The Pollsters Regional Swing Averages (subsample based)
The South – all Con to Lab 11.7: Ipsos Mori (six poll average) 7.5: ICM (last six) 6.6 Ashcroft (last six – excl SW) 6.5 Yougov (last 10) 5.5 Populus (last 6 -excl SW) 5.4 Comres (last 6)
The Conservatives have hammered home two crucial messages over the last five years - economic credibility and the strength of David Cameron's leadership, the FT's Janan Ganesh thinks. But suddenly they've abandoned that and starting making big generous promises and that may scare more people than it wins over, he thinks. Nick Watt agrees it's "dangerous territory" to throw some giveaways in so late, because as Tory strategist Lynton Crosby is meant to be keen on saying, "you can't fatten a pig on market day."
Yes, the WTF reaction among some Tory voters is very evident, though they are far too polite to put it like that. I've not actually met anyone who cited the sudden £8bn "discovered" for the NHS approvingly - people simply don't believe it, and think it casts doubt on the overall strategy.
Can you perhaps now explain why you referred earlier to yesterday's YouGov and ignore Opinium which doesn't fit your analysis. As for your second paragraph above, well I'm definitely 'far too polite' to say what I think about it.
If Ukip proves anything it is surely that the messenger matters just as much as the message. You can have a policy that is wildly popular but if people don't like you or the way you deal with the issue, you have no chance. So we have the remarkable spectacle of a party with one notable policy, a very popular one, being disliked by a significant majority of the public. For those who think Britain or even England is at heart a right wing country just compare the approval ratings for those 'third' party outsiders going into general elections - Ashdown in '97, Kennedy in 2001 and 05, Clegg in 2010 and Farage in 2015.
UKIP won the 2014 EU Parliament election. They got more votes in a national election than either the Conservative or Labour parties. The LDs have never done that.
Re: approval numbers. I don't think the negative numbers are relevant. Only the positive numbers are associated with voting behaviour.
YouGov's Feb 2015 'would consider voting for' question put LDs/Greens/UKIP in a similar bracket ~25% of the public. Lab/Con were ~40%.
I think the negative figures matter a great deal in a FPTP election. Few seats are won with less than 30% of the vote, and even that only wins in 3 way marginals.
I think that UKIP will get 20% of votes in a dozen or so seats and win fewer than the fingers on one hand.
I also think the negative voting will have a similar effect on the LDs. Too many people want to punish us, and it only when we see what minority government looks like that we will see attitudes to coalition change.
That can only work where there is a clear two horse race.
I can't think of any seats that are clearly UKIP vs not-UKIP.
Your 'not-UKIP' candidate will then also push not-Con/Lab/LD voters _to_ UKIP.
So long as UKIP does not develop the same antipathy that the Front National suffers from in France.
1. UKIP and FN are different fish. 2. I believe in France the other parties push their supporters towards the not-FN candidate, if the election moves to a 2nd round.
Actually they are quite similar.
Not really. Could you outline the similarities please.
LLoyds shares: Someone rents out flat for 10k a year and has 100k mortgage which costs £3k pa. He sells flat for 200k and "pays off his debt". He receives £1k pa interest on his remaining £100k cash. Is he a) better off or b) worse off.
Osborne isn't raising anything for taxpayers by selling Lloyd shares. He's simply transferring an asset into cash.
In fact taxpayers generally will be even harder hit because they'll have to subsidise the relatively small amount of people who get them at a discount.
The Conservatives have hammered home two crucial messages over the last five years - economic credibility and the strength of David Cameron's leadership, the FT's Janan Ganesh thinks. But suddenly they've abandoned that and starting making big generous promises and that may scare more people than it wins over, he thinks. Nick Watt agrees it's "dangerous territory" to throw some giveaways in so late, because as Tory strategist Lynton Crosby is meant to be keen on saying, "you can't fatten a pig on market day."
Yes, the WTF reaction among some Tory voters is very evident, though they are far too polite to put it like that. I've not actually met anyone who cited the sudden £8bn "discovered" for the NHS approvingly - people simply don't believe it, and think it casts doubt on the overall strategy.
C Rather than WTF, what I hear is NSS. No shit Sherlock. Of course a tory government will spend 8bn more on the NHS. So would a labour government. Or any government. Health inflation runs higher than normal inflation.plus per capita demand increases as we all live longer. Plus the population is likely to grow by 2020.
The only way the NHS will not cost £8bn more in real terms is by reform. And I think we could ask any of the last 5 prime ministers: That ain't going to happen.
The Conservatives have hammered home two crucial messages over the last five years - economic credibility and the strength of David Cameron's leadership, the FT's Janan Ganesh thinks. But suddenly they've abandoned that and starting making big generous promises and that may scare more people than it wins over, he thinks. Nick Watt agrees it's "dangerous territory" to throw some giveaways in so late, because as Tory strategist Lynton Crosby is meant to be keen on saying, "you can't fatten a pig on market day."
Yes, the WTF reaction among some Tory voters is very evident, though they are far too polite to put it like that. I've not actually met anyone who cited the sudden £8bn "discovered" for the NHS approvingly - people simply don't believe it, and think it casts doubt on the overall strategy.
Can you perhaps now explain why you referred earlier to yesterday's YouGov and ignore Opinium which doesn't fit your analysis. As for your second paragraph above, well I'm definitely 'far too polite' to say what I think about it.
Look, Nick Palmer is a Labour candidate for a highly marginal seat - it is a tad unreasonable for him to be objective. We should make due allowances and not get too agitated about it.
The Conservatives have hammered home two crucial messages over the last five years - economic credibility and the strength of David Cameron's leadership, the FT's Janan Ganesh thinks. But suddenly they've abandoned that and starting making big generous promises and that may scare more people than it wins over, he thinks. Nick Watt agrees it's "dangerous territory" to throw some giveaways in so late, because as Tory strategist Lynton Crosby is meant to be keen on saying, "you can't fatten a pig on market day."
Yes, the WTF reaction among some Tory voters is very evident, though they are far too polite to put it like that. I've not actually met anyone who cited the sudden £8bn "discovered" for the NHS approvingly - people simply don't believe it, and think it casts doubt on the overall strategy.
Can you perhaps now explain why you referred earlier to yesterday's YouGov and ignore Opinium which doesn't fit your analysis. As for your second paragraph above, well I'm definitely 'far too polite' to say what I think about it.
Look, Nick Palmer is a Labour candidate for a highly marginal seat - it is a tad unreasonable for him to be objective. We should make due allowances and not get too agitated about it.
Disagree - he should be called out when he's being 'economical with the...'
The Conservatives have hammered home two crucial messages over the last five years - economic credibility and the strength of David Cameron's leadership, the FT's Janan Ganesh thinks. But suddenly they've abandoned that and starting making big generous promises and that may scare more people than it wins over, he thinks. Nick Watt agrees it's "dangerous territory" to throw some giveaways in so late, because as Tory strategist Lynton Crosby is meant to be keen on saying, "you can't fatten a pig on market day."
Yes, the WTF reaction among some Tory voters is very evident, though they are far too polite to put it like that. I've not actually met anyone who cited the sudden £8bn "discovered" for the NHS approvingly - people simply don't believe it, and think it casts doubt on the overall strategy.
Can you perhaps now explain why you referred earlier to yesterday's YouGov and ignore Opinium which doesn't fit your analysis. As for your second paragraph above, well I'm definitely 'far too polite' to say what I think about it.
Look, Nick Palmer is a Labour candidate for a highly marginal seat - it is a tad unreasonable for him to be objective. We should make due allowances and not get too agitated about it.
Disagree - he should be called out when he's being 'economical with the...'
Maybe I'm just becoming too indulgent in my old age. I want Anna S to win and I think she will. So it's be Nice To Nick week.
Hi all. For once I agree with TSE that a grand coalition will be the only viable alternative to chaos after the election results are all added up. Though it will be a disaster for the Tories and labour as the populace see them both as all the same party, as UKIP have been saying all along.
It will be an even bigger disaster for the British people, to be ruled by a Miliband Cameron duo. The very thought of it sends shivers all up and down my spine. But then I smile as I can imagine them both tearing each others hair out at the cabinet table. Will £1 coin be tossed in the air for PM?
A Grand Coalition would create huge problems for both parties at the next election, I don't think its a go-er.
The 2010 election result dictated the Con-LD coalition. Perhaps the 2015 result will do something similar?
The Conservatives have hammered home two crucial messages over the last five years - economic credibility and the strength of David Cameron's leadership, the FT's Janan Ganesh thinks. But suddenly they've abandoned that and starting making big generous promises and that may scare more people than it wins over, he thinks. Nick Watt agrees it's "dangerous territory" to throw some giveaways in so late, because as Tory strategist Lynton Crosby is meant to be keen on saying, "you can't fatten a pig on market day."
Yes, the WTF reaction among some Tory voters is very evident, though they are far too polite to put it like that. I've not actually met anyone who cited the sudden £8bn "discovered" for the NHS approvingly - people simply don't believe it, and think it casts doubt on the overall strategy.
Can you perhaps now explain why you referred earlier to yesterday's YouGov and ignore Opinium which doesn't fit your analysis. As for your second paragraph above, well I'm definitely 'far too polite' to say what I think about it.
Look, Nick Palmer is a Labour candidate for a highly marginal seat - it is a tad unreasonable for him to be objective. We should make due allowances and not get too agitated about it.
Disagree - Nick should be treated exactly the same as any other PB regular.
*) Two signs for Labour outside one house on the Madingley Road; *) about five thousand Labour (*) posters in the windows of the Unite offices; *) a sign for Huppert outside a house in Trumpington; *) whilst a rather unkempt pick-up loaded with Green signs was parked next door, with someone clambering in a hedge to erect one.
So they are appearing, slowly.
(*) Did I really need to say which party they were for?
