[Closed] Less than 80 days to UK Election....who cares?

anagallis_arvensis - Member
Jambayla its just that juvenile shite that turns me off our politicians (of all parties).

You'd have hated Churchill and Disraeli, then.

Theirs were both funny and unscripted.

Theirs were both funny and unscripted.

A fair point, well made.

We seem to be missing the opportunity to be able to vote for a leader who will do great things for UK.

*puts on idealist utopian hat*

I would dare suggest that this may be the problem. Why wait for the messiah when you can change things yourself? [url= https://libcom.org/library/direct-democracy-anarchist-alternative-voting ]As usual libcom has a wealth of info on the potential alternatives[/url]

*returns to nihilistic acceptance of the status quo*

'd have hated Churchill and Disraeli, then.

I expect so, that old boys debating club bollocks just really pisses me off. Act like grown ups ffs.

Act like grown ups ffs.

Dunno, I take the piss out of my mates on a regular basis, despite being a 43yr old father of two... People complain about politicians not living in the real world, but when they act human that's also a problem???

Probably not while discussing the fate of a country though

@grum you and I have been round this loop before about whether people are personally impacted by the issues mentioned here. I certainly am and have posted up numerous examples before. Re: my opening sentence too many politicians and too many people yourself and @aracer included generally are denying these issues exist but that won't make them go away for the significant portion of the electorate that do care about them. Also publically denying they exist alienats those politicians who claim people are not justified in holding those views.

I don't deny these issues exist - but it's pretty clear from posts like yours and skydragons that for the vast majority of people getting het up about them it's largely a problem of perception, based on an over-reliance on things they've read/heard about in the media or been told about by Dave down the pub.

[i]That[/i]'s why you can't have a sensible debate about immigration, not because of PC gawn mad.

If you want to talk to me about problems with immigration and the health and benefits systems based on actual evidence and displaying some kind of critical thinking then go right ahead - I will genuinely listen.

If you're just going to come out with the usual baseless tabloid cliches and anecdotes then people will rightfully ignore/dismiss you.

Oddly I agree with you both a_a an mogrim

the debates and QT are more theatre than debate
The PM [ all hues] ignores the question says something rabble rousing to their troops then uses a scripted put down to have a dig at the opposition that the troops roar their approval

They are not in any sense debates or questions

I also agree that when politicians do or say things we all do we have a go at them as we want some sort of bland lowest common denominator and they are so scared of making a mistake they dont answer questions,
They are also aware that whatever their answer it will be cut down to a soundbite.

Probably not while discussing the fate of a country though

I don't think the odd quip or joke makes any difference, if it were all the time that'd be a different matter of course. Still, if you'd rather have a humourless robot as PM...

They are not in any sense debates or questions

Sad, isn't it? I still remember the debate about whether or not to allow TV cameras into the Commons, and I was firmly in favour of being able to see what our MPs were up to. Now I'm starting to think it might have been a mistake!

skydragon - Member

The UK has many talented and intelligent people who are great leaders - why is UK politics a waste land of talent?

Discuss...

😯

If you want to talk to me about problems with immigration and the health and benefits systems based on actual evidence and displaying some kind of critical thinking then go right ahead - I will genuinely listen.

Have a read of this study then - [url= http://www.civitas.org.uk/immigration/LSI ]link[/url]. Quick summary

In this new analysis of the economic and demographic consequences of current levels of immigration, the distinguished Cambridge economist Robert Rowthorn finds that the potential economic gains from immigration are modest compared with the strains placed on amenities such as housing, land, schools, hospitals, water supply and transport systems.
While GDP as a whole will grow with increased immigration, Rowthorn notes, GDP per capita - a much better indicator of the nation's wealth - will be only marginally affected by the enormous population growth forecast for the coming century. He cites the Office for National Statistics' high migration scenario, which sees growth in the UK population of 20 million over the next 50 years and 29 million over the next 75 years - entirely from migration. This is equivalent to adding a city almost the size of Birmingham to the UK population every two-and-a-half years for the next 75 years.
"Unrestrained population growth would eventually have a negative impact on the standard of living through its environmental effects such as overcrowding, congestion and loss of amenity," Rowthorn writes.

robot as PM...

Id vote for a nice (benevolent) AI any day

Do I care? Frankly I'm finding it hard to raise a ****, let alone give one - it's probably the most unpredictable election in generations but the options are all so unpalatable it's still a case of "least worst".

Whatever happens Cameron or Milliband will be PM, of that I'm certain - but it's who they have to get into bed with to make it happen - I'm terrified of UKIP gaining power, on a practical level their policies make no sense and on a personal level they repulse me - I believe the greens are very well meaning but want too much, too soon and it'll sink us.

But really do I have to worry about the 'other party' in a collision? How did we get where we are now? The Poor Old Lib Dems, they used to be the thinking mans party - their history goes back to the 1800s, they stand for civil liberties, environmentalism, Human rights and electoral reform which could have meant the end of two-party politics in the UK - they saw their biggest surge in their history prior to the last election and Nick Clegg easily 'won' the TV debates - it actually looked for a while like they'd overtake Labour!

