Discussion in 'Current Affairs & Debate' started by RobotBoy, Jan 14, 2015.
Tell us, you bastards.
Caroline Lucas is not the Green leader
I know, but I don't even know the other woman's NAME let alone what she looks like.
Doesn't it say it ALL that no fucker knows!
Sturgeon's wig looking especially mulletesque in that charming photo.
I'd be interested to see if anyone's changed their vote from 2010. Other than the Lib Dems, as that's obvious for most...
I'll bet you know! Let's face it, this is the most publicity they've had for decades... it's hardly a shock.
I know the Green leader is Australian, Natalie something. She's got an awful voice for radio.
Natalie from Cascada. Yeah her voice is weird.
I genuinely think DOUR OLD NAT'll flop MISERABLY in a debate if she gets into one. She's a bit too BIRKENSTOCKS to get anyone excited compared with all the hype over whether she'll be in or not.
She's not especially appealing. Them not appearing is probably a blessing in disguise for them.
I genuinely feel quite despondent about the choices, so I have no idea at this moment..
at chlammy's trolling
Labour rank and file here.
The one that would let you stay in the EU.
Those who are planning on voting Labour, do you genuinely have confidence in the current makeup of the party's ability to run the country well, or is it more a case of least worst, ideological or strategic voting?
Mix of the two sadly. It'll be a complete disaster for the NHS (and by extension the country) if the Conservatives get another term.
It annoys me that being Prime Minister has to be a personality contest, I don't give a fuck how Ed Miliband looks eating bacon :daf: . That said he has disappointed me, but a party is about more than its figurehead.
Sadly at the moment I expect the least worst outcome to be a hung parliament in Labour's favour, and I'm not even sure how likely that is.
I don't think Ed Miliband's innate awkwardness reflects on his ability to govern. I don't have much confidence in him as a charismatic leader, but I have confidence in a Labour government. Looking at the track record recently, I'm doubting more and more the wisdom of picking a leader based on how charismatic they are anyway.
In any case, Ed Balls will for all intents and purposes be in charge of the government if Labour win (apart from Ed Miliband's pet social projects). Contrary to the STOP FUCKING HATE stereotype, he's not exactly one for going on spending sprees - Labour would be pretty trusted economically by the markets, apart from the more hysterical investors who seem to think *any* left wing government is a step away from electing Castro. I don't think it would be the best Labour government, but I think it'd be a damn sight better than what we have now.
The betting markets have Labour and the Tories for all intents and purposes equal, with Labour a smidgen ahead on likelihood of being biggest party in a hung parliament - but it's a small enough lead that it's basically irrelevant. It's legitimately the most unpredictable election we will have ever had.
I don't really know enough about the NHS... It's such a complicated beast in not sure anyone can have a complete overview. Seems like the same old shit though. Tories selling bits off, Labour being outraged without offering any practical solutions to tackle it's many inefficiencies.
The main problem the NHS has at the moment is that social care is *totally* fucking it up. So many beds are occupied by OAPs with nowhere safe to go after operations/treatment - I think it was something insane like a million days were lost to 'bed-blocking' last year I read recently. Labour at least does have the position of integrating social care into the NHS as a social care service.
It'd need the investment, but it makes more sense to me to bite the bullet and go with that rather than treating privatisation as a one-size-fits-all solution to the NHS's problems like the Tories do. It's something that definitely has its place and a part to play in the NHS, but it's the only answer you ever seem to get from a Tory government on helping the NHS.
Ah, there we go! The age old Labour solution! Spend more!
All three of these. I voted Lib Dem in last election but shalln't be doing that this time.
I think Labour will need all the help they can get in my constituency. It has been fairly safely labour since 1992, but with the incumbent standing down, major discontent with the labour council, UKIP winning here in EU elections and a local fuss about the labour candidate coming from an all-female selection list, they'll need all the help they can get to keep the tories out.
Plus, i think it would be genuinely hilarious to have Miliband as PM.
