|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Nov 2, 2014 1:15:32 GMT
Story in the Sunday Times tomorrow about Mark Reckless complaining over Tory push polls. It seems Jim Messina's outfit has been tied to people phoning up and asking how they feel about the incident when a newly-elected Mark Reckless admitted to being too drunk to vote on the 2010 budget.
|
|
Sibboleth
Labour
'Sit on my finger, sing in my ear, O littleblood.'
Posts: 16,044
|
Post by Sibboleth on Nov 2, 2014 1:23:53 GMT
hahahahaha
|
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Nov 2, 2014 11:24:04 GMT
I agree with Devonian's point that a billboard doesn't really need have such substance to it. However the point about substance is valid. Outside of TTIP I've heard very little from UKIP on the NHS at all. And the TTIP policy was brought about as a result of more recent news articles on the subject than anything else. Do they support the current Clinical Commissioning model as it stands, or would they support a difference healthcare structure (whether organised locally or more centralised)? Do they support putting more money into the health service, freezing the money (in real terms) or reducing it? How would they deal with any potential future shortages of NHS staff? What is their policy on migrant doctors/nurses coming to work for the NHS (either for short term work permits or for the longer term)? These are things that all mainstream parties have to consider when drawing up their manifestos, and UKIP's 2015 manifesto has got to be better than it's 2010 effort in this and other areas.To be honest, the 2010 manifesto was actually quite good if a little sparse. The populist divergence from their liberal manifesto to romanian - bashing and protecting the nhs type nonsense is the problem. How they plan on keeping their eurosceptic authentically right wing core with such nonsense I don't know. It wasn't good, it appealed to you. Those things are different. The 2010 UKIP manifesto would be a lot less appealing to UKIP's 2015 target voters. The difference is to some extent academic, because few voters are familiar with the main contents of manifestos and I suspect that'll be particularly true of UKIP supporters this time round, but it is real. In any case, substantive detail on the NHS from UKIP is unlikely because a) there are undoubtedly differences of opinion within the party - I have no reason to believe Nuttall was lying when he expressed enthusiasm for privatisation, and a lot of reason to believe Carswell was when he claims The Plan didn't do the same thing, but the voters they need aren't going to back that prospectus and b) UKIP don't need substantive detail to get votes, and it might actually hinder them when they can't just repudiate anything that might be inconvenient. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 2, 2014 12:20:00 GMT
To be honest, the 2010 manifesto was actually quite good if a little sparse. The populist divergence from their liberal manifesto to romanian - bashing and protecting the nhs type nonsense is the problem. How they plan on keeping their eurosceptic authentically right wing core with such nonsense I don't know. It wasn't good, it appealed to you. Those things are different. The 2010 UKIP manifesto would be a lot less appealing to UKIP's 2015 target voters. The difference is to some extent academic, because few voters are familiar with the main contents of manifestos and I suspect that'll be particularly true of UKIP supporters this time round, but it is real. In any case, substantive detail on the NHS from UKIP is unlikely because a) there are undoubtedly differences of opinion within the party - I have no reason to believe Nuttall was lying when he expressed enthusiasm for privatisation, and a lot of reason to believe Carswell was when he claims The Plan didn't do the same thing, but the voters they need aren't going to back that prospectus and b) UKIP don't need substantive detail to get votes, and it might actually hinder them when they can't just repudiate anything that might be inconvenient. Okay not better but at least representing a coherent philosophy. At the moment they can't really decide whether they are a hard right party or a party of the populist centre so their policies are a total mess. |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Nov 2, 2014 12:36:42 GMT
It's not that they can't decide. It's that they want to be both. The incoherence doesn't matter until you try to put it into practice.
