[Archived] Election

[jim mk2]

The Tories must worried about the Lib Dems threat as Central Office gives newspaper owners orders to discredit Nick Clegg. Predictably the Tory-loving Daily Mail has gone into overdrive to rubbish the Lib Dems leader.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/election/article-1267602/GENERAL-ELECTION-2010-Nick-Clegg-goes-Persil-White-Mr-Anti-Politics.html

http://jonslattery.blogspot.com/2010/04/clegg-gets-clogged-on-eve-of-tv-debate.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/election-2010/7616526/General-Election-2010-Nick-Clegg-the-Lib-Dem-donors-and-payments-into-his-private-bank-account.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2010/apr/21/daily-mail-liberal-democrats-nick-clegg

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/apr/18/clegg-media-elite-murdoch-lib-dem

http://peterblack.blogspot.com/2010/04/daily-mail-nick-clegg-and-nazis.html

And taken to its extremes but given the Daily Mail's past antics not all that implausible:

http://twitter.com/tygerland

[Glenn]

Well, if the twitter generation are actually going to vote for once, then we could get an unprecedented Lib Dem swing. Not just the popularity of things like "If we can get RATM to #1, we can get Clegg elected as PM" but I notice today's big fad on twitter (and now just reported in The Grauniad) is #IBlameNickClegg ( http://twitter.com/#search?q=%23nickcleggsfault )in response to today's obviously orchestrated smear campaign.

I think a lot of people previously to apathetic to vote are going to turn out this year and a lot of traditional voters who as disillusioned with Labour but remember Thatcher and can't bring themselves to vote Tory will stay at home.

[JAL]

Regardless of which party is elected in May given our national debt all you teachers, public workers will most definitely lose their gold plated final salary pensions.

See this area is being kept quiet whilst here in Blackburn, many of its higher paid council officers/members/workers have been sounded out about taking early retirement under the banner as a cost cutting exercise. Wonder if they've been forwarned by our local cabinet minister as to what is going to happen in the near future.

[den]

If you look through my posts in this thread I've personally pointed out at least half a dozen plain factual inaccuracies from those on the right. If you want to point out any in mine then feel free...

Oh and it's a shame you're so easily bought by this "Cancer Drug Fund". All that means is that there's going to be a finite amount of money available to buy cancer drugs with which isn't any different from now. It doesn't say that any drug possible will definitely be available on the NHS and nor should it, as they could never keep promises like that - every drug MUST have a costs vs benefits review. They shouldn't just blanket allow any drug possible than any doctor anywhere wants to prescribe - there HAS to be some sort of regulation.

"Change the way cancer drugs are commissioned" - currently we have a large proportions of clinicians on the board of NICE together with health economists etc etc. Now it may well be that there is a better way of commisioning these drugs but these changes MUST be made by the same set of people including clinicians and health economists (and with very limited input by politicians) but without even giving a few lines or even a sentence synopsis as to how theyre going to bring about these changes it sounds exactly like the wishy-washy rhetoric that is so common with DC and the New Conservatives.

Bah, not worth the effort.

[thenodrog]

All the polling shows that the majority of the public don't want to join the Euro, that they want a control on immigration and they want fewer powers diverted to Brussels. The Lib Dem's are the most pro European of the parties, they want to join the Euro and their immigration plans are too soft and ineffective. Some of these voters are in for a real shock.

Surely then UKIP should be the alternative party?

Maybe if they still had Farage at the top and the TV debate stretched to encompass the leader of UKIP that TV malarky might become compulsive viewing.

Who knows even I might be persuaded to turn the telly on.

[Glenn]

Surely then UKIP should be the alternative party?

Maybe if they still had Farage at the top and the TV debate stretched to encompass the leader of UKIP that TV malarky might become compulsive viewing.

Who knows even I might be persuaded to turn the telly on.

Given Farage's performance on HIGNFY, it wouldn't be much of a debate, the man could be outwitted by your average cheese sandwich. In comparison he makes Boris look like an intelligent, composed. polished public speaker.

[thenodrog]

I think a lot of people previously to apathetic to vote are going to turn out this year and a lot of traditional voters who as disillusioned with Labour but remember Thatcher and can't bring themselves to vote Tory will stay at home.

I would imagine she's the single most important reason for anybody to vote Tory this time Glenn! 'remember Thatcher'?!?! I rem she turned the country and economy right around from desperate straits to profitability in about half a dozen years. All the whiners who criticise now are either on a mission or were victim to her stringent policies. Rem you cannot make an omelette without breaking eggs.

All the other Tory leaders have been fairly wishy washy and uninspiring. Given the state of the economy and the sh1t that we are going to have to endure to straighten up the account then I'd say we definitely need another Iron Lady.

[jim mk2]

Nick Clegg's showing in the first TV debate was a surprise and completely wrong footed the Tory campaign. Even if Clegg gives a repeat performance and outperforms the flailing Cameron again the right-wing press will not give him any credit this time such is their fear of a split anti-Labour vote and the prospect of a hung parliament.

[LeChuck]

There is a reason why the Lib Dem’s haven't been near power for years and that is because their policies don't meet the views of the majority of the general public. All the polling shows that the majority of the public don't want to join the Euro, that they want a control on immigration and they want fewer powers diverted to Brussels. The Lib Dem's are the most pro European of the parties, they want to join the Euro and their immigration plans are too soft and ineffective. Some of these voters are in for a real shock.

The Lib Dems have said that it is not the right time to join the Euro, but think that it is eventually a good idea. Any decision would be put to the public first. Labour have also said in the past that they can see advantages to joining the Euro when the time is right.

Immigration isn't something that I really want to get into, because relative to everything else it's not important. However, they want a points based system (similar to Aus) as well as wanting to create a border control with authority similar to the police. They only want to increase the cost of work permits for employers to encourage them to employ British workers, else pay for their training.

You're being very condescending in your approach to would-be Lib Dem voters. It's likely that your friends just aren't very clued up. Many, many people will vote Labour because the Conservatives are evil, and many people will vote Tory because they've been brought up in the middle classes. You make it sound like voters of other parties are all clued up about policies and manifestos, nothing could be further from the truth.

If anything, voting for a party based on the fact you think one man would make a better leader than two others is better than voting for a party based on ill-placed allegiance. Obviously neither would be ideal.

[thenodrog]

Given Farage's performance on HIGNFY, it wouldn't be much of a debate, the man could be outwitted by your average cheese sandwich. In comparison he makes Boris look like an intelligent, composed. polished public speaker.

Glenn The TV debate is a load of misleading garbage and HIGNFY is just a satirical skit. Never mind Farage I'd hardly imagine St Margaret would have come across too well in that scenario. Do you?

Anyway it's all rather sinister imo. Why it should matter how a person performs on telly in a live debate to anybody other than a couch potato fan of the X Factor baffles me? Mark my words they'll be using blipverts to snare our votes soon.

[Glenn]

I would imagine she's the single most important reason for anybody to vote Tory this time Glenn! 'remember Thatcher'?!?! I rem she turned the country and economy right around from desperate straits to profitability in about half a dozen years. All the whiners who criticise now are either on a mission or were victim to her stringent policies. Rem you cannot make an omelette without breaking eggs.

All the other Tory leaders have been fairly wishy washy and uninspiring. Given the state of the economy and the sh1t that we are going to have to endure to straighten up the account then I'd say we definitely need another Iron Lady.

I'm sure the 1 in 8 that were unemployed under her (1 in 5 for younger people) wouldn't agree.

[Majiball]

Out of curiosity which party is going to increase funding for universities??

Have to say i don't pay any attention to politics so not really up to speed on whats what.

[thenodrog]

Nick Clegg's showing in the first TV debate was a surprise and completely wrong footed the Tory campaign.

Whereas Brown and Labour were fully expecting Cleggs showing I suppose? In which case showing himself up poorly in front of the nation was obviously purely tactical? Is Brown's best hope to go for the sympathy vote Jim?

[LeChuck]

Out of curiosity which party is going to increase funding for universities??

Have to say i don't pay any attention to politics so not really up to speed on whats what.

There is barely anything said about it. All Labour and Tories say is to consider Lord Browne's review. That means nothing to me but I assume you'll know what that is if it's an issue that concerns you. Lib Dems don't mention funding but say they would scrap tuition fees and get rid of Labour's stupid '50% of kids in university' aim - no wonder they want fees to go up again.

[RibbleValleyRover]

You're being very condescending in your approach to would-be Lib Dem voters. It's likely that your friends just aren't very clued up. Many, many people will vote Labour because the Conservatives are evil, and many people will vote Tory because they've been brought up in the middle classes. You make it sound like voters of other parties are all clued up about policies and manifestos, nothing could be further from the truth.

I didn't say every voter who is considering voting Lib Dem has just been swayed by Clegg's debate performance and that’s it. Of course there are some people who have looked at their policies and decided that’s who they want to vote for. From what I’ve seen and encountered there are a lot who have just watched the debate, like the man and they are going to vote for him- they have no clue what their policies are and what are the implications of those policies.

I read an interesting comment on the BBC website from an interview with someone from ComRes (a polling organisation), they have found in their polling something that backs up the view that some people like the man but have no clue what their policies are:

"#

1721: Andrew Hawkins from the polling organisation ComRes says the people who have switched their support to the Lib Dems in the past week are mainly under 45. They had been certain to vote but unclear which party to pick, he adds. There's a contradiction when asked about Nick Clegg, though - while he's the most-backed leader in terms of people supporting his ideas, he's bottom of the list when voters are asked which party's policies they understand."

Source- http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/election2010/liveevent/ -The 1721 time entry.

[LeChuck]

From what I’ve seen and encountered there are a lot who have just watched the debate, like the man and they are going to vote for him- they have no clue what their policies are and what are the implications of those policies.

I don't doubt that's the case for a lot of people, it's hard to argue otherwise given the large swing after the debate.

Many people will blindly vote Labour/Conservative as well though, especially in some areas. I don't see the difference really.

[Glenn]

Glenn The TV debate is a load of misleading garbage and HIGNFY is just a satirical skit. Never mind Farage I'd hardly imagine St Margaret would have come across too well in that scenario. Do you?

Anyway it's all rather sinister imo. Why it should matter how a person performs on telly in a live debate to anybody other than a couch potato fan of the X Factor baffles me? Mark my words they'll be using blipverts to snare our votes soon.

The reason I brought up HIGNFY is whilst it a topical news quiz slanted heavily towards comedy, many many politician have been on there and come away having presented a positive image of themselves. Farage is one of the few people who has been on there and come across so badly that you wonder how he manages to get dressed in a morning (both him and my likely MP Ed Balls have admitted they are unaware of their own parties policies in the last few weeks).

In many ways I agree with you, being able to come across well on TV does not make you qualified to be involved in the process of defining how the country is run, but sadly people don't have the time to read all the party manifestos in detail as they should (I've only skim read the three major ones). Then again, you're not voting for who you want to lead the country, or even which party, you are in theory voting for who you want out of your local representative in the house of commons, however due to the odd way party politics works, your MP has to support what his party tells them to, so why have constituency based votes at all? Bring in proportional representation, even if it will give a few nutters a voice.

[BuckyRover]

I'm sure the 1 in 8 that were unemployed under her (1 in 5 for younger people) wouldn't agree.

8m people in the uk of working age are economically inactive. The highest it has ever been.

[tony gale's mic]

The half truths and speculation are coming from you TGM.

The Conservatives are addressing the problems of supplying the drugs for, in particular, rarer cancers. They will continue to use the current system of drug reviews, but for the rarer cancer drugs, they want more weight adding to the needs and views of the Consultants who are already providing them and need to continue to provide them. Otherwise, all the people who survive now, will die. I've already told you that these are more costly because they can cost one million pounds or more to develop - and those costs can't be recovered from sales because of the limited market. These drugs are being regularly denied purely on cost, even though they fly through any "benefits" criteria. I've also given you the facts of how NICE have swayed the evidence about two drugs currently going through the appraisal stage.

How you can continue to tell us that these people who can live lives extended by thirty years or more, shouldn't have access to these drugs is totally baffling. You would just let them die? As for this "finite" sum of money, well the tories are saying they will fund these rarer cancer drugs from other funds. You say they wont but can't back that up. Who's telling the half truth?

For anyone to take the stance that people who can be given a full life, should be denied it is to be very honest, insulting.

I appreciate your posts TGM, but you obviously don't understand the current problems and you don't know the relevant facts. If you had a young child who would die within three years, but could live a normal life with the continuation of the current treatment, would you really be arguing this way?

Simple question for you: Two drugs are available that cost around £30000/year and extend life by at least 30 years. Should governments provide those drugs?

Oh for christs sakes den I realise this is an emotive topic for you but do not for one second put words in my mouth, especially when it's regarding a profession I am devoting my life to. I find that extremely insulting that you think that I, as a doctor, think that people should be wilfully denied a full life. I haven't reacted like this before but when you start implying I've said things when I have at no point have then it's something I take very personally when it's regarding my profession. And I'm sorry but being in my profession I have a considerably greater understanding of the economic pressures upon the health service as a whole, of the issues and the facts than you do, since your experience is limited to one small area, unless you work in the NHS day in and day out and see the way the system works then you can't possibly have that insight.

Yes you have an insight into the allocation of medications for rare cancers but you cannot see how that fits into the bigger picture.

Going back to my previous post..I'll tell you what I did say.

It doesn't say that any drug possible will definitely be available on the NHS and nor should it, as they could never keep promises like that - every drug MUST have a costs vs benefits review. They shouldn't just blanket allow any drug possible than any doctor anywhere wants to prescribe - there HAS to be some sort of regulation.

This in no way means that I think people with rare cancers should be denied drugs as you so wrongly asserted earlier, however it must be subject to costs vs benefits criteria just like anything else on the NHS.