And what happened? Their policies were swept aside, or marginalised to the point they were hugely unpopular and they were made to accept the blame for everything the Tories did wrong - they'll come out of this in a far worse position than they've even been in - they'll face the next 10 years at least no where. Why would UKIP, the SDP or the Greens want that? Maybe we'll see a Tory / Labour government and nothing will get done for 5 years - maybe 5 years so little or no government will be a good thing!

let's keep it clean and respectful guys and have an adult dialogue...everyone is entitled to their own views, even if you don't agree with them, eh?

Regarding

it's pretty clear from posts like yours and skydragons that for the vast majority of people getting het up about them it's largely a problem of perception, based on an over-reliance on things they've read/heard about in the media or been told about by Dave down the pub.

skydragon » The reason i make these comments is because they all do affect my daily life.
Really? Give us an example for each point please...

Crime - My local area is blighted by crime . Examples - a) our garages have been broken into several times. My next door neighbour who is disabled had his bike stolen, then had the insurance replacement stolen. b) The village has a set of stone steps in the centre of it, they've been there for over 100 years, last year some f&ckwits decided to steal the bottom set of steps. c) Fly tipping is rife, truck loads of building waste getting dumped on the edge of the village d) the Co-op store in the village has been robbed three times in the last year - in each instance the police have done little or nothing, because they are undermanned and underesourced. The idiots carrying out the crimes will continue as they no nothing will get done about it and even if it goes to court they will most likely get away with it. The system is failing. the Government and local authorities need to sort things out.

Immigration - My local area is multicultural, my next door neighbour is of asian origin. I welcome a diverse society, but hold the view that if you relocate to another country you should integrate. The system they promote in Australia seems to be the most sensible - move here by all means, but become an Australian in all respects, or don't bother coming here. I find it offensive when people in my local community who have been here years, can't be bothered to even learn to speak English.

Health - You only have to visit my local GP's waiting room to see that much of his/her burden and budget is caused by people who haven't taken the responsibility to look after their own health. Either by over-eating, smoking or over-drinking. On a related theme, I used to notice a neighbour standing outside her back door smoking. A year later she's heavily pregnant and still doing the same, turns out that her landlord won't allow smoking in the house... so she's bothered about not upsetting her landlord, but not about affecting her own health or the health of her unborn child - Grade A f&ckwit.

Benefits - I see people in the local community who are capable of working and paying their way, sponging off the system. I don't see why my tax payments should go to fund this, when they could be better used for Education, Supporting disadvantaged and vulnerable people, helping blind and disabled, providing care for old, etc, etc.

Back to the original question -The UK has many talented and intelligent people who are great leaders - why is UK politics a waste land of talent?

Has politics ever really been vastly different to what we have today, or has modern communication helped us begin to realize the scam we're being fed?

Though democracy allows for some policy changes, the short elected terms of governments mean a long term approach is not in the hands of the people~ for example, look at The Home Office, The Foreign Office, the Intelligence Services or the MOD~ all have staff who remain in place regardless of who is voted into power and who's strategies are in the interests of the true head of state, the Queen (and the bankers who have been affiliated with nobility for centuries) rather than the people who fund them.

It's no coincidence the Queen rules many of the world's wealthiest tax havens and retains ultimate authority over 33 territories around the world, including Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

[quote=jambalaya ]too many people yourself and @aracer included generally are denying these issues exist

I don't think I was - I thought I made that clear by acknowledging them as issues in my post. I was simply pointing out that relatively speaking they're trivial issues and the proposed solutions to them are unlikely to improve things overall.

We used to get some great debates and speeches (sometimes funny) in Parliament, they all seem far too scared these days to say anything that isn't on a list somewhere and been previously agreed by a PR committee

A master at work ...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/hi/historic_moments/newsid_8195000/8195545.stm

[quote=skydragon ]let's keep it clean and respectful guys and have an adult dialogue...everyone is entitled to their own views, even if you don't agree with them, eh?

Apologies if I've come across as anything else.

Crime - you make a fair point about the issue - plenty of threads on here complaining about bike theft with people wanting to string up the thieves as well. However punishing petty crime harshly isn't the solution - it might make you feel better in a vengeful way, but it really won't solve anything. Your latest comments are far more sensible, but don't really support your original harsh punishment for petty crime policy.

Immigration - we were asking for examples of how they directly affected you as you claimed. How exactly does somebody not speaking English directly affect you? What's more, how does that result in them not adding value - and to be honest, if they are adding value, why is it a big issue if they don't speak English?

Health - wow, you must be pretty psychic to be able to tell why everybody is at the GP's. Maybe it's just that I'm insulated from this as I don't see it in my GP, but then I've been to a few different GPs, some in quite deprived areas and never really seen what you suggest. I'm still not sure why it has a direct affect on you anyway.

Benefits - more psychic powers. More failure to explain the direct impact on you.

