Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Options

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Will UKIP overshadow Cameron’s big day?

SystemSystem Posts: 11,692
edited October 2014 in General

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Will UKIP overshadow Cameron’s big day?

Coupled with the seven day a week GP promise announced yesterday, it is clear what the Tories will be focussing upon. I suspect the NHS will form a key part of the election battle. It will be risky business for both the Blues and Reds.

Read the full story here


«134

Comments

  • Options
    First ..... again!
  • Options
    AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,758
    Brown having made a bit of a comeback in the Indyref, goes off on one showing he has learned nothing in the last 5 years.

    http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/scottish-politics/brown-accuses-cameron-of-setting-trap-for-scots-voters.25475080
  • Options
    GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071
    Podium finish!
  • Options
    Ok, according to SKY, this is Farage's big surprise... http://news.sky.com/story/1345219/conservative-party-donor-switches-to-ukip
  • Options

    Ok, according to SKY, this is Farage's big surprise... http://news.sky.com/story/1345219/conservative-party-donor-switches-to-ukip

    Odd isn't it that these very rich and presumably very smart people like Paul Sykes and Arron Banks risk handing the next GE to Labour on a plate by transferring their allegiance to UKIP?
  • Options
    JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901

    Ok, according to SKY, this is Farage's big surprise... http://news.sky.com/story/1345219/conservative-party-donor-switches-to-ukip

    Odd isn't it that these very rich and presumably very smart people like Paul Sykes and Arron Banks risk handing the next GE to Labour on a plate by transferring their allegiance to UKIP?
    I know that this is impossible for you to understand, but maybe they don't like what the Tories have to offer, are not obsessed about Labour and feel that UKIP best represents their views.
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,125

    Brown having made a bit of a comeback in the Indyref, goes off on one showing he has learned nothing in the last 5 years.

    http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/scottish-politics/brown-accuses-cameron-of-setting-trap-for-scots-voters.25475080

    Brown obviously feels he needs to raise his profile as Scotland's Most Important Has-been, now Salmond has stepped down...

    Although, you wonder why they bother, as neither will match Jeanette Krankie.
  • Options
    Jonathan said:

    Ok, according to SKY, this is Farage's big surprise... http://news.sky.com/story/1345219/conservative-party-donor-switches-to-ukip

    Odd isn't it that these very rich and presumably very smart people like Paul Sykes and Arron Banks risk handing the next GE to Labour on a plate by transferring their allegiance to UKIP?
    I know that this is impossible for you to understand, but maybe they don't like what the Tories have to offer, are not obsessed about Labour and feel that UKIP best represents their views.
    Jonathan, I think you could profit by Googling "irony"...

  • Options
    FregglesFreggles Posts: 3,486
    Not an MP? I'm disappointed, I must admit.
  • Options
    Whew, Cameron is scared, isn't he, if he's offering to protect the NHS from further cuts. This will at least hearten all those senior bureaucrats who have no other work to do but to make those cuts. Will someone (Osborne presumably) explain to our dim PM that the NHS is unaffordable, because treatments get more and more expensive and every year there are more and more sickly and unproductive oldies? Even Labour knows this, so why he doesn't is beyond me...
  • Options
    JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901

    Jonathan said:

    Ok, according to SKY, this is Farage's big surprise... http://news.sky.com/story/1345219/conservative-party-donor-switches-to-ukip

    Odd isn't it that these very rich and presumably very smart people like Paul Sykes and Arron Banks risk handing the next GE to Labour on a plate by transferring their allegiance to UKIP?
    I know that this is impossible for you to understand, but maybe they don't like what the Tories have to offer, are not obsessed about Labour and feel that UKIP best represents their views.
    Jonathan, I think you could profit by Googling "irony"...

    If only that were the case.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,333
    Brave of Cameron, if that headline is reflective of the spin, to major on the NHS. Generally speaking focussing on the NHS boosts Labour. Even Stafford and other disgraces did not break the trend of having the NHS in the news being good for Labour. One of Hunt's considerable achievements has to be to ensure the NHS is not in the news nearly as often as it was under Lansley.

    So how is he going to do it? The answer must be to tie the NHS to his strong point in the economy. His line will be that unless you have sensible and competent policies on the economy and, above all, deal with the deficit, it will not be possible to protect the NHS.

    I suspect that he will also major on the point that the Tories are willing to tell us, and at least in part have told us, where the necessary and inevitable cuts will fall to allow the NHS to be protected. A person not willing to say where the cuts will fall cannot be trusted in the same way.

    Will it work? Doubtful. The Labour lead on the NHS is too great. Fighting the battle on someone else's ground is rarely a good idea. He would have been better playing to his strengths. But it is brave.
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,125
    UKIP are a party of gesture politics, where that gesture is the two-fingered salute.

    Which is hardly a manifesto for governing the country. The paucity of policy was on show at Doncaster.

    I suspect that come late 2015, when he has voted 95%+ of the time with the Conservatives, Douglas Carswell will be wondering "what was the point to it all?" As he fails to stop Ed Miliband from enacting a raft of legislation that makes his blood boil.

    And Mark Reckless will be wondering the same, as he takes another forlorn trip down to the Job Centre to see if anybody wants to employ an arsehole....
  • Options
    mattmatt Posts: 3,789
    Well, that was the defector....
  • Options
    chestnutchestnut Posts: 7,341
    YouGov:

    01.10.14 SNP 43, Labour 23.
    01.10.13 Labour 39, SNP 23
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,333

    UKIP are a party of gesture politics, where that gesture is the two-fingered salute.

    Which is hardly a manifesto for governing the country. The paucity of policy was on show at Doncaster.

    I suspect that come late 2015, when he has voted 95%+ of the time with the Conservatives, Douglas Carswell will be wondering "what was the point to it all?" As he fails to stop Ed Miliband from enacting a raft of legislation that makes his blood boil.

    And Mark Reckless will be wondering the same, as he takes another forlorn trip down to the Job Centre to see if anybody wants to employ an arsehole....

    Quite.

    Carswell will also note that Ed has no intention of attempting any renegotiation of powers with the EU, that the serious and obvious implications for the UK in an ever more integrated Eurozone is something that apparently passes him by and does not concern him and that any discussion of a possible referendum on membership will be met with derision.

    But he will have been right won't he? The same as these loons have been "right" since 1992. And have done nothing but harm.
  • Options
    SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    FPT - What’s the antonym of: bounce?
  • Options
    Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453

    FPT - What’s the antonym of: bounce?

    pancake
  • Options
    DavidL said:

    UKIP are a party of gesture politics, where that gesture is the two-fingered salute.

    Which is hardly a manifesto for governing the country. The paucity of policy was on show at Doncaster.

    I suspect that come late 2015, when he has voted 95%+ of the time with the Conservatives, Douglas Carswell will be wondering "what was the point to it all?" As he fails to stop Ed Miliband from enacting a raft of legislation that makes his blood boil.

    And Mark Reckless will be wondering the same, as he takes another forlorn trip down to the Job Centre to see if anybody wants to employ an arsehole....

    Quite.

