Printable View
The noble Prince doesn't need to go so far. I would not be surprised if he is good at Sabrage which, as it rhymes with his adversary, he can demonstrate for Nigel, though I don't think it can be done on a bottle of Old Peculiar. Can't have everything, and Lidl or Aldi probably do a champers that would suit the leader of UKIP.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ye28n_aJspA
If Voting's Not The Answer:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCjKRIuJZ0M
There may be nothing to vote for — but there's plenty to vote against:
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics...y-vote-against
Russell Brand is a genuine ignoramus…this is the pseudo-intellectual left... what happens when you want to advocate progressive policies but don't have any common sense and are incapable of original thought. You end up saying stuff like "corporations are evil, all bankers are swindlers, and the media is one giant tarantula." A grain of truth in all of it, but there are specific policies that get at the improper incentives (better corporate governance, better bank regulation etc.).
So what are the predictions for the election? Will Labor be willing and able to form a coalition with the SNP and what would the balance of power be in that relationship? SNP wants increased spending and to not fund the Trident nuclear programme. What sort of deal would they have to make?
The SNP are in a comfortable place, they lost the referendum on independence but have reaped a strange victory with party membership doubling in a short space of time -but, as nationalists they can move from the left to the right of the political spectrum without ever having to apologise, as whatever they do they do for the good of Scotland.Quote:
Originally Posted by broncofan
Between 2007 and 2011, for example, the SNP relied on an informal coalition with the Conservative Party in Scotland to get its budget through the Scottish Assembly, proving by example that when it comes to making deals for political survival, anything goes. The SNP in power in Scotland, with Alex Salmond and then First Minister Nicola Sturgeon at the helm, has centralised the police services and increased its powers to 'stop and search' people they think might be about to commit a crime -mostly young men aged 16-30. The fact that Scottish universities do not charge their students tuition fees may be an advantage, but a reduction of education subsidies has meant that places in colleges have been slashed by over 100,000 putting poorer people and the disabled at a disadvantage as the cohort most likely to choose college courses to try and improve their lives. Taxation has not been used to 're-distribute' wealth in Scotland, and has not been used to 'hammer the rich'. In other words, Nicola Sturgeon may present herself as a champion of the poor and the downtrodden masses, and she is further to the left of Alex Salmond, but she is first and foremost a nationalist, which does not mean major changes to the tax system, does not mean a centrally planned economy in Scotland, and does mean that the predominantly 'free market' orientation of the Scottish economy will continue.
The situation at the moment is that a formal coalition between Labour and the SNP has been ruled out but that a 'working relationship' may take place in which the SNP agrees to vote with Labour to get its legislation through. The key legislation on the Queen's Speech, if it happens, will probably not be difficult, whereas specific issues on devolution and defence will be. Labour is committed to Trident, which means the SNP will have to concede on this, which for many in Scotland will be a blessing as the UK's nuclear capability is located in an area of Scotland which is seen as an economic benefit and even in Sturgeon's case, it can be written off as a 'win some, lose some' irritation. Labour says it will maintain the 'Barnett formula' which is, in effect, a subsidy paid by the UK to Scotland (and also Wales) but may want to re-negotiate it as Scotland, economically, is not doing that badly; but the real issue is how far this becomes part of a wider debate on increasing devolved powers to Scotland as part of the SNP's long term agenda to be independent, and also as part of Sturgeon's attempt to take the Labour Party 'back to the left' as she believes Labour has moved too close to the Tories. Labour is in the weak position of having made promises on increased devolution of powers, it will be hard for Miliband to resist SNP pressure on this.
But consider this: if the Tories offered more devolution to the SNP the SNP could support a minority Tory government, in spite of what Sturgeon says, after all, she keeps saying it is Scotland's interests that come first. The danger in all of this is that whatever the SNP does, it doesn't follow that it will be popular with the Scottish people who did vote against it in the independence referendum. The SNP may win handsomely this time around, but there will be other elections to follow; over time the SNP could be vulnerable particularly with young voters frustrated by any lack of real progress by the SNP.
