|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: And they're off - UK election rant
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Imaginary Friend:
But I think the Tories are being rather underhand in that they are trying to implement this by the back door, and only for those who are rich enough to be able to pay the difference in cost. That is fundamentally unfair, and comes across (to me at least) as pandering to the upper half of middle England, who are a large part of his core vote.
I'm not sure exactly what you have in mind here, but we had a situation a little while ago where some hospital patients weren't not given some drugs and, when they offered to pay for them, were told that buying them privately would disqualify them from any NHS treatment. That struck me as terribly unfair.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Imaginary Friend
Real to you
# 186
|
Posted
Specifically, I was referring to the 'Patient Passports' that the Tories were talking about a while back. They seem to have dropped that phrase from their manifesto, but it does say: quote:
So we will give every patient the power to choose any healthcare provider that meets NHS standards, within NHS prices. This includes independent, voluntary and community sector providers. We will make patients’ choices meaningful by:- putting patients in charge of making decisions about their care, including control of their health records;
- spreading the use of the NHS tariff, so funding follows patients’ choices; and,
- making sure good performance is rewarded
by implementing a payment by results system, improving quality.
This amounts to pretty much the same thing.
--------------------
"We had a good team on paper. Unfortunately, the game was played on grass."
Brian Clough
Posts: 9455 | From: Left a bit... Right a bit... | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
I don't see why this is a bad thing. If the NHS is a monopoly supplier of healthcare (which it virtually is) then I imagine the whole system becomes inefficient. Allowing patients to go to a health care provider of their choice presumably introduces a kind of quasi-competition which improves NHS efficiency?
Labour came to power in 1997 with a pledge to abolish the Tories' 'internal market' but didn't they end up essentially re-introducing it because it actually worked?
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
I've been to a private hospital for an NHS ordered investigation - so it has happened in the past, and I suspect it is still an option. What is certainly a feature of the NHS is that it has contracted out a load of routine operations to some private health care providers in the expectation that this would be more efficient.
My own preference for the NHS is that the money would be given to local authorities to pay whatever supplier they felt like, providing whatever services the local authority, as a democratically elected unit, believed was right for their area. Of course this would lead to more cries of 'post code lottery' - but those need to be faced down. At the moment we have the money provided to Primary Care Trusts - which are QUANGOs appointed by central government - largely paying money to central government owned hospitals. This minimises the freedom of PCTs to do things really relevant to their area. It also means that half the budget for 'care' comes from the NHS and the other from Local Authority Social Services - a particularly unnecessary cause of conflict.
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Imaginary Friend
Real to you
# 186
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
I don't see why this is a bad thing. If the NHS is a monopoly supplier of healthcare (which it virtually is) then I imagine the whole system becomes inefficient. Allowing patients to go to a health care provider of their choice presumably introduces a kind of quasi-competition which improves NHS efficiency?
Insofar as your point goes, I can't disagree. Like I said before, I don't have an issue with a transparent single payer system. The problem that I have with patient passports is that there is an inherent inequality in the system. If there is a price difference between what your procedure would cost in an NHS facility, and the price in the facility that you go to, then you have to pay that difference. That immediately prices out a lot of people with lower incomes from using those facilities, and (probably) from 'jumping the queue'.
I'm aware that this is what already happens with private healthcare, but I think it is wrong for a government to endorse and enhance this inequality. I also agree with you that there was a time when public money was used to pay for people to have treatment in private facilities in a bid to get waiting lists down. So far as I'm aware* there was no additional cost to the patient in these cases, and the patient's financial position was not a factor in determining where they would be treated. In essence, it was a fair system.
What bugs me about the Tories is that they appear to be pandering to middle England, not helping those at the bottom of the ladder. In my opinion, health care is not the only place where this charge can be put, and this is why I cannot see myself voting for them.
* and I'm not an expert, so will gladly be corrected on this if I'm wrong.
--------------------
"We had a good team on paper. Unfortunately, the game was played on grass."
Brian Clough
Posts: 9455 | From: Left a bit... Right a bit... | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
How does it increase inequality?
