KC Cantiaci
pfm Member
Even though the Tories were the party IIRC that were offering the largest amount of money to be pushed into the NHS budget if they were to get into government?
UK Election 2015 (part II)
- Thread starter cooky1257
- Start date
- Status
Even though the Tories were the party IIRC that were offering the largest amount of money to be pushed into the NHS budget if they were to get into government?
See last para of my post #810 as to why that tenner would not be forthcoming.
That offer may no longer be on the table or caveated out of existence esp given the overall majority, manifesto commitments have been known to fall by the wayside.
The Eurosceptic tail will wag the dog. Lib Dems should have pointed out in the rural SW where they lost most of their seats that a vote for the Tories was for an EU referendum. The consequence of getting out is loss of nearly 700 million Euro Agricultural subsidy in Britain if next year is the same as 2013:
http://farmsubsidy.openspending.org/GB/2013/
http://farmsubsidy.openspending.org/GB/2013/
Derek Wright
pfm Member
Next step is to re organise the Constituencies, reduce the number of MPs to about 500 with a more even quantity of voters for each MP, that way we get rid of the imbalance between urban and rural constituencies.
I look forward to the reaction on PFM to this long overdue activity to get a fairer representation in Parliament.
I look forward to the reaction on PFM to this long overdue activity to get a fairer representation in Parliament.
pure sound
Trade: manufacturer/distributor
Well now they can do it. Let's see if it happens & where the money really does come from.
If we had to list 10 metrics illustrating the state of the country that we could quantify as of today, what would the 10 things be? It'd be interesting to look back at them in 5 years time & see where we've got to.
matthewr
spɹɐʍʞɔɐq spɹoɔǝɹ ɹnoʎ sʎɐld
On Twitter over the last 14 hours, John Niven has been very funny, smart and captured the moment with some beautifully crafted prose.
https://twitter.com/NivenJ1
@NivenJ1 said:
https://twitter.com/NivenJ1
MikeMA
pfm Member
Getting out of the EU will save us so much that we can subsidise the farmers ourselves, and still have plenty left over, according to some.
Ah but the Tories don't believe in subsidies.
Hook
Blackbeard's former bo'sun.
Some casual observations from afar...
If you add up the Conservative and UKIP votes, I think they outnumber the total for Labour, Lib Dem, SNP and Green combined. If correct, then the results of the UK election would seem to be representative, and the majority have spoken.
Here in the US, there are more total Democrat than Republican voters nationwide. Funny thing is, even in states where the Democrats are a majority, the Republicans still often win the majority of seats in the House of Representatives. It's because of gerrymandering. If a state elects a Republican governor, he can ensure that voting district boundaries are drawn in such a way so as to prevent serious challenge to incumbent Republican representatives. It is an insidious and pervasive practice.
But based on votes per seat, gerrymandering would appear to be somewhat less of a problem in the UK. Also, generally speaking, when it comes to electing leaders, it would appear that the UK is a more conservative country than the US.
If you add up the Conservative and UKIP votes, I think they outnumber the total for Labour, Lib Dem, SNP and Green combined. If correct, then the results of the UK election would seem to be representative, and the majority have spoken.
Here in the US, there are more total Democrat than Republican voters nationwide. Funny thing is, even in states where the Democrats are a majority, the Republicans still often win the majority of seats in the House of Representatives. It's because of gerrymandering. If a state elects a Republican governor, he can ensure that voting district boundaries are drawn in such a way so as to prevent serious challenge to incumbent Republican representatives. It is an insidious and pervasive practice.
But based on votes per seat, gerrymandering would appear to be somewhat less of a problem in the UK. Also, generally speaking, when it comes to electing leaders, it would appear that the UK is a more conservative country than the US.
There is no way any politician, least of all Cameron, is going to destroy the NHS. NHS spending rises by similar amounts under both Tory and Labour govts.
I cannot help but notice throughout this thread that a number of posters are suggesting that the electoral system is "broken", and needs changing. It's possible that this cry will be taken up more generally, although I don't think there will be many clamouring for it from within the House of Commons.