The Conservatives have hammered home two crucial messages over the last five years - economic credibility and the strength of David Cameron's leadership, the FT's Janan Ganesh thinks. But suddenly they've abandoned that and starting making big generous promises and that may scare more people than it wins over, he thinks. Nick Watt agrees it's "dangerous territory" to throw some giveaways in so late, because as Tory strategist Lynton Crosby is meant to be keen on saying, "you can't fatten a pig on market day."
Yes, the WTF reaction among some Tory voters is very evident, though they are far too polite to put it like that. I've not actually met anyone who cited the sudden £8bn "discovered" for the NHS approvingly - people simply don't believe it, and think it casts doubt on the overall strategy.
C Rather than WTF, what I hear is NSS. No shit Sherlock. Of course a tory government will spend 8bn more on the NHS. So would a labour government. Or any government. Health inflation runs higher than normal inflation.plus per capita demand increases as we all live longer. Plus the population is likely to grow by 2020.
The only way the NHS will not cost £8bn more in real terms is by reform. And I think we could ask any of the last 5 prime ministers: That ain't going to happen.
I am not sure. Reform might help delivery and the NHS is already going through a severe economy drive. The independent report said the NHS would need £8 billion more by 2020, (1.6 billion a year - which is not all necessarily needed immediately) - a sum which takes into account the efficiency savings. The French NHS is very good but cost more - not least to those charged with paying the insurances - most certainly in %age GPD.
The fact is that faced with the report the tories are doing the honest thing and saying they will meet the cost. Lets face it they have been dealing with the NHS for 5 years and going through the efficiencies and probably have a good idea of the problems and issues. If Labour are saying its not needed than fine, the NHS will get by with less. Health inflation is very high and also the demand is rising with an older population. The unknown is how much tax can be collected from the serial avoiders.
The Conservatives have hammered home two crucial messages over the last five years - economic credibility and the strength of David Cameron's leadership, the FT's Janan Ganesh thinks. But suddenly they've abandoned that and starting making big generous promises and that may scare more people than it wins over, he thinks. Nick Watt agrees it's "dangerous territory" to throw some giveaways in so late, because as Tory strategist Lynton Crosby is meant to be keen on saying, "you can't fatten a pig on market day."
Yes, the WTF reaction among some Tory voters is very evident, though they are far too polite to put it like that. I've not actually met anyone who cited the sudden £8bn "discovered" for the NHS approvingly - people simply don't believe it, and think it casts doubt on the overall strategy.
What is the 'Palmer' tartan. Have you got round to polishing your sporran yet?
Hi all. For once I agree with TSE that a grand coalition will be the only viable alternative to chaos after the election results are all added up. Though it will be a disaster for the Tories and labour as the populace see them both as all the same party, as UKIP have been saying all along.
It will be an even bigger disaster for the British people, to be ruled by a Miliband Cameron duo. The very thought of it sends shivers all up and down my spine. But then I smile as I can imagine them both tearing each others hair out at the cabinet table. Will £1 coin be tossed in the air for PM?
A Grand Coalition would create huge problems for both parties at the next election, I don't think its a go-er.
The 2010 election result dictated the Con-LD coalition. Perhaps the 2015 result will do something similar?
Not a chance, unless UKIP get 30/40 seats and go into coalition with one of the two main parties: which they have sworn not to do on any account.
The Conservatives have hammered home two crucial messages over the last five years - economic credibility and the strength of David Cameron's leadership, the FT's Janan Ganesh thinks. But suddenly they've abandoned that and starting making big generous promises and that may scare more people than it wins over, he thinks. Nick Watt agrees it's "dangerous territory" to throw some giveaways in so late, because as Tory strategist Lynton Crosby is meant to be keen on saying, "you can't fatten a pig on market day."
Yes, the WTF reaction among some Tory voters is very evident, though they are far too polite to put it like that. I've not actually met anyone who cited the sudden £8bn "discovered" for the NHS approvingly - people simply don't believe it, and think it casts doubt on the overall strategy.
Can you perhaps now explain why you referred earlier to yesterday's YouGov and ignore Opinium which doesn't fit your analysis. As for your second paragraph above, well I'm definitely 'far too polite' to say what I think about it.
Look, Nick Palmer is a Labour candidate for a highly marginal seat - it is a tad unreasonable for him to be objective. We should make due allowances and not get too agitated about it.
Disagree - he should be called out when he's being 'economical with the...'
Maybe I'm just becoming too indulgent in my old age. I want Anna S to win and I think she will. So it's be Nice To Nick week.
I doubt it very much - Nick seems so very confident. But if Anna should win in Broxtowe, then the Tories are heading for a comfortable GE victory, no question.
The Conservatives have hammered home two crucial messages over the last five years - economic credibility and the strength of David Cameron's leadership, the FT's Janan Ganesh thinks. But suddenly they've abandoned that and starting making big generous promises and that may scare more people than it wins over, he thinks. Nick Watt agrees it's "dangerous territory" to throw some giveaways in so late, because as Tory strategist Lynton Crosby is meant to be keen on saying, "you can't fatten a pig on market day."
Yes, the WTF reaction among some Tory voters is very evident, though they are far too polite to put it like that. I've not actually met anyone who cited the sudden £8bn "discovered" for the NHS approvingly - people simply don't believe it, and think it casts doubt on the overall strategy.
C Rather than WTF, what I hear is NSS. No shit Sherlock. Of course a tory government will spend 8bn more on the NHS. So would a labour government. Or any government. Health inflation runs higher than normal inflation.plus per capita demand increases as we all live longer. Plus the population is likely to grow by 2020.
The only way the NHS will not cost £8bn more in real terms is by reform. And I think we could ask any of the last 5 prime ministers: That ain't going to happen.
I am not sure. Reform might help delivery and the NHS is already going through a severe economy drive. The independent report said the NHS would need £8 billion more by 2020, (1.6 billion a year - which is not all necessarily needed immediately) - a sum which takes into account the efficiency savings. The French NHS is very good but cost more - not least to those charged with paying the insurances - most certainly in %age GPD.
The fact is that faced with the report the tories are doing the honest thing and saying they will meet the cost. Lets face it they have been dealing with the NHS for 5 years and going through the efficiencies and probably have a good idea of the problems and issues. If Labour are saying its not needed than fine, the NHS will get by with less. Health inflation is very high and also the demand is rising with an older population. The unknown is how much tax can be collected from the serial avoiders.
The 8 billion figure is based on assumptions of Herculean efficiency savings by global standards. To achieve anything near that we need to dismantle anything, including legislation, that stands in the way of rationalisation of services.
This is the important stuff the UK politicians ignore.
Is Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isil), close to Europe via its growth in Libya, the greatest threat to global stability? Or is China's rise more to be feared than Vladimir Putin's involvement in the Ukraine crisis?
The World Economic Forum annually produces its list of the threats the world faces and at the top of this year's list was state conflict. So what are the threats to global stability that should really worry us, according to specialists in conflict studies?
The following is a list of what current and former academics at the Department of War Studies at King's College London believe to be the areas of most concern:
The US has been the driving force behind the instability in the Middle East and Eastern Europe so yes I think the US is the greatest threat to stability and the question is how we manage the US's steady decline as China, Russia and Germany reemerge.
Encouragingly I believe all three countries would be, and are, willing to reign in Zionist and Salafi Sunni extremism that is key to stabilising Europe's near abroad.
Hi all. For once I agree with TSE that a grand coalition will be the only viable alternative to chaos after the election results are all added up. Though it will be a disaster for the Tories and labour as the populace see them both as all the same party, as UKIP have been saying all along.
It will be an even bigger disaster for the British people, to be ruled by a Miliband Cameron duo. The very thought of it sends shivers all up and down my spine. But then I smile as I can imagine them both tearing each others hair out at the cabinet table. Will £1 coin be tossed in the air for PM?
A Grand Coalition would create huge problems for both parties at the next election, I don't think its a go-er.
The 2010 election result dictated the Con-LD coalition. Perhaps the 2015 result will do something similar?
Both parties? I think the party who leads the Grand Coalition would probably do fine. But the junior partner would (as Merkel said) get smashed for betraying its principles.
The Conservatives have hammered home two crucial messages over the last five years - economic credibility and the strength of David Cameron's leadership, the FT's Janan Ganesh thinks. But suddenly they've abandoned that and starting making big generous promises and that may scare more people than it wins over, he thinks. Nick Watt agrees it's "dangerous territory" to throw some giveaways in so late, because as Tory strategist Lynton Crosby is meant to be keen on saying, "you can't fatten a pig on market day."
Yes, the WTF reaction among some Tory voters is very evident, though they are far too polite to put it like that. I've not actually met anyone who cited the sudden £8bn "discovered" for the NHS approvingly - people simply don't believe it, and think it casts doubt on the overall strategy.
Can you perhaps now explain why you referred earlier to yesterday's YouGov and ignore Opinium which doesn't fit your analysis. As for your second paragraph above, well I'm definitely 'far too polite' to say what I think about it.
Look, Nick Palmer is a Labour candidate for a highly marginal seat - it is a tad unreasonable for him to be objective. We should make due allowances and not get too agitated about it.
He is also sick as a parrot that he cannot tell the usual labour lies about the tories strangling the NHS. Because that is what he would be posting if the £8bn deemed necessary by the report had been denied by the Tories.
Is Sam around, had a friend today talking up UKIP in Ed Balls' constituency, said they are taking votes from traditional Labour areas. Could be some mileage on the Tories at 5.5 if UKIP are leeching votes from Labour areas.
The Conservatives have hammered home two crucial messages over the last five years - economic credibility and the strength of David Cameron's leadership, the FT's Janan Ganesh thinks. But suddenly they've abandoned that and starting making big generous promises and that may scare more people than it wins over, he thinks. Nick Watt agrees it's "dangerous territory" to throw some giveaways in so late, because as Tory strategist Lynton Crosby is meant to be keen on saying, "you can't fatten a pig on market day."
