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.
I have to admit I am liking all this politics stuff. The bit from George Osborne about doing some nifty footwork and passing your assets on, and then letting the state take care of you is, I suppose, really about job creation for minimum wage zero hours contracts care workers and not really about avoiding paying your share for your care. Is George in that Bullenden Club photo, I can't tell, but I recognise Boris?
Matter of interest, the UKIP 14% or so is far from nationwide and is concentrated in well under half the 650 seats, maybe as few as 100 seats will attract most of that. So they could pull a surprise or two, especially in the north where it seems disillusioned Labour voters are more likely to vote for them than ex-Tories. I'm hearing a lot of that sort of noise up here. 14% nationwide translates to 30-40% in some constituencies and its still first past the post, so....
Still, we will find out soon enough.
My constituency is Labour, always will be and the local MP is a good sort, but I have previously told him I can't vote for a party that would put Ed Balls in charge of the economy. Never mind. Looks a bit like "none of the above" again for me!
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.
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.
You should be a politician. "Health inflation"? Yeah everyone knew what you meant. NHS cost increasing at more than inflation and more than a pre set budget is not a "cut" it's a shortfall between an increasing budget and increasing costs.
If you stood up and hit your head on the ceiling would it be caused by a "cut" in the height of the ceiling or a rise in the height of your head?. In your World obviously the former. Words fail me.
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.
SNP backing on a vote-by-vote basis. Not a formal coalition.
It would seem so and yet I thought Miliband said he wasn't even going to talk with the SNP.
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).
The real issue is whether any deals are done – i.e. 'we'll change it if you vote for it' etc.
But the SNP have already played their hand. Because they must convince former Labour voters in Scotland that voting for them will not allow the Tories back into government nationally they are committed to supporting the only other alternative – a Labour administration. Nor could they then do anything that would bring down a minority Labour government and see the return of the Tories. So Labour doesn't have to offer them anything.
As for 'talking' – of course this will happen. The whips of all parties at Westminster 'talk' to each other all the time before votes. The Tories will have 'talked' to Labour throughout the last parliament – but that doesn't mean that there was some kind of Tory-Labour 'deal'.
The problem at the moment – and it's not helped by interviewers who should know better – is that whenever a Labour politician agrees that 'talking' will take place on a similar basis as it has always done between the parties this is then presented as admitting that a deal will be done or even a coalition formed with the SNP – something which in reality the SNP would never enter into anyway for their own reasons. So if that's the interpretation of 'talking' then Labour politicians are denying it – despite the fact that normal inter-party talking will take place.
A private system is alright for those who have the money to afford it...
Otherwise it's just a scheme between the Tories and their peers to make profit at the expense of hard working taxpayers.
But everyone is paying for the NHS through their taxes.....
An insurance-based health system can easily ensure the poorest are protected either through the maintenance of a (much reduced) NHS or via subsidised premiums.
The American health care system is the very last thing this country needs. No really. The very fecking last.
A private system is alright for those who have the money to afford it...
Otherwise it's just a scheme between the Tories and their peers to make profit at the expense of hard working taxpayers.
But everyone is paying for the NHS through their taxes.....
An insurance-based health system can easily ensure the poorest are protected either through the maintenance of a (much reduced) NHS or via subsidised premiums.
The American health care system is the very last thing this country needs. No really. The very fecking last.
Have you ever used it?
No but have seen Breaking Bad. Walter had a rough time of things.
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.
You should be a politician. "Health inflation"? Yeah everyone knew what you meant. NHS cost increasing at more than inflation and more than a pre set budget is not a "cut" it's a shortfall between an increasing budget and increasing costs.
If you stood up and hit your head on the ceiling would it be caused by a "cut" in the height of the ceiling or a rise in the height of your head?. In your World obviously the former. Words fail me.
Words fail me too. The government knows that "health inflation" runs higher than normal inflation and therefore knows that any budget it sets must talke this into consideration. Failing to do so is either stupid or cynical. Whichever it was this time round it amounts to the same thing. An effective cut.
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.
You certain about that? The only bloody thing about this election I am certain about is that nothing is certain!!
A private system is alright for those who have the money to afford it...
Otherwise it's just a scheme between the Tories and their peers to make profit at the expense of hard working taxpayers.
But everyone is paying for the NHS through their taxes.....
An insurance-based health system can easily ensure the poorest are protected either through the maintenance of a (much reduced) NHS or via subsidised premiums.