Let's say 10 people have cancer and the NHS is prepared to spend £5,000 per head on cancer treatment. Three of those people take their £5,000, add £1,000 of their own money, and go to a private hospital.
How are the remaining seven worse off? If anything, aren't they better off because the other three won't be using the NHS hospital (and are therefore off the waiting list)?
As long as the seven in the NHS hospital have a decent level of care, I don't see the problem.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
I should have thought it also reduces the inequality insofar as it opens up the possibility of private healthcare to many more people even when it costs more than the NHS will pay for.
e.g. In the scenario outlined by Anglican't, suddenly private cancer treatment is available to people with £1000 to spend, instead of requiring £6000+.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Imaginary Friend
Real to you
# 186
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
How does it increase inequality?
It doesn't increase inequality: It is inherently unequal. Privately provided healthcare is often 'better' than the equivalent on the NHS*. It is offensive to me that some people get access to a better standard of healthcare purely on their ability to pay for it. As I said before, I understand that this happens already, and there is nothing that can be done about it**. But I think it's morally wrong for the government to endorse that inequality by partially paying for it.
* At least in the sense of shorter waiting time, more comfortable conditions in the hospital, and perhaps better (or at least, higher paid) doctors.
** I would not advocate the banning of private healthcare.
--------------------
"We had a good team on paper. Unfortunately, the game was played on grass."
Brian Clough
Posts: 9455 | From: Left a bit... Right a bit... | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sleepwalker
Shipmate
# 15343
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Imaginary Friend:
Privately provided healthcare is often 'better' than the equivalent on the NHS*.
* At least in the sense of shorter waiting time, more comfortable conditions in the hospital, and perhaps better (or at least, higher paid) doctors.
I'm glad you qualified your statement. Because, particularly where cancer care is concerned, the only difference between NHS and private healthcare systems will be the comfortable conditions of the hospital and the quality of the food. Oh, and whether you have your own room with TV in it, etc, etc. I doubt very much that private healthcare offers better quality medical care in this country. What people who can afford it are paying for are the luxuries, not the necessities. I would imagine it would be far better for those who can afford the luxuries to go off and do so while those who cannot, are provided with the necessities more quickly.
Posts: 267 | From: somewhere other than here | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
NJA
Shipmate
# 13022
|
Posted
It there any rationale behind the UKIP election slogan?
I suspect this kind of language will alienate many people who don't want it in public life, it makes UK people look like crude half-wits.
Posts: 1283 | From: near London | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
alienfromzog
Ship's Alien
# 5327
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sleepwalker:
quote:
Originally posted by Imaginary Friend:
Privately provided healthcare is often 'better' than the equivalent on the NHS*.
* At least in the sense of shorter waiting time, more comfortable conditions in the hospital, and perhaps better (or at least, higher paid) doctors.
I'm glad you qualified your statement. Because, particularly where cancer care is concerned, the only difference between NHS and private healthcare systems will be the comfortable conditions of the hospital and the quality of the food. Oh, and whether you have your own room with TV in it, etc, etc. I doubt very much that private healthcare offers better quality medical care in this country. What people who can afford it are paying for are the luxuries, not the necessities. I would imagine it would be far better for those who can afford the luxuries to go off and do so while those who cannot, are provided with the necessities more quickly.
Private Healthcare is generally not better, but in often worse. Nice rooms, food etc. but not necessarily the same standard of care.
Talk to any surgeon or anaethetist. All of my colleagues who I've had this conversation with say the same thing. ONLY for something very minor and very straight forward would they go private.
AFZ
--------------------
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
[Sen. D.P.Moynihan]
An Alien's View of Earth - my blog (or vanity exercise...)
Posts: 2150 | From: Zog, obviously! Straight past Alpha Centauri, 2nd planet on the left... | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by NJA:
It there any rationale behind the UKIP election slogan?
I suspect this kind of language will alienate many people who don't want it in public life, it makes UK people look like crude half-wits.
Yes - it elegantly summaries the attitude of a large proportion of the population, in the same way that the Sex Pistols crudities did when they were in fashion... I doubt most people would raise an eyebrow, let alone worry that ' it makes UK people look like crude half-wits'.