I agree with grum 😯 - it would be useful to debate these issues, as they are real issues (or at least perceived to be) but I'm not sure an intelligent debate can be had starting from your assertions. Want to try arguing them differently?

I say we take off and nuke the site from orbit, it's the only way to be sure.*

* by voting Green 😀

[quote=P-Jay ]Whatever happens Cameron or Milliband will be PM, of that I'm certain - but it's who they have to get into bed with to make it happen - I'm terrified of UKIP gaining power, on a practical level their policies make no sense and on a personal level they repulse me - I believe the greens are very well meaning but want too much, too soon and it'll sink us.

Why worry, when you go on to point out:

The Poor Old Lib Dems, they used to be the thinking mans party
...
Their policies were swept aside, or marginalised to the point they were hugely unpopular and they were made to accept the blame for everything the Tories did wrong - they'll come out of this in a far worse position than they've even been in - they'll face the next 10 years at least no where. Why would UKIP, the SDP or the Greens want that?

Because they'll grasp the chance to get their hands on some power in the same way the LDs did. In the same way the LDs did, the only policies they'll get passed are sensible ones their partners agree with (assuming UKIP has any sensible policies?) The example of the LDs shows us that UKIP as a junior partner in coalition won't be as scary as you might think as they're nowhere near as clever as the LDs and Dave will marginalise them. Not too worried about the Greens - no way their stupid policies will get anywhere in a coalition, and they have some sensible ones which might. Slightly more worried about SNP, as Alex appears to be far more clever than Ed.

[i]Health - You only have to visit my local GP's waiting room to see that much of his/her burden and budget is caused by people who haven't taken the responsibility to look after their own health.[/i]

go to the doctors, see sick people... 🙄

You want an inclusive society, apart from the unemployed, the sick, immigrants. where's that Princess Bride gif when you need it

No problems aracer.

Ref Crime, let me change my comment - I'm up for any solution that genuinely lowers crime and deters offenders, especially those who are regular/repeat offenders.

Immigration - Good question. Apart from offending me it probably has little impact, other than possibly erode England's anglo-saxon culture. But it does offend me, so I maintain my views.

Health - Not saying everyone at my GP falls into this camp, of course they don't. But a significant minority do. My point being people should be accountable for their own actions and health - I have a relative who was a heroin addict (now methadone) she has led a life of petty crime and has been a drain on society in every respect (police, healthcare, social, benefits). There has to be a safety net in a civilised society, but why should the community have to fund her, given her choice to lead the life she has?

Benefits - no psychic powers, just an observation of some of the lazy benefit claiming skanks living nearby. Impact on me already explained - why should i work and fund them, when they won't work ?

You want an inclusive society, apart from the unemployed, the sick, immigrants

Please read my posts again, you are misrepresenting what I am saying.

Unemployed - fwiw I am unemployed at the moment 🙂 I am commenting on those who proactively decide not to work, but claim benefits instead.

The Sick - I am commenting on those who's poor lifestyle choices have led, or will lead, to their sickness.

Immigrants - No, not all. Those who integrate are welcome, those who don't/won't are not welcome.

Voting gives you a voice to air your views, to complain, applaud, and rant as we often do. The chance and right to vote has been hard fought battle. Do not waste it. Not voting gives you UKIP.

I wonder how many will vote UKIP out of sheer frustration, as a 'protest vote'...unless the rest of the parties get their acts together and start influencing the electorate better?

I think the protest votes will be split between greens and UKIP as many folk , and some of them will be dissatisfied, could not vote for UKIP under any circumstances.
I dont think the main parties really want to try and win these voters either with UKIP light type posturing though they dont want to lose them.

Voting gives you a voice to air your views, to complain, applaud, and rant as we often do. The chance and right to vote has been hard fought battle. Do not waste it. Not voting gives you UKIP.

But our current system only allows you to say yes. We still need a way of saying "none of you represent me or my wishes" and being counted as a vote.

At the moment I don't think a single one of the political parties on offer are competent, representative or trustworthy enough to be in power but there is no way to say this within the voting system.

Have a read of this study then - link. Quick summary

Thanks for that mefty - genuinely interested and I welcome people bringing stuff like that into the debate.

skydragon - you have to remember that in general humans are not actually very rational beings. Things like confirmation bias play a huge part in your perception of what goes on.

I'm sorry that crime is an issue in your local area but there's no evidence that cracking down hard on petty crimes would help. I've been a victim of a house burglary and it was pretty horrible.

The rest of your complaints are based on an awful lot of assumptions.

[i]Unemployed - fwiw I am unemployed at the moment I am commenting on those who proactively decide not to work, but claim benefits instead.[/i]

I don't know any one who has been on JSA for more than a few months, you do know how hard it is to get right?

[i]The Sick - I am commenting on those who's poor lifestyle choices have led, or will lead, to their sickness.[/i]

My grandad smoked when no one knew it was really shit, he's on oxygen now, want to take it off him?

