Poll: Election 2019
Total Members Polled: 1601
Discussion
soupdragon1 said:
As an aside to that - I think a bit more public awareness of their personal responsibilities towards the health service is an avenue we need to explore.
Poorly people often aren't 100% rational.But I agree - responsibility is also key. Dentists can fine people for missing appointments and even require a patient to find a different dentist. Maybe the same could be applied to doctors.
15 million general missed practice appointments:
https://www.england.nhs.uk/2019/01/missed-gp-appoi...
otolith said:
By the way, I apologise for suggesting you might be lying. It's very clear that you just don't understand any of this stuff.
That's pretty much the definition of the "useful idiot". Unfortunately, for them, being one doesn't spare them from any of the ensuing disaster. They're just as screwed as everybody else.stongle said:
Bookies have NO OVERALL Control @ 33% chance...
... which is a good point. What is looking LESS likely here is a Tory victory. (Still the most probably outcome tho'). What is looking MORE likely is a hung parliament.
The chances of a Labour parliament are (mercifully) small.
Just when we thought politics had reached an all time low, along comes another one....
Fresh from a successful run at Cleethorpes primary school nativity, playing donkey number 2, the well known thespian Mr Barry Gardiner
https://twitter.com/KeejayOV2/status/1204513656177...
Fresh from a successful run at Cleethorpes primary school nativity, playing donkey number 2, the well known thespian Mr Barry Gardiner
https://twitter.com/KeejayOV2/status/1204513656177...
Brave Fart said:
It'll be 1% per year, so 10% after ten years. And the workers won't own the shares, they will be in a fund controlled by Labour.
Take BP as an example. Its current market value is around £95 billion.
Labour is proposing to steal £9.5 billion from BP's current shareholders. Even if they succeed when challenged in the courts of law, it'll be seen as a wealth grab, by the state, of private assets. Much of which are part of my, and others' pension fund.
Loony Labour's policy to steal private assets will destroy investors' confidence. No-one will invest in the UK if they think the government will steal their money.
Just to extend this - BP is a global company. So create a £9.5B fund. BP made a profit last year of $12.7b / £9.6B.Take BP as an example. Its current market value is around £95 billion.
Labour is proposing to steal £9.5 billion from BP's current shareholders. Even if they succeed when challenged in the courts of law, it'll be seen as a wealth grab, by the state, of private assets. Much of which are part of my, and others' pension fund.
Loony Labour's policy to steal private assets will destroy investors' confidence. No-one will invest in the UK if they think the government will steal their money.
So 10% goes to the fund, £960M.
BP have 15,000 employees in the UK. 84,000 worldwide.
So do the UK employees get paid, or everyone (after all it is their company as well?)
15,000*£500 (capped) = £7.5M with £952.5M going to the govt
Even if they forced teh fund to pay everyone
84,000*£500 = £42M with £918M going to the govt
Suddenly doesn't look so great for employees.
Apols if my maths are off, I'm multitasking
The NHS is a shambles to be honest. My fiancee is a specialist cancer nurse and I hear the ins and outs from her and her colleagues.
Now, The Netherlands and Australia are two prime examples to be brought to your attention. They function fundamentally as private-run entities.
Patients pay a nominal fee to use their services and are required to take out health care insurance to plug the gap. The government only pays for those who are unable to - resulting in a far lower gross and per capita cost. The net effect? Both those systems far outperform the NHS.
Is it any wonder then that most employment offers in the UK provide for some form of private medical care instead as a perk? I know the people like to get all touchy-feely over the NHS and start clutching their mother's pearls, but I guarantee you right now that if you reduced the tax burden by the equivalent amount, privatised the entire thing, and required people to purchase health care insurance or gap cover insurance instead, then there would be a vast increase in the quality within a few years.
But tragically people are so stuck in their mantras and their ways that no one seems to be able to change and are functionally unable to think.
There's a better way to do things if we could be a bit more honest with ourselves rather than constantly hiking taxes, lobbing money via the government back to ourselves, and repeating the same old tired cycle every 10 years.
Now, The Netherlands and Australia are two prime examples to be brought to your attention. They function fundamentally as private-run entities.
Patients pay a nominal fee to use their services and are required to take out health care insurance to plug the gap. The government only pays for those who are unable to - resulting in a far lower gross and per capita cost. The net effect? Both those systems far outperform the NHS.
