|
Post by kerouac2 on Oct 30, 2019 6:39:29 GMT
Although I'm sure we will continue to flog the ailing Brexit horse, I am wondering what people think about these new elections. For example, if basically the same parliament is elected as the current parliament, how could the UK get out of its current predicament? Or is the next parliament certain to be significantly different?
On top of that, certainly there are other issues to debate, no? Outside of the UK, we have pretty much only seen the Brexit business, but what about health care, employment, ecology, crime, drugs and the other issues? What issues will emerge besides the elephant in the room?
I know there have been suggestions, but is the electoral law going to be changed in any way?
|
|
|
Post by patricklondon on Oct 30, 2019 12:18:49 GMT
A lot to unpack. Of course, the whole question of fiscal austerity is likely to feature. It caught out Mrs May last time, with funding for schools turning out to be more salient with the voters than many had thought. Johnson has been signalling the "end of austerity" and more money for the NHS (it was the Leavers' great claim that the money we paid in to the EU budget could be redirected to the NHS), more police officers on the streets, and so on. Labour is promising a more wholesale increase in public expenditure and "green New Deal", and my guess is that housing is likely to feature quite heavily too. There are people in the party arguing for radical reform of the status and influence of private education, but that may not get much traction on the manifesto. As for electoral law (if by that you mean some sort of proportional representation), naturally the parties that lose out from "first past the post" want to change it (notably, LibDems and Greens, but also Farage's new vehicle the Brexit Party), and those that benefit (Conservatives and Labour) don't. The LibDems had a try when they went in to coalition with the Tories in 2010, but all they could get was a referendum on having the "alternative vote" (which isn't particularly proportional), and that was lost. In the present anti-politician mood, anything that can be made to look like some boondoggle is not going to be popular, even more so than then (in retrospect, Cameron might have been wise to consider the implications of the mood governing the response to that referendum before rushing to one on the EU, but of course, he'd got the result he wanted on AV). But who knows what in the end it might all turn on? I've seen reports suggesting that as many as a third of the voters have switched parties in recent elections, so who knows? My blog | My photos | My video clips | My Librivox recordings"too literate to be spam"
|
|
|
Post by bixaorellana on Oct 30, 2019 15:16:30 GMT
re: switching parties ~ Do voters in the UK have to be registered to a party in order to vote?
|
|
|
Post by kerouac2 on Oct 30, 2019 16:22:25 GMT
Everywhere in the world, the people in power always worry about how the "first time voters" (i.e. the young local voters, not the recently naturalised) are going to vote in an election. I know that there was a major revolt a few years ago when university fees were increased dramatically (I didn't dream this, did I?). Then again, I have no idea what percentage of British voters cares about this subject.
In France, the government tried to impose extra fees on non-EU students, but there was general outrage in the country, even from people who don't even know what a university looks like. The yearly fees were something like 3000 euros for undergraduates and 4000 for masters degrees. This is probably not a big amount for a number of countries, but compared to French university tuition of less than 300 euros, it was considered outrageous. The courts ended up saying that the government has a responsibility to provide (almost) free education to ALL, no matter where they come from. Okay, I have looked up the British system and saw that the Labour government imposed a fee of £1000 starting in 1998. Apparently in 2010 it was decided to raise tuition to £9000, and that is what set off the revolt. Since then, the various components of the UK have legislated different amounts (the lowest being £4030 in Northern Ireland) with the dominant tuition being £9250.
I know absolutely nothing about scholarships or financial aid for poorer students in the UK, but since it was a major political object of controversy, I am wondering if it still comes up at election time or if the idea of changing things has been shelved.
|
|
|
Post by patricklondon on Oct 30, 2019 18:48:49 GMT
re: switching parties ~ Do voters in the UK have to be registered to a party in order to vote? Good heavens, no. But we don't have publicly-organised primaries - if you want a say in choosing a party's candidate, you have to become a party member, pay your subscription and all the rest of it. On tuition fees, Labour have been making noises about it, but we don't yet know what will be in the final manifesto. And it's by no means certain that this election date will see student voters still in their university towns, where their votes might swing it, as they did in some unexpected results in 2017.
|
|
|
Post by bjd on Oct 30, 2019 19:15:18 GMT
Wasn't the issue of student voters being around the point of Labour wanting the election on the 9th vs Johnson's request for the 12th?
And what is the final date anyway?
|
|
|
Post by lugg on Oct 30, 2019 19:32:30 GMT
Bjd - it is the 12th December.
..Ever hopeful.
