - an OUT of 42.2% and a margin of 15.6%.
So an overwhelming IN vote.. Providing the Tories gain reasonable concessions to be sold to the electorate Tory voters..
Of course my percentages will be out a bit in the above table BUT I reckon an IN vote is a sure fire winner.. PROVIDED there are concessions to be sold.
(Remember you heard it here first!)
Show how isolated and nutty UKIP are...
|
|
I shall be voting to stay in the EU. I have not heard any particular and compelling set of reasons from the business community to quit. It is they who are the wealth generators.
|
No Election discussion can pass without this cropping up - skip to 1:30 for the best bit.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=7TOgB3Smvro
|
>> I shall be voting to stay in the EU. I have not heard any particular
>> and compelling set of reasons from the business community to quit. It is they who
>> are the wealth generators.
>>
And there we have it. Game, set and match. Why we're going to have to waste all the time, money and heartache arguing the bleeding obvious I have no idea.
Well said, TMS.
|
>> And there we have it. Game, set and match. Why we're going to have to
>> waste all the time, money and heartache arguing the bleeding obvious I have no idea.
>>
Because, like Scottish independence, the loud, aggressive voices id the minority want out, the only way for the silent, thinking, majority to get heard is to do a secret ballot
|
|
I've posted at least three times to the effect that if the silly referendum is held, and the vote shows a clear preference for leaving the EU, the result will simply be ignored since all sane politicians want to stay in. No idea what happened to the posts but I can't find them. Will this one go the same way?
|
|
Very little gets deleted here and I very much doubt yours have unless they broke site rules, which I also doubt. You probably need to search a bit harder, there is no conspiracy here.
|
>> there is no conspiracy here.
Never thought there was smokie, never for long anyway. And it's true I'm lousy at finding stuff, so you are probably right. Brain still a bit sclambled after the erection.
|
>> And it's true I'm lousy at finding stuff,
Just click on your own username and it will bring up a handful of the most recent posts you've made.
Alternately, just enter your username into the forum search, and leave the rest of the fields untouched and it will bring up the last month's worth of posts you've made.
|
|
Part of the 'science' of a referendum is to pose the question in terms that increase the vote for your preferred outcome. A simplistic example is the question "have you stopped beating your wife?". Unless one responds carefully, one admits to beating the wife.
|
|
There is no way the majority of people in this country will vote to leave the EU in a referendum.
|
>> There is no way the majority of people in this country will vote to leave the EU in a referendum.
I wish I felt so sure commerdriver.
|
">> There is no way the majority of people in this country will vote to leave the EU in a referendum.
I wish I felt so sure commerdriver."
I will be listening to all the arguments for and against, but if there was a referendum tomorrow, I'd vote to get out.
More than anything else, the appalling waste resulting from unchecked bureaucracy, lavish expenses and so on, and the misplaced agricultural subsidies, stick in my throat.
I used to think we should even be part of the eurozone.
|
The agriculture subsidies also go to British farmers.Might be nice to get writ of sheepfarming and go back to some forest land.Don't we inport most of the sheep meat from New Zealand.
Cameron might regret promising a referendum on Europe.If it is a in or out vote could be close.There is a lot of waste regarding farming in Europe.Which also effects the poorer African country's.They can't compete.
|
|
I dont understand how the UK remains in a Europe which seems to want to further integrate as this has to mean being part of the Euro. I cannot see us agreeing to join the Euro any time soon so there has to be some kind of re-negotiation/change/split.
|
>>I dont understand how the UK remains in a Europe which seems to want to further integrate as this has to mean being part of the Euro.
Britain joined various taxation, financial, economic and trade agreements. All of which made ad make sense, including the free movement of labour. And those are what business is supportive of and which, by and large, don't annoy people.
The EC would like a single state. Not just the above, but also currency, laws, socio-economics etc. etc. These business does not support, although its mostly not likely to fight the. But those are the things which typically hack people off.
Those are also the things that were growing and growing and pushing more and more into people's lives and faces. This is not just piddling off the Brits, its getting up the noses of many people throughout Europe. (Its probably what gets up the nose of the Scotch about the UK).
But it was difficult to see what was going to stop the onward march.
Well now, by virtue of Farage, UKIP and an irritated electorate, the resistance has started, the light has been shone and nobody is getting back in any boxes.
Those who want to be in need to work out how to support the first part above, without allowing the second part to take over again.
Those who want to be out need to consider the value of the first part above and the impact of being without it.
