General Election

[OldhamSheridan]

Just the polls really and then the worry that these polls don't always stand up come election day.

 

What I would say though is that in the polls:

Lib Dems have more votes than they actually do.

BNP and Green have less votes than they actually do.

Independant have more votes than they actually do.

Labour have less votes than they actually do.

 

Just because of social eticate.

[oafc0000]

Watched the Paxman interview with Gordon Brown this morning. Brown totally destroyed Paxman on every question. Paxmans interview style is horrendous. Whats the point in ask a question then two words into the answer, ask another, then another, then another... Terrible...

 

I thought Brown did great. Liked his explanations regarding inflation being the key issue in the 80s/90s and how Boom and Bust was said in those terms.

[opinions4u]

Ex-Scottish footballer back Tories.

 

That's convinced me then!

[Yard Dog]

Frank McAvennie is the only Scottish player I'd listen to....

[OldhamSheridan]

Frank McAvennie is the only Scottish player I'd listen to....

 

A bit of a different subject, but I think Salmond is great. He's so personable that if he was in charge of a major party he'd be a foregone conclusion.

 

It helps that I agree with him that Scotland should be independent I guess.

[opinions4u]

It helps that I agree with him that Scotland should be independent I guess.

Although clearly the border should extend two miles out to sea East of the River Tweed before turning North and running two miles from land.

 

Thus ensuring the North Sea and its content are very English.

[leeslover]

Although clearly the border should extend two miles out to sea East of the River Tweed before turning North and running two miles from land.

 

Thus ensuring the North Sea and its content are very English.

Orkney is going to declare independence from Scotland and keep most of the oild for themselves if the Scots show them the way. Anyway, they can take it, all the oil ever did was encourage government spending that is not long term sustainable, no country ever got properly rich just from oil.

[OldhamSheridan]

Orkney is going to declare independence from Scotland and keep most of the oild for themselves if the Scots show them the way. Anyway, they can take it, all the oil ever did was encourage government spending that is not long term sustainable, no country ever got properly rich just from oil.

 

Deleted, due to not immediatley realising sarcasm.

Edited May 3, 2010 by OldhamSheridan

[leeslover]

Deleted, due to not immediatley realising sarcasm.

 

Popa, I done gone caught me a fishy!

[OldhamSheridan]

Fly, worm, fly, fly, worm, fly, worm , metal hook...

 

nom, nom, nom...

[garcon]

Frank McAvennie is the only Scottish player I'd listen to....

Oh I dunno - I think I'd be pretty keen to vote whichever way Big Duncan Ferguson told me to.

 

 

Update from the campaign trail:

We (three of us) have 1500 letters to deliver tomorrow. Wish us luck.

[rudemedic]

Every penny spent in the public sector has to be earned in the private sector or borrowed. If it's borrowed it has to be paid back eventually - by money earned in the private sector. If you don't have a plan to repay then you go bust.

 

I agree with your sentiment but this is not technically true. If you work in the public sector money comes out, but then when you drive your car money goes back in (road tax, petrol), when you spend money in the shops money goes back in (VAT, duty, plus the knock on effect that money spent in shops keeps shops open which keeps people in work and thus gains national insurance etc.) plus not to mention the national insurance stuff employers have to pay (the NHS employs a million people- that's a lot of national insurance) etc.

 

On OS's point about if the proper treatment of your disease costs x amount per survivor then TS, well in the NHS they have this thing called QALYs (Quality Adjusted Life Years) and this is used to determine the cost effectiveness of certain treatments (fairly certain there's a health economics expert on here so they could tell you all about it). All these new cancer drugs are very very expensive and don't always give as much back in QALYs. But quite a few political parties have made comments about Cancer. I'm not sure if some of their claims are physically possible due to the nature of the beast e.g. if a test takes 10 days to produce a result due to the processes involved how do you get the results back in 7 days (this is not my field of interest so I'm not sure if such a problem exists but it might). Not to mention some of the logistics involved especially in certain specalties where "cancer" takes up a large amount of time (e.g. dermatology) if you are guaranteed an appointment with a specialist within 7 days how is this going to happen without hiring more people (when in reality employment should be reduced in the NHS) some specialites in certain locations struggle to get everyone with suspected cancer seen withing 2 weeks nevermind 1.

