politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » NHS polling blow for the Cameron and Osborne following the
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » NHS polling blow for the Cameron and Osborne following the £8bn extra funding pledge
First reaction to the Tory big pledge on extra funding for the NHS does not look good though it is likely to take a few days for the message to get through.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Replied to your comment on the previous thread.
A nation awaits .....
Seems a slight change of message. Earlier it seemed that they were happy to see Miliband as PM in return for a handful of second place positions. Could anti-Ed tactical voting take off?
TBH, it seemed up there with some other parties fantasy economics.
I’m swinging back to LD, although I expect I’ll be in a minority! I usually am!
Mike, it is time to go back to your excellent reality check thread of a few days ago where all of 24% of the great British public had noticed that there had been something in the news or in the press about an election thingy. With this level of attention the idea that the £8bn detail is somehow going to change perceptions is, well, optimistic.
The idea that the Tories cannot be trusted with the NHS has been ground into the public by generations of Labour politicians. Facts, results, 5 years of real term spending increases during so called austerity, failures on Labour's watch, PFI, Wales, the GP contract failures, basic neglect and incompetence, none of it is enough to shift that perception. If it ever did I honestly wonder if the Labour party would still exist.
So it is not a blow for Cameron and Osborne that they are less trusted with the NHS, it is simply a part of the backdrop against which they have to operate and try to persuade that smallish section of the population who are open to reason on this. Their best answer is that strong public services need a strong economy and they are the ones who can deliver that. But even if that argument wins the polls will still show Labour ahead on the NHS.
The fundamentals of this campaign have not changed and let me be utterly clear. From day one of his "leadership" Labour were doomed to defeat and on 8th May all of PB will know that, no ifs no buts :
Ed Miliband Will Never Be Prime Minister
“Of course, it’s a complex electoral system and people have to use their votes as wisely as they can"
The Telegraph journalist is the one advocating voting for the Conservative candidate.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ukip/11529907/Nigel-Farage-interview-I-am-not-playing-the-game.html
Presumably, that means that 57% - the majority, and way beyond Tory electoral expectations - think the NHS is safe in Tory hands?
http://may2015.com/category/poll-of-polls/
Osborne was pointing out yesterday that although there are cuts in the first 2 years of the next Parliament he expects things to be better thereafter making this an easier target than what has been achieved in this Parliament.
There is an element of unreality to this, it unfortunately reminds me of Brown boasting that he has ended boom and bust, because it assumes that the current growth cycle will last throughout the next Parliament which would make it unusually long. But none of our politicians are willing to contemplate what will happen to the UK if there is a major international downturn when we are still running such a high deficit. It is frankly just too scary to contemplate.
It's really not hard to read between the lines. In all but about 6 seats where UKIP might win, those who want a referendum are better off voting for the bloke offering one not the one who's ruled it out.
Mixed messages are very diffcult to read. As with a TV commercial you can only sell one message.
Huge IHT cuts and £8 billion to the NHS gives the impression of incoherence.
Mr Farage did not endorse voting for any candidates other than UKIP.
The five most important factors I believe will play to the Conservatives way on May 8th.
1. The Ashcroft polling has shown no clear path to Downing Street for Ed. Outside of London Ed is not doing well enough in the target rich Midlands and Northern marginals.
2. UKIP will continue to be squeezed slowly to the benefit of the Tories.
3. Differential turnout in the marginals will assist Conservatives.
4. Under Ed Labour has consistently underperformed their polling on election days.
5. The Foot/Kinnock factor. Voters will not elect a dud into Downing Street.
"... order order"
What are you doing reading that garbage. It's like the SUN for the educationally sub normal
The real problem with the NHS is that, as with this Parliament, 1% annual increases feel like cuts in NHS spending. The reasons for this are various but obvious ones are an aging and increasing population, more expensive drugs, more complicated treatments and the horrendous legacies of PFI contracts which will take a long time to unwind.
The NHS plan which identifies the need for the £8bn recognises much of this and does not suggest for a moment that we heading into a land of milk and honey. But this is what UK plc can afford; indeed it may be even more than we can afford.
Misery awaits
I agree, it's worse than Chicken Little, It is headless Chicken Little on here.
What happened to the steadfast Brit with a stiff upper lip?
So what you are really arguing is that the other factors indicate that the Tories are going to significantly exceed expectations in relation to the Ashcroft polling. Of the factors you have identified I would say:
2. Agreed.
3. Not sure. Although the Tories seem better organised than in 2010 Labour still seem to have the better ground game.
4. Not sure I agree with this either. The old golden rule that the poll with the worst Labour result is the closest has gone into retirement.
