[Archived] Election

[tony gale's mic]

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!

No, it shows which party claims they're going to do....

[Nafe_rovers]

or 'claims'... whichever way you look at it.

[Hughesy]

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

Is that a statement or a question??

Horrendous why?

[jim mk2]

There is no point in arguing with anyone who uses the word Tory in their arguement

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

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

Tory is an old established and perfectly acceptable word for Conservatives that Tories themselves are happy to use http://www.trg.org.uk/

so I'm not sure what you mean by that. It seems a very odd thing to say.

Gordon Brown did not "deregulate" bankers' powers. When Labour came to power chancellor Brown gave power to the Bank of England to set interest rates, which formally had been the prerogative of politicians (to the detriment of the economy), which is completely different to the "Big Bang" 1980s deregulation of the City under Thatcher that has done so much damage to this country.

As for your third statement, this is plainly not true. The latest data shows the economy recovering from the world recession at a faster rate and in better condition than many of our competitors. This story appeared all the national newspapers. Read and learn.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/apr/07/service-sector-slow-growth-recovery

[Hughesy]

The latest data shows the economy recovering from the world recession at a faster rate and in better condition than many of our competitors. This story appeared all the national newspapers. Read and learn.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/apr/07/service-sector-slow-growth-recovery

I thought I had read something about that the other week....things people will do to pull a blanket over your eyes eh

[philipl]

Interesting development in Tory policies today. They are now:

Pro-EU

Pro-Bill of Rights

Pro-Mansion Tax

Pro-Increase in personal allowances at the bottom end

Pro-Tax increase to reduce deficit

Pro-Education investment in the poorest schools to reduce class sizes

Anti-Renewal of Trident

It must be true.

The Daily Torygraph has reported that David Cameron made a direct appeal to Liberal Democrat supporters today - telling them only a Tory government could deliver the kind of changes the third party was offering in its manifesto.

[modes98]

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

They want to scrap the targets which ensure that every patient is seen within a strict timescale and replace it with a funding system based upon outcomes, i.e. death rates. I don't claim to be an expert on cancer but surely hospitals will do there best to avoid taking on patients with the worst forms of cancer as they have a high percentage of ending up in death. It is just another Tory step towards a private health service.

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

Yeah because the Tory government before that was all sunshine and happy bunny rabbits. Labour has over seen a very good time, Brown should have been harsher on the control of banks but hindsight is 20/20 and all that.

[den]

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?

You are plucking arguments out of thin air TGM and completely evading the points.

Yes, there are concerns about the high costs of these drugs, but in the cases that I've mentioned the drug companies will never recover their astronomical R&D costs. Developing a new generation, genetically targeted drug costs millions. The drug I am on was the first such drug ever developed. It is supplied to a group of people suffering a rare form of Cancer, so there's absolutely no way they will do anything else but lose out on this one.

The point is, that the provision of drugs in this country is down to the Government of the day. They are currently hiding behind an independent body, who's job it is to advise the NHS trusts regarding whether any drug is, and I use their own words, "the best use of NHS funds". Two drugs that will give over 30 years of extended life to most patients are being denied as "not the best use of NHS money".

Now you say we can't afford these drugs, but they are provided to patients in every major European country, in the USA and in Scotland and Wales. The Tories also say they will provide any cancer drug if the Consultant recommends that they will benefit their patient. Our government or should I say NICE, wont, at the moment provide them. Why? Because there is currently a limit imposed by the government of £30000/year/ patient. This limit hasn't risen for quite a few years.

So, you say they aren't affordable, but they are affordable to virtually every civilised country outside England. The UK falls behind most European countries in Cancer success rates. There are various reasons behind this, but as long as NICE continue to deny the best, most modern treatments, it's not going to change much.

Hope everyone finds the discussion interesting?

[RibbleValleyRover]

I feel for you Den i really do. I especially find the fact that in Scotland and Wales they can get some of these drugs meanwhile those in England who contribute far more in terms in taxation than the rest of the UK an absolute disgrace.