And bear in mind that to win seats from Labour, the SNP needs swings of between 15 to 20% and that surges in voting don't always deliver seats. There is a long way to go before the results are in and some people are going to be very disappointed.
Nicola Sturgeon is popular because she comes across as a plain speaking politician who means what she says; she is, like a large number of contemporary politicians, a lawyer (more precisely in the UK context a solicitor), and has experience of government as First Minister in Scotland, and thus has held a more senior post than Ed Miliband, whom she has met I think only three times.
Actually, what's your real opinion of Russell Brand -- ha ha!Quote:
Originally Posted by broncofan
I think Brand favors democracy, genuine democracy, meaningful democracy.
Which of course frightens the people that run England.... I mean, someone like Cameron favors neo-democracy. Or democracy by the few. Which is understandable. As they want to serve their own interests.
And, too, how's bailing out banks actual capitalism? Does the business class favor actual capitalism? I mean we could experiment with pure capitalism by getting rid of government completely. Then we'd have a pure capitalism. Wouldn't be very nice... but we could experiment with it. Are politicians that bold to favor actual capitalism?
I think Brand is going back to the likes of Adam Smith. Who did favor corporations... of one. And that one person should/would be the owner, the worker and the manager.
I mean, we're so far removed from what Adam Smith envisioned capitalism to be.
Remember ol' Smith was a moralist.... Is there anything moral about corporations? Brand would see them as being amoral. Therefore neither good nor bad. I mean, they're institutions that cater to selfishness. And they have to be. Otherwise they wouldn't work.
Is it human nature to be selfish? Yes. But it is also human nature to be kind, to be caring.
Human nature is everything and anything that human beings do. And, too, one could be selfish and greedy. Or kind and caring. It hinges on the reward system.
And corporations reward selfish behavior and they have to. Again, they wouldn't work... if people were kind, were caring.
If Rex Tillerson cared about the impact of climate change he'd be out as CEO of Exxon.
And, lastly, it certainly isn't fair for the few to control the many. Nor is it fair for the many to control the few... so what's the solution?
The problem is that Russell Brand is advocating policies that it is unlikely the majority of people in the UK support. The fact that they are not implemented is not proof of a failure of democracy, only that his proposed policies do not have widespread support.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben
He believes that corporations should be owned cooperatively by employees and community members affected by the corporation’s activities. Of course he does not explain what effect this will have on people’s incentive to invest money. Why would someone form a corporation if they are automatically divested of part ownership?
I read parts of the UK Companies Act and think it makes sense that corporate directors’ fiduciary obligations run to all stakeholders-including bondholders, employees and members of the community they operate in. This means that directors cannot behave in a mercenary fashion and then fall back on their fiduciary responsibilities to explain why they pay their workers sub-standard wages. It also provides a director protection against shareholders who think it is the corporate director’s job to offer the least pay to their employees or to exploit their local environment.
There is no such thing as pure capitalism (complete de-regulation) as it would lead to unstable credit markets and widespread default. Banks that are not regulated fail. If they are allowed to fail (it sounds like you lament the bank bailout), it means disaster for depositors who are not able to insure against moral hazard and the consequent loss of their life savings. The corporation itself is a creature of law, created to provide a vehicle for investment that shields an individual’s personal assets and allows lots of capital to be pooled.
The goal of the government should be to protect the reasonable expectations of investors, to protect against moral hazard, and to incentivize responsible behavior in corporate executives. Workers should have the right to systematically withhold their labor to drive up wages….but just because Russell Brand’s vague sketch of a cooperatively owned corporation is not every person’s idea of economic justice does not mean the UK’s democratic processes have failed (how about polls showing a dissonance between the public's desires and enacted policies). Of course, if the public in the UK supported mandatory ratios between executive pay and employee pay, or cooperatively owned corporations…then it would be undemocratic to stand in the way of their implementation.
Another transgendered candidate has been identified, this is Zoe O'Connell standing in Maldon in Essex for the Liberal Democrats. The further point of interest is that she is living in a polyamourous relationship with a married couple. I came on this when reading about the possibility that the Green Party would endorse legalising polyamory, according to a question posed to Natali Bennet leader of the party when she was asked:Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
“As someone living with his two boyfriends in a stable long-term relationship, I would like to know what your stance is on polyamory rights. Is there room for Green support on group civil partnerships or marriages?”
