General Election 2015 - Thoughts/Predictions/Results

[muddythefish]

The fact the Conservatives are making it an issue shows that they are running scared from the debate. Why? They know the NHS is, and always has been, their biggest weakness.

Of course it is, and the Tories will only be happy when they have shut it down completely. They chipped away at it 20 years ago and they have been doing the same for the past 4 years, undoing all of Labour's grand work of the previous 13 years. After the debacle of their bodged, hugely expensive "reforms" over the past 4 years, there was more evidence today that the Conservatives are actively trying to run the service into the ground.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/feb/13/20000-winter-operations-cancelled-last-minute-nhs

 

[Mutant Lemming]

For some time I have thought that there is barely a fag paper between the main political parties. All they do is court the media in search of the populist vote. They are all bathed in the worse kind of filth and slime -

I could never vote for the tories because of Thatcher - completely off her rocker backed by a cabinet of sycophantic self serving liars.

I could never vote for labour again because of Blair - with a cabinet headed by a sycophantic self serving liar.

I could never vote for the LIb-Dems absolutely worse of all of them - they backed and covered up for a self inflated paedophile rapist and allowed him to get away with it. In other countries this party would have been rightfully hounded out of existence.

That leaves us with UKIP who seem to think we can create some kind of jolly hockey sticks Joyce Grenfell 1950s Britain which never even existed in the first place or the Greens who think they can turn Jeremy Kyle world Obese Britain into a nation of vegan (complete with pointy ears) cyclists in time for tea - or else.

Will we EVER get a credible alternative ?

 

[Manchester77]

Move to Scotland then vote SNP

 

[GrimsbyPacer]

For some time I have thought that there is barely a fag paper between the main political parties. All they do is court the media in search of the populist vote. They are all bathed in the worse kind of filth and slime -

I could never vote for the tories because of Thatcher - completely off her rocker backed by a cabinet of sycophantic self serving liars.

I could never vote for labour again because of Blair - with a cabinet headed by a sycophantic self serving liar.

I could never vote for the LIb-Dems absolutely worse of all of them - they backed and covered up for a self inflated paedophile rapist and allowed him to get away with it. In other countries this party would have been rightfully hounded out of existence.

That leaves us with UKIP who seem to think we can create some kind of jolly hockey sticks Joyce Grenfell 1950s Britain which never even existed in the first place or the Greens who think they can turn Jeremy Kyle world Obese Britain into a nation of vegan (complete with pointy ears) cyclists in time for tea - or else.

Will we EVER get a credible alternative ?

The greens are often mis interpreted. They are about a fair and equal society which will be beneficial to many. Their policies are worth a read.
If other alternatives is what you want there's the Monster Raving Looney party. They can't be worse than Thatcher can they?

 

[Aldaniti]

Of course it is, and the Tories will only be happy when they have shut it down completely. They chipped away at it 20 years ago and they have been doing the same for the past 4 years, undoing all of Labour's grand work of the previous 13 years. After the debacle of their bodged, hugely expensive "reforms" over the past 4 years, there was more evidence today that the Conservatives are actively trying to run the service into the ground.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/feb/13/20000-winter-operations-cancelled-last-minute-nhs

Undoubtedly, there's more than a few Tories who would like to see the effective privatisation of the NHS (either remaining funded by general taxation or by introducing a private insurance model), but I suspect there's far more Tories whose political antennae is not as defective and believe that it should remain operated by the public sector because that is what the vast majority of the public desire. Many aspects of the NHS improved during the Labour years, yes, but let us not forget that it was one Andy Burnham, Labour's last Health Secretary, who introduced more internal market private sector provision than any preceding or following Tory government.

