General Election 2015 - Thoughts/Predictions/Results

[telstarbox]

It's too late for them now and IMO if Scottish Labour had any other leader it wouldn't make much difference now.

 

[radamfi]

Scotland seems to be monopolising all the Election Talk....what is happening in Greenbacks "green and pleasant land" ?

The Labour manifesto has a whole paragraph devoted to Wales, basically more devolution.

 

[Mojo]

Why are the SNP performing so much better than Plaid Cymru in the polls (in proportion to the respective size & population of their area of coverage)?

 

[telstarbox]

Indeed - compare the Scotland and Wales tables here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opini...Kingdom_general_election#Sub-national_polling

 

[Butts]

Why are the SNP performing so much better than Plaid Cymru in the polls (in proportion to the respective size & population of their area of coverage)?

Because Independence for Wales is less sought after than in Scotland ?

 

[St Rollox]

Because half the people living in Wales are English.

 

[Butts]

Because half the people living in Wales are English.

That does not necessarily mean they will be against Independence, some "white settlers" in Scotland are keen enthusiasts.

 

[St Rollox]

That does not necessarily mean they will be against Independence, some "white settlers" in Scotland are keen enthusiasts.

Was a bit bemused to find the local Welsh Green Party was called the Green Party of England and Wales.
Says a lot.
Can remember the royalist Prince of Wales stunt by the British establishment in the 1960s upsetting more than a few locals.

 

[Oswyntail]

I see Labour have promised to repeal the Health and Social Care Act in its entirety. I wonder if they have thought this through at all. There will be no legally empowered bodies to commission services, or, in many cases, provide them. Of course, they could put forward a Bill of their own through Parliament. But wouldn't this lead to a "top down massive reorganisation of the Health Service" which they claim is the sort of thing they will not do? Or is that section of the manifesto just massive claptrap (understandable, as most of the Tory reforms were simply enhancing or correcting what the previous Labour lot had done)?

 

[me123]

Why are the SNP performing so much better than Plaid Cymru in the polls (in proportion to the respective size & population of their area of coverage)?

The SNP have a proven track record in government, and their rise has been at a rather well measured pace. Following on from their Scottish Parliament electoral victories, more and more people have the confidence to vote SNP, and know the vote will not be wasted. They have emerged as an alternative to Labour in the failing days of new Labour, and rapidly became Scotland's second biggest (and now biggest) political party.

The independence referendum, however, is the stimulus that pushed the SNP to the top. 45% of Scots voted for independence in a closely-fought battle. The votes seem to suggest that the 45% have not gone away, and are most likely to vote SNP in May.

By contrast, Plaid Cymru haven't had much experience in government in Wales and don't really have the stimuli to grow - a bit similar to the SNP's position in days gone by. I would also agree that I don't think Wales has the same appetite for independence that exists up here.

 

[Tetchytyke]

most of the Tory reforms were simply enhancing or correcting what the previous Labour lot had done

Anyone who thinks this kleptocrat's fantasy improves the NHS is either Richard Branson, a shareholder in Circle Healthcare, or Tim Montgomerie.

Today I'm mostly enjoying David Cameron lecturing us on the sanctity of property ownership by, er, forcing charities to sell their assets at a substantial undervalue.

Wait, what do you mean he's actually serious?

 

[kylemore]

Cameron commits to "freezing rail fares for 5 years".

An out and out bribe certainly, but one that might work!

 

[ainsworth74]

An out and out bribe certainly, but one that might work!

Not even much of bribe what with inflation still at 0%...

 

[Oswyntail]

Anyone who thinks this kleptocrat's fantasy improves the NHS is either Richard Branson, a shareholder in Circle Healthcare, or Tim Montgomerie.....

Little things like plugging the loophole in overseas recruitment that said British standards had to be met? The "kleptocrat's fantasy" was actually the wet dream of Andy Burnham, cobbled together with all his usual panache. The HSCA did actually improve things, if only by making things workable. Anyone who thinks it didn't is about as clued up as Aneurin "stuff their mouths with gold" Bevan.

 

[kylemore]

Not even much of bribe what with inflation still at 0%...

