[Archived] Election

[Paul]

Lib Dems are a joke. At least the Lab/Con parties have some form of conviction.

Soon to be added to.........................

[Hughesy]

Back to the real world and thus far I have only seen Liberal Democrat billboards in front gardens or people's windows- nothing for the other parties.

Well around Darwen & Bolton - iv only seen nasty Torrie ones!

I will be voting Labour all the way!!

[sleepyjack]

For the likes of The Sun and The NOTW to back the Tories exemplifies how bad life has become under Labour.

Both owned by His Majesty Rupert Murdoch, who couldn't give a monkey's what life is like as long as someone is making him more money.

[tony gale's mic]

the majlority of the media darlings have all appeared to loose faith in Brown, what does that say ?

For the likes of The Sun and The NOTW to back the Tories exemplifies how bad life has becoime under Labour.

Labour will tax anything they can if allowed and this cannot go on.

the country is ruined, they treat its citizens as second rate, they abuse power, they do not tell the truth anjd have been full of broken promises, that is why we must see them ousted on May 6th.

2010 and beyond with a labour ruling government is a bad thing for everyone in Britain.

I really hope that post isn't the extent of your political analysis as it could have been written by a twelve year old.

I will firstly say I am struggling to back anyone in this election; New Labour have been a disappointment on the whole (though much of this is because of policies the Tories would also have followed), reading between the lines of the Tory manifesto still shows a commitment to serving the few rather than the majority, and the Lib Dems seem to say theyre committed to public services on one hand whilst having their leader exalt the praises of Thatcher on the other. Thanks to this and the fact that the world including our country is still in the grip of an economic crisis means that it wont be the easiest of times no matter which party takes charge.

The NOTW and The Sun (well definitely The Sun anyway, not 100% on NOTW) were before 1997 pro-Tory. They are also owned by Rupert Murdoch whose right wing views are well documented and who backed John McCain in the last US election. They are populist papers and will always go to the side of whoever is ahead in the opinion polls. Their switch indicates nothing and if you seriously use the way two of this countries biggest joke papers move to signify how life in this country is like then you are severely misguided.

"Labour will tax anything if allowed" - they have made a pledge to not raise the income tax rate (although yes, pledges can be broken with any party), though they have not ruled out a rise in VAT - however the Tories have not ruled this out either. The Tories on the other hand will give a £1.2billion inheritance tax cut to richest 3,000 estates in the UK. The 50p top rate of tax which only affects the richest 1% will also be cut - there goes another £2.4 billion out of the public coffers. The same richest 1% will be able to get tax relief again on their pensions - another £3.5 billion out of the public coffers. But no, in an age when public money will be in short supply, tax CUTS on the richest minority are the wisest and fairest policy. Especially when all three parties are agreed that spending on public services that are at least supposed to benefit the minority will have to be cut.

the country is ruined, they treat its citizens as second rate, they abuse power, they do not tell the truth anjd have been full of broken promises, that is why we must see them ousted on May 6th.

This country is not ruined - like most Western economies it has taken a real beating over the last year and a half but recent independent reports have placed it one of the best placed to make it out of it too. Treat citizens as second rate? Unlike the party that introduced the Poll Tax? Abuse power, broken promises, not telling the truth - welcome to politicians. I can guarantee that whether Labour or the Conservatives get in power on May 6th, all three of the above will again be happening.

A Labour government may be a bad thing after May 6th but a Conservative government would be even worse.

[American]

Tell me Jim, you make some interesting comments, can I ask what your background is?

Murdoch hack.

[bazza]

Whatever your political persuasion may be; whether or not you have one; if wasted votes are in your mind; or you think voting would be useless because you would vote against the favourite in a safe constituency; or you are just too darn lazy to go to the poll; WAKE UP!

Make sure you DO go to vote, even if you don't fancy any of the three main parties. Vote for UKIP or Greens or BNP or Socialist Workers or an Independent. Failing that, spoil your ballot paper by writing on it "non of the above" or "pigs with snouts in trough" or whatever you feel.

This is one of the free-est countries in the world and we should revere our right to vote. If you don't, it may not be long before that right is removed from you.

Just imagine an 87% turnout with 5 million spoilt ballot papers.