The American health care system is the very last thing this country needs. No really. The very fecking last.
Have you ever used it?
This link is from 2009 - but I doubt if 'Obamacare' has changed things significantly for these people....?:
Matter of interest, the UKIP 14% or so is far from nationwide and is concentrated in well under half the 650 seats, maybe as few as 100 seats will attract most of that. So they could pull a surprise or two, especially in the north where it seems disillusioned Labour voters are more likely to vote for them than ex-Tories. I'm hearing a lot of that sort of noise up here. 14% nationwide translates to 30-40% in some constituencies and its still first past the post, so....
Still, we will find out soon
Think you have hit the nail on the head here. I think ukip could cause some seats considered safe to change hands (although probably from red to blue and vice versa rather than purple). These seats will have been ignored largely by the parties as they are considered safe and allowed UKIP on the rails. I am in the Dartford constituency and I think that it is going to be very close here. I can see a ten point bump to ukip (suspect much of it coming from the blue corner) with the lib dem vote collapsing and probably moving to labour and a lesser exten to the greens. If that happens the twenty point lead the conservatives had in 2010 could disappear. Repeat that in a few hundred seats and I think the national polls could turn out to be very very misleading.
A private system is alright for those who have the money to afford it...
Otherwise it's just a scheme between the Tories and their peers to make profit at the expense of hard working taxpayers.
But everyone is paying for the NHS through their taxes.....
An insurance-based health system can easily ensure the poorest are protected either through the maintenance of a (much reduced) NHS or via subsidised premiums.
The American health care system is the very last thing this country needs. No really. The very fecking last.
Have you ever used it?
This link is from 2009 - but I doubt if 'Obamacare' has changed things significantly for these people....?:
And as far as I'm aware 'Remote Area Medical' the charity featured in the article (set up by an Englishman) is still very active in the US....?
I wouldn't want to have this country where people that couldn't afford health insurance were given a second tier service. Where ambulance crews check your credit card before despatching you to your medical destination. Where every aspect of people's wellbeing is linked to the $ sign. Sorry. Not for me and I'm glad to say that most people agree with the general principal of our health service being free at the point of delivery.
A private system is alright for those who have the money to afford it...
Otherwise it's just a scheme between the Tories and their peers to make profit at the expense of hard working taxpayers.
But everyone is paying for the NHS through their taxes.....
An insurance-based health system can easily ensure the poorest are protected either through the maintenance of a (much reduced) NHS or via subsidised premiums.
The American health care system is the very last thing this country needs. No really. The very fecking last.
Have you ever used it?
This link is from 2009 - but I doubt if 'Obamacare' has changed things significantly for these people....?:
And as far as I'm aware 'Remote Area Medical' the charity featured in the article (set up by an Englishman) is still very active in the US....?
Pre Obama, healthcare was abysmal for the say 20% without insurance and outstanding for most of the rest (albeit with considerable job insecurity fears given the insurance link to employment).
The health system in France seems to work well, I pay insurance at 27 Euros a month to cover meself (Which includes eyes and teeth and all medication) and then critical illness is free anyway.
The health system in France seems to work well, I pay insurance at 27 Euros a month to cover meself (Which includes eyes and teeth and all medication) and then critical illness is free anyway.
Agree. I think the French model might be the way we are forced to go. The French still spend more per head as a % of GDP than we do though.
The staff at the two hospitals I go to each month seem to out number the patients by about 2 to 1, which is some going seeing as going to the hospital seems to be a national pass time in France
A private system is alright for those who have the money to afford it...
Otherwise it's just a scheme between the Tories and their peers to make profit at the expense of hard working taxpayers.
But everyone is paying for the NHS through their taxes.....
An insurance-based health system can easily ensure the poorest are protected either through the maintenance of a (much reduced) NHS or via subsidised premiums.
The American health care system is the very last thing this country needs. No really. The very fecking last.
Have you ever used it?
This link is from 2009 - but I doubt if 'Obamacare' has changed things significantly for these people....?:
And as far as I'm aware 'Remote Area Medical' the charity featured in the article (set up by an Englishman) is still very active in the US....?
I wouldn't want to have this country where people that couldn't afford health insurance were given a second tier service. Where ambulance crews check your credit card before despatching you to your medical destination. Where every aspect of people's wellbeing is linked to the $ sign. Sorry. Not for me and I'm glad to say that most people agree with the general principal of our health service being free at the point of delivery.
The problem with free at the point of delivery is you get 40,000 GP visits pa for dandruff.
