I have made my mind up!!

Read the forum code of contact

Member for

12 years 8 months

Posts: 851

If only the Tories had the guts to deal with the NHS problems as IDS has dealt with social care we might actually be able to afford to defend ourselves.

IDS has wasted a huge amount of money pushing through 'reforms' that are irresponsible at best, downright nasty at worst. In particular Universal Credit is an utter shambles. it is no surprise that the tories have kept him well out of the way for the past few months as he is a loose cannon. His last attempt- giving away social housing- has been quietly pushed under the carpet as it was economically illiterate as many of his off the cuff proposals are.

Member for

9 years 6 months

Posts: 1,613

Although Cameron still comes out with the mantra : That a big vote for the UK Independence Party could lead to a
Labour victory at next year's general election.

The perks of FPTP.

Member for

12 years 11 months

Posts: 6,535

Here are two vote catching, not particularly new, ideas:

Start charging 'health tourists' for their use of the NHS BEFORE they get any treatment. Shouldn't be difficult to work out what their treatment will cost.

Stop all foreign aid grants and put the money into defence.

Member for

12 years 8 months

Posts: 851

Here are two vote catching, not particularly new, ideas:

Start charging 'health tourists' for their use of the NHS BEFORE they get any treatment. Shouldn't be difficult to work out what their treatment will cost.

Stop all foreign aid grants and put the money into defence.

Neither of those would 'catch' my vote

The first because it would in fact be extremely difficult to do in many , but not all to be sure, cases.
For example, my nephew, who holds joint UK/EU country citizenship. He has lived most of his life abroad but has come to university in the UK. He has worked for a couple of months in his holidays and paid a small amount of national insurance and tax. Say, god forbid, that he gets knocked off his bicycle tomorrow, he is lying in the street and a paramedic comes to him, should the first question he is asked be ' are you a UK citizen who has paid enough tax and National Insurance' before treatment is given to him? Should the consultant he gets to see in the hospital say ' oh, I am sorry, because you have a foreign sounding name, we can't fix your leg because you may be a health tourist'. It is an extremely complex problem that will not respond to simplistic 'sound bite' politics.
The true cost of genuine health tourism to the NHS, that is, people who come to the UK just to get treatment, from the governments own analysis is £70m. Sounds a lot doesn't it. It is 0.06% of the NHS budget. The cost of administrating any checking system to identify this abuse, since most 'foreigners' who use the health service pay taxes, would outweigh any benefit. The system is not geared up for it, any additional administration, at all levels would add time to already overpressed staff.

The second would not get my vote because, in simple terms, getting to 0.7% GDP is the one promise that I can commend the coalition on keeping. It is something all patriotic people, those who are proud of Britain's standing in the world, should be proud of in my opinion.
We are the 6th richest nation in the world, our defence spending in cash terms is 6th in the world, 5th in the world in spending per head of population. Our Foreign aid per capita is 9th in the world.

Member for

16 years 2 months

Posts: 2,248

Member for

12 years 11 months

Posts: 6,535

No, I wouldn't expect those simplistic ideas would grab YOUR vote but, to many voters it would mean that somebody, somewhere, was intent on doing something - a little something - about reducing deficits amd attempting to rationalise and prioritise.

Member for

9 years 6 months

Posts: 1,613

No, I wouldn't expect those simplistic ideas would grab YOUR vote but, to many voters it would mean that somebody, somewhere, was intent on doing something - a little something - about reducing deficits amd attempting to rationalise and prioritise.

Snafu352's post contains figures and referenced urls, both of which are (always) absent from your posts. Try harder.

Member for

12 years 8 months

Posts: 851

No, I wouldn't expect those simplistic ideas would grab YOUR vote but, to many voters it would mean that somebody, somewhere, was intent on doing something - a little something - about reducing deficits amd attempting to rationalise and prioritise.

Even if the ideas are unworkable? wouldn't reduce the deficit? Would make the Health Service even more bureaucratic? surely the whole point is that policies should be thought through, cost effective and achievable. None of the parties are very good at this.