    Carswell will also note that Ed has no intention of attempting any renegotiation of powers with the EU, that the serious and obvious implications for the UK in an ever more integrated Eurozone is something that apparently passes him by and does not concern him and that any discussion of a possible referendum on membership will be met with derision.

    But he will have been right won't he? The same as these loons have been "right" since 1992. And have done nothing but harm.
    You seem a bit down this morning, David. Let me cheer you up by reminding us all of my prediction for the GE next May:

    Con 35%, Lab 25%, UKIP 23%. SNP to poll more in Scotland than LDs do in the whole of Great Britain. (Dunno if Nick Palmer is still happy with my £20 to charity or not.)

  • Options
    Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    Boris on Newsnight last night was excellent. Betrayed the scholar behind the clown mask "Which is the only word in Churchill's 'fight them on the beaches' speech that derives from a Latinate (Romantic) language?"
  • Options
    I thought the top 3 issues for voters were recently identified as (in order):
    1. The economy / public finances
    2. Immigration
    3. NHS

    Dave would be a fruitloop to focus mainly on No3 - which is Labour's pet. OK to go on protective manoeuvres here and offer comfort on 'NHS safe with us'- but the core GE stuff must also be on 1 and 2.
    Ozzy has set out clear blue water between the Tories and Labour on 1 - and needs to keep pushing and extending this lead and further undermine voter confidence in Labour economic competence. A bit of fearmongering about interest rates and ability to pay for anything when Ed N Ed wreck the economy all over again is on the cards.
    On 2 - well this is a UKIP strength more than a Tory one. Still in need of some red meat from Dave.
  • Options
    Blue_rogBlue_rog Posts: 2,019

    FPT - What’s the antonym of: bounce?

    Splat :-)
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,423
    edited October 2014
    Quite a clever trick, politically, if he can pull it off. Cameron intends to use one of his major strengths to pull the rug from under Labour's greatest strength, and therefore make it his own. By linking real increases in NHS funding to economic credibility, he can kill two birds with one stone and enhance his electability to swing voters.

    Whether it's a good idea to pour yet more money into the bottomless pit of the NHS, at the expense of other deserving government departments, with no real notable improvement in national health outcomes, is another matter.
  • Options
    SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    Patrick said:

    I thought the top 3 issues for voters were recently identified as (in order):
    1. The economy / public finances
    2. Immigration
    3. NHS

    Dave would be a fruitloop to focus mainly on No3 - which is Labour's pet. OK to go on protective manoeuvres here and offer comfort on 'NHS safe with us'- but the core GE stuff must also be on 1 and 2.
    Ozzy has set out clear blue water between the Tories and Labour on 1 - and needs to keep pushing and extending this lead and further undermine voter confidence in Labour economic competence. A bit of fearmongering about interest rates and ability to pay for anything when Ed N Ed wreck the economy all over again is on the cards.
    On 2 - well this is a UKIP strength more than a Tory one. Still in need of some red meat from Dave.

    I completely agree. The Conservatives need to make sure they have a solid defence on the NHS but going on offence here is never going to work: people's irrational antipathy to private providers in health and the lack of understanding of the need to find savings just means it will always be an uphill struggle.
  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,779
    It's "brave" but the Tories cannot leave the NHS as an uncontested Labour fiefdom - what they have to do is shout from the rooftops that they are talking about NHS ENGLAND - and compare and contrast with Labour's NHS WALES - further reinforcing the EVEL point too.

    For me the bigger picture is that the Tories appear hungry for power and are up for a fight - in contrast with Labour last week. Given the hill they have to climb, just as well.......
  • Options
    A somewhat 'End of Days' article over at Zerohedge:

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-09-30/if-something-rattles-ponzi-scheme-life-america-will-change-overnight

    Thing is - it's right. And what's more, pretty much the same is true of us. What will happen to the UK when we stop being able to borrow vast amounts of money very cheaply? Answer: Things get ugly. Let's stop borrowing. Let's balance the books and slowly start to repay our debt. The one really hopeful thing for the UK vs USA is that we at least borrow long and don't have nearly the same pressure to keep rolling over short term bonds.

    Lefties - read the article and engage critical thinking circuits. Your 'jam tomorrow' dreams depend on it getting this right. Everything does.
  • Options
    FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    Interesting comment by Sir Tim Bell (ex PR guru to Mrs T) on R4 Today.

    "We have moved from a deference society to a reference society".

    By which he meant that in days before IT, people listened to and often accepted the views of politicians, commentators and the press (a top down society). Today opinions are formed on blogs, web-sites, Twitter, Facebook etc and so it has become a bottom up society which allows one-topic movements to grow and then perhaps die when their time has moved on.

    So that is why politicians have become so disrespected (of course the expenses scandal did not help). So will we see a call for errant politicians "A la lanterne!"?
  • Options
    PeterCPeterC Posts: 1,274
    DavidL said:

    UKIP are a party of gesture politics, where that gesture is the two-fingered salute.

    Which is hardly a manifesto for governing the country. The paucity of policy was on show at Doncaster.

    I suspect that come late 2015, when he has voted 95%+ of the time with the Conservatives, Douglas Carswell will be wondering "what was the point to it all?" As he fails to stop Ed Miliband from enacting a raft of legislation that makes his blood boil.

    And Mark Reckless will be wondering the same, as he takes another forlorn trip down to the Job Centre to see if anybody wants to employ an arsehole....

    Quite.

    Carswell will also note that Ed has no intention of attempting any renegotiation of powers with the EU, that the serious and obvious implications for the UK in an ever more integrated Eurozone is something that apparently passes him by and does not concern him and that any discussion of a possible referendum on membership will be met with derision.

    But he will have been right won't he? The same as these loons have been "right" since 1992. And have done nothing but harm.
    Spot on.

  • Options
    SmarmeronSmarmeron Posts: 5,099
    @Patrick
    And your "jam" relies on having a functioning society.
    Screw it up, and it will be on the kitchen floor sticky side down.
  • Options
    Five weeks after the Rotherham report and these questions are still unanswered:

    1) Why hasn't Home Secretary Theresa May taken action against the South Yorkshire Police after the media reports of their collaboration with child rapists.

    2) Why hasn't Children's Minister Edward Timpson placed Rotherham Children's Services into special measures.

    3) How much did the locally well connected former Communities Minister Sayeeda Warsi know about what was happening and how did she act on her knowledge.

    4) Why has Prime Minister David Cameron allowed at least three government departments to take no action after his emphasis as Leader of the Opposition on 'Broken Britain'.

  • Options

    Quite a clever trick, politically, if he can pull it off. Cameron intends to use one of his major strengths to pull the rug from under Labour's greatest strength, and therefore make it his own. By linking real increases in NHS funding to economic credibility, he can kill two birds with one stone and enhance his electability to swing voters.

    Whether it's a good idea to pour yet more money into the bottomless pit of the NHS, at the expense of other deserving government departments, with no real notable improvement in national health outcomes, is another matter.

    If you don't increase the death rate, you won't sort out the deficit.

