By cutting administrators and adding 3,000 more nurses and 8,000 more doctors, according to Cameron on Radio 5 this morning.
So, vote labour if you want more highly paid administrators in your hospital, and good luck if you need actual medical care.
Is that 3,000 more nurses net over the course of the Parliament, or 3000 nurses recruited since the Francis report stated that inadequate staffing levels attributed to the poor quality of care at Mid Staffs? And it's a big assumption that cutting administrators necessarily increases efficiency.
Back when I was in hospital a couple of years ago, the Ward Sister of the ward I was on for the 1st few days was absolutely rushed off her feet. If she'd had an admin assistant during the day, to field the phone calls from relatives, chase up blood test results, chase up prescriptions from the pharmacy, and track down the porters for the regular game of musical bed-bays, then she could have spent much more time with the patients. Luckily, after the first 24 hours, once they were satisfied that I was no longer going to keel over if I went to the loo by myself, I didn't need much looking after beyond having my obs checked, treatment administered and further tests done. The problem was, the various delays introduced by all this chasing up meant I had to stay in over the weekend when I probably wouldn't have needed to otherwise, thus blocking a bed that someone else could have used.
Since I've been discharged I've also had a shedload of outpatients appointments, and getting through to the lowly administrators to confirm or rearrange appointments can also take some doing. Having more administrators can sometimes make the service more efficient, you just have to put them in the right places doing the right things.
During the last labour governments term they increased spending on the NHS over that parliament by 5.7% per year.
During the coalitions term the increased NHS spending over that parliament by 0.8% per year.
Given that health inflation is recognised to run at between 3 - 4% per year, the Tories have made deep cuts.
Much more of the same and and our NHS will reach tipping point. I suspect that is exactly what Cameron and his ilk would love to see.
Vote Labour to save the only jewell left in this country.
No wonder you are upset. You might not be so upset if you actually understood the numbers you are quoting.
The figures are REAL increases, which means increases above inflation. There have been no "cuts" in spending, spending has increased in REAL terms (that's above inflation) by 0.8% p.a.
Spending on temporary staff increased by 9% p.a in REAL terms under the coalition and by 4% in REAL terms for permanent staff. That seems perverse and don't understand why we have a jobs shortage but huge vacancies for NHS nurses. I suspect a large part of temporary staff are ex NHS that we have trained. Could it be that the Labour spend fest of 5.7% p.a financed the attractive transition from permanent to agency staff to make a few bob for themselves and the agencies?
A shortfall between services demanded and services able to be met within available resources is not a "cut" it is running out of money. If resources are increased, as they have under the coalition, yet demand is outstripping supply, we hear the Tories have deliberately "cut" services. What is the purpose of that distortion apart from gaining votes from people who don't listen for the facts, suck up the propaganda and relay the message down the line Send three and fourpence we are going to a dance.
simple way to increase investment in the Nhs is to turn the national lottery into a NHS lottery - over 7bn was spent on tickets last year if 25% went to the NHS this would make a huge difference.
Surprised no-one has suggested this.
Why not cut out the middle man and implement an 'idiot tax' to fund the NHS, since that's basically what the lottery is.
Agreed (hang on - I'm agreeing with Fiiish!!).
Throwing money blindly at the NHS would be wrong - it needs to be targeted and administered effectively. But by many measures in comparison to other developed economies the NHS is seriously underfunded. I think I would be on safe ground in saying that the principle of medical care free at the point of delivery paid for out of general taxation is an approach agreed by the vast majority of the population irrespective of their political leanings.
The NHS is the essential public service and in my opinion the greatest peacetime achievement of any government in our history. It needs to be paid for by the application of progressive taxation where those who earn more pay more into it. It aint a fecking charity!
If folk are still gone vote for Labour after seeing that, the UK has got bigger problems than just having him at the helm.
You're right. A well-informed electorate should always be encouraged to choose whom to vote for, by being shown pictures of the party leaders looking ridiculous, instead of trying to gain an intelligent, fact-based insight into their ideals, policies and intentions.
