The 2015 Popularity Contest (aka UK General Election )

[chewee]

Fully understand those who feel let down by Labour, I was in the same boat until fairly recently. UKIP is not the answer, they are worse than the tories. There is a concious effort to move away from 'New Labour' and it's politics which if truth be told favoured business and middle England more than the working class.

What people need to realise is that Blair and Miliband are very ideologically different. Ed's dad was a very well known marxist and it might surprise a few but he attended a comprehensive school as a teenager, his belief for a fairer society isn't a strategy or a soundbite to get him the top job it's something he actually believes in (Unlike Blair who would say anything to please a crowd). It's a belief that stems from life experiences.

I make no apology for sounding off like a Miliband fan boy, he's won me over. I have previously been critical of his leadership, it appeared rudderless at times but looking back it was far from it. He remained calm and knew not to overplay his hand too soon, he's bamboozeld the tories who expected him to crumble under the pressure of an election.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

I take your point but the fact is, the Tories are not trusted when it comes to the NHS, even by a sizeable proportion of traditional Tory voters. Could it be to do with things like TTIP and the fear that that will be the thin end of a wedge which will end up in eventual privatisation? Capitalism, especially the American brand, is voracious and totally unsentimental in its intrinsic drive to open new markets solely for the purpose of making money for its own sake, and often against the best interests of ordinary people.

Take a look at what happened to Jamaica when America made trade agreements with it. The Jamaicans were tied up in punitive loans which shackled them into their own poverty whilst American companies undercut their Jamaican rivals - temporarily, of course, just enough to drive them out of business - in order to corner the market. The promise of mutual prosperity from the trade agreement proved to be a sickening lie.

And yet some people welcome TTIP.

It could be, but then nothing I've seen in the documents released by the EU about TTIP suggests that privatisation is going to occur either.

Appreciate that it is not easy and for example currently nursing vacancy rates are running at around 10% (mainly to do with skill shortages though, it has to be said) but to answer your question not all 20,000 would be recruits requiring full training would they?

If the management teams focused on staff retention (nursing turnover is currently over 6%) and say reduced that to 4%, there's a net 8,000 nurses retained. Secondly if they focused on return to work schemes for previously qualified nurses then there would be an uptake, let's say 1% of existing workforce - therefore 4,000 nurses. Continued recruitment in areas of the EEA including Spain, Portugal and Ireland should generate significant numbers (7,500 last year)

This combined with increased funding in nursing training would provide the necessary numbers over the course of the Government. Nursing is still seen as an attractive occupation, according to the RCN 54,000 applicants chase only 20,000 available training spaces each year.

Those are all good suggestions (and things like retention rates, shift patterns etc. are a whole other discussion), but none of them are included anywhere in the manifesto produced by the party.

Don't get me wrong, I'm well aware that, as the saying goes, plans seldom survive the first shot of battle, so I'm certainly not going to sit here and bemoan anyone for not upholding every single part of a plan that in reality never has a chance of being implemented in full. It would be just nice if all parties (and the media) fleshed out their headline propositions a bit more thoroughly.

I mean the NHS 5 year plan is nearly twice as long as the whole Labour manifesto, and I suspect those from the other parties is a similar length. I'm not asking for some SOX style 1,000 page document, but merely some reflection that they've thought these things through (as they surely have).

 

[degsy]

Who's in the medal positions so far then

 

[chewee]

Being a good leader isn't just about how you look on tv, sadly these days that is what people tend to base their opinion on. Policy takes a back seat which when you think about it is bizzare.

Attlee the man who shaped modern day Britain was awful infront of the cameras, was he a bad leader?

 

[1966efc]

Being a good leader isn't just about how you look on tv, sadly these days that is what people tend to base their opinion on. Policy takes a back seat which when you think about it is bizzare.

Attlee the man who shaped modern day Britain was awful infront of the cameras, was he a bad leader?

Well, he beat Churchill's Tories twice. And he beat them three times in terms of the popular vote.