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
quote:
Originally posted by NJA:
It there any rationale behind the UKIP election slogan?
I suspect this kind of language will alienate many people who don't want it in public life, it makes UK people look like crude half-wits.
Yes - it elegantly summaries the attitude of a large proportion of the population, in the same way that the Sex Pistols crudities did when they were in fashion... I doubt most people would raise an eyebrow, let alone worry that ' it makes UK people look like crude half-wits'.
Did the Sex Pistols really summarise the attitude of a "large proportion of the population"? I don't know where you were in 1976 but while any number of 13-25 year-olds loved it they weren't desperately popular with everyone else. Heck I was 18 when they appeared on TV with Bill Grundy and wrecked his career, and I thought they were yet another bunch of self-indulgent galoots. Were it not for Malcolm Maclaren no-one would have heard of them.
btw, aren't UKIP simply another variety of the sods they despise?
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
aumbry
Shipmate
# 436
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by NJA:
It there any rationale behind the UKIP election slogan?
I suspect this kind of language will alienate many people who don't want it in public life, it makes UK people look like crude half-wits.
From my experience it more or less encapsulates perfectly the view the vast majority of the British public have of the political class who have served this country so poorly.
I can only imagine you are living in a home for bewildered gentlefolk if you find that offensive.
Posts: 3869 | From: Quedlinburg | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RadicalWhig
Shipmate
# 13190
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
btw, aren't UKIP simply another variety of the sods they despise?
No, because they stand up for the traditional British right to smear children in lard and boil Frenchmen in chipfat, or whatever else the despicable sods on the Brussels sauce béarnaise train trying to ban this week.
--------------------
Radical Whiggery for Beginners: "Trampling on the Common Prayer Book, talking against the Scriptures, commending Commonwealths, justifying the murder of King Charles I, railing against priests in general." (Sir Arthur Charlett on John Toland, 1695)
Posts: 3193 | From: Scotland | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Imaginary Friend
Real to you
# 186
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by NJA:
It there any rationale behind the UKIP election slogan?
I don't know about 'rationale' but it makes them sound like the drunk down the pub who's spent the last half-hour explaining some convoluted conspiracy theory that noone else believes: "Sod the lot of you", he'll say as he staggers towards the gents in a storm of half-faked petulance.
--------------------
"We had a good team on paper. Unfortunately, the game was played on grass."
Brian Clough
Posts: 9455 | From: Left a bit... Right a bit... | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by NJA:
It there any rationale behind the UKIP election slogan?
Yes. Its a direct appeal to the notion that a the slimy liberals who run all the main political parties won't admit what everyone really secretly knows, which is that its all been taken over by immigrants, but the Race Relations Industry and Political Correctness stops anyone saying it in public.
If they were one notch more xenophobic they'd be saying stuff like "The White Man has no rights in His Own Country". Though they probably have the sense to leave that up to the BNP.
They depend on taking Tory votes by making the Tories seem soft on immigrants, foreigners, the EU and suchlike. So they blow it if they come out too far. Though that might have the pleasant side-effect of taking a few possible BNP votes.
I doubt if there is much they can do to increase the almost certainly risible small vote they will get next month - they are on their way to contesting for sixth or seventh place & vanishing from both the opinion polls and the bookies odds - but they may be able to influence whether that tiny vote comes mostly from the Tories or the BNP. If (as seems to be the case) they are getting less secretive about their underlying racism it probably means they will take fewer Tory votes and more potential BNP ones.
You can see where they are coming from from this news - last week's headline was London UKIP election candidate in racism row - but that seems alright by their party leadership. This week the same candidate said bad things about the queen and got the boot. Racism is OK by them, anti-monarchism isn't.
(Supposedly he said she was a German bitch who sold us out to Europe - but I haven't seen that on his website myself)
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
aumbry
Shipmate
# 436
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by NJA:
It there any rationale behind the UKIP election slogan?
I doubt if there is much they can do to increase the almost certainly risible small vote they will get next month - they are on their way to contesting for sixth or seventh place & vanishing from both the opinion polls and the bookies odds......
