The 2015 General Election

[OutByEaster?]

Both Labour and Conservatives support TTIP which is a backdoor to privatisation, UKIP have actually come out and talked about privatising - the Greens are the only party that have committed to it, committed to pulling out of TTIP and want to bring us back to an NHS which is nearer to the way it was envisioned. On the NHS I'm all Green.

 

Labour still have a chance to re-policy and move to the place where the voters want somebody - the vote will move quickly for them if they do - our best hope for a decent Government might be in how quickly they can move.

[Mantis]

The NHS is just one of my issues for me. While it no doubt it deserves to be one of the most important, I don't really know why it's been elevated to the status that it's at now.

[PaulC]

I actually meant none as well tbf.

If you support UKIP you should be forced to have dinner with JulieB.

 

Lizzy Vaid I wouldn't mind!

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

I see the NI parties are trying to sneak their way onto national debates.

 

I look forward to seeing the DUP argue for the rights of some to march up a road, and for Sinn Fein to evade answering why on earth they are there when they boycott Westminster.

 

I guess they have a right considering both parties have more seats than UKIP, Greens & SNP.

 

But it just goes to show the absurdity of TV debates in the UK. This isn't a two party system.

Edited January 28, 2015 by CarewsEyebrowDesigner

[Mantis]

Really it should just be the Conservatives, Labour, Lib Dem, UKIP and Greens. Would be a bit silly to include UKIP and not the Greens and even more silly to include neither.

[chrisp65]

Really it should just be the Conservatives, Labour, Lib Dem, UKIP and Greens. Would be a bit silly to include UKIP and not the Greens and even more silly to include neither.

 

What would be the reasoning behind the greens being included but not parties with the same number of MP's or more?

[snowychap]

..

Edited January 28, 2015 by snowychap

[Mantis]

 

Really it should just be the Conservatives, Labour, Lib Dem, UKIP and Greens. Would be a bit silly to include UKIP and not the Greens and even more silly to include neither.

 

What would be the reasoning behind the greens being included but not parties with the same number of MP's or more?

 

Those other parties are based exclusively in only one part of the UK (e.g. the DUP only contest Northern Ireland, SNP with Scotland etc).

[chrisp65]

 

 

Really it should just be the Conservatives, Labour, Lib Dem, UKIP and Greens. Would be a bit silly to include UKIP and not the Greens and even more silly to include neither.

 

What would be the reasoning behind the greens being included but not parties with the same number of MP's or more?

 

Those other parties are based exclusively in only one part of the UK (e.g. the DUP only contest Northern Ireland, SNP with Scotland etc).

 

 

So, as an example, Plaid have 3 MP's in the House of Commons and are standing in my constituency in the general election. At the last GE Plaid got twice as many votes as UKIP and 7 times more votes than the Greens.

 

The Green Party are not standing in every constituency. Labour and the Lib Dems don't even enter candidates in Northern Ireland.

 

But the Green Party should be in the debate, and Plaid shouldn't? 

 

That doesn't appear fantastically fair reasoning to me.

[Mantis]

 

So, as an example, Plaid have 3 MP's in the House of Commons and are standing in my constituency in the general election. At the last GE Plaid got twice as many votes as UKIP and 7 times more votes than the Greens.

 

The Green Party are not standing in every constituency. Labour and the Lib Dems don't even enter candidates in Northern Ireland.

 

But the Green Party should be in the debate, and Plaid shouldn't? 

 

That doesn't appear fantastically fair reasoning to me.

 

I'm aware of the numbers but my reasoning has never been based on that. The parties are all vying to govern the United Kingdom, not just one part of it. Plaid and the SNP (and presumably the DUP as well) all build their policies around their respective nations rather than the UK as a whole. Not only that but I think 7 is a bit too many.

 

Just in case someone suggests it, I don't secretly want the Green Party in the debates because I think it'll make Miliband nervous - if anything I think Natalie Bennett could end up making Miliband look better than he actually is.

[bickster]

There should be regional debates for Wales, Scotland and NI, where each party sends a representative. So Labour would send the Shadow Welsh Secretary to the Welsh one for example (Though Millipede more likely to send the wrong person to the wrong country)

The regional parties have no real right to be heard by an entire nation but they should have the right ti be heard where they stand

[OutByEaster?]

