The British Politics Thread - The Bear and Badger

Yossarian

Mine too, although I think I'm going to go with Labour, not because there's any chance they might lose but because the more votes they get the stronger the position they'll be in when nobody gets a majority.

handsofblue

Well, maybe the vote isn't entirely useless after all. So disappointed in my ward for making UKIP come second.

Outlaw

Good work Dante!

n0face

monkey wrote:

It's easy to caricature these people but of course they're just doing perfectly legal stuff that many other people would probably do. I've got no probs with people that are actual non-doms as it stands. I'm not convinced of the benefit to our economy and, more broadly, our society of having a load of investment being generated by people who are only interested in the tax advantages of doing business here.

This is my thought and a lot of what I thought through the Westminster expenses scandal. Most people who take advantage of these things are not doing anything illegal and a majority of people would do the same but there's always someone who takes the piss. Change the rules to make them fairer, make an example of those who are clearly outside the rules and if the rest don't like it they can fuck off. This is my argument about any tax/expenses/0 hours/financial loop hole I've seen.

Matt_82

Here is an interesting campaign video from the Greens.

Funkstain

@Elmlea: few pages back you asked about supporting the Greens.

Most of it was said (basically who else can I vote for if I have any socialist principles whatsoever?). But cherry-picking a few policies (homeopathy, nuclear) and holding them up for scrutiny / ridicule whilst apparently giving the other manifestos / websites from other parties a free pass is a pretty strange argument to make.

Whether homeopathy is an actual Green policy or not is not particularly important to me. It ranks as number 1,287 in my list of priorities. Nuclear is rather higher up the agenda, but which major party is investing heavily in publicly-owned, bang up to date nuclear power technology?

None. Instead we get the worst of both worlds: massive, uneconomic subsidy of privately-owned, out of date power stations which may or may not become reality despite £100Ms of "pre-investment" already.

So tell me again why voting Green is bad because of this particular issue? I mean comparing apples to apples, doesn't seem like anyone else is doing better, and in fact I'd argue that keeping power generation in the pockets of their (foreign, by the way and most even foreign state-owned!) corporate buddies is worse than no nuclear at all.

People going on about costing policies attract nothing but my utmost contempt. If you can point to an example of a major policy (of the order of billions) that has been properly costed and then actually adhered to and implemented to that budget, i mean one single example, ever, over the history of our parliament in the last 40 years, just one, then my contempt shall be turned upon myself. Hint: it won't be.

Your considered opinion is intellectually and practically redundant, and is one of THE main reasons why the status quo persists. Please don't mention costing again.

Funkstain

I forgot my point about your girlfriend the nurse. Perhaps she would object more to homeopathy being offered to idiots on the NHS than, say, massively underfunded hospital trusts, supervised by super-salaried politically-savvy bureaucrats with no clinical experience, being replaced with private companies who will sack her (under private employer rules, rather more lax than public in my experience) as soon as she can be replaced with a cheaper, under-trained resource?

Funkstain

If so, then please feel free to vote for Labour or Conservative of LibDem because that's what you're gonna get with those fucking goons.

equinox_code

I dont have a problem with homeopathy on the NHS, so long as nobody administering or manufacturing it gets paid too much. Placebos work.

Roujin

SHOTS.

PogChamp.

Gremill

Funkstain wrote:

I forgot my point about your girlfriend the nurse. Perhaps she would object more to homeopathy being offered to idiots on the NHS than, say, massively underfunded hospital trusts, supervised by super-salaried politically-savvy bureaucrats with no clinical experience, being replaced with private companies who will sack her (under private employer rules, rather more lax than public in my experience) as soon as she can be replaced with a cheaper, under-trained resource?

Thats an incredibly simplified way of describing how healthcare provision and commissioning works in this country. So simple as to be laughable, actually.

On the issue of homeopathy, I personally don't think its a big ticket issue that people should use as logic to not vote Green.
However at the same time it makes me wonder whether a party that believes it should be available on the NHS is fit to be in a position to decide the future of healthcare.

Diluted Dante

Gremill wrote:

On the issue of homeopathy, I personally don't think its a big ticket issue that people should use as logic to not vote Green.