Isn't this the party that came third in the Euro-elections and narrowly missed beating Labour to second place? They certainly beat the LibDems into fourth place.
If they come sixth in this poll (and I suspect that all the minor parties will end up doing much better than predicted) then that would be more of a reflection of the distorting effect of the first past the post voting system than an indication of their popularity.
Ken - your favourite political ploy is to attack others as racist although there is nothing in the UKIP agenda that falls into that category - so it is just a lazy smear. It didn't of course stop you from supporting Ken Livingstone in the London Mayoral elections whose record on making antisemitic remarks was very dubious.
Posts: 3869 | From: Quedlinburg | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
Isn't [UKIP] the party that came third in the Euro-elections and narrowly missed beating Labour to second place? They certainly beat the LibDems into fourth place.
If they come sixth in this poll (and I suspect that all the minor parties will end up doing much better than predicted) then that would be more of a reflection of the distorting effect of the first past the post voting system than an indication of their popularity.
It would be more to do with the fact that UKIP are very much a single-issue party, namely "get Britain out of the EU". They always get more support in European elections where their single issue is very relevant than in general elections where it is but one issue among many, and not the most important one by a long shot.
It's also to do with the fact that European elections as virtually irrelevant, making them safer venues for an idealistic or protest vote. In general elections, voters tend to play it safe and gravitate to the three main parties. The Green and BNP shares of the vote will fall compared to the European elections, as well as that of UKIP.
To cut a long story short, UKIP won't come sixth or lower because of FPTP, they'll do so because less people will vote for them in a serious election that isn't about their primary policy.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
Isn't this the party [UKIP] that came third in the Euro-elections and narrowly missed beating Labour to second place? They certainly beat the LibDems into fourth place.
UKIP came came second in the 2009 European Elections. Labour was narrowly beaten into third place.
In the South East of England, Labour came fifth. As was the case in the South West.
(You'll have to look up the links for yourself. The HTML tags contain parentheses, which are apparently forbidden on here).
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Imaginary Friend
Real to you
# 186
|
Posted
On another note, anyone going to watch the debate tonight?
--------------------
"We had a good team on paper. Unfortunately, the game was played on grass."
Brian Clough
Posts: 9455 | From: Left a bit... Right a bit... | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
Ken - your favourite political ploy is to attack others as racist
Yah boo sucks to you! See what I care ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
If you can read what UKIP have been saying and not realise they are essentially about xenophobia then you are looking at them through very very tinted glasses.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
In general elections, voters tend to play it safe and gravitate to the three main parties. The Green and BNP shares of the vote will fall compared to the European elections, as well as that of UKIP.
To cut a long story short, UKIP won't come sixth or lower because of FPTP, they'll do so because less people will vote for them in a serious election that isn't about their primary policy.
Yes, exactly.
The top three parties in terms of total votes nationwide are almost certain to be Tory, Labour, Liberal, and almost certain to be in that order.
After them Green, UKIP, BNP for places 4 5 & 6 in terms of total vote and I have no idea in which order they will come (I'd hope that one of course, but I have no real idea)
I'd be mildly surprised if the Greens win even one seat, and astonished were they to win more than two or three. BNP and UKIP are likely to win none at all, if either of them does its more likeley to be BNP even if they get fewer votes nationally, because their vote is likely to be more concentrated.
The main nationalist or regional parties such as SNP, the Democratic Unionists, Plaid Cymru and Sinn Féin (though probably not the Ulster Unionists or SDLP any more, much as I would prefer them to still be in the running) will each get more seats than Green/UKIP/BNP put together, and the SNP will probably get more total votes than one or two or even all three three of them (separately rather than together in this case).
So in total votes cast the UK picture is likely to be something like:
1. Tory
2. Labour
3. Liberal
[...big gap...]
4. Green
5. SNP
6. UKIP
7. DU
8. SF
9. BNP
10. PC
11. UU
12. SDLP
The order of things in the middle part of the list, say places 4-10, is very unpredictable. But it is extremely unlikely that any of those parties will end up anywhere near the top three or that they will drop below tenth place. Does anyone here, even Aumbry, seriously not believe that that is the likely outcome of the election for the minor parties? If so why not put money on it? You will get very good odds.
