General Election 2017

[dAVe80]

2 minutes ago, colhint said:

doesn't the money go straight back to the NHS?

It does yes, however as is being pointed out it's being used to plug gaps in an underfunded system. Labour believe that this short fall should not be paid for by sick patients, their relatives, and the staff treating them. The short fall will instead be paid for, by increasing insurance premium tax on private health insurance.

[Rodders]

2 hours ago, dAVe80 said:

"Why does Corbyn keep playing Abbott?"

"We always get shit ref(erendum)s!"

 

 

"You don't know what you're doing!" (Universal application mind)

[ender4]

1 hour ago, darrenm said:

I expect some of it does. But it shouldn't be the source of the funding. My wife pays loads to park at her hospital car park, effectively reducing her salary, which is already a pittance compared to what it should be due to her level and years of service. And she's had no pay increases for 5 years.

The point about having to pay for parking at work... Where i work (in the private sector) the staff also have to pay for parking if they want to drive to work. 

Funnily, we work right next to a hospital, and its cheaper to park in the hospital car park than the multi-storey car parks, so some staff park in the hospital car park daily.

[ender4]

2 hours ago, Davkaus said:

While you may have read it in the Guardian, you've both misremembered the stat, and disregarded the fact that it comes as a quote from Jeremy word removed.

He says  the average Nurse's salary is 31k (there are of course plenty of NHS staff who earn less than Nurses).

Obviously there are no details on how that number has been arrived at. It almost certainly includes band 6 and 7 nurses, who are management that are still registered and technically nurses, but have no active clinical role. It also includes overtime, nurses aren't exactly known for their 40 hour weeks, so while 31k sounds like a half decent salary, if they're putting in a lot of extra hours to earn that, it obviously drags the hourly rate down from what you might assume it is at first glance. Then there's the London weighting dragging the average up as well.

Most nurses will be somewhere in the low to mid 20s without putting in a lot of overtime, which is still noticeably above minimum wage, of course.

Thanks for the clarification - i could only vaguely remember it, and didn't have any context around it.  

[darrenm]

4 minutes ago, ender4 said:

The point about having to pay for parking at work... Where i work (in the private sector) the staff also have to pay for parking if they want to drive to work. 

Funnily, we work right next to a hospital, and its cheaper to park in the hospital car park than the multi-storey car parks, so some staff park in the hospital car park daily.

Fair point. It's why it's never really come up as a specific problem for her. It wouldn't be so bad if the pay was in any way reasonable.

[dAVe80]

It seems that the Labour, Lib Dem, and Green activists have united and decided to back an independent candidate, to stand against Jeremy Hunt. The Greens have withdrawn their candidate, and Labour, and the Lib Dems have agreed not to campaign, and urged voters to vote for a doctor, who is running as an independent. 

That's what I'm talking about! Well done all involved!  

[Xann]

On 06/05/2017 at 23:20, coda said:

The former is enabling the latter. Perennial opposition with this crew in charge of Labour.

Anyone suggesting a change in direction away from $ worship and towards pacifism will be painted as 'unelectable'.

The fact that he's got off his arse to protest in what he believes in, rather than worrying about what Murdoch thinks of him, or the state of his shares portfolio puts him in good stead in our household.

 

[blandy]

23 minutes ago, Xann said:

Anyone suggesting a change in direction away from $ worship and towards pacifism will be painted as 'unelectable'.

The fact that he's got off his arse to protest in what he believes in, rather than worrying about what Murdoch thinks of him, or the state of his shares portfolio puts him in good stead in our household.

Can't disagree with that.

It's not all there is to it though. There are other factors which mitigate against him massively.

He is incompetent.

He is a terrible leader.

He would be a terrible pm.

Most parties policies, as declared, promise to do nice things, and they either don't mention the nasty things, or they lie and fudge about them. Free hospital parking and a few days bank holiday, plus taxing a few rich people a bit extra does not make any kind of argument for a Labour government. Basic competency and ability to work with people and persuade people who are not naturally supportive to work with you and an ability to adapt as the situation changes, to deal with "events" - these are all pretty much critical. Corbyn doesn't have those things. His choice of people to form his top team is truly appalling. Abbot and MacDonnell are diabolically bad. Len McLuskey, his funder is equally appalling.

Being "not the tories" (as vile as they are) is not enough to get him elected, and he doesn't desrve to be elected. He won't be elected.

 

[Xann]

2 minutes ago, blandy said:

Being "not the tories" (as vile as they are) is not enough to get him elected, and he doesn't desrve to be elected. He won't be elected.

Then you get the government Pie described yesterday and Hopkins stays.

Nice work.

I'd rather it all burned.

[markavfc40]

@blandy Pete given your political views I'd genuinely be interested to know given a straight choice of continue under the Tories with almost certainly more of the same, and some, or Labour with Corbyn as PM who would you choose?