Is it any wonder then that most employment offers in the UK provide for some form of private medical care instead as a perk? I know the people like to get all touchy-feely over the NHS and start clutching their mother's pearls, but I guarantee you right now that if you reduced the tax burden by the equivalent amount, privatised the entire thing, and required people to purchase health care insurance or gap cover insurance instead, then there would be a vast increase in the quality within a few years.
But tragically people are so stuck in their mantras and their ways that no one seems to be able to change and are functionally unable to think.
There's a better way to do things if we could be a bit more honest with ourselves rather than constantly hiking taxes, lobbing money via the government back to ourselves, and repeating the same old tired cycle every 10 years.
vaud said:
soupdragon1 said:
As an aside to that - I think a bit more public awareness of their personal responsibilities towards the health service is an avenue we need to explore.
Poorly people often aren't 100% rational.But I agree - responsibility is also key. Dentists can fine people for missing appointments and even require a patient to find a different dentist. Maybe the same could be applied to doctors.
15 million general missed practice appointments:
https://www.england.nhs.uk/2019/01/missed-gp-appoi...
My parents were at Birmingham eye hospital a couple of weeks back. One of the groups in the queue ahead of them was foreign, as in they could not speak a word of English and an interpreter was summoned, at which point it was determined they were in the wrong place and needed A&E. Now we have no way of knowing whether they were non-English speaking British citizens (refugees etc.), entitled to free access to the NHS, or not. Nor do we know how they were deal with at A&E, but this is symptomatic of an increasingly common pressure on the NHS.
At the moment, it is not known what health tourism costs the NHS or how it will be dealt with. There are only estimates, but most put the figures in the hundreds of millions, which in terms of the overall NHS budget is not even half a percent, but is still huge.
vaud said:
Just to extend this - BP is a global company. So create a £9.5B fund. BP made a profit last year of $12.7b / £9.6B.
So 10% goes to the fund, £960M.
BP have 15,000 employees in the UK. 84,000 worldwide.
So do the UK employees get paid, or everyone (after all it is their company as well?)
15,000*£500 (capped) = £7.5M with £952.5M going to the govt
Even if they forced teh fund to pay everyone
84,000*£500 = £42M with £918M going to the govt
Suddenly doesn't look so great for employees.
Apols if my maths are off, I'm multitasking
Not quite. My understanding - 10% of the shares will be owned by the fund (after 10 years) so the fund will receive dividends on those shares in the same way as any shareholder does, which may be more or less than 10% of the company profits. Then the fund can choose to pay employees up to £500 each, with the remainder (if one exists) to government... So 10% goes to the fund, £960M.
BP have 15,000 employees in the UK. 84,000 worldwide.
So do the UK employees get paid, or everyone (after all it is their company as well?)
15,000*£500 (capped) = £7.5M with £952.5M going to the govt
Even if they forced teh fund to pay everyone
84,000*£500 = £42M with £918M going to the govt
Suddenly doesn't look so great for employees.
Apols if my maths are off, I'm multitasking
A Corbyn/McDonnell minority Govt. propped up by Widow Krankie is a nightmare from hell.
You could say a 'workable' majority is ONE, but we know it isn't. What's a 'workable\' majority for the Tories? Someone put a number on it please ad get my blood pressure down.
I think Maggie's majority in 1979 was 43 ...
You could say a 'workable' majority is ONE, but we know it isn't. What's a 'workable\' majority for the Tories? Someone put a number on it please ad get my blood pressure down.
I think Maggie's majority in 1979 was 43 ...
uk66fastback said:
A Corbyn/McDonnell minority Govt. propped up by Widow Krankie is a nightmare from hell.
You could say a 'workable' majority is ONE, but we know it isn't. What's a 'workable\' majority for the Tories? Someone put a number on it please ad get my blood pressure down.
I think Maggie's majority in 1979 was 43 ...
Hard to say because if Boris' deal passes then there is another no-deal cliff edge at the end of 2020 when the trade negotiations with the EU fail. So another Tory rebellion, maybe another General Election.You could say a 'workable' majority is ONE, but we know it isn't. What's a 'workable\' majority for the Tories? Someone put a number on it please ad get my blood pressure down.
I think Maggie's majority in 1979 was 43 ...
He's also going to have a problem when the UK breaks up and NI or Scotland go their own way. Lots of Tory MPs won't like being the ones in power when the UK comes to an end. At the very least he will be forced to resign.
Camoradi said:
Not quite. My understanding - 10% of the shares will be owned by the fund (after 10 years) so the fund will receive dividends on those shares in the same way as any shareholder does, which may be more or less than 10% of the company profits. Then the fund can choose to pay employees up to £500 each, with the remainder (if one exists) to government...