  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,779
    Interesting that as the news is full of UKIP defections, the salience of Europe declines further among voters:

    Importance to:
    Country: 14 (-3)
    You/Your family: 8 (-2)
  • Options
    Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453

    Quite a clever trick, politically, if he can pull it off. Cameron intends to use one of his major strengths to pull the rug from under Labour's greatest strength, and therefore make it his own. By linking real increases in NHS funding to economic credibility, he can kill two birds with one stone and enhance his electability to swing voters.

    Aided an abetted by the useful idiot Burnham

    @andyburnhammp: NHS facing huge funding pressures in 2015-20 Parliament. It is just not credible for Tories to make new promises without finding new money.

    So Labour agree credibility on the NHS is intimately tied to economic credibility.

    Oops
  • Options
    AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340

    Quite a clever trick, politically, if he can pull it off. Cameron intends to use one of his major strengths to pull the rug from under Labour's greatest strength, and therefore make it his own. By linking real increases in NHS funding to economic credibility, he can kill two birds with one stone and enhance his electability to swing voters.

    Whether it's a good idea to pour yet more money into the bottomless pit of the NHS, at the expense of other deserving government departments, with no real notable improvement in national health outcomes, is another matter.

    If you don't increase the death rate, you won't sort out the deficit.

    http://vaporcloudreviews.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/dilbert-2005-10-27.jpg
  • Options
    Innocent_AbroadInnocent_Abroad Posts: 3,294
    edited October 2014
    Patrick said:

    A somewhat 'End of Days' article over at Zerohedge:

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-09-30/if-something-rattles-ponzi-scheme-life-america-will-change-overnight

    Thing is - it's right. And what's more, pretty much the same is true of us. What will happen to the UK when we stop being able to borrow vast amounts of money very cheaply? Answer: Things get ugly. Let's stop borrowing. Let's balance the books and slowly start to repay our debt. The one really hopeful thing for the UK vs USA is that we at least borrow long and don't have nearly the same pressure to keep rolling over short term bonds.

    Lefties - read the article and engage critical thinking circuits. Your 'jam tomorrow' dreams depend on it getting this right. Everything does.

    What's the US government's credit rating?

    BTW this is not a critique of the article one way or the other. Part of me is quite taken with the idea of Marx's prophesy - capitalism collapsing under its own contradictions - being fulfilled in my lifetime.
  • Options
    Smarmeron said:

    @Patrick
    And your "jam" relies on having a functioning society.
    Screw it up, and it will be on the kitchen floor sticky side down.

    Are you suggesting that a functioning society is incompatible with a balanced budget?

    THE big challenge for politiicans is to find a way to balance the books and somehow keep the whole shebang from going splat. I think the Tories have given this some thought - imperfect for sure, but it exists. It is clear Labour have not even started to consider the risk.
  • Options
    RogerRoger Posts: 18,891
    To an outsider there's something not quite wholesome about UKIP and the Tories at the moment.......

    Another Cash appears who has the same christian name as his slightly fruitcake father and is joining UKIP. Fruitcakery runs in families?


    Guido's team turns honey trap and persuades a Tory minister to send pictures of his pen*s by phone. (Seriously!)

    The aptly named Reckless defects to the fruitcakes and gets called 'a liar' by 'Michael Green' the most accomplished since Profumo.

    Stuart Wheeler 'the Dealer' and Tory donor reveals himself as the man behind the defections to UKIP. (It must have been difficult getting him to out himself!)

    Kenneth Clarke describes UKIPers as sad old men with pointless lives.

    At which point Neil Hamilton shows up.......

    ......And all against the backdrop of what used to be called the 'Blue Rinse Hang 'em and flog 'em show'




  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    Quite a clever trick, politically, if he can pull it off. Cameron intends to use one of his major strengths to pull the rug from under Labour's greatest strength, and therefore make it his own. By linking real increases in NHS funding to economic credibility, he can kill two birds with one stone and enhance his electability to swing voters.

    Whether it's a good idea to pour yet more money into the bottomless pit of the NHS, at the expense of other deserving government departments, with no real notable improvement in national health outcomes, is another matter.

    The reason that even ring-fenced spending is a tremendous strain on NHS budgets is straightforward and nothing to do with being "a bottomless pit". An 80 year old costs the NHS 9 times the cost of a 30 year old, and we are an ageing population.

    We are also seeing many chickens coming home to roost from the destructive changes in postgraduate medical training carried out by Patricia Hewitt. There simply are not enough GPs being trained to deliver the services required in primary care. All too often GP Trainees are used to prop up hospital rotas rather than train for general practice.

    The conversation on the NHS misses the only thing that really needs to be discussed: How do we ration demand? Do we restrict what is covered or do we charge co-payments? Simply pretending that everyone can have every bit of health care free, quickly and of the highest quality is just lying to the public.
  • Options
    MonksfieldMonksfield Posts: 2,203

    Ok, according to SKY, this is Farage's big surprise... http://news.sky.com/story/1345219/conservative-party-donor-switches-to-ukip

    Odd isn't it that these very rich and presumably very smart people like Paul Sykes and Arron Banks risk handing the next GE to Labour on a plate by transferring their allegiance to UKIP?
    Not really, the Con party isn't delivering what they want.
  • Options
    PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    edited October 2014
    Squib?

    Speaking of irony upthread - it's amazing how Alanis Morrisette managed to get that almost entirely wrong in a song about it.

    Unfortunate coincidences or rain on your wedding day is not irony.

    FPT - What’s the antonym of: bounce?

  • Options
    Patrick said:

    Smarmeron said:

    @Patrick
    And your "jam" relies on having a functioning society.
    Screw it up, and it will be on the kitchen floor sticky side down.

    Are you suggesting that a functioning society is incompatible with a balanced budget?

    THE big challenge for politiicans is to find a way to balance the books and somehow keep the whole shebang from going splat. I think the Tories have given this some thought - imperfect for sure, but it exists. It is clear Labour have not even started to consider the risk.
    How do you know what Labour have or have not started to consider? It's a usual ploy for incoming governments to claim that now that they have "seen the books" there has to be an emergency budget and a pledge bonfire. And after all, Labour these days have no principles whatsoever. Only front benchers who take money from bookies "completely within the rules".

  • Options
    SmarmeronSmarmeron Posts: 5,099
    @Patrick
    Everyone knows the risk, but the idea that you reduce poverty by making the rich wealthier at the expense of those below is insane.
    The only thing that trickles down from above these days is sewage, and even the more bovine amongst the population are starting to notice.
  • Options
    Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453


    Not really, the Con party isn't delivering what they want.

    And Labour will deliver even less
  • Options
    Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @PickardJE: Now Ukip announces obscure Tory donor switching sides. Reinforces a sense of diminishing returns from the defection announcements.
  • Options

    Quite a clever trick, politically, if he can pull it off. Cameron intends to use one of his major strengths to pull the rug from under Labour's greatest strength, and therefore make it his own. By linking real increases in NHS funding to economic credibility, he can kill two birds with one stone and enhance his electability to swing voters.

    Whether it's a good idea to pour yet more money into the bottomless pit of the NHS, at the expense of other deserving government departments, with no real notable improvement in national health outcomes, is another matter.