Ms Bennett responded: “At present, we do not have a policy on civil partnerships involving more than two people.
“We are, uniquely in this country, a party whose policies are developed and voted for by our members.
“We have led the way on many issues related to the liberalisation of legal status in adult consenting relationships, and we are open to further conversation and consultation.”
Full story is here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/gene...e-Bennett.html
A couple of interesting recent opinion polls. First predicting that the SNP is on course to win ALL 59 Scottish seats!
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-10212220.html
The second revealing that voters in some marginal seats are moving away from UKIP.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news...-seats-5482748
Opinion polls should always be taken with a pinch of salt, but food for thought all the same.
I've read through this thread to prepare myself for Thursday's election night coverage. It might get mentioned in the U.S. news shows sometime between baseball scores and the latest Justin Bieber story.
One thing is sure... that the plural of referendum is referenda.
Stavros continues to amaze
Flattered as I am, I would be genuinely amazing if I could correctly predict the outcome. This is the closest election on polling results we have had, particularly as the polls are based on up to date census information, whereas in the past this has not always been the case. One enigma is the 'Shy Tory' -those Tory voters who are shy of admitting to pollsters that they will vote Tory, but how this translates into seats -rather than votes- is the unanswered question. Unless in the last few days an unexpected event happens or someone makes a major gaffe, little will change.Quote:
Originally Posted by flabbybody
This is simply untrue and a total misstatement of the Consevative position.Quote:
Originally Posted by peejaye
Privatisation of the NHS is an emotive subject, but also one that needs to be set in context, because we have always had a fusion, however uncomfortable, between the private and the public sectors. From the beginning, the Labour Govt of 1945 had to concede the right of physicians to practice private health care and for the insurance companies to offer private health insurance packages. And it is beyond doubt that the pharmaceutical industry has made billions from the NHS but as they have been amongst the top sources of funds for research and development in pharmaceuticals it could be argued that they also put a lot back into the NHS.
Since Mrs Thatcher came to power in 1979 there have been reforms to the NHS which included the 'internal market reforms' and the 'private finance initiative' -both maintained by the Labour government, and which were intended to improve efficiency. In fact, the result has been that while in 1983 the NHS spent 5% of its budget on administration costs, it now spends 15%.
The right of private firms to bid for contracts from the NHS was amended by the Coalition government so that the cap imposed by Labour of 2% was raised by the coalition to 49%. But in fact the number of new contracts issued under the PFI when Labour was in power had reached 5% by 2010 and under five years of coalition has reached 6% so that both Labour and the Conservative-Liberal Democrat Coalition have a record of supporting Private Finance Initiatives in the NHS meaning that it is disingenuous of the Tories to make claims about privatisation when they have raised the threshold of private opportunity, and in Labour's case a combination of lies and spin.
Strictly speaking, none of the parties support the wholesale privatisation of the NHS, whereas partial privatisation by stealth has been government policy since 1988. Or it could just be an acknowledgement that the NHS on its own cannot provide everything and that it needs private sources of investment even if this means private firms benefit from the NHS, but as noted above, this has always been the case with pharmaceuticals, and also medical suppliers (eg surgical instruments, machinery).
Of greater concern at the moment -but hardly mentioned at all, is that part of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership -TTIP- which the EU and the USA are negotiating -in secret- and which is intended to give US corporations access to the single market of the EU through a major amendment to regulatory barriers. The general argument is that this will weaken the regulations developed in the EU on issue such as job security, health and safety and the environment, because these regulations are weaker in the USA than in the EU and parity is a key feature of the TTIP. Although the government has said that TTIP will not be used to guarantee US firms access to NHS contracts because public services in the EU will be protected, the UK's Trade Minister Lord Livingstone has said talks on the NHS are 'on the table' -
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/...u-9779688.html
Another worry is that TTIP will include Investor-State Disputes Settlement clauses which in theory could allow US firms to sue the governments of the EU if government policies undermine the profit made from contracts -one example given is of the Swedish energy firm Vatenfall taking the German government to court because of its decision to phase out nuclear power, though this appears to relate to an existing contract with that company and a demand for compensation. But if ISDS went through it could mean the government not imposing carbon emissions levels on firms linked to TTIP if it meant reducing the profits of the trade inviting the US firm to sue the British government -for imposing on firms a policy that came from a democratically elected government...clearly this will or should become a matter of open discussion soon.
