Uk snap election

[drmarkf]

Yes, I detect we've actually all become a bit more mutually tolerant and respectful over the past year or so! One wishes the same was true across the whole country, but evidence suggests it hasn't.

Surely there's no harm in making our points as long as we recognize this is not the main purpose of this forum as a whole, and that we just agree to differ when necessary.

I agree she was the best option at the time, but my main concerns over May are that she's a control-freak* and a remarkably successful hypocrite**.

Time will tell, but I read the purpose of the current election call as "get in now while I'm still in the honeymoon period before all the bad sh1t is going to hit the fan".

*e.g. introducing all those privacy-destroying controls on digital media as a knee-jerk sop to the traditional tory voter despite the balance of evidence implying they'll open up opportunities for hacking while not increasing genuine surveillance of terrorists.

**all this concern in her speeches over the 'Just-About-Managing' at the bottom of the income heap, while every single measure her government has introduced so far benefits the well-off over the poor and disabled. [If anyone disagrees with that last sentence, I'd be very interested to hear of any genuine evidence that goes against it].
How long are people going to lap this stuff up? Presumably at least until June the 8th!

[Ulfric M Douglas]

Originally Posted by pandora

We saw Theresa May ...
I will be interested to hear your views.

Her face is too pale and she has horrible taste in shoes.

Mike Hookem for PM!
"Punch 'em until they fall down".

[Harold Gough]

Originally Posted by Naughty Nigel

Finally, can I remind everyone that the sign above the Lounge door reads: "Relax, take a break from photo and camera talk - have a chat about something else for a change. Just keep it clean and polite!"

That would suggest that we shouldn't be discussing photography here.

How often that is forgotten!

I'm looking forward to seeing what they promise in their manifestos. Great track record there!

Harold

[Harold Gough]

The timing is interesting, a few weeks after the Chancellor increased the tax on beer for the first time in 5 years.

Harold

[wornish]

Originally Posted by Zuiko

Surprisingly, despite 7 years of austerity economics that have failed to reduce either the debt or the deficit but have still wrecked our public services, the UK economy is not doing too bad - at least not until the full force of Brexit hits us and nobody can predict what might happen then.

My issues are more about how the burden of austerity is falling mainly upon the poorest and most vulnerable people, with savage cuts to disability benefits in particular. Also, the ruination of the NHS, with 24 (yes, 24) A&E departments set to close nationwide, including my nearest A&E in Chelmsford. Plus now they are planning to ration knee and hip replacements, resulting in much longer waiting times for surgery. I'm lucky I had my hip done when I did, a whole year of constant pain with severe restrictions in what you can do is more than enough for anybody, thank you. There are many, many other issues too, but I don't want to make this an overly long post.

It does, though, rather beg the question, if our economy is doing as well as you seem to think, why are these terrible things happening?

Believe it or not I totally agree.

My neighbour has just undergone a second hip replacement and it has changed her life, thats down to the NHS. But it just can't cope with the demands of a population that is living longer and increasing in size due to too rapid immigration.

But....

The NHS model needs a total re think, its not a sacred cow, we should not just throw more money at the same old system and expect miracles. In the UK we spend less on public health as a percentage of GDP than any other G7 ( maybe G20) country. You can't get water out of a stone.

This is beyond any political party and we need a full open review.
I get tired of all parties using the NHS as a voting platform. It needs sorting but I don't hold my breath.

[Naughty Nigel]

Originally Posted by drmarkf

I agree she was the best option at the time, but my main concerns over May are that she's a control-freak* and a remarkably successful hypocrite**.

Time will tell, but I read the purpose of the current election call as "get in now while I'm still in the honeymoon period before all the bad sh1t is going to hit the fan".

She is an MP. Most of them are hypocrites.

With regard to your second point, PM's nearly always call an election when they think they will have a good chance of getting back into power with an increased majority.

However, I suspect Gordon Brown may have been the exception to this rule when he called the 2010 election.

Originally Posted by drmarkf

**all this concern in her speeches over the 'Just-About-Managing' at the bottom of the income heap, while every single measure her government has introduced so far benefits the well-off over the poor and disabled.

I seem to remember similar rhetoric from Tony Blair. He was fond of splashing the cash, but only if it bought votes. Living in his constituency we saw very little benefit from his premiership or from Labour in general, but then this is a safe Labour seat.

Meanwhile, a neighbouring marginal constituency was given a brand new General Hospital that they wanted, but didn't need. It was fully equipped and fitted out, but became a geriatric care centre before a single operation had been carried out. Most of it has never been used.