I doubt we'll leave. But I fully expect there to be quite some changes with the encroachment on people's lives.
|
I was an OUT, however I would now support staying in as long as a line can be drawn to prevent any further progress toward the US of E and compulsion to join the €.
I guess I support the EEC/Common Market but am not in favour of the EU.
|
>>I guess I support the EEC/Common Market but am not in favour of the EU.
Most people, I suspect, agree. Certainly I do.
|
>> I was an OUT, however I would now support staying in as long as a
>> line can be drawn to prevent any further progress toward the US of E and
>> compulsion to join the €.
Some of the USof E stuff may be inevitable in terms of a free market but not all. Europe also needs to consider extent to which it's interests are contrary to those of the USofA and be prepared to unite in that cause.
There are though several other EU states that will rally round the less integration flag. But Uk need to play its cards diplomatically. The anti EU fation in the new govt won't do that becuase their objective is to cut us free and possibly to ally us more closely to that free market paragon over the pond.
The biggest threats to Cameron are on the benches behind him.
|
>> I was an OUT, however I would now support staying in as long as a
>> line can be drawn to prevent any further progress toward the US of E and
>> compulsion to join the €.
>>
>> I guess I support the EEC/Common Market but am not in favour of the EU.
Which is exactly how I feel... oh and repealing the Human Rights Act, which was a sort of good idea that has gone horribly wrong.
I will vote 'out' unless there are some considerable concessions.
|
The referendum in the seventies voted 2/1 in favour of staying in the Common Market. That was when there was little to lose by coming out as we'd only just joined. We are now heavily intertwined in the EU, all the main parties will be telling us we will take a big hit on jobs and living standards by leaving and the large employers will all be lining up to echo that. I reckon the vote will be at least 3/1 for staying this time round. There is nowhere near the nationalist fervour in the UK as a whole like there is in Scotland and even with that the SNP lost their independence vote. It will finish UKIP, which is why I can't understand labour's opposition to a vote as they took a bigger hit from UKIP than the Tories did, and it will silence the sceptics on the Conservative back benches who will have the ground swept from under them.
So it's win win for both main parties and will put the whole in/out argument to bed for several generations.
|
>> Which is exactly how I feel... oh and repealing the Human Rights Act, which was
>> a sort of good idea that has gone horribly wrong.
You do understand the full complexity of this don't you, including fact that the European Convention on Human Rights is not something dreamed up in Brussels.
I only ask because that fact defeats several right wing Tory MP's
Ok, this is the Guardian but repeal (or at least meaningful replacement) isn't that simple....
www.theguardian.com/law/2015/may/11/conservatives-human-rights-act-abolition-queens-speech
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Mon 11 May 15 at 21:37
|
I'm not sure what the problem is with the European Human Rights Act which would not be a problem with any comprehensive HR Act.
If the problem is that people feel the European act stops them doing what they want to do, but the UK act would not, then presumably there is some right which is recognised in European act which would be ignored in a UK act.
Now, if [pick unpopular middle eastern country) was about to do that, I have a feeling there would be outcry. Probably rightfully so.
I assume that people think that won't happen here because we can be counted on to "do the right thing"?
Bit of a dangerous path that. Remember how well the "Sus" laws went?
|
>> Britain joined various taxation, financial, economic and trade agreements. All of which made ad make
>> sense, including the free movement of labour. And those are what business is supportive of
>> and which, by and large, don't annoy people.
The way the EU is now, is just fine and dandy by me. We have the good bits we haven't had to join the Euro, most of the current EU laws make sense. Allwe need is the ability to decide what future stuff we implement and what we don't.
|
>>All we need is the ability to decide what future stuff we implement and what we don't.
Which we do not have and have never had. And it is a hugely significant thing to have.
If that is what comes out of this furor, then it'll be a job damn well done.
|
>> If that is what comes out of this furor, then it'll be a job damn
>> well done.
There can be tweaks and easings. Plenty precedents in EU right back to it's founders.
BUT
There's a point beyond which members of a club cannot treat the rules as a Lucky Dip.
|
>> And there we have it. Game, set and match. Why we're going to have to
>> waste all the time, money and heartache arguing the bleeding obvious I have no idea.
Which, unpicked, was pretty much Labour's policy.
|
I assume you are coming over all ironical there?
I can't imagine a worse way of deciding policy that letting big business do it.
|
>> So an overwhelming IN vote.. Providing the Tories gain reasonable concessions to be sold to
>> the electorate Tory voters..