[thenodrog]

Yeah, things are really as simple as that. More power to the bankers!

But by Browns own admission it's Labour who gave em too much unregulated power in the first place. Like em or hate em, and most people will choose the latter, the country needs the City to prosper. It's like a symbiotic relationship.

Tell me Jim, you make some interesting comments, can I ask what your background is?

His Dad voted Labour I'd imagine.

A huge percentage of the elecorate adopt the intellect of sheep when it comes to supporting a political party.

[thenodrog]

I really hope that post isn't the extent of your political analysis as it could have been written by a twelve year old.

I will firstly say I am struggling to back anyone in this election; New Labour have been a disappointment on the whole (though much of this is because of policies the Tories would also have followed), reading between the lines of the Tory manifesto still shows a commitment to serving the few rather than the majority, and the Lib Dems seem to say theyre committed to public services on one hand whilst having their leader exalt the praises of Thatcher on the other. Thanks to this and the fact that the world including our country is still in the grip of an economic crisis means that it wont be the easiest of times no matter which party takes charge.

The NOTW and The Sun (well definitely The Sun anyway, not 100% on NOTW) were before 1997 pro-Tory. They are also owned by Rupert Murdoch whose right wing views are well documented and who backed John McCain in the last US election. They are populist papers and will always go to the side of whoever is ahead in the opinion polls. Their switch indicates nothing and if you seriously use the way two of this countries biggest joke papers move to signify how life in this country is like then you are severely misguided.

"Labour will tax anything if allowed" - they have made a pledge to not raise the income tax rate (although yes, pledges can be broken with any party), though they have not ruled out a rise in VAT - however the Tories have not ruled this out either. The Tories on the other hand will give a £1.2billion inheritance tax cut to richest 3,000 estates in the UK. The 50p top rate of tax which only affects the richest 1% will also be cut - there goes another £2.4 billion out of the public coffers. The same richest 1% will be able to get tax relief again on their pensions - another £3.5 billion out of the public coffers. But no, in an age when public money will be in short supply, tax CUTS on the richest minority are the wisest and fairest policy. Especially when all three parties are agreed that spending on public services that are at least supposed to benefit the minority will have to be cut.

This country is not ruined - like most Western economies it has taken a real beating over the last year and a half but recent independent reports have placed it one of the best placed to make it out of it too. Treat citizens as second rate? Unlike the party that introduced the Poll Tax? Abuse power, broken promises, not telling the truth - welcome to politicians. I can guarantee that whether Labour or the Conservatives get in power on May 6th, all three of the above will again be happening.

A Labour government may be a bad thing after May 6th but a Conservative government would be even worse.

What rubbish. I really hope that post isn't the extent of your political analysis as it could have been written by a six year old.

Tell you what Tony Gales Mike if I was your father and had to help you choose a career I could do no better than advise you to become a politician.

[thenodrog]

Whatever your political persuasion may be; whether or not you have one; if wasted votes are in your mind; or you think voting would be useless because you would vote against the favourite in a safe constituency; or you are just too darn lazy to go to the poll; WAKE UP!

Make sure you DO go to vote, even if you don't fancy any of the three main parties. Vote for UKIP or Greens or BNP or Socialist Workers or an Independent. Failing that, spoil your ballot paper by writing on it "non of the above" or "pigs with snouts in trough" or whatever you feel.

This is one of the free-est countries in the world and we should revere our right to vote. If you don't, it may not be long before that right is removed from you.

Just imagine an 87% turnout with 5 million spoilt ballot papers.

I'm sure that there will be a low turnout and I would put money on the fact that there will be a record level of spoiled ballot papers this time. Many people are sick to death of the lot of em. As you say though there is a significant difference between not bothering to vote and spoiling the ballot paper. It's viewed as a protest rather than apathy. Everybody who can't be bothered really should register and spoil their paper.

[den]

Our NHS runs on a very finite amount of money. An organisation like NICE is entirely necessary otherwise we would run out of money at the drop of a hat. Do you have any idea about how much some drugs cost the NHS? If something prolongs someones life for a few months but costs £100,000 for the privilege is it worth it compared to how many lives it could save if that money is spent in other areas?