And in seats in Parliament is probably going to be something like:
1. Tory
2. Labour
[...big gap...]
3. Liberal
[...another big gap...]
4 DU
5. SNP
6. SF
7. PC
With UU, Green, Independent and SDLP struggling for even one or two seats each and everyone else probably nowhere. The exact order of the regional parties depends heavily on the political mood in Northern Ireland which might be rather volatile of course. There is an electoral pact between the Unionists and the Conservatives which could push other parties in or out of the frame - no-one knows yet.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
I should have thought it also reduces the inequality insofar as it opens up the possibility of private healthcare to many more people even when it costs more than the NHS will pay for.
It does so at the cost of taking money out of the NHS. Saying that it relieves pressure on the NHS is quite wrong. The pressure on the NHS isn't due to lack of facilities: most hospitals have more than enough material beds and wards. What the NHS doesn't have at the moment is enough trained staff. This is because the NHS is already subsidising the private sector by paying for the training of the private sector's doctors and nurses. (The NHS is also subsidising the private sector by taking over the treatment of emergency cases and operations that go wrong.)
It also means that the NHS becomes a default second-class service and seen as such: the politicians and people running the NHS see it not as striving for excellence but as a safety net for people who can't afford anything else. That is not good for the NHS as a whole.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
FreeJack
Shipmate
# 10612
|
Posted
Broadly agree with Ken's placings.
Two independent unionists likely to win seats in Northern Ireland.
Greens are now odds on to get one seat (Brighton Pavilion.)
SNP seat numbers I find quite difficult to predict. They have a potential upside they haven't achieved for 25 years, but maybe this time.
Quite likely there will be some sort of pact at Westminster between SNP, PC and Greens.
The UKIP leader is challenging the Speaker seeking re-election in Buckingham. If they had a chance of winning a seat 'normally' then they wouldn't be pulling stunts like that.
Posts: 3588 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alicïa
Shipmate
# 7668
|
Posted
Brilliant debate tonight!
youGov says that Nick Clegg won the debate tonight by a country mile. Bring it on!
Clegg 51% Cameron 28% Brown 19%
Also see The Guardian
[ 15. April 2010, 21:51: Message edited by: Alicïa ]
Posts: 884 | From: Where the Art is. | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
RadicalWhig
Shipmate
# 13190
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by FreeJack:
SNP seat numbers I find quite difficult to predict. They have a potential upside they haven't achieved for 25 years, but maybe this time.
Difficult; the BBC and the London-based parties have stitched it up by excluding the SNP from the leaders' debates and by minimising their media coverage. They'll be lucky to get 10 seats - much less than their share of the vote would warrant, but the electoral system skews things heavily in favour of Labour.
quote:
Quite likely there will be some sort of pact at Westminster between SNP, PC and Greens.
Certainly SNP and PC are planning to co-operate to maximise their coalition potential; not sure about whether the Greens would be in.
[ 15. April 2010, 21:52: Message edited by: RadicalWhig ]
--------------------
Radical Whiggery for Beginners: "Trampling on the Common Prayer Book, talking against the Scriptures, commending Commonwealths, justifying the murder of King Charles I, railing against priests in general." (Sir Arthur Charlett on John Toland, 1695)
Posts: 3193 | From: Scotland | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Revolutionist
Shipmate
# 4578
|
Posted
No big revelations - I thought that Brown had the most content and substance, with Clegg being the most personable and relaxed. Not particularly in-depth, but I wasn't expecting it to be.
My first reactions in more detail are on my blog. It hasn't really helped me make my mind up, to be honest - the Welsh debate on Tuesday might help.
Posts: 1296 | From: London | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
It's also to do with the fact that European elections as virtually irrelevant, making them safer venues for an idealistic or protest vote.
Given the quantity of legislation that is the responsibility of Europe, not Westminster, the fact that the people and even MtM believe this is yet another failure of our ruling class to communicate the truth.