In a way the government is shooting itself in the foot when it comes to prescribing these life prolonging drugs. Let’s say for example you have a cancer drug that has shown it can increase the lifespan on a patient for a decade or more. If the person is given that drug they could return to work so money is raising from taxation on their wages, they will spend money in the economy on food and various other goods and they could contribute to society.

I also find it morally wrong that there could be a drug out there that could prolong someone’s life, but it’s not given due to cost. The government should be doing more to get the cost of the drugs down for example give incentives or grants to businesses to get them to reduce the cost.

[berkshireblue]

Something to ponder re UK Politics;

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten

comes to £100; if they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would

go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.

The fifth would pay £1.

The sixth would pay £3.

The seventh would pay £7

The eighth would pay £12.

The ninth would pay £18.

The tenth man (the richest) would pay £59.

So, that's what they decided to do;

the ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the

arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve ball.

"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the

cost of your daily beer by £20". Drinks for the ten men would now cost just

£80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes.

So the first four men were unaffected.

They would still drink for free, but what about the other six men; the

paying customers?

How could they divide the £20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair

share?

They realised that £20 divided by six is £3.33. But if they subtracted

that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would

each end up being paid to drink his beer.

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to

reduce each man's bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was, to

follow the principle of the tax system they had been using, and he

proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.

And so the fifth man, like the first four; now paid nothing (100% saving).

The sixth now paid £2 instead of £3 (33% saving).

The seventh now paid £5 instead of £7 (28% saving).

The eighth now paid £9 instead of £12 (25% saving).

The ninth now paid £14 instead of £18 (22% saving).

The tenth now paid £49 instead of £59 (16% saving).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued

to drink for free. But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare

their savings.

"I only got a pound out of the £20 saving," declared the sixth man, he

pointed to the tenth man, "but he got £10!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a pound too.

It's unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!"

"That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get £10 back, when

I got only £2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "we didn't get

anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat

down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the

bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money

between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our

tax system works. The people who already pay the highest taxes will

naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction.

Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not

show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the

atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

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.

Tony I am not saying keep the city happy, that is not my point- A bunch of pin striped ###### most of them

I am saying a healthy economy driven by the city is what will turn the country around

Personally I have no faith in Brown or Darling, you may, thats the beauty of democracy

[Glenn]

Poll Added

[jim mk2]

I am saying a healthy economy driven by the city is what will turn the country around

A healthy economy is one that is balanced between manufacturing and services. Far better for Britain would be an export-driven recovery which thankfully is starting to happen. Future governments need to rein in the influence and excesses of the City.

[Bazzanotsogreat]

I feel for you Den i really do. I especially find the fact that in Scotland and Wales they can get some of these drugs meanwhile those in England who contribute far more in terms in taxation than the rest of the UK an absolute disgrace.

An excellent point and something the next government seriously needs to look at. Their seems to be a real inequality of health and higher Education provision in England in comparison to Scotland and Wales- whilst the English tax payer has to burden the expense.

The Barnett formula is outdated and unfair

A healthy economy is one that is balanced between manufacturing and services. Far better for Britain would be an export-driven recovery which thankfully is starting to happen. Future governments need to rein in the influence and excesses of the City.

What? like your man Brown has done?

Major manufacturing will all but disappear in the UK within the next decade and as a result, we will be more prone to minor recession.

[tony gale's mic]

You are plucking arguments out of thin air TGM and completely evading the points.

Yes, there are concerns about the high costs of these drugs, but in the cases that I've mentioned the drug companies will never recover their astronomical R&D costs. Developing a new generation, genetically targeted drug costs millions. The drug I am on was the first such drug ever developed. It is supplied to a group of people suffering a rare form of Cancer, so there's absolutely no way they will do anything else but lose out on this one.

The point is, that the provision of drugs in this country is down to the Government of the day. They are currently hiding behind an independent body, who's job it is to advise the NHS trusts regarding whether any drug is, and I use their own words, "the best use of NHS funds". Two drugs that will give over 30 years of extended life to most patients are being denied as "not the best use of NHS money".

