Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » YouGov polling shows the very difficult challenge ahead for
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » YouGov polling shows the very difficult challenge ahead for the Tories on the NHS
The above chart is based on YouGov data for today’s Times and shows the different perceptions, broken down by party support, of what might happen to the NHS if the Tories win GE15.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
FPT
If a British person cannot afford to live in this country, he should move to a different country where he can afford to live.
Don't worry OGH, they have the 'Mansion Tax' as a back up plan... ; )
Should we scrap the NHS, and those that cannot afford healthcare be left to die?
If we as a society should not be that heartless over the NHS, then why be heartless to force people out of the country they were born in?
This is a big problem for the Conservatives in particular, of course. Labour have to hope it's a deal-breaker, because it's by some way their best line of attack at present.
Labour want to talk about the NHS.
I see. Do you take Welsh Express???
That'll do nicely, Mr Cameron
David Cameron parking his tanks on Labour's lawn is possibly the boldest attack since General Schwarzkopf's left hook in Desert Storm.
It drives lefties nuts. Cf Jack Monroe.
Or are you merely being uncharitable?
Why are the left so unpleasant that they invariably attribute base motives to people who disagree with them as to the best means to good quality services? It really is an exceptionally ugly trait.
This is another illustration of my salience point. When the Tories go big on "The NHS is in difficulty, we will help with £X billion", they tend to help Labour, since we are seen as the people to turn to if the NHS is in trouble. It's a view that's built up over 65 years and no amount of last-minute "Oh but what about Wales" will really change perceptions. Not saying the Tories shouldn't allocate money to the NHS simply because it's a good idea - just that it won't pay electoral dividends, any more than it would help Labour if we promised to build two extra aircraft carriers and equip them all with VTOL planes to meet a perceived threat from North Korea or Iran.
Hawking points out the rather obvious flaw of creating machines that are smarter than people:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-30290540
http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/02/politics/poll-hillary-clinton-mitt-romney-2016/index.html
Just not that interested. Virtually never use it and, when I do and haven't had my access blocked by one of its many gatekeepers, I've always found it to be decidedly average.
Dentistry seems to be a bigger problem in this country. Tons of crap teeth around - Americans are right, British teeth are awful - and accessible dentists are as rare as hen's teeth (no pun intended) and plenty of them are crap too.
There has been both cuts to govt spending - witness the large scale job losses and back room reorganisations in local government - and significant economies as well.
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/francis-maude-announces-end-of-year-savings-2013-to-2014
What we have also had is abolition of fuel duty rises and of course rises in tax allowances.
Govt spending has generally undershot its targets.
Spending was £620 billion in 2009 it shot up to 673 billion in 2010 (hardly the govts fault) and should be £731 billion in 2015.
So in 1 year at the end of the Labour govt, spending rose by £53 billion. (it rose by£38 billion the year before!) In the next 5 years of this govt it should rise by just £58 billion in total, probably less given the tendency to undershoot.
This is about 1.75% a year from which you have to take inflation.
Inevitably the interest payments on the inherited debt and the hangover from the inherited deficit have an effect on govt spending.
So taking that into account its clear that real spending, the govts discretionary spending, has both been cut and continues to be, under a tory chancellor, under control. Its an endless task which I for one do not consider is one that is a practical for a Labour chancellor.
There must be a flaw somewhere . Oh the number of elderly is going to double in the next twenty years.
Never mind, taxes will rise to pay for it.. A LOT.
Oops,
Anyone who looks at the numbers knows what is going to happen. A car crash.
(I've been to A&E this year with an 80 odd year old neighbour from 10pm to 6am.. one Friday night after he was discharged from the same hospital that day as "fit". He lasted 30 minutes at home and was eventually readmitted at 5am the next day. A horrible foretaste of what is to come)
You just find it easier to box people into stereotypes, and then to apply your prejudices accordingly, rather than engage with them. The latter might actually force you to think, which you are clearly uncomfortable in doing.
I recently looked at the published ratings of local hospitals.