Edited May 8, 2017 by markavfc40

[Davkaus]

Quote

Being "not the tories" (as vile as they are) is not enough to get him elected

You're almost certainly right, but it's enough for my vote.

Unless we ever get some form of PR, in most constituencies, a vote for anyone other than Labour basically is a vote for the tories

[MakemineVanilla]

1 hour ago, Xann said:

Anyone suggesting a change in direction away from $ worship and towards pacifism will be painted as 'unelectable'.

The fact that he's got off his arse to protest in what he believes in, rather than worrying about what Murdoch thinks of him, or the state of his shares portfolio puts him in good stead in our household.

 

When I try and envisage a Labour Party I could vote for with good conscience, the first thing on the list, is probably not what I would call pacifism, but more like 'not leading the way into military interventions'.

The hatred of dollar worship seems rather pious and puritanical but I would want a Labour Party which would protect the poor from taking on crushing amounts of debt, by introducing regulation.

I'd also like some form of usury laws with the same aim in mind. 

It is Labour's obsession with internationalist concerns while they neglect such nuts and bolts policies, which is just one of many things wrong with the present party.

It amounts to telescopic philanthropy and it's no wonder that old Labour voters think they have been forgotten.

Edited May 8, 2017 by MakemineVanilla

[HanoiVillan]

28 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

You're almost certainly right, but it's enough for my vote.

Unless we ever get some form of PR, in most constituencies, a vote for anyone other than Labour basically is a vote for the tories

Can I get an 'amen'?

[blandy]

51 minutes ago, Xann said:

Then you get the government Pie described yesterday and Hopkins stays.

Nice work.

I'd rather it all burned.

Correct. That's what will happen. That's what happens when a useless weak opposition is so bad, that the failing, nasty tories get a free ride.

[Xann]

3 minutes ago, blandy said:

Correct. That's what will happen. That's what happens when a useless weak opposition is so bad, that the failing, nasty tories get a free ride.

His party won't get behind him because they fear the wrath of the media.

If the voters backed Labour, the more able in their ranks would be prepared to come forward, but you just let the pricks in if you like?

 

[blandy]

3 hours ago, markavfc40 said:

@blandy Pete given your political views I'd genuinely be interested to know given a straight choice of continue under the Tories with almost certainly more of the same, and some, or Labour with Corbyn as PM who would you choose?

That's not the choice on offer (as I said on the previous page). Despite what Malevolent speak your weight machine T.May says, the choice is not between "strong and zzz under me or a coalition of chaos under Corbyn".

The choice I have is effectively nil. I live in a safe seat. Any voting I do is utterly wasted. I always vote against the tories, it's always utterly futile. I've voted Labour, Lib Dem, Green, Independent (based on who is reportedly closest in this seat to beating the tory). The tory gets in with a huge majority.

The only way votes like mine and those of millions of other people will ever have any effect is with a different electoral system. As I said the other day, the UKIPs got (last time) 12% of the vote and 0.16 % of the MPs. Similar skewing for the Greens, for Lib Dems and opposite skewing for SNP and Tories.. While the system is as utterly broken as it is we're doomed to have crises of the kind we've got now.

If somehow there could be a choice made by me between a Corbyn Labour Gov't or a May Tory Government....I dunno. It's a cop out to say Corbyn, because it exposes the weakness of the hypothetical question. I think Corbyn (and his chums) are utterly, seriously unfit for leadership. I think May and chums are corrosive, vile...

I'm worn down by it all. I want a different system. One where extremism and stupidity is tempered and stopped, one where one party dominates out of balance with the nation's views is not possible.

 

 

[blandy]

4 minutes ago, Xann said:

His party won't get behind him because they fear the wrath of the media.

If the voters backed Labour, the more able in their ranks would be prepared to come forward, but you just let the pricks in if you like?

His party won't back him because he **** useless. How am I letting the pricks in? He's letting them in - Corbyn is. He's so **** useless that people that have always voted Labour are abandoning Labour. In the North East, in the Midlands,  in Lancashire, Warwckshire, Derbyshire, every **** where. Corbyn - Theresa May's best weapon.

[Xann]

1 minute ago, blandy said:

His party won't back him because he **** useless.

You've seen him then?

[PompeyVillan]

Should you feel anti conservative but not wholly convinced by Labour then your only options is to vote tactically for the person/party most likely to beat the Conservatives.

In most cases that is Labour.

[blandy]

1 hour ago, Davkaus said:

You're almost certainly right, but it's enough for my vote.

Unless we ever get some form of PR, in most constituencies, a vote for anyone other than Labour basically is a vote for the tories

If only that were the case we might be able to sto pthe tories.

Even with the useless tube leading one side and an evil robot leading the other, there are probably about 10-15 % of the constituencies going to change hands (from Labour to tories). The rest, people will vote however and we'll end up with a larger tory majority - maybe 100 instead of 12. Most people's votes in most places don't matter.