The last time this happened was I think after the 1974 election, when the Liberals under Jeremy Thorpe polled nearly 20 percent of the vote but only ended up with 14 MPs. This caused a hell of a fuss, and meant that changing the system entered the Liberal manifesto, where it remains, AFAIK. We now have yesterday's result, which inolves one party polling 13 percent of the vote with 1 MP, and another polling 3.8 percent of the vote, also with 1 MP.
I think it was Churchill who said that FPTP was the worst possible system, apart from all the others. It certainly has failings, but these are mitigated where there are relatively few parties (ideally, less than three). With more parties gaining popular traction in spite of the system, the failings become less tolerable.
Everyone with an opinion assumes that PR is the answer. But here in the UK, we like having MPs with a constituency link, and this makes any form of PR unnacceptable, not to mention over-complicated, and ultimately undemocratic, as the machinations required to form a government, far from enhancing representation, invariably amount to a conspiracy against the electorate.
I therefore think we should adopt the Henderson method.
The last time this happened was I think after the 1974 election, when the Liberals under Jeremy Thorpe polled nearly 20 percent of the vote but only ended up with 14 MPs. This caused a hell of a fuss, and meant that changing the system entered the Liberal manifesto, where it remains, AFAIK. We now have yesterday's result, which inolves one party polling 13 percent of the vote with 1 MP, and another polling 3.8 percent of the vote, also with 1 MP.
I think it was Churchill who said that FPTP was the worst possible system, apart from all the others. It certainly has failings, but these are mitigated where there are relatively few parties (ideally, less than three). With more parties gaining popular traction in spite of the system, the failings become less tolerable.
Everyone with an opinion assumes that PR is the answer. But here in the UK, we like having MPs with a constituency link, and this makes any form of PR unnacceptable, not to mention over-complicated, and ultimately undemocratic, as the machinations required to form a government, far from enhancing representation, invariably amount to a conspiracy against the electorate.
I therefore think we should adopt the Henderson method.
S-Man
StrivingON
There is a difference between cut-backs and what thebiglebowski was claiming - that everyone who voted Tory voted to get rid of the NHS.
I think most people who can would happily pay an extra £10 per week in tax if they genuinely thought it could fix the NHS and help those that really need helping. Sadly there seems to be no voting option that can achieve this.
ultrawomble
Sith Lord
Out of their hands already - TTIP will do it anyway.
KC Cantiaci
pfm Member
It is tricky of course and of course they should use Sterling if they are still part of the UK. But the situation at the moment is Scotland get a higher per person portion of the central budget so they can offer their citizens extras that the rUK can't/don't, like free prescriptions and tuition etc. This came up during the independence debates and is causing concern/envy in Wales and England.
As things stand, the SNP can't lose as no matter what happens, they either bask in the glory of offering good/better standards of living when things are going well or are able to blame someone else (Westminster/Tories) when/if things go bad. So either the whole of the UK has proportionately the same funding per person and allow the newly proposed devolved areas to spend as they see fit, which the SNP won't like/accept as the 3 stooges told Scotland the Barnett formula is staying. Or they get fiscal autonomy and allow the citizens of Scotland to choose whether they want a larger state in exchange for increased taxes.
Your concerns are valid IMO but if you think of the suggested solution to the EU problems, it's to bring the Euro members closer together. The nations within the UK are already close economically and politically and are looking to drift apart a bit as opposed to the likes of Germany and Greece who were/are at polar opposites. Scotland represents approx 8% of the UK in terms of population and tax take so if things were gong a bit awry, it should be manageable and easy to see as it would be in direct comparison to the performance of the rUK. It could show rUK the way??
Tw99
source last
Have these people forgotten that there was a referendum on changing it in 2011, and the result was a comprehensive vote to stay with the current system ?
That suggests to me that the country doesn't think the current system is too broken.
I'm all for a different approach in different parts of the UK to address different needs. For example, the pressing concern in London/SE is to build a lot more houses, relaxing the planning constraints.
As it stands at the moment, net subsidy to Scotland is about £14.6bn per annum. If that were to end overnight there would have to be something like 15p in the pound increase on income tax rates up there. This is not going to fly obviously. As long as oil stays below $100bbl the situation is unlikely to improve significantly.
Set against that £14.6bn, things like free University education and free prescriptions is just a redirection of the net subsidy.
- Status