Chizz, it ain't got nothing to do with the photo of him eating that bacon sarnie, the geezer looks like a clown whatever he's doing ffs and someone described him as a statesman the other day pmsl
If folk are still gone vote for Labour after seeing that, the UK has got bigger problems than just having him at the helm.
You're right. A well-informed electorate should always be encouraged to choose whom to vote for, by being shown pictures of the party leaders looking ridiculous, instead of trying to gain an intelligent, fact-based insight into their ideals, policies and intentions.
Chizz, it ain't got nothing to do with the photo of him eating that bacon sarnie, the geezer looks like a clown whatever he's doing ffs and someone described him as a statesman the other day pmsl
p's, can you stop flagging me, Chizz you grass
OK, I have removed the flag I gave you for spoiling SadieJane's hard work on the poll, by entering your voting intention as "Solly".
I have asked before genuine question based on what I have witnessed whilst at a and e do the waiting times and people turn around times include waiting for an interpreter and the issues caused by taking two medical staff to speak to one family, due to communication issues
If folk are still gone vote for Labour after seeing that, the UK has got bigger problems than just having him at the helm.
You're right. A well-informed electorate should always be encouraged to choose whom to vote for, by being shown pictures of the party leaders looking ridiculous, instead of trying to gain an intelligent, fact-based insight into their ideals, policies and intentions.
Chizz, it ain't got nothing to do with the photo of him eating that bacon sarnie, the geezer looks like a clown whatever he's doing ffs and someone described him as a statesman the other day pmsl
p's, can you stop flagging me, Chizz you grass
OK, I have removed the flag I gave you for spoiling SadieJane's hard work on the poll, by entering your voting intention as "Solly".
I have left the other one there.
Solly I offended you on SJ's behalf but she thought it was funny an all so you can rest assured that nobody was offended lol
I'm delighted slightly disturbed by this rule of voting as published by the BBC
Can I vote if I've been drinking?
Yes. Polling station staff cannot refuse a voter simply because they are drunk or under the influence of drugs. Only if the voter is disruptive will they be asked to return when they have sobered up.
Interesting on the polling side is Labour do better when in the lead in terms of seats, this is because their support is more consolidated - not sure there is enough up to date data to suggest what happens when they are neck and neck.
I expect the bookies are simply following the money - bets are on Labour getting most seats. I guess the assumption is UKIP will take more off the Cons than the Labs.
What also puzzles me is that the NHS has become the main battleground, yet Labour who are polling strongest on that issue have seen their poll lead drop.
Of course you can't rely on polls, particularly when they are close.
I think my definition of why im tory and not labour is from the sarcastic response I got from Chizz a few hours ago on the fact Cameron has found jobs for 2 MILLION people since 2010 (whether they are part time or not)
I can only think of this as a good thing - 2 MILLION people paying taxes and not claiming benefits
Obviously your standard labour voter doesnt.
If and when labour get in tomorrow and I fear they might, it might be time to hide your money under the pillow..
And after finally escaping from where the Tories have been hiding him for the majority of the campaign, Iain Duncan Smith let slip on Tuesday that the reason why they haven't said where the £12bn of welfare cuts they are planning on making by 2017-18 is that they haven't yet "done the work on it". So in other words they've just picked a number out of their arses and have no idea whether it's achievable or not. And this is the party that claims to be fiscally responsible?!
This means that while Cameron said in the Question Time session that he didn't have any plans to cut child benefit and child tax credits, that's because he doesn't actually have a plan to find the bulk of the £12bn welfare savings at all. Remember how before the last election he didn't plan to raise VAT to 20% either, then did so straight afterwards? His wording may be semantically accurate but it's hardly honest.
So all those restrictions on Carer's Allowance, abolishing Contributory JSA and ESA, taxing disability benefits etc are still on the table (despite IDS denying they were being considered at the end of March) along with abolishing statutory maternity pay, barring under-25s from claiming incapacity benefit or housing benefit, and even increasing the bedroom tax. Given how badly the disabled have been hit by the welfare reforms in this parliament, I dread to think how they'd fare if all that lot came in.