The NHS cannot carry on the way things are if it is to remain the provider of good quality healthcare for those that pay for it. The NHS should not be responsible for the Friday and Saturday night town centre fallout (the brewing industry should be made to provide drunk-tanks and private ambulances - there was a recent trial in Bristol - it's an ideal example of where the private sector could have a positive effect on social policy).The NHS should also cease all non-essential cosmetic surgery. 'Free' hospital treatment should apply only to UK passport and E-111 holders. Anyone else requiring non-emergency treatment should have their credit card details taken first and be charged on a sliding scale based on income. Yes, Lansley's reforms were utterly useless in the grand scheme of things and have probably done little to improve the general state of the NHS. To coin a couple of phrases, much more radical surgery is required in order to allow the NHS to go back to basics.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

'Free' hospital treatment should apply only to UK passport and E-111 holders. Anyone else requiring non-emergency treatment should have their credit card details taken first and be charged on a sliding scale based on income.

Are you sure that's what you want? The people that you are saying should be denied free treatment would include many people who have been living here for many years, whose permanent home is in the UK, and who have been paying taxes in the UK, again possibly for many years, but who happen not to have UK passports, in most cases for the simple reason that they were not born here. I can see a case for requiring new people coming to the UK to have some kind of private health insurance but you seem to be casting the net a lot wider than that. What you're proposing would imply that some people who as permanent UK residents have been entitled to free NHS treatment should suddenly be treated differently and have that taken away. And incidentally the people you'd catch in that include my own wife. Can it be right that I should get free treatment for something, but if she, who lives here and pays taxes here just like me, seeks the same treatment, she should be denied that basically because she wasn't born here? That sounds morally very wrong to me.

Besides, there's also a rather more practical problem that if you decide to - in effect - exclude some people from the NHS, the likely result is that some of those people will not seek treatment for infectious diseases, and then you run a risk of some epidemic that ends up costing the NHS massively more than the (relatively) small amount it would have saved by not treating non-passport holders.

 

[Aldaniti]

Are you sure that's what you want? The people that you are saying should be denied free treatment would include many people who have been living here for many years, whose permanent home is in the UK, and who have been paying taxes in the UK, again possibly for many years, but who happen not to have UK passports, in most cases for the simple reason that they were not born here. I can see a case for requiring new people coming to the UK to have some kind of private health insurance but you seem to be casting the net a lot wider than that. What you're proposing would imply that some people who as permanent UK residents have been entitled to free NHS treatment should suddenly be treated differently and have that taken away. And incidentally the people you'd catch in that include my own wife. Can it be right that I should get free treatment for something, but if she, who lives here and pays taxes here just like me, seeks the same treatment, she should be denied that basically because she wasn't born here? That sounds morally very wrong to me.

Besides, there's also a rather more practical problem that if you decide to - in effect - exclude some people from the NHS, the likely result is that some of those people will not seek treatment for infectious diseases, and then you run a risk of some epidemic that ends up costing the NHS massively more than the (relatively) small amount it would have saved by not treating non-passport holders.

I agree with the thrust of what you say, some people have lived here for some time and paid their taxes and I wouldn't seek to restrict their access to free healthcare, but there needs to be a formal system of qualification for those people not holding UK passports.

 

[GrimsbyPacer]

I haven't got or ever had a passport, I'm UK bor.
They cost a fortune and are hard to aswell. Does that mean I should have worse healthcare?

And I never heard of E-111s before so many won't have them.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I agree with the thrust of what you say, some people have lived here for some time and paid their taxes and I wouldn't seek to restrict their access to free healthcare, but there needs to be a formal system of qualification for those people not holding UK passports.

OK, I'm glad you wouldn't seem to restrict the access to healthcare of people who've lived here for some time and taxes. But why do you think we need a system of qualification? What you seem to be proposing is some test of whether someone who lives here without a UK passport has paid enough taxes to qualify for free healthcare. Is that correct? This would presumably only apply to non-EU citizens (because you've mentioned excluding people with an E111 which seems to imply that intention). So that appears to imply creating a whole new layer bureaucracy to administer the qualification and work out what the precise rules should be, in order to deny free treatment to non-EU residents who don't meet this criteria.

Frankly, the treatment costs you'd save by doing that would amount to a negligible proportion of the NHS's budget, and might well be less than the cost of setting up the extra bureaucracy in the first place. The process would certainly cause some real suffering - because you're bound to get a few people who become seriously ill, don't qualify for treatment under whatever rules are set up, can't afford to pay for their treatment themselves, and so don't get medical help they need. Possibly some UK residents would die as a result of that.