    The reason that even ring-fenced spending is a tremendous strain on NHS budgets is straightforward and nothing to do with being "a bottomless pit". An 80 year old costs the NHS 9 times the cost of a 30 year old, and we are an ageing population.

    We are also seeing many chickens coming home to roost from the destructive changes in postgraduate medical training carried out by Patricia Hewitt. There simply are not enough GPs being trained to deliver the services required in primary care. All too often GP Trainees are used to prop up hospital rotas rather than train for general practice.

    The conversation on the NHS misses the only thing that really needs to be discussed: How do we ration demand? Do we restrict what is covered or do we charge co-payments? Simply pretending that everyone can have every bit of health care free, quickly and of the highest quality is just lying to the public.
    Quite so. What do you think Labour's plan to merge health and social care is all about?

  • Options
    Roger said:

    To an outsider there's something not quite wholesome about UKIP and the Tories at the moment.......

    Another Cash appears who has the same christian name as his slightly fruitcake father and is joining UKIP. Fruitcakery runs in families?


    Guido's team turns honey trap and persuades a Tory minister to send pictures of his pen*s by phone. (Seriously!)

    The aptly named Reckless defects to the fruitcakes and gets called 'a liar' by 'Michael Green' the most accomplished since Profumo.

    Stuart Wheeler 'the Dealer' and Tory donor reveals himself as the man behind the defections to UKIP. (It must have been difficult getting him to out himself!)

    Kenneth Clarke describes UKIPers as sad old men with pointless lives.

    At which point Neil Hamilton shows up.......

    ......And all against the backdrop of what used to be called the 'Blue Rinse Hang 'em and flog 'em show'





    Like (even as a blue man).
  • Options
    PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    I agree - making your opponent's USP your own, is a high-wire act, but the rewards are huge if you can pull it off.

    Tony stole the Tory's clothes by doing exactly that. He couldn't keep it up forever - but managed it long enough to get elected 3x.

    I'm sure a few of us on here have done something similar in our professional lives - it's not impossible, just really hard.

    Quite a clever trick, politically, if he can pull it off. Cameron intends to use one of his major strengths to pull the rug from under Labour's greatest strength, and therefore make it his own. By linking real increases in NHS funding to economic credibility, he can kill two birds with one stone and enhance his electability to swing voters.

    Whether it's a good idea to pour yet more money into the bottomless pit of the NHS, at the expense of other deserving government departments, with no real notable improvement in national health outcomes, is another matter.

  • Options
    SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    BBC - The Ministry of Defence has awarded £3.2bn of contracts to support the management of UK naval bases at Devonport, Faslane and Portsmouth. As a result, ~7,500 jobs have been secured.

    As Faslane is included, I wonder if this announcement had been delayed, pending the result of the Scot’s indy result?

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29438640
  • Options
    Scott_P said:

    @PickardJE: Now Ukip announces obscure Tory donor switching sides. Reinforces a sense of diminishing returns from the defection announcements.

    hopefully..... could still be a diversion with bigger fish to come later .... where's hugh's popcorn.
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,991
    Good morning, everyone.

    If an MP defected during the speech (or shortly before/after) that wouldn't strike me as a lark, but Farage and that MP acting as juvenile delinquents. If it's about principle, then resignation should occur when the mind changes. Reckless and this theoretical third MP would be certainly defecting as a political stunt, like Quentin Davies [I believe that's his surname] did when he jumped ship to Labour.

    Can't speak for anyone else (except the enormo-haddock, of course, and the octo-lemurs) but it just puts me off.
  • Options
    SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    Plato said:

    Squib?

    Speaking of irony upthread - it's amazing how Alanis Morrisette managed to get that almost entirely wrong in a song about it.

    Unfortunate coincidences or rain on your wedding day is not irony.

    FPT - What’s the antonym of: bounce?

    Maybe she was being incredibly clever by singing a song about irony that doesn't understand what irony is. That's ironic.
  • Options
    SmarmeronSmarmeron Posts: 5,099
    Join the Tories, your NHS, safe in the hands of American health companies!
    Fortune favours the brave as the saying goes.
  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,273

    Scott_P said:

    @PickardJE: Now Ukip announces obscure Tory donor switching sides. Reinforces a sense of diminishing returns from the defection announcements.

    hopefully..... could still be a diversion with bigger fish to come later .... where's hugh's popcorn.
    Morning all,

    If they don't have a MP to defect timed for Cameron's speech then it raises the question: why didn't UKIP hold Reckless back until Wednesday? Or, more conspiratorially, a defectee has pulled out at the last minute. Possible under threat from Boris.
  • Options
    CD13CD13 Posts: 6,351
    Dr Fox,

    We seem reluctant to confront the central issue on the NHS. It's becoming a geriatric service and therefore a very expensive one.

    A victim of modern medicine.

    Pretending that re-organisation or ring fencing is the answer is ignoring the facts
  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 32,014
    edited October 2014

    Quite a clever trick, politically, if he can pull it off. Cameron intends to use one of his major strengths to pull the rug from under Labour's greatest strength, and therefore make it his own. By linking real increases in NHS funding to economic credibility, he can kill two birds with one stone and enhance his electability to swing voters.

    Whether it's a good idea to pour yet more money into the bottomless pit of the NHS, at the expense of other deserving government departments, with no real notable improvement in national health outcomes, is another matter.

    The reason that even ring-fenced spending is a tremendous strain on NHS budgets is straightforward and nothing to do with being "a bottomless pit". An 80 year old costs the NHS 9 times the cost of a 30 year old, and we are an ageing population.

    We are also seeing many chickens coming home to roost from the destructive changes in postgraduate medical training carried out by Patricia Hewitt. There simply are not enough GPs being trained to deliver the services required in primary care. All too often GP Trainees are used to prop up hospital rotas rather than train for general practice.

    The conversation on the NHS misses the only thing that really needs to be discussed: How do we ration demand? Do we restrict what is covered or do we charge co-payments? Simply pretending that everyone can have every bit of health care free, quickly and of the highest quality is just lying to the public.
    Absolutely right. We also have all sorts of special pleading from people understandably and rightly, concerned for their own loved ones, and by politicians, understandably with an eye to votes, supporting them.
    In the CCG area where I live the decision has been made to stop funding all artificial fertilisation. No ifs, no buts. all of it. If a couple can’t get “her” pregnant, then the NHS can’t help. We haven’t had a “hard case” yet, but unquestionably we will do at some point.
  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,273
    Plato said:

    I agree - making your opponent's USP your own, is a high-wire act, but the rewards are huge if you can pull it off.

    Tony stole the Tory's clothes by doing exactly that. He couldn't keep it up forever - but managed it long enough to get elected 3x.

    I'm sure a few of us on here have done something similar in our professional lives - it's not impossible, just really hard.

    Quite a clever trick, politically, if he can pull it off. Cameron intends to use one of his major strengths to pull the rug from under Labour's greatest strength, and therefore make it his own. By linking real increases in NHS funding to economic credibility, he can kill two birds with one stone and enhance his electability to swing voters.