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jigsaw
Shipmate
# 11433
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Revolutionist:
No big revelations - I thought that Brown had the most content and substance, with Clegg being the most personable and relaxed. Not particularly in-depth, but I wasn't expecting it to be.
Brown talked hard sense with substance, but looked ugly and awkward. Clegg looked lively and attractive, made some good points, but couldn't match Brown for a real grasp of the issues. Clegg seems to have won the popular vote by a long chalk. I thought that introducing party leader debates into UK election campaigns was a Good Thing, but I do worry that it's just going to be a charm contest.
--------------------
You are not alone in this.
Posts: 743 | From: Snorbens, UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Clegg easily won it last night, with Cameron second and Gordon a poor third (IMO). Cameron missed opportunities to clarify the water between him and Brown, in particular on the whole big -v- small government debate; the nearest he got to a soundbite was his "cut the waste to stop the jobs tax" quote, and he should have made more of that. Brown just came across as wooden, mechanical and clunky, and did himself no other favours by smirking inanely whilst the other two were talking.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Given the quantity of legislation that is the responsibility of Europe, not Westminster, the fact that the people and even MtM believe this is yet another failure of our ruling class to communicate the truth.
I've been pondering this perception, trying to work out what it actually means.
What statistical basis is being used to make this calculation? Are we counting by word, section or complete act?
--------------------
"He was wrong in the long run, but then, who isn't?" - Tony Judt
Posts: 6917 | From: pob dydd Iau, am hanner dydd | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jonathan Strange
Shipmate
# 11001
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jigsaw:
I thought that introducing party leader debates into UK election campaigns was a Good Thing, but I do worry that it's just going to be a charm contest.
I just hope it doesn't confuse voters into thinking we have a presidential system.
--------------------
"Wrong will be right, when Aslan comes in sight,
At the sound of his roar, sorrows will be no more,
When he bears his teeth, winter meets its death,
When he shakes his mane, we shall have spring again"
Posts: 1327 | From: Wessex | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
A hung parliament?
I suppose Broon was bound to get caned in the vox-pop polls about who did best. It's a bit hard to charm when you're charmless.
Reminded of a line from Eliza Bennet, contrasting Mr Wickham and Mr Darcy. Something like "One has all the appearance of it, the other has it. And for my part it's all Mr Darcy's". For all his charmlessness, IMO Broon has more substance than the other two put together.
Alas poor Gordo. When it comes to politics, this is a pretty superficial age. He can't win either a beauty contest or a charm contest.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
It's also to do with the fact that European elections as virtually irrelevant, making them safer venues for an idealistic or protest vote.
Given the quantity of legislation that is the responsibility of Europe, not Westminster, the fact that the people and even MtM believe this is yet another failure of our ruling class to communicate the truth.
Even if that were true, rather than debatable, the simple fact that whomever the UK votes for in European Elections makes no difference to the overall continent-wide result is what I'm referring to. The French/German/Spanish parties are the ones that set the agenda.
Even if every single British seat in the European Parliament was filled by a member of Labour, or Conservative, or the Monster Raving Looney Party, nothing would change. We simply don't have enough seats to make a difference. It follows that who we vote for doesn't make a difference, which means European elections are irrelevant.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Even if that were true, rather than debatable, the simple fact that whomever the UK votes for in European Elections makes no difference to the overall continent-wide result is what I'm referring to. The French/German/Spanish parties are the ones that set the agenda.
Even if every single British seat in the European Parliament was filled by a member of Labour, or Conservative, or the Monster Raving Looney Party, nothing would change. We simply don't have enough seats to make a difference. It follows that who we vote for doesn't make a difference, which means European elections are irrelevant.
Well - Channel 4's fact check blog tends to agree with you, against the opinion of a UK government minister, let alone a former German President; once more we must learn to stop taking politicians declaring facts too seriously. However it is still significant. And your claim that UK MEPs can't influence the legislation is surely deeply flawed; the assumption that a conspiracy of Germany, France and Spain are forcing through legislation despite having less than third of the seats (244 out of 750) suggests a degree of paranoia, whilst the assumption that a well presented rational case will always be ignored is equally improbable.
