General Election 2015

[ROSM]

The danger is that the politicking gets in the way of the solution.

No-one seems to have noticed that, this year, MORE patients are being treated in A&E in under four hours than were being treated in the same weeks a year ago. That's a success for the service, not a failure.

The problem is that many more patients are presenting themselves to A&E than should be the case. Why's that? It's because it is getting increasingly difficult to get to see a GP and people have no option but to show up at A&E.

I don't want to listen to politicians promising to throw more money at A&E. I want to see the crisis in the GP service recognised and someone in the NHS coming forward to solve it. And d'you know what? I reckon the solution might save the NHS money.

Absolutely - same with social care and end of life care so that the other 'end' of the process doesn't get log jammed

 

[spring hall convert]

It doesn't matter if people think along my lines. The Greens will attack Lab and Lib Dems far more effectively than CMD. As ROSM has said, the debate will have to happen and so any damage limitation by the Tories which is what bringing in the Greens will be, is good news for the Tories as I've already outlined.

Yup. Tory voters aren't going to be swayed by anything those "lefty-lunatic" Greens are saying. Lib Dems and Labour would have plenty to lose.

 

[Simster]

The danger is that the politicking gets in the way of the solution.

No-one seems to have noticed that, this year, MORE patients are being treated in A&E in under four hours than were being treated in the same weeks a year ago. That's a success for the service, not a failure.

The problem is that many more patients are presenting themselves to A&E than should be the case. Why's that? It's because it is getting increasingly difficult to get to see a GP and people have no option but to show up at A&E.

I don't want to listen to politicians promising to throw more money at A&E. I want to see the crisis in the GP service recognised and someone in the NHS coming forward to solve it. And d'you know what? I reckon the solution might save the NHS money.

Absolutely spot on, LB.

 

[spring hall convert]

Looking like a bottle-job is not a win in my mind. He is supposed to be the leader. Looking like a crafy shitter is much more damaging than actually doing the debate in my opinion.

Agreed but 90% of the elctorate don't care about that. Some of that 90% would watch the TV debates.

 

[Buzzer]

If the Greens are represented then who will they have as their person in the debate?

I know it's usually the leaders but given the relatively low profile the leader Natalie Bennett has compared to Caroline Lucas and that the Greens really, really need to keep hold of Pavilion then I'd go for Caroline Lucas. She's far better versed in rough-house debating, has plenty of gravitas and having her on the telly will raise her profile even further.

 

[Don Quixote]

Shouldn't even have TV debates. It isn't a presidential election.

 

[beorhthelm]

... It's because it is getting increasingly difficult to get to see a GP and people have no option but to show up at A&E.

is there a genuine crisis at GP level? myself and the missus haven't had to wait, i don't recall anyone in the family complain, nor work colleges say when taking a day off that they couldn't then be seen. is anecdotal evidence based on particular practices or people's expectations creating this narrative, or is it born out in objective study. like you point out about A&E, have there been an increase in use of GP's? too many questions, to much yaboo politicking shrouding the answers.

 

[Gwylan]

is there a genuine crisis at GP level? myself and the missus haven't had to wait, i don't recall anyone in the family complain, nor work colleges say when taking a day off that they couldn't then be seen.

I tried to get an appointment for my daughter this week and was told that none were available - first time that's happened since I've been back in Brighton

 

[spring hall convert]

If the Greens are represented then who will they have as their person in the debate?

I know it's usually the leaders but given the relatively low profile the leader Natalie Bennett has compared to Caroline Lucas and that the Greens really, really need to keep hold of Pavilion then I'd go for Caroline Lucas. She's far better versed in rough-house debating, has plenty of gravitas and having her on the telly will raise her profile even further.

Honestly and I absolutely hate myself for saying this but I don't think Bennett's accent will play too well with the majority of the electorate.

Lucas would clearly be the better bet but the leader can't hide. Perhaps she'd do a Clegg.

 

[Buzzer]

Honestly and I absolutely hate myself for saying this but I don't think Bennett's accent will play too well with the majority of the electorate.

Lucas would clearly be the better bet but the leader can't hide. Perhaps she'd do a Clegg.

Bennett could develop a 24 hour cold if she feels that Lucas is the better person for the debate but as you say, it should be the leader. The irony is that UKIP have the opposite problem - they need to wrap Farage up in cotton-wool just before any debate because if it's any other senior party member it could be a disaster.

 

[Buzzer]

Looking like a bottle-job is not a win in my mind. He is supposed to be the leader. Looking like a crafy shitter is much more damaging than actually doing the debate in my opinion.

Further to this, I've also worked out what the Tory response will be to claims of bottling it. Quite simply, they can ask Labour if they think the Greens should be represented. If they say 'yes' then the Tories can make grand speeches about 'positive and inclusive' political debate and ask Labour to join in the demand for the Greens to be there on the night. The Tories have then got the TV companies to ransom.

If Labour say 'no' or fudge the issue then they'll be wide open to claims of running scared or even that they are trying to fix the debate/they're not truly democratic etc etc.

 

[Triggaaar]

The danger is that the politicking gets in the way of the solution.