Now you say we can't afford these drugs, but they are provided to patients in every major European country, in the USA and in Scotland and Wales. The Tories also say they will provide any cancer drug if the Consultant recommends that they will benefit their patient. Our government or should I say NICE, wont, at the moment provide them. Why? Because there is currently a limit imposed by the government of £30000/year/ patient. This limit hasn't risen for quite a few years.

So, you say they aren't affordable, but they are affordable to virtually every civilised country outside England. The UK falls behind most European countries in Cancer success rates. There are various reasons behind this, but as long as NICE continue to deny the best, most modern treatments, it's not going to change much.

Hope everyone finds the discussion interesting?

Comparing our country with the USA is churlish to say the least - we rationalise healthcare by doing the most for the most, whereas in the USA they provide top quality healthcare for the few that can afford it, average healthcare for a certain proportion and then next to nothing for at least 20% of the population, so yes the drug would be available there but only for a few. Next we move onto the part of Europe with perhaps the best healthcare systems in the world - Scandinavia - but there they have taxes that would make some people's eyes water together with a smaller population which allows for a much more manageable health service.

This £30,000 per life figure isn't just used by NICE. It's also used for the Department of Transport when constructing road schemes for example. I know when something personally affects you it's very easy to stick to one side of an argument, but when looking at it from an objective point of view there NEEDS to be a figure like the £30,000 QALY (Quality Adjusted Life Year) used by NICE. Hospital consultants have to sit in therapuetics meetings where they justify to their Trust the cost of treatments they are giving to patients too - and I'm pretty sure that those meetings will have very similar parameters and so I very much doubt that this would majorly change things. Hospital consultants have to think of cost too when prescribing medications; if they don't the NHS would get into even bigger a financial hole than it is now.

I know you might find it difficult to accept that someone may put a price on your life, but when there are finite resources and there are tens, probably hundreds of thousands of people in this country needing very expensive treatments to keep going how else do you recommend these decisions are made?

And you say these pharmaceutical companies spend millions on R&D for these drugs yet in the same breath mention the astronomical amount it will cost the health service to provide it? Surely this indicates they won't be making such a big loss on these drugs after all? These companies are not charities; if they have no hope of making a profit they would not be developing these drugs in the first place.

[jim mk2]

Major manufacturing will all but disappear in the UK within the next decade .

Despite the efforts of Mrs Thatcher Britain is still the sixth largest manufacturing nation in the world and continues to innovate and thrive thanks to the hard work and diligence of its people. There is no evidence whatsoever to support your statement

[tony gale's mic]

I also find it morally wrong that there could be a drug out there that could prolong someone’s life, but it’s not given due to cost. The government should be doing more to get the cost of the drugs down for example give incentives or grants to businesses to get them to reduce the cost.

More half truths...It is more the fault of the pharmaceutical companies than the Government. These very incentives already exist under the umbrella of NICE and thanks to them we pay less for some drugs than many of our peers do. See: http://www.nice.org.uk/aboutnice/howwework/paslu/patientaccessschemesliaisonunit.jsp

[Bazzanotsogreat]

Despite the efforts of Mrs Thatcher Britain is still the sixth largest manufacturing nation in the world and continues to innovate and thrive thanks to the hard work and diligence of its people. There is no evidence whatsoever to support your statement

Jim, public companies can no longer afford to pay the overheads that manufacturing a product in the UK costs.

Take JCB as an example; to build a medium sized tractor it would cost 65-75% of the retail price to simply bloody manufacture the thing in the UK. However, in their plants in India/China that figure is somewhere between 20-30%- with little discernable difference in quality.

As for your apportioning of blame towards Thatcher ;unfortunately the mines had to close- it was, however conducted in the wrong way. Blair destroyed the UK manufacturing base with his obsessive neo-liberal outsourcing ideals.

[jim mk2]

As for your apportioning of blame towards Thatcher ;unfortunately the mines had to close- it was, however conducted in the wrong way. Blair destroyed the UK manufacturing base with his obsessive neo-liberal outsourcing ideals.