Personally I would like to see the Eurosceptic party grouping which the Conservatives MEPs have joined stand in the whole of the EU - especially France and Germany - and see how solidly pro-European those countries' right wing voters really are ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
RadicalWhig
Shipmate
# 13190
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jonathan Strange:
quote:
Originally posted by Jigsaw:
I thought that introducing party leader debates into UK election campaigns was a Good Thing, but I do worry that it's just going to be a charm contest.
I just hope it doesn't confuse voters into thinking we have a presidential system.
Sadly, I think many think that already. How many times have you heard someone say, "I've voting for Brown/Cameron/Clegg"? Of course, in effect we have a Prime Ministerial system, which is neither presidential (although it acts a bit like it) nor parliamentary (although it pretends to be).
--------------------
Radical Whiggery for Beginners: "Trampling on the Common Prayer Book, talking against the Scriptures, commending Commonwealths, justifying the murder of King Charles I, railing against priests in general." (Sir Arthur Charlett on John Toland, 1695)
Posts: 3193 | From: Scotland | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by dyfrig:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Given the quantity of legislation that is the responsibility of Europe, not Westminster, the fact that the people and even MtM believe this is yet another failure of our ruling class to communicate the truth.
I've been pondering this perception, trying to work out what it actually means.
What statistical basis is being used to make this calculation? Are we counting by word, section or complete act?
No actual source, but in an article in last week's Economist (which is hardly noted for its pro-European editorial line) on how a Tory victory might affect the UK's relationship with the rest of the EU, had this to say about this question (emphasis mine):
quote:
Making things worse is a profound ignorance of what the EU does and how it works. The mistaken belief that the EU is repsonsible for as much as 80% of all legislation in Europe (it is no more than 50%) and a lack of understanding of the role of national governments [...] in passing EU laws, have fostered the belief that an unaccountable and undemocratic machine in Brussels is somehow usurping the ancient role of Parliament. The media reinforce this belief...
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Imaginary Friend
Real to you
# 186
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Cameron missed opportunities to clarify the water between him and Brown, in particular on the whole big -v- small government debate; the nearest he got to a soundbite was his "cut the waste to stop the jobs tax" quote, and he should have made more of that.
I wish he'd stop calling it a "jobs tax". It's as if he thinks NICs didn't exist before! Like the "death tax", I think that kind of language is mildly dishonest, and I'm surprised that Labour hasn't picked him up on that.
I find the Conservative position that there is an additional £6 billion of efficiency savings to be made in the next nine months above what the government has already said it will do to be rather implausible. Cameron talks about not raising the pay of a few at the top of the health service, and a few other bits here and there, but how can he seriously think this can be done (especially if NHS spending is 'ringfenced')?
--------------------
"We had a good team on paper. Unfortunately, the game was played on grass."
Brian Clough
Posts: 9455 | From: Left a bit... Right a bit... | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
[QB]And your claim that UK MEPs can't influence the legislation is surely deeply flawed; the assumption that a conspiracy of Germany, France and Spain are forcing through legislation despite having less than third of the seats (244 out of 750) suggests a degree of paranoia, whilst the assumption that a well presented rational case will always be ignored is equally improbable.[QB]
The party groupings in the European parliament are huge, and each is dominated by the "classical EU" block of countries. We don't (and can't) have enough members of any grouping to even influence what it does, never mind what the whole parliament does.
To compare it to the House of Commons: it's like the entire UK is equivalent to Plaid Cymru. Sure they're there, but it's not like they're going to significantly affect policy in any meaningful way. They could vote however they bloody well liked in any given election and it would still turn out the same.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Admittedly I only caught five minutes of it before deciding that re-reading the Hobbit was a better use of my time but it sounded as if Cameron was arguing that by dropping the NI increase there would be more money to spend on the NHS. Which makes less sense than demanding Clegg and Brown tell him what he has got in his pocketses.
My impression, given the starting presuppositons that Dave is lovely, Gordon is the bogeyman and that other bloke is a bit of a non-entity is that Brown was playing a straight bat and doing OK, Cameron wasn't doing as well as some might have hoped and Nick Clegg was cooking on gas. I woke up this morning to find that this is now the conventional wisdom. So I was almost certainly mistaken.