And of course you still have the risk of denying some people treatment leading to infectious diseases spreading to people who do have UK passports, causing more suffering and costing the NHS more.

Do you still think that's what we need to do?

 

[ExRes]

I haven't got or ever had a passport, I'm UK bor.
They cost a fortune and are hard to aswell. Does that mean I should have worse healthcare?

And I never heard of E-111s before so many won't have them.

Not really sure what the first two parts of your post mean without a translation, as for the E111, it was replaced by the EHIC between mid 2004 and the end of 2005

 

[jon0844]

In Sweden, you get access to free healthcare but there are fees (fixed fees) that even 'natives' pay. I wonder if that's something we could consider?

Certainly when you travel around the EU, you really do need a EHIC card. It's not unreasonable for us to stop giving free healthcare to anyone without one (or proof of being born here) and requiring some of payment up front. Obviously not for life threatening incidents, but certainly anything where people might currently see a benefit in coming here for the sole purpose of using the NHS.

We seem to be far too generous with a lot of things, and get ripped off. I was quite surprised to learn that you can apparently lie and state you're entitled to free prescriptions and it won't be checked! I hope that's not true, as it just makes us an easy (and obvious) target for all the dishonest people we don't want.

 

[ainsworth74]

We seem to be far too generous with a lot of things, and get ripped off. I was quite surprised to learn that you can apparently lie and state you're entitled to free prescriptions and it won't be checked! I hope that's not true, as it just makes us an easy (and obvious) target for all the dishonest people we don't want.

They do check just not very much. It's one of those things that if you did it once you would probably get away with it but if you did it over and over again it would eventually be picked up.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

In Sweden, you get access to free healthcare but there are fees (fixed fees) that even 'natives' pay. I wonder if that's something we could consider?

I'm confused. If you have to pay a fee, then how is it free?

Certainly when you travel around the EU, you really do need a EHIC card. It's not unreasonable for us to stop giving free healthcare to anyone without one (or proof of being born here) and requiring some of payment up front. Obviously not for life threatening incidents, but certainly anything where people might currently see a benefit in coming here for the sole purpose of using the NHS.

Are you talking only about EU people or about non-EU people too? Either way I would say it's a bit more nuanced. If someone has come here mainly in order to get free healthcare, then yes, refusing to provide it does seem reasonable in some ways. But if someone has come to live here for some other (legitimate) reason - for example to live with their British husband/wife, or to do a University degree, or to take up a job in the UK, and they happen to fall ill while they are here, then denying them treatment because they happen not to have been born here seems to me not only unreasonable but, frankly, callous.

(Of course, telling the two apart may not always be easy)

 

[jon0844]

I'm confused. If you have to pay a fee, then how is it free?

There's a fixed fee, like a prescription, but everything beyond that is free. Badly worded on my part.

I don't know the full ins and outs and what exceptions there are.

The fee probably helps filter out the people who seem to like going to their GP or hospital just for company when there's nothing really wrong with them. But, it must also help contribute towards the cost of running the service. Sure, it will be funded through general taxation but this way you have a percentage raised only from those who use it.

As for people who come to live here, well once you're settled and get a NI number then perhaps you're now entitled in the same way as others. I'm not coming up with policy here, just suggesting ways to avoid being scammed.

For those people in the EU who have come from outside, it's down to having suitable travel insurance I'd expect. Just as you'd not expect to get anything for free in the US.

 

[Aldaniti]

Do you still think that's what we need to do?

More or less, yes. As I intimated above, we cannot carry on the way things are. I'm speaking with a broad metaphoric brush and I appreciate that the devil is in the detail. Many people are proficient at giving all the reasons why you can't do things, few are good at coming up with workable solutions. The relatively short-term electoral system is one problem, but politicians whose brains do not connect with their spines is another.

 

[radamfi]

Just read about the Swedish system here:

http://www.thelocal.se/20130327/46910

There do seem to be a lot of little charges, but costs are capped on a yearly basis.

 

[Metrailway]

The vast majority of health care systems in Western Europe have some form of out of pocket payments for certain types of healthcare. The UK is very unusual to have a free at the point of use NHS.