With the need for alliances to form governments, some of those regional parties might have a massive say in running the country in a few months time.

[bickster]

With the need for alliances to form governments, some of those regional parties might have a massive say in running the country in a few months time.

Only one of them really (the SNP) and they won't vote on issues that don't affect their country. Plaid will only win 2 or 3 seats and the NI parties (9 Unionists, 3 SDLP, 1 Alliance and 5 SF who don't attend parliament), thats a ludicrous amount of participants if all the regional parties are to be included. Regional debates has to be the way around that. I also suspect putting the regional parties in will be a huge turn off for most. The Welsh want a debate with Plaid in, thats only right, Ditto the Scottish with the SNP. You put Plaid and the SNP in and you have to put all the NI parties in too, thats bordering on mental at that stage

[chrisp65]

Would you somehow stop people in these regions watching the 'main' debate where they are told 'these are the five main parties'? These are the guys that could win or influence the outcome? That doesn't feel right. Especially when there will be something like 150 constituencies where neither the Greens or the Lib Dems are standing. Perhaps they also should only be heard where they stand?

 

If the 'regions' were having a separate election then yes, I'd agree with that, but it isn't a separate election. You can't ask people not to watch the main debate because they'll have a little one later with the shadow minister for something coming along. That's either naive or patronising. I have a situation where I'm being told these are the main parties, that suggests these are the ones that could win or influence the result. Yet the greens might not even put up a candidate whereas Plaid already have and their votes in my area can have a direct outcome on the winner in a swing constituency in what will be a tight election.

 

To argue that a party will only get 2 or 3 seats and therefore shouldn't be in the debate is an interesting angle too. I'd suggest the Greens might get no seats at all. Perhaps that party with 2 or 3 might get 4 or 5 with a fair crack of the whip?

 

For me, in my particular area, the current proposal unfairly promotes two fringe parties.

 

We've managed to create quite a messy little system.

[markavfc40]

The NHS is just one of my issues for me. While it no doubt it deserves to be one of the most important, I don't really know why it's been elevated to the status that it's at now.

 

It’s been elevated to the status it has because when asked the majority of voters will say it is the issue they are most concerned about.

 

For the vast majority of people in this country the one public service they are almost certainly going to have to use within their lifetime is the NHS. Be it simply popping to see their GP over a minor issue or something major requiring a lifetime of treatment.

 

I don’t think I realised the importance of the NHS or the gravity of the situation it finds itself in until probably the last few years when I have unfortunately either directly or indirectly experienced much of it.

 

I am not going to go into every detail as I would bore the pants off people but the problems were probably most highlighted to me two and a half years ago. My mother in law, who was 55, was terminally ill with cancer and on the day she died she had a side room in hospital. We had been informed on the morning that she had just hours to live and they could do nothing more. To give my wife, father in law and her other close family some privacy I pretty much stood in the door way of that side room for around 8 hours that day. It was right next to the nurses station on something like a thirty bed ward. I had never witnessed anything like it. Nurses were darting around everywhere, things were being forgotten, my mother in law needed morphine which had been prescribed by the doctor during her rounds and she waited over 3 hours in agony as the doctor had forgotten to sign the prescription and nurses were that rushed off their feet they hadn’t had the time to chase it up. I left the hospital that evening after she had died and my overriding thought from what I had witnessed is that there simply were not enough nurses or doctors. It was that simple.

 

I don’t believe for a second that experience was a unique one. I never got the impression that what was happening was anything out of the ordinary and these were exceptional circumstances. It is just the way it is. I’d imagine that what I witnessed is happening on multiple wards across most hospitals in the country. In fact if what has been reported recently is correct then the situation has gotten much worse.

 

What I have stated above clearly relates to in patients but I also know that the outpatient situation isn't good and that getting to see a GP in a reasonable amount of time is getting more and more difficult. You then add in the fact that walk in centres have been, and continue to be, closed and that adult social care funding has been slashed meaning some elderly people who can go home from hospital can’t as there isn't the provision outside to provide care for them.