Yes I do actually

It's cost around £24000 a year to keep me alive for the last 16 years - just for the drugs, never mind transplant etc.

The good chaps at NICE deemed that I shouldn't have that treatment initially and thought I should be allowed to die. Only after appeal did they change their minds. The drugs I was talking about earlier are an improvement on the drug I take and are desperately needed by people who don't respond to my drug - but cost £32000/year for the first ten years while the patent is valid. These drugs are comfortably expected to give many people 30 years or more extra life. You think in this age of modern, targeted Cancer drugs that we should be letting these people die? The money is there - it's all about priorities. Other European countries and the USA supply these drugs

Don't believe everything you hear from Governments or NICE.

[tony gale's mic]

What rubbish. I really hope that post isn't the extent of your political analysis as it could have been written by a six year old.

Tell you what Tony Gales Mike if I was your father and had to help you choose a career I could do no better than advise you to become a politician.

You see theno the difference between me and you is that I followed up that opening line with some actual facts and some solid points, whereas you seem to be unable to....

[tony gale's mic]

But by Browns own admission it's Labour who gave em too much unregulated power in the first place. Like em or hate em, and most people will choose the latter, the country needs the City to prosper. It's like a symbiotic relationship.

Because the Tories represent more control over the banking sector, right? You need to think before you post..

Yes I do actually

It's cost around £24000 a year to keep me alive for the last 16 years - just for the drugs, never mind transplant etc.

The good chaps at NICE deemed that I shouldn't have that treatment initially and thought I should be allowed to die. Only after appeal did they change their minds. The drugs I was talking about earlier are an improvement on the drug I take and are desperately needed by people who don't respond to my drug - but cost £32000/year for the first ten years while the patent is valid. These drugs are comfortably expected to give many people 30 years or more extra life. You think in this age of modern, targeted Cancer drugs that we should be letting these people die? The money is there - it's all about priorities. Other European countries and the USA supply these drugs

Don't believe everything you hear from Governments or NICE.

The money isn't always there - yes you won on appeal (and I'm glad to hear you did) but this just shows it was a pretty close issue. Our NHS is running at a massive loss and is under increasing stress due to an ageing population. Right now the key problem with the NHS is an over reliance on middle managers but this isn't something that NICE are involved with as they solely deal with the therapeutics side of things and are given a finite budget. If you say it's all about priorities then where do you think their priorities lie outside of providing live saving medications?

Your main ire should be with the pharmaceutical companies who spend far more of their budget on advertising and marketing than they do on research and development of their drugs and who are so profit driven that they won't allow generic copies of their HIV antiretroviral drugs to be sold in Africa (a practice that is common with antibiotics or painkillers etc), instead insisting on charging the same amount they would over here for those drugs, thus costing the lives of god knows how many people each year. There's much more to this issue than just some people on a panel not letting you have your drugs because they don't want to give you them.

[only2garners]

Personally I've never understood the point of the Liberal Party. They are mainstream and not reactionary / revolutionary in any way. They well know that they won't ever get near the big two so what on earth do they offer apart from wishy washy policies that are based in possibility rather than reallity and expounded by third rate politicians?

I'd suggest the very real fears and deep misgivings over a hung parliament from the real worlds of business and finance etc etc are cos the Lib Dems might actually for once have a whip hand in governmental decisions.

Where do I start with this? Why can't they be mainstream? In any sensible electoral system they would be involved in power - 1 in 5 of voters supports them, even in a system which means they are unlikely to win an overall majority unless one of the main two parties implodes. In what way are their policies wishy washy? You might not agree with them but they are the only party who are fully costing their proposals - Labour and Tory are both saying little about what cuts and/or tax increases they will introduce beyond some wishy washy headlines.

What on earth is there to fear about a hung parliament? What it will lead to is the need for compromise and therefore a set of policies more correctly matching what the country votes for. Most European countries seem to manage perfectly well with electoral systems which properly represent what the people want - most of them seem to be doing just fine. With a fairer system we might still have a manufacturing base not ravaged by Thatcher or a financial industry not torn apart by greed. Germany seems to manage fine with a proportional system.