For example in France, Belgium, and Sweden, generally you'll need to pay to see a GP. In Germany you'll need to pay to see a specialist as an outpatient. Most countries in Western Europe charge if you are admitted as an inpatient.

 

[Butts]

The vast majority of health care systems in Western Europe have some form of out of pocket payments for certain types of healthcare. The UK is very unusual to have a free at the point of use NHS.

For example in France, Belgium, and Sweden, generally you'll need to pay to see a GP. In Germany you'll need to pay to see a specialist as an outpatient. Most countries in Western Europe charge if you are admitted as an inpatient.

The UK has already set a precedent for charges in relation to Dental and Optical Charges that were free at it's inception.

 

[Trog]

Of course it is, and the Tories will only be happy when they have shut it down completely. They chipped away at it 20 years ago and they have been doing the same for the past 4 years, undoing all of Labour's grand work of the previous 13 years. After the debacle of their bodged, hugely expensive "reforms" over the past 4 years, there was more evidence today that the Conservatives are actively trying to run the service into the ground.
[/url]

If you really think life is that simple and black and white you must still be wearing the blue hat of life experience.

 

[ExRes]

They chipped away at it 20 years ago and they have been doing the same for the past 4 years, undoing all of Labour's grand work of the previous 13 years.

Did you ever have cause to use the NHS during the magnificent 13 years of Labour ?, because I did and my experiences were no different to the experiences of people I know who've used the NHS since 2010

Emergency treatment is and was nearly always superb, follow up is more often a farce, how can that be down to Conservative or Labour policy ?, unless their policies are almost identical of course

 

[PermitToTravel]

More or less, yes. As I intimated above, we cannot carry on the way things are. I'm speaking with a broad metaphoric brush and I appreciate that the devil is in the detail. Many people are proficient at giving all the reasons why you can't do things, few are good at coming up with workable solutions. The relatively short-term electoral system is one problem, but politicians whose brains do not connect with their spines is another.

You're very close to proposing the current system! People are treated for free if they live in the EU, and are billed otherwise; apart from emergency healthcare which is free for all

 

[DownSouth]

You're very close to proposing the current system! People are treated for free if they live in the EU, and are billed otherwise; apart from emergency healthcare which is free for all

For those people in the EU who have come from outside, it's down to having suitable travel insurance I'd expect. Just as you'd not expect to get anything for free in the US.

There's an extra category who would also continue to get full NHS access - citizens of countries which have reciprocal healthcare agreements with the UK.

As an Australian citizen who is not also a British resident or citizen, I can have free (at point of access) usage of the NHS if I require it while travelling in Britain with the costs being passed on to Medicare (the Australian public single payer).

The reverse applies to a British citizen travelling in Australia - you can access the public health system in the same way an Australian resident or citizen does, with the costs being passed on to the NHS.

There are many other valid reasons to have travel insurance, but when travelling in places with reciprocal healthcare agreements it is generally better to use them than to make a claim on your travel insurance.

 

[Johnuk123]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...upport-ukip-in-general-election-10052349.html

A former chair of Labour's ruling National Executive Committee has left the party in order to support Ukip in the coming general election.
Harriet Yeo, a former president of the TSSA transport union, an NEC member for eight years and chair in 2012/13, is the most senior Labour figure to quit the party in favour of Ukip, in what will be seen as a blow to leader Ed Miliband.
She has resigned from the party because of Miliband's refusal to offer a referendum on Britain's membership of the European Union.

It will make no difference to Labour who are terrified of giving voters a chance to have a say on Europe in case they vote the wrong way.

You would think a party who would stay in Europe on any terms whatsoever would be confident enough in their stance to offer voters the chance to agree with them.

 

[muddythefish]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...upport-ukip-in-general-election-10052349.html




It will make no difference to Labour who are terrified of giving voters a chance to have a say on Europe in case they vote the wrong way.

You would think a party who would stay in Europe on any terms whatsoever would be confident enough in their stance to offer voters the chance to agree with them.

