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

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.

That Union block vote is also democratic

[URL= http://www.sherv.net/cm/emo/laughing/rofl.gi f" target="_blank">http://www.sherv.net/cm/emo/laughing/rofl.gi f"/> [/IMG][/URL]

Err wasn't the union block vote abolished by John Smith in the Early nineties?

*Candidates are selected by local members.

I thought this was proved to be a crock for the last... however long... because we got people like Tristran Hunt parachuted in over the locals.

I understand what you mean and agree that it used to be like that, but I really don't think that the modern Labour party still does that in all cases.

Err wasn't the union block vote abolished by John Smith in the Early nineties?

Nope! Still very much alive and well. Thank god!! If it wasn't we might not have ended up with this....

[img] [/img]

[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25946102 ]Once he'd taken advantage of it, Ed was going to get rid of it though. Apprently it was his 'Clause 4 Moment'[/url]

He must have been a bit busy since then though, as he doesn't appear to have got round to it

You may laugh but .....

I'm not laughing at all - I said it was too tragic.

The Labour Party since the hard right seized control has become a nasty stalinist organisation in which all power is concentrated in the hands of the Leader.

Just one small point because as I said I really cba :

[i]"Constituency parties send their selected delegates to conferences to vote on policy decisions"[/i]

Conference is a completely meaningless staged managed PR gimmick that Joseph Stalin himself would have been proud of.

Policy is no longer decided by Conference, it's decided by the Leader. And he doesn't have to consult anyone other than himself, while he's sitting down have a shit, if he wants to.

[img] [/img]

Those thugs are physically throwing out a 82 man who escaped from the Nazis because what he said at Conference displeased the leadership. Afterwards the leadership were very sorry that it had all been filmed - they prefer the gags and silence of dissent to be done quietly through administrative means, as is generally the case.

.

aracer - Member

but I imagine it is theoretically democratic in the same way that the UK is theoretically democratic.

I think a better analogy might be it's theoretically democratic in the same way that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is theoretically democratic.

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

21 times they voted against it - twenty ****ing one
They should still be thoroughly ashamed of that.

Smith did get rid of the traditional union block vote but labour leadership election rules are not that simple.

The vote is split into thirds. A third of the vote is MEPs and MPs, a third of it is Labour party members, a third of it is union members. However this remains democractic as the MPs and MEPs were selected by local members. The trade union vote is based on how trade union members vote not on their leadership like the Tories and Murdoch would have you think.

Normal proceedure for selecting candidates is a vote by members however there are emergency rules that can be used by the national party where they come up with the short list instead of the local party. The vast, vast majority of selections are not done in this way.

ernie_lynch - Member

You may laugh but .....

I'm not laughing at all - I said it was too tragic.

The Labour Party since the hard right seized control has become a nasty stalinist organisation in which all power is concentrated in the hands of the Leader.

Just one small point because as I said I really cba :

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

Conference is a completely meaningless staged managed PR gimmick that Joseph Stalin himself would have been proud of.

Policy is no longer decided by Conference, it's decided by the Leader. And he doesn't have to consult anyone other than himself, while he's sitting down have a shit, if he wants to.

Those thugs are physically throwing out a 82 man who escaped from the Nazis because what he said at Conference displeased the leadership. Afterwards the leadership were very sorry that it had all been filmed - they prefer the gags and silence of dissent to be done quietly through administrative means, as is generally the case.

.

The leadership didn't seize power the members gave it to them. The leadership and NEC proposed rule changes and the members voted them through! Yes the annual conference is a rubber stamping exercise these days but again is because members voted for it to be that way.

If members wanted reform there was a special conference just last year where they could have changed the constiution and party rules. Guess what? They backed the leadership's proposed changed 86% to 14%.....

The trade union vote is based on how trade union members vote not on their leadership

[img] [/img]

So the GMB's leadership who were elected by GMB members shouldn't say who their prefered candidate is?

Those of you on the left who say the Labour party isn't what it should be but don't particpate in the party you should start looking at yourselves.

The leadership didn't seize power the members gave it to them.

You are Uncle Joe and I claim my bullet in the back of my head.

.

[img] [/img]

You need someone like this to sell that sort of stuff.

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

The number of patients per doctor is not the only measure of productivity. Quality of care and outcomes are also valuable.

I'd prefer if we funded more doctors so they could spend longer with each patient and give a better quality of care. Rather than asking our GPs to spend 10 mins per patient, see 40+ patients a day and then review endless letters from the hospital docs, blood test results and write up the insanely detailed notes required to fend of potential malpractive suits. All while giving access to a GP within 24hrs, something even the insanely expensive US system fails to do.

We need some politicians with the balls to stand up and say this, rather than just try to claim we can magically get more value for money if we just focus our ire at a tiny tiny minority of scroungers and fatties.

ernie_lynch - Member

You are Uncle Joe and I claim my bullet in the back of my head.

.

You need someone like this to sell that sort of stuff.

It is true! Constituency parties voted to select a delegate to send to conference. At succesevie conferences those delegates have voted to give greater control over policies and decision making to the leadership.

If you think this was the wrong thing to do where were you? Did you go to your CLP meeting to vote for the delegate? Did you go to your CLP meeting to pass motions declaring a particular stance on party policy?

@ Binners

I haven't waded through this entire thread, but I think your first post was absolutely spot on, and as someone who believes that Margaret Thatcher was our greatest 20th century prime minister, it isn't often I agree with you. 🙂

Bank Profits restored and bonuses back to normal

Union members chose to affiliate to the labour party or not affiliate
If you affiliate* you, the member, get a vote in labour elections if you do not you do not. There is no block its individual votes.
The problem with labour voting is that the unions are the largest number and each vote counts the least with MPs and MEP being the fewest and having the most votes as each college gets a weighted 1/3. For example had the other miliband got four more votes from Mp/MEP's he would have won. It is not OMOV but it is not weighted to favour the unions it weighted against them.Its perfectly possible to win a labour leadership without getting anywhere near the majority of votes cast and that is unfair.

I would not disagree with ernie about how stage managed the conference is.

* i only speak of Unison but I assume it is true of the other Unions but am prepared to be corrected on that point.

fr0sty this is futile if you are going to maintain this ridiculous pretense that the Labour Party is democratic.

The above incident which I posted a picture of occurred because Walter Wolfgang shouted "nonsense" when Jack Straw spoke in favour of the Iraq War. The Labour Party had banned all debates on the Iraq War. Why? Because no one wanted to speak about it? Of course not. But because Tony Blair was not prepared to allow anyone to express an opinion which disagreed with his.

That is even though all debates/votes staged at the sham which is called Conference are completely non-binding. Debating Iraq and letting people express their opinions was simply too democratic for the hard right to stomach.

I have no faith whatsoever that the Labour Party can ever again represent the interests of ordinary working people because the hard right purged all democracy from the party after they seized power, and placed sufficient obstacles so that it can never be regained, while at the same time maintaining a self-perpetuating elite leadership.

It doesn't matter what policies Ed Miliband dreams up, left-wing or otherwise, without democracy the Labour Party can never be the mass party of the working people it once was, it needs to be connected to the people to be that.

And as I've pointed out the undemocratic nature of the Labour Party guarantees a self-perpetuating elite leadership which will always resist democracy. Time to look elsewhere or to build a new party.

If you affiliate* you, the member, get a vote in labour elections if you do not you do not. There is no block its individual votes.

So if I am a Labour Party member, and also a union member, how many votes do I get?

None Z-11, you're in UKIP aren't you? Or haven't you yet defected from the Tories? Perhaps you're waiting for your guru Dan Hannan to jump ship?