Perhaps...but it's perception that matters - if I was a floating voter in Peterborough or Reading paying a quarter of their salary for a season ticket to work (rather than a vile Scottish Nationalist in deepest Ayrshire) I might be tempted!

 

[Peter Mugridge]

...with inflation still at 0%...

The perfect moment to offer all public sector staff a cost of living increase for this year...

 

[northwichcat]

Cameron commits to "freezing rail fares for 5 years".

That's the headline he wants you to believe. In reality rail fares will rise at the rate of RPI every year for the next five years under a Conservative government. It's a relative freeze he's proposing not an actual freeze.

 

[jon0844]

In real terms it would be a freeze, but I know what you mean.

 

[northwichcat]

In real terms it would be a freeze, but I know what you mean.

I think it's more of a lucky dip. They choose one month and then use the RPI figure from that month to set the average permitted fare increase for regulated fares for the year. The RPI may be at it's lowest level that month, or it could be at it's highest level.

I've also not heard anything to say the Conservatives will prevent operators reducing regulated fares on a not very well used flow so they can increase fares on a well used flow above the average, or that all fares will become regulated opposed to some fares.

So I don't think there's anything there to prevent some tickets going up by 7.5% when RPI is something like 2%. Therefore I think the claim still has a number of caveats even if you say relatively or in real terms.

Most people will think of 0% when they hear 'freeze' due to widespread pay freezes in recent years being 0% not RPI.

 

[Tetchytyke]

The "kleptocrat's fantasy" was actually the wet dream of Andy Burnham, cobbled together with all his usual panache. The HSCA did actually improve things, if only by making things workable.

Things are workable now? Really? Is that why most NHS trusts are staring into a financial abyss, and even the trusts that aren't are too frightened to commit to expenditure in case they lose a contract?

The market in the NHS has always been a fiasco ever since it was implemented, and Burnham deserves plenty of blame for that.

Sadly the real issue is that the Department for Health is stuffed with senior bureaucrats in the back pocket of the likes of Circle Healthcare, and the colour of the rosette changes nothing.

We all know that the likes of Circle will come in, hoover up the easy and profitable work, and then leave the rump of the NHS to deal with the expensive and complicated stuff. And the financial impact of this will see NHS trusts labelled as "financially failing", even though the system is set up to seemingly deliberately assure their destruction. Where a private provider gets their sums wrong, as Circle did at Hinchinbrooke, then once again it is the NHS trust who have to step in and fix the mess, all at the taxpayer's expense.

Even trusts which are financially secure and prudent are terrified of committing to expenditure in case they lose a contract.

Meanwhile, we have A&E and GP waiting times that are the worst in living memory and we're back to the glory days of John Major where grannies are left to die in corridors because all the money is going to inflate Richard Branson's enormous tax-avoiding ego in the Cayman Islands.

Now I'm assuming your next reply will be straight from the Conservative Home School of Debating, which means either a) I don't know what I'm talking about, b) I'm just jealous of "wealth creators", c) I'm a socialist or d) all of the above.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

In real terms it would be a freeze, but I know what you mean.

RPI doesn't measure wage inflation and it is a very long time since most people had pay awards based on RPI.

In "real terms" it's a half-truth.

 

[Oswyntail]

Things are workable now? Really? Is that why most NHS trusts are staring into a financial abyss, and even the trusts that aren't are too frightened to commit to expenditure in case they lose a contract?....

The real "vampire squid" is PPI. Apart from that, the trusts I have been involved with are still committing to expenditure, just not as rashly as in the past.
The question of waiting times, and the corridor beds, is rarely attributable to the Tories, except perhaps indirectly. Of course there are some trusts (and virtually every type of public body) where financial restraint was taken as a straight "n% in every area", and this will cause problems. But where the opportunity has been taken to do things properly, the system is working. There has also been an unprecedented rise in people going to A&E, again for a multitude of reasons: these range from patients not believing GPs and wanting second opinions to GPs not having faith in their own diagnoses. Overall, there has been a massive rise in people misusing A&E. Should this be catered for? Patently it cannot be, because the demand would become inexhaustible.
One cannot generate much faith in Labour's ability to understand the NHS when they come up with fantasy "guarantees" like the one about midwives, crowd-pleasig but unworkable. The service will always have pinch points, which are changing unpredictably. However, I do believe that, across the UK, the NHS has generally been working reasonably well. It does no one any good to pretend it is in an overall "crisis" that requires a drastic reorganisation.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

....
Sadly the real issue is that the Department for Health is stuffed with senior bureaucrats in the back pocket of the likes of Circle Healthcare, and the colour of the rosette changes nothing.

