Politics, politics, politics

[Baleforce]

I agree NWND, best leader since Hague.

 

[NWND]

Don't actually think Hague was that great, mainly because of his personality. He might well have got the party together a bit more than Major did (when there were just tonnes of scandals going on in the party), but he just didn't seem electable to the average Joe in terms of, when you're in that polling box, thinking about who is going to be the next PM, who is going to go to NATO conferences to represent British interests, who is going to pick up the phone to Putin when he's being a d**k, who is going to have a conversation with America about British troops being supplied for their next 'world Police' invasion, can you imagine that guy doing that and doing it well?

I think if the postal voting is correct and Cons are performing better than expected, I think it will come down to Ed Milliband having the same problem as Hague had above, as opposed to Cameron, who just always seems to come across as strong, no matter what.

Even taking the last leader's debate when all 3 party leaders were given a tough time. Cameron might not have given anything away and IF you analyse it, he barely answered a single question straightly, but he gave the impression of answering the questions well and came across well. It's impression that counts.

Ed meanwhile seemed to be visibly shaken by the battering he took, didn't come across as convincing, particularly in regard to the economy and then tripped up when leaving the stage.

Yes, it's harsh to judge him on that, but at the end of the day, he IS an awkward character, while Cameron is a strong one.

I don't think in reality Cameron is THAT much of a better leader than Ed, but the impression he gives is a lot stronger, than Ed and I think that might swing it, come Thursday (although I could be wrong).

 

[glorygloryeze]

my word ..isn't that patently obvious..well there's no kippers in Grimsby these days.
Especially after accidentally coming across Grimsby docks twenty or so years ago .

To see would be to believe. If only I had had a camcorder .
Dock after dock of empty massive refrigerators ..where people would have worked in their
hundreds collecting and filleting the fish all along by the dockside . All of it just gone to nothing..I think
EEC fish laws had something to do with this! Who was allowed to fish and where. This was another chapter that no one remembers anymore.Thanks to Brussels.

so.....no kippers ..vote UKIP...LOL

Its not true that we would not trade with Europe if we were to Leave Brussels.BTW.for Gods sake they are accros
the channel.
Anyway I can't see us coming out of Europe which will mean the English pound
will be Euro, and more decisions on Europe and more money gone to the gravy train of
MEPs in Brussels..your money, for bureaucracy and more decisions being made by
people who don't live in the real world.

do you know.. I'm not really interested in Politics as it stands..
Its Democracy for the People I would like to see..[dreamer me]
thats the real ideal.Just think of it? You and me having a real say in whats going on,instead of
getting the betting pencil out and putting in your cross..Oh yes and this we call Democracy..well to be Fair..I suppose its a start!



Do you know what is the biggest problem facing mankind to-day?
I'm diversifying now..but its still politics...

Apart from asteroid coming out of the sky and to cause a trillion ton
blast..LOL

It is the overpopulation of people on this Earth that is such an important factor.
And when do the Politicians ever talk about this at a G8 meetings ..
Never!
And it is simply the most important thing there is.

Oh yes wait ..there is one other mega World problem for man and women kind
..Nuclear War..NSF..not so funny
but overpopulation could lead us towards this end as well!

Anyway......One day we'll find..LOL or will will.

Lol..erm..sorry it's not obvious....so out of interest who will you be voting for?

Lot's to discuss regardless..

 

[glorygloryeze]

Cameron being the "best leader the Tories have had in years", shows there are big BIG problems in the Tory party...

 

[Baleforce]

Cameron being the "best leader the Tories have had in years", shows there are big BIG problems in the Tory party...

sadly you don't get a Thatcher come along that often

 

[Baleforce]

Don't actually think Hague was that great, mainly because of his personality. He might well have got the party together a bit more than Major did (when there were just tonnes of scandals going on in the party), but he just didn't seem electable to the average Joe in terms of, when you're in that polling box, thinking about who is going to be the next PM, who is going to go to NATO conferences to represent British interests, who is going to pick up the phone to Putin when he's being a d**k, who is going to have a conversation with America about British troops being supplied for their next 'world Police' invasion, can you imagine that guy doing that and doing it well?

I think if the postal voting is correct and Cons are performing better than expected, I think it will come down to Ed Milliband having the same problem as Hague had above, as opposed to Cameron, who just always seems to come across as strong, no matter what.