What our current electoral system makes happen is that we end up with main parties who all sound remarkably like each other, because they have to have a broad appeal to win power. With a proper proportional electoral system we would see the growth of a wider range of political parties, all of whom could expect some representation in line with their support. If the 16 constituencies in Lancashire were 1 constituency with 16 seats, a party could expect to get a seat with c7% share of the vote. That would probably mean that BNP, UKIP and Green candidates may well get a seat. The idea of BNP and UKIP MPs personally fills me with dread but I can't deny that they have some support and should have representation.

[jim mk2]

What rubbish. I really hope that post isn't the extent of your political analysis as it could have been written by a six year old.

Rubbishing the content because you disagree with it is the mentality of a 6-year-old. How about backing up your infantile comments with some serious political analysis ?

A huge percentage of the elecorate adopt the intellect of sheep when it comes to supporting a political party.

On the other hand, a large percentage of the population have political convictions unlike those folk who have opinions on everything but sit on the fence or refuse to vote at elections. Your childish comments continue to do you no credit.

[thenodrog]

Rubbishing the content because you disagree with it is the mentality of a 6-year-old. How about backing up your infantile comments with some serious political analysis ?

You silly old bubgger! I was quoting TGM!

here.......

I really hope that post isn't the extent of your political analysis as it could have been written by a twelve year old.

I suggest that your criticism of his 'infantile comment' by definition must apply to him not me.

Baaa

Where do I start with this? Why can't they be mainstream? In any sensible electoral system they would be involved in power - 1 in 5 of voters supports them, even in a system which means they are unlikely to win an overall majority unless one of the main two parties implodes. In what way are their policies wishy washy? You might not agree with them but they are the only party who are fully costing their proposals - Labour and Tory are both saying little about what cuts and/or tax increases they will introduce beyond some wishy washy headlines.

What on earth is there to fear about a hung parliament? What it will lead to is the need for compromise and therefore a set of policies more correctly matching what the country votes for. Most European countries seem to manage perfectly well with electoral systems which properly represent what the people want - most of them seem to be doing just fine. With a fairer system we might still have a manufacturing base not ravaged by Thatcher or a financial industry not torn apart by greed. Germany seems to manage fine with a proportional system.

What our current electoral system makes happen is that we end up with main parties who all sound remarkably like each other, because they have to have a broad appeal to win power. With a proper proportional electoral system we would see the growth of a wider range of political parties, all of whom could expect some representation in line with their support. If the 16 constituencies in Lancashire were 1 constituency with 16 seats, a party could expect to get a seat with c7% share of the vote. That would probably mean that BNP, UKIP and Green candidates may well get a seat. The idea of BNP and UKIP MPs personally fills me with dread but I can't deny that they have some support and should have representation.

I'm not against proportional representation. In fact the only people who would shy away from it are prob the Lib Dems. They'd run a mile if they ever thought they would gain power.

[tony gale's mic]

I suggest that your criticism of his 'infantile comment' by definition must apply to him not me.

Baaa

No because I actually followed them with some actual political analysis.

Are you so dense?

[only2garners]

I'm not against proportional representation. In fact the only people who would shy away from it are prob the Lib Dems. They'd run a mile if they ever thought they would gain power.

Nice try, but you've made the incorrect assumption that I'm a Lib Dem supporter.

[den]

Because the Tories represent more control over the banking sector, right? You need to think before you post..

The money isn't always there - yes you won on appeal (and I'm glad to hear you did) but this just shows it was a pretty close issue. Our NHS is running at a massive loss and is under increasing stress due to an ageing population. Right now the key problem with the NHS is an over reliance on middle managers but this isn't something that NICE are involved with as they solely deal with the therapeutics side of things and are given a finite budget. If you say it's all about priorities then where do you think their priorities lie outside of providing live saving medications?

Your main ire should be with the pharmaceutical companies who spend far more of their budget on advertising and marketing than they do on research and development of their drugs and who are so profit driven that they won't allow generic copies of their HIV antiretroviral drugs to be sold in Africa (a practice that is common with antibiotics or painkillers etc), instead insisting on charging the same amount they would over here for those drugs, thus costing the lives of god knows how many people each year. There's much more to this issue than just some people on a panel not letting you have your drugs because they don't want to give you them.