I think my definition of why im tory and not labour is from the sarcastic response I got from Chizz a few hours ago on the fact Cameron has found jobs for 2 MILLION people since 2010 (whether they are part time or not)
I can only think of this as a good thing - 2 MILLION people paying taxes and not claiming benefits
Obviously your standard labour voter doesnt.
If and when labour get in tomorrow and I fear they might, it might be time to hide your money under the pillow..
Anyway, must remember, we are all Charlton
This is what's good about CL. We're all friends. Even the ones like southendaddick who are clearly wrong ;-)
I can only think of this as a good thing - 2 MILLION people paying taxes and not claiming benefits
Two big assumptions there 1) Are they getting paid enough to take them over the income tax threshhold? 2) Are they getting paid enough not to need housing benefit and/or tax credits?
(and is it definitely 2 million people, or just 2 million new jobs?)
Given that the majority of new HB claims are actually from people in work, that's certainly not going to be true for all of them. Getting people into work is good, as long as it's secure work that covers their outgoings. Making work pay is always talked about in terms of how much money you get in relation to benefits, but that's much less relevant than how much you have to spend to get to work, your housing costs and to pay for your work clothes (if they aren't provided). Getting housing costs down, and making public transport affordable (and available in some cases) would make that calculation more favourable, as would raising the minimum wage.
Also looks like the Sun are trying to repeat their 1992 success of mocking the Labour leader in hopes it will swing the vote:
I can't see it working to be honest, people are a lot more social-media savvy and the dead-tree press has lost a lot of the influence it once had. Seems like very desperate kitchen sink stuff to me. If this doesn't work, think Murdoch has to realise he can't influence elections like he used to and start distancing himself from outright throwing his weight behind one party (although he is already doing this by supporting the SNP in Scotland...if only to help sell papers and to help Labour lose as many seats as possible).
It's not quite the same situation, but as I think Oakster has already mentioned, we had provincial elections here in Alberta yesterday.
The Progressive Conservatives had been in power for 44 years, outlasting a lot of dictatorships, and Alberta had had right wing governments for 80 years. After a recent change in leadership, the PC's called an early election and at the time held around 70 of the 87 seats in the Legislature. Alberta has been suffering a little bit lately with the drop in oil prices and the PC's released a hugely unpopular budget that was perceived, at least, to put the burden of plugging the funding gap on working folk and left corporations virtually untouched. They made the people angry and there was a huge ground swell of support towards the left wing NDP who had a charismatic leader in Rachel Notely.
As the election drew closer the PC's tried to discredit Notely as not of the right stuff to lead, made condescending quips in her direction during the leaders debate, tried to scare voters by foreboding economic ruin if she was allowed to keep her promise of raising corporate taxes from 10% to 12% (still the lowest in Canada) and even got their buddies in industry to release a statement saying there would be no corporate donations to the Stolery children's hospital if their bottom lines were affected by NDP policies.
All the scare mongering and negative campaigning just made the ordinary Albertan angrier and last night the NDP won a majority government with 54 seats (up 50 on the last election) and the PCs finished third on 10. It was 20°C in Edmonton yesterday and this morning I woke up to find 6" of snow on the ground, like hell (or at least the Albertan bit of it) has actually frozen over in response to the election result.
The situation isn't quite the same as the UK, although there are some parallels, but I think it goes to show that people are getting immune to the negative campaigning and in fact it can have the opposite effect to one which is desired. I know I am pretty sick of it.
Also, as an aside, I still don't see what is wrong with that photo - he's not dropped the sandwich and there is no red sauce on his tie. If the most embarrassing thing he does in his political career is get photographed mid-chew while eating a bacon butty then he'll have had a good career.
I'm delighted slightly disturbed by this rule of voting as published by the BBC
Can I vote if I've been drinking?