Even taking the last leader's debate when all 3 party leaders were given a tough time. Cameron might not have given anything away and IF you analyse it, he barely answered a single question straightly, but he gave the impression of answering the questions well and came across well. It's impression that counts.

Ed meanwhile seemed to be visibly shaken by the battering he took, didn't come across as convincing, particularly in regard to the economy and then tripped up when leaving the stage.

Yes, it's harsh to judge him on that, but at the end of the day, he IS an awkward character, while Cameron is a strong one.

I don't think in reality Cameron is THAT much of a better leader than Ed, but the impression he gives is a lot stronger, than Ed and I think that might swing it, come Thursday (although I could be wrong).

I think those reasons are why he was a good leader, I think he was, there is a reason he was made FS, he is well respected internationally.

 

[scaramanga]

If society has moved far to the right as you say ..the Tories would walk it.

Quite.

The fact that the Conservatives have moved to centre but are still not going to have a majority suggests that the swivel-eyed neo-marxist blok is larger than one would think.

If only NuLab had invested our money into education rather than handouts we wouldn't be having this problem.

 

[Gilzeantoscore]

sadly you don't get a Thatcher come along that often

Sadly? Ha, ha , ha.

 

[Gilzeantoscore]

Quite.

The fact that the Conservatives have moved to centre but are still not going to have a majority suggests that the swivel-eyed neo-marxist blok is larger than one would think.

If only NuLab had invested our money into education rather than handouts we wouldn't be having this problem.

Ha, ha ha. Describing Labour as 'neo-Marxist.' This, the most right wing labour party in the last fifty years. More hyperbole from Scara. Keep up the desperate scare campaign, as it provides an endless supply of amusement. How could any sane person believe that the NHS has been better under the Tories? They want to privatise it by stealth, they want a two tier health system, where the poor are left with a sub standard system. Shame on them, shame, shame , shame!

 

[Gilzeantoscore]

Hey Scara, I'm a neo-Marxist and I can tell you, that the policies I'd be introducing would be waaaay to the left of anything Miliband is thinking of.

 

[scaramanga]

Ha, ha ha. Describing Labour as 'neo-Marxist.' This, the most right wing labour party in the last fifty years. More hyperbole from Scara. Keep up the desperate scare campaign, as it provides an endless supply of amusement. How could any sane person believe that the NHS has been better under the Tories? They want to privatise it by stealth, they want a two tier health system, where the poor are left with a sub standard system. Shame on them, shame, shame , shame!

I was talking about the Greens/SNP/Pldsfjkdshfskjfhd Cymdsfkjhsdfkjhsfd that will be propping Labour up.

A privatised NHS would be better - far better. I don't mind it being free at the point of use, but why is a state monopoly any better than a market one? (Protip: It's not).

 

[Gilzeantoscore]

The poor rump of society would be left with a sub-standard service, that is why it would be no good.

 

[scaramanga]

The poor rump of society would be left with a sub-standard service, that is why it would be no good.

But it would be paid for by the government, same as anyone else's. Their treatment would be exactly the same as the richest in society (except those that have their own medical staff), just without all the waste and inertia caused by monopolies.

 

[Gilzeantoscore]

But it would be paid for by the government, same as anyone else's. Their treatment would be exactly the same as the richest in society (except those that have their own medical staff), just without all the waste and inertia caused by monopolies.

Well if the public follow your lead and support self-interest they will push for reduced funding, given that they will not be utilising the service. Politicians will see that there are no votes in it and the service will wither and die. Universality is the thing that makes the NHS work. The Tories are spinning their health policy. If it's privatised, it's no longer the NHS. it's all, or nothing.

 

[scaramanga]

Well if the public follow your lead and support self-interest they will push for reduced funding, given that they will not be utilising the service. Politicians will see that there are no votes in it and the service will wither and die. Universality is the thing that makes the NHS work. The Tories are spinning their health policy. If it's privatised, it's no longer the NHS. it's all, or nothing.

There should be reduced funding - without a monopoly all the inefficiencies of a monopolised system would be removed over time. The same quality of service will cost less and less (per head) every year.

 

[glorygloryeze]

There should be reduced funding - without a monopoly all the inefficiencies of a monopolised system would be removed over time. The same quality of service will cost less and less (per head) every year.

But how is this squared with the fact that different areas in the country will have different health needs which themselves will have different costs?
The NHS being what is is can pool resources nationwide so that if one area has a large cost (due to age profile and a high prevalence of Long Term Conditions) is counter-balanced by other areas that do not have the same profiles (or costs).