I agree that it is important to prioritise, but I think everyone has their own set of priorities they wish the country to aim for, but as everyone is different, a consensus will not be achieved. Hence the different parties, their different manifesto's ( Yet to be published I think) and the need to have an election. You just have to vote for the best fit, although none are very appealing at the moment.

Member for

16 years 2 months

Posts: 2,248

Perhaps the constant attempts to reduce complex issues and situations to simplistic, easily understandable, metaphors are actually one of the route causes of todays problem(s).

The world is not simple and not necessarily easily understandable, to pretend that it is is dis-honest and is often exploited by persons seeking to further their own interests.

Immigration is a case in point.

Profile picture for user 1batfastard

Member for

11 years 2 months

Posts: 3,650

Hi All,
trekbuster,
The sad thing is that either way we are in four more years of more bad policy decisions despite what the electorate have been promised and if the in fighting that has occurred in the ConLib partnership is anything to go buy then we can expect more bad policy decisions.
Creaking Door,
I agree entirely with you post but would say we do not really need two carriers the size they are especially when one is being mothballed immediately whether or not this was as a result of when one would be in for a refit decision or not I don't know, we as a nation do not need carriers of that size with a navy at it's present manning with more cuts on the way I would imagine ? let alone the expense of running then eventually refitting them when the time comes. I always thought the reason behind the smaller carriers was a more flexible navy that could be like you say one in one out at readiness so to speak, if you then take into account the downsizing of the navy it just doesn't make any sense unless they are planning to have a vast fleet of these F-35's which I understand the initial order has been reduced ?
As for what fighter to replace them well take your pick there's plenty to choose from my own choice would have been a totally home grown next generation Harrier which could have been so easily developed from the GR9 for the millions that have been poured into the F-35 black hole, alternatively BA put forward a navalised version of the Typhoon that would have worked well like the Rafael did for the French Navy.
As far as what the government give the electorate I believe in honesty not being promised all and sundry then told a pack of lies of why the promises where not kept if they cannot possibly deliver what they promise on the vote catching road before elections then shouldn't have them in their manifesto if they would say this is what we would like to achieve but more than likely will not then I would prefer that but if they put that forward nobody would vote for whatever party would they, just be honest don't promise what you know you can't keep simple really.
If you could rely on the extra tax getting spent where it matters I wouldn't have minded a tax increase the problem is it never does, if they cut foreign aid to nil then concentrated on this country until our problems where sorted then I would agree to Foreign Aid beginning again in the future to those country's that actually need it I do not have a problem with that but seeing this country being run into the ground by various means and we still spending millions on others it grates a little bit.
I even think that Tax should be the same rate to all whether you make £400p/wk or a million per week if you put in your basic weekly hr's then anything else is taxed as overtime rate, just because you are earning more than person A why should they have to pay X% more in Tax ? You know that could even attract business and those who participate in avoidance schemes back into this country, even giving tax breaks if you donate to a recognised charity would be better than 50% tax on higher earners wouldn't it ?
As for voting what are the choices you have three parties in the main before UKIP came on the scene people have been afraid of changing their vote in the past for reasons that have been outlined above now another rival party is on the way up that will either deliver or fail and will just go the way of other unpopular parties that attract some votes, I understand that for the main what is promised is a vote for me agenda by all parties and they cannot deliver in the way the electorate want, most new MP's for example become MP's to do some good but soon get put in their place when they raise there hand and but you promised A/B/C/D and gave E or even worse booted out of the party I vote for what suits me not for what suits everybody else, a lot of the governments have been a shambles in one way or another but what can you do it's not like the electorate is inundated with parties that have actually got any influence just the established parties that we have all come to love or loath.
Alan,
Your exactly right while I do believe that both Cameron and Miliband have also said this, as far as Mr Farage goes he this week altered his statement about working with Cameron on the deficit plans so what's going on there behind the scenes ? Both Labour and the Conservative parties are **** scared they are going to see a lot of their seats disappear,only this morning Mr Farage in the daily Star has said he is in talks with a third Conservative party member to defect to UKIP so that gives you some idea of the disillusionment within that parties ranks the worst thing is about all the main parties whether I like it or not they all seem to be much the same when it comes to promising what they are doing for the electorate.
What I will add is that the system's we have place cannot cope we are just paying out to much money with not enough coming in it's that simple, if you or your spouse run the household like that you would be in a similar predicament. The governments that have been elected over the years have created our problems that have now come to this tipping point and whether people like it or not some stark unpopular choices have to be mad instead of a sticking plaster mentality you need a plaster cast or amputation to cure the problem and I would start with immigration no more unless they are able to support themselves and have a guaranteed work placement while they pay into the system for tat least five years before they can expect anything out, get the population that we have back on it's feet first then worry about others it will take a long time but it could be done I think if everybody works together.