|
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Nov 2, 2014 12:45:53 GMT
I have to congratulate UKIP on achieving the almost impossible. Their opportunism in recent months has been so great that they are in danger of making Cameron's Conservatives look vaguely principled. On healthcare, as with so many other policy areas, UKIP are now part of the problem. Always a problem with populism. The spending promised UKIP have made must be well above those of Labour by now and to pretend that this could all be paid for by coming out of the EU is silly in the extreme |
|
|
|
Post by Andrew_S on Nov 2, 2014 15:16:25 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Nov 2, 2014 15:18:39 GMT
That would be because Rochester City Council did a 100% housing stock transfer to set up MHS Homes as early as 1990.
|
|
Khunanup
Lib Dem
Portsmouth Liberal Democrats
Posts: 12,039
|
Post by Khunanup on Nov 2, 2014 15:42:14 GMT
I would point everyone to the striking similarity in demographics between Eastleigh and Rochester and Strood: ukpollingreport.co.uk/2015guide/eastleigh/This is clearly the kind of commuter seat where everything stacks up pretty well for UKIP, just like Eastleigh. The differences in circumstances are however obvious and Reckless is clearly going to take a lot of his vote with him and Labour are looking like they'll get a similar vote to Eastleigh. |
|
neilm
Non-Aligned
Posts: 25,023
|
Post by neilm on Nov 3, 2014 1:36:43 GMT
That would be because Rochester City Council did a 100% housing stock transfer to set up MHS Homes as early as 1990. Aah, Rochester City. An amusing story there. God bless those Charter Trustees! |
|
neilm
Non-Aligned
Posts: 25,023
|
Post by neilm on Nov 3, 2014 1:52:32 GMT
To be honest, the 2010 manifesto was actually quite good if a little sparse. The populist divergence from their liberal manifesto to romanian - bashing and protecting the nhs type nonsense is the problem. How they plan on keeping their eurosceptic authentically right wing core with such nonsense I don't know. It wasn't good, it appealed to you. Those things are different. The 2010 UKIP manifesto would be a lot less appealing to UKIP's 2015 target voters. The difference is to some extent academic, because few voters are familiar with the main contents of manifestos and I suspect that'll be particularly true of UKIP supporters this time round, but it is real. In any case, substantive detail on the NHS from UKIP is unlikely because a) there are undoubtedly differences of opinion within the party - I have no reason to believe Nuttall was lying when he expressed enthusiasm for privatisation, and a lot of reason to believe Carswell was when he claims The Plan didn't do the same thing, but the voters they need aren't going to back that prospectus and b) UKIP don't need substantive detail to get votes, and it might actually hinder them when they can't just repudiate anything that might be inconvenient. We need clarity on what privatisation is. It is not contracting out (either en masse or via personal voucher)- to suggest otherwise is dishonest. If I go and get a knee replacement at the Peninsular Medical Centre, for example, it is a contracted out service. It is not a privatised one. The Plan does not suggest privatising health care. Those of us advocating totally private health care in the UK are in a very very small minority (I'd scrap the NHS tomorrow) and we are not in the same camp as those suggesting that people should have portable vouchers paid for by the taxpayer. I am a privatiser, Nuttall and Carswell most certainly aren't. |
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,808 
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Nov 3, 2014 7:40:07 GMT
Those of us advocating totally private health care in the UK are in a very very small minority (I'd scrap the NHS tomorrow) ... If you don't want to use the NHS, that's your choice, go somewhere else and don't use the NHS, but don't get in the way of me choosing to use the NHS. |
|
neilm
Non-Aligned
Posts: 25,023
|
Post by neilm on Nov 3, 2014 8:03:52 GMT
That's a ridiculous thing to say.
My wider point is that referring to private provision of services as privatisation is disingenuous. It isn't being privatised. It is still under state control, with the bill picked up by the taxpayer (and will continue to be like that under pretty much every model proposed).
