• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Politics, politics, politics

K.D.D.D.D.Soc said:
Having been around for a long time it amazes me that all the parties will tell the electorate that they will sort out the NHS despite two of them having proved in the past they have no solution to the state monster. No party will face the truth that it is virtually impossible to support as it stands and radical changes have to be made, most that will be unacceptable to the voters.
Click to expand...

Sell it and the BBC off and I will vote for who ever puts forward that idea.
 
K.D.D.D.D.Soc said:
Having been around for a long time it amazes me that all the parties will tell the electorate that they will sort out the NHS despite two of them having proved in the past they have no solution to the state monster. No party will face the truth that it is virtually impossible to support as it stands and radical changes have to be made, most that will be unacceptable to the voters.
Click to expand...

I don't think that is true. You get what you pay for with health care. I am pretty relaxed about how it is delivered as long as it is free at the point of delivery but the reasons for the problems with the NHS is that it is underfunded compared to most European health care systems. Taking it out of state hands would not solve that.

NHS-spending-internationall-comparison-fig-1.png
 
Last edited:
milo said:
I don't think that is true. You get what you pay for with health care. I am pretty relaxed about how it is delivered as long as it is free at the point of delivery but the reasons for the problems with the NHS is that it is underfunded compared to most European health care systems. Taking it out of state hands would not solve that.
Click to expand...

The more money that is put in would be wasted as it is poorly managed, mainly due to political interference. The principle is marvelous but it has struggled to provide the service it was set up to provide due to the numbers using the service and advances in medical treatments. I've had 2 hip replacement operations, procedures that were unheard of when the service was started, that's just the tip of the iceberg, there are conditions and illness that were not recognised.
 
K.D.D.D.D.Soc said:
The more money that is put in would be wasted as it is poorly managed, mainly due to political interference. The principle is marvelous but it has struggled to provide the service it was set up to provide due to the numbers using the service and advances in medical treatments. I've had 2 hip replacement operations, procedures that were unheard of when the service was started, that's just the tip of the iceberg, there are conditions and illness that were not recognised.
Click to expand...

Like I said, I am reasonably relaxed about the method of delivery but the underlying problem is funding. You are right that an ageing population and far wider range of treatments put additional strain on the service but putting it in private hands is not going to change that.
 
milo said:
Like I said, I am reasonably relaxed about the method of delivery but the underlying problem is funding. You are right that an ageing population and far wider range of treatments put additional strain on the service but putting it in private hands is not going to change that.
Click to expand...

I've never advocated putting it in private hands, but it needs people having the balls to tell everyone how much it would cost to provide the service they want and how they are going to do it, something no politician will ever do, but they were prepared to tinkle our money up the wall on the Olympic Games.
 
monkeybarry said:
I agree on a practical level.
However, what is your view of that from a democratic and/or liberty angle?

My view is there needs to be a mechanism in place to say "none of you lot, try again" - but not just a simple "none of the above" as that doesn't really do much.
Click to expand...

Voluntary voting skews democracy, as can be seen in the States where only about 40% of the people eligible to vote, actually do so. s far the liberties argument, that is a fallacy, as no one is forced to actually support a candidate, you are free to cast an informal vote.
 
i'd like to think a lack of TV debates would make those intending to vote put the extra work in to understand the platforms and vote accordingly but I expect we'll just get more flimflam on the side of a bus
 
Labour really has only one option: understand what people want who voted 'Brexit ie to stop immigration and be wide open it. Be brave enough to say that Labour is pro EU because it will help Britain keep jobs, and pay for the NHS, but we'll deliver no immigration for you. Something those lot - Tories - have talked and talked about but never done! If they did that they could capture both sides of 'brexit'.

Like Brexit itself, this election is my favourite buttplug. We may as well have another EU referendum - as this election has been called because of brexit and it will be all about brexit. Its a EU referendum by proxy. If Labour don't get a stance on Brexit quickly they are going to look weak and unelectable. How could you be voted in to negotiate Brexit when you have no policy on it!!?