The mines did not have to close, but that is another argument. The destruction of the manufacturing base started long before Tony Blair, in 1979 to be precise when Thatcher declared war on the trade unions and decimated in the ensuing years much of Britain's industrial capability in the process. The recent recession has highlighted the folly of basing an economy on "financial services". As I stated, Britain remains a leading manufacturing nation, despite the efforts of politicians.

[broadsword]

Gordon Brown did not "deregulate" bankers' powers. When Labour came to power chancellor Brown gave power to the Bank of England to set tinterest rates, which formally had been the prerogative of politicians (to the detriment of the economy), which is completely different to the "Big Bang" 1980s deregulation of the City under Thatcher that has done so much damage to this country.

When New Labour came to power they did indeed transfer power to set interest rates to the BoE. They also changed the UK's financial regulatory system, bringing in the FSA and promising a "light-touch" regulation. Light touch as in barely there.

New Labour's failure to bring to heel the financial services sector will go down as one of their biggest mistakes. Together with ceding control of interest rates (an important social control) to the Bank of England, they announced their arrival as a middle-class friendly party happy to consign its heritage (Clause 4 anyone?) to the dustbin in order to secure the strategic votes they needed to secure power.

You can go on and on about what the Tories did in the Eighties (and let's face it, you do you boring old windbag), but no corrective action was taken by "New Labour", the "brand" that has become contaminated. The country has had enough of them, they lost their political compass long ago -- Barbara Castle once warned Blair that deriving principles from populist action would lead to trouble -- and the only reason that they won't be consigned to the dustbin is that they and the Tories are seen to occupy more or less the same central ground.

Politics in the UK is in trouble. When Tony Blair took potshots at the Major regime and assured voters that Labour wouldn't be like that other lot, he didn't foresee the expenses scandal, Mandelson, Mittal, Robinson, Gorbals Mick, Dr David Kelly, John Prescott with his pants down, Iraq, Afghanistan, South Korean oil companies ... for a "pretty straight kinda guy" his administration was mired in sleaze.

The Tories unleashed the beast that is the city, New Labour wouldn't tame it (although they have stayed true to their roots by frittering money away like it's Monompoly money), so who really runs the country? Not the guy in Number 10.

A hung parliament with a substantial number of votes for minority parties is what I'd like to see. I'm sick to the back teeth of Labour and I've heard enough of politican's promises in the past not to believe that the Cponservatives have really changed.

[John]

Thing is with Labour, it was not so long ago that members of the cabinet were plotting to get rid of Gordon Brown.

It is heavily speculated that Ed Balls will replace Darling as Chancellor if Labour were somehow to remain in power - makes me shiver....

Labour have helped created part of the mess we are in and are asking for another chance to repair it.

[BiggusLaddus]

Public finances are in an almighty mess. Whoever gets in, there WILL be another budget this year and it WILL both put up taxes and cut spending. The deficit just has to come down.

To judge Labour and the Tories on their history; Labour are be more likely to hike the taxes up and the Tories are more likely to cut deeper.

In my personal opinion I pay far too much tax already and would prefer a bigger proportion of the savings to be made from cuts, so I'll probably be voting Tory. If you feel more benevolent then me vote Labour.

The last thing the country needs is a hung parliament. That would just mean 6-12months of indecision followed by another election.

[jim mk2]

A hung parliament with a substantial number of votes for minority parties is what I'd like to see. I'm sick to the back teeth of Labour and I've heard enough of politican's promises in the past not to believe that the Cponservatives have really changed.

A hung parliament is the least desirable outcome (worse than a Tory government) as the financial markets are likely to take fright at the lack of political direction and cause a run on the pound, potentially a disaster that could derail the economic recovery. We know you don't like Labour because, like an old gramophone record, you never stop saying so.

[broadsword]

I only do it to annoy you.

[philipl]

Here is an interesting little tool to match your attitudes to the parties.

Interestingly, when the lifelong Conservative columnist Andrew Sullivan did it, he came out more Lib Dem than Tory!

I scored 75% on the Lib Dem scale.

[Glenn]

This site does something similar

http://www.politicalcompass.org/