I don't think it should exist, at all. That is my view and I accept that I am in a small minority.
|
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Nov 3, 2014 10:27:19 GMT
It wasn't good, it appealed to you. Those things are different. The 2010 UKIP manifesto would be a lot less appealing to UKIP's 2015 target voters. The difference is to some extent academic, because few voters are familiar with the main contents of manifestos and I suspect that'll be particularly true of UKIP supporters this time round, but it is real. In any case, substantive detail on the NHS from UKIP is unlikely because a) there are undoubtedly differences of opinion within the party - I have no reason to believe Nuttall was lying when he expressed enthusiasm for privatisation, and a lot of reason to believe Carswell was when he claims The Plan didn't do the same thing, but the voters they need aren't going to back that prospectus and b) UKIP don't need substantive detail to get votes, and it might actually hinder them when they can't just repudiate anything that might be inconvenient. We need clarity on what privatisation is. It is not contracting out (either en masse or via personal voucher)- to suggest otherwise is dishonest. If I go and get a knee replacement at the Peninsular Medical Centre, for example, it is a contracted out service. It is not a privatised one. The Plan does not suggest privatising health care. Those of us advocating totally private health care in the UK are in a very very small minority (I'd scrap the NHS tomorrow) and we are not in the same camp as those suggesting that people should have portable vouchers paid for by the taxpayer. I am a privatiser, Nuttall and Carswell most certainly aren't. Actually, Nuttall is on record praising the NHS bill for bringing "a whiff of privatisation" to the NHS and calling for it be broken up. Frankly the difference between privatisation and universal contracting-out is entirely academic. Both have the same impact. |
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Nov 3, 2014 15:27:40 GMT
That's a ridiculous thing to say. My wider point is that referring to private provision of services as privatisation is disingenuous. It isn't being privatised. It is still under state control, with the bill picked up by the taxpayer (and will continue to be like that under pretty much every model proposed). I don't think it should exist, at all. That is my view and I accept that I am in a small minority. I do see anything not provided directly by the state as partially privatised - its a matter of ethos and purpose. Its certainly the case that an internal market was set up - and not properly dismantled by my party - which has proved excessively expensive without significantly improving productivity. I take the opposite view to you - I would scrap all commissioning schemes and have purely direct in-house provision |
|
neilm
Non-Aligned
Posts: 25,023
|
Post by neilm on Nov 3, 2014 15:34:04 GMT
That's fair enough. We disagree. I can live with that  |
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Nov 3, 2014 15:39:25 GMT
That's fair enough. We disagree. I can live with that Indeed. I think what we share is a dislike of 'fudge'. I am a pro-European. For me that means taking a positive and enthusiastic part in European policy - not semi-detached whinging from the sidelines. If I was an anti-European I would wish to leave, not look for ways of making something I didn't agree with more palatable Its the same here - the internal market and the commissioning system is the worst of all worlds. Either have the NHS and run it properly, command-and-control, with proper financial management (and for years it was by far the most efficient system in the developed world because of the lack of contract-based administrative cost), or have a private system . We always seem to want to dodge real political choices in this country |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 3, 2014 22:58:30 GMT
Those of us advocating totally private health care in the UK are in a very very small minority (I'd scrap the NHS tomorrow) ... If you don't want to use the NHS, that's your choice, go somewhere else and don't use the NHS, but don't get in the way of me choosing to use the NHS. That is totally ludicrous. Firstly the idea that you would actually choose the NHS rather than far superior private hopsitals and secondly the idea that one cannot believe in restricting your right to something you have not paid for (I respect the fact that you disagree with Neil however). |
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,808
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Nov 3, 2014 23:03:00 GMT
If you don't want to use the NHS, that's your choice, go somewhere else and don't use the NHS, but don't get in the way of me choosing to use the NHS. That is totally ludicrous. Firstly the idea that you would actually choose the NHS rather than far superior private hopsitals and secondly the idea that one cannot believe in restricting your right to something you have not paid for. I do chose the NHS rather than private hospitals as I am an communitarian and believe in shared risk and gathered provision, in the same way that I chose to share the risk of my house falling down with six million other people. As for the second part, there are too many negatives in there for me to work out what you're saying. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Nov 3, 2014 23:30:46 GMT
Presumably you insure your house with a state owned insurance provider then?
|
|