[Naughty Nigel]

Originally Posted by wornish

Believe it or not I totally agree.

My neighbour has just undergone a second hip replacement and it has changed her life, thats down to the NHS. But it just can't cope with the demands of a population that is living longer and increasing in size due to too rapid immigration.

But....

The NHS model needs a total re think, its not a sacred cow, we should not just throw more money at the same old system and expect miracles. In the UK we spend less on public health as a percentage of GDP than any other G7 ( maybe G20) country. You can't get water out of a stone.

This is beyond any political party and we need a full open review.
I get tired of all parties using the NHS as a voting platform. It needs sorting but I don't hold my breath.

My example of the unnecessary General Hospital in our neighbouring marginal constituency is one example of why the NHS lacks the resources that it needs.

In my view education and health are far too important to be used as political footballs, and should be taken out of the political arena.

Surely it should be possible to appoint cross-party committees comprised of grown up MP's to run these departments?

[jdal]

Originally Posted by Naughty Nigel

My example of the unnecessary General Hospital in our neighbouring marginal constituency is one example of why the NHS lacks the resources that it needs....

In my botany class there are no less than 3 retired consultants + a GP. In the active members of our climbing club we have 1 emeritus professor of primary care, 2 more GP's, a senior A&E consultant, 2 paramedics and an A&E doctor. I have spoken to them at one time or other over the last few years. Whenever I talk about this stuff to any of them they seem to have an opinion of what is going wrong in the NHS and it isn't building a hospital, it usually ends up in a spot of rhyming slang. The lack of investment is exacerbated by one of Blair's neoliberal disasters - those disgraceful PFI contracts which are bleeding millions from the system. Having said that, I'd agree that the NHS does need to get smart and efficient, there are many inefficiencies which are glaringly obvious.

There is ample money in this country to care for our aging population. It needs the political will and it needs us to stop sending money abroad - I don't mean the EU by the way, have a look our balance of payments. We could have a look at the tax contribution paid by the richest in our society as well, there should be a few quid there.

That's enough incoherent ranting for tonight.

[pandora]

Originally Posted by Ulfric M Douglas

Her face is too pale and she has horrible taste in shoes.

Mike Hookem for PM!
"Punch 'em until they fall down".

Aw that's a bit unkind ... I love her hairdo !
If it were in my power I'd gladly swap your PM for ours.

[Wee man]

Mark some people may agree to a free transfer?

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

[dcbrookes]

I do not think this is a suitable subject for a photography forum, and is only likely to cause disagreement and ill feeling. Having said that I must say that I loathe and despise the Tories, but there are more suitable places to express that opinion.

David

[drmarkf]

One of my medical friends (who incidentally is at the opposite end of the political spectrum from me) has spoken for some years of the best way forward for the NHS, a Royal Commission.

As I understand it, this would remove the issue from political interference and its output could be made binding for, say, 5 years. The RC would take evidence from a whole load of sources, some specified by the government and others of their own choice, and they could have a remit that required them to choose from a wide range of funding options (like a hypothecated 2p on income tax, or an insurance based system, or flogging it all off to Beardy Branson, or whatever). Also they could opine on structure and management options.

Sounds reasonable to me.

[Ricoh]

Originally Posted by Ulfric M Douglas

Her face is too pale and she has horrible taste in shoes.

Mike Hookem for PM!
"Punch 'em until they fall down".

Go easy on her, she's not in the best of health. I read that she's type 1 diabetic.

[Ricoh]

Originally Posted by drmarkf

One of my medical friends (who incidentally is at the opposite end of the political spectrum from me) has spoken for some years of the best way forward for the NHS, a Royal Commission.

As I understand it, this would remove the issue from political interference and its output could be made binding for, say, 5 years. The RC would take evidence from a whole load of sources, some specified by the government and others of their own choice, and they could have a remit that required them to choose from a wide range of funding options (like a hypothecated 2p on income tax, or an insurance based system, or flogging it all off to Beardy Branson, or whatever). Also they could opine on structure and management options.

Sounds reasonable to me.

But any tax rise would have to agreed by parliament. I can't think of an independent agency who would be given the power to raise taxes.

[Ricoh]

Moving this healthy discussion onwards, anyone care to bet on the outcome... in terms of the number of seats after the general election. I'm guessing a conservative majority of 80 seats... at the very least. Followed by JC being debunked.