>>
>>
>> Of course my percentages will be out a bit in the above table BUT I
>> reckon an IN vote is a sure fire winner.. PROVIDED there are concessions to be
>> sold.
Probably first and only time I agree with madf :-P
|
"Lord Sugar has said he is quitting the Labour Party after 18 years over its "negative" stance on business."
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-32692668
|
>> "Lord Sugar has said he is quitting the Labour Party after 18 years over its
>> "negative" stance on business."
To which one comment on LabourlIst said in effect "we don't need rich and successful, businessmen"
And then further down, another complained that the Tories outspent Labour due to all the rich backing the Tories... :-)
Rearrange the following to make a well known phrase "thick as two short planks"..
Last edited by: VxFan on Mon 11 May 15 at 21:36
|
In response to>>>> I shall be voting to stay in the EU. I have not heard any particular
>>>> and compelling set of reasons from the business community to quit. It is they who
>>>> are the wealth generators.
Alanovic wrote:>>And there we have it. Game, set and match. Why we're going to have to
>>waste all the time, money and heartache arguing the bleeding obvious I have no idea.
I may be wrong, but I very much doubt you voted Tory last week. Given the response of the stock market and the currency market to the Tory victory, why would anybody waste time, money and heartache voting for any other party I have no idea. The markets aren't just a few written opinions, they are a real response to the new Government. Why vote for anything else?
|
If I could have, I would have voted for the Lib/Con coalition to continue. I tired to by voting Lib in my safeish Tory seat (Libs 2nd last time out). I'd've voted Tory in a Tory/Lab marginal, I'd've voted Lib in a Lib/Lab marginal.
It's complicated. The European question isn't when you think about it.
Last edited by: Alanović on Tue 12 May 15 at 11:38
|
>> I may be wrong, but I very much doubt you voted Tory last week. Given
>> the response of the stock market and the currency market to the Tory victory, why
>> would anybody waste time, money and heartache voting for any other party I have no
>> idea. The markets aren't just a few written opinions, they are a real response to
>> the new Government. Why vote for anything else?
The markets have their role but there are plenty other things to influence one's vote too. The uncertainty of a possible minority govt and more particularly the hiatus while it was formed spooked the markets. And of course they prefer a Tory govt.
Was it not the pursuit of ever growing profit and share price in the banks that caused the bust?
|
Was it not the pursuit of ever growing profit and share price in the banks that caused the bust?
Yes.. It was. Exacerbated by utterly incompetent and ineffective regualtory oversight.
The markets of course saw it coming and RBS bank shares (for one example).. started to fall in a major way long before it went bust..
"Royal Bank of Scotland is braced for a fine of more than £5billion in America for mis-selling toxic mortgage-backed debt before the financial crisis"
tinyurl.com/o3jaxz4
Banks operated like bandits.. and lied and lied and lied.. see PPI..
The FSA - the banking regulatory authority - was notorious for its ineffectiveness long before (years) the Crash..
But the political problem for Labour is the Tories kept blaming them for the Crash - and they were totally ineffective in rebutting it. Mind you, with Ed Balls as Shadow Chancellor, that was hardly a surprise. He was tainted by the Crash.. and could not admit he had done anything wrong...
A more sensible political strategy would have been to admit your past mistakes, list them all out and then say "we know we were wrong but we have learned",. The short term political hit would have been no worse than what transpired.
Truth is important. But perception in politics is even more important.
Like Ed's "core vote "strategy, Labour thought nothing through. Simple arithmetic says a core vote strategy does not work when you are polling under 30% and need 37% for a majority..
Labour polled 29% in 2010... and adopted a core vote strategy - they got 30.4% in 2015.. It worked. They won their core vote. But there were not enough core voters.
Arithmetic.
PS In Staffs Moorland the same policy was adopted.. targetting the poor, and NHS workers. Only trouble was, they account for under 50% of the electorate#. The Tories nearly doubled their majority.
# which they knew.
I take it that Labour are full of people who don't understand the basics of electoral arithmetic..
Or they are stupid.. but Balls is a very bright guy as is Ed.. so the only conclusion is they don't understand sums.
|
"admit your past mistakes, list them all out and then say "we know we were wrong but we have learned"
I don't disagree with anything you are saying but this response is getting a bit lame and over-worked isn't it? It's always seemed like a real cop-out to me anyway. Especially when whoever is trotting it out clearly hasn't learned from past mistakes. (I have no examples to offer but it's just a feeling I have!!).
|
>> "admit your past mistakes, list them all out and then say "we know we were
>> wrong but we have learned"
>>
>> I don't disagree with anything you are saying but this response is getting a bit
>> lame and over-worked isn't it? It's always seemed like a real cop-out to me anyway.