[i]Immigrants - No, not all. Those who integrate are welcome, those who don't/won't are not welcome.[/i]

One of my grans friends moved out to spain, they went to a big place full of english people so they wouldn't need to learn spanish

I get the horrible feeling that whatever or whoever gets voted in in the election we're not in for a good next five years.

It's a crappy situation where I think Labour couldn't run a bath, never mind a country. Tories seem hellbent on selling off anything they possibly can including the NHS, which is bad news for me personally, there's no way in tr world I'd vote UKIP and the Greens have one or two decent ideas but the rest appear to be crazy.

I genuinely don't know who to vote for as I think we're screwed whichever way it goes.

Does it really matter how the NHS is run as long as it remains free at the point of entry? Although personally that to my mind is it's biggest flaw in todays society half the wasters there are malingerers, drunks or those too lazy to make a doctors appointment.

The fatties/benefits thing is interesting, if only for the way it gets reported - the announcements actually appear to have been about obesity, alcohol and drug misuse - fortunately for us all a recent FOI request gives figures

between incapacity benefit and ESA, there are about 1800 people 'signed off' with obesity as their main condition, down very slightly over the last five years

whereas there are 55,000 alcoholics (up by about 20%) 33,000 druggies (down about 20%)

the press have certainly picked up on the 'fatties' issue but they've hardly discussed the others that are clearly far more of a problem.

When Scotland goes independent those figures will drop by 90% 😉

Seriously they do use up a lot of NHS resource and contribute little to society. It's what you do about it?

Does it really matter how the NHS is run as long as it remains free at the point of entry?

It's a crappy situation where I think Labour couldn't run a bath, never mind a country.

So how did they manage then ? I mean how did they manage despite the worse global recession since the 1930s, made particularly difficult for the UK because of its over reliance on the financial sector, to keep unemployment levels to below what it was in two previous recessions under Tory government "stewardship" ?

[img] [/img]

Recession in the 1980s under the Tories - over 3 million unemployed.
Recession in the 1990s under the Tories - 3 million unemployed.
Recession 2008-10 under Labour - 2.5 million unemployed.

So how come if Labour "couldn't run a bath" ?

And those aren't just figures they are real people with real families.

I don't support Labour and I wouldn't urge anyone to vote for them but the suggestion that they are less capable of running the country than the Tories is absurd.

And it is precisely that sort of muddled thinking that explains the depressing state of British politics.

One of my grans friends moved out to spain, they went to a big place full of english people so they wouldn't need to learn spanish

So how did they manage then ?

By spending money (they didn't have) like a drunken sailor in a whorehouse!

By spending money (they didn't have) like a drunken sailor in a whorehouse!

And the Tories promised to match Labour's spending :

[url= http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6975536.stm ]Tories 'to match Labour spending'[/url]

[b][i]"A Conservative government would match Labour's projected public spending totals for the next three years, shadow chancellor George Osborne has said".[/i][/b]

So that's both Labour and the Tories behaving like "a drunken sailor in a whorehouse" then.

Although I agree that the Tories would not have worried about unemployment reaching 3.5 to 4 million, with all the consequences that would have had on both the economy and individual human beings, and would have been unlikely to boost spending to deal with it. This proves they are more capable ?

And in a Tory recession people loose not only their jobs but their homes too. Compare homes repossessed during the recession of the early nineties under the Tories with homes repossessed during the global recession under Labour

[img] [/img]

So where's the proof that the Tories are more capable ?

At the start of the last recession it was widely suggested that unemployment could climb to 3.5 million plus, the fact that it didn't rise above 2.5 million despite the enormity of the recession doesn't suggest that Labour are less capable than the Tories.

There have been deficits pretty every year that the Tories have been in government since WW2, it never bothered them before.

A lot of the Labour MPs in Glasgow are more than a bit worried about having a job after it.

Jim Murphy definitely cares- he's building a moat round his house to keep away the lynchmob of scottish labour ex-mps.

Douglas Alexander has been my local MP since 1997. I hadn't seen anything or heard peep from him in all that time up until late last year when he presumably found out his seat isn't as safe as it once was. Plenty of official communication from his office now though. Funny that.

Is it too late yet to register as a candidate for your area? If not, then the logical thing would be to register and start campaigning for your local area with your local interests at the center of your policies

If you win, then you'll be responsible for what you do. If you lose, then you can honestly say that you tried and that the candidate you voted for (yourself) didn't win.

[quote=willard ]Is it too late yet to register as a candidate for your area? If not, then the logical thing would be to register and start campaigning for your local area with your local interests at the center of your policies
If you win, then you'll be responsible for what you do. If you lose, then you can honestly say that you tried and that the candidate you voted for (yourself) didn't win.

Nope - I'm fairly sure the deadline is only 3 or 4 weeks before the election. It does of course cost money to register - and far, far more to run a campaign which would give you any chance of being elected - so do you have deep pockets, or do you know somebody who does willing to fund you?

Kickstarter?

It is incorrect to say that Labour and Conservative are full of career politicians.