Lib Dems position could be stronger too. A vote for us is a vote for remain - simple. It would attract a lot of new voters. Vote for us, and we'll keep you in the EU. Done. But instead they are doing their usual on the fence zhit, talking about single market etc. Just stand up for something, believe in it, don't water it down. At some point politicians need to be strong enough to outline why Britain needs EU trade - for everyone. Talk over the billions in tax on banks, car firms, better trade, cheaper food in the shops that will all be lost. And deal with immigration - its a separate issue. There was only a few % points in the EU referendum, and Remain did a woeful job, while Leave were very slick. If this is an election about Brexit, then we need a party who can communicate why its not the right thing for the UK, and be fuking honest about it!

I'm completely dismayed. 8 weeks of bolocks, and I don't want to vote for any of them. None of them should be in power.
 
Last edited:
SpurMeUp said:
Labour really has only one option: understand what people want who voted 'Brexit ie to stop immigration and be wide open it. Be brave enough to say that Labour is pro EU because it will help Britain keep jobs, and pay for the NHS, but we'll deliver no immigration for you. Something those lot - Tories - have talked and talked about but never done! If they did that they could capture both sides of 'brexit'.
Click to expand...

That would not work. The vast majority of Labour voters supported remain and an anti-immigration pitch would just push them towards the Lib Dems.

Also, the tighter the controls on EU immigration after Brexit, the worse our trading terms will be. So you cannot say you are pro-EU on the one hand and promise no immigration on the other.

Finally, Britain needs immigrant workers. We are practically at full employment, if we do not bring people in to fill vacancies, they will remain unfilled and growth stalls. Any visa system will be unnecessary bureaucracy that will slow down and deter the people that we need from coming here. It seems ludicrous to me that Conservatives are arguing that government knows better than the market.
 
Last edited:
Gilzeantoscore said:
Voluntary voting skews democracy, as can be seen in the States where only about 40% of the people eligible to vote, actually do so. s far the liberties argument, that is a fallacy, as no one is forced to actually support a candidate, you are free to cast an informal vote.
Click to expand...
If you cant be bothered to vote I would guess you cant be bothered to do the research to be informed - I think I would rather those not being informed not vote. If you force people to vote would you not get a lot of populist policy / soundbites to win the stupid and uninformed. I know its not great as is but not sure mandatory is the answer either.

(*coming from Essex I know loads of people who believe everything they read in the Sun, I am glad they chose not to vote.)
 
r-u-s-x said:
If you cant be bothered to vote I would guess you cant be bothered to do the research to be informed - I think I would rather those not being informed not vote. If you force people to vote would you not get a lot of populist policy / soundbites to win the stupid and uninformed. I know its not great as is but not sure mandatory is the answer either.

(*coming from Essex I know loads of people who believe everything they read in the Sun, I am glad they chose not to vote.)
Click to expand...

Politicians chase voters, by pin pointing policies directly at them. In the US, blacks don't vote, therefore their health care and education needs are ignored, thus democracy is skewed. It's a bad system. In Australia they have compulsory voting and it brings out the Labour vote at the expense of the Tories and that's another advantage, parties don't have to waste time and resources getting people to the booths.
 
milo said:
That would not work. The vast majority of Labour voters supported remain and an anti-immigration pitch would just push them towards the Lib Dems.

Also, the tighter the controls on EU immigration after Brexit, the worse our trading terms will be. So you cannot say you are pro-EU on the one hand and promise no immigration on the other.

Finally, Britain needs immigrant workers. We are practically at full employment, if we do not bring people in to fill vacancies, they will remain unfilled and growth stalls. Any visa system will be unnecessary bureaucracy that will slow down and deter the people that we need from coming here. It seems ludicrous to me that Conservatives are arguing that government knows better than the market.
Click to expand...

When has what you say had any bearing on political actions? Leave even made promises with concrete figures, no one expects brexit to deliver those promises.

Labour needs to come out in favour of Remaining in the EU, but also for 'get our England back', get jobs back for English people, clear NHS waiting lists allude to English people etc. rhetoric in short.

If they did this, they would have a hope. At the moment they can't figure out how to appeal to ukip sympathetic labour voters and EU remain labour voters, and they are in grave danger of losing both.

Pro EU = pro jobs, pro NHS via strong tax revenue, lower prices in the shops for British people. On top of that talk about prioritising English people, fighting for them, lots of Trump-like hype about it, 'make people proud to be English and British'.


Sitting on my porcelain throne using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back