Geoff.

Member for

17 years 5 months

Posts: 8,980

I agree entirely with you post but would say we do not really need two carriers the size they are especially when one is being mothballed immediately whether or not this was as a result of when one would be in for a refit decision or not I don't know, we as a nation do not need carriers of that size with a navy at it's present manning with more cuts on the way I would imagine ? let alone the expense of running then eventually refitting them when the time comes. I always thought the reason behind the smaller carriers was a more flexible navy that could be like you say one in one out at readiness so to speak, if you then take into account the downsizing of the navy it just doesn't make any sense unless they are planning to have a vast fleet of these F-35's which I understand the initial order has been reduced ?

They are actually one Carrier short, for Carrier operations you need at least three, one is always in refit, one at sea and one working up for operations post refit, so as one comes in for refit, one sails and the other then starts to work up, that means you can have at least one Carrier at sea all the time, hence why there were three of the small through deck Carriers. Sense would have bought the none VTOL F35 and fitted the Carriers with catapults, that way you can cross deck and operate the likes of the F-18 and Rafale off it if needed. VTOL was a necessity with the smaller Carriers as they couldn't operate anything larger... It's great for unprepared strips etc in Germany, but a Carrier isn't Germany, they simply do not need that capability and the F-35's extra lift engine simply is dead weight until the landing phase but in the meantime is taking up both payload and fuel capacity... It's a barking decision

Member for

17 years 6 months

Posts: 9,739

The sad thing is that either way we are in four more years of more bad policy decisions despite what the electorate have been promised and if the in fighting that has occurred in the ConLib partnership is anything to go buy then we can expect more bad policy decisions...

What bad policy decisions?

Just for a minute let's forget party politics and take a good hard look at Britain in the world; and then judge that against what our government has control of and how Britain is doing compared to other countries.

Britain's economy is growing, more people are employed than ever before, unemployment is low, interest rates are low, inflation is low, oil prices are low...

...no, I know that's a bit of a simplification but it is mostly good news and this is only a few years after the financial-crash and one of the worst recessions on record. And this recovery was achieved by (or despite) a policy of 'austerity' (I hate that cover-all phrase because it has such negative connertations), anyway.

Compare Britain now to what is happening in France, our closest economic comparison; Britain is doing better in almost all respects against a government who were elected on a mandate of 'growth' (another hateful meaningless cover-all phrase).

Now I know direct comparisons are difficult but by any measure Britain isn't doing too badly in the world right now and is certainly doing much better than some similar-sized European economies. And all this is (apparently) the result of 'bad policy decisions'!

I'm not saying it couldn't have been done better but it could have been done a lot worse and most of the people telling you it has been done badly have an interest in making you believe it has been done badly because they want your vote!

Plus, and this is a big factor, when was anybody ever happy with the elected government?

I'll give you an example: petrol prices are really low at the moment; have you thanked the government for that? No? A few years ago there were demonstrations and protests on the roads because petrol (diesel) prices were so high. Now I know that most of the cost is duty and tax but the oil price isn't under the control of the government (and we've got to raise tax somewhere).

I suppose what I'm trying to say is 'show me the country where all these things are better'...

...where the economy is better, where unemployment is lower, where the NHS (if there is one!) is better, where there is no immigration, where houses are cheaper, where inflation is lower, where food or petrol are cheaper, where taxes are lower?

As I said let's forget party politics for a minute...

...except to remember that parties not in power want you to believe everything would be better if they were in power!