The leadership of those parties have a disproportionate number of career ppoliticians but their parliamentary parties only have a minority of career politicians. The wider member base of those parties has very few careerists. Unfortunately a lot of young members are emulating the careerist model.

[i]"So how did they manage then ? I mean how did they manage despite the worse global recession since the 1930s, made particularly difficult for the UK because of its over reliance on the financial sector, to keep unemployment levels to below what it was in two previous recessions under Tory government "stewardship" ?"
[/i]
The answer to this is blindingly obvious - 1/2 of all the new jobs created in the 13 years Labour were in power were in the public sector.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/labour-has-created-600000-public-sector-jobs-since-1998-528153.html

Unemployment didn't fall as quickly as previous years because public sector job cuts were limited and in the private sector businesses reduced pay and offered reduced hours in order to avoid redundancies.

It's also worth noting that the current government have overseen the creation of 3 x as many private sector jobs in 4 years as Labour managed in 13 and before the zero hours card gets played, 90% of these are full time.

Labour simply don't understand how enterprise and job creation works, which is precisely why Ed Milliband's constant attacks on business will serve to constrain future economic growth.

@ernie, see what @just5mins said ? You may think Labour could run the country successfully but a very significant part of the electorate don't agree with you and that's a big problem for Labour.

The SNP will be far more damaging to Labour than UKIP will be to the Tories. It really looks like vote SNP get Conservative will turn out to be true. What's interesting is that should that be the case we'll have a bunch of rowdy SNPers in Westminster with little influenece. That could then be Scottish Labours chance to take all those seats back in the 2020 GE

It is incorrect to say that Labour and Conservative are full of career politicians.

The leadership of those parties have a disproportionate number of career ppoliticians but their parliamentary parties only have a minority of career politicians. The wider member base of those parties has very few careerists. Unfortunately a lot of young members are emulating the careerist model.

The problem is that both parties, post-Blair, have moved to a presidential system of governance, where all decisions are taken by a cabal of front-benchers (who are ALL career politicians) and their special advisers.

So it wouldn't matter if every single backbencher was from a council estate in Burnley, and used to be a welder, their collective influence on party policy is the sum total of **** all!!

Did you actually read your own link just5minutes ? If you had you would have seen that according to [i]your[/i] article that 3 out of 5 jobs created after Labour came to power were in the private sector.

Also in your link : [i]"it was impossible to say how many of the new jobs were for front-line workers such as doctors, nurses, teachers and policemen"[/i] Are you not a fan of doctors, nurses, teachers and policemen then?

And also in your link : [i]"The figures were seized on by the Tories as proof that the huge increase in government spending since 1997 has only succeeded in expanding the number of bureaucrats."[/i] And yet despite "the huge increase in government spending" which the Tories claimed had occurred, 2 years after that article was written the Tories promised the British people that they would match penny for penny Labour's spending :

[url= http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6975536.stm ]Tories 'to match Labour spending'[/url]

[b][i]"A Conservative government would match Labour's projected public spending totals for the next three years, shadow chancellor George Osborne has said".[/i][/b]

.

Unemployment didn't fall as quickly as previous years because public sector job cuts were limited and in the private sector businesses reduced pay and offered reduced hours in order to avoid redundancies.

I assume you mean "unemployment didn't [i]rise[/i] as quickly as previous years because....."

And that by "previous years" you mean previous recessions when the Tories were in government ?

So how come that private sector businesses reduce pay and offer reduced hours in order to avoid redundancies when Labour are in government but not so much so when the Tories are in government ?

If this is a good thing as you appear to be suggesting it is then why does it happen less when the Tories are in government? Why is unemployment higher during recessions when the Tories are in government?

BTW the private sector did quite well under Labour :

[img] [/img]

considering according to you they [i]"don't understand how enterprise and job creation works".[/i]

Voting gives you a voice to air your views, to complain, applaud, and rant as we often do.

It doesn't though does it? It only gives you the ability to choose between an extremely small selection of people whom you assume will represent and interpret your interests, with no guarantees or ability to hold them account, until the next time and you get to choose someone else who is slightly different to represent and interpret your interests, again with no guarantees. This is the problem. There is an abdication of interest and responsibility inherent in the system which disempowers and disenfranchises the voter so why would anyone care about it?

Interesting the different approaches to social media. With TV becoming less ijportant the Tories have a series of short sharp and (US style?) aggressive YouTube ads which seem appropriate the the demographic that will use that channel. The labour party have largely ignored YouTube and have a happy clappy piece.

" Are you not a fan of doctors, nurses, teachers and policemen then?"

And my answer is ....Not unless they are all doing doctoring, teaching and policing.

The National Audit Office reported 10 straight years of reducing productivity in the NHS, so as much as more doctors and nurses is generally a good thing when it actually means the number of patients treated per doctor and nurse goes down it quite obviously isn't.

Same with policing - whilst the numbers of staff rose, it also coincided with a reduction in the number of salaried police on the front line, so the real measure is quite rightly how many police are actually doing real policing. COntrary to what we've been told by the police union, the modest reduction in headcount in the police has resulted in increases in the total number of front line officers and a significant reduction in crime.