    Whether it's a good idea to pour yet more money into the bottomless pit of the NHS, at the expense of other deserving government departments, with no real notable improvement in national health outcomes, is another matter.

    Alternatively, Cameron can see there is no choice with an ageing population. King's Fund estimate NHS will need an extra £20b or more over next few years. All the parties had to face up to this, one way or another.
  • Options
    NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,351



    Con 35%, Lab 25%, UKIP 23%. SNP to poll more in Scotland than LDs do in the whole of Great Britain. (Dunno if Nick Palmer is still happy with my £20 to charity or not.)

    I missed this offer, Innocent - what was it?

    Also haven't seen audreyanne confirm the bet she proposed - she suggested a bet that the Tories would be (I think) 8 points clear, I said yes, would she like £10 or £20, but I've not seen a reply yet (may have just missed it).

    On topic, if Mr Cameron wants to fight the election on the NHS, that's absolutely fine with us. Bring it on!

  • Options
    SmarmeronSmarmeron Posts: 5,099
    @rottenborough
    Could be that Reckless decided that defecting just after Dave's speech was a step to far?
    Though from a political point of view, it is the best time, "I waited to see if Dave would address the countries concerns, alas....." ?
  • Options
    PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    I think that's true to a certain extent. However, I think the issue is more of a strategic one. As a PR man, he's right - things pop up out of nowhere a lot more than they used to/create a storm, then fizzle out. I'd be amazed if 5% of people who climbed on the Outrage Bus could name 2 issues they did for.

    Firms that do social media engagement/are on their toes about listening to their customers tend to be fairly safe, it's when it comes to longer term stuff that it becomes too fragmented and corporates tend to fail to explain in the right way. It comes out as boardroom/shareholder driven rather than customer driven = even if they're often the same thing in the end.

    Politicians do the same - policies pop out of apparently nowhere, create a fuss and then get dropped too often. The more this happens as a result of fact-free opinions on Twitter et al - the more the public will take notice/learn to mob bully them instead.

    In many ways - it's a good turn of the wheel. Politicians just need to get a lot sharper about it. And most of all, learn that whipping up a cheap mob will rebound on them all soon enough.
    Financier said:

    Interesting comment by Sir Tim Bell (ex PR guru to Mrs T) on R4 Today.

    "We have moved from a deference society to a reference society".

    By which he meant that in days before IT, people listened to and often accepted the views of politicians, commentators and the press (a top down society). Today opinions are formed on blogs, web-sites, Twitter, Facebook etc and so it has become a bottom up society which allows one-topic movements to grow and then perhaps die when their time has moved on.

    So that is why politicians have become so disrespected (of course the expenses scandal did not help). So will we see a call for errant politicians "A la lanterne!"?

  • Options
    FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    edited October 2014
    YoGov's last three polls shows both the Cons and Labour losing more 2010VI to UKIP.

    However, in issues affecting your country, economy has bounced back to level with immigration and health has increased again.

    On issue affecting you and your family, economy has increased its lead over health.

    Also 40% of the VI think that the Cons would eliminate the deficit by 2020, but only 17% believe Labour would. Is this a matter of capability or being trusted to keep promises?

    http://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/09/30/tories-twice-trusted-deficit/
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    Quite a clever trick, politically, if he can pull it off. Cameron intends to use one of his major strengths to pull the rug from under Labour's greatest strength, and therefore make it his own. By linking real increases in NHS funding to economic credibility, he can kill two birds with one stone and enhance his electability to swing voters.

    Whether it's a good idea to pour yet more money into the bottomless pit of the NHS, at the expense of other deserving government departments, with no real notable improvement in national health outcomes, is another matter.

    The reason that even ring-fenced spending is a tremendous strain on NHS budgets is straightforward and nothing to do with being "a bottomless pit". An 80 year old costs the NHS 9 times the cost of a 30 year old, and we are an ageing population.

    We are also seeing many chickens coming home to roost from the destructive changes in postgraduate medical training carried out by Patricia Hewitt. There simply are not enough GPs being trained to deliver the services required in primary care. All too often GP Trainees are used to prop up hospital rotas rather than train for general practice.

    The conversation on the NHS misses the only thing that really needs to be discussed: How do we ration demand? Do we restrict what is covered or do we charge co-payments? Simply pretending that everyone can have every bit of health care free, quickly and of the highest quality is just lying to the public.
    Quite so. What do you think Labour's plan to merge health and social care is all about?

    It is probably a better way of managing the frail elderly outside acute hospitals in terms of cost, but high quality care in the social sector requires well trained and motivated staff. We see in the various scandals in the care home sector that private companies are perfectly capable of running their own mini Staffords.

    Devolving budgets and supervision to local councils does have attractions (and is a policy that UKIP have copied from Labour, though Labour themselves have copied the majority of it from Norman Lambs work as minister) but also risks. Local councils can run very poor services if they are one party states such as Rotherham.
  • Options
    Smarmeron said:

    Join the Tories, your NHS, safe in the hands of American health companies!
    Fortune favours the brave as the saying goes.

    Indeed. Both Labour and the Tories prioritise their own income streams above the actual provision of care. Labour wants the largest NHS payroll to maximise its income from the political levy and the Tories want services devolved to private companies who can make them donations.

  • Options
    New politics...

    Mr Banks, who has donated more than £250,000 to the Tories since David Cameron became leader in 2005, is to give a £100,000 cheque to UKIP leader Nigel Farage........Mr Farage said Mr Banks had also expressed an interest in standing as a candidate for UKIP in next year's general election.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29438653
  • Options
    SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    Patrick said:

    A somewhat 'End of Days' article over at Zerohedge:

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-09-30/if-something-rattles-ponzi-scheme-life-america-will-change-overnight

    Thing is - it's right. And what's more, pretty much the same is true of us. What will happen to the UK when we stop being able to borrow vast amounts of money very cheaply? Answer: Things get ugly. Let's stop borrowing. Let's balance the books and slowly start to repay our debt. The one really hopeful thing for the UK vs USA is that we at least borrow long and don't have nearly the same pressure to keep rolling over short term bonds.

    Lefties - read the article and engage critical thinking circuits. Your 'jam tomorrow' dreams depend on it getting this right. Everything does.

    No, it's not right. It's just part of ZeroHedge's permanently apocalyptic world view. It's reminiscent of early Christians always claiming the End of Days was just round the corner. We have genuinely concerning issues to face with government debt, and we need to address them, but it is not an imminent crisis. The US has already taken major action on this, going from this:

    http://pixel.nymag.com/imgs/daily/intelligencer/2014/09/22/22-debt-chart2.w529.h352.png

    to this:

    http://pixel.nymag.com/imgs/daily/intelligencer/2014/09/22/22-debt-chart.w529.h352.png

    The only sensible way to look at government debt is relative to ability to pay, i.e. GDP. The Zero Hedge article puts these numbers in absolute, nominal terms just to seem scary. But it's clearly just scaremongering.
  • Options
    Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453

    On topic, if Mr Cameron wants to fight the election on the NHS, that's absolutely fine with us. Bring it on!

