General Election - December 12th, 2019

Who will you vote for in the 2019 General Election?

  • Conservative

    Votes: 160 30.9%

  • Labour

    Votes: 230 44.4%

  • Liberal Democrats

    Votes: 59 11.4%

  • Green Party

    Votes: 13 2.5%

  • Brexit Party

    Votes: 28 5.4%

  • Plaid Cymru/SNP

    Votes: 7 1.4%

  • Other

    Votes: 21 4.1%
  • Total voters
    518
Chippy_boy said:
Ah yes, spend more on EVERYTHING. Of course, the perfect solution. How silly of us to not have thought of it.

Just so long as you employ a good accountant to keep your own tax bill down though eh Bob.
Click to expand...

If you underfund the NHS it underperforms. If you underfund anything it will, over time, underperform. In other news the sun is hot.

My accountant says hi :)
 
Gray said:
Problem is our country's population is far too big for the land mass (talking about so-called developed countries), and it shows no sign of decreasing anytime soon.
Click to expand...

not entirely correct - rising seas could see one of those two things start to decrease ( land mass ) ha ha ha
 
BobKowalski said:
Indeed. Seems as if they could do with more resources to cope.

On a side note it’s kind of fun to watch the Tory apologists spring into action :)
Click to expand...

Im no apologist but neither am i willing to see people who are perfectly well bar a minor injury or a bit of pain abuse doctors and A&E.

Whoever forms government and is in charge of funding the NHS needs to get a grip on a population that sees visiting the emergency department as some sort of given right for conditions that are not an emergency.

The clue is in the name.
 
Gray said:
Problem is our country's population is far too big for the land mass (talking about so-called developed countries), and it shows no sign of decreasing anytime soon.
Click to expand...

Dont agree with that but we do as a nation think we are dying and that we can just pop along to the doctors or the hospital for things that simply dont require the time and cost that brings.

We then fucking moan about the time and cost afterwards when a 19p packet of paracetamol from Tesco would have done the trick rather than the estimated £43 cost to the NHS of the doctor prescribing them.

No amount of tax take or funding is going to cover this bill for much longer unless we all get a grip.
 
blueinsa said:
Dont agree with that but we do as a nation think we are dying and that we can just pop along to the doctors or the hospital for things that simply dont require the time and cost that brings.

We then fucking moan about the time and cost afterwards when a 19p packet of paracetamol from Tesco would have done the trick rather than the estimated £43 cost to the NHS of the doctor prescribing them.

No amount of tax take or funding is going to cover this bill for much longer unless we all get a grip.
Click to expand...

Population is a factor though. Spending per capita on the NHS is at historically slow growth rates despite there being a big increase in NHS real terms spending since 2010/11 because of the increase in population. If Labour implement the conference motion on extending free movement then there's going to have to be huge increase in NHS spending just to stay where we're at now.

I'm guessing mismanagement, part-privatisation, agencies, PFI and a few other things are just as responsible for the increased spending being wasted and failing to hit targets though.
 
blueinsa said:
Dont agree with that but we do as a nation think we are dying and that we can just pop along to the doctors or the hospital for things that simply dont require the time and cost that brings.

We then fucking moan about the time and cost afterwards when a 19p packet of paracetamol from Tesco would have done the trick rather than the estimated £43 cost to the NHS of the doctor prescribing them.

No amount of tax take or funding is going to cover this bill for much longer unless we all get a grip.
Click to expand...
The levels of waste in the NHS are still absolutely staggering as well. I do not know anyone who has had a long term illness whose house does not look like a pharmacy with unused drugs stuffed in every cupboard. Sometimes given absolutely free as if they are sweeties.

Only on Tuesday, my wife took back to the pharmacy 5, yes 5 inhalers unused, but rendered completely useless since the mother-in-law had opened them and said "it's not like my old ones" and ordered another one. My wife felt bad and was apologising, to which the pharmacists replied, without a care in the world, "don't you worry about it love - it's important your mum has these so whenever she phones up we're happy to send them". Not even a hint at the irritation of the hundreds of pounds wasted, because guess what - it's not her money and she didn't care.

And then the was the £3,500 portable "concentrator" my mother-in-law fancied, so she could get out and about a bit more. Duly ordered and received without a thought. Never used in the 3+ years she's had it. Has anyone asked if she uses it? No. Anyone asked for it back? No. No-one gives a toss.
 
Fame Monster said:
Population is a factor though. Spending per capita on the NHS is at historically slow growth rates despite there being a big increase in NHS real terms spending since 2010/11 because of the increase in population. If Labour implement the conference motion on extending free movement then there's going to have to be huge increase in NHS spending just to stay where we're at now.

I'm guessing mismanagement, part-privatisation, agencies, PFI and a few other things are just as responsible for the increased spending being wasted and failing to hit targets though.
Click to expand...

That Labour spending pledge will not even get us back to the 4% level of the 1950's and no matter how people want to spin it, last year we spent £156 Billion, 12 times the amount and that factors in inflation since the day it started.