 

Plus I had the misfortune of reading the Telegraph this weekend (it was the only option for a free paper in the hotel I was in) and OMG do they favour the Tories. One of their big stories was some anti-Labour thing on the NHS and because I know someone who was asked for a quote I know the real picture and it was nothing like the situation the Torygraph described. I know not to believe everything I read in the papers but this really hit me as to how bad the situation was (and I assume the pro-Labour papers favour Labour in a similar way).

[opinions4u]

I agree with your sentiment but this is not technically true. If you work in the public sector money comes out, but then when you drive your car money goes back in (road tax, petrol), when you spend money in the shops money goes back in (VAT, duty, plus the knock on effect that money spent in shops keeps shops open which keeps people in work and thus gains national insurance etc.) plus not to mention the national insurance stuff employers have to pay (the NHS employs a million people- that's a lot of national insurance) etc.

While you rightly suggest that the money goes round and round the system, it doesn't change the fact that to spend it within the public sector in the first place it has to be earned/borrowed elsewhere.

[leeslover]

But quite a few political parties have made comments about Cancer. I'm not sure if some of their claims are physically possible due to the nature of the beast e.g. if a test takes 10 days to produce a result due to the processes involved how do you get the results back in 7 days (this is not my field of interest so I'm not sure if such a problem exists but it might). Not to mention some of the logistics involved especially in certain specalties where "cancer" takes up a large amount of time (e.g. dermatology) if you are guaranteed an appointment with a specialist within 7 days how is this going to happen without hiring more people (when in reality employment should be reduced in the NHS) some specialites in certain locations struggle to get everyone with suspected cancer seen withing 2 weeks nevermind 1.

 

I take your point about processes potentially taking longer than the pledged times, but I'm not sure about waiting lists. Unless it is something very specialised where maybe there are only a few consultants in the region or country who can do the job or an especially rare illness then wouldn't the level of cases be fairly predictable and stable, and it would take the same levels of staff to see people in 3 days as it does to see them in 3 months (ie to maintain whatever queuing time you are currently at)?

 

I agree with your sentiment but this is not technically true. If you work in the public sector money comes out, but then when you drive your car money goes back in (road tax, petrol), when you spend money in the shops money goes back in (VAT, duty, plus the knock on effect that money spent in shops keeps shops open which keeps people in work and thus gains national insurance etc.) plus not to mention the national insurance stuff employers have to pay (the NHS employs a million people- that's a lot of national insurance) etc.

I'm pretty sure if someone took £100 quid out of your bank account every month and fed half of it back to you in a variety of ways, you would look at it as taking money out. Or to put it a different way if the government employed a couple of million extra people on £50 grand, would it benefit everyone else or make them worse off?

[24hoursfromtulsehill]

Oh I dunno - I think I'd be pretty keen to vote whichever way Big Duncan Ferguson told me to.

 

 

Update from the campaign trail:

We (three of us) have 1500 letters to deliver tomorrow. Wish us luck.

 

May the local dogs feast on your fingers.

[Stitch_KTF]

Imagine what a fantastic scenario and platform for reform we would be presented with should absolutely nobody vote.

 

Alas the sheep, largely unable to even contemplate anything remotely unfamiliar, will poll.

 

Will it be blue or will it be red? Yellow perhaps?

 

Will it really make any tangible difference to any of our lives?

 

Roll on Friday....

[24hoursfromtulsehill]

While you rightly suggest that the money goes round and round the system, it doesn't change the fact that to spend it within the public sector in the first place it has to be earned/borrowed elsewhere.

 

If the Government spends money on, say, building a school, some of it goes to contractors, who can keep people in work. Those contractors must buy raw materials and labour. Those employees will buy goods and services with the money they earn rather than save it, meaning that demand elsewhere in the economy is stabilised and stimulated.

 

The Tory way is to cut the deficit, so you don't get no school, and no one gets employed and demands other goods and services, meaning more people on the dole. But who cares? Who cares about more unemployment and broken communities and massive increases in crime? All that matters is that the books are balanced in the short term and our friends in the City (who only have society's best interests at heart) are happy.

 

Three million on the dole and the Chancellor of the Exchequer says it's a price worth paying - that's the Tories for you. It's a price worth paying to make casino capitalists in the City happy - and to ensure that the odds are stacked in their favour.

 

As for the Liberals - they couldn't run a corner shop. What's more, they'd side with anyone to be in power (forget all that BS about demanding PR as a price for their support in a "balanced Parliament"). Apart from a handful of credible characters (Clegg, Cable, Laws, Heath), they're are a bunch of cranks and nutters.