That will teach me to multitask3.395B shares outstanding. Dividends are paid quarterly. Last 4 quarters = about 31p / share.
So 10% would be 339M shares = £105M dividend
2Btoo said:
... which is a good point. What is looking LESS likely here is a Tory victory. (Still the most probably outcome tho').
What is looking MORE likely is a hung parliament.
The chances of a Labour parliament are (mercifully) small.
Which means more paralysis. And probably another GE in 6-12 months.What is looking MORE likely is a hung parliament.
The chances of a Labour parliament are (mercifully) small.
Mr_Megalomaniac said:
The NHS is a shambles to be honest. My fiancee is a specialist cancer nurse and I hear the ins and outs from her and her colleagues.
Now, The Netherlands and Australia are two prime examples to be brought to your attention. They function fundamentally as private-run entities.
Patients pay a nominal fee to use their services and are required to take out health care insurance to plug the gap. The government only pays for those who are unable to - resulting in a far lower gross and per capita cost. The net effect? Both those systems far outperform the NHS.
Is it any wonder then that most employment offers in the UK provide for some form of private medical care instead as a perk? I know the people like to get all touchy-feely over the NHS and start clutching their mother's pearls, but I guarantee you right now that if you reduced the tax burden by the equivalent amount, privatised the entire thing, and required people to purchase health care insurance or gap cover insurance instead, then there would be a vast increase in the quality within a few years.
But tragically people are so stuck in their mantras and their ways that no one seems to be able to change and are functionally unable to think.
There's a better way to do things if we could be a bit more honest with ourselves rather than constantly hiking taxes, lobbing money via the government back to ourselves, and repeating the same old tired cycle every 10 years.
That idea could have some merit but it is so far REMOVED from the current situation it would be seen as too radical, too quickly. I was watching Angela Crayons the other night and was counting the seconds until she said either NHS or Child Poverty. I think it was about six seconds until she did. Politicians know that these are emotive subjects and any 'threat' to the NHS, is perceived as 'bad' and a vote winner. It's very sad. My knee has been giving me gip for a few weeks and the wife and daughter have been saying go to the doctors, go to the walk-in etc. I don't need to, as I know what's wrong with it - and a period of rest will see it better again in time. Now, The Netherlands and Australia are two prime examples to be brought to your attention. They function fundamentally as private-run entities.
Patients pay a nominal fee to use their services and are required to take out health care insurance to plug the gap. The government only pays for those who are unable to - resulting in a far lower gross and per capita cost. The net effect? Both those systems far outperform the NHS.
Is it any wonder then that most employment offers in the UK provide for some form of private medical care instead as a perk? I know the people like to get all touchy-feely over the NHS and start clutching their mother's pearls, but I guarantee you right now that if you reduced the tax burden by the equivalent amount, privatised the entire thing, and required people to purchase health care insurance or gap cover insurance instead, then there would be a vast increase in the quality within a few years.
But tragically people are so stuck in their mantras and their ways that no one seems to be able to change and are functionally unable to think.
There's a better way to do things if we could be a bit more honest with ourselves rather than constantly hiking taxes, lobbing money via the government back to ourselves, and repeating the same old tired cycle every 10 years.
Every time I have needed A&E ever (under any Govt) - the service has been superb ... maybe I'm just lucky and if my op for something serious had been cancelled I'd have a different view. but that can happen whatever the colour of the Govt in power.
kuro68k said:
uk66fastback said:
A Corbyn/McDonnell minority Govt. propped up by Widow Krankie is a nightmare from hell.
You could say a 'workable' majority is ONE, but we know it isn't. What's a 'workable\' majority for the Tories? Someone put a number on it please ad get my blood pressure down.
I think Maggie's majority in 1979 was 43 ...
Hard to say because if Boris' deal passes then there is another no-deal cliff edge at the end of 2020 when the trade negotiations with the EU fail. So another Tory rebellion, maybe another General Election.You could say a 'workable' majority is ONE, but we know it isn't. What's a 'workable\' majority for the Tories? Someone put a number on it please ad get my blood pressure down.
I think Maggie's majority in 1979 was 43 ...
He's also going to have a problem when the UK breaks up and NI or Scotland go their own way. Lots of Tory MPs won't like being the ones in power when the UK comes to an end. At the very least he will be forced to resign.
kuro68k said:
uk66fastback said:
A Corbyn/McDonnell minority Govt. propped up by Widow Krankie is a nightmare from hell.