Member for

15 years 2 months

Posts: 2,631

I've not visited the forum for quite a while, so much so I forgot my password, been very busy since late 2014. But in the meantime I've been catching up on the parties' campaigns, manifestoes, watching live debates, interviews of all involved when I can for the coming general election.

For quite a while I've fell into the trap made up by the media, particularly the BBC and Channel 4 when it comes to TV and Radio, that UKIP are just a right wing racist idealist party without actually looking into them and seeing what they stand for myself, I'm guessing I'm not the only one that has done this. And that's left the choices to Conservative and Labour and The Liberal Democrats that the so-called left wing media want us to vote for, and to be brutally honest, while I was looking at each one I was struggling to find any differences between the three, if you count the Liberals as being anything important, they're just saying the same things albeit worded differently while they take cheap shots at one another. So, while this was and still is all happening I noticed via Facebook the number of 'Likes' UKIP had for their page and how many people were posting positive comments about them, of course its just a social media site but surely its something to go by? I done a quick comparison check with the Conservative's page (both official) and noticed they pretty much had the same number, at the time of approximately 330,000+ each. But where as UKIP had/have an overwhelming amount of positive comments, the Tories were and seem to be still are, to be getting plenty of negative comments so, I decided to do my own research on UKIP and see what all the fuss was about...

...And, damn, am I impressed with them. They just make so much sense, especially Nigel Farage. The way he handles the biased media is both informative and factual and as a bonus, hilarious when he makes commentators such as the likes of Andrew Neil, Andrew Marr and Jeremy Paxman stumble for words to counter with, the way he dealt with and owned Nick Clegg on the two live debates (no wonder Cameron and Miliband aren't keen on debating with him), his Q&As with the British public, the way he hilariously puts to shame the MEPs and EU Bureaucrats in the European Parliament, the way he explains in what he believes in and what so many British believe in and what & how it all should be done. To top it off, he seems [has] many other members that are just as tough to back him up.

All in all, never thought I'd say it, I'm voting UKIP.

Member for

12 years 8 months

Posts: 851

For quite a while I've fell into the trap made up by the media, particularly the BBC and Channel 4 when it comes to TV and Radio, that UKIP are just a right wing racist idealist party.

The media is not left wing as a rule, as a percentage most written media and the likes of Sky TV are right leaning.

Most right leaning media don't like the BBC, and to a lesser extent Channel4, model of public funding, especially those who have a financial interest in ITV or Sky ( Mail and Times/Sun respectively) or by Tax exiles ( Telegraph) and therefore attack it for bias which is the pot calling the kettle black. They hope, and it seems to be working, that if you cry 'BBC bias' often enough then people will believe it.
People believe there is bias if the output doesn't match their own views. Since at least half of the population have in the past voted for parties that are centre based or leftward leaning, it is important to reflect all views. Many think the BBC lets the establishment get away with too much. If you are annoying most people some of the time, I would argue that the balance is probably about right

Many find Farage personally impressive, although I am not one of them, but the rest of them.....

He says they are not publishing their manifesto yet, even though it was promised for their conference last week, because he doesn't want others to steal his ideas. Another interpretation is that they are frightened people will see through their lack of depth

Member for

17 years 5 months

Posts: 8,980


Quote Originally Posted by 1batfastard View Post
The sad thing is that either way we are in four more years of more bad policy decisions despite what the electorate have been promised and if the in fighting that has occurred in the ConLib partnership is anything to go buy then we can expect more bad policy decisions...

The problem is the way the UK electoral system works and that the party elected realises they need to be spending a fortune in one programme and cannot do it... It would be a vote loser and the country couldn't afford it over a short period.

Take the road / rail infrastructure, this needs billions spending on it to bring it back a sustainable level, but years of ineffective spending have resulted in a progressively deteriorating system. The current tenure of a party means they can only spend a portion of what is needed in their elected period and do a patch job. What is needed is an agreed programme among all parties where the sustained funding is guaranteed from all to extend over say a 15 year period to restore as opposed to patch the system.

Member for

12 years 11 months

Posts: 6,535

I don't agree that Nigel is 'impressive' I believe, especially when contrasted with the other leaders, that he is inspirational. He would be inspirational as a politician whatever his political colour.