One of them was rated "amongst the worst" for hygiene/infection and only about 50% of its own workers would recommend it.
Yet 9/10 patients said they would recommend it....
For months I've read reasoned and balanced arguments from posters i respect - you and Sean Fear in particular, as well as Sunil - on your reasons for defecting to UKIP. I've read sympathetic comments on UKIP by SeanT, Andy JS and Morris Dancer, who understand the sentiments and appeal. And I've met UKIP candidates - David Kendrick and Isam - who are perfectly reasonable and thoughtful people.
What have I had from my former Tory colleagues to dissuade me? With one or two honourable exceptions (Richard Nabavi being one, and Peter from Putney another) a constant stream of abuse directed at kippers, most of which seem to involve permutations on 'racist' and 'nasty'.
It's not been that hard to recognise, actually, which is the more intellectually and morally bankrupt party. Perhaps those who recognise themselves in the description above should reflect on that.
So what if the NHS's costs are going to rise? The cost of ALL health systems in the Western world is going to rise, no matter what the model.
Yeah the Americans pay a little less tax. They pay whopping great health charges instead. So it's swings and roundabouts.
Therefore given its universal coverage and mitigation of the fear of getting ill, the UK's system is by far the best.
I appreciate that you won't see your decision in that light at all, but no doubt you understand that others may.
''if we don’t meet our guarantees, for example on waiting lists, the NHS will fund you to go private''
''the right in law to choose from any provider who meets NHS standards of quality at NHS costs ''
'' we will deliver up to £20 billion of efficiencies in the frontline NHS,''
'' Foundation Trusts will be given the freedom to ... increase their private services ''
''We will support an active role for the independent sector working alongside the NHS in the provision of care, ''
''Where changes are needed, we will be fair to NHS services and staff and give them a chance to improve, but where they fail to do so we will look to alternative provision''
These are all things that Labour and their trade unions now sneer at when they happen under a 'tory led coalition'.
This may be why the xenomorph had blood of acid rather than honey. Although, if it had had honey-blood, its mortal enemy would've been Winnie the Pooh.
None more so than New Labour.
And we see it with the weaselly "free at the point of use" trope the Tories and UKIP lean on like a crutch.
But those kippers that complain that they feel that they are being looked down on and abused for their choice by erstwhile comrades might care to reflect that their choice may have provoked genuine disdain.
Whilst I might point out to them gently my own opinion - and why I had reached a different conclusion, and why I thought that was so important - I'd restate that ultimately I respected their decision and that it wouldn't affect my opinion of them, or my friendship.
The respect shown and given might then give a licence for my views to be reflected upon privately by that individual, but I would always have to accept that they might not come round to the same.
(incidentally, I see nothing shameful at all in the UK governing itself as an independent nation and controlling its own borders; that includes imposing limits if it feels overall immigration numbers are too high and causing adverse effects within its society. If we disagree on the reasonabity of that basic premise alone, then we may not get very far.)
Hard days ahead.
http://comres.co.uk/poll/1337/itv-news-poll-half-think-the-government-has-not-got-the-deficit-under-control.htm
The sad reality is that there are people like him and you who now find a happy home wallowing the mud of UKIP rather than face reality.
Good Luck. Don't expect me to worry about you. But when you whip up hysteria and peddle ignorance you can expect me to point it out.
(a) You don't think there's much chance of David Cameron fulfilling his promise of agreeing a new settlement with the EU and holding a referendum
(b) You believe Cameron, but don't think there's much chance of him getting an outright majority anyway
(c) You support UKIP on several issues, of which an EU referendum is just one
:-)
1) Cameron can only deliver it if he gets a majority (or perhaps coalition)
2) He cannot back out of the referendum
3) If he tried to Conservative MPs would axe him
It's inconceivable to me that Cameron could try and go without a referendum and survive as leader.