Just throwing more "people" at problems is only generally worthwhile when all the other routes to improving performance have already been exhausted.

[quote=just5minutes ]so as much as more doctors and nurses is generally a good thing when it actually means the number of patients treated per doctor and nurse goes down it quite obviously isn't.

Well unless more doctors results in more patients, I'm not sure how that effect can be avoided. I'm not quite sure how to express this in terms of doctors and nurses, so I'll sidestep slightly and wonder whether you also consider that decreasing efficiency of teachers if you have more of them and that results in them teaching less pupils each is a bad thing?

ernie, the Tory promise on spending was an overall figure, not a comment on how the money would be spent.

The Tories are fans on these too btw

Are you not a fan of doctors, nurses, teachers and policemen then

Well unless more doctors results in more patients, I'm not sure how that effect can be avoided.

I believe there is an argument that just that takes place, that by opening, for example, walk in clinics, they disproportionately attracted the 'worried well' rather than people really in need of a doctor.

I'm curious to know all those intending on voting UKIP, who do they get to wash to their cars, as most are staffed by immigrant labour, if they get their way at the election, this will surely be a massive employment sector that will be changed along with landworkers.

I was contemplating voting green till they started with the get rid of the armies, which is just plain crazy. Don't want to vote Conservative, as they seem hell bent on selling every industry from the country and how much longer will there be a national health service. I don't particularly want to vote Labour, as under them all we saw was a rise in chav and anti-social culture, with some areas basically becoming ferral. Liberal got my vote last time, as they were promising change, they weren't wrong, I just didn't want change as a coalition with the Conservatives and losing virtually all they stood for. Definitely won't vote UKIP, I disagree with most of what they stand for, and Farage standing around smugly with a pint, just needs to be put in a dark dank dungeon.

So who does it leave? Been watching the inside the commons programme on bbc2, very interesting, just very dissapointed to see, people who are put there by the people, ignoring that and just towing the party line. Surely it should be people before party.

Guess that makes me a floating voter.

I'm curious to know all those intending on voting UKIP, who do they get to wash to their cars, as most are staffed by immigrant labour, if they get their way at the election, this will surely be a massive employment sector that will be changed along with landworkers.

I suspect the response might be 'Doesn't it seem crazy that we pay British people to sit at home and watch telly, and bring in immigrants to do the minimum wage jobs they won't take'

benji+1

I believe there is an argument that just that takes place, that by opening, for example, walk in clinics, they disproportionately attracted the 'worried well' rather than people really in need of a doctor

binners - Member

The problem is that both parties, post-Blair, have moved to a presidential system of governance, where all decisions are taken by a cabal of front-benchers (who are ALL career politicians) and their special advisers.

So it wouldn't matter if every single backbencher was from a council estate in Burnley, and used to be a welder, their collective influence on party policy is the sum total of **** all!!

Not true those non career politicians elect the leader of the Labour party and at the time of the last leadership elect the Shadow cabinet. If the party as a whole wanted a non career politician they could have made that choice. Yet we find the most common criticism of Ed M is that he is not as well polished as his more New Labourite brother David.

Those on the Left who moan about Labour losing its way only have themselves to blame if they have not involved themselves in making the party what it should be.

Benji, I voted LibDem last time too as I thought they were a realistic alternative in the last GE. Yes, they have suffered this term at the hands of their senior partner, but I think they could still be a realistic alternative to two parties that seem hell bent on ruining the country one way or another.

I'm willing to give them another try but, as a voter in a very safe Tory ward, feel that very little will be changed by me doing so.

No way in hell am I voting for the fascists and loons in UKIP, or the Greens, despite their good intentions.

[quote=ninfan ]

Well unless more doctors results in more patients, I'm not sure how that effect can be avoided.

Well make up your minds - just5 was suggesting it was a bad thing that more doctors didn't result in more patients!

My understanding was that such places might attract people who didn't really need a doctor, but that a significant number (majority?) of them would have gone to see their GP otherwise, so that they did decrease the burden on GPs and free up time for people who do need to see one. At least that was the theory - does it not work in practice?

Same with policing - whilst the numbers of staff rose, it also coincided with a reduction in the number of salaried police on the front line, so the real measure is quite rightly how many police are actually doing real policing. COntrary to what we've been told by the police union, the modest reduction in headcount in the police has resulted in increases in the total number of front line officers and a significant reduction in crime.

I think [i]"the real measure is quite rightly"[/i] what happened to the crime levels. Crime levels fell significantly in the period that Labour were in government, which isn't bad considering that they allegedly "can't run a bath".

But anyway I know what you are trying to say just5minutes - you [i]do[/i] like doctors, nurses, teachers and policemen, of course you do, but just in small numbers.

Which I guess helps to explain why you appear to like the Tories over Labour.