5. Maybe.
For good measure I would add in a reduction in the efficiency of the Labour vote. Disappointed red Liberals voting Labour in the south west, for example, positively help the Conservatives and I doubt that Ed will do quite as poorly in the Labour safe seats as Gordon did. It is easier to vote against something than for Gordon. This time around there will also be a lot of wasted second place votes in Scotland.
But I still struggle to see Labour as other than the largest party. I also struggle to see the Lib Dems as the third largest party. If the SNP are the third largest it will make it incredibly difficult for the Tories to remain in office. I hope you are right but I really don't think so.
Headline: Labour pledges 'no extra borrowing'
Translation: the current account budget deficit will be eliminated through growth anyway but we will continue to borrow for other things don't worry
Isn't Ed M's message basically a continuation of Gordon's.
The crash was nothing to do with us and our cuts will be for investment and targeted at those nasty people who thrive on your misery. He saw that Gordon's message was reasonably effective and it's the only hand he can play or understand.
Why shouldn't it work? Especially when the Tories seem happy to oblige.
I'll post later after I drop Mrs JackW off at the airport.
"But as I pointed out yesterday £8bn a year in 5 years time is a relatively modest sum of money."
Which shows the flaw in their campaign. They came into this election with a reputation for prudence and running a strong economy.
After a week and a half they now look fiscally incontinent. Flinging largesse in all directions. Huge IHT tax cuts and massive injections of cash into public services...... If as you say it's a small amount then say so. Their credibility is much more important than trying to dazzle with tinsel and glitter
http://may2015.com/category/poll-of-polls/
LAsh - phone: Con lead 2
Opinium - online: Con lead 2
ICM - phone: Con lead 1
Com Res - phone: Con lead 1
Ipsos - phone: Lab lead 1
Comres - online: Lab lead 2
Populus - online: Lab lead 2
Yougov - online: Lab lead 3
TNS - online: Lab lead 3
Survation - online: Lab lead 4
Panelbase - online: Lab lead 6
Who do you trust?
Phones or the internet?
Longstanding pollsters or the new kids on the block?
Nicer YouGov for Labour, but hard to be overly concerned by one poll when there'll be several more in the next few days.
Lib Dem
Conservative
Labour
All in the running.
"1. The Ashcroft polling has shown no clear path to Downing Street for Ed. Outside of London Ed is not doing well enough in the target rich Midlands and Northern marginals.
2. UKIP will continue to be squeezed slowly to the benefit of the Tories.
3. Differential turnout in the marginals will assist Conservatives.
4. Under Ed Labour has consistently underperformed their polling on election days.
5. The Foot/Kinnock factor. Voters will not elect a dud into Downing Street."
If I was a Blue and that's what passes as 'due diligence' by the Tories favourite pollster I'd be extremely worried!
Sorry to go o/t so soon but if this - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/11531140/Extremists-are-setting-up-anti-British-schools-report-claims.html - is true, why on earth are we allowing this to happen?
On topic, both campaigns seem to be hopeless with Labour marginally edging it IMO.
Whatever the result it will be an expensive result for all of us.
One thing I very much hope won't happen is that the Greens get any say in government with their appalling suggestion to ban horse-racing.
If Ed does become PM, his first job should be to sack Burnham. But he will not.
Is it because healthcare free at the point of use, funded from general taxation, is an ideological principle that should never be questioned? If so, that's a poor argument. Bevan knew, and in 1958 actually admitted that he knew, that it would lead to an inferior health service than one funded by insurance based on income. But because he wanted to hammer the rich (whom he described as 'lower than vermin') and justify confiscatory taxation to his core constituency (the poor) he went for it out of ideology.
It should also be noted that Labour's childish attacks on anyone who dared to point out failings in the NHS as somebody who wanted to 'introduce American healthcare' led to the disasters - arguably criminal disasters - of the Liverpool Care Pathway and Mid Staffordshire, which were exposed by opposition politicians/papers for partisan reasons. If we had all parties colluding on the subject, the risk of such tragedies would be much greater.
Personally I think that a sign of a mature democracy would be where all sides and all parties were willing to judge cases on absolutely any subject - regardless of what it is and whether there is a mainstream consensus on an alternative - fairly on their practical merits rather than on outmoded ideological principles, be they Thatcherite or Socialist. If you will name me one democracy in the world, PR or not, where that happens I would be interested to hear it - but the only ones I can think of off-hand are Switzerland (where they have direct popular democracy) and Estonia (where they never bother to say anything unless they think it is worth saying).