>> Especially when whoever is trotting it out clearly hasn't learned from past mistakes. (I have
>> no examples to offer but it's just a feeling I have!!).
>>
Well err yes..
But then it's people in public service who tend to repeat past mistakes.
If you do it in business, you go bust or get fired...or end in jail...
If you do it in many state funded organisations (the NHS, Councils), you either are promoted or retire or leave and get another job with another department. A history of the Managers at Mid Staffs Hospital shows that in spades..
|
Give the NHS an extra £8billion a year by 2020.
Extend right-to-buy scheme to housing association tenants.
Build 200,000 starter homes.
Take everyone who earns less than £12,500 out of income tax.
Lift minimum wage workers on 30 hours a week out of income tax.
Increase the minimum wage to £8 by the end of the decade.
Double the free childcare allowance for thee and four year-olds to 30 hours.
No above-inflation rise in rail fares until 2020.
Increase the inheritance tax threshold on family homes to £1million.
Cut £10billion of red tape.
Raise the threshold for the 40p rate of tax to £50,000.
Lower the benefit cap from £26,000 to£23,000.
Same-day GP appointments for the elderly and the right to a named GP.
Freeze the BBC licence fee.
Reduce the number of MPs to 600.
Protect pensioner benefits including free bus passes and the winter fuel payment.
In/out referendum in 2017
.
End any new public subsidy for onshore wind farms.
Make a decision on expansion of airport capacity.
Published by the Daily Mail on Saturday May 9 2015
|
The NHS: What we weren't told during the election
www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-32690757
There was a lot of talk about extra staff. GPs, nurses and midwives,
but this ignores the fact that it takes years - 10 for a GP - to get them trained.
Oh dear, promises, promises!
|
Look forward to 2030. The aged population doubles.
The NHS/social care will not cope..there will not be enough beds/hopitals and staff.. even if they started building now.
Thye have not started..
|
>>Same-day GP appointments for the elderly
One of many good reasons why the NHS should be entirely devolved out of politician control (although it should be open to public scrutiny)
Patients who need seen urgently already will be seen same day.
In areas where GP access is crap, such blanket measures by virtue of being 75+ will simply make it increasingly difficult for 'hard working families' to get access.
I really don't envy Jeremy Chunt's job in the next few years.
|
Patients who need seen urgently already will be seen same day.
Yup, there is always a doctor at my local surgery handling urgent cases. And from what I can tell, the vast majority of patients respect that too and make it clear when a non-urgent matter applies as it usually does. To treat all 75 year old's cases as urgent will probably be resisted by most of them as well.
|
>>
>> Patients who need seen urgently already will be seen same day.
>>
Ho Ho Ho Ho.
|
|
Not always a perfect convergence between what a patient sees as urgent and what a doctor does ;-)
|
>> Not always a perfect convergence between what a patient sees as urgent and what a
>> doctor does ;-)
And therein lies the root of the problem. If you ring up your surgery when you finally get through after fifteen or twenty attempts (it is always engaged and automatic callback is disabled) you will be offered an appointment in around two to three weeks time unless it is urgent. Urgency will be determined by the receptionist. If she believes that it is urgent you will get a same day appointment but most likely with a nurse.
The system favours the pushy "regulars". I suspect many genuinely ill give up up their attempt to see a doctor when offered an appointment three weeks hence.
I don't know what the solution is but a system where "free at the point of use" care is offered thereby stimulating unlimited demand and where GPs aim is to deter as many of those seeking medical attention as possible from seeing a doctor anytime in the near future is clearly not going to work.
And in case you think I'm one of those forever seeking medical attention myself I have never seen the inside of a hospital since I left the maternity unit 67 years ago and doubt whether I have seen a GP more than half a dozen times in my adult life.
|
The surgery I'd go to has a different system - you call for an appointment, the receptionist asks why you want an appt and and a doctor calls you back within an hour or two to decide whether he needs to see you or not - if so he will determine the priority (= timescale) (presume if it's not a "doctor" thing then an alternative path is followed). I think there are same day appts available if necessary.
As I've hardly used it I can't say how it works but it seems sensible.
|
>>I don't know what the solution is but a system where "free at the point of use" care is offered thereby stimulating unlimited demand
This is a bit of a fallacy - demand is not infinite, and often is only slightly greater than the supply on offer.