Yes, the WTF reaction among some Tory voters is very evident, though they are far too polite to put it like that. I've not actually met anyone who cited the sudden £8bn "discovered" for the NHS approvingly - people simply don't believe it, and think it casts doubt on the overall strategy.
C Rather than WTF, what I hear is NSS. No shit Sherlock. Of course a tory government will spend 8bn more on the NHS. So would a labour government. Or any government. Health inflation runs higher than normal inflation.plus per capita demand increases as we all live longer. Plus the population is likely to grow by 2020.
The only way the NHS will not cost £8bn more in real terms is by reform. And I think we could ask any of the last 5 prime ministers: That ain't going to happen.
I am not sure. Reform might help delivery and the NHS is already going through a severe economy drive. The independent report said the NHS would need £8 billion more by 2020, (1.6 billion a year - which is not all necessarily needed immediately) - a sum which takes into account the efficiency savings. The French NHS is very good but cost more - not least to those charged with paying the insurances - most certainly in %age GPD.
The fact is that faced with the report the tories are doing the honest thing and saying they will meet the cost. Lets face it they have been dealing with the NHS for 5 years and going through the efficiencies and probably have a good idea of the problems and issues. If Labour are saying its not needed than fine, the NHS will get by with less. Health inflation is very high and also the demand is rising with an older population. The unknown is how much tax can be collected from the serial avoiders.
Indeed. Bur reform is politically impossible history tells us so. All parties have weaponised the nhs. What's required is a cross party consensus on spend, a la 0.7% aid budget. Then let the health select committee appoint an nhs chief executive and hold him or her to account on behalf of the nation.
Poster watch. I'm in the Lake District and the overwhelming posters are the golden diamond "Winning Here". One or two blue ones in Bowness. No reds yet
Poster watch. I'm in the Lake District and the overwhelming posters are the golden diamond "Winning Here". One or two blue ones in Bowness. No reds yet
Driving through Dore/Totley today - about 6 Lib Dem diamonds, 5 Conservative, 0 Labour (This is a very weak Labour area).
1 Red poster spotted heading through Heeley briefly, and 4 or 5 Bloomfield posters in Nether Edge. One big Green poster in a charity shop floor.
It wouldn't surprise me if Farron increased his majority tbh. Clegg - well I'd imagine there would have been far more diamonds up last GE...
C Rather than WTF, what I hear is NSS. No shit Sherlock. Of course a tory government will spend 8bn more on the NHS. So would a labour government. Or any government. Health inflation runs higher than normal inflation.plus per capita demand increases as we all live longer. Plus the population is likely to grow by 2020.
The only way the NHS will not cost £8bn more in real terms is by reform. And I think we could ask any of the last 5 prime ministers: That ain't going to happen.
I am not sure. Reform might help delivery and the NHS is already going through a severe economy drive. The independent report said the NHS would need £8 billion more by 2020, (1.6 billion a year - which is not all necessarily needed immediately) - a sum which takes into account the efficiency savings. The French NHS is very good but cost more - not least to those charged with paying the insurances - most certainly in %age GPD.
The fact is that faced with the report the tories are doing the honest thing and saying they will meet the cost. Lets face it they have been dealing with the NHS for 5 years and going through the efficiencies and probably have a good idea of the problems and issues. If Labour are saying its not needed than fine, the NHS will get by with less. Health inflation is very high and also the demand is rising with an older population. The unknown is how much tax can be collected from the serial avoiders.
Indeed. Bur reform is politically impossible history tells us so. All parties have weaponised the nhs. What's required is a cross party consensus on spend, a la 0.7% aid budget. Then let the health select committee appoint an nhs chief executive and hold him or her to account on behalf of the nation.
Given the growing and aging population, serious reform is never going to happen until the public accept that the scope of what the NHS does needs to be drastically reduced.
We can start with the Daily Mail headlines of cosmetic surgery but that is only scratching the surface, real reform involves for example removing the tax disincentives around employer-provided private healthcare, maybe even replaced by positive tax incentives for smaller companies to provide insurance to their employees and families.
The more people that can be diverted from using the NHS, the more resources there are to go to those who need them most.
Still no Labour posters seen here in my village. Whilst it'll be Labour forever, NE Derbyshire is a longshot Tory hope. None to be seen in Rother Valley either.
Labour may have real problems getting the WWC vote out tbh.
If Labour are the 'leading minority' but could form a majority with the SNP (assuming they have enough seats), then why would the tories want to step in as the minor party in a coalition to save Labours bacon. The SNP are toxic because they are far left and want to destroy the UK. It would be labour they poison
If the Tories are the largest party why would they turn to Labour to help them out? In either grand coalition scenario would anyone trust Labour?
Still no Labour posters seen here in my village. Whilst it'll be Labour forever, NE Derbyshire is a longshot Tory hope. None to be seen in Rother Valley either.
Labour may have real problems getting the WWC vote out tbh.
I think there is a massive shy-UKIP effect in the North, where you would normally see Labour posters in WWC areas, I think there are a bunch of new UKIP voters who don't want to publicly say so because they don't know who else is going to vote UKIP.
C Rather than WTF, what I hear is NSS. No shit Sherlock. Of course a tory government will spend 8bn more on the NHS. So would a labour government. Or any government. Health inflation runs higher than normal inflation.plus per capita demand increases as we all live longer. Plus the population is likely to grow by 2020.
The only way the NHS will not cost £8bn more in real terms is by reform. And I think we could ask any of the last 5 prime ministers: That ain't going to happen.
I am not sure. Reform might help delivery and the NHS is already going through a severe economy drive. The independent report said the NHS would need £8 billion more by 2020, (1.6 billion a year - which is not all necessarily needed immediately) - a sum which takes into account the efficiency savings. The French NHS is very good but cost more - not least to those charged with paying the insurances - most certainly in %age GPD.
The fact is that faced with the report the tories are doing the honest thing and saying they will meet the cost. Lets face it they have been dealing with the NHS for 5 years and going through the efficiencies and probably have a good idea of the problems and issues. If Labour are saying its not needed than fine, the NHS will get by with less. Health inflation is very high and also the demand is rising with an older population. The unknown is how much tax can be collected from the serial avoiders.
Indeed. Bur reform is politically impossible history tells us so. All parties have weaponised the nhs. What's required is a cross party consensus on spend, a la 0.7% aid budget. Then let the health select committee appoint an nhs chief executive and hold him or her to account on behalf of the nation.
Given the growing and aging population, serious reform is never going to happen until the public accept that the scope of what the NHS does needs to be drastically reduced.
We can start with the Daily Mail headlines of cosmetic surgery but that is only scratching the surface, real reform involves for example removing the tax disincentives around employer-provided private healthcare, maybe even replaced by positive tax incentives for smaller companies to provide insurance to their employees and families.
Cosmetic surgery is largely gone. If we changed the rules so that people receiving compensation for medical negligence got their costs under NHS paid rather than private, billions would be saved.
Still no Labour posters seen here in my village. Whilst it'll be Labour forever, NE Derbyshire is a longshot Tory hope. None to be seen in Rother Valley either.
Labour may have real problems getting the WWC vote out tbh.
I think there is a massive shy-UKIP effect in the North, where you would normally see Labour posters in WWC areas, I think there are a bunch of new UKIP voters who don't want to publicly say so because they don't know who else is going to vote UKIP.
If this is the case, those sub 250 Labour boats may yet dock
Still no Labour posters seen here in my village. Whilst it'll be Labour forever, NE Derbyshire is a longshot Tory hope. None to be seen in Rother Valley either.
Labour may have real problems getting the WWC vote out tbh.
What chance of a few Tory gains coming through the middle in WWC Labour-held areas, due to a combination of low Labour turnout and UKIP splitting the WWC vote?
The analysis top-post is excellent. However, as to the conclusion, one would strongly suspect a more mundane outcome in betting terms: that the smaller party, Labour or Conservative, would simply abstain on the survival of a minority government comprising the larger party.
Still no Labour posters seen here in my village. Whilst it'll be Labour forever, NE Derbyshire is a longshot Tory hope. None to be seen in Rother Valley either.
Labour may have real problems getting the WWC vote out tbh.
What chance of a few Tory gains coming through the middle in WWC Labour-held areas, due to a combination of low Labour turnout and UKIP splitting the WWC vote?
I think Labour will hold here, but you never know.
Like I said, sub 250 Labour if Tories take NE Derbyshire so from a betting PoV I'm covered well.
Still no Labour posters seen here in my village. Whilst it'll be Labour forever, NE Derbyshire is a longshot Tory hope. None to be seen in Rother Valley either.
Labour may have real problems getting the WWC vote out tbh.
What chance of a few Tory gains coming through the middle in WWC Labour-held areas, due to a combination of low Labour turnout and UKIP splitting the WWC vote?
I think Labour gains from third place in Con/LD marginals are more likely.
Still no Labour posters seen here in my village. Whilst it'll be Labour forever, NE Derbyshire is a longshot Tory hope. None to be seen in Rother Valley either.
Labour may have real problems getting the WWC vote out tbh.
I think there is a massive shy-UKIP effect in the North, where you would normally see Labour posters in WWC areas, I think there are a bunch of new UKIP voters who don't want to publicly say so because they don't know who else is going to vote UKIP.
Leaflet for UKIP in Stockton North calls Tories a wasted vote and says it's a two horse race between Labour and UKIP.Not sure on what basis the claim is made, don't think Ashcroft polls safe Labour seats
Given the growing and aging population, serious reform is never going to happen until the public accept that the scope of what the NHS does needs to be drastically reduced.
We can start with the Daily Mail headlines of cosmetic surgery but that is only scratching the surface, real reform involves for example removing the tax disincentives around employer-provided private healthcare, maybe even replaced by positive tax incentives for smaller companies to provide insurance to their employees and families.
Cosmetic surgery is largely gone. If we changed the rules so that people receiving compensation for medical negligence got their costs under NHS paid rather than private, billions would be saved.