[Of course it's possible that there is a general and not unjustified pessimism about the economy - it might have been better if the question had been phrased more as a direct choice: a respondent might think the economy might not improve whoever is in power, but get substantially worse under one than the other, and the questions as asked won't capture that]
Casino, you yourself posted quite recently that you had ended your flirtation with UKIP because you saw Ed Miliband as just too great a danger. I put it to you that your reasoning at the time you wrote that is just as valid today.
Mr. Neil, be fair. Mr. W's mother is perhaps the best poster (after Ave It) the site has had the good fortune to know.
The only fig leaf they have left is that no one has much confidence in Miliband or Balls to make their lives any better.
I've thought for a long time about the NHS and have worked in it in the past. I know a lot of decent people who work hard in the NHS. It does a good job and is working hard to be efficient, saving billions a year, and still deliver a good service.
Its not ordinary and its is worth bothering about. It is worth reforming and the party that wants to reform it, not least by opening it up to private provision, is worth supporting instead if a crass party that does not care tuppence about splitting the right vote and delivering the UK to a europhile spendthrift Labour party.
'Thinking' that it is a good idea or even remotely clever to vote UKIP is one of the saddest irrational thoughts anyone can have.
You're just not listening. You'd prefer to stick your fingers in your ears, shout abuse and pretend it's not happening. That's because it makes it much easier for you to cope with.
Every single time you post bilge like this you increase the chances I will never vote Conservative again.
Leaving that aside, the fatal flaw in your argument is to conclude that that makes the referendum a charade. Of course it doesn't. If the Out side can make the case, they'll win the argument, and any shortcomings in the renegotiation will help them in that. That is the bit of the UKIP position which makes absolutely no sense whatsover - they should be PLEASED if Cameron can't get any significant concessions, and delighted to have the referendum on those terms.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/almost-a-quarter-of-british-voters-would-find-it-hard-to-stay-friends-with-a-ukip-supporter-9880412.html
Contradicting your theory, "The negativity was much more common among Labour (40 per cent) and lib Dem supporters (42 per cent) than among Conservative voters (13 per cent)."
This reminds me (changing to dungflies) of a graffito I once saw in my university departmental toilet and which has always remained in my mind when contemplating certain chain restaurants and newspapers - eat shit, 1,000,000.000 flies can't be wrong ...
That's Labour's key message on the economy striking a chord with just under three quarters of voters. Resonance, or what?
The Tory party fault line is really starting to piss me off.
The last time we handed the country to Labour for thirteen years.
The country can't afford us to be so self indulgent.
Lower turnout does seem likely.
I doubt most UKIP voters or leaders pride themselves on other particular policies enough to be a more significant factor.
Sorry for drifting into military terminology but it's easy to do. Once again, I see the election potentially as Feb 74 redux with neither of the duopoly parties convincing and an insurgent gaining many votes but few seats.
So far the economy policies appear to be:
spend too much
spend far too much
spend so much the island falls into the sea beneath the weight of debt
sell ourselves to the EU and let them worry about it
I live in a safe seat, so my vote won't make any difference anyway. If I lived in a marginal, it would depend on the candidate. I would vote for James Wharton in Stockton South, but I would vote UKIP in Broxtowe or wherever Farage was standing.
I could not in conscience campaign for the Conservatives either. I just can't defend their record on issues that matter to me.
Cameron has only managed to hold the line (to some extent) by promising a Referendum.
While basically libertarian, I do accept there are certain things the state can quite effectively and perhaps should do: defence, law & order, diplomacy/foreign policy, key infrastructure projects, etc. Some form of healthcare can be part of that mix.
There are obvious pros & cons to each model. Boiled down to basics: the fully private model offers the potential for unlimited world-class care but only if you can afford it; the state model offers comprehensive coverage for the population, albeit with some kind of rationing. If you think we don't already ration care in the NHS, you don't understand how it functions. Some of the rationing is evidence-based, but the majority is resource-based and so less obvious to most users. This has always been true, under every government.