Business groups from the CBI downwards have warned of the huge dangers to the economy of leaving Europe. The question is why is Cameron risking alienating his party's natural supporters by pandering to his right wing backbenchers in offering a referendum ? As ever, the Tory party is tearing itself apart over Europe.

 

[Johnuk123]

Business groups from the CBI downwards have warned of the huge dangers to the economy of leaving Europe. The question i, why is Cameron pandering to his right wing backbenchers in offering one ? As ever, the Tory party is tearing itself apart over Europe.

You're missing the point, it's having the chance to vote on it not the outcome.

You don't believe in giving people the chance to vote then ?
Not a very democratic way of going about things is it.

 

[muddythefish]

You're missing the point, it's having the chance to vote on it not the outcome.

You don't believe in giving people the chance to vote then ?
Not a very democratic way of going about things is it.

Government by referendum is weak. If you're going down that route why not a referendum on every contentious issue ? For instance, I would have liked a vote on the ideoogical austerity programme imposed on the nation for which this govt had no mandate.

 

[WelshBluebird]

You're missing the point, it's having the chance to vote on it not the outcome.

You don't believe in giving people the chance to vote then ?
Not a very democratic way of going about things is it.

You don't have to have referendums to be democratic. Quite the opposite. In this country we have a system of representative democracy which means we elect people (MPs) who then make the decisions for us. Having a referendum over every decision is just ludicrous.

And then you have the fact that you would simply not be able to have a fair and reasonable debate about it because the media would distort it and spread even more hyperbole about what us being in the EU means.

 

[Oswyntail]

Business groups from the CBI downwards have warned of the huge dangers to the economy of leaving Europe. The question is why is Cameron risking alienating his party's natural supporters by pandering to his right wing backbenchers in offering a referendum ? As ever, the Tory party is tearing itself apart over Europe.

Or not. Cameron is rightly confident that the result of a referendum will be for the UK to stay in Europe. By holding one and getting the result he wants he takes the lunatic fringe off his back for five minutes.

..... For instance, I would have liked a vote on the ideoogical austerity programme imposed on the nation for which this govt had no mandate.

The concept of a "mandate" is superficially attractive, but actually fatuous. In the case you refer to, information on which to formulate an economic policy in advance had been deliberately withheld, and so there had to be changes. No sane person would demand that a party should stick solely to the letter of its manifesto in the face of changing events. Say, for instance, a party promises a cap on energy bills (would anyone be so stupid?), and then, because of geopolitical movement outside their control, energy prices rise by 16,000% overnight. Stick to the cap or try, so far as possible, to mitigate the effect of the disastrous increase? A manifesto is simply a list of aspirations, giving the overall flavour of the party. If the party departs from that flavour it will lose later.
[By the way, you have an ideology, I have an ideology, we all have an ideology, and we all act ideologically. Any party - or individual for that matter - who did not behave ideologically would actually be classified as psychopathic. It is not a criticism to describe a policy as ideological, as it simply means it is consistent]

 

[Senex]

In this country we have a system of representative democracy which means we elect people (MPs) who then make the decisions for us.

The very system that many of us feel no longer works, with many MPs who have no connection with their constituencies at all and who put loyalty to party above loyalty to their constituency. And the party loyalty / single-member system that means many in any constituency will inevitably see themselves as totally unrepresented. The practice of concentrating on marginals and ignoring safe seats does not help.

It could be put right by appropriate reforms, but until we get those, then the more referenda the better, please.

 

[Johnuk123]

Government by referendum is weak. If you're going down that route why not a referendum on every contentious issue ? For instance, I would have liked a vote on the ideoogical austerity programme imposed on the nation for which this govt had no mandate.

Cop out, because if we ever have a referendum which is unlikely it will be on a subject that affects virtually everything we do. Europe controls just about everything in this country to one degree or another, it's influence is massive.
It's not something that can be dismissed as trivial just because you don't like it.

One thing is absolutely certain if the polls were showing a massive yes for Europe all the main parties would be falling over themselves to hold a referendum as soon as possible.

Milliband would be on the tv saying how it was only fair that "the people" should have their say on such a crucial matter as things that important can't be left to parliament.