It remains to be seen, whether he can deliver. My colours are firmly nailed to a UKIP/Con coalition at the next election. Labour/SNP ? I don't think so.

The reasons why the BBC is apparently disliked and mistrusted by so many people is because they ignore a central tenet of their Charter which is to be neutral in their presentation of the news and reports. Such is almost always never the case and they continue to be seen as a rabidly left wing coterie of champagne swilling socialists. A pardonable slight exaggeration but, it does, I believe, crystalise the public perception.

Member for

11 years 5 months

Posts: 11,141

Most other democracies hold elections every 4/5 years so there is nothing unusual about our system in terms of the frequency of elections. If the electorate chooses continuity then what you propose is achievable, if not it won't be, unless programmes are so deeply imbedded that it would cost more to cancel and withdraw than to continue. That has of course happened in the past.

Specifically, as you referred to rail - all parties are in favour of speding tens of billions on the HS2 white elephant so how do you deal with that?

Member for

16 years 2 months

Posts: 2,248

The reasons why the BBC is apparently disliked and mistrusted by so many people is because they ignore a central tenet of their Charter which is to be neutral in their presentation of the news and reports. Such is almost always never the case and they continue to be seen as a rabidly left wing coterie of champagne swilling socialists. A pardonable slight exaggeration but, it does, I believe, crystalise the public perception.

All of which is your opinion and is in fact a huge pile of bolloxs.

The fact that little Englander / daily fail / torygraph people have been repeating it constantly as the neutral position does not fit with their viewpoint has however meant that such opinion can now be delivered socially as if it were fact.

If you are so sure of this bias please cite examples. Let the forum be the judge of whether the reporting is biased or whether it simply does not fit with your right wing agenda. Not one or two examples but constant and consistent examples of BBC reporting being biased.

People who advocate doing away with the licence fee in favour of commercially funded programming are the real enemies of democracy and would see the country and populace delivered into complete commercial servitude and manipulation by the wealthiest as in the United States.

Member for

11 years 5 months

Posts: 11,141

People who advocate doing away with the licence fee in favour of commercially funded programming are the real enemies of democracy and would see the country and populace delivered into complete commercial servitude and manipulation by the wealthiest as in the United States.

What has it to do with democracy? We all pay for the BBC to spend billions as it sees fit with little or no accountability, the Trust being about as much use as a baby's wet nurse. To take just one example, I have yet to read any cogently argued justification for the £1 billion spent on the Salford Centre. The BBC is grossly overmanaged and far too widely spread. The current method of funding the BBC is bound to be changed over the next few years as viewing habits and methods change. There will always be an argument for a high quality public broadcaster but limited in its remit and funded independently of government. I will be keenly interested to see how this develops over the next 5 years or so.

Member for

16 years 2 months

Posts: 2,248

Most other democracies hold elections every 4/5 years so there is nothing unusual about our system in terms of the frequency of elections. If the electorate chooses continuity then what you propose is achievable, if not it won't be, unless programmes are so deeply imbedded that it would cost more to cancel and withdraw than to continue. That has of course happened in the past.

Specifically, as you referred to rail - all parties are in favour of speding tens of billions on the HS2 white elephant so how do you deal with that?

The electorate had an opportunity to ensure a degree of continuity but were cynically manipulated to vote to continue with the unrepresentative first past the post system by the effective use of the fear of change and the unknown by the established parties.

First past the post, a system that almost guarantees stagnation in one form or other as the public votes in one side, gets fed up and votes in the other. Neither side gets to complete projects or policies that they embark upon before the other side takes over and changes the priorities.

In a way the current malaise and alleged partial rejection of the more established parties in favour of the extremist ukip is actually the fault of the populace as they allowed themselves to be manipulated to reject a system which would have forced co-operation upon the parties and thus could have opened the opportunity for continuity.

A protest party like ukip with simplistic, on trend, sound bites as "policies" is of course going to appeal to folk who have been manipulated to believe everything can be instant and they are entitled to get exactly what they want all the time.

I really hope ukip get a majority and the full extent of the lack of clothes will become rapidly evident.

The British public will again only have themselves to blame.