Based on this analysis NHS can only offer its citizen/patients higher quality care by continuing the trend towards partial privatization. The issue facing voters is to chose the ruling party who can strike the right balance by assuring NHS will not succumb to the private sector forces that will be exerted on it by its interaction with for-profit vendors (many in the U.S. apparently). That invisible hand thing Adam Smith spoke about can be might persuasive.
I believe Obamacare has failed at this. Yes we have more people covered but far too often cost factors at American hospitals override medical judgement when deciding treatment options.
You guys might not get another shot at getting this right. I hope you don't fuck it up.
I think a common problem is that the costs of delivery tend to be related more to the bureaucracy involved than the actual costs of the medicine and the labour. The cost of a cortisone injection comes in at about £12 at your local doctor's surgery where it costs £120 in the local hospital -because the running costs of a hospital are that much more costly, reflecting that rise in admin costs I mentioned in the earlier post -the running costs of a hospital in the US are far higher than in the UK which suggests that this is a crucial area that soaks up funding which would otherwise be spent on actual medicine.Quote:
Originally Posted by flabbybody
You might think that in an age of computing administration would be easier and cheaper to deliver, but in fact the medical care sector has been left behind -various attempts to integrate NHS computing so that a patient's records can be accessed anywhere in the system have failed, at a cost of millions of pounds. It is probably cheaper and more efficient for NASA to send a probe to Mars than it is to run a general hospital.
The anxiety that people have is that charges will be introduced in the NHS because of the pressures it is under, particularly on funding. It is a cardinal rule in election campaigns that parties seeking power do not pledge to increase either income tax or national health contributions, even if the logic on costs says otherwise; or, if taxes are to be raised it will always be on the rich as nobody cares about them. Private finance in one form or another has always been there because the NHS alone cannot provide services and also manufacture bandages, syringes, heart monitors and so forth. In fact a year after the NHS was created the Act of Parliament was amended to allow the NHS to impose prescription charges -Nye Bevan, the Minister who steered the NHS act through the Commons in 1948 resigned in protest- though actual charges were not introduced until 1952 and since then have been amended to exclude the unemployed, students, people over 60 -and abolished completely in Wales and Scotland. Nevertheless, there is a fear that people may be charged say £5 to visit their GP or a Casualty department.
There is an argument that if people lived healthier lives a degree of pressure on the NHS would be relieved -people convinced they are dying would not be rushed to Casualty in an ambulance when in fact they have belly ache; casualties on weekends are busy with people who can't handle their drink or get into fights. On another level, while many more people are living beyond the age of 80, many of them are also in better health than their counterparts say 20 years ago. My generation smoked less than our parents so that smoking related illnesses are less common in our cohort, but it seems if you reduce a chronic problem in one area, another one emerges -alcohol abuse and obesity related illnesses are taking up more resources than they were 20 years ago and are now more common in the 30-40 year age group for example.
Perhaps, fundamentally, people resent the idea that someone is making a profit from someone else's illness.
The NHS is something dear to the hearts of most Brits - like the BBC, the Post Office and the railways. Maybe that's why politicians want to change them all beyond recognition. We can't afford the perfect health service though we spend less than most developed countries. Health expenditure in the UK was 9.27 per cent of GDP in 2012. This compares to 16.90 per cent in the USA, 11.77 per cent in the Netherlands, 11.61 per cent in France, 11.27 per cent in Germany, 10.98 per cent in Denmark, and 10.93 per cent in Canada. The NHS net surplus for the 2013/14 financial year was £722 million.