Particularly since it isn't a Green Party policy

Gremill wrote:

However at the same time it makes me wonder whether a party that believes it should be available on the NHS is fit to be in a position to decide the future of healthcare.

See above.

mistercrayon

equinox_code wrote:

I dont have a problem with homeopathy on the NHS, so long as nobody administering or manufacturing it gets paid too much. Placebos work.

Depends on what it's for. I can't buy into the charlatans claiming to cure cancer through sugar pills. It's also somewhat done in a morally dubious way, by using psychological tricks and people exploiting feeling a bit better as they aren't taking super powerful drugs for a bit.

GooberTheHat

Diluted Dante wrote:

Gremill wrote:

On the issue of homeopathy, I personally don't think its a big ticket issue that people should use as logic to not vote Green.

Particularly if since it isn't a Green Party policy

Gremill wrote:

However at the same time it makes me wonder whether a party that believes it should be available on the NHS is fit to be in a position to decide the future of healthcare.

See above.

"Complimentary medicine" is though. What do the Green Party define as complimentary medicine? Is homeopathy included in that description?

adkm1979

Just caught up with last week's 7-party 'debate' and all of this thread.

I'm worried that Ed Miliband and David Cameron both enjoyed as much support as they did after that. I find the support for Miliband the oddest of the two. The man just comes across as a complete buffoon. The creepy way he leered down the camera at me was quite unsettling. I appreciate that the man's looks have nothing to do with his ability to lead, but surely at some point his inability to appear like a person you'd want to spend any time with must become a factor.

I appreciate it's not a popular view, but I really feel for Nick Clegg and the Lib Dems. They've watched as the Conservative and Labour parties shifted their policies to chase votes, and watched as the electorate continued to vote as though there were only two parties, and not a third option that better represented many of their views (particularly those Labour voters who never considered stopping at left of centre as the pranced by). When they held the balance of power, one thing stood in the way of them finally having a real say: the tuition fees policy. They've been hauled over the coals for it since, and that one chance to govern has lead to it being a long time until it comes again. One of the positives of the Scottish referendum was the general agreement that everyone wants a fairer society; something the Lib Dems have pushed for years. It seems they're always the bridesmaid.

Bennet came across better than I expected, given what I had heard between the debate being broadcast and me actually watching it. I thought Sturgeon spoke well, and made more sense than some of the others. Farage proved, every time he opened his mouth, that he is nothing more than an ignorant sideshow.

I'll put my hand up and say I wasn't at all familiar with Leanne Wood before the debate, but she was absolutely excellent. In general the women were preferable to the men, showing them that it's best to refrain from talking over others, let alone shouting over them, and I thought she was the best example of all. Calm, collected, and no less convincing for it.

A lot was made afterwards of the fact that she was the only one to disparage Farage for his remarks, and got the first applause for it. It seemed to me, watching it, that the 'debate' was tightly controlled; it was her turn to talk next, then Nicola Sturgeon, and by the time they'd addressed it, the point had moved on. It also seemed like the audience were asked to keep quiet to allow more to be said in the two hours.

As for this thread, I'm a bit disappointed to read what people are writing about how they vote. I can't help but feel that tactical voting (by which I mean any voting based on anything other than who you'd like to be your MP) and a two-party dominance are locked with each other in a vicious cycle. I do not think that any party would dominate as many constituencies as they do if people voted for what they really believed in. To be honest, leaders debates don't help. They work in America where you're voting in a president, but here all they do is compound the notion in many people's heads that they're voting for Cameron or Miliband.

Roujin

Why does it matter what the Green Party define as complimentary medicine?

Isn't it NIHCE or CQC or whatever the fuck acronym, or one of the other boards that decides what the NHS will and won't offer to patients?

GooberTheHat

Roujin wrote:

Why does it matter what the Green Party define as complimentary medicine?

Isn't it NIHCE or CQC or whatever the fuck acronym, or one of the other boards that decides what the NHS will and won't offer to patients?

Because they say in their manifesto that they will make complimentary medicine available on the NHS.

Roujin

Right, but they will ultimately have no say whether or not the NHS offers homeopathy, only that if whatever panel declares homeopathy as something the NHS can offer to patients that they will fund it. So why do you care?