    No, he wants to fight it on who can credibly fund the NHS
  • Options
    SmarmeronSmarmeron Posts: 5,099
    @Innocent_Abroad
    It was ever thus.
    The "market" should be used for things it is best suited for, state ownership where the market fails.
    Neither is right or wrong, but they prioritize different things.
  • Options
    SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322

    Quite a clever trick, politically, if he can pull it off. Cameron intends to use one of his major strengths to pull the rug from under Labour's greatest strength, and therefore make it his own. By linking real increases in NHS funding to economic credibility, he can kill two birds with one stone and enhance his electability to swing voters.

    Whether it's a good idea to pour yet more money into the bottomless pit of the NHS, at the expense of other deserving government departments, with no real notable improvement in national health outcomes, is another matter.

    The reason that even ring-fenced spending is a tremendous strain on NHS budgets is straightforward and nothing to do with being "a bottomless pit". An 80 year old costs the NHS 9 times the cost of a 30 year old, and we are an ageing population.

    We are also seeing many chickens coming home to roost from the destructive changes in postgraduate medical training carried out by Patricia Hewitt. There simply are not enough GPs being trained to deliver the services required in primary care. All too often GP Trainees are used to prop up hospital rotas rather than train for general practice.

    The conversation on the NHS misses the only thing that really needs to be discussed: How do we ration demand? Do we restrict what is covered or do we charge co-payments? Simply pretending that everyone can have every bit of health care free, quickly and of the highest quality is just lying to the public.
    Absolutely right. We also have all sorts of special pleading from people understandably and rightly, concerned for their own loved ones, and by politicians, understandably with an eye to votes, supporting them.
    In the CCG area where I live the decision has been made to stop funding all artificial fertilisation. No ifs, no buts. all of it. If a couple can’t get “her” pregnant, then the NHS can’t help. We haven’t had a “hard case” yet, but unquestionably we will do at some point.
    I have to say this seems very wrong to me. Infertility is clearly a health issue and the innate drive to be a parent is one of humanity's most basic. It seems appalling that people can't get help in that area when we're still providing lung cancer treatment to chain smokers, liver transplants to alcoholics etc.

    We probably need to move our entire welfare state to a contributory one.
  • Options
    FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916



    Con 35%, Lab 25%, UKIP 23%. SNP to poll more in Scotland than LDs do in the whole of Great Britain. (Dunno if Nick Palmer is still happy with my £20 to charity or not.)

    I missed this offer, Innocent - what was it?

    Also haven't seen audreyanne confirm the bet she proposed - she suggested a bet that the Tories would be (I think) 8 points clear, I said yes, would she like £10 or £20, but I've not seen a reply yet (may have just missed it).

    On topic, if Mr Cameron wants to fight the election on the NHS, that's absolutely fine with us. Bring it on!

    @NickP

    And on what part of Labour's record on the NHS would you fight?
  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,779
    Yes - the Tories will never "own" the NHS but they can significantly diminish Labour's lead on it - if they get to "they're both as bad as each other" it will be a significant win. I doubt they can do that in 7 months though......took me 3 years in a previous life.....
    Plato said:

    I agree - making your opponent's USP your own, is a high-wire act, but the rewards are huge if you can pull it off.

    Tony stole the Tory's clothes by doing exactly that. He couldn't keep it up forever - but managed it long enough to get elected 3x.

    I'm sure a few of us on here have done something similar in our professional lives - it's not impossible, just really hard.

    Quite a clever trick, politically, if he can pull it off. Cameron intends to use one of his major strengths to pull the rug from under Labour's greatest strength, and therefore make it his own. By linking real increases in NHS funding to economic credibility, he can kill two birds with one stone and enhance his electability to swing voters.

    Whether it's a good idea to pour yet more money into the bottomless pit of the NHS, at the expense of other deserving government departments, with no real notable improvement in national health outcomes, is another matter.

  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,273



    Con 35%, Lab 25%, UKIP 23%. SNP to poll more in Scotland than LDs do in the whole of Great Britain. (Dunno if Nick Palmer is still happy with my £20 to charity or not.)

    I missed this offer, Innocent - what was it?

    Also haven't seen audreyanne confirm the bet she proposed - she suggested a bet that the Tories would be (I think) 8 points clear, I said yes, would she like £10 or £20, but I've not seen a reply yet (may have just missed it).

    On topic, if Mr Cameron wants to fight the election on the NHS, that's absolutely fine with us. Bring it on!

    No doubt that NHS will be a key election issue. Let's hope it is a proper debate rather than noise. Both parties are going to have to explain how they fix the 'black hole' in the finances that is opening up. For undecided voters this can only be a good thing - there's been too much ducking of the financing issue wrt to ageing population.

    We also need to make sure both parties lay out some serious policies on funding social care: all this mud slinging about 'death' taxes and so on is ridiculous.
  • Options
    RogerRoger Posts: 18,891
    edited October 2014
    Casino

    "Quite a clever trick, politically, if he can pull it off. Cameron intends to use one of his major strengths to pull the rug from under Labour's greatest strength, and therefore make it his own."

    As an ex ad man I'm surprised Cameron doesn't understand that while Labour are the market leader in health any attention that Cameron gives it will inevitably help them not the Tories.
  • Options
    SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322

    New politics...

    Mr Banks, who has donated more than £250,000 to the Tories since David Cameron became leader in 2005, is to give a £100,000 cheque to UKIP leader Nigel Farage........Mr Farage said Mr Banks had also expressed an interest in standing as a candidate for UKIP in next year's general election.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29438653

    You can't expect a party to unilaterally not play the campaign financing game. However, we can criticise UKIP for not demanding reform in this area. They're as bad as the other parties there. It's very wrong that rich people have the opportunity to excise outsized influence in this way. We need two simple rules:

    (1) Only UK registered voters should be allowed to donate to political parties
    (2) The amount any single voter can donate in an election cycle should be capped to a relatively low figure (say £5000).
  • Options
    I gotta go play bridge, Nick - I'm offering £20 at evens on my prediction (just for you I'm breaking the habit of a lifetime). We might do better working this out another ay.
  • Options
    Smarmeron said:

    @Innocent_Abroad
    It was ever thus.
    The "market" should be used for things it is best suited for, state ownership where the market fails.
    Neither is right or wrong, but they prioritize different things.

    Surely. Markets work better the more they approach "perfect competition" (think of food retailing) but relatively poorly when they are oligopolies, as a privatised healthcare system surely would be. However it's oligopolies that create the super-rich.

    And now I must go...

  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,125
    As Enoch Powell pointed out, the NHS is where infinite demand meets finite resources. It will ultimately defeat any Government in its current form. That said, Labour seem worst equipped to manage it, given that they will take irrational economic decisions to keep it in place in its current form.

    All parties should take on board that the NHS is paid for by rich people. The more rich people we can extract taxes from, the more health carefree at the point of use we can have. Idiot Miliband's determination to drive away such people for petty politics needs to be pointed to as the real risk to the NHS.
  • Options
    PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    Cracking good piece on Kippers and electoral arithmetic in The Times today by Danny Fink. Well worth a read.
  • Options
    JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901

    As Enoch Powell pointed out, the NHS is where infinite demand meets finite resources.