Actually, the DH senior bureaucrats are chiefly Labour supporters, who made their way up under the old regime, who are longing for the confusion and hands-off approach to return.

....We all know that the likes of Circle will come in, hoover up the easy and profitable work, and then leave the rump of the NHS to deal with the expensive and complicated stuff. And the financial impact of this will see NHS trusts labelled as "financially failing", even though the system is set up to seemingly deliberately assure their destruction. Where a private provider gets their sums wrong, as Circle did at Hinchinbrooke, then once again it is the NHS trust who have to step in and fix the mess, all at the taxpayer's expense.

You are thinking more of the treatment centres, set up specifically to do that by the old crew. I believe the system is more balanced now. The Circle situation is interesting, but no different really from any failing trust, NHS or "Private". The true test of any system is how it handles such failures.

 

[Tetchytyke]

The real "vampire squid" is PPI. Apart from that, the trusts I have been involved with are still committing to expenditure, just not as rashly as in the past.

I've seen an increasing use of temporary contracts, even for clinical staff, because there isn't the desire to recruit staff permanently. That has a serious impact on staff productivity and morale, and is not good for service continuation. My partner's own trust is now only recruiting clinical staff on 12-month contracts as they cannot rely on the funding to continue.

That said, I'd agree PFI expenditure is a major problem. But if trusts were not losing the routine stuff- the stuff that funds the complex treatments- to private providers then it wouldn't be quite as big an issue as it is.

The question of waiting times, and the corridor beds, is rarely attributable to the Tories, except perhaps indirectly. Of course there are some trusts (and virtually every type of public body) where financial restraint was taken as a straight "n% in every area", and this will cause problems. But where the opportunity has been taken to do things properly, the system is working. There has also been an unprecedented rise in people going to A&E, again for a multitude of reasons: these range from patients not believing GPs and wanting second opinions to GPs not having faith in their own diagnoses. Overall, there has been a massive rise in people misusing A&E. Should this be catered for?

People are going to A&E because they cannot get appointments with their own GP. My own GP has over a two-week wait for an appointment, unless you're prepared to wait all day as an "emergency" (and this is- rightly- subject to extensive triage first). When I lived in north London it was even worse- to manage demand, everyone just had to ring up at 8am and see what was available on that day. This meant it was luck of the draw whether you got seen or not, and naturally people who couldn't get seen went to their drop-in centre or A&E.

I know the Tory line is that the increase in A&E figures is "unprecedented" (which they seem to use as a synonym for "unexpected") but it relates to the lack of GP provision. GP recruitment is at an all-time low whilst numbers leaving general practice is getting ever higher.

I know the Tory line is also "misuse" of A&E- the plebs are revolting, after all- but A&E isn't full of people who distrust their GP, it's full of people who can't get anywhere near their GP.

It does no one any good to pretend it is in an overall "crisis" that requires a drastic reorganisation.

The NHS is in crisis, precisely because of a drastic and unnecessary re-organisation that the Tories imposed on it without warning or consultation. Trying to argue everything is rosy in the garden is ridiculous. It is not. The NHS is underfunded and the funding it does have it is forced to hand over to fat cat financiers rather than spend it on patients.

It didn't need the last reorganisation, just as it didn't need the internal market the last swivel-eyed Conservative government imposed on it, and it is paying a heavy price for their dogmatic and unwanted intervention.

However I'd agree that yet another reorganisation isn't going to make it better.

What it needs is stability, both at a commissioning level and at a contractor level, and an acceptance that the incumbent NHS trust needs that stability to deliver high quality care. Instead what it has is Monitor- stuffed to the gills with free-market* sycophants- coming out expressing "deep concern" that there aren't enough fat cats swilling at the NHS trough.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The Circle situation is interesting, but no different really from any failing trust, NHS or "Private". The true test of any system is how it handles such failures.

Any provider which is financially struggling should be sorted out by its ultimate owner.