 

[Joey66]

Fully understand those who feel let down by Labour, I was in the same boat until fairly recently. UKIP is not the answer, they are worse than the tories. There is a concious effort to move away from 'New Labour' and it's politics which if truth be told favoured business and middle England more than the working class.

What people need to realise is that Blair and Miliband are very ideologically different. Ed's dad was a very well known marxist and it might surprise a few but he attended a comprehensive school as a teenager, his belief for a fairer society isn't a strategy or a soundbite to get him the top job it's something he actually believes in (Unlike Blair who would say anything to please a crowd). It's a belief that stems from life experiences.

I make no apology for sounding off like a Miliband fan boy, he's won me over. I have previously been critical of his leadership, it appeared rudderless at times but looking back it was far from it. He remained calm and knew not to overplay his hand too soon, he's bamboozeld the tories who expected him to crumble under the pressure of an election.

I have to have been impressed with ED, but he should have played the same game as DC offered an in out on the EU knowing any renegotion he could abandon the referrendum as DC wil!
It's devious politics , but I doubt very much DC will allow a in out vote on the EU to ever happen!

 

[Joey66]

D

Well, he beat Churchill's Tories twice. And he beat them three times in terms of the popular vote.

Totally different era only three main parties with a 90 percent of the votes were on offer to the two main parties!

 

[Clint Planet]

It could be, but then nothing I've seen in the documents released by the EU about TTIP suggests that privatisation is going to occur either.

Not at first, perhaps. But you know and I know that private enterprise is always looking to expand into any market it sees as profitable, often deviously, always amorally.

 

[chewee]

I have to have been impressed with ED, but he should have played the same game as DC offered an in out on the EU knowing any renegotion he could abandon the referrendum as DC wil!
It's devious politics , but I doubt very much DC will allow a in out vote on the EU to ever happen!

Maybe he has more integrity about him than to openly lie about what he will and will not do.

I do agree to an extent, especially with immigration and EU membership high on voter topics it's a dangerous game not offering a referendum. Ed's took a risk but if he gets in it will be a calculated one that has benefits - ie no referendum looming over half his term in office. Cameron pretty much had to offer one with UKIP (And parts of his own party) breathing down his neck.

 

[daylightrobber]

I've touched upon it earlier in this thread but the whole point of having politicians is to make decisions on our behalf.

Referenda are cop outs. Politicians should state what they are going to and the public can then give them the remit to carry that out by voting for them in the general election.

It's a slippery slope to zero accountability.

 

[Tubey]

I've touched upon it earlier in this thread but the whole point of having politicians is to make decisions on our behalf.

Referenda are cop outs. Politicians should state what they are going to and the public can then give them the remit to carry that out by voting for them in the general election.

It's a slippery slope to zero accountability.

Referendums have their place. They are for issues that shouldn't be a general election issue but rather for things that have cross-party support but there's an awareness that the general public don't share that view. For example, Labour back the NHS but want to stay in Europe - there's plenty of people who back the NHS, but DON'T want to stay in Europe, so what are they supposed to do in a general election, vote for loons like UKIP as they're the only party wanting out?

There should be a referendum on Europe if another treaty comes about that changes the power balance in any way. This should have happened after the Lisbon Treaty, and it certainly should happen for any in the future.

 

[The Esk]

always amorally.

not always amorally

 

[Clint Planet]

not always amorally

Fair enough. Forgot about Anita Roddick.

 

[The Esk]

Fair enough. Forgot about Anita Roddick.

thread ban looming lol

 

[Tubey]

Who's in the medal positions so far then

I'd be amazed if it was anything but a minority Labour government backed by the SNP at this point. The Tories won't be able to match that, and their Plan B of having the Lib Dems sell out their party values to prop them up again is both impractical in terms of seats and intolerable for their party membership this time. Clegg will be gone anyway.

So we'll have a situation where even if the Tories have the most seats and tried to go with a minority, the first time they tried to get a major issue through the commons, SNP and Labour would force the dissolution of parliament even if they didn't have a formal agreement, as Labour will vote against the Tories as per and the SNP will vote against absolutely everything they do.