"[i]But anyway I know what you are trying to say just5minutes - you do like doctors, nurses, teachers and policemen, of course you do, but just in small numbers.[/i]

[i]Which I guess helps to explain why you appear to like the Tories over Labour[/i][b]."

With the greatest of respect, history doesn't support your assertion that Tories only like small numbers of doctors, nurses, teachers and police.

Winston Churchill, the then Tory Prime Minister was the first PM to publicly back the movement for a National Health Service paid for by taxation. Somewhat ironically it was actually a Labour government that introduced the first charges for healthcare when they introduced a "temporary" prescription charge in 1951.

Whilst Labour have hoodwinked most people into believing that Tories want to privatise healthcare, close schools and get rid of policemen a cursory review of facts and data shows this is complete nonsense.

We need a major rethink of the NHS and GPs. it's not as simple (or indeed accurate) to say one party favours more doctors/nurses and one does not. The NHS budget is £130bn, Labour want to spend £1.5bn more - that's a rounding error and hardly represents "saving the NHS"

In Africa trained nurses provide care and in some instances carry out surgery (cateracts for example). An extreme example perhaps but why not some of that thinking here. We should radically overhaul GPs surgery so they are staffed 50% by experienced nurses (with some additional trianing) to see 75% of the patients who frankly don't need to see a GP. When I think of my own doctors visits almost all have been for things a nurse could have handled

Food poisoning - a few times once with e-coli - stool sample and anti-biotics
Various sports injuries - all requining referal to a specialist
Bleeding - referred to a specialist for colonoscapy

I think the number of things a GP can deal with are pretty small, we need to relieve pressure on them with alternative well trained staff.

If you gave me the choice of seeing a nurse today/tomorrow or my GP is 3 or 4 days (that was my wait time on my last visit) I'd take the nurse visit every time.

Flame me all you like, but if we were offered what this Government have achieved 5 years on, back after the last election.....we would have laughed!

Cameron and Osbourne deserve another five years. Anything else would be a travesty!

With the greatest of respect, history doesn't support your assertion that Tories only like small numbers of doctors, nurses, teachers and police.

Well that must put you in a dilemma then. Not only did the Tories make a commitment to "match Labour spending" :

[url= http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6975536.stm ]Tories 'to match Labour spending'[/url]

[b][i]"A Conservative government would match Labour's projected public spending totals for the next three years, shadow chancellor George Osborne has said"[/i][/b]

but they want to have the same number of doctors, nurses, teachers and police as Labour - not less, despite your claim that lower numbers does not lead to a worse service.

What you gonna do?

BTW I am impressed with your claim that it was a Tory prime minister who championed the case for a National Health Service. Specially as the Conservatives were opposed to the creation of the NHS and voted against the Second and Third reading of the NHS Act.

The NHS was created [i]despite[/i] opposition from the Tory Party.

[b][i]" But the establishment of the new health service was strongly opposed by the Conservative Party and by the Doctor's professional body, the British Medical Association (BMA) "[/i][/b].

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/events/nhs_at_50/special_report/119803.stm

Rockape63 - Member
Flame me all you like, but if we were offered what this Government have achieved 5 years on, back after the last election.....we would have laughed!

Cameron and Osbourne deserve another five years. Anything else would be a travesty!

!000's of lost businesses, Vat at 20%, Tuition fees at record levels, Bank Profits restored and bonuses back to normal, front line services decimated yet managerial pay still at record levels, immigration up and rising despite a clear demand from the electorate for it to be otherwise, right wing parties now in the ascendant as a result, have I missed much?

[i][b]"!000's of lost businesses, Vat at 20%, Tuition fees at record levels, Bank Profits restored and bonuses back to normal, front line services decimated yet managerial pay still at record levels, immigration up and rising despite a clear demand from the electorate for it to be otherwise, right wing parties now in the ascendant as a result, have I missed much?"[/b][/i]

There were 102,000 new businesses in the first 2 years alone of this parliament, offsetting the 26,000 businesses that closed in the same period. In the years since then have continued to see a net increase in the total number of registered businesses.

[url= https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/254552/13-92-business-population-estimates-2013-stats-release-4.pdf ]ONS stats on business[/url]

[i][b]Vat at 20%[/b][/i]

[url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/7226112/Labour-and-Conservatives-both-plan-to-raise-VAT-to-20-per-cent.html ]Labour planned 20% VAT at last election[/url]

[i][b]"Tuition fees at record levels"[/b]
[/i]
[url= http://www.independent.co.uk/student/news/tuition-fees-no-object-record-numbers-of-students-enrol-at-uk-universities-9013696.html ]Record number of students enrolling[/url]

[i][b]"Bank Profits restored and bonuses back to normal"[/b][/i]

[url= http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-26364715 ]RBS reports biggest ever loss since being rescued[/url]

[url= http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/business-28579379 ]Lloyds Bank profits fall 50 per cent[/url]

[i][b]Front line services decimated[/b[/i]]

[url= http://www.hsj.co.uk/news/number-of-nhs-nursing-staff-hits-record-levels/5081683.article ]Record number of nurses recruited in the NHS[/url]

[i][b]Yet managerial pay still at record levels[/b][/i]

[url= http://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/nov/07/fall-in-real-wages-across-uk ]Managerial Pay Falling[/url]

I don't think anyone is saying the country is perfect but it certainly isn't as broken as the merchants of gloom and doom would have us believe.