It also depends on what you define as 'cosmetic' surgery. An acquaintance had her life changed by an NHS breast reduction: she had suffered from terrible back pain since she had been a teenager, and the reduction went a long way to cure it. (ISTR the reduction was recommended by her back specialist, which helped her get it on the NHS).
When she went to see the specialist, she had the odd experience of her husband and the specialist drawing on her breasts where they thought her nipples should be ...
Was it needed? No: she could have continued as she was. Did it improve her life? Yes.
So I guess the same operation can be either cosmetic of medical and cosmetic.
Still no Labour posters seen here in my village. Whilst it'll be Labour forever, NE Derbyshire is a longshot Tory hope. None to be seen in Rother Valley either.
Labour may have real problems getting the WWC vote out tbh.
I think there is a massive shy-UKIP effect in the North, where you would normally see Labour posters in WWC areas, I think there are a bunch of new UKIP voters who don't want to publicly say so because they don't know who else is going to vote UKIP.
Leaflet for UKIP in Stockton North calls Tories a wasted vote and says it's a two horse race between Labour and UKIP.Not sure on what basis the claim is made, don't think Ashcroft polls safe Labour seats
I think it is on the basis of Heywood and Middleton where the Tories were nowhere and UKIP were the only serious challenge to Labour.
C Rather than WTF, what I hear is NSS. No shit Sherlock. Of course a tory government will spend 8bn more on the NHS. So would a labour government. Or any government. Health inflation runs higher than normal inflation.plus per capita demand increases as we all live longer. Plus the population is likely to grow by 2020.
The only way the NHS will not cost £8bn more in real terms is by reform. And I think we could ask any of the last 5 prime ministers: That ain't going to happen.
I am not sure. Reform might help delivery and the NHS is already going through a severe economy drive. The independent report said the NHS would need £8 billion more by 2020, (1.6 billion a year - which is not all necessarily needed immediately) - a sum which takes into account the efficiency savings. The French NHS is very good but cost more - not least to those charged with paying the insurances - most certainly in %age GPD. .
Indeed. Bur reform is politically impossible history tells us so. All parties have weaponised the nhs. What's required is a cross party consensus on spend, a la 0.7% aid budget. Then let the health select committee appoint an nhs chief executive and hold him or her to account on behalf of the nation.
Given the growing and aging population, serious reform is never going to happen until the public accept that the scope of what the NHS does needs to be drastically reduced.
We can start with the Daily Mail headlines of cosmetic surgery but that is only scratching the surface, real reform involves for example removing the tax disincentives around employer-provided private healthcare, maybe even replaced by positive tax incentives for smaller companies to provide insurance to their employees and families.
Cosmetic surgery is largely gone. If we changed the rules so that people receiving compensation for medical negligence got their costs under NHS paid rather than private, billions would be saved.
An interesting point about negligence cases, does anyone know of an official report that details how much these costs the NHS..?
I was aware of a scheme running a few years ago whereby the NHS was taking advice from the aviation industry (of which I have some knowledge) about how they investigate accidents with the sole intention of identifying causal factors and making recommendations to prevent recurrence, rather than apportioning blame. It would also be interesting to know how that was progressing if anyone knows.
Still no Labour posters seen here in my village. Whilst it'll be Labour forever, NE Derbyshire is a longshot Tory hope. None to be seen in Rother Valley either.
Labour may have real problems getting the WWC vote out tbh.
I think there is a massive shy-UKIP effect in the North, where you would normally see Labour posters in WWC areas, I think there are a bunch of new UKIP voters who don't want to publicly say so because they don't know who else is going to vote UKIP.
Robert Ford thought UKIP might have hidden support among 2010 non-voters who are not caught by polls.
I remember reading (I think before the 2010 election) that many of Labour's heartland seats now have more former Labour voters than current Labour voters.
Not many of those are tempting. Anyone considering putting money on the kipper in Great Grimsby should watch the Yorks and Lincs Sunday politics. Safe Labour hold.
Dudley North and Walsall North at 6/1 are the only tempting ones, and I think the Tories in Eastleigh too.
On the Hampstead house with two posters: surely just multiple occupants?
Still no Labour posters seen here in my village. Whilst it'll be Labour forever, NE Derbyshire is a longshot Tory hope. None to be seen in Rother Valley either.
Labour may have real problems getting the WWC vote out tbh.
I think there is a massive shy-UKIP effect in the North, where you would normally see Labour posters in WWC areas, I think there are a bunch of new UKIP voters who don't want to publicly say so because they don't know who else is going to vote UKIP.
Leaflet for UKIP in Stockton North calls Tories a wasted vote and says it's a two horse race between Labour and UKIP.Not sure on what basis the claim is made, don't think Ashcroft polls safe Labour seats
I think it is on the basis of Heywood and Middleton where the Tories were nowhere and UKIP were the only serious challenge to Labour.
I think UKIP will come second, it's just interesting they're being so bold. I think they will get a lot of second places in areas like mine
Still no Labour posters seen here in my village. Whilst it'll be Labour forever, NE Derbyshire is a longshot Tory hope. None to be seen in Rother Valley either.
Labour may have real problems getting the WWC vote out tbh.
What chance of a few Tory gains coming through the middle in WWC Labour-held areas, due to a combination of low Labour turnout and UKIP splitting the WWC vote?
For that to happen you need UKIP to hit Lab hard without doing much to Con. All things being equal they tend to take more from Con than Lab, so you'd need quite a weird demographic mix where Con voters are exceptionally Farage-proof but Lab voters are highly Faragible.
Given the growing and aging population, serious reform is never going to happen until the public accept that the scope of what the NHS does needs to be drastically reduced.
We can start with the Daily Mail headlines of cosmetic surgery but that is only scratching the surface, real reform involves for example removing the tax disincentives around employer-provided private healthcare, maybe even replaced by positive tax incentives for smaller companies to provide insurance to their employees and families.
Cosmetic surgery is largely gone. If we changed the rules so that people receiving compensation for medical negligence got their costs under NHS paid rather than private, billions would be saved.
It also depends on what you define as 'cosmetic' surgery. An acquaintance had her life changed by an NHS breast reduction: she had suffered from terrible back pain since she had been a teenager, and the reduction went a long way to cure it. (ISTR the reduction was recommended by her back specialist, which helped her get it on the NHS).
When she went to see the specialist, she had the odd experience of her husband and the specialist drawing on her breasts where they thought her nipples should be ...
Was it needed? No: she could have continued as she was. Did it improve her life? Yes.
So I guess the same operation can be either cosmetic of medical and cosmetic.
Well, if you're going to rule out anything that relieves pain but isn't fatal, then yeah lots of savings to be made. But you're right on the last sentence.
Still no Labour posters seen here in my village. Whilst it'll be Labour forever, NE Derbyshire is a longshot Tory hope. None to be seen in Rother Valley either.
Labour may have real problems getting the WWC vote out tbh.
I think there is a massive shy-UKIP effect in the North, where you would normally see Labour posters in WWC areas, I think there are a bunch of new UKIP voters who don't want to publicly say so because they don't know who else is going to vote UKIP.
Would they be shy in opinion polls? The only real question is whether polling (phone/ internet rather than f2f) is missing ukippers because of their demographics)
Is Sam around, had a friend today talking up UKIP in Ed Balls' constituency, said they are taking votes from traditional Labour areas. Could be some mileage on the Tories at 5.5 if UKIP are leeching votes from Labour areas.
Here in Morley and outwoood the bnp were doing well a few years ago. I imagine ukip might benefit from that unwinding. However in 2010 I think balls suffered from being too close to Gordon brown I an election which was effectively a getridofbrown election. 5 years on, and given the likely national swing, I think balls is home and dry.
C Rather than WTF, what I hear is NSS. No shit Sherlock. Of course a tory government will spend 8bn more on the NHS. So would a labour government. Or any government. Health inflation runs higher than normal inflation.plus per capita demand increases as we all live longer. Plus the population is likely to grow by 2020.
The only way the NHS will not cost £8bn more in real terms is by reform. And I think we could ask any of the last 5 prime ministers: That ain't going to happen.
I am not sure. Reform might help delivery and the NHS is already going through a severe economy drive. The independent report said the NHS would need £8 billion more by 2020, (1.6 billion a year - which is not all necessarily needed immediately) - a sum which takes into account the efficiency savings. The French NHS is very good but cost more - not least to those charged with paying the insurances - most certainly in %age GPD. .
Indeed. Bur reform is politically impossible history tells us so. All parties have weaponised the nhs. What's required is a cross party consensus on spend, a la 0.7% aid budget. Then let the health select committee appoint an nhs chief executive and hold him or her to account on behalf of the nation.
Given the growing and aging population, serious reform is never going to happen until the public accept that the scope of what the NHS does needs to be drastically reduced.
Cosmetic surgery is largely gone. If we changed the rules so that people receiving compensation for medical negligence got their costs under NHS paid rather than private, billions would be saved.
An interesting point about negligence cases, does anyone know of an official report that details how much these costs the NHS..?
I was aware of a scheme running a few years ago whereby the NHS was taking advice from the aviation industry (of which I have some knowledge) about how they investigate accidents with the sole intention of identifying causal factors and making recommendations to prevent recurrence, rather than apportioning blame. It would also be interesting to know how that was progressing if anyone knows.
My Trust pays out £12 million a year to the NHS mutual insurance fund. That would suggest £1.2 billion nationally as we are 1% of the NHS budget.
We actually have not paid out more than £2.5 million in any year in the last two decades. We could save £10 million per year by "going bare" if it were permitted.
Still no Labour posters seen here in my village. Whilst it'll be Labour forever, NE Derbyshire is a longshot Tory hope. None to be seen in Rother Valley either.
Labour may have real problems getting the WWC vote out tbh.
I think there is a massive shy-UKIP effect in the North, where you would normally see Labour posters in WWC areas, I think there are a bunch of new UKIP voters who don't want to publicly say so because they don't know who else is going to vote UKIP.