Politicians of all parties have, as they do for education, messed around with the NHS. The Public Private Initiative (PPI) was a big mistake. To get health investment off the books, NHS Trusts bought new facilities on a mortgage. Saddling them with 20-30 year debts. This is the root cause of many of the NHS's problems.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
Very well put Martin, an important perspective too.
And health outcomes? I'm not sure what expenditures as a percentage of gdp says without reference to quality of care.Quote:
Originally Posted by martin48
Total bollox! If these "Monsters" get into power; They will have the shoes off our feet! Last thing we want is a system like yours!Quote:
Originally Posted by flabbybody
Quote:
Originally Posted by flabbybody
Reasons why I don't trust the Tories
When Nye Bevan established the NHS for free treatment and healthcare for all following the war, the Tories voted against the National Health Act in Parliament on three occasions in an attempt to prevent the NHS as we know it today.
In 2009 the Tory health secretary Jeremy Hunt co-authored a book calling for the NHS to be dismantled calling it 'no longer relevant'
The 2010 Tory manifesto (P47) said 'we will stop forced closures of A&E' (What went wrong?), Tories also said 'no more top down re-organisation' (They have actually turned the NHS on its head never mind reorganised it)
The Tory led coalition have made cuts of over £20-billion to the NHS dressing them up as efficiency savings'
Under the coalition waiting times have risen to their worst levels for many years, the NHS has been forced to axe over 4,000 senior nurses since 2010;
62 Tory MP's and 63 Tory Lords have links to taking on NHS private health care contracts
Worst of all the Tories introduced the 2012 Health And Social Care Act removing the government duty to provide healthcare, meaning the Health Secretary now only has to promote healthcare and is no longer lawfully obliged to provide it.
Well said Martin48. You sound like a very intelligent guy. Jeremy Hunt & his millionaire colleagues are "drooling" at the mouth at the thoughts of a privatised NHS system.
To our US friends(?); I pay £850+ in tax and insurances every month, not my choice! Why the f++k should I have to pay when I want to see a Doctor?
What are these "morons" doing with our money......dishing it out to their friends/investors in the privatised sector.
I hope, one day, they meet their maker!
I don't think anyone was claiming your healthcare system is not effective, only whether the conservative party wants to completely abolish NHS. I wanted to understand what your health care outcomes were given your streamlined expenditures. I don't doubt that they are very good or that the U.S does not receive any appreciable benefit (if any?) from spending 80% more per dollar of gdp. It's just that cost cannot be divorced from quality. It's also important to note that for extremely morbid conditions, people will spend much more for even the most marginal improvement in survival rate or quality of life…so there will be non-linearity in the cost-quality relationship that could just represent different priorities.Quote:
Originally Posted by peejaye
I'm from the U.S. as you speculate. Am just curious about your elections. I am not putting forward our own system as a model to emulate…in fact I think our system is rife with all of the wrong incentives for doctors and patients which is why our expenditures are enormous.
No offence meant Bronco. As you may of detected; our health service is very precious to us over here, Conservative politicians exempted! There isn't much in life gets you "down" than being ill then having to wait two weeks to see a Doctor!
Rating the "quality" of health services is difficult but the most respected study is by the World Health Organisation (WHO).
http://www.who.int/whr/2000/media_ce...ess_release/en
I quote
"The U.S. health system spends a higher portion of its gross domestic product than any other country but ranks 37 out of 191 countries according to its performance, the report finds. The United Kingdom, which spends just six percent of GDP on health services, ranks 18 th ."
Another report has been produced by the Commonwealth Fund, a Washington-based foundation which is respected around the world for its analysis of the performance of different countries' health systems. It examined an array of evidence about performance in 11 countries, including detailed data from patients, doctors and the World Health Organisation. It ranked UK top and the US last. (2014)
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jun/17/nhs-health
I rest my case
I wasn't asking because I expected different results but because health care expenditures by themselves aren't all that revealing. I expected the UK to have very good healthcare, otherwise NHS would be an arbitrary and excessive source of national pride:). And I would not expect that.