Yes. Polling station staff cannot refuse a voter simply because they are drunk or under the influence of drugs. Only if the voter is disruptive will they be asked to return when they have sobered up.
I'm delighted slightly disturbed by this rule of voting as published by the BBC
Can I vote if I've been drinking?
Yes. Polling station staff cannot refuse a voter simply because they are drunk or under the influence of drugs. Only if the voter is disruptive will they be asked to return when they have sobered up.
My main concern is the health service, so do I vote Conservative and watch it get decimated even further, or do I vote Labour so at least it has a chance to be saved. No brainer really.
For Welsh voters for their next Welsh Assembly elections, that sentence would go something like this:
"My main concern is the Welsh NHS, so do I vote Labour and watch it get decimated even further, or do I vote anyone else but Labour so at least it has a chance to be saved. No brainer really."
Its just white noise now Fiish................! You know, I know and everyone knows that the NHS will fall further on its arse if your mates get back in....
I don't really want the Tories back in but in a straight race between Tories and Labour they're the lesser of two evils on the grander scale of things.
I just have no idea where Labour get this reputation for being the best party to manage the NHS. The Welsh NHS under their management is doing shockingly compared to the English NHS and pretty much everything people hate about the Tories on the NHS (under-investment, top-down meddling, various crises, privatisation), Labour under Blair and Brown also did their fair share of the aforementioned acts. It's this sycophantic pro-Labour bleating from the sheep without any substance to back up their misguided faith that is the white noise, it's been going on for months now.
Every doctor, nurse, hca, dentist, midwife, phlebotomist, radiographer or even receptionist that I've personally spoken to within the NHS all say that they are not happy with the way things are and if we want things better we need Labour back. That's good enough for me.
Sadie, I have been back and forth to hospital at least once a week this year and many more times over the lat 15 years, Apart from a midwife I have spoken with many people in all of the jobs you describe (and more) at length and it would never have occurred to me to talk to any of them about politics and not one has ever raised the subject with me. Based on my extensive experience as a patient, of hospitals in south Yorkshire, I am going to say the NHS is doing a fantastic job as far as I'm concerned.
Do I give credit for this to the Tories? Nope, for me its down to the people who work for the NHS and I salute you all including the ones that have to do the inevitable admin. At the same time I greatly dislike Labour using the NHS as a political football as they are no better than the Tories in my opinion.
Some interesting stuff here. I think the most important tables are the seats & the betting.
It doesn't necessarily matter what % you achieve. It's all about the seats you win.
UKIP may get 12% of the votes, but so what if they get 1 seat ?
I can't quite understand how the bookies favourite is a Labour minority government & yet they have less seats than the Tories and apparently aren't going to do deals with the SNP.
2nd favourite bet & virtually co favourite is Cons/ Lib Dem coalition again.
During the last labour governments term they increased spending on the NHS over that parliament by 5.7% per year.
During the coalitions term the increased NHS spending over that parliament by 0.8% per year.
Given that health inflation is recognised to run at between 3 - 4% per year, the Tories have made deep cuts.
Much more of the same and and our NHS will reach tipping point. I suspect that is exactly what Cameron and his ilk would love to see.
Vote Labour to save the only jewell left in this country.
No wonder you are upset. You might not be so upset if you actually understood the numbers you are quoting.
The figures are REAL increases, which means increases above inflation. There have been no "cuts" in spending, spending has increased in REAL terms (that's above inflation) by 0.8% p.a.
Spending on temporary staff increased by 9% p.a in REAL terms under the coalition and by 4% in REAL terms for permanent staff. That seems perverse and don't understand why we have a jobs shortage but huge vacancies for NHS nurses. I suspect a large part of temporary staff are ex NHS that we have trained. Could it be that the Labour spend fest of 5.7% p.a financed the attractive transition from permanent to agency staff to make a few bob for themselves and the agencies?