 

[leeslover]

If the Government spends money on, say, building a school, some of it goes to contractors, who can keep people in work. Those contractors must buy raw materials and labour. Those employees will buy goods and services with the money they earn rather than save it, meaning that demand elsewhere in the economy is stabilised and stimulated.

Ah, the approach favoured by FDR and Mr Hitler. Both of whose countries emerged more slowly from the recession than the rest of the world.

[Stitch_KTF]

If the Government spends money on, say, building a school, some of it goes to contractors, who can keep people in work. Those contractors must buy raw materials and labour. Those employees will buy goods and services with the money they earn rather than save it, meaning that demand elsewhere in the economy is stabilised and stimulated.

 

 

The Tory way is to cut the deficit, so you don't get no school, and no one gets employed and demands other goods and services, meaning more people on the dole. But who cares? Who cares about more unemployment and broken communities and massive increases in crime? All that matters is that the books are balanced in the short term and our friends in the City (who only have society's best interests at heart) are happy.

 

That would be great, if they were spending their own money.

 

When, already £1,000,000,000,000 in the whole, you're still using Chinese money to maintain your façade it eventually will eventually leads to 'issues'.

 

For crying out loud, yes the Tory 'medicine' (unemployment etc) will taste bad, but it has to be swallowed it to cure the illness Labour have caused.

 

When they can afford to build a school I'm sure they will build one. Or should we (futilely attempt to) persist with this 'take something for nothing' Labour approach?

[leeslover]

That would be great, if they were spending their own money.

 

When, already £1,000,000,000,000 in the whole, you're still using Chinese money to maintain your façade it eventually will eventually leads to 'issues'.

 

For crying out loud, yes the Tory 'medicine' (unemployment etc) will taste bad, but it has to be swallowed it to cure the illness Labour have caused.

 

When they can afford to build a school I'm sure they will build one. Or should we (futilely attempt to) persist with this 'take something for nothing' Labour approach?

No, no, no. When you are a hole, dig faster

[Stitch_KTF]

No, no, no. When you are a hole, dig faster

 

Exactly - everything will be ok; we're English.

[leeslover]

Exactly - everything will be ok; we're English.

Think of the children! Bankrupt the country's future to ensure their future health and prosperity!

[24hoursfromtulsehill]

No, no, no. When you are a hole, dig faster

 

We're never going to see eye to eye on this because it's a question of priorities. The banking crisis was caused by bankers and the lack of regulation for which the Tories successfully called for 10 years. The banking crisis caused the recession. The Tories' priority is to ensure that the recession results in broken commmunities, mass unemployment, house repossessions, businesses going under and social meltdown, to make the bankers happy.

 

Labour's priority is to ensure that the recession, which was brought about by casino banks, causes as little damage as possible.

 

You pays your money and you takes your choice.

 

Anyway, you're opinion don't count no more. You didn't vote and you've left the country indefinitely, so why not just stay the f*** out of it? What's the democratic situation in Abu Dhabi? Oil money doing no good there too is it?

[rudemedic]

While you rightly suggest that the money goes round and round the system, it doesn't change the fact that to spend it within the public sector in the first place it has to be earned/borrowed elsewhere.

 

I see your point that the money needs to be in the governments bank account in the first place before it can be handed over to the workers no matter how quickly it goes back into the governments bank account. I think its abit of a chicken and egg situation though.

[leeslover]

We're never going to see eye to eye on this because it's a question of priorities.

 

Anyway, you're opinion don't count no more. You didn't vote and you've left the country indefinitely, so why not just stay the f*** out of it? What's the democratic situation in Abu Dhabi? Oil money doing no good there too is it?

 

Your priority is jam today and to hell with the cost

 

Anyway, you're opinion don't count no more. You didn't vote and you've left the country indefinitely, so why not just stay the f*** out of it? What's the democratic situation in Abu Dhabi? Oil money doing no good there too is it?

 

 

From the self-appointed guardian of the Northern Working Class who proclaims himself to be a Southerner and who only just got back from his holiday in Tuscany or wherever? Whether I vote or not is up to me, as an Englishman I am used to be free to do what I like so like as it doesn;t interfere with the rights of others. Anyway, I am (sadly) a UK tax payer who is earning export income for my country by working abroad. What a disgrace eh?