Given that homeopathy is the bs art of adding one part per million of medicine to water, how expensive is it actually going to be?

GooberTheHat

I didn't say I care. I said it was in their manifesto to offer complimentary medicine. I've asked Diluted Dante if he can expand on what the Green Party define as complimentary medicine.

Roujin

You obviously care. Homeopathy is bullshit, but its something that is a small part of the overall spectrum of complimentary medicine. If I had to tolerate homeopathy being paid for by taxpayers if that meant other more useful complimentary medicine was given to patients then so be it. It's a pretty low level compromise overall in the grand scheme of shit to expect Dante to know the answer to.

HEY DANTE, CAN YOU NAME THE SITES WHERE THE GREENS ARE GOING TO BUILD ALL THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING!?

GooberTheHat

I'm glad you know more about what I care about than I do. Thank you.

As he claimed that homeopathy isn't a part of the Green manifesto I was hoping he could tell me what is included in the Green definition of complimentary medicine. If he doesn't know that's fine, I'm only asking a question.

Outlaw

Someone needs to take Rou's capslock off him.

Roujin

CAPS LOCK BEST LOCK.

DEATH TO THE WEST.

Funkstain

Gremill wrote:

Funkstain wrote:

I forgot my point about your girlfriend the nurse. Perhaps she would object more to homeopathy being offered to idiots on the NHS than, say, massively underfunded hospital trusts, supervised by super-salaried politically-savvy bureaucrats with no clinical experience, being replaced with private companies who will sack her (under private employer rules, rather more lax than public in my experience) as soon as she can be replaced with a cheaper, under-trained resource?

Thats an incredibly simplified way of describing how healthcare provision and commissioning works in this country. So simple as to be laughable, actually. On the issue of homeopathy, I personally don't think its a big ticket issue that people should use as logic to not vote Green. However at the same time it makes me wonder whether a party that believes it should be available on the NHS is fit to be in a position to decide the future of healthcare.

Well, quite - my point was (not successfully?) trying to show that over simplifying stuff (hey y u support green they like homeopathy lol) is not helpful.

But it would be good to understand more about hospital administration and the advent of privatised service provision in the NHS. The reaction tends to be "too many managers" and "complete no to all privatisation" but clearly an organisation the size of the NHS needs to have significant administration (which requires managers) and according to some of my NHS friends privatisation has been beneficial in some cases. Care to expand? As an NHS worker, which party's manifesto scares you? Do the Greens tend to (as Elm says about Defence) over simplify their policy approach to the NHS, do they have any experts in the field?

Funkstain

Also I was under the impression that several complementary treatments are already available on the NHS (all evidence-based and recommended by NICE):

http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/complementary-alternative-medicine/Pages/complementary-alternative-medicines.aspx

Diluted Dante

GooberTheHat wrote:

I didn't say I care. I said it was in their manifesto to offer complimentary medicine. I've asked Diluted Dante if he can expand on what the Green Party define as complimentary medicine.

They don't. Treatments would not be decided by the Green Party.

H331 The assessment of the effectiveness of treatments in relation to the cost of their provision is fundamental to the provision of high quality, cost effective healthcare. The Green Party would ensure that an independent healthcare treatment agency provides assurance on the effectiveness of treatments and recommendations for new treatments to the NHS.

The effectiveness of treatments will be assessed by the agency using the best clinical evidence available. The agency will use independent panels of experts to assess treatments. The agency will assess the effectiveness of treatments across the entire health care spectrum, from synthetic pharmaceuticals and surgical procedures to public health interventions and complementary therapies.

We recognize that the assessment of treatments is a lengthy and ongoing process that should be driven by clinical need rather than either political or commercial influence.

The agency will produce recommendations that compare effectiveness against cost allowing the NHS to decide which treatments are required to meet the needs of the service within its budget.

GooberTheHat

Thank-you

acemuzzy

monkey

This Trident nonsense from the Tories is just the worst cynical, insulting, desperate fear-mongering. Toxic bunch of cunts. They've treated the electorate with absolute condescending disdain from the start.

equinox_code

They really will say anything to keep hold of power. I knew they were scum, but even im surprised by how low theyre stooping.

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories