2019 General Election Poll and Discussion

[Rick]

The NHS is in constant crisis not because of underfunding, but because the ageing population puts a greater demand on services by the year.
Every year there are more patients admitted through a&e, this year the increase is around 5%.
New methods of treatment are ever more expensive, and expectations of patients grow because of the development of science.

You can solve the demand on a service by funding it to meet the demand. The ageing population isn't a surprise, for decades we have understood we are going to have an ageing population and governments of all colours have not responded to it.

On the wider Labour point, it's almost as if this regime think they're going to get one bite of the apple and are going to try and do everything that they would want to do in a single term, because that's all they think they'll get. Broadband is such a strange target - a single nationwide supplier seems to have so many potential pitfalls.

I don't think the country is ready for all of this stuff at once - prove that nationalisation is going to work and is a credible option in the 21st century and build on it.

This intervention from Obama today was interesting, he was talking about the Democrat nomination, but I think it rings true to me for our election too.

 

[rob666]

Virgin would argue very strongly that open reach doesn't have a monopoly for broadband!
Hull has local broadband apparently...due to their historic independant communications...fifty quid a month for a second rate service.

I'm all for a single, national provider of all domestic services, and social housing, but the Tories screwed all that up with privatisation and the "right" to steal the quality social housing network.
Edit...sorry Rick, I responded before seeing your last post.
You can never meet the demand for NHS services...further demand will always be there due to the development of new treatments.
All parties have been aware of the "demographic time bomb"...not enough workers over time to pay for the expanding elderly population....for decades...I was taught it in my a levels forty years ago, but it was imagined that the tertiary economy would expand to fund support, and that expansion never fully happened.

Looking at the lack of movement in the polls...if we can trust the right wing press...it looks like Boris is going to walk it due to his successful wooing of sections of the Labour vote.
Vote Slaphead. ..it makes more sense.

 

[Benzin]

One would assume that any government owned broadband would be relatively basic speeds, and those who want ludicrous speed can pay for a Virgin/Sky/etc line instead...

Therein keeping the competition angle... Though other EU countries seem to have various state owned public services like trains and not come under much scrutiny...

The thing is the internet has become a necessity over the years, so allowing free stuff to every home is a good idea... The options for kids to go to a local library and use a computer are dwindling after all (wonder why that is?)...

 

[Rick]

One would assume that any government owned broadband would be relatively basic speeds, and those who want ludicrous speed can pay for a Virgin/Sky/etc line instead...

The difficulty with that is those companies would then have to operate in a space where there was a credible free alternative to compete with and you would potentially be unable to have a sufficiently large customer base to make it viable.

Edit...sorry Rick, I responded before seeing your last post.
You can never meet the demand for NHS services...further demand will always be there due to the development of new treatments.

There's some truth in that, but if you look at KPIs in the health service, that's not necessarily what's driving the issue. If you take a specific treatment or service like A&E, 60+ facilities have been downgraded or closed since 2010 and the 4 hour target remains out of reach for most Trusts.

 

[ChristmasPud]

Why aren’t sprinklers in high rises mandatory? Why isn’t removal of all toxic cladding on buildings below six storeys the standard? That is certainly a problem with safety standards set by the government.

Maybe those questions need to be asked, but now we're talking about hypothetical fires on 6 storey buildings where the spread could have been prevented by sprinkler systems, there havnt been any recent cases of this. Grenfell's cladding was already banned but used illegally, and the lack of sprinkler system played a 'relatively' minor part (sprinklers could have prevented spread from the flat to the exterior maybe, but the illegal exterior was the real danger, without that cladding it would never have engulfed the building).

There were certainly problems with the way the Tory council was running the Grenfell project, maybe you could argue their funding was so tight from the Tory government at time of the refurbishment that they cut corners and didn't care. Rees-Mogg's comments were also very stupid. But to point to any fire on any building and blame the Tories seems a bit of a reach? Just saying

 

[Stuntman707]

Maybe those questions need to be asked, but now we're talking about hypothetical fires on 6 storey buildings where the spread could have been prevented by sprinkler systems, there havnt been any recent cases of this. Grenfell's cladding was already banned but used illegally, and the lack of sprinkler system played a 'relatively' minor part (sprinklers could have prevented spread from the flat to the exterior maybe, but the illegal exterior was the real danger, without that cladding it would never have engulfed the building).

There were certainly problems with the way the Tory council was running the Grenfell project, maybe you could argue their funding was so tight from the Tory government at time of the refurbishment that they cut corners and didn't care. Rees-Mogg's comments were also very stupid. But to point to any fire on any building and blame the Tories seems a bit of a reach? Just saying

We're not talking about any fire on any building though. We're talking about high rise / apartments with cladding quickly spreading on fire.