From the Commonwealth Fund Study, it said, "The only serious black mark against the NHS was its poor record on keeping people alive. On a composite "healthy lives" score, which includes deaths among infants and patients who would have survived had they received timely and effective healthcare, the UK came 10th (out of 11)." I would have considered this last part a fairly big priority so as you say it is probably difficult to agree on criteria to rate quality. But given a choice between the U.S. and U.K. health care systems, I would choose the U.K. system in a heartbeat…for a variety of reasons, which include the fact that your system seems to manage chronic conditions much better and provides more uniform care, which should be a big priority, in addition to the enormous cost savings and administrative efficiency. Anyhow, if you are considering spending more of your gdp on healthcare, the "healthy lives" category might receive a bit of investment.
Well, I guess by this time tomorrow, we'll all know what's in store for us (Brits) in the future...Cake or Sodomy!
I suspect - same old shit
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jericho
you might not know who's PM for days if no party gets majority
There'll always be a PM in post except for the brief time between Cameron offering his resignation to the Queen and she appointing Miliband
I have compiled this list of MPs and their educational background -university and subject- to illustrate how narrow the field of top flight politicians has become. Some of the MPs on the list may not make it through the night...
Conservative
David Cameron (Prime Minister) Oxford, PPE
George Osborne (Chancellor of the Exchequer) Oxford, History
Theresa May (Home Secretary) Oxford, Geography
Phillip Hammond (Foreign Secretary) Oxford, PPE
Chris Grayling (Justice) Cambridge, History
Michael Fallon (Defence) St Andrews, Classics and Ancient History
Ian Duncan Smith (Works and Pensions) Royal Military College, Sandhurst
Jeremy Hunt (Health) Oxford, PPE
Eric Pickles (Communities and Local Govt) Leeds Polytechnic
Nicky Morgan (Education) Oxford, Jurisprudence
Justine Greening (International Development) Southampton, Economics
Liberal Democrats
Nick Clegg (Leader and Deputy PM) Cambridge, Archaeology & Anthropology
Vince Cable (Business) Cambridge, Natural Sciences, then Economics
Danny Alexander (Treasury) Oxford, PPE
Ed Davey (Energy & Climate Change) Oxford, PPE
Simon Hughes (Justice) Cambridge, Law
Labour
Ed Miliband (Leader) Oxford, PPE
Harriet Harman (Deputy Leader) York, Politics
Douglas Alexander (Foreign Secretary) Edinburgh, Politics
Ed Balls (Chancellor) Oxford, PPE
Yvette Cooper [Mrs Balls] (Home Secretary) Oxford, PPE
Rachel Reeves (Work & Pensions) Oxford, PPE
Maria Eagle (Environment) Oxford, PPE
Sadiq Khan (Justice) University of North London, Law
Andy Burnham (Health) Cambridge, English
Chuka Umunna (Business), Manchester, Law
Tristram Hunt (Education) Cambridge, History
Caroline Flint (Energy & Climate Change) University of East Anglia, American Literature & Film Studies
Vernon Coates (Defence) Warwick, Economics & Politics
John Bercow (Mr Speaker) Essex, Politics
Good old Eric Pickles
But can he eat that burger better than Ed Milliband and his bacon sandwich...Quote:
Originally Posted by martin48
Attachment 840166
It's ridiculous that the above picture will probably be one of the defining images of this election...
hey Kennedy (L) beat Nixon in 1960 because he looked better on television. That's democracy
but the Civil Service runs the country so you're only electing their puppets...
Yes Minister...Quote:
Originally Posted by rodinuk
Attachment 840219
That's American democracy, along with McDonalds, one of your more unfortunate exports...Quote:
Originally Posted by flabbybody
...I've just ex-ported the McDonalds I had for tea :puke
Best place for it, serves you right for eating it in the first place. :tongue:Quote:
Originally Posted by rodinuk
Sitting watching the BBC coverage.
Exit poll currently predicting:
Conservative 316
Labour 239
SNP 58 (out of 59 Scottish seats!!)
Lib Dems 10
Plaid Cymru 4
UKIP 2
Conservatives still short of an overall majority.
Will be interesting to see if that changes much over the night.
so much for polling data that showed its too close to call.
Sterling through the roof vs dollar