Micawber's Law comes into effect though: supply one more appointment than you need - result happiness - have one too few and misery ensues.
When noone is on annual leave our surgery can often see people same day for non-urgent cases, with one or two docs off it can quickly stretch to a week for routine appointments.
I appreciate the lists are longer in England where there are more patients per GP, but part of this rests with how we are paid - more patients = more money, whatever the access is like.
Personally I would rather meet demand and have a slightly smaller paycheque but many GPs don't follow this approach.
Similarly with hospital waiting lists, I watched these fall massively during the New Labour era from 2 years locally for a knee replacement in 2000 to 12 weeks by 2007. The extra investment to meet the demand is not huge as a proportion of the total budget, but 10% of £100bn is still £10bn that needs to be found.
|
>>
>> >>
>> >> Patients who need seen urgently already will be seen same day.
>> >>
>>
>> Ho Ho Ho Ho.
>>
>>
>>
My doctors practice has a duty doc for urgent problems, on one occaision the doc came to me and after checking me out called an ambulance, I have heard that malingerers are unlikely to try it twice. :)
|
>> My doctors practice has a duty doc for urgent problems, on one occaision the doc
>> came to me and after checking me out called an ambulance, I have heard that
>> malingerers are unlikely to try it twice. :)
>>
To give a better description, I phoned asking for a doctor to visit me. On explaining the problem the receptionist asked me to hold while she checked with a doctor. She then said a doctor will come to you now (I was expecting sometime that day). It turned out that I had a rapid onset of a neurological disease. I was very fortunate to make a full but slow recovery. I am happy to make an appointment to see one of the practice nurses, they can prescribe drugs or pass you on to a doctor if required. I suspect it is the people requiring no more than a couple of paracetamol that end up waiting a few days.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Mon 18 May 15 at 12:03
|
Anecdotal evidence in England suggests huge variation between different areas and the practices within.
The village practice uses the 'Doctor will call back' system described above - known as triage. If needed you get an appointment with either a doc or a nurse. Sometimes the doc will presribe unseen - particularly for recurrent issues, for example I'm susceptible to infections under toe nails.
The triage system was introduced about 10yrs ago, I think in response to a target set by the then govt. It seems to be widespread in Northamptonshire. It works very well and is widespread across the county.
|
>> Ho Ho Ho Ho.
Time to move elsewhere before you get much older, CGN?
|
|
I have no problem with a nurse or doctor phoning me back to check if they need to see me, but no way will I discuss any medical problems with some old bag of a receptionist who think that she is god. If they ask me what the problem is I ask them what medical qualifications they have, that shuts them up !!!! There must be some special training college that churns them out as almost every one I have ever come across seems to be out of the same mould ! Also why are there no male receptionists ?
|
They're only asking what the problem is, not carrying out any diagnosis. I guess to decide whether it's one for the doc or the nurse.
Ummm maybe your attitude brings out the worst in them, which is why they all seem the same to you? Just a thought... :-)
Last edited by: smokie on Mon 18 May 15 at 18:22
|
|
Yes, never worth being rude to people trying to do their job especially when you are seeking their co-operation
|
>> I have no problem with a nurse or doctor phoning me back to check if
>> they need to see me, but no way will I discuss any medical problems with
>> some old bag of a receptionist who think that she is god.
In my experience the receptionist doesn't make decisions, but just needs some information to give to the doctor or nurse...when I rang recently to say I had some unusual heart rhythms going on, she put me on hold for a minute then came back with an appointment. The receptionist when we met was not an old bag and showed no signs of thinking herself all-powerful or omniscient:)
|
>> I have no problem with a nurse or doctor phoning me back to check if
>> they need to see me, but no way will I discuss any medical problems with
>> some old bag of a receptionist......
Ever wondered why it takes so long for you to get an appointment ?
|
>> Ever wondered why it takes so long for you to get an appointment ?
>>
It doesn't
|
>>If they ask me what the problem is I ask them what medical qualifications they have, that shuts them up !!!!
"Dr Lygonos, there's a keyboard warrior demanding an urgent appointment for a sprained wrist"
|
>> there's a keyboard warrior demanding an urgent appointment for a sprained wrist"
'Turn the wee scunner over to Big Nurse McGregor, the one with the whiskers and scowl. That should shrink his sporran.'
|
Election Promises...Read all about it! Volume 7 - Mapmaker