Re uni/ tuition fees the ... don't forget Scotland which has bucked the trend for Scottish residents ( and I think for some EU citizens outside of the rest of the UK) ...at least for undergraduate studies
|
|
|
Post by cheerypeabrain on Oct 30, 2019 20:39:12 GMT
Will there be enough time for comprehensive election manifestos to be prepared, and enough time for us voters to study them? meh..
|
|
|
Post by patricklondon on Oct 31, 2019 7:17:30 GMT
|
|
|
Post by kerouac2 on Oct 31, 2019 9:13:19 GMT
From what I've been reading, it seems that the NHS is the biggest preoccupation of the British.
That made me look at the list for France, which is always changing, but at the moment it is:
1. the environment 2. retirement options and social services 3. purchasing power
|
|
|
Post by kerouac2 on Nov 6, 2019 13:08:47 GMT
So, the election campaign has officially begun.
Here is the most recent poll from November 1-4:
•Conservative: 39 percent •Labour: 27 percent •Lib Dems: 16 percent •Brexit Party: 7 percent •SNP: 5 percent •Green: 4 percent •Plaid Cymru: 1 percent •Other: 1 percent
|
|
|
Post by bjd on Nov 6, 2019 14:22:14 GMT
Why would anyone vote for the Brexit party? They have nothing to say and that asshole Farage isn't even running. Probably knows he wouldn't get elected.
|
|
|
Post by kerouac2 on Nov 6, 2019 15:59:34 GMT
I think the Brexit party has promised to refuse to pay the money that the UK owes to the EU or something like that.
|
|
|
Post by kerouac2 on Nov 10, 2019 17:30:23 GMT
|
|
|
Post by kerouac2 on Nov 21, 2019 16:31:05 GMT
The new Labour manifesto surprised (impressed?) me. Will it change anything?
Seen from afar but having followed a certain amount of British news over the years, taking back control of BT, rail services, the post office and a number of other things makes sense to me since privatisation does not seem to have improved any of them. But I am not directly concerned by any of this...
|
|
|
Post by bjd on Nov 21, 2019 19:06:06 GMT
Other than taxing the rich, how are they going to pay for it all? It reminds me of Mitterrand's nationalizing the banks in 1981 and having to sell them back at a loss a few years later.
I don't disagree that privatization of train networks or other things did not go well, but buying it all back, plus building thousands of houses, free broadband for all, plus all those other promises sounds quite unrealistic.
|
|
|
Post by mossie on Nov 21, 2019 20:09:07 GMT
Well Boris in the head to head TV show accused Corblimey of having not a money tree but a whole forest of them. Guess he would need it or we will end up deep in the brown stuff.
|
|
|
Post by cheerypeabrain on Nov 21, 2019 20:32:16 GMT
Renationalisation of utilities harks back to pre-EEC days...it might please the anti-Europe contingent. Like bjd and Mossie I wonder how it's going to be paid for.
I think that the GPO worked pretty well until British telecom was split off from the post office....British rail was a monster...but the electricity board and British gas were ok...they employed millions, ran apprenticeship schemes and looked after their retired workers. To a certain extent the NHS is the only thing left and the Tories would sell that off tomorrow if they could get away with it.
|
|
|
Post by lugg on Nov 22, 2019 18:43:41 GMT
To a certain extent the NHS is the only thing left and the Tories would sell that off tomorrow if they could get away with it. As an NHS employee I can confidently say its already started but so quietly the general public are not aware or shouting about it.
|
|
|
Post by bjd on Nov 22, 2019 19:12:29 GMT
Aren't there any whistleblowers or investigative journalists who can bring this out into the open? Given the importance of the NHS to the current election campaign, surely the public would be interested?
|
|
|
Post by kerouac2 on Nov 22, 2019 19:34:48 GMT
I have wanted the pharmaceutical companies in France, the UK, Germany or any other country to be nationalised for quite a few years now since it is obvious that they do not have our best interests as any sort of priority. And yet there does not seem to be a single country planning to do such a thing. What am I missing?
|
|
|
Post by patricklondon on Nov 23, 2019 8:05:32 GMT
I have wanted the pharmaceutical companies in France, the UK, Germany or any other country to be nationalised for quite a few years now since it is obvious that they do not have our best interests as any sort of priority. And yet there does not seem to be a single country planning to do such a thing. What am I missing? They're international, and would simply move production between jurisdictions?