I'd have a lot more sympathy for Westminster Labour's attack on Tory NHS reforms if they were prepared to criticise Welsh Labour who are doing a sterling job of running the NHS in to the ground.
Spend more, tax more. I'm happy with this as a mantra. LET'S BE SWEDEN
Sounds to me as Labour is struggling with the same problems as their sister parties in the rest of Europe. Socialism needs a re-invention, but I can't see how. Shifting more to the left won't help them win more votes. The middle is the new "left" and UKIP et al are the new "opposition".
I'd be happy with it only if our public services were run anywhere near as efficiently as in Sweden.
Well no - it's not specifically just 'spend more on the NHS!!!', which IS an annoying solution when people say 'oh it JUST NEEDS MORE MONEY' but without saying exactly what it would go on. It's reforming the NHS so that normal healthcare and social care for the elderly aren't separated - and social care really is an area that's a fucking disgrace at the moment. Yeah, it involves spending money to get it to that point where we have a universal basic level of care for the elderly that can't afford to go private, but at the moment a fuck tonne is being wasted on the NHS essentially having to use hospital beds to keep elderly people who it'd be irresponsible to let back on their own. At the moment the NHS has to wait on local councils to find the limited provision they have for council care. It'd make a lot more sense to integrate it, especially when there's so much overlap between healthcare and social care anyway.
Not that I'm making the argument for Swedish levels of tax and spend (I think the sheer size of the population here would make it impossible to match their results just by matching their rates), but what's to say Swedish public services wouldn't be as inefficient as ours if they had the same tax and spend levels?
They might well be, but I'd want to see a lot more in the way of hard facts from much more assured politicians as to how things would improve if more money was to be spent and more of our wages taxed.
How would you see the hard facts unless they actually did it?
A mixture of the last three, like Indie said. Having looked at the 2010 results for my constituency, it's a two-horse race: Labour 20,810, Tory 17,261, Lib Dem 7,567, others <1000. I'd like to vote Green, but I'd never forgive myself if I did and the Tory got in by a tiny margin. I have voted Lib Dem in the past, but there's not much point here and more importantly it's going to take A LOT for me to forgive them for getting into bed with the Tories.
I do trust Labour not to privatise the NHS for starters, since we're on that subject. The thought of a "profits before patients" NHS is utterly horrifying.
Quite interesting reading about my constituency actually... in 2005 it was Hammersmith & Fulham with a Tory MP, but then they changed the boundaries and ditched Fulham and now it's Labour. YEAH SCREW YOU FULHAM.
Do you think it's possible for private companies to provide safe and high quality patient care?
Optometrists, pharmacists, chiropodists, chiropractors, dentists, those sorts of people?
There's a bit of a difference between someone working as a private practitioner and a private company. Not that I'm hostile to private company involvement in the NHS (to a point), but that's a bit of a facile point.
Those individuals on the front line, perhaps, but I would not trust the fatcats at the top of the company to run it in a way that is more concerned with my wellbeing than their yearly bonus or the interests of the shareholders.
And those people you mentioned are not in the business of saving lives.
The majority of NHS services don't save lives, they improve health and keep people well.
If people want healthcare to remain free then third sector/private provision is essential. Not allowing companies to cherry pick the most attractive services but a pragmatic approach to what can be given to them improve efficiency and let the NHS focus on providing the core activities which private companies wouldn't touch with a barge pole.
Actually, I think shifting left is what Labour needs to do to get more votes. They need to convince the leftist Lib Dems, Greens & SNP waverers that Labour is a genuine alternative to the Tories. They should be able to get 3-4% more than they're currently doing that way.
Who are you voting for PJL?
Most likely an independent candidate. Was thinking of maybe Labour or Greens (I'm in a LibDem seat, with the Cons in second place), but I think the current party political structure itself is part of the problem.
The Green party now have more members than UKIP and are predicted to overtake the Lib Dems shortly