It was a close run thing, you're right. NICE had decided that the drug in question wasn't the best use of NHS money. They didn't realise how good the drug was, because they take more notice of the costs, than they do of the clinicians. This drug is promising to keep people of all ages alive for at least 30 years, where they would have died after three years. It's already kept people perfectly well for 8 years who would have otherwise died well before now. How could this possibly have been a close run thing? NICE were wrong about it and it could have cost many lives.

The new drug that followed it, that has also been refused is already keeping people alive, who would otherwise already have died. One of them is a fellow Rovers fan and he's been on the drug for a year or two now and is doing really well on it. He's back to work and the future is good. Unfortunately, unless NICE change their mind, newly diagnosed patients will be refused the drug and will die unnecessarily.

As for the Pharmaceutical companies, it's not as straight forward as you suggest. These companies are responsible for the vast amount of Scientific research into new cancer drugs. Without them we would still medically, be in the 1940's. Having said that, the problem occurs where they develop cancer drugs for the rarer cancers. In that scenario, the development costs are extremely high, while the recovery of those costs is minimal. In fact, the Pharmaceutical companies actually lose money on a lot of these drugs. So it's simply wrong to broadly state that they charge too much for the drugs.

Why bring this up on the "election" thread? Well the tories are pomising to provide these drugs. Do we believe them?

[tony gale's mic]

It was a close run thing, you're right. NICE had decided that the drug in question wasn't the best use of NHS money. They didn't realise how good the drug was, because they take more notice of the costs, than they do of the clinicians. This drug is promising to keep people of all ages alive for at least 30 years, where they would have died after three years. It's already kept people perfectly well for 8 years who would have otherwise died well before now. How could this possibly have been a close run thing? NICE were wrong about it and it could have cost many lives.

The new drug that followed it, that has also been refused is already keeping people alive, who would otherwise already have died. One of them is a fellow Rovers fan and he's been on the drug for a year or two now and is doing really well on it. He's back to work and the future is good. Unfortunately, unless NICE change their mind, newly diagnosed patients will be refused the drug and will die unnecessarily.

As for the Pharmaceutical companies, it's not as straight forward as you suggest. These companies are responsible for the vast amount of Scientific research into new cancer drugs. Without them we would still medically, be in the 1940's. Having said that, the problem occurs where they develop cancer drugs for the rarer cancers. In that scenario, the development costs are extremely high, while the recovery of those costs is minimal. In fact, the Pharmaceutical companies actually lose money on a lot of these drugs. So it's simply wrong to broadly state that they charge too much for the drugs.

Why bring this up on the "election" thread? Well the tories are pomising to provide these drugs. Do we believe them?

Because there is a finite amount of money - yes NICE said your drug is now approved but it might mean they don't have the funds to fund the next expensive live saving drug that comes along. That's why these decisions are close run things.

And no, the companies aren't responsible for the vast amount of scientific research. The fine minds working for them have been responsible, and yes there is a subtle difference here. Yes there needs to be companies to provide the facilities and distribute these drugs, but they shouldnt be spending double what they spend on developing drugs on big wages for the bosses and marketing/advertising. It's an industry concerned with the lives of people yet operates entirely devoid of ethics. There is much room for them to still make a significant profit but to offer much lower prices for live saving medications however their focus lies on turning over profit with scientific breakthroughs very much in second place.

The fact is that the money that NICE spent will go far more on advertising and marketing the drugs back to NICE and the healthcare profession than it will for developing that drug or future drugs. What kind of model is that?

[berkshireblue]

Absolute bleeding cobblers and so wrong it must be a wind-up.

The economy is recovering strongly thanks to the QE policies of Brown and Darling and there is nothing to suggest in the latest manufacturing, housing market and high street spending data that a double dip recession is likely whatever the hue of the next government. By contrast, the Tory solution to the worldwide economic crisis was to sit on their hands and let British businesses (good and bad) go to the wall. To judge from comments I have read in the financial press, the City is not convinced by Cameron and is deeply unimpressed with shadow chancellor Osborne, so I doubt if they would be popping the champagne corks if the Tories were elected. I would also remind you that the excesses of bankers in the City has helped to bring this country's economy to its knees. Britain has an extremely unhealthy and unbalanced economy because the City which even the Tories have said faces stronger regulation to curb its excesses.