I could never vote for a party that has this odious wanker in it's ranks.
I couldn't find a single reliable source for this story. I would have imagined that if there was a shred of evidence of it, it would be in various newspapers. The closest I can find is some mention of IDS saying something along the lines that employment helps free people from being trapped in the benefits system, which is quite different, and none of the bloggers repeating this story seem to agree on the wording of this 2010 interview which doesn't seem to be published anywhere.
Fair enough IDS is a divisive figure and a bogeyman for anti-Tories, but comparing benefit reforms to the Holocaust and making up quotes or selective with the truth in order to make a comparison fit is absolutely disgusting. Some other poster attempted to compare the Tory policy to the Holocaust earlier in this thread. I don't think anyone who can make such comparisons really understands the true horror of the Holocaust and it utterly undermines any argument that can be made.
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.
Also whilst they claim to have "ring fenced" NHS spending they don't mention that following the Health and Social Care Act that the NHS now has to pick up a lot of the work previously done by Social Care. And as we all know Social Care has received swingeing cuts this parliament with a possible £12 billion more to come if the Tories get back in.
A private system is alright for those who have the money to afford it...
Otherwise it's just a scheme between the Tories and their peers to make profit at the expense of hard working taxpayers.
Yes, that's a fine in-depth analysis of the situation....or possibly not. Here's an alternative picture. A friend's elderly parents benefited from a smallish final salary pension. Their evil employer had had the foresight to allow them to keep their health insurance into retirement. But that nice Gordon Brown decided it would be a good wheeze to add such benefits to the tax take so extended the "benefits in kind" regime to include taxation on such benefits into retirement. (But not presumably on the costs of his own gardener claimed for on allowances). The thing about health insurance is that its perceived value rises hugely at just the time (65+) that you need it most. So Gordon's extra tax take left a couple unable to get out much but big sports fans to make a decision as to whether to cancel their "free" health care or their Sky contract as they couldn't afford both Sky and their tax bill. I am looking forward to the return of Labour's "fairer society" - I've missed those nasty vindictive short-sighted policies that ended up adding a larger burden on the NHS.
God Christ cafcfan, you really need to use better examples of people being impoverished.
Comments
Is George in that Bullenden Club photo, I can't tell, but I recognise Boris?
Still, we will find out soon enough.
My constituency is Labour, always will be and the local MP is a good sort, but I have previously told him I can't vote for a party that would put Ed Balls in charge of the economy. Never mind. Looks a bit like "none of the above" again for me!
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.
I tend to agree.
But the SNP have already played their hand. Because they must convince former Labour voters in Scotland that voting for them will not allow the Tories back into government nationally they are committed to supporting the only other alternative – a Labour administration. Nor could they then do anything that would bring down a minority Labour government and see the return of the Tories. So Labour doesn't have to offer them anything.
As for 'talking' – of course this will happen. The whips of all parties at Westminster 'talk' to each other all the time before votes. The Tories will have 'talked' to Labour throughout the last parliament – but that doesn't mean that there was some kind of Tory-Labour 'deal'.
The problem at the moment – and it's not helped by interviewers who should know better – is that whenever a Labour politician agrees that 'talking' will take place on a similar basis as it has always done between the parties this is then presented as admitting that a deal will be done or even a coalition formed with the SNP – something which in reality the SNP would never enter into anyway for their own reasons. So if that's the interpretation of 'talking' then Labour politicians are denying it – despite the fact that normal inter-party talking will take place.
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.
You certain about that? The only bloody thing about this election I am certain about is that nothing is certain!!
I could never vote for a party that has this odious wanker in it's ranks.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/the-brutal-truth-about-americarsquos-healthcare-1772580.html
And as far as I'm aware 'Remote Area Medical' the charity featured in the article (set up by an Englishman) is still very active in the US....?
I can't work out who's saying what anymore!
We're both pissed.
Fair enough IDS is a divisive figure and a bogeyman for anti-Tories, but comparing benefit reforms to the Holocaust and making up quotes or selective with the truth in order to make a comparison fit is absolutely disgusting. Some other poster attempted to compare the Tory policy to the Holocaust earlier in this thread. I don't think anyone who can make such comparisons really understands the true horror of the Holocaust and it utterly undermines any argument that can be made.
I would assume "we" covers him and his mate who work on his videos together.
Brand is just the face of them.
I heard it was going to be £240 billion, AND they would end up owning all your vital organs.