Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

comment by Sir Digby (U6039)
posted 6 hours, 32 minutes ago
green party means you might as well just not bother voting
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Which is more a fault in our current political system than anyone who wishes to vote Green. It massively favours a two party system.

The constituency I live in now is a safe Conservative seat, with them getting 50+% every election. Probably due to the high percentage of elderly who live near in the coastal villages in the area. Massive jokes on them when the Tories introduce pension cuts following the election to try to fund Brexit and manage the largest debt increase overseen by any government which has occurred on their watch.

As there is no point in voting tactically or even me voting at all, I will probably vote Green. Things I care about in no particular order:

- The NHS
- Public services being under public control
- An economy that doesn't just favour the elite
- Clamp down on tax evasion and avoidance from the rich and big businesses
- Climate change
- Renewable energy

It's a shame we don't have a proportional voting system so votes like mine aren't pointless. Then again, why would a country controlled by elites with an outdated political ideology, put in a progressive voting system that doesn't massively favour them?

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

comment by NPE - The New Romantic (U20804)
posted 4 hours, 13 minutes ago
Define cherry picking.

The way I see it, the NHS cherry picks all the time.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Good Grief ... you're in a discussion you know nothing about !

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

comment by AlwaysCalledTed (U21270)
posted 4 hours, 25 minutes ago
comment by AlwaysCalledTed (U21270)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by NPE - The New Romantic (U20804)
posted 7 minutes ago
Well, if it was under NHS you'd be stuck in A&E for 4 hours and have an 18 week for an operation.

Not the case in France, which runs much more effectively.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I can tell you horror stories about France and french hospitals. If you ever have a choice, and can pay, and know what you're doing, go to the USA.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But to be fair, I can tell you even worse horror stories about English hospitals and NHS surgery.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, this is certainly true. Given a choice between UK NHS and France, perhaps the latter is the better choice.
But neither are anywhere near the quality of the best medicine in the USA.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

comment by NPE - The New Romantic (U20804)
posted 5 hours, 51 minutes ago
comment by rossobianchi #EquipaLulaDaAlegria (U17054)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by NPE - The New Romantic (U20804)
posted 21 minutes ago
comment by rossobianchi #EquipaLulaDaAlegria (U17054)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by NPE - The New Romantic (U20804)
posted 1 minute ago
I don't think at any point i said i wanted a US system.

I referred to superior healthcare systems is Europe.

Debate the points you read, not what you wish you had read.

And actually the notion of the NHS being among the best is actually quite laughable.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Laughable in what way?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/nhs/10907823/Britains-NHS-is-the-worlds-best-health-care-system-says-report.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I see you and raise you this:

https://www.adamsmith.org/blog/healthcare/comparing-apples-to-apples-nhs-still-ranks-below-average
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The OECD report that that article is based on actually offers wide praise for the NHS.

It cites issues with administering a service of its type in a country of the UK's size, but explains that similar systems in smaller countries are amongst the very best in the world.

The WHO also believes the NHS to be amongst the best in the world.

http://www.who.int/whr/2000/media_centre/press_release/en/
----------------------------------------------------------------------

18th? For the 5th richest coutnry in the world? What an achievement

The NHS is inferior even on the report you show to superior continental structures.

And if you read the article it is a critique of the OECD.

More reading:

https://www.adamsmith.org/blog/uncategorized/how-to-fix-the-nhs-privatisation

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/nhs-overrated-system-private-healthcare-america-inefficient-developing-world-a7683541.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Half of the countries above the UK in the WHO report are much smaller and relatively tiny nations with higher GDPs per capita (Luxembourg, San Marino, Malta, Oman, Andorra, Monaco, Iceland, Switzerland).

18th in the world puts the UK well ahead of most comparable nations, including Canada, Germany, Australia and the US (37th).

I don't understand your comment on the OECD. The ASI article you posted relies heavily on data from an OECD report to back up its argument. The OECD report itself delivers strong praise for the NHS.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

The debt is increasing because the deficit still exists.

Slashing it has been slow tbf but it has gone down. However, as long as it still exists the debt will increase.

If the government were actually brave then they would give the welfare state a much needed reform and reduce the amount of benefits given out. Incredibly high sums of figures

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

comment by Brightdave: (U11711)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Super Kami Willy - Brexit means Brexit (U9880)
posted 5 minutes ago
The debt is increasing because the deficit still exists.

Slashing it has been slow tbf but it has gone down. However, as long as it still exists the debt will increase.

If the government were actually brave then they would give the welfare state a much needed reform and reduce the amount of benefits given out. Incredibly high sums of figures
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why not enforce tax on ANY of the vast range of companies that make billions from the UK that pay negligible tax to make mega profits in the UK?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In terms of losses to the public purse, corporate tax evasion and avoidance against the spirit of the law combined absolutely dwarfs the likes of the benefit fraud and health tourism we see plastered across the front pages of the tabloids every week.

I wonder why we don't see the Mail or Express run campaigns calling for the Govt to act on the former rather than the latter?

comment by Brightdave: (U11711)
posted 3 hours, 14 minutes ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Sir Digby (U6039)
posted 6 hours, 32 minutes ago
green party means you might as well just not bother voting
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Which is more a fault in our current political system than anyone who wishes to vote Green. It massively favours a two party system.

The constituency I live in now is a safe Conservative seat, with them getting 50+% every election. Probably due to the high percentage of elderly who live near in the coastal villages in the area. Massive jokes on them when the Tories introduce pension cuts following the election to try to fund Brexit and manage the largest debt increase overseen by any government which has occurred on their watch.