    Enoch talking rubbish (again). Nothing 'infinite' about demand on the NHS. Most people hate going to the doctor.
  • Options
    MonikerDiCanioMonikerDiCanio Posts: 5,792
    edited October 2014
    Roger said:

    Casino

    "Quite a clever trick, politically, if he can pull it off. Cameron intends to use one of his major strengths to pull the rug from under Labour's greatest strength, and therefore make it his own."

    As an ex ad man I'm surprised Cameron doesn't understand that while Labour are the market leader in health any attention that Cameron gives it will inevitably help them not the Tories.

    Salmond has managed to successfully portray the SNP as the defenders of the NHS at Labour's expense. Attacking an opponent's strength is often a good strategy.
  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,273
    Socrates said:

    Patrick said:

    A somewhat 'End of Days' article over at Zerohedge:

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-09-30/if-something-rattles-ponzi-scheme-life-america-will-change-overnight

    Thing is - it's right. And what's more, pretty much the same is true of us. What will happen to the UK when we stop being able to borrow vast amounts of money very cheaply? Answer: Things get ugly. Let's stop borrowing. Let's balance the books and slowly start to repay our debt. The one really hopeful thing for the UK vs USA is that we at least borrow long and don't have nearly the same pressure to keep rolling over short term bonds.

    Lefties - read the article and engage critical thinking circuits. Your 'jam tomorrow' dreams depend on it getting this right. Everything does.

    No, it's not right. It's just part of ZeroHedge's permanently apocalyptic world view. It's reminiscent of early Christians always claiming the End of Days was just round the corner. We have genuinely concerning issues to face with government debt, and we need to address them, but it is not an imminent crisis. The US has already taken major action on this, going from this:

    http://pixel.nymag.com/imgs/daily/intelligencer/2014/09/22/22-debt-chart2.w529.h352.png

    to this:

    http://pixel.nymag.com/imgs/daily/intelligencer/2014/09/22/22-debt-chart.w529.h352.png

    The only sensible way to look at government debt is relative to ability to pay, i.e. GDP. The Zero Hedge article puts these numbers in absolute, nominal terms just to seem scary. But it's clearly just scaremongering.
    The Zero Hedge article doesn't say anything about why the US might not be able to borrow money at a low interest rate. As the world's reserve currency it seems highly likely that they will continue to do so. Instability in China might be a seriously dark cloud on the horizon but this isn't mentioned.
  • Options
    MonksfieldMonksfield Posts: 2,203
    Scott_P said:


    Not really, the Con party isn't delivering what they want.

    And Labour will deliver even less
    They're not defecting to Labour.
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 0
    edited October 2014
    Socrates

    The only sensible way to look at government debt is relative to ability to pay, i.e. GDP. The Zero Hedge article puts these numbers in absolute, nominal terms just to seem scary. But it's clearly just scaremongering.

    Hmmm..GDP is a very dangerous thing to celebrate if its growth is itself debt driven. I remember Gordon Brown standing at the dispatch box patting himself on the back quarter after quarter of growth - and failing utterly to understand that the growth was bought with debt not real productive growth. He bequeathed us a monster. Same for the USA. If the GDP growth is borrowed then what happens to GDP when the borrowing has to stop?
  • Options
    surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549

    Roger said:

    Casino

    "Quite a clever trick, politically, if he can pull it off. Cameron intends to use one of his major strengths to pull the rug from under Labour's greatest strength, and therefore make it his own."

    As an ex ad man I'm surprised Cameron doesn't understand that while Labour are the market leader in health any attention that Cameron gives it will inevitably help them not the Tories.

    Salmond has managed to successfully portray the SNP as the defenders of the NHS at Labour's expense. Attacking an opponent's strength is often a good strategy.
    Salmond had no previous reputation of depriving the NHS of funds. So it was not so difficult for him.

    The Tories' problem is different: the public perceive that they do not care about the NHS and are always interested how to bring in the private sector through the back or, indeed, the front door !
  • Options
    JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901

    Roger said:

    Casino

    "Quite a clever trick, politically, if he can pull it off. Cameron intends to use one of his major strengths to pull the rug from under Labour's greatest strength, and therefore make it his own."

    As an ex ad man I'm surprised Cameron doesn't understand that while Labour are the market leader in health any attention that Cameron gives it will inevitably help them not the Tories.

    Salmond has managed to successfully portray the SNP as the defenders of the NHS at Labour's expense. Attacking an opponent's strength is often a good strategy.
    The SNP promoted independence as the best way to defend the NHS from the Tories.

    I am not sure that the Tories can pull off the same trick.
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,125
    Jonathan said:

    As Enoch Powell pointed out, the NHS is where infinite demand meets finite resources.

    Enoch talking rubbish (again). Nothing 'infinite' about demand on the NHS. Most people hate going to the doctor.
    Jonathan talking rubbish again. Try speaking to those people who can't get effective yet highly expensive drugs to prolong their life.

    Modern medicine is at the point where we could extend the life of a great many of our population, through drugs and transplants, if the finance was there. It isn't.
  • Options
    GadflyGadfly Posts: 1,191
    I suspect that the new car tax system could make the news today.

    I spent most of yesterday evening and the last couple of hours trying to tax a vehicle that I unexpectedly need to use today. The online system either refuses to load, or crashes every few seconds. Try clicking apply here... https://www.gov.uk/tax-disc

    Telephoning them just produces an answerphone message about maintenance, and advising to try again later.
  • Options
    SmarmeronSmarmeron Posts: 5,099
    @Patrick
    GDP is a nonsense figure for looking at economic health, but it makes good headlines and is relatively easy to manipulate.
  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 32,014
    Socrates said:

    Quite a clever trick, politically, if he can pull it off. Cameron intends to use one of his major strengths to pull the rug from under Labour's greatest strength, and therefore make it his own. By linking real increases in NHS funding to economic credibility, he can kill two birds with one stone and enhance his electability to swing voters.

    Whether it's a good idea to pour yet more money into the bottomless pit of the NHS, at the expense of other deserving government departments, with no real notable improvement in national health outcomes, is another matter.

    The reason that even ring-fenced spending is a tremendous strain on NHS budgets is straightforward and nothing to do with being "a bottomless pit". An 80 year old costs the NHS 9 times the cost of a 30 year old, and we are an ageing population.

    We are also seeing many chickens coming home to roost from the destructive changes in postgraduate medical training carried out by Patricia Hewitt. There simply are not enough GPs being trained to deliver the services required in primary care. All too often GP Trainees are used to prop up hospital rotas rather than train for general practice.