You could say a 'workable' majority is ONE, but we know it isn't. What's a 'workable\' majority for the Tories? Someone put a number on it please ad get my blood pressure down.
I think Maggie's majority in 1979 was 43 ...
Hard to say because if Boris' deal passes then there is another no-deal cliff edge at the end of 2020 when the trade negotiations with the EU fail. So another Tory rebellion, maybe another General Election.You could say a 'workable' majority is ONE, but we know it isn't. What's a 'workable\' majority for the Tories? Someone put a number on it please ad get my blood pressure down.
I think Maggie's majority in 1979 was 43 ...
He's also going to have a problem when the UK breaks up and NI or Scotland go their own way. Lots of Tory MPs won't like being the ones in power when the UK comes to an end. At the very least he will be forced to resign.
motco said:
Tankrizzo said:
booboise blueboys said:
Johnson is a coward. Hiding in a fridge and looking like a complete mess. Why can't he smarten up?
Its a no from me and probably most of the country on Thursday.
I mean, I'm sure we're all shocked by this pronouncement given your posting history.Its a no from me and probably most of the country on Thursday.
In other breaking news: Jimboka not voting Tory.
2Btoo said:
... which is a good point. What is looking LESS likely here is a Tory victory. (Still the most probably outcome tho').
What is looking MORE likely is a hung parliament.
The chances of a Labour parliament are (mercifully) small.
Yep, the outlook for a Con majority has worsened - BUT still the most likely outcome using statistical analysis and probability in the YouGov methodoligy. The 85 seats within the margin for error - of course can throw out a curve ball (interestingly I was out last night with a girl whom organied the CNN 2016 presidential election party); so sad faces all round might still be a possible outcome. Been saying it for days - tighter than a gnats front bottom - get out and vote.What is looking MORE likely is a hung parliament.
The chances of a Labour parliament are (mercifully) small.
But lets look at the actual YouGov poll - it still predicts a 28 seat majority. 68 majority 2 weeks ago; was something of a landslide. Obviously I'd prefer a majority of 647 (allowing for the speaker and 2 deputies); but 28 should do it.
McDonnell says he is confident labour will win - either he has been at the Bong Water, kool aid, mountain of coke or knows somoething we probably don't booboo..
In another story NOT getting aired in the UK media. Back channel sources are suggesting the EU wants a Con win (I suggested this a few days ago of Hogan's comments - their trade chief). Seems its the French (Macron wants us onside but out the EU - obvs given his strained relationship with Berlin) whom are leaking this little snippet (it's getting picked up in Brussels), but also Angela wants us onboard (which suggets an FTA might be easier than thought - which again echo's my thoughts on Hogan's statements). Ultimately more internal UK bickering is a bad; and a Labour win; just means an even harder to deal with Conservative government in the Future. Singapore-on-Thames is a scary thought for them - but it's actually paradoxical under a Con win in 2019 (we are prudentially safer - and will continue to be). If Labour blow the bloody doors off on spending, every single reg is off the table in 5 years time to attract investment. It would be like gunboat diplomacy for the 21st century - but with banks.
I'm going down the pub now to celebrate Helicopter and NickGnome's tears at this little morsel. The EU wants a Con WIN, the mood music says the EU are willing to go for the 2020 trade deal AND certainly within the extension... MYAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!
Edited by stongle on Wednesday 11th December 12:24
kev1974 said:
kuro68k said:
amusingduck said:
Oh wonderful, finally somebody who can explain to me how that works. By what mechanism is the NHS going to be 'sold off', ditto preventing the NHS from sourcing drugs from non-US companies/forcing NHS to overpay? 
Well when we adopt US patent rules on medicine we can't just buy cheaper generic versions as we do now. That's what patents are for, to stop you doing that.Shocking that people don't understand basic stuff like this and are willingly going to destroy the best thing we have in this country because of it.
ETA: happy to be corrected, just reporting what I heard
Edited by mr_spock on Wednesday 11th December 12:32
Laura Kuenssberg just reported on Politics Live that postal votes are dire for Labour, dire is her word not mine (but I hope she's correct). Does anyone get sight of the postal votes prior to the count?
ETA
For accuracy she said "looking dire", she wasn't implying that anyone has counted them.
ETA
For accuracy she said "looking dire", she wasn't implying that anyone has counted them.
Edited by Norfolkit on Wednesday 11th December 12:30
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff