Who will win the UK election ?

Loughton_Monkey

TheBlueHorse wrote: »

i don't know why we can't have a mixed govt, based on a system like this: Labour love the NHS and benefits and criminals etc, so you allow Labour to run the NHS, run the benefit system etc BUT the tories will be in charge of the funds. So, Labour will get an allowance, and they can spend it how they like on the NHS - but when the allowance runs out, that is that. It will be like teaching an idiot how to budget.

We have an independent Bank of England to promote "the good of the people" by maintaining monetary and financial stability.


For the life of me I don't know why we can't have an Independent NHS and a National Education Service. It would:

• Take the politics out of these two important issues.
• Introduce strong 'commercial' management for the first time.
• Allow forward thinking (>5 year parliamentary window) to introduce more fundamental long term change.
• Encompass a brief to 'regulate' Private Hospitals, but more specifically ensure that we are not thoroughly ripped off (as now) by paying NHS consultants to work minimum hours in NHS and swan off to earn another packet down the BUPA hospital....

Like any organisation, it would need to run itself within fixed budgets agreed by parliament. However, it would need to justify additional funding that it cannot access through efficiency savings.
The 'lefties' would rail against this, calling it "privatisation", but this would not contravene the 'free at point of delivery' mantra they hold dear. Nevertheless, I don't see why it shouldn't recommend a range of 'charges' in the future. We already have prescription charges. What about 'fines' for no-shows? What about charging for food in hospitals [if only they could make it edible]? What about £25 fee for out of optional hours service (ex accident & emergency).

padington

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

We have an independent Bank of England to promote "the good of the people" by maintaining monetary and financial stability.




For the life of me I don't know why we can't have an Independent NHS and a National Education Service. It would:

• Take the politics out of these two important issues.
• Introduce strong 'commercial' management for the first time.
• Allow forward thinking (>5 year parliamentary window) to introduce more fundamental long term change.
• Encompass a brief to 'regulate' Private Hospitals, but more specifically ensure that we are not thoroughly ripped off (as now) by paying NHS consultants to work minimum hours in NHS and swan off to earn another packet down the BUPA hospital....

Like any organisation, it would need to run itself within fixed budgets agreed by parliament. However, it would need to justify additional funding that it cannot access through efficiency savings.
The 'lefties' would rail against this, calling it "privatisation", but this would not contravene the 'free at point of delivery' mantra they hold dear. Nevertheless, I don't see why it shouldn't recommend a range of 'charges' in the future. We already have prescription charges. What about 'fines' for no-shows? What about charging for food in hospitals [if only they could make it edible]? What about £25 fee for out of optional hours service (ex accident & emergency).

I would vote for it. Why cant we take the politics out of politics and have experts running the ministries altogether.

antrobus

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

....For the life of me I don't know why we can't have an Independent NHS...

Something like NHS England, you mean?:)

padington wrote: »

I would vote for it. Why cant we take the politics out of politics and have experts running the ministries altogether.

What? You think that politicians actually run the ministries? I can assure you that ministries are run by the Civil Service. They would happily carry on running them even if there was no government at all.

Thrugelmir

antrobus wrote: »

That would require us all to agree on exactly what had to be done "for the good of the nation".

The core objectives are the same for who ever is in power.

Cyberman60

wymondham wrote: »

Thinking about who would/could win....


Surely in these days when it's unlikely that a single party will sweep in it says something, and that is the parties are blended with little to distinguish between them. It's all getting very samey red/blue/red blue etc....


The fact that a single party probably wont get in is a failure of politicians - nobody is coming up with the bright, fresh ideas to engage the electorate.


Where is the politician to be brave enough to:


Revamp the tax system - everyone knows its broke and overly complicated.
Clear up housing policy to one that works?
Sort pensions once and for all...
actually control immigration
feel free to add to the list of things they should be coming up with.....

The fact is that about 30% of the population will always vote Labour regardless of how well the government is doing under the Tories, because their parents did etc. That's a problem with those people rather than any MPs.

There are clear differences on EU, immigration, the economy, deficit reduction and positive welfare changes between Labour and the Tories. If you can't see that then that is your problem.

Cyberman60

Thrugelmir wrote: »

The core objectives are the same for who ever is in power.

I don't agree. The Tories core objective is a thriving economy and a relatively small efficient affordable public sector, leaving more money in people's pockets to spend as they wish.

That is clearly not Labour's.

ukcarper

Cyberman60 wrote: »

The fact is that about 30% of the population will always vote Labour regardless of how well the government is doing under the Tories, because their parents did etc. .

You can say the same about Tory voters.

Sapphire

Less so, I'd say – more Tory voters are well educated than labour ones (speaking generally, and ignoring the so-called liberal left of Islington, etc.). I wouldn't hesitate to move from one to the other (or Liberal Democrats) – and in fact I have done so, though I generally vote Conservative.

ukcarper wrote: »

You can say the same about Tory voters.

fordcapri2000

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

We have an independent Bank of England to promote "the good of the people" by maintaining monetary and financial stability.


For the life of me I don't know why we can't have an Independent NHS and a National Education Service. It would:

• Take the politics out of these two important issues.
• Introduce strong 'commercial' management for the first time.
• Allow forward thinking (>5 year parliamentary window) to introduce more fundamental long term change.
• Encompass a brief to 'regulate' Private Hospitals, but more specifically ensure that we are not thoroughly ripped off (as now) by paying NHS consultants to work minimum hours in NHS and swan off to earn another packet down the BUPA hospital....

Like any organisation, it would need to run itself within fixed budgets agreed by parliament. However, it would need to justify additional funding that it cannot access through efficiency savings.
The 'lefties' would rail against this, calling it "privatisation", but this would not contravene the 'free at point of delivery' mantra they hold dear. Nevertheless, I don't see why it shouldn't recommend a range of 'charges' in the future. We already have prescription charges. What about 'fines' for no-shows? What about charging for food in hospitals [if only they could make it edible]? What about £25 fee for out of optional hours service (ex accident & emergency).

Yes.. "bloody lefties" and let us not forget the big one, do away with the £25 Billion EVERY YEAR we pay for their housing.

Spidernick

Sapphire wrote: »

Less so, I'd say – more Tory voters are well educated than labour ones (speaking generally, and ignoring the so-called liberal left of Islington, etc.). I wouldn't hesitate to move from one to the other (or Liberal Democrats) – and in fact I have done so, though I generally vote Conservative.

I'm sure you could be just a little more patronising if you tried!