[quote=dereknightrider ]Tuition fees at record levels

Yeah, I always get incensed at this right wing government making all those above average earning graduates pay more.

Not true those non career politicians elect the leader of the Labour party and at the time of the last leadership elect the Shadow cabinet. If the party as a whole wanted a non career politician they could have made that choice.

They could elect 1 of 4 white, male, Oxbridge PPE, blah, blah, blah... career politicians, 2 of whom even came from the same family. Or the other option.....

Dianne Abbott 😯

My point stands. Backbenchers in either party have as much influence on policy direction as the commons tea lady. Which is one of the main reasons everyone is so disillusioned with politics. If the front bench don't even give a toss what their own MP's think, preferring to listen to special advisors instead, then what hope is there for the opinions of the electorate?

Take Simon Danczuk for example. One of the few MP's to actually command widespread public respect. He is viewed as a right PITA by his own party for mouthing uncomfortable truths, and championing awkward uncomfortable things like sexually abused kids. He sums up the situation in the labour party thoroughly [url= http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/dec/23/ed-miliband-cease-hampstead-heath-politics-win-general-election-says-labour-mp ]here[/url]

[i]Complaining that his leader had a “35% strategy” aimed at scraping by with just enough of the vote to become the senior party in a ruling coalition, Danzcuk said Miliband should listen to working-class MPs such as himself rather than ignoring them in favour of what he described as sycophants who cut their teeth as special advisers.[/i]

aracer - Member

Yeah, I always get incensed at this right wing government making all those above average earning graduates pay more.

while at the same time, saving thousands* for those earning average-or-less.

(£600/year, for 20 years or so)

[quote=ahwiles ]
while at the same time, saving thousands for those earning average-or-less.

The bastards

Binners the constitution of the Labour party allows members to change rules. The truth is the party members have handed the leadership more and more control over policy and decision making. It is not the candidates fault that others did not step up to plate. There are many on the left who complain that the main left wing party does not adequately represent them yet do nothing to reform that party despite being able to.

Just like UKIP it is easier to point at a bunch of people and say it is their fault 😉

They could elect 1 of 4 white, male, Oxbridge PPE, blah, blah, blah... career politicians, 2 of whom even came from the same family. Or the other option.....

Dianne Abbott

Diane Abbott is Oxbridge with a degree in History. ❗ ❗ In fact her background from school and then Uni onward wouldn't look out of place as a career politician in either the cabinet or shadow cabinet.

Binners the constitution of the Labour party allows members to change rules. The truth is the party members have handed the leadership more and more control over policy and decision making. It is not the candidates fault that others did not step up to plate. There are many on the left who complain that the main left wing does not adequately represent them yet do nothing to reform that party despite being able to.

There is so much wrong with that statement it's difficult to know where to begin. In fact there's so much wrong that quite frankly I can't be arsed.

Other than to say that the suggestion that the Labour Party is some sort of democratic organization would be hilarious if it wasn't so tragic.

Just like UKIP it is easier to point at a bunch of people and say it is their fault

Whichever way you play it, the labour party now stands as about as representative of the general population as the Tory front bench. Which is reflected in its policies, such as they are.

Like Ernie says: suggesting the labour party is democratic is laughable

•cough•

Union block vote

•cough•

And the Tories? They experimented with Daves much hailed idea of allowing constituency associations to select their own candidates. The first result of this was Sarah Wollaston. She came across as a normal human being, and as such became a right PITA to the leadership (as an ex GP she voted against Andrew Landsleys NHS reforms). So Dave immediately stopped the policy, and all candidates will now be imposed by Westminster

In't democracy [b]BRILLIIIIIAIAAAAAAAANT!!!!![/b]

[img] [/img]

Sadly not. It's just the form of government that works best right now.

If we could find a decent tyrant, maybe a fatherly dictator, that could do a good job of running the country, I think we'd stand a better chance of making things work.

We could even rent out the palace of Westminster for weddings and bring in more cash.

[quote=ernie_lynch ]Other than to say that the suggestion that the Labour Party is some sort of democratic organization would be hilarious if it wasn't so tragic.

I don't know enough about the workings of the Labour party to comment on that, but I imagine it is theoretically democratic in the same way that the UK is theoretically democratic.

You may laugh but the Labour party has a democratic structure the part that is wrong is the lack of participation.

*Candidates are selected by local members.

*Members elect candidates to the National Executive Committee.

*Constituency delegates elect candidates to the Regional Boards.

*Constituency parties send their selected delegates to conferences to vote on policy decisions.

That Union block vote is also democratic through representative democracy those unions have their own democratic processes for decision making. However again members of those unions do not engage with the process.

If you don't participate that change will not happen.