As there is no point in voting tactically or even me voting at all, I will probably vote Green. Things I care about in no particular order:

- The NHS
- Public services being under public control
- An economy that doesn't just favour the elite
- Clamp down on tax evasion and avoidance from the rich and big businesses
- Climate change
- Renewable energy

It's a shame we don't have a proportional voting system so votes like mine aren't pointless. Then again, why would a country controlled by elites with an outdated political ideology, put in a progressive voting system that doesn't massively favour them?

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Tam you make some very pertinent points. I suggest we kill all old people or at least scale their vote to the age of the voter. Therefore old people in your electorate would have less impact in their endeavour to vote conservative measures that generally protect them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

My point was about proportional representation, so those living in a highly imbalanced constituency still have a worthwhile vote.

It had nothing to do with giving old people less of a vote. It is just a fact that on the south coast, there is a high proportion of elderly people. If you are an elderly person living on the south coast you are more likely to vote for the Tories. These facts make voting pointless if you are voting for anyone other than the Tory party (unless you live in Brighton).

It's even more than that Tamwolf.

If you consider the wasted votes across the country, it'd actually be possible under our ridiculous system for the party with the largest share of the public vote not to win a single seat in the Commons.

The equally as ridiculous public when asked whether they'd like to move towards a system of proportional representation decided they'd prefer to stick with what we have, however.

I give up

The problem with PR voting is that coalitions are so much more likely. I think overall coalitions arent a good thing. The only positive is that the smaller party involved may be able to keep a lid on some of the more extreme policies. They can also put in place their policies which are good and dont have the chance to do so.

However when we had a coalition some good policies could have been stopped by the liberals. I am sure there were some.

Coalitions also can ruin party reputations e.g. lib dems.

comment by rossobianchi #EquipaLulaDaAlegria (U17054)
posted 15 minutes ago
It's even more than that Tamwolf.

If you consider the wasted votes across the country, it'd actually be possible under our ridiculous system for the party with the largest share of the public vote not to win a single seat in the Commons.

The equally as ridiculous public when asked whether they'd like to move towards a system of proportional representation decided they'd prefer to stick with what we have, however.

I give up
----------------------------------------------------------------------
tbf AV was a poor form of PR.

If we want to change voting systems it needs to be to a better one

comment by Super Kami Willy - Brexit means Brexit (U9880)
posted 8 seconds ago
comment by rossobianchi #EquipaLulaDaAlegria (U17054)
posted 15 minutes ago
It's even more than that Tamwolf.

If you consider the wasted votes across the country, it'd actually be possible under our ridiculous system for the party with the largest share of the public vote not to win a single seat in the Commons.

The equally as ridiculous public when asked whether they'd like to move towards a system of proportional representation decided they'd prefer to stick with what we have, however.

I give up
----------------------------------------------------------------------
tbf AV was a poor form of PR.

If we want to change voting systems it needs to be to a better one
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It was a more representative system. It would have resulted in improved voter equality.

All of the Nordic countries, France, Germany, Austria, the Benelux states, Australia, New Zealand, Portugal, Italy and the UK have all had stable, collaborative and co-operative coalition governments.

In fact, coalition government is now the norm in large parts of Europe, including in Scandinavia and Germany.

*vote equality

comment by Super Kami Willy - Brexit means Brexit (U9880)
posted 1 hour, 47 minutes ago
The debt is increasing because the deficit still exists.

Slashing it has been slow tbf but it has gone down. However, as long as it still exists the debt will increase.

If the government were actually brave then they would give the welfare state a much needed reform and reduce the amount of benefits given out. Incredibly high sums of figures
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Reducing the welfare state (which has already been done massively) would not benefit the economy much. People on benefits will tend to have extremely high marginal propensities to consume and so all the money they get is pumped straight back into the economy, funding businesses and shops in their area and thus essentially ends up straight back into the government purse.

Trying to slash the deficit by means of cutting government spending almost indiscriminately isn't really a good idea (see Paul Krugman, Simon Wren-Lewis, Brad DeLong and others for eminent, world-leading economists who explain in simple terms why it's not a good idea; see Eurozone and our economy for first-hand evidence of it failing to work). The concept of fiscal multipliers explains how certain public goods (top amongst them flood defences, which the Tories have slashed despite a FM of 7) generate more revenue over the long-term than they cost, so it is best for a government to invest in these things. Under Osborne, an arbitrary (and incorrect) FM was applied unilaterally to all public spending of (I believe) around 0.75, which even the right-wing IMF subsequently criticised robustly. Fact is that much government spending will benefit the economy and carefully managed investments in these areas should be made, rather than cuts.

Additionally, it's perfectly feasible to run a consistent budget deficit if your economy is growing well. The main concern is the overall debt level as a % of GDP, and if that remains stable you're absolutely fine. Running a surplus has its plus points, too, and at some point the UK will realistically need to do so to improve the fundamentals of the economy and decrease the debt interest burden. The time for that, however, is not when the economy remains fragile, faces the massive challenge of Brexit and interest rates are at a historically low level. Basic Keynesian economics suggests that now is the perfect time for some robust government stimulus.


All of the Nordic countries, France, Germany, Austria, the Benelux states, Australia, New Zealand, Portugal, Italy and the UK have all had stable, collaborative and co-operative coalition governments.

In fact, coalition government is now the norm in large parts of Europe, including in Scandinavia and Germany.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Coalition government when done effectively can be a very good thing, and as you mention works very well here in Scandinavia. Trouble with them in our system is it will be one established party dominating it + a tiny party who are their to be trashed, basically. If we had PR and the vote share was better represented by the number of seats, then coalitions could be far more balanced and effective.