Leaflet for UKIP in Stockton North calls Tories a wasted vote and says it's a two horse race between Labour and UKIP.Not sure on what basis the claim is made, don't think Ashcroft polls safe Labour seats
Still no Labour posters seen here in my village. Whilst it'll be Labour forever, NE Derbyshire is a longshot Tory hope. None to be seen in Rother Valley either.
Labour may have real problems getting the WWC vote out tbh.
I think there is a massive shy-UKIP effect in the North, where you would normally see Labour posters in WWC areas, I think there are a bunch of new UKIP voters who don't want to publicly say so because they don't know who else is going to vote UKIP.
Leaflet for UKIP in Stockton North calls Tories a wasted vote and says it's a two horse race between Labour and UKIP.Not sure on what basis the claim is made, don't think Ashcroft polls safe Labour seats
Current Stockton North 43% Labour, 26% Conservative, 16% LD, 4% UKIP. Given that the lib-dems will presumably split 6% Labour, 4% conservative, Ukip would probably have to take 35% of the votes to sneak thorugh
Still no Labour posters seen here in my village. Whilst it'll be Labour forever, NE Derbyshire is a longshot Tory hope. None to be seen in Rother Valley either.
Labour may have real problems getting the WWC vote out tbh.
I think there is a massive shy-UKIP effect in the North, where you would normally see Labour posters in WWC areas, I think there are a bunch of new UKIP voters who don't want to publicly say so because they don't know who else is going to vote UKIP.
Would they be shy in opinion polls? The only real question is whether polling (phone/ internet rather than f2f) is missing ukippers because of their demographics)
My Trust pays out £12 million a year to the NHS mutual insurance fund. That would suggest £1.2 billion nationally as we are 1% of the NHS budget.
We actually have not paid out more than £2.5 million in any year in the last two decades. We could save £10 million per year by "going bare" if it were permitted.
You don't need to go bare in your hospital (oo, er), but be allowed to take insurance from other providers.
As long as the cover requirement is achieved, then you will save money.
But that would be "creeping privatisation", so will be shouted down by the usual suspects.
Still no Labour posters seen here in my village. Whilst it'll be Labour forever, NE Derbyshire is a longshot Tory hope. None to be seen in Rother Valley either.
Labour may have real problems getting the WWC vote out tbh.
What chance of a few Tory gains coming through the middle in WWC Labour-held areas, due to a combination of low Labour turnout and UKIP splitting the WWC vote?
Zero chance. Labour will take in more LD votes than loses to UKIP or the Greens. So there will still be a swing to Labour from Tory in Labour seats.
My Trust pays out £12 million a year to the NHS mutual insurance fund. That would suggest £1.2 billion nationally as we are 1% of the NHS budget.
We actually have not paid out more than £2.5 million in any year in the last two decades. We could save £10 million per year by "going bare" if it were permitted.
From theTelegraph July 2013
" A total of £22.7 billion - nearly one fifth of the health service’s annual budget - has had to be set aside to pay compensation to thousands of people harmed by poor care.
Experts last night said the scale of the liabilities facing the NHS was “jaw-dropping” with English damages now among the highest in the world.
Earlier this year MPs warned that the steep rise in payments was “shocking and scary” and spinning out of control,
The new figures from the NHS Litigation Authority show that the service has put aside £22.7 billion for liabilities - a rise of 22 per cent in just one year, and almost doubled in five years." =========
Put it like this - a 40% reduction in claims would solve all the NHS problems for the next 5 years.
Given the growing and aging population, serious reform is never going to happen until the public accept that the scope of what the NHS does needs to be drastically reduced.
We can start with the Daily Mail headlines of cosmetic surgery but that is only scratching the surface, real reform involves for example removing the tax disincentives around employer-provided private healthcare, maybe even replaced by positive tax incentives for smaller companies to provide insurance to their employees and families.
Cosmetic surgery is largely gone. If we changed the rules so that people receiving compensation for medical negligence got their costs under NHS paid rather than private, billions would be saved.
It also depends on what you define as 'cosmetic' surgery. An acquaintance had her life changed by an NHS breast reduction: she had suffered from terrible back pain since she had been a teenager, and the reduction went a long way to cure it. (ISTR the reduction was recommended by her back specialist, which helped her get it on the NHS).
When she went to see the specialist, she had the odd experience of her husband and the specialist drawing on her breasts where they thought her nipples should be ...
Was it needed? No: she could have continued as she was. Did it improve her life? Yes.
So I guess the same operation can be either cosmetic of medical and cosmetic.
One of the booming areas of cosmetic surgery is cosmetic gynaecology:
A surprising amount is done on the NHS too; though hard to seperate western women wanting FGM and reconstructive repair of FGM from the way that the figures are kept.
Still no Labour posters seen here in my village. Whilst it'll be Labour forever, NE Derbyshire is a longshot Tory hope. None to be seen in Rother Valley either.
Labour may have real problems getting the WWC vote out tbh.
What chance of a few Tory gains coming through the middle in WWC Labour-held areas, due to a combination of low Labour turnout and UKIP splitting the WWC vote?
For that to happen you need UKIP to hit Lab hard without doing much to Con. All things being equal they tend to take more from Con than Lab, so you'd need quite a weird demographic mix where Con voters are exceptionally Farage-proof but Lab voters are highly Faragible.
Indeed. If it happens it will be somewhere in the midlands where there is a town surrounded by country villages, that just failed to go blue last time, maybe Bolton W, Halifax, Telford, possibly even Morley and Outwood for the evening's entertainment!
Still no Labour posters seen here in my village. Whilst it'll be Labour forever, NE Derbyshire is a longshot Tory hope. None to be seen in Rother Valley either.
Labour may have real problems getting the WWC vote out tbh.
What chance of a few Tory gains coming through the middle in WWC Labour-held areas, due to a combination of low Labour turnout and UKIP splitting the WWC vote?
Zero chance. Labour will take in more LD votes than loses to UKIP or the Greens. So there will still be a swing to Labour from Tory in Labour seats.
I'm not so sure about the first line of that. There is a lot of anger at Labour's metropolitan elite up North. Lots of people feel like they have been taken for granted by Labour's leadership just like Scottish people did. Just like there was no outlet for that in Scotland before the SNP, there has not been any outlet for that in the North until UKIP came along speaking their language of less immigration.
I really think there is a big shy UKIP effect in the North that polling companies have missed in C2DEs.
My Trust pays out £12 million a year to the NHS mutual insurance fund. That would suggest £1.2 billion nationally as we are 1% of the NHS budget.
We actually have not paid out more than £2.5 million in any year in the last two decades. We could save £10 million per year by "going bare" if it were permitted.
From theTelegraph July 2013
" A total of £22.7 billion - nearly one fifth of the health service’s annual budget - has had to be set aside to pay compensation to thousands of people harmed by poor care.
Experts last night said the scale of the liabilities facing the NHS was “jaw-dropping” with English damages now among the highest in the world.
Earlier this year MPs warned that the steep rise in payments was “shocking and scary” and spinning out of control,
The new figures from the NHS Litigation Authority show that the service has put aside £22.7 billion for liabilities - a rise of 22 per cent in just one year, and almost doubled in five years." =========
Put it like this - a 40% reduction in claims would solve all the NHS problems for the next 5 years.
That is not the annual sum though but rather the potential liability of outstanding cases. Many will be won, many will be settled out of court for less and not infrequently obstetric cases drag on for years or decades, so have to be carried as a risk.
As a comparison my negligence insurance for my Private Practice (and I have never had a case, even a successfully defended one) costs me nearly 20% of gross billings.
Still no Labour posters seen here in my village. Whilst it'll be Labour forever, NE Derbyshire is a longshot Tory hope. None to be seen in Rother Valley either.
Labour may have real problems getting the WWC vote out tbh.
What chance of a few Tory gains coming through the middle in WWC Labour-held areas, due to a combination of low Labour turnout and UKIP splitting the WWC vote?
Zero chance. Labour will take in more LD votes than loses to UKIP or the Greens. So there will still be a swing to Labour from Tory in Labour seats.
I'm not so sure about the first line of that. There is a lot of anger at Labour's metropolitan elite up North. Lots of people feel like they have been taken for granted by Labour's leadership just like Scottish people did. Just like there was no outlet for that in Scotland before the SNP, there has not been any outlet for that in the North until UKIP came along speaking their language of less immigration.
I really think there is a big shy UKIP effect in the North that polling companies have missed in C2DEs.
More likely they will simply not turn out. My tip for the election is low turnout everywhere bar Scotland. I think Jacks ARSE is optimistic at forecasting 67%.
The only way the NHS will not cost £8bn more in real terms is by reform. And I think we could ask any of the last 5 prime ministers: That ain't going to happen.
The French NHS is very good but cost more - not least to those charged with paying the insurances - most certainly in %age GPD. .
Indeed. Bur reform is politically impossible history tells us so. All parties have weaponised the nhs. What's required is a cross party consensus on spend, a la 0.7% aid budget. Then let the health select committee appoint an nhs chief executive and hold him or her to account on behalf of the nation.
Given the growing and aging population, serious reform is never going to happen until the public accept that the scope of what the NHS does needs to be drastically reduced.
Cosmetic surgery is largely gone. If we changed the rules so that people receiving compensation for medical negligence got their costs under NHS paid rather than private, billions would be saved.
An interesting point about negligence cases, does anyone know of an official report that details how much these costs the NHS..?
I was aware of a scheme running a few years ago whereby the NHS was taking advice from the aviation industry (of which I have some knowledge) about how they investigate accidents with the sole intention of identifying causal factors and making recommendations to prevent recurrence, rather than apportioning blame. It would also be interesting to know how that was progressing if anyone knows.
My Trust pays out £12 million a year to the NHS mutual insurance fund. That would suggest £1.2 billion nationally as we are 1% of the NHS budget.
We actually have not paid out more than £2.5 million in any year in the last two decades. We could save £10 million per year by "going bare" if it were permitted.
Interesting, thanks.
I guess the next question would be how is this "Mutual Insurance Fund" organised? Does it come from Lloyds as an actual insurance policy, or out of the NHS budget in the same way as civil service pensions..?
Poster watch. I'm in the Lake District and the overwhelming posters are the golden diamond "Winning Here". One or two blue ones in Bowness. No reds yet
Poster watch. I'm in the Lake District and the overwhelming posters are the golden diamond "Winning Here". One or two blue ones in Bowness. No reds yet
Driving through Dore/Totley today - about 6 Lib Dem diamonds, 5 Conservative, 0 Labour (This is a very weak Labour area).
1 Red poster spotted heading through Heeley briefly, and 4 or 5 Bloomfield posters in Nether Edge. One big Green poster in a charity shop floor.
It wouldn't surprise me if Farron increased his majority tbh. Clegg - well I'd imagine there would have been far more diamonds up last GE...
I've only seen a single Tory pamphlet in my seat, it mainly features the Tory candidate promising to fix potholes, also the Long Term Economic Plan, something about tax cuts and free schools, and a bit of NHS and housing on a list of promises inside the pamphlet.
Although a marginal, he doesn't have a chance.
Also a single LD diamond sign by the local LD party.
Not much from Labour though, probably because they are busy with other marginals that are not that much in the bag or because my ward is a bit in the countryside.
Still no Labour posters seen here in my village. Whilst it'll be Labour forever, NE Derbyshire is a longshot Tory hope. None to be seen in Rother Valley either.
Labour may have real problems getting the WWC vote out tbh.
I think there is a massive shy-UKIP effect in the North, where you would normally see Labour posters in WWC areas, I think there are a bunch of new UKIP voters who don't want to publicly say so because they don't know who else is going to vote UKIP.
Would they be shy in opinion polls? The only real question is whether polling (phone/ internet rather than f2f) is missing ukippers because of their demographics)
Same reason as Tories in 1992.
Possibly not - the Tories were being polled and DKd - (or people switched at the last minute after the notorious Sheffield rally made them decide that Mr Kinnock (snr) would not be a good prime-minister). In this case it is possible that polling companies aren't reaching the kippers. Certainly Kippers are very vocal and swamp message boards, but that is not research.
The last yougov showed that overwhelmingly kippers prefer Cameron (-22) to Miliband (-67) - far more than just the 30-15 Tory-Labour switching would suggest. This could work out well for Mr Cameron if there is any element of UKIP voters voting tactically.
My Trust pays out £12 million a year to the NHS mutual insurance fund. That would suggest £1.2 billion nationally as we are 1% of the NHS budget.
We actually have not paid out more than £2.5 million in any year in the last two decades. We could save £10 million per year by "going bare" if it were permitted.
From theTelegraph July 2013
" A total of £22.7 billion - nearly one fifth of the health service’s annual budget - has had to be set aside to pay compensation to thousands of people harmed by poor care.
Experts last night said the scale of the liabilities facing the NHS was “jaw-dropping” with English damages now among the highest in the world.
Earlier this year MPs warned that the steep rise in payments was “shocking and scary” and spinning out of control,
The new figures from the NHS Litigation Authority show that the service has put aside £22.7 billion for liabilities - a rise of 22 per cent in just one year, and almost doubled in five years." =========
Put it like this - a 40% reduction in claims would solve all the NHS problems for the next 5 years.
That is not the annual sum though but rather the potential liability of outstanding cases. Many will be won, many will be settled out of court for less and not infrequently obstetric cases drag on for years or decades, so have to be carried as a risk.
As a comparison my negligence insurance for my Private Practice (and I have never had a case, even a successfully defended one) costs me nearly 20% of gross billings.
well an increase of £4 billion in potential cases in a year is still not to be sniffed at
Still no Labour posters seen here in my village. Whilst it'll be Labour forever, NE Derbyshire is a longshot Tory hope. None to be seen in Rother Valley either.
Labour may have real problems getting the WWC vote out tbh.
What chance of a few Tory gains coming through the middle in WWC Labour-held areas, due to a combination of low Labour turnout and UKIP splitting the WWC vote?
Zero chance. Labour will take in more LD votes than loses to UKIP or the Greens. So there will still be a swing to Labour from Tory in Labour seats.
I'm not so sure about the first line of that. There is a lot of anger at Labour's metropolitan elite up North. Lots of people feel like they have been taken for granted by Labour's leadership just like Scottish people did. Just like there was no outlet for that in Scotland before the SNP, there has not been any outlet for that in the North until UKIP came along speaking their language of less immigration.
I really think there is a big shy UKIP effect in the North that polling companies have missed in C2DEs.
It would have shown in the constituency polls, apart from the West Midlands and the occasional seat in Yorkshire it doesn't show. Though it is possible that UKIP may take a seat from Labour, the chances of the Tories gaining a Labour seat in the north because of UKIP is zero.
My Trust pays out £12 million a year to the NHS mutual insurance fund. That would suggest £1.2 billion nationally as we are 1% of the NHS budget.
We actually have not paid out more than £2.5 million in any year in the last two decades. We could save £10 million per year by "going bare" if it were permitted.
From theTelegraph July 2013
" A total of £22.7 billion - nearly one fifth of the health service’s annual budget - has had to be set aside to pay compensation to thousands of people harmed by poor care.
Experts last night said the scale of the liabilities facing the NHS was “jaw-dropping” with English damages now among the highest in the world.
Earlier this year MPs warned that the steep rise in payments was “shocking and scary” and spinning out of control,
The new figures from the NHS Litigation Authority show that the service has put aside £22.7 billion for liabilities - a rise of 22 per cent in just one year, and almost doubled in five years." =========
Put it like this - a 40% reduction in claims would solve all the NHS problems for the next 5 years.
That is not the annual sum though but rather the potential liability of outstanding cases. Many will be won, many will be settled out of court for less and not infrequently obstetric cases drag on for years or decades, so have to be carried as a risk.
As a comparison my negligence insurance for my Private Practice (and I have never had a case, even a successfully defended one) costs me nearly 20% of gross billings.
Interesting to compare 1% (of expenditure) for the NHS as a whole against 20% (of turnover) for an individual doctor, although there will be lots of determining factors.
I was aware of medical negligence insurance being a huge problem in the US, with six figure premiums for practitioners, but let's not go down the route of US comparisons as that's a very different and equally screwed system!
One thing we can say with more certainty in terms of the electoral system we have is that the SNP's likely performance in Scotland demonstrates that the notion of the 'safe seat for life' with FPTP has a rather larger element of myth to it than reality. As I consistently argue, there is no such thing as a safe seat if you have a popular message, popular messenger and a sympathetic political environment. Indeed I wonder if the problem is less the electoral system we have and more the politicians/political parties!
A majority of seats have a candidate available at 1/25 or better; that is to say, he or she would be a loser once in a hundred years. Scotland merely renders about 25 of these hundreds of safe-seats as not being so.
Still no Labour posters seen here in my village. Whilst it'll be Labour forever, NE Derbyshire is a longshot Tory hope. None to be seen in Rother Valley either.
Labour may have real problems getting the WWC vote out tbh.
What chance of a few Tory gains coming through the middle in WWC Labour-held areas, due to a combination of low Labour turnout and UKIP splitting the WWC vote?
Zero chance. Labour will take in more LD votes than loses to UKIP or the Greens. So there will still be a swing to Labour from Tory in Labour seats.
I'm not so sure about the first line of that. There is a lot of anger at Labour's metropolitan elite up North. Lots of people feel like they have been taken for granted by Labour's leadership just like Scottish people did. Just like there was no outlet for that in Scotland before the SNP, there has not been any outlet for that in the North until UKIP came along speaking their language of less immigration.
I really think there is a big shy UKIP effect in the North that polling companies have missed in C2DEs.
More likely they will simply not turn out. My tip for the election is low turnout everywhere bar Scotland. I think Jacks ARSE is optimistic at forecasting 67%.
They've already 'not turned out'. 1997-2010 are the lowest turnout elections since WW2.
One thing we can say with more certainty in terms of the electoral system we have is that the SNP's likely performance in Scotland demonstrates that the notion of the 'safe seat for life' with FPTP has a rather larger element of myth to it than reality. As I consistently argue, there is no such thing as a safe seat if you have a popular message, popular messenger and a sympathetic political environment. Indeed I wonder if the problem is less the electoral system we have and more the politicians/political parties!
A majority of seats have a candidate available at 1/25 or better; that is to say, he or she would be a loser once in a hundred years. Scotland merely renders about 25 of these hundreds of safe-seats as not being so.
Also the fact that Labour's safe seats in scotland were safe for over 90 years until the SNP swept them. In more than 100 years of electoral history, safe seats have mainly been challenged in 1906, 1918, 1945, 1983 and 1997. If you exclude 1918&1945 due to war effects you only get it once in a generation or two and never in the same place or the same party.
@EPG But how many of the Scottish constituencies that the SNP look set to take would have been priced like that in 2010 or even just a couple of years ago. I don't pretend there are greater likelihoods of change, but generally speaking, evening with FPTP, change can take place if large enough quantities of voters seek it.
Still no Labour posters seen here in my village. Whilst it'll be Labour forever, NE Derbyshire is a longshot Tory hope. None to be seen in Rother Valley either.
Labour may have real problems getting the WWC vote out tbh.
What chance of a few Tory gains coming through the middle in WWC Labour-held areas, due to a combination of low Labour turnout and UKIP splitting the WWC vote?
Zero chance. Labour will take in more LD votes than loses to UKIP or the Greens. So there will still be a swing to Labour from Tory in Labour seats.
I'm not so sure about the first line of that. There is a lot of anger at Labour's metropolitan elite up North. Lots of people feel like they have been taken for granted by Labour's leadership just like Scottish people did. Just like there was no outlet for that in Scotland before the SNP, there has not been any outlet for that in the North until UKIP came along speaking their language of less immigration.
I really think there is a big shy UKIP effect in the North that polling companies have missed in C2DEs.
More likely they will simply not turn out. My tip for the election is low turnout everywhere bar Scotland. I think Jacks ARSE is optimistic at forecasting 67%.
They've already 'not turned out'. 1997-2010 are the lowest turnout elections since WW2.
Interesting to compare 1% (of expenditure) for the NHS as a whole against 20% (of turnover) for an individual doctor, although there will be lots of determining factors.
I was aware of medical negligence insurance being a huge problem in the US, with six figure premiums for practitioners, but let's not go down the route of US comparisons as that's a very different and equally screwed system!
Medical negligence should cost a lot, because it ruins lives. Due to negligence by an NHS surgeon, I suffered periods of intense pain between 15 and 25. Luckily I managed to find an excellent surgeon privately who managed to more-or-less fix me. The trouble stopped me going into my chosen career and mucked up many exams. In some ways, I've spent the last seventeen years trying to catch up.
Not that I'm bitter about it. ;-)
Years later I was at a wedding in Romania, where I met someone who used to work at that particular hospital. I mentioned that I'd been mucked up by a surgeon there, and he named the guy. Apparently it was well known he was not particularly good.
I can only hope things have improved since the late 1980s.
Having joined the ranks of the old,infirm and knackered and no longer fit enough to bang on doors as I would like to do,I have agreed to undertake a strategic role in Labour's campaign.I am undertaking the crucial role of polling station telling.The 1st 2 hours on 7th May is the best guide to how things are going on the day.
@EPG But how many of the Scottish constituencies that the SNP look set to take would have been priced like that in 2010 or even just a couple of years ago. I don't pretend there are greater likelihoods of change, but generally speaking, evening with FPTP, change can take place if large enough quantities of voters seek it.
As everyone tells us, this has been the most radical upturning election in living memory. Even so, the SNP and Ukip combined pushed at most 30 seats out of that category of 335 safe seats, defined here as 1/25 or once-in-a-hundred-year losses. Now that includes seats like Putney and Wimbledon - so you should perhaps dial down the 335 appropriately to get a true figure. But there are still about 150 seats for each of the larger parties which are, in practice, unchallengable except in Tatton 1997-type, 33/1-shot blue moons.
Given that Philips were so completely wrong then, I wonder why they think we should listen to them now?
I think we should stay in the EU - but the arguments on both sides end up extreme and absurd. Of course we can cope out of the EU. Also of course we can cope inside.
We have double the population of Canada and nobody would dream of suggesting that Canada couldn't cope if its not part of the USA.
Still no Labour posters seen here in my village. Whilst it'll be Labour forever, NE Derbyshire is a longshot Tory hope. None to be seen in Rother Valley either.
Labour may have real problems getting the WWC vote out tbh.
What chance of a few Tory gains coming through the middle in WWC Labour-held areas, due to a combination of low Labour turnout and UKIP splitting the WWC vote?
Zero chance. Labour will take in more LD votes than loses to UKIP or the Greens. So there will still be a swing to Labour from Tory in Labour seats.
I'm not so sure about the first line of that. There is a lot of anger at Labour's metropolitan elite up North. Lots of people feel like they have been taken for granted by Labour's leadership just like Scottish people did. Just like there was no outlet for that in Scotland before the SNP, there has not been any outlet for that in the North until UKIP came along speaking their language of less immigration.
I really think there is a big shy UKIP effect in the North that polling companies have missed in C2DEs.
More likely they will simply not turn out. My tip for the election is low turnout everywhere bar Scotland. I think Jacks ARSE is optimistic at forecasting 67%.
They've already 'not turned out'. 1997-2010 are the lowest turnout elections since WW2.
The emergence of the Greens and UKIP should draw some of those voters back for 2015.
I think even fewer will turnout this time. There is not the same fear or enthusiasm about as 2010.
UKIP will do well where the BNP did well in 2010. Some parts of Essex, West Midlands and Lancashire. Those voters have to go somewhere, and UKIP can pick them up alongside a lot of more mainstream right wingers.
Even so; I dont think they will breakthrough 20% in more than a dozen or so seats. Farages debate and "Major Party" status is fizzling out.
@EPG But how many of the Scottish constituencies that the SNP look set to take would have been priced like that in 2010 or even just a couple of years ago. I don't pretend there are greater likelihoods of change, but generally speaking, evening with FPTP, change can take place if large enough quantities of voters seek it.
You're saying nothing other than in extremis, FPTP allows change. Which is a pretty low test. The point remains that under FPTP for most MPs, a seat is a seat for life.
A system designed to suit politicians, rather than the voters.
Nick Clegg has said that his party would theoretically be willing to form a coalition with the second largest party after the general election, as long as the largest party is given the “time and space” to attempt to form a stable government first.
@EPG@RodCrosby Thanks for your comments. I have been a long term supporter of FPTP but that support is not unconditional or necessarily permanent. My view on electoral reform is that we need to think of the end result and with a combined executive/legislature as we have this means we need to think of governmental stability. I like the opportunity for strong governments and for voters to kick a government out in one swoop if they wish. I also don't like systems which institutionalise party power in the form of coalition negotiations where voters find the promises made to them are jettisoned for political baubles.
Admittedly FPTP is not necessarily delivering this at the moment. If there was a system that allows the MP-Voter link, the possibility of majority government, facilitates more transparency on inter-party relations, reduces the need for tactical voting, and is clearly understood (crucial for enhanced legitimacy); then I am all ears. I know there are few perfect systems out there.
Ultimately is may be we have to go as far as splitting the executive from the legislature.
Still no Labour posters seen here in my village. Whilst it'll be Labour forever, NE Derbyshire is a longshot Tory hope. None to be seen in Rother Valley either.
Labour may have real problems getting the WWC vote out tbh.
What chance of a few Tory gains coming through the middle in WWC Labour-held areas, due to a combination of low Labour turnout and UKIP splitting the WWC vote?
Zero chance. Labour will take in more LD votes than loses to UKIP or the Greens. So there will still be a swing to Labour from Tory in Labour seats.
I'm not so sure about the first line of that. There is a lot of anger at Labour's metropolitan elite up North. Lots of people feel like they have been taken for granted by Labour's leadership just like Scottish people did. Just like there was no outlet for that in Scotland before the SNP, there has not been any outlet for that in the North until UKIP came along speaking their language of less immigration.
I really think there is a big shy UKIP effect in the North that polling companies have missed in C2DEs.
More likely they will simply not turn out. My tip for the election is low turnout everywhere bar Scotland. I think Jacks ARSE is optimistic at forecasting 67%.
They've already 'not turned out'. 1997-2010 are the lowest turnout elections since WW2.
The big payouts are in obstetrics and neonatal work. Just like road accident insurance it is cheaper to kill than cause brain damage.
I am not sure who is talking to who in the above extracts but suggesting the NHS needs to cut out what it does to be affordable is a bit silly. The French NHS is suggested to be very good but it costs a lot more - so a more than acceptable service can be provided. However the French public (and politicians) are quite sanguine about people paying extra for direct private treatment. The 2 systems work happily enough together. Likewise Germany for one other example. But even so the costs are becoming very expensive for even these people who want to pay extra. Our own NHS is very efficient but all governments control what is done under their own systems.
Still no Labour posters seen here in my village. Whilst it'll be Labour forever, NE Derbyshire is a longshot Tory hope. None to be seen in Rother Valley either.
Labour may have real problems getting the WWC vote out tbh.
What chance of a few Tory gains coming through the middle in WWC Labour-held areas, due to a combination of low Labour turnout and UKIP splitting the WWC vote?
Zero chance. Labour will take in more LD votes than loses to UKIP or the Greens. So there will still be a swing to Labour from Tory in Labour seats.
I'm not so sure about the first line of that. There is a lot of anger at Labour's metropolitan elite up North. Lots of people feel like they have been taken for granted by Labour's leadership just like Scottish people did. Just like there was no outlet for that in Scotland before the SNP, there has not been any outlet for that in the North until UKIP came along speaking their language of less immigration.
I really think there is a big shy UKIP effect in the North that polling companies have missed in C2DEs.
More likely they will simply not turn out. My tip for the election is low turnout everywhere bar Scotland. I think Jacks ARSE is optimistic at forecasting 67%.
They've already 'not turned out'. 1997-2010 are the lowest turnout elections since WW2.
The emergence of the Greens and UKIP should draw some of those voters back for 2015.
I think even fewer will turnout this time. There is not the same fear or enthusiasm about as 2010.
UKIP will do well where the BNP did well in 2010. Some parts of Essex, West Midlands and Lancashire. Those voters have to go somewhere, and UKIP can pick them up alongside a lot of more mainstream right wingers.
Even so; I dont think they will breakthrough 20% in more than a dozen or so seats. Farages debate and "Major Party" status is fizzling out.
I can see turnout falling to about 55% or so, with a large number of lifelong Labour voters not bothering.
Britain stayed out of the euro. This allowed it to devalue its currency massively between 2007 and 2009 as the pound lost about a third of its value, ensuring industrial success through a beggar-my-neighbour strategy of undercutting euro-area external trade, but also causing general malaise among British voters as import-intensive consumer goods became more expensive. One particular element of this malaise, until the last year, has been the price of oil, which appeared to grow much more quickly than the world price, and certainly than that endured by euro member states using a hard currency. It's too much to say that this series of events led to the SNP's convincing almost half of voters that Scotland should be separate from the UK, but it surely can't have completely failed to contribute.
@EPG But how many of the Scottish constituencies that the SNP look set to take would have been priced like that in 2010 or even just a couple of years ago. I don't pretend there are greater likelihoods of change, but generally speaking, evening with FPTP, change can take place if large enough quantities of voters seek it.
You're saying nothing other than in extremis, FPTP allows change. Which is a pretty low test. The point remains that under FPTP for most MPs, a seat is a seat for life.
A system designed to suit politicians, rather than the voters.
No PR is a job for life. Get to the top of your parties list and all you need to do is ensure you stay at the top by ingratiating yourself with the party rather than serve the public. Terrible system.
FPTP is they system that gives the chance of a Portillo Moment.
Comments
https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/589751577491177472
It could be quite popular.
Is he a) better off or b) worse off.
Osborne isn't raising anything for taxpayers by selling Lloyd shares. He's simply transferring an asset into cash.
In fact taxpayers generally will be even harder hit because they'll have to subsidise the relatively small amount of people who get them at a discount.
Rather than WTF, what I hear is NSS. No shit Sherlock. Of course a tory government will spend 8bn more on the NHS. So would a labour government. Or any government. Health inflation runs higher than normal inflation.plus per capita demand increases as we all live longer. Plus the population is likely to grow by 2020.
The only way the NHS will not cost £8bn more in real terms is by reform. And I think we could ask any of the last 5 prime ministers: That ain't going to happen.
The 2010 election result dictated the Con-LD coalition. Perhaps the 2015 result will do something similar?
*) Two signs for Labour outside one house on the Madingley Road;
*) about five thousand Labour (*) posters in the windows of the Unite offices;
*) a sign for Huppert outside a house in Trumpington;
*) whilst a rather unkempt pick-up loaded with Green signs was parked next door, with someone clambering in a hedge to erect one.
So they are appearing, slowly.
(*) Did I really need to say which party they were for?
The French NHS is very good but cost more - not least to those charged with paying the insurances - most certainly in %age GPD.
The fact is that faced with the report the tories are doing the honest thing and saying they will meet the cost. Lets face it they have been dealing with the NHS for 5 years and going through the efficiencies and probably have a good idea of the problems and issues.
If Labour are saying its not needed than fine, the NHS will get by with less. Health inflation is very high and also the demand is rising with an older population. The unknown is how much tax can be collected from the serial avoiders.
' Though it will be a disaster for the Tories and labour as the populace see them both as all the same party, as UKIP have been saying all along.'
Are you still forecasting 55 UKIP MP's ?
The US has been the driving force behind the instability in the Middle East and Eastern Europe so yes I think the US is the greatest threat to stability and the question is how we manage the US's steady decline as China, Russia and Germany reemerge.
https://consortiumnews.com/2015/04/13/neocon-chaos-promotion-in-the-mideast/
Encouragingly I believe all three countries would be, and are, willing to reign in Zionist and Salafi Sunni extremism that is key to stabilising Europe's near abroad.
One house with a conservative sign.
One house with both a conservative poster and a labour poster.
1 Red poster spotted heading through Heeley briefly, and 4 or 5 Bloomfield posters in Nether Edge. One big Green poster in a charity shop floor.
It wouldn't surprise me if Farron increased his majority tbh. Clegg - well I'd imagine there would have been far more diamonds up last GE...
http://newstonoone.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/the-ukip-battleground-in-april-2015.html
We can start with the Daily Mail headlines of cosmetic surgery but that is only scratching the surface, real reform involves for example removing the tax disincentives around employer-provided private healthcare, maybe even replaced by positive tax incentives for smaller companies to provide insurance to their employees and families.
The more people that can be diverted from using the NHS, the more resources there are to go to those who need them most.
Labour may have real problems getting the WWC vote out tbh.
The SNP are toxic because they are far left and want to destroy the UK. It would be labour they poison
If the Tories are the largest party why would they turn to Labour to help them out? In either grand coalition scenario would anyone trust Labour?
Available @ both spreadex & sporting index.
Like I said, sub 250 Labour if Tories take NE Derbyshire so from a betting PoV I'm covered well.
When she went to see the specialist, she had the odd experience of her husband and the specialist drawing on her breasts where they thought her nipples should be ...
Was it needed? No: she could have continued as she was. Did it improve her life? Yes.
So I guess the same operation can be either cosmetic of medical and cosmetic.
I was aware of a scheme running a few years ago whereby the NHS was taking advice from the aviation industry (of which I have some knowledge) about how they investigate accidents with the sole intention of identifying causal factors and making recommendations to prevent recurrence, rather than apportioning blame. It would also be interesting to know how that was progressing if anyone knows.
I remember reading (I think before the 2010 election) that many of Labour's heartland seats now have more former Labour voters than current Labour voters.
Labour vote share was:
1997: 43%
2001: 40%
2005: 35%
2010: 29%
Dudley North and Walsall North at 6/1 are the only tempting ones, and I think the Tories in Eastleigh too.
On the Hampstead house with two posters: surely just multiple occupants?
I think they will get a lot of second places in areas like mine
We actually have not paid out more than £2.5 million in any year in the last two decades. We could save £10 million per year by "going bare" if it were permitted.
You don't need to go bare in your hospital (oo, er), but be allowed to take insurance from other providers.
As long as the cover requirement is achieved, then you will save money.
But that would be "creeping privatisation", so will be shouted down by the usual suspects.
Labour will take in more LD votes than loses to UKIP or the Greens.
So there will still be a swing to Labour from Tory in Labour seats.
" A total of £22.7 billion - nearly one fifth of the health service’s annual budget - has had to be set aside to pay compensation to thousands of people harmed by poor care.
Experts last night said the scale of the liabilities facing the NHS was “jaw-dropping” with English damages now among the highest in the world.
Earlier this year MPs warned that the steep rise in payments was “shocking and scary” and spinning out of control,
The new figures from the NHS Litigation Authority show that the service has put aside £22.7 billion for liabilities - a rise of 22 per cent in just one year, and almost doubled in five years."
=========
Put it like this - a 40% reduction in claims would solve all the NHS problems for the next 5 years.
http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2011/oct/14/designer-vagina-surgery
A surprising amount is done on the NHS too; though hard to seperate western women wanting FGM and reconstructive repair of FGM from the way that the figures are kept.
I really think there is a big shy UKIP effect in the North that polling companies have missed in C2DEs.
As a comparison my negligence insurance for my Private Practice (and I have never had a case, even a successfully defended one) costs me nearly 20% of gross billings.
I guess the next question would be how is this "Mutual Insurance Fund" organised? Does it come from Lloyds as an actual insurance policy, or out of the NHS budget in the same way as civil service pensions..?
Although a marginal, he doesn't have a chance.
Also a single LD diamond sign by the local LD party.
Not much from Labour though, probably because they are busy with other marginals that are not that much in the bag or because my ward is a bit in the countryside.
The last yougov showed that overwhelmingly kippers prefer Cameron (-22) to Miliband (-67) - far more than just the 30-15 Tory-Labour switching would suggest. This could work out well for Mr Cameron if there is any element of UKIP voters voting tactically.
Though it is possible that UKIP may take a seat from Labour, the chances of the Tories gaining a Labour seat in the north because of UKIP is zero.
I was aware of medical negligence insurance being a huge problem in the US, with six figure premiums for practitioners, but let's not go down the route of US comparisons as that's a very different and equally screwed system!
http://www.ukpolitical.info/Turnout45.htm
The emergence of the Greens and UKIP should draw some of those voters back for 2015.
In more than 100 years of electoral history, safe seats have mainly been challenged in 1906, 1918, 1945, 1983 and 1997.
If you exclude 1918&1945 due to war effects you only get it once in a generation or two and never in the same place or the same party.
Not that I'm bitter about it. ;-)
Years later I was at a wedding in Romania, where I met someone who used to work at that particular hospital. I mentioned that I'd been mucked up by a surgeon there, and he named the guy. Apparently it was well known he was not particularly good.
I can only hope things have improved since the late 1980s.
https://twitter.com/guy_levin/status/589788153160015872
Get real.
It is organised centrally by the NHS, with subscriptions charged to Trusts
http://www.nhsla.com/Claims/Pages/Home.aspx
The big payouts are in obstetrics and neonatal work. Just like road accident insurance it is cheaper to kill than cause brain damage.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/mediatechnologyandtelecoms/electronics/11547642/Philips-could-quit-Britain-if-UK-votes-No-to-Europe.html
Funny. Only took a minute or so to find a similar scare story about the cost of us not joining the Euro back in 2003.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/13/business/executives-warn-britain-not-to-reject-the-euro.html
Given that Philips were so completely wrong then, I wonder why they think we should listen to them now?
We have double the population of Canada and nobody would dream of suggesting that Canada couldn't cope if its not part of the USA.
UKIP will do well where the BNP did well in 2010. Some parts of Essex, West Midlands and Lancashire. Those voters have to go somewhere, and UKIP can pick them up alongside a lot of more mainstream right wingers.
Even so; I dont think they will breakthrough 20% in more than a dozen or so seats. Farages debate and "Major Party" status is fizzling out.
A system designed to suit politicians, rather than the voters.
Nick Clegg has said that his party would theoretically be willing to form a coalition with the second largest party after the general election, as long as the largest party is given the “time and space” to attempt to form a stable government first.
And I'm not just saying that because I was vociferously against joining the Euro. ;-)
Admittedly FPTP is not necessarily delivering this at the moment. If there was a system that allows the MP-Voter link, the possibility of majority government, facilitates more transparency on inter-party relations, reduces the need for tactical voting, and is clearly understood (crucial for enhanced legitimacy); then I am all ears. I know there are few perfect systems out there.
Ultimately is may be we have to go as far as splitting the executive from the legislature.
On SPIN you can trade Labour 300 up: sell 1.5, buy at 3.5.
Assuming there isn't a cat in h***s chance of Labour getting 301 seats does this mean you are bound to get a 50% ROI?
----
Going back to your earlier 'anti-UKIP alliance' point.
General elections tend to be presented as change vs stay-the-course. I don't see why individual seats should be viewed differently.
In a two horse race you have the sitting MP, and the challenger. Perceptions of the sitting MP will drive the challenger's support.
Our own NHS is very efficient but all governments control what is done under their own systems.
FPTP is they system that gives the chance of a Portillo Moment.