A hybrid system would probably deliver the best healthcare for the most people, although the overall cost of healthcare as a percentage of GDP would certainly be higher under that model, with the difference coming from increased personal upfront costs via insurance premiums, co-payments and the like. As to which is the better balance of cost vs benefits; well, that's more a matter of personal politicals than anything else. It just depends what aspects of a healthcare delivery system you want to prioritise.
What is more indisputable is that the NHS needs a fundamental reorganisation to deliver its aims. Simon Stevens plan is a pretty decent starting point, and has gained tentative cross-party backing. Such agreement is a rare thing, and I hope it gets implemented.
It will require a vast internal reorganisation of services though, far greater and with more practical impact than any of the previous NHS reorganisations which have largely been about managerial structures and clarifying internal financial flows within the NHS. There's still more work to be done on that too though; more dynamic IT systems with the ability to properly track data, costs & outcomes would actually flag up the detailed changes in supply & demand that need to happen as outlined more broadly by the Stevens plan.
Arguing over whether the Conservatives or Labour can better deliver the above is good politics and resonated with the public, but I think the 34% in the poll suggesting that things (in terms of delivery to users) will be broadly the same under both parties are probably correct and when it comes to the general public's understanding of how the NHS works, the 10% saying they don't know are the most honest.
Then there is ignorance. You will have noticed that, besides being motivated by hate, all UKIP supporters are ignorant, at least according to some on here. I consider myself pretty well educated (bachelor's degrees in mathematics and history and post graduate qualifications) and reasonably well informed about current affairs and politics, yet I am told I am ignorant mainly because I feel I can no longer support the Conservative Party.
Why some posters feel the need to throw around stereotypes and insult people they have never met and do not know in the slightest is a mystery. When some of those same people support a party that is trying to attract UKIP supporters back, well I do wonder.
The nearest cineworld's round Manchester are in Didsbury, Stockport and Ashton, I'd recommend the latter one.
Thanks I will try that one then
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2856137/Watch-adorable-five-year-old-try-explain-incredibly-friendly-COW-ended-family-home.html?ito=social-facebook
I do think that Cameron will deliver on the referendum - his party would simply not allow him to renege - he would be out of office without delay. After that, neither Cameron nor his views will matter that much because in a referendum it will all be down to the people as a whole. He may be the best of a poor bunch but he is worth supporting for that reason if none other. We will get our referendum, and even pro-Europeans should welcome that because it is an opportunity for them too.
Your argument is a crass one, even taken at its own level.
As far as the EU goes, we are not in the Euro and will not be as long as we have a Tory govt. Not being in the Euro will inevitably mean a renegotiation, its nothing to do with UKIP. The Euro will draw that zone together and not us (unless we have PM Miliband) There is in any event a clear anti EU section of the tory party which does not like the EU and wants a referendum. The govt have introduced referendum locks anyway which were in its 2010 manifesto.
So your argument regularly falls down. The point really is that we would get a referendum, something you seem to be afraid of. I want one.
It would not bother me if we were in the EEA. In reality being in or out of the EU will not affect immigration much in the short term. The more we have growth and new jobs then we will need immigration. Take a look at non-EU countries take a look at developed countries everywhere. What will effect, ie slow down, EU immigration is rising prosperity in the accession countries over time. For lots of reasons i look forward to a wealthy prosperous Poland.
I suspect socialist govts abroad will continie to export wealthy immigrant entrepreneurs to us no matter what the relative wealth. But aside from that when the accession counties gain in wealth they will become markets for our goods and we will have to work out how to produce them. I don't see Labour and its Union backers having the answer to the education and welfare reform needed. Unlike you I have my priorities right. I hate and distrust Labour far more than the Conservatives.
Jihadists in Syria write home to France: 'My iPod is broken. I want to come back'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/islamic-state/11268208/Jihadists-in-Syria-write-home-to-France-My-iPod-is-broken.-I-want-to-come-back.html
Use the tram to get you to Ashton
The direction of travel is a good one but it's not fast enough. Things are at a head in this country now. This conflict will only end when we finally leave the EU for good, which we will.