Let me give you an example den. You know in America they give full body scans as a matter of course to scores and scores of patients? Does it save lives? Undoubtedly a few it does, you may well know that many cancers present with clinical features very late and people would have aggressive tumours found and operated on where they would be half dead by the time they presented.

Does CT/MRI scans cost money? Yes, they cost a hell of a lot of money so to whole body scan so many people would pose a crippling strain on our health service. However, America is a different model so that money goes out of insurance companies and people's own premiums and pockets rather than a public pot. In England we have a public model which means that we do the most, for the most. So could the money we use on whole body scans without a definite and precise clinical indication and saving a few lives by that is instead put into other areas of the health service and saving more lives in other areas. Therefore the man who dies because his colon cancer presented with symptoms very late and by then had metastasised is basically damned by this decision as he may well have had a whole body scan almost routinely, however that money can instead go on providing additional beds on coronary care unit for people who've just had severe heart attacks, and opening up a few new wards, and, amongst other things, providing expensive drugs for a small number of people who really need them so more people benefit from this decision than are harmed by it.

Now you cannot just rely on individual consultants to make those decisions. Yes they should recommend those drugs but you can't expect them to both have a deep understanding of their speciality and also have a complete in and out knowledge of the Trust's budget and also the relation of the Trust's budget to the national NHS pot as a whole. The second part doesn't come as part of their job description although they definitely require an appreciation of it. Therefore we have a system where an individual consultant makes a recommendation to a panel made up of health economists and other clinicians who have spent time getting to grips with those factors and can make a decision.

I appreciate your posts TGM, but you obviously don't understand the current problems and you don't know the relevant facts. If you had a young child who would die within three years, but could live a normal life with the continuation of the current treatment, would you really be arguing this way?

Simple question for you: Two drugs are available that cost around £30000/year and extend life by at least 30 years. Should governments provide those drugs?

Tell me den, what do you know about the state of the NHS currently, about health economics, about how much things (that aren't rare cancer medications) cost on the NHS? I don't know a huge amount about all three but as a clinician I know more than most. You use the most extreme example - there are young children being kept alive with scores of money approved by NICE up and down the country in the scenario you just described.

As regards your final question, I note that after an appeal those medications were provided. Now as I have said before, the committee may well have been wrong to deny you those medications on a cost basis and surely by the fact the appeal was turned successful it was an acceptance of this?

The bottom line den is that this picture is much bigger than you're making out. Either you take money away from other vital parts of the NHS where lives can be potentially saved, or you increase the size of the pot. One will adversely affect people in another area and may well cost lives of people with other conditions, and another will mean either increasing taxes or diverting more money to the health pot. Being someone on the left of the political spectrum who believes healthcare, along with education, should be our two biggest priorities I'm not in principle opposed to the first measure if it's done in a fair way, and definitely in favour of the second. I think the Government SHOULD be providing those drugs den, but unless we increase the total healthcare pot then it needs to be a decision made against how many lives could be saved spending that money elsewhere.

[JAL]

8m people in the uk of working age are economically inactive. The highest it has ever been.

Its a frightening amount, what with over a million 18-24 year olds out of this group, yet there are only about one million jobs available of which many of these are part time employment from a nation thats heading for one trillion pound defecit.

Superb! bring on the tax rises and lets feed the bankers, oh and the politicians.

[tony gale's mic]

8m people in the uk of working age are economically inactive. The highest it has ever been.

Yet more twisting of the facts from those on the right..

Doesn't that include the record number of people in higher education we have now?

By the way I'm not using the above as necessarily a brilliant thing since a lot of those are doing silly courses, but to come out with a statement like that ignores a massive amount of confounding factors, such as the number of students, the fact we most likely have a greater number of people working as carers than under Thatcher...

The current UNEMPLOYMENT rate right now is 2.5 million. The highest unemployment was under Thatcher was 4 million.

[LeChuck]

I notice Cameron is looking directly at the camera this time, obviously taking notes from Clegg's last performance.

[RibbleValleyRover]

Cameron winning this by a mile so far, plenty of time left though. Brown slightly better but Clegg has been poor imo.

[tcj_jones]

Shows how little I know about politics - I think Brown's been very strong and that Cameron has been destroyed on climate change and involvement in Europe. Clegg has also done better than I expected.

[broadsword]

The Lib Dems have said that it is not the right time to join the Euro, but think that it is eventually a good idea.

Completely off their rockers then.

Regarding immigration, I just read today that Kent's Borders Authority arrest teams will be reduced from two to one. Presumably to help with the deficit caused by the banking crisis. Not good.

4 million unemployed? I remember 3, but not 4.