Where that is an existing NHS trust, clearly that needs to be the government.

Where it is a private provider, clearly it is the owners of that private provider. Not that Circle is struggling, they just didn't think that they were making enough profit at Hinchinbrooke for their tax-avoiding offshore hedge fund shareholders.

The privatised system is handling this like it does with any other privatised utility- it is handing over barrowloads of taxpayer cash to the financiers in the good times and then letting them walk away with it all when the facade comes tumbling down.

The system is doing what it is designed to do: privatise profit and nationalise risk.

*I originally said Tory here, but that's wrong; plenty of people who claim to be Labour are just as "comfortable" with enabling tax-avoiding hedge funders wherever possible

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Meanwhile, once again on Planet Conservative, we see their candidate for Cambridge seriously propose that people with mental health problems should be forced to wear coloured bracelets so that they can be identified.

http://cambridge.tab.co.uk/2015/04/...ear-wristbands-says-tory-candidate-cambridge/

 

[Oswyntail]

....
People are going to A&E because they cannot get appointments with their own GP. My own GP has over a two-week wait for an appointment, unless you're prepared to wait all day as an "emergency" (and this is- rightly- subject to extensive triage first). When I lived in north London it was even worse- to manage demand, everyone just had to ring up at 8am and see what was available on that day. This meant it was luck of the draw whether you got seen or not, and naturally people who couldn't get seen went to their drop-in centre or A&E.

And who sorted out the GPs' contract? Yes, it was Labour, whose policy was to ask what the Doctors wanted, then give it them with gold plate. I know the Civil Servant who ran the process, and he caved in so much he was given an OBE. Back to th eguiding principal of the NHS - stuff their mouths with gold.

....I know the Tory line is that the increase in A&E figures is "unprecedented" (which they seem to use as a synonym for "unexpected") but it relates to the lack of GP provision. GP recruitment is at an all-time low whilst numbers leaving general practice is getting ever higher.

I know the Tory line is also "misuse" of A&E- the plebs are revolting, after all- but A&E isn't full of people who distrust their GP, it's full of people who can't get anywhere near their GP.

That is not true of this part of the world, though it could be different in London. Both "Tory lines" seem to be the case here.

....
The NHS is in crisis, precisely because of a drastic and unnecessary re-organisation that the Tories imposed on it without warning or consultation. Trying to argue everything is rosy in the garden is ridiculous. ... hand over to fat cat financiers rather than spend it on patients.

It didn't need the last reorganisation, just as it didn't need the internal market the last swivel-eyed Conservative government imposed on it, and it is paying a heavy price for their dogmatic and unwanted intervention....

I'm sorry, but you are sounding more swivel-eyed by the moment. Of course not everything is rosy, but nor do we have three weeks to save the NHS. And pretending we do - while probably planning to do nothing - does the service no favours at all.

 

[Tetchytyke]

And who sorted out the GPs' contract? Yes, it was Labour, whose policy was to ask what the Doctors wanted, then give it them with gold plate. I know the Civil Servant who ran the process, and he caved in so much he was given an OBE. Back to th eguiding principal of the NHS - stuff their mouths with gold.

So if the remuneration is so amazing, why are doctors leaving general practice in record numbers?

The issue, despite yet more Tory spin, is a lack of GPs not a lack of gumption. Out-of-hours issues are, of course, because out-of-hours care was privatised. Amazingly the quality went down and the cost went up. Never saw that one coming.

I don't know which part of Yorkshire you're in, but it is a similar story (although not to the London extreme) with my parents' practice in south-west Bradford.

That said, please don't confuse me for a Labour supporter; never voted for them in my life.

 

[radamfi]

I'm not worried about the NHS. The parties are falling over themselves to throw money at it. I'm more interested in public transport policy, and there is more distinction there. Looking at the two manifestos, Labour have a lot more to say about local public transport, whereas the Tories are only interested in announcing already committed rail schemes. However, I fear that Labour's plans could be blocked by the SNP who don't want properly planned and integrated transport because of their relationship with Souter.

I'm also very concerned about the possibility of an EU exit. I will only entertain leaving the EU if our rights to live and work in Europe are preserved (like those enjoyed by Norway or Iceland).

 

[DynamicSpirit]

The question of waiting times, and the corridor beds, is rarely attributable to the Tories, except perhaps indirectly. Of course there are some trusts (and virtually every type of public body) where financial restraint was taken as a straight "n% in every area", and this will cause problems. But where the opportunity has been taken to do things properly, the system is working.

5 years ago I could normally get an appointment with my GP within 2-3 days. Now it's 2 weeks. This means it's basically not worth going to the GP unless I have a condition that I'm expecting to still be there in a couple of weeks time - so on a number of occasions I've not bothered to book appointments for things that I'm a little concerned about. I do not know what the causes of those long waits are (so on this matter I can't judge which party's policies are most appropriate), but those kinds of waiting times certainly do not strike me as being what you'd expect in a system that's working.

There has also been an unprecedented rise in people going to A&E, again for a multitude of reasons: these range from patients not believing GPs and wanting second opinions to GPs not having faith in their own diagnoses. Overall, there has been a massive rise in people misusing A&E. Should this be catered for?

How much of that is caused by people going to A&E because they can't get an appointment with their GP within a reasonable time? I can think of a couple of times when I've dissuaded friends from going to A&E for basically that reason.

 

[Oswyntail]

So if the remuneration is so amazing, why are doctors leaving general practice in record numbers?

That I do not know (gasp, horror). It may not be so much that more are leaving - there has always been a churn in early careers, as doctors give being a GP a try - but my local practice is finding it hard to recruit into a traditional GP role. More call for part-time working, for instance.

...Out-of-hours issues are, of course, because out-of-hours care was privatised. Amazingly the quality went down and the cost went up. Never saw that one coming.

That was all part of the GP contract my friend worked on. Andy Burnham again.

That said, please don't confuse me for a Labour supporter; never voted for them in my life.

I would never think that of anyone. I just wish someone would call them out on their dishonesty and lack of intellectual rigour.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

But those kinds of waiting times certainly do not strike me as being what you'd expect in a system that's working....

See rants about GP contract, passim!

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I just wish someone would call them out on their dishonesty and lack of intellectual rigour.

Ummm, ummm, ummm... an accusation of dishonesty and intellectual rigour against Labour strikes me as somewhat ironic when it comes from someone who apparently supports a party that has basically spent almost the entire election campaign so far either lying about the economy (claiming or implying that Labour wrecked the economy when the economic data appears on the whole to show no such thing), or engaging in personal insults directed at Ed Miliband, and whose entire economic policy appears to be based on the absurd simplistic assumption that all the Government needs to do is keep the deficit down and then the entire economy will somehow magically be OK.

 

[table38]

Ummm, ummm, ummm... an accusation of dishonesty and intellectual rigour against Labour strikes me as somewhat ironic when it comes from someone who apparently supports a party that has basically spent almost the entire election campaign so far either lying about the economy (claiming or implying that Labour wrecked the economy when the economic data appears on the whole to show no such thing), or engaging in personal insults directed at Ed Miliband.

We've done this to death on this thread already. Despite Labour's usual attempts to blame everyone else, their whole economic plan was built on a bubble of debt that was unsustainable. Unfortunately Brown had convinced himself that he'd abolished boom and bust, and was still spending and borrowing well into the crash and beyond, putting nothing away for the rainy days that he'd proclaimed would never come. So we fared a lot worse than other countries who were less reckless.

And Miliband constantly whining on about personal insults just demonstrates he isn't up to the job. He won't be able to go running to mummy crying that the big boys are being horrible to him when he is supposed to be standing up for the UK against the likes of Merkel, Obama or Putin.

 

[St Rollox]

We've done this to death on this thread already. Despite Labour's usual attempts to blame everyone else, their whole economic plan was built on a bubble of debt that was unsustainable. Unfortunately Brown had convinced himself that he'd abolished boom and bust, and was still spending and borrowing well into the crash and beyond, putting nothing away for the rainy days that he'd proclaimed would never come. So we fared a lot worse than other countries who were less reckless.

And Miliband constantly whining on about personal insults just demonstrates he isn't up to the job. He won't be able to go running to mummy crying that the big boys are being horrible to him when he is supposed to be standing up for the UK against the likes of Merkel, Obama or Putin.

I'm sure Alex Salmond will look out for Miliband.