For every £1 of tax we spend 30p of it on health already.

Money is needed yes but its only a part solution to the issues we face and have to admit to because money alone wont stop what is happening.
 
Fame Monster said:
That's a shocking number.

A lot of people don't vote under FPTP for rival political parties because "there's no chance they'll win instead of Labour/Tory" but I bet there's plenty of Tory/Labour supporters who don't vote too because they know they've already won the seat.

We're in desperate need of a new electoral system.
Click to expand...
I did ask a lot earlier, but didn't get an answer.
Is this how your FPTP electoral system works? I genuinely don't know. I know I could google it but thought a brief post in here would be quicker.

What I am really wondering is when you vote for a candidate in an area is it basically one winner and if you didn't vote for him/her, then basically you're not represented?
Can't be that simple surely? Are there more than one seat on offer in each area?

Over here you can have 3/4/5 seat constituencies and with PR you can vote in order of preference for all or none of the candidates.
It means in tight constituencies all of your preferences count and transfers can have a big bearing on where the 4th/5th seat may go.
It is quite a fair way of ensuring representation for all the constituency.
It would also encourage voters out far more than the FPTP method above, if that is indeed how your system works.
 
blueparrot said:
Most people wouldn't misuse A& E if they could get quick appointments with a GP, or nurse at a local surgery. We used to have a local minor injury clinic, now we don't. Down to lack of investment in local services alongside lack of investment in social care leads to pressure on hospitals.
Click to expand...

i had chest pains on Monday, phoned the docs - 2 week wait !!!! absolute joke

went A&E and got seen within the hour
 
mancity2012_eamo said:
I did ask a lot earlier, but didn't get an answer.
Is this how your FPTP electoral system works? I genuinely don't know. I know I could google it but thought a brief post in here would be quicker.

What I am really wondering is when you vote for a candidate in an area is it basically one winner and if you didn't vote for him/her, then basically you're not represented?
Can't be that simple surely? Are there more than one seat on offer in each area?

Over here you can have 3/4/5 seat constituencies and with PR you can vote in order of preference for all or none of the candidates.
It means in tight constituencies all of your preferences count and transfers can have a big bearing on where the 4th/5th seat may go.
It is quite a fair way of ensuring representation for all the constituency.
It would also encourage voters out far more than the FPTP method above, if that is indeed how your system works.
Click to expand...

Yep, afraid so. 650 constituencies, 650 MPs, only one vote.

We had a referendum in 2011 to change the system to something similar to Ireland but it was defeated by a big margin. Both main parties came out against it (no doubt for party political reasons), and I think the polling at the time suggested the public found it too complicated.

Personally, I'd be in favour of a much simpler PR system and I think that's the only way in which PR advocates would win a referendum on it.
 
Fame Monster said:
Yep, afraid so. 650 constituencies, 650 MPs, only one vote.

We had a referendum in 2011 to change the system to something similar to Ireland but it was defeated by a big margin. Both main parties came out against it (no doubt for party political reasons), and I think the polling at the time suggested the public found it too complicated.

Personally, I'd be in favour of a much simpler PR system and I think that's the only way in which PR advocates would win a referendum on it.
Click to expand...

Things have to change.

Tories and Labour have it stitched up.

SNP with a couple of million votes can have 53 MP's potentially?

Brexit party like it or not can have double the amount and not one?

Lib Dems equally affected?

No wonder many just cant be arsed anymore because it rarely counts and nothing ever changes.
 
BlueHammer85 said:
i had chest pains on Monday, phoned the docs - 2 week wait !!!! absolute joke

went A&E and got seen within the hour
Click to expand...
And you're still here so presumably it was not a heart attack and the two weeks would have done you no harm. I can only imagine "the docs" didn't think it was very serious and if they did, then they recommended you went to A&E, so everything worked just as it should.
 
blueinsa said:
Dont agree with that but we do as a nation think we are dying and that we can just pop along to the doctors or the hospital for things that simply dont require the time and cost that brings.

We then fucking moan about the time and cost afterwards when a 19p packet of paracetamol from Tesco would have done the trick rather than the estimated £43 cost to the NHS of the doctor prescribing them.

No amount of tax take or funding is going to cover this bill for much longer unless we all get a grip.
Click to expand...

wait until it is operating on a 4 day week
 
Chippy_boy said:
And you're still here so presumably it was not a heart attack and the two weeks would have done you no harm. I can only imagine "the docs" didn't think it was very serious and if they did, then they recommended you went to A&E, so everything worked just as it should.
Click to expand...

Or just go straight to A&E anyway instead of phoning the docs, because that's where I'd be off to if I had chest pains instead of allowing myself to get fobbed off with that 2 weeks bollocks. Last year, I started unexpectedly coughing up blood one morning and a quick bit of research online indicated that one should seek urgent medical attention, so straight off to A&E I went.

Edit: Sorry Mark - I didn't see your second sentence and you did indeed go to A&E. Hope you're ok mate
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top