A shortfall between services demanded and services able to be met within available resources is not a "cut" it is running out of money. If resources are increased, as they have under the coalition, yet demand is outstripping supply, we hear the Tories have deliberately "cut" services. What is the purpose of that distortion apart from gaining votes from people who don't listen for the facts, suck up the propaganda and relay the message down the line Send three and fourpence we are going to a dance.
I think your figures are using the inflation rate widely used by all of us. The figures I quoted are regarding health inflation whip runs at between 3-4% per annum. I think that's a cut in real terms.
The labour spend of 5.7% was an increase in real terms spending of 1.7%.
Some interesting stuff here. I think the most important tables are the seats & the betting.
It doesn't necessarily matter what % you achieve. It's all about the seats you win.
UKIP may get 12% of the votes, but so what if they get 1 seat ?
I can't quite understand how the bookies favourite is a Labour minority government & yet they have less seats than the Tories and apparently aren't going to do deals with the SNP.
2nd favourite bet & virtually co favourite is Cons/ Lib Dem coalition again.
Some interesting stuff here. I think the most important tables are the seats & the betting.
It doesn't necessarily matter what % you achieve. It's all about the seats you win.
UKIP may get 12% of the votes, but so what if they get 1 seat ?
I can't quite understand how the bookies favourite is a Labour minority government & yet they have less seats than the Tories and apparently aren't going to do deals with the SNP.
2nd favourite bet & virtually co favourite is Cons/ Lib Dem coalition again.
Some interesting stuff here. I think the most important tables are the seats & the betting.
It doesn't necessarily matter what % you achieve. It's all about the seats you win.
UKIP may get 12% of the votes, but so what if they get 1 seat ?
I can't quite understand how the bookies favourite is a Labour minority government & yet they have less seats than the Tories and apparently aren't going to do deals with the SNP.
2nd favourite bet & virtually co favourite is Cons/ Lib Dem coalition again.
the most likely scenario is the Conservatives winning the most seats and Labour forming a minority government.
Party wins most seats. Smaller party tries to take power with a minority (potentially using the SNP to get votes through despite promising not to).
Yes I am biased, but that would herald the most chaotic spell in Westminster in a generation. How could anyone be happy with that? The left moaned that Cameron was 'unelected' - well what would that make Milliband?!
It would be utterly nuts, people would be falling out left right and centre. Protests all over the place, strikes grounding the country to a halt to take advantage of a weak government.
Tories would be laughing their way to the next election in the Autumn and Boris would be eating his Christmas grub in the dining room at Number 10.
The employment figures? Yep. Are they better than they would have been if the Govt had made different decisions? Dunno, but certain economists say no. Is it worth the hardship inflicted on the most vulnerable in society? I would say no, your values may differ.
Some interesting stuff here. I think the most important tables are the seats & the betting.
It doesn't necessarily matter what % you achieve. It's all about the seats you win.
UKIP may get 12% of the votes, but so what if they get 1 seat ?
I can't quite understand how the bookies favourite is a Labour minority government & yet they have less seats than the Tories and apparently aren't going to do deals with the SNP.
2nd favourite bet & virtually co favourite is Cons/ Lib Dem coalition again.
All the slagging of either side off, is now utterly pointless imo. I'm more interested in peoples views on the possible outcomes.
If you read the above LINK the most likely scenario is the Conservatives winning the most seats and Labour forming a minority government.
The next most likely scenario is The Tory/LibDem coalition continuing.
Thoughts anyone ? I'm still intrigued how Labour will form a minority govt, with fewer seats.
Labour and SNP MPs will vote down any Queens speech presented by the Tories. SNP MPs will support a Queens speech presented by Labour without Labour having to do any deals with them.
One thing is certain tomorrow and that is the UK will vote for a left wing Labour agenda by a slight majority. If it was not for the Scottish referendum and it's aftermath Ed Miliband would be almost certain to be the next PM.