 

Over the last five years things have gotten worse in the NHS. Whether that would have been the case under a government with different colour ties I don’t know,  although under the Tories as with all public services under their watch things were always likely to deteriorate or be decimated. What I do know is that what is happening now can’t be allowed to continue as things that are already not good will only get worse. I am also not suggesting it is simply a case of extra funding being required. What is clear though is that this is a massive issue for any future government and one that they need to find the answers to as otherwise this country’s finest achievement is in danger of not being able to provide the level of care that we will all either directly or indirectly need it to.

Edited January 28, 2015 by markavfc40

[blandy]

Would you somehow stop people in these regions watching the 'main' debate where they are told 'these are the five main parties'? These are the guys that could win or influence the outcome? That doesn't feel right. Especially when there will be something like 150 constituencies where neither the Greens or the Lib Dems are standing. Perhaps they also should only be heard where they stand?

 

... You can't ask people not to watch the main debate because they'll have a little one later with the shadow minister for something coming along. That's either naive or patronising. I have a situation where I'm being told these are the main parties, that suggests these are the ones that could win or influence the result. Yet the greens might not even put up a candidate whereas Plaid already have and their votes in my area can have a direct outcome on the winner in a swing constituency in what will be a tight election.

 

To argue that a party will only get 2 or 3 seats and therefore shouldn't be in the debate is an interesting angle too. I'd suggest the Greens might get no seats at all. Perhaps that party with 2 or 3 might get 4 or 5 with a fair crack of the whip?

 

For me, in my particular area, the current proposal unfairly promotes two fringe parties.

 

We've managed to create quite a messy little system.

It is a messy sytem, in terms of the broadcasts. ANd I agree with some of your points, but there's one part that's just not right.

No one is suggesting "ask people not to watch the main debate" if they're in Wales or Scotland. They can watch away. As could people in England watch the Welsh or Scotch debate (either via terrestrial telly, if they are relatively close, goegraphically, or on the Satellites or on the internets. (Some of the debates are on Sky and/or  internets anyway, so not universally accessible).

The nationalist parties are by definition only standing in their nation/provinces, and while it's possible or likely they will have maybe a say in Government, maybe - they're not standing in anywhere but their home turf. The others are all standing in multiple parts of the UK - including Wales and Scotland

 

I guess the big problem is the thing becomes unworkable if there's a horde of party leaders in each debate - it wouldn't work, either as telly or as information on the parties.

 

So yes, mess.

[bickster]

Exactly Pete, they'd be additional region specific debates, a supplement to the national debates and not instead of. People in different regions could always access them if they so wished but one suspects the vast majority of people in other regions, even those with an active interest in politics, would choose not to watch.

[MakemineVanilla]

Surveys suggest that concern about the NHS is the main priority of the electorate.

 

But when compared with other countries the UK spends substantially less per capita on healthcare and stood 15th amongst the OECD in 2011.

 

The USA (1st) spend £5606 per capita while the UK only spends £2243 per capita.

 

The USA spends 17.7% of GDP on healthcare while the UK only spends 9.4%.

 

So why, if the electorate say that it is their main priority, isn't there a party willing to use that mandate to raise taxes to pay for something we are told the electorate demand?

 

Can't the electorate see that the main driving force for the privatisation of the NHS is their unwillingness to fund it properly?

[meregreen]

Both Labour and Conservatives support TTIP which is a backdoor to privatisation, UKIP have actually come out and talked about privatising - the Greens are the only party that have committed to it, committed to pulling out of TTIP and want to bring us back to an NHS which is nearer to the way it was envisioned. On the NHS I'm all Green.

 

Labour still have a chance to re-policy and move to the place where the voters want somebody - the vote will move quickly for them if they do - our best hope for a decent Government might be in how quickly they can move.

Not sure that is true. There was a Private members bill last November which proposed exempting the NHS from TTIP. The Labour party fully backed this, declaring that the NHS should be removed from the proposed deal. Haven't seen anything to indicate that stance has changed. Nor would I expect it to.

Edited January 28, 2015 by meregreen

[coda]

can we have a poll mods ?  be interesting to see how many kippers and Greens we have  ...

 

This.

 

I'd like to see how VT votes.