    The conversation on the NHS misses the only thing that really needs to be discussed: How do we ration demand? Do we restrict what is covered or do we charge co-payments? Simply pretending that everyone can have every bit of health care free, quickly and of the highest quality is just lying to the public.
    Absolutely right. We also have all sorts of special pleading from people understandably and rightly, concerned for their own loved ones, and by politicians, understandably with an eye to votes, supporting them.
    In the CCG area where I live the decision has been made to stop funding all artificial fertilisation. No ifs, no buts. all of it. If a couple can’t get “her” pregnant, then the NHS can’t help. We haven’t had a “hard case” yet, but unquestionably we will do at some point.
    I have to say this seems very wrong to me. Infertility is clearly a health issue and the innate drive to be a parent is one of humanity's most basic. It seems appalling that people can't get help in that area when we're still providing lung cancer treatment to chain smokers, liver transplants to alcoholics etc.

    We probably need to move our entire welfare state to a contributory one.
    Quite, Mr Socrates. Health economists grapple with sort of thing as a matter of course. How far should we expect people to accept responsibility for maintaining such good health as they can? Out of which budget does expenditure on suchn health promotion come?
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,991
    Not sure the smoking example works. The taxes on cigarettes mean smokers are massive net contributors to the NHS (on contrast to heavy drinkers).

    If everyone stopped smoking overnight, the health deficit would become worse. If everybody stopped drinking, it'd become better.
  • Options
    surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    Financier said:

    YoGov's last three polls shows both the Cons and Labour losing more 2010VI to UKIP.

    However, in issues affecting your country, economy has bounced back to level with immigration and health has increased again.

    On issue affecting you and your family, economy has increased its lead over health.

    Also 40% of the VI think that the Cons would eliminate the deficit by 2020, but only 17% believe Labour would. Is this a matter of capability or being trusted to keep promises?

    http://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/09/30/tories-twice-trusted-deficit/

    "Also 40% of the VI think that the Cons would eliminate the deficit by 2020, but only 17% believe Labour would. Is this a matter of capability or being trusted to keep promises?"

    Yawn ! - yesterday's news.

  • Options
    PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    Mr Fink gives a H/T to PB in a linky too!
    Plato said:

    Cracking good piece on Kippers and electoral arithmetic in The Times today by Danny Fink. Well worth a read.

  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,991
    F1: only a possibility, but this would seem incredible:
    ""Honda and McLaren want to hit the ground running. They want Alonso or Sebastian Vettel and it's possible both could wind up there."

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/29422678

    Eddie Jordan's mad as a box of frogs, but he called the move of Hamilton to Mercedes months ahead of time.
  • Options
    CD13CD13 Posts: 6,351

    The NHS funding crisis won't solve itself. I doubt that antibiotic resistance will come to the rescue and so "old man's friend" , AKA pneumonia, won't be the answer. Perhaps we should not strive so officiously. When an old car starts breaking down daily, we face facts.

    As an old git myself, I hope I'd accept that quality of life is the issue. I know doctors are reluctant to stop if there is medical help available, and families are understandably in favour of more procedures but there needs to be a limit. But I doubt we'll ever have this conversation with politicians.
  • Options
    SmarmeronSmarmeron Posts: 5,099
    @MarqueeMark
    Research into drugs is usually completed by private companies, and being private companies, their priorities are different from the population as a whole.
    Two examples:-
    Pushing anti daihorea drugs onto third world countries for use with infants and toddlers, knowing full well it increases dehydration.
    Disparaging research into the cause of stomach ulcers until the patent on their non effective drug lapsed.
    You can find many other examples where profit has come before welfare, the above were just off the top of my head.
  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 32,014

    Jonathan said:

    As Enoch Powell pointed out, the NHS is where infinite demand meets finite resources.

    Enoch talking rubbish (again). Nothing 'infinite' about demand on the NHS. Most people hate going to the doctor.
    Jonathan talking rubbish again. Try speaking to those people who can't get effective yet highly expensive drugs to prolong their life.

    Modern medicine is at the point where we could extend the life of a great many of our population, through drugs and transplants, if the finance was there. It isn't.
    When one looks at the figures, the cost per day of a three month life extension can be alarming. In budgetary terms.
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,991
    Meanwhile, Brown apparently thinks it's a trap for Scottish MPs to be allowed to vote on their own income tax but not that of England...

    "In a letter to his Constituency Labour Party in Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath, he wrote: "The Tory trap that we are in danger of falling into is to devolve all decisions on Scotland's income tax rates away from Westminster and then to deny Scotland representation in votes on budget decisions on income tax rates.""

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-29432379

    I think it's nuts to give over full taxation powers. But there we are.
  • Options
    volcanopetevolcanopete Posts: 2,078
    Bring out your dead,plague and pestilence,and a flu epidemic could decide GE2015.Another variable to add to the mix.The NHS would not cope-speaking from experience of 80 day treatments- and the knock-on effects would spell disaster for many of us.A flu epidemic would overwhelm,a shock doctrine to beat all shock doctrines.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/a-flu-pandemic-could-decide-next-years-election-9765841.html
  • Options
    Interesting thread.

    More evidence that the key battleground will not be the deficit - as I forecast on here long ago and which Antifrank enthusiastically countered. Looks like I will be right and he wrong. The Tory record on the deficit is too poor to make it a battleground - and most of the public don't understand it and think we are actually paying off our debts.
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,851

    Not sure the smoking example works. The taxes on cigarettes mean smokers are massive net contributors to the NHS (on contrast to heavy drinkers).

    If everyone stopped smoking overnight, the health deficit would become worse. If everybody stopped drinking, it'd become better.

    Drinking is heavily taxed.

    One needs to look at the fiscal issues as a whole. People with unhealthy lifestyles have low life expectancy. That means they impose a lesser burden on the Pensions budget, as well as requiring fewer years of end of life care.
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Jonathan said:

    As Enoch Powell pointed out, the NHS is where infinite demand meets finite resources.

    Enoch talking rubbish (again). Nothing 'infinite' about demand on the NHS. Most people hate going to the doctor.
    There is an element of truth here, in that I will not get my hip replaced simply because it is free and no wait!

    Rationing in the NHS has always been fairly covert, often under the mechanism of waiting lists and times. This is now unpopular but we do have rationing via NICE and rather Orwellian named "referal centres" (whose role is to not refer) and "patient access policies" ((which function to deny patients access to the hospital).

    The sick are overwhelmingly poor, elderly or both and cannot be expected to pay for themselves; but the majority of those who pay for the service are generally healthy, in work and more affluent. It does need to be borne in mind that these are not a permanent division and the latter may be related to the first, or at risk of being poor sick and elderly themselves in time.

    We need a system that is affordable, humane to the first category but also meets the needs of the latter.

    The latter group are the people who want seven day access to urgent care for acute health issues and easily accessible elective surgery. The problem is that they can only get these at the expense of the first group, unless the total pool of funding and of skilled practitioners grows.

    What we need is a system of "Speedy Boarding" where co-payments fund the extra costs of providing services out of hours. So GPs remain free if you want to see them 0830-1800, but cost £20 at weekends for example. For many of us the cost of the co-payment would be less than the cost of time off work. This is a fairly established business practice in many markets, so pubs transport and barbers all have cheap deals at off peak times. The NHS could and should do the same.

  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,991
    Mr. F, indeed but it's my understanding the costs (liver disease, crime and accidents caused due to the influence of alcohol and so on) far exceed the tax income, in contrast to smoking.
This discussion has been closed.