Scotland is an irrelevance in determining who takes power in downing street. The SNP will never support a tory administration, although they will extract a price, at the end of the day they have no other option other than to put Labour into power.
Realistically, if the Labour and Tories take a roughly even set of gains from the Lib Dems, 15 direct Con -> Labour gains is enough to put them into power.
The maths are inexorable, nothing else matters.
I would not be a bit surprised to see him not being CoE if Labour win. He sounds unhappy at the rubbish he is spouting.
I would guess that it finally dawned on him that outside the Labour membership it was not a vote-winner in the former Mid Staffordshire area...
EDIT - however, it should be noted he is now campaigning on the subject of the coalition planning to sell off the Forestry Commission, which owns and mismanages part of Cannock Chase itself. As I recall, they abandoned that idea four years ago. I have sometimes wondered how big a winning margin Labour would have if they had a candidate who could pass for intelligent.
It's got the ABC production values, crisp hard lighting for the night scenes, tight script and likable characters. Vincent D'Orfrino is a FAB baddie as Wilson Fisk. I tend to find fight scenes a bit of a yawn - the choreography is fun, fast and expertly done. It's like MMA, free-running with boxing. Whoever is stunt doubling for the main character really is a huge talent. I find the ones in Arrow very unconvincing/FFW over - the ones in DareDevil are excellent and some I've even rewound.
I found the pilot a bit hard work and took me a few stops/starts [it's also a bit dark literally] but by E3 it's in its stride and I watched the whole thing in a day. Can't wait for S2. No idea if it follows the Marvel comic story - I never read these.
I agree with those downthread calling for health to be depoliticised. The irony is that the day-to-day management of the NHS, and even a large chunk of its strategy, has already been depoliticised, and yet it remains an emotive issue and a political football even when the main parties' positions on funding and management are barely distinguishable.
Meanwhile Ed Balls provided the first chuckle of the day on the BBC sofa, saying in the same breath: "we won't make any unfunded commitments...we will do whatever it takes to save the NHS".
However, the big story of the day is Labour's purported pivot to the centre with its pledge to reduce the deficit each year in the next parliament and not to pass any budget measures that necessitate extra borrowing. It lacks any credibility, of course, but that is besides the point. The interesting aspect of this proposal is that it indicates Labour believes that it has secured its left flank, and that it is no longer vulnerable to a loss of support to the Greens or Lib Dems. Labour's leadership have calculated that the left (at least outside Scotland) will hold their nose and support Labour on the day, which frees Labour to pursue the centrist votes they need to win key marginals.
I think this could be the decisive moment. If this message lands, and Labour pulls into a lead in the polls, I expect it will be self re-inforcing, holding together Labour's fragile left flank as soft supporters see an opportunity to oust the Conservatives and force Labour to renege later. If it doesn't land then the left may refracture as the soft Labour voters, who so recently were laying in the arms of the Greens, decide that Labour won't win and don't deserve to win having betrayed the left. Whether they go elsewhere or stay at home I don't know. The Greens have rather imploded in this campaign and the Lib Dems have opted for a centrist pitch themselves. The sofa may seem like the most agreeable option.
Labour's pitch to the centre also indicates that they think the dye is cast in Scotland. Note that is not quite the same thing as saying that they have conceded defeat - but they don't think there are any more voters to be lost (and possibly think there are some to be gained) by not trading left hooks with the SNP.
Those who treat the NHS as a sacred cow which cannot be criticised or improved do us no favours.
We reform the management of the NHS with monotonous, and initiative-sapping regularity; we don’t look at how things are organised or how the skill-mix could be changed.
This is what I think isn't widely understood. Inheritance tax doesn't affect millionaires or at least, not as much as it was designed to, because they simply hand over large chunks of assets to their heirs and therefore avoid it (legally) entirely. It affects those people who have their wealth locked up in one principle asset, usually a house, and can't afford to give away enough other material (cash/pensions) to get below the threshold.
This has led to the slightly ridiculous situation where it is levied on 5% of all estates (the number of estates that should be affected is theoretically around 30%) and not generally on the wealthiest estates. Toynbee and Hodge, both of whom are multi-millionaires and both of whom manage their wealth through trusts in the names of their families, are classic examples of how to get round it.
Now on to the next question - if a tax is avoided by around 85% of the people it should be levied on, is it a good tax or not? Should it be kept for social engineering reasons? If so, let's have a 100% tax on all estates and an end to inherited wealth other than personal possessions, strictly defined. That would mean everyone would have to survive on their own wits (imagine how that would change the face of the House of Commons)! Or, if it should be kept only to raise money, let's raise the threshold, clear up the rules and have a simple and direct tax that hits the wealthiest in a way they can't avoid.
Of course, the flaw in my argument is that it is unlikely that the Conservative proposals will do the latter...
On the NHS it would make much more sense to make the opposite criticism, which is that the ruling elite are conspiring to hide their intentions from the voters, and the "choice" they get at elections is a scam.
Our employees are well rewarded for both the business they bring in and for the projects they manage/undertake. (We also use specialist contractors where required). All are employees are innovators and are highly motivated.
They decided that the company should look to relocate out of the UK and preferably outside western Europe and probably organise on a regional global basis.
Their reasons for this change are:
(i) As they work very hard they wish to be able to retain the vast majority of their earnings.
(ii) They do not wish to subsidise the lazy, the feckless and those who expect to have as many children as they wish at the state's expense.
(iii) They want their families to have access to the best education and best health care.
(iv) They want to live in a country where the aspiration for excellence is prized and where governments/local authorities are not happy to remain with average or less than average standards.
(v) They are very unhappy at the political parties seeming intent to level down rather than level up.
"I would not be a bit surprised to see him not being CoE if Labour win. He sounds unhappy at the rubbish he is spouting."
Has the story in the Mail about the Lib Dem in Hamstead who I remember you speaking highly of had any effect? I thught it was one of the most unfair character assassinations I've seen even in the Mail which is saying something
Voters marginally perceive them to manage the economy better than Labour.
Voters are utterly wrong in that, but that is different from claiming any sort of magic reputation on the economy for the Tories.
If they really had this rep, they'd be storming the polls.
"(i) As they work very hard they wish to be able to retain the vast majority of their earnings.
(ii) They do not wish to subsidise the lazy, the feckless and those who expect to have as many children as they wish at the state's expense.
(iii) They want their families to have access to the best education and best health care."
If they're short of transport to the airport I'll volunteer
(The particular 'value' I'm not sure about is 'tolerance'. This is partly because it isn't defined but largely because Britain and the British people historically have tended to tolerate differences - i.e. put up with them - rather than be 'tolerant' that is to say, be happy with/about difference. This led to an awful lot of casual racism and sexism that certainly would not be considered appropriate today. However, the clerk who drafted these standards and presumably had them approved by Gove appears to be unaware of that.)
The issue is the lack of supply of houses.
On the latest IHT proposal I agree with Mr Nabavi's comment yesterday. Daft to create a perverse incentive to stay in an expensive house rather than simply raise the threshold so that people can decide for themselves what to leave to their heirs (house/cash/objects). Better in my view to have a much much lower rate of tax but apply it to everyone and get rid of the incentives to get round it.
Fundamentally I think that governments should encourage people to make as much provision for themselves and their families as possible. Whereas it feels that if you do the right thing e.g. save for your retirement or make provision for your children you are punished. And both parties are equally bad on this point.
Taxation should not be about punishing people or sending messages. It should simply be about raising revenue in the most efficient manner without causing harmful and unintended consequences.
I suggest they go and form their perfect liberal fantasy republic somewhere.
What did they say, as a matter of interest?
Here the Tories and Labour have been active, the former rather more. The Lib Dems have been hampered by the loss of their councillors so they have, I assume, fewer foot soldiers. But Maajid Nawaz has been appearing at local events.
So according to you we should all sit back on our sofas, watching daytime tv and eating and drinking - all at the governments expense.
Many, many people are still weighing up how they will vote. Or even if they will vote at all. About the only thing that I have observed has broken through into the voters' consciousness in this campaign so far is the risk of Labour being propped up by the SNP - and so they can wave goodbye to any chance of infrastructure funding getting down to the SW. The poster of Ed in Alex's top pocket is the defining image of the campaign so far.
But like you I'm a bit sceptical about "promoting British values" in this way. Far better would be to say clearly what is contrary to British law and Western enlightenment values and say that this is wrong, criminal and will not be tolerated. And then take action when that criminal behaviour happens. Teaching British history and the arguments of political thinkers and writers like Locke, Hobbes, Mill, Wilkes, Paine, Burke and Orwell would do far more.