A corporation or multinational will only be able to square these imbalances (and across the country there are HUGE ones) if they themselves have a monopoly..which means there is/would be little point really.

Reducing the waste in the current quasi-Public system is the way forward.

Selling parts of the NHS to the highest bidder (whereby the cheapest and easiest sections to run will get picked off as nice easy contracts whilst the more important but more costly parts such as state of the art surgery, HIV treatment, mental health treatment will be left to the state or even worse to those who will cut corners just to break even etc) will lead to an even bigger mess which will in turn will lead to dingdongensian levels of healthcare for many.

 

[scaramanga]

But how is this squared with the fact that different areas in the country will have different health needs which themselves will have different costs?
The NHS being what is is can pool resources nationwide so that if one area has a large cost (due to age profile and a high prevalence of Long Term Conditions) is counter-balanced by other areas that do not have the same profiles (or costs).

A corporation or multinational will only be able to square these imbalances (and across the country there are HUGE ones) if they themselves have a monopoly..which means there is/would be little point really.

Reducing the waste in the current quasi-Public system is the way forward.

Selling parts of the NHS to the highest bidder (whereby the cheapest and easiest sections to run will get picked off as nice easy contracts whilst the more important but more costly parts such as state of the art surgery, HIV treatment, mental health treatment will be left to the state or even worse to those who will cut corners just to break even etc) will lead to an even bigger mess which will in turn will lead to dingdongensian levels of healthcare for many.

There's still no need for a state monopoly to provide those services.

The funding is still from the government - whether some people/areas are more expensive or not it doesn't matter. Companies will always find more efficient ways of gaining an advantage over the opposition - they will always find cheaper methods than their competitors or they will not last.

The argument about cherry picking is a false one. Obviously the government will pay more for more expensive care/treatments than they do the cheaper ones. There will always be someone wanting to earn that money and there will always be competition to do it better and more cheaply than their rivals.

 

[parklane1]

I don't think he is actually. I think he's the only thing stopping Labour walking the election.

This last government just gone was always going to be a poisoned chalis. Massive cuts were necessary WHOEVER was in power (Labour would have had to do the same, so would the Greens or anyone that preaches 'anti-austerity'). People have felt squeezed, even during an economic recovery.

Cameron's polling has always been significantly ahead of Ed's as a leader or PM, but that's compared to the 'party' polling, which is pretty much neck and neck.

Cameron comes across as a leader, Ed doesn't. That's not to say Ed is better or worse (IMO he's worse, but that's irrelevant to the point), it's just the 'impression' that you get when you see both talk.

Cameron is the first decent leader the Tories got themselves in years.

Well lets put it this way Cameron took his party into the last GE, now bearing in mind he was up against a Labour party that had shot its bolt, with the worst PM ( according to the press at the time) this country has seen for a long time and Labour having their worst election results ever and yet Cameron could still not gain his party a majority, now if it had not been for Clegg saving his arse ( and ruining his party since by doing so) I think there is a good chance that the Torys would have had another leadership ballot and replaced a leader who had failed to persuade enough people that he was the man to replace the worst PM in a long time.

Cameron failed to do that and he has still not done enough to persuade the general public that he is a good leader( hence all this talk about not getting a overall majority again). We shall see.

 

[parklane1]

sadly you don't get a Thatcher come along that often

Something the vast majority are thankfull for.

 

[scaramanga]

Well lets put it this way Cameron took his party into the last GE, now bearing in mind he was up against a Labour party that had shot its bolt, with the worst PM ( according to the press at the time) this country has seen for a long time and Labour having their worst election results ever and yet Cameron could still not gain his party a majority, now if it had not been for Clegg saving his arse ( and ruining his party since by doing so) I think there is a good chance that the Torys would have had another leadership ballot and replaced a leader who had failed to persuade enough people that he was the man to replace the worst PM in a long time.

Cameron failed to do that and he has still not done enough to persuade the general public that he is a good leader( hence all this talk about not getting a overall majority again). We shall see.

Is it more important that a party leader is good at "playing politics" or leading the country?

I'd far rather have Cameron who is terrible at playing politics but seemingly pretty good at running the country than Milibland who seems capable of playing politics very well but would be lucky to leave an EU summit with his lunch money and without a wedgie.