 

[DiogoJ42]

These fires never would have happened if the Tories hadn't ripped out all the asbestos in the 90's.

 

[IanSR]

Internal sprinklers wouldn't have prevented Grenfell, the fire started by a window, melted the frame of that and spread outside from there.

Not using flammable cladding would have prevented the fire spreading in the way it did, but there is a difference between fire proof and fire resistant, and this is what happens when you have an industry that self certifies itself, this isn't necessarily the fault of the Tories either since the same thing happens in other countries.

Grenfells cladding was not banned either, in fact the same grade of cladding can still be used to cladd a building, so long as the building is lower than *six stories. (Again, I think it's six).

 

[ChristmasPud]

Grenfells cladding was not banned either, in fact the same grade of cladding can still be used to cladd a building, so long as the building is lower than *six stories. (Again, I think it's six).

Banned for the application it was used in I mean (high rise building). But yeah I agree.

The materials aren't inherently gonna create an inferno everywhere they go, but it's about right tools for the job and safe design. Clearly surrounding a tower block with aluminium that easily melts to reveal combustible innards and create a matchstick up the side of the tower was never safe.

As for whether the regulations should be tightened further, or why the inspections weren't reliable, that's what the inquiry *should* have dealt with in theory. The government has set out reforms for building safety and a new regulator too since then.

Not denying there were big failings with the Tory council over Grenfell, the opportunity to fight that was in the local elections in May. Who's to say a different government would have been bigger experts in construction and guaranteed no big fires happen ever again?

I lived in another country once where the construction standards were poor and tower blocks very badly maintained, Im grateful for what we do have in this country even though there's obviously learning to be had

 

[IanSR]

Yeah I know what you're saying, back when our landlord gave us a new kitchen some of the regulations they had to adhere to were crazy, with other stuff being so lax it'd leave you questioning your sanity.

 

[monkeyboy]

News just in.... labour giving free theme park entry for all by 2028.
But you still have to pay car park fees


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Rob]

This is why you should NOT vote for the Tories. I don’t care who you vote for, as long as it is not the same people who are allowing this **** to happen AGAIN, fully aware of the Grenfell disaster they caused. I plea to everyone; STOP VOTING FOR THIS SELFISH, NARCISSISTIC party who have caused nothing but death and division in the UK.

This sounds a bit like Trump blaming the Govenor of California for the wildfires over there..!

(I have not properly looked in to the facts of this fire in Bolton or the California wildfires, both you and Trump could well be right for all I know!)

 

[Lurker]

On the wider Labour point, it's almost as if this regime think they're going to get one bite of the apple and are going to try and do everything that they would want to do in a single term, because that's all they think they'll get. Broadband is such a strange target - a single nationwide supplier seems to have so many potential pitfalls.

I don't think the country is ready for all of this stuff at once - prove that nationalisation is going to work and is a credible option in the 21st century and build on it.

This intervention from Obama today was interesting, he was talking about the Democrat nomination, but I think it rings true to me for our election too.

It's a good point, you can't change everything at once. However, as the Labour budget is over 10 years, wouldn't it make sense that the string of privatisations would take 10 years too?

It's probably an underestimation too, but I don't think they were trying to say it would happen in a single term.

This sounds a bit like Trump blaming the Govenor of California for the wildfires over there..!

(I have not properly looked in to the facts of this fire in Bolton or the California wildfires, both you and Trump could well be right for all I know!)

High rise cladding fires can be prevented simply. Remove the potentially flammable cladding. This should have been done on all buildings after Grenfell. That this wasn't done, the rate old tower blocks had changes made, and the row over who was to fund it were problems the Tories created.

I don't blame them for the fire, accsidents happen. I partially blame them for not taking more proactive precautions.

 

[Rick]

It's a good point, you can't change everything at once. However, as the Labour budget is over 10 years, wouldn't it make sense that the string of privatisations would take 10 years too?

It's probably an underestimation too, but I don't think they were trying to say it would happen in a single term.

Yes, that's true, but wonder if the 10 year budget is an admission of how long this could take, or if it would be to make a second term easier to secure if they hadn't made sufficient progress.

A decade doesn't feel like a long time to do what they are suggesting, which I guess was the crux of my point. If they promised some headline stuff, but less overall, I think people would perhaps be quicker to buy into it. It comes across as a bit of a trolley dash at the moment.

If you take the railways, many of the franchises don't end until 202x - some as late as 2030, plus then you have the problem that few of them own any trains.

 

[Britford]

Regarding the NHS, I would largely (not fully) blame it on immigration.

The issue seems to be that there are more people entering the country faster than the NHS can hire staff so I can't really see how throwing infinite amounts of money at the problem would fix anything, Even if they automatically accepted all possible applicants as they come, they would still be outnumbered...the only fix I can see working is to deal with mass immigration.



...oh sorry, I forgot, we are not meant to talk about that!

 

[Rick]

Regarding the NHS, I would largely (not fully) blame it on immigration.

The issue seems to be that there are more people entering the country faster than the NHS can hire staff so I can't really see how throwing infinite amounts of money at the problem would fix anything, Even if they automatically accepted all possible applicants as they come, they would still be outnumbered...the only fix I can see working is to deal with mass immigration.

@Britford The NHS is being kept afloat by immigration of skilled labour, it's not suffering because of it. Most immigrants are in their 20s and early 30s, not prime age for bed blocking or having complex medical needs, but absolutely perfect for working night shifts caring, cleaning and doing all the stuff we can't supply workers to do ourselves.

Source

Moreso, the NHS employs ~1.2m people. 65,000 NHS staff in England are EU nationals - 5.5% of all staff. Overall, 13.1% of NHS staff are not British. That is not insignificant, it's actually pretty eye opening. Source

According to NHS Improvement, there are currently 39,500 nursing vacancies in the NHS in England. How can you possibly think that reducing immigration is going to help that number when a population of 500 million can come here tomorrow, if they chose to...? We still don't have enough people to look after an ageing population and properly staff an institution that is quite rightly the envy of so many nations. Our aspiration should be to meet the staffing shortage, not quell the patient demand because with a country with an age demographic like ours, you never will.

It makes me so mad to live in a world where the facts don't matter anymore, let alone the truth. For the record, I don't even enjoy responding to this stuff anymore, but not doing so gives all this babble legs.

The issue may 'seem' to be immigration, but your Daily Mail lied to you, I'm afraid.

...oh sorry, I forgot, we are not meant to talk about that!

We absolutely should talk about it, but many people aren't interested in having a discussion or debate. They only want to repeat a soundbite, a headline or a feeling, without looking at the evidence and coming to an informed view. It's very depressing.

 

[speedy]

@Britford The NHS is being kept afloat by immigration of skilled labour, it's not suffering because of it. Most immigrants are in their 20s and early 30s, not prime age for bed blocking or having complex medical needs, but absolutely perfect for working night shifts caring, cleaning and doing all the stuff we can't supply workers to do ourselves.

Source

Moreso, the NHS employs ~1.2m people. 65,000 NHS staff in England are EU nationals - 5.5% of all staff. Overall, 13.1% of NHS staff are not British. That is not insignificant, it's actually pretty eye opening. Source

According to NHS Improvement, there are currently 39,500 nursing vacancies in the NHS in England. How can you possibly think that reducing immigration is going to help that number when a population of 500 million can come here tomorrow, if they chose to...? We still don't have enough people to look after an ageing population and properly staff an institution that is quite rightly the envy of so many nations. Our aspiration should be to meet the staffing shortage, not quell the patient demand because with a country with an age demographic like ours, you never will.

It makes me so mad to live in a world where the facts don't matter anymore, let alone the truth. For the record, I don't even enjoy responding to this stuff anymore, but not doing so gives all this babble legs.

The issue may 'seem' to be immigration, but your Daily Mail lied to you, I'm afraid.


We absolutely should talk about it, but many people aren't interested in having a discussion or debate. They only want to repeat a soundbite, a headline or a feeling, without looking at the evidence and coming to an informed view. It's very depressing.

Your responses to this thread are top notch.

 

[Benzin]

Earlier this month my Grandad had a pretty major operation (which in of itself had been delayed due to a cock up on the original date), he ended up being sent home the next day due to a major road accident nearby... I was seeing them that weekend anyway and it was fair to say he probably shouldn't have been at home at that point...

It's issues like that which are the problem, sure they can't help an idiot going head first into a bus; but that they needed to send people home early when they should really still be in observation is a major issue...

 

[rob666]

Lots of my elderly punters have nhs appointment and surgery issues due to overload...
No back up when staff go sick for outpatient appointments.
Operations being repeatedly pushed back.
Life critical heart surgery being delayed by six months...
That hurt me, let alone the poor old bugger waiting.
Stuff that used to be free, but now pay up or naff off, for loads of different minor health matters.
Toes, ears, bad throats and repeated minor pain, go private or go home to doctor Google.
But it will all be better after the election.
Fully funded nhs.
Free teeth.
Many, many trees.
Free education.
Less tax.
More money.
Rainbows and unicorns every weekend.
Vote Slaphead.

 

[Lurker]

At least labour admit they'll be raising taxes to pay for it all.

Tories are keeping the tax cuts and making significant spending increases. So it's either lies or deficit increases, something the Tories are supposedly against.