There is no point in arguing with anyone who uses the word Tory in their arguement ( Red through and through ) or thinks Brown and Darling have had successful policies

You are incorrect as recently as last week the city backed Cameron's plans over Darlings and Browns'

Jim I recall in another thread about London you detest the place yet here you want us to believe you have your finger on the pulse and are their ear peice?

Yeah, things are really as simple as that. More power to the bankers!

I was keeping it simple for people like you, but I obviously failed, where did I say more power to the bankers?

The reason they had more power is because a certain Chancellor now PM deregulated their powers, one unmitigated disaster!!!

My point was a healthy economy is the key to recovery and a healthy country means people working & spending generating a positive contribution rather than being in a recession with people sat on their arses receiving inflated payouts

[Hughesy]

So is it true that the Torries plan to scrap the cancer 2 week & 16 week rule? Replacing it with what?

[tony gale's mic]

There is no point in arguing with anyone who uses the word Tory in their arguement ( Red through and through ) or thinks Brown and Darling have had successful policies

Jesus...many Tories call themselves Tories. And dozens of leading economists who know far more than either you or me about these issues have backed their policies, while a recent independent report has said we're one of the best placed countries to make it out of trouble.

[berkshireblue]

Tell me Jim, you make some interesting comments, can I ask what your background is?

very funny Koi

Jesus...many Tories call themselves Tories. And dozens of leading economists who know far more than either you or me about these issues have backed their policies, while a recent independent report has said we're one of the best placed countries to make it out of trouble.

Tony

The problem is most major countries were showing signs of economic recovery while our position was worsening!!!

As with any business, company or country we are well over 12 months on so are going up against comparative figures which are the worst on record, so its amazing the UK is nt yet showing positive numbers against last year, dont kid yourself everything is suddenly going to be OK under this government, even against the worst ever growth and economic figures this time last year we are still not showing positive performance...

[tony gale's mic]

I was keeping it simple for people like you, but I obviously failed, where did I say more power to the bankers?

The reason they had more power is because a certain Chancellor now PM deregulated their powers, one unmitigated disaster!!!

My point was a healthy economy is the key to recovery and a healthy country means people working & spending generating a positive contribution rather than being in a recession with people sat on their arses receiving inflated payouts

And the Tories would have applied more regulation to the financial sector? For anyone to lament Brown's mistakes in deregulation of the banking sector and then on the other hand vote for the Tories shows a basic lack of understanding for what the parties represent.

It doesn't matter who was in power however and what regulations they applied, our country would have been in the grip of a financial crisis due to world events so it's just the extent of this crisis that's up for debate. But as this report indicates, the policies that this Government have enacted are taking us further towards recovery than the majority of our peers despite the mistakes that they made previously. Surely this indicates we're going in the right direction? Yes we came out of recession later but we're growing at a faster rate and I'd rather we had a slow start and a better recovery (which is arguably the outlook at least for now, though things can change admittedly) than not doing so badly early on and then struggling to pick up (which looks like happening with some of our European counterparts).

On one hand, you say that we should keep the City happy (and nothing annoys them more than Government regulation in their affairs), whilst on the other hand you're crying out for more regulation which actually goes against what the Tories stand for. It's a totally contradictory position.

There's far more to decide on this election than just "The City prefer the Tories, therefore the Tories should win". The City would prefer the Tories in ANY election as their policies will always favour those who work in the financial sector and earn the six to seven figure salaries common place there. That's not really an indicator of what is best for the economy and even then it'd be missing the dozens of issues over which an election is fought; from immigration to healthcare to education to the environment.

[Nafe_rovers]

Get ready for the lowest turnout since the First World War and who can blame folk after the absolute disgrace that was the 2005-2010 Parliament.

The don't people need to get out and vote Tory? After 13 horrendous years of Labour

http://media.conservatives.s3.amazonaws.com/manifesto/cpmanifesto2010_hires.pdf

http://www2.labour.org.uk/uploads/TheLabourPartyManifesto-2010.pdf

http://www.libdems.org.uk/our_manifesto.aspx

This basically shows what each party is going to do!