|
|
|
Post by kerouac2 on Nov 23, 2019 8:54:58 GMT
Well, a nationalised drug factory is kind of obliged to physically stay in the same place. And even if the main companies cut all links, there is nothing stopping local R&D specialists from developing new products at a fair price. The fact that something like 90% of the medications in the world are manufactured in China and India is a bit worrisome, no?
|
|
|
Post by patricklondon on Nov 23, 2019 10:07:55 GMT
Aren't there any whistleblowers or investigative journalists who can bring this out into the open? Given the importance of the NHS to the current election campaign, surely the public would be interested? It isn't new that some services have been sub-contracted to private providers. The Labour government did it to clear backlogs of things like cataract operations. Nor is it exactly secret that the law changed in 2012 to require NHS organisations to test alternative provision of some services. Indeed much primary care through GPs and dentists has always been technically sub-contracting with private practices. What's different is the risk that the 2012 law opens the way for private business to use the law aggressively to enforce their cherry-picking the easy services, leaving the existing NHS the most complex and difficult cases (and possibly breaking up integrated care systems), even if from the patient's point of view it's still free at the point of use.
|
|
|
Post by bjd on Nov 23, 2019 12:02:02 GMT
Well, a nationalised drug factory is kind of obliged to physically stay in the same place. And even if the main companies cut all links, there is nothing stopping local R&D specialists from developing new products at a fair price. The fact that something like 90% of the medications in the world are manufactured in China and India is a bit worrisome, no? R&D is the expensive side of the pharmaceutical industry, as well as the marketing of course. The actual production is not that expensive. This is why a big company like Sanofi has cut back its research and concentrates on producing drugs that bring in lots of money -- more diet pills, less malaria medicines for example. And I agree that it's worrisome that China and India are big producers of medicines, given their track records of chemicals in food and other problems.
|
|
|
Post by lugg on Nov 23, 2019 13:42:05 GMT
Aren't there any whistleblowers or investigative journalists who can bring this out into the open? Given the importance of the NHS to the current election campaign, surely the public would be interested? As Patrick has said its not a secret , but generally the public are not aware of the chipping away of NHS services which has gathered apace particularly in the last two / three years. I am not aware of any report that gives an accurate picture of what NHS services are now being provided privately in the UK. Of course the NHS is still a major consideration for many of the public within this election but in terms of waiting times, access to GPs, underfunding etc. In 2001, before the funding increases introduced by the Labour government, 38% of people were satisfied with the NHS. In 2010 Labour's additional funding started to have an effect on services satisfaction - increase to 70% . In 2018 public satisfaction with the NHS was now much lower at 53% -long waiting times; staff shortages; a lack of funding; and money being wasted.
|
|
|
Post by cheerypeabrain on Nov 23, 2019 18:46:13 GMT
Oh I know they've started selling off the NHS...but I don't think that it's irredeemable lugg.
Successive governments have done a lot of streamlining...we used to have a splendid public health laboratory at Glenfield. Closed now and all the work goes to a lab in Birmingham.
The government has been trying to close our cardiac surgery unit too, especially the paediatric cardiothoracics, They want to send it all to Birmingham.
Birmingham have an excellent paediatric cardiac unit but it's not exactly on the doorstep for us...staff and patients had quite a fight to keep our award winning cardiothoracic unit open.
Austerity...
Mind you the government has assured us that their cutting benefits and reducung funding to councils for social services has NOT led to poverty.
|
|
|
Post by bjd on Nov 23, 2019 18:49:35 GMT
Austerity... Mind you the government has assured us that their cutting benefits and reducung funding to councils for social services has NOT led to poverty. Oh, well in that case it must be true.
|
|
|
Post by cheerypeabrain on Nov 23, 2019 21:53:54 GMT
Yes. Priti Patel stood in a food bank and said with a straight face, that the government wasnt responsible for poverty. In the last 5 years the use of food banks has gone up by over 3,000% according to The Trussle Trust. They started out collecting food close to its sell by date from big supermarkets, making meals for the homeless. Now it isn't unusual for working families to rely on food banks.
|
|
|
Post by monetsmum on Nov 24, 2019 6:39:07 GMT
Yes. Priti Patel stood in a food bank and said with a straight face, that the government wasnt responsible for poverty. In the last 5 years the use of food banks has gone up by over 3,000% according to The Trussle Trust. They started out collecting food close to its sell by date from big supermarkets, making meals for the homeless. Now it isn't unusual for working families to rely on food banks. I wonder where she's been these past 10 years. It seems she missed the bit where the government cut local authority budgets year upon year. She's working hard to keep that smile/smirk off her face, but I still want to slap it.
|
|