Comments
Back when I was in hospital a couple of years ago, the Ward Sister of the ward I was on for the 1st few days was absolutely rushed off her feet. If she'd had an admin assistant during the day, to field the phone calls from relatives, chase up blood test results, chase up prescriptions from the pharmacy, and track down the porters for the regular game of musical bed-bays, then she could have spent much more time with the patients. Luckily, after the first 24 hours, once they were satisfied that I was no longer going to keel over if I went to the loo by myself, I didn't need much looking after beyond having my obs checked, treatment administered and further tests done. The problem was, the various delays introduced by all this chasing up meant I had to stay in over the weekend when I probably wouldn't have needed to otherwise, thus blocking a bed that someone else could have used.
Since I've been discharged I've also had a shedload of outpatients appointments, and getting through to the lowly administrators to confirm or rearrange appointments can also take some doing. Having more administrators can sometimes make the service more efficient, you just have to put them in the right places doing the right things.
The figures are REAL increases, which means increases above inflation. There have been no "cuts" in spending, spending has increased in REAL terms (that's above inflation) by 0.8% p.a.
Spending on temporary staff increased by 9% p.a in REAL terms under the coalition and by 4% in REAL terms for permanent staff. That seems perverse and don't understand why we have a jobs shortage but huge vacancies for NHS nurses. I suspect a large part of temporary staff are ex NHS that we have trained. Could it be that the Labour spend fest of 5.7% p.a financed the attractive transition from permanent to agency staff to make a few bob for themselves and the agencies?
A shortfall between services demanded and services able to be met within available resources is not a "cut" it is running out of money. If resources are increased, as they have under the coalition, yet demand is outstripping supply, we hear the Tories have deliberately "cut" services. What is the purpose of that distortion apart from gaining votes from people who don't listen for the facts, suck up the propaganda and relay the message down the line Send three and fourpence we are going to a dance.
Throwing money blindly at the NHS would be wrong - it needs to be targeted and administered effectively. But by many measures in comparison to other developed economies the NHS is seriously underfunded. I think I would be on safe ground in saying that the principle of medical care free at the point of delivery paid for out of general taxation is an approach agreed by the vast majority of the population irrespective of their political leanings.
The NHS is the essential public service and in my opinion the greatest peacetime achievement of any government in our history. It needs to be paid for by the application of progressive taxation where those who earn more pay more into it. It aint a fecking charity!
p's, can you stop flagging me, Chizz you grass
I have left the other one there.
delightedslightly disturbed by this rule of voting as published by the BBCCan I vote if I've been drinking?
Yes. Polling station staff cannot refuse a voter simply because they are drunk or under the influence of drugs. Only if the voter is disruptive will they be asked to return when they have sobered up.
I expect the bookies are simply following the money - bets are on Labour getting most seats. I guess the assumption is UKIP will take more off the Cons than the Labs.
What also puzzles me is that the NHS has become the main battleground, yet Labour who are polling strongest on that issue have seen their poll lead drop.
Of course you can't rely on polls, particularly when they are close.
My money is on a Tory win in terms of most seats
I can only think of this as a good thing - 2 MILLION people paying taxes and not claiming benefits
Obviously your standard labour voter doesnt.
If and when labour get in tomorrow and I fear they might, it might be time to hide your money under the pillow..
Anyway, must remember, we are all Charlton
This means that while Cameron said in the Question Time session that he didn't have any plans to cut child benefit and child tax credits, that's because he doesn't actually have a plan to find the bulk of the £12bn welfare savings at all. Remember how before the last election he didn't plan to raise VAT to 20% either, then did so straight afterwards? His wording may be semantically accurate but it's hardly honest.
So all those restrictions on Carer's Allowance, abolishing Contributory JSA and ESA, taxing disability benefits etc are still on the table (despite IDS denying they were being considered at the end of March) along with abolishing statutory maternity pay, barring under-25s from claiming incapacity benefit or housing benefit, and even increasing the bedroom tax. Given how badly the disabled have been hit by the welfare reforms in this parliament, I dread to think how they'd fare if all that lot came in.
;-)
1) Are they getting paid enough to take them over the income tax threshhold?
2) Are they getting paid enough not to need housing benefit and/or tax credits?
(and is it definitely 2 million people, or just 2 million new jobs?)
Given that the majority of new HB claims are actually from people in work, that's certainly not going to be true for all of them. Getting people into work is good, as long as it's secure work that covers their outgoings. Making work pay is always talked about in terms of how much money you get in relation to benefits, but that's much less relevant than how much you have to spend to get to work, your housing costs and to pay for your work clothes (if they aren't provided). Getting housing costs down, and making public transport affordable (and available in some cases) would make that calculation more favourable, as would raising the minimum wage.
Is it better than 2010?
2015 - Finished 12th in Championship and Smallwall relegated.
So in answer to your question - I think so!
Oh the country .....
The Progressive Conservatives had been in power for 44 years, outlasting a lot of dictatorships, and Alberta had had right wing governments for 80 years. After a recent change in leadership, the PC's called an early election and at the time held around 70 of the 87 seats in the Legislature. Alberta has been suffering a little bit lately with the drop in oil prices and the PC's released a hugely unpopular budget that was perceived, at least, to put the burden of plugging the funding gap on working folk and left corporations virtually untouched. They made the people angry and there was a huge ground swell of support towards the left wing NDP who had a charismatic leader in Rachel Notely.
As the election drew closer the PC's tried to discredit Notely as not of the right stuff to lead, made condescending quips in her direction during the leaders debate, tried to scare voters by foreboding economic ruin if she was allowed to keep her promise of raising corporate taxes from 10% to 12% (still the lowest in Canada) and even got their buddies in industry to release a statement saying there would be no corporate donations to the Stolery children's hospital if their bottom lines were affected by NDP policies.
All the scare mongering and negative campaigning just made the ordinary Albertan angrier and last night the NDP won a majority government with 54 seats (up 50 on the last election) and the PCs finished third on 10. It was 20°C in Edmonton yesterday and this morning I woke up to find 6" of snow on the ground, like hell (or at least the Albertan bit of it) has actually frozen over in response to the election result.
The situation isn't quite the same as the UK, although there are some parallels, but I think it goes to show that people are getting immune to the negative campaigning and in fact it can have the opposite effect to one which is desired. I know I am pretty sick of it.
Also, as an aside, I still don't see what is wrong with that photo - he's not dropped the sandwich and there is no red sauce on his tie. If the most embarrassing thing he does in his political career is get photographed mid-chew while eating a bacon butty then he'll have had a good career.
Do I give credit for this to the Tories? Nope, for me its down to the people who work for the NHS and I salute you all including the ones that have to do the inevitable admin. At the same time I greatly dislike Labour using the NHS as a political football as they are no better than the Tories in my opinion.
Telling callers to bend tax rules to keep as much money as possible and sponge off the state, now in charge of the economy.
If you read the above LINK the most likely scenario is the Conservatives winning the most seats and Labour forming a minority government.
The next most likely scenario is The Tory/LibDem coalition continuing.
Thoughts anyone ? I'm still intrigued how Labour will form a minority govt, with fewer seats.
The labour spend of 5.7% was an increase in real terms spending of 1.7%.
He'll have to come to an agreement with them (talk to them), if that is the most likely outcome.
(PS I know they ALL lie about these things).
Yes I am biased, but that would herald the most chaotic spell in Westminster in a generation. How could anyone be happy with that? The left moaned that Cameron was 'unelected' - well what would that make Milliband?!
It would be utterly nuts, people would be falling out left right and centre. Protests all over the place, strikes grounding the country to a halt to take advantage of a weak government.
Tories would be laughing their way to the next election in the Autumn and Boris would be eating his Christmas grub in the dining room at Number 10.
One thing is certain tomorrow and that is the UK will vote for a left wing Labour agenda by a slight majority. If it was not for the Scottish referendum and it's aftermath Ed Miliband would be almost certain to be the next PM.