[x-posted with Marvin.]
[ 16. April 2010, 11:32: Message edited by: Gildas ]
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Imaginary Friend
Real to you
# 186
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
.. it sounded as if Cameron was arguing that by dropping the NI increase there would be more money to spend on the NHS. Which makes less sense than demanding Clegg and Brown tell him what he has got in his pocketses.
He was claiming that, and in a certain way he's right. The NHS has to pay NICs for its employees, so putting up the rate of National Insurance (the Labour policy) will cost the NHS money. But the Tories have neatly 'ringfenced' NHS spending, so the impact of not putting NICs up (Tory policy) will not affect spending on health (although clearly it has to affect something, somewhere). Now, I think this argument is so myopic that it's laughable, but I would say that, wouldn't I?!
--------------------
"We had a good team on paper. Unfortunately, the game was played on grass."
Brian Clough
Posts: 9455 | From: Left a bit... Right a bit... | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Imaginary Friend:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Cameron missed opportunities to clarify the water between him and Brown, in particular on the whole big -v- small government debate; the nearest he got to a soundbite was his "cut the waste to stop the jobs tax" quote, and he should have made more of that.
I wish he'd stop calling it a "jobs tax". It's as if he thinks NICs didn't exist before! Like the "death tax", I think that kind of language is mildly dishonest, and I'm surprised that Labour hasn't picked him up on that.
An increase in NICs is effectively a tax on jobs and takes money out of the economy, so I don't think he was being dishonest there.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
I HATE! HATE! HATE! NICs!
Taxation is necessary, so why not come clean and increase income tax. That at least affects everyone. It all goes into the Treasury's pot to be doled out at the chancellor's whim. The advantage of NIC increases is that it doesn't affect unearned income (savings, dividends, pensions) so they won't lose the grey vote.
I'd rather scrap NICs, increase income & corporation taxes to make up the shortfall and increase personal allowance so that the only old folks who do lose are on a pretty good income already (like retired civil service mandarins).
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
An increase in NICs is effectively a tax on jobs and takes money out of the economy, so I don't think he was being dishonest there.
To clarify - because the employer's side is an invisible tax for most of us - NI contributions come from both the employer AND the employee. An increase in the rate, as proposed by labour, of the rate that employers pay IS a tax on jobs - because the employer will have to pay more cash to the government for every employee that they have - surely the definition of a 'Tax'.
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15
|
Posted
Turns out I wasn't the only one asking the question.
ISTM that Nick Clegg "won" last night's debate because it finally caused people to say "Oh, that's who he is!" as opposed to "I thought Vince Cable was in charge of the LibDems".
--------------------
"He was wrong in the long run, but then, who isn't?" - Tony Judt
Posts: 6917 | From: pob dydd Iau, am hanner dydd | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pooks
Shipmate
# 11425
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Alas poor Gordo. When it comes to politics, this is a pretty superficial age. He can't win either a beauty contest or a charm contest.
Aye. I am slightly bemused by the clamour to rate the debaters. With the media focus so much on the leaders themselves and their performance, there is a danger that the policies become secondary to any reason to vote for a particular party. Given that the parties can change their leaders at any time, I think some voters might feel short changed if that were to happen. But that's what happens if we are not clear in our mind that we are voting for a party, not a personality.
Posts: 1547 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
RadicalWhig
Shipmate
# 13190
|
Posted
What is the point of a studio audience which cannot clap, laugh, boo, jeer, or shout?
--------------------
Radical Whiggery for Beginners: "Trampling on the Common Prayer Book, talking against the Scriptures, commending Commonwealths, justifying the murder of King Charles I, railing against priests in general." (Sir Arthur Charlett on John Toland, 1695)
Posts: 3193 | From: Scotland | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
What is the point of a studio audience which cannot clap, laugh, boo, jeer, or shout?
Well, if they could it would be unseemly and rude and . . . . a bit like Prime Minister's Questions at the House of Commons I suppose.
Maybe Hon. Members should be asked to sit down and shut up at PMQ's?
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