ALWAYS!

No-one seems to have noticed that, this year, MORE patients are being treated in A&E in under four hours than were being treated in the same weeks a year ago. That's a success for the service, not a failure.

The problem is that many more patients are presenting themselves to A&E than should be the case. Why's that? It's because it is getting increasingly difficult to get to see a GP and people have no option but to show up at A&E.

I don't want to listen to politicians promising to throw more money at A&E. I want to see the crisis in the GP service recognised and someone in the NHS coming forward to solve it. And d'you know what? I reckon the solution might save the NHS money.

Interesting points. I don't doubt what you say - do you figures for the number of people being able to see GP etc - why has that now become a problem?

 

[Gwylan]

The irony is that UKIP have the opposite problem - they need to wrap Farage up in cotton-wool just before any debate because if it's any other senior party member it could be a disaster.

Not sure that's true: Carswell is an accomplished performer - and one clearly at odds with Farage in a number of areas. Farage has a particular image, one that resonates with many people, but he also a large number of voters who view him negatively.

Carswell has less extreme views and less of the saloon bar manner about him. I can certainly see some tension between him and Farage at some point in the future.

 

[Buzzer]

This A&E debate really needs to take into account the cost to the taxpayer of alcohol abuse. I don't know the veracity of these figures but Alcohol Concern published these figures late last year:

A new map of alcohol harm published today has shown that the total number of alcohol-related NHS admissions, including inpatient, outpatient and A&E visits, hit almost 10 million in England during 2012-13.
The findings, taken from Alcohol Concern’s newly updated Alcohol Harm Map, show that whilst A&E admissions accounted for 6 in every 10 alcohol-related hospital visits, inpatient admissions were responsible for almost two thirds of the total cost burden.
https://www.alcoholconcern.org.uk/n...-related-admissions-england-nears-10-million/

There were 21 million visits to A&E in total so that means nearly a third of ALL A&E visits are alcohol-related. That there is a massive part of the problem and no amount of party politics is going to solve the problems of the NHS without addressing this massive issue.

 

[Buzzer]

Not sure that's true: Carswell is an accomplished performer - and one clearly at odds with Farage in a number of areas. Farage has a particular image, one that resonates with many people, but he also a large number of voters who view him negatively.

Carswell has less extreme views and less of the saloon bar manner about him. I can certainly see some tension between him and Farage at some point in the future.

I think Farage's appeal is, as you say that he doesn't speak like a politician. Carswell does, Carswell doesn't play down how posh he is and his default defence mechanism when under pressure is in the detail. He can appear nerdy whereas Farage will always just play to the gallery with his blokey persona.

 

[Gwylan]

I think Farage's appeal is, as you say that he doesn't speak like a politician. Carswell does, Carswell doesn't play down how posh he is and his default defence mechanism when under pressure is in the detail. He can appear nerdy whereas Farage will always just play to the gallery with his blokey persona.

Absolutely and Farage will sway a lot of people with it - including many who don't normally vote. But if a debate goes into detail - particularly about costing - then Farage gets bogged down (which is why he keeps saying things and then 'unsaying' them later)

It seems to be accepted that the debate will be good for Farage while everyone else struggles: I'm not convinced of this. When it's on the EU and immigration, he feels on safe ground, when the subject's something else, he bats it off or makes a joke. I'm not certain that will go down well in the debate

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Further to this, I've also worked out what the Tory response will be to claims of bottling it. Quite simply, they can ask Labour if they think the Greens should be represented. If they say 'yes' then the Tories can make grand speeches about 'positive and inclusive' political debate and ask Labour to join in the demand for the Greens to be there on the night. The Tories have then got the TV companies to ransom.

If Labour say 'no' or fudge the issue then they'll be wide open to claims of running scared or even that they are trying to fix the debate/they're not truly democratic etc etc.

If pressed Labour will obviously say yes and back and support/demand the Greens being involved. I'm sure they will do this quite publicly and also make a very public point of supporting it without the threat of withdrawal. If they get other parties to support this stand, which they most likely will, it will totally isolate Cameron and show him up for the bottler he is.

As an aside I feel we're over-analysing this. It's not that important in the grand scheme of things.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

This A&E debate really needs to take into account the cost to the taxpayer of alcohol abuse. I don't know the veracity of these figures but Alcohol Concern published these figures late last year:

A new map of alcohol harm published today has shown that the total number of alcohol-related NHS admissions, including inpatient, outpatient and A&E visits, hit almost 10 million in England during 2012-13.
The findings, taken from Alcohol Concern’s newly updated Alcohol Harm Map, show that whilst A&E admissions accounted for 6 in every 10 alcohol-related hospital visits, inpatient admissions were responsible for almost two thirds of the total cost burden.
https://www.alcoholconcern.org.uk/n...-related-admissions-england-nears-10-million/

There were 21 million visits to A&E in total so that means nearly a third of ALL A&E visits are alcohol-related. That there is a massive part of the problem and no amount of party politics is going to solve the problems of the NHS without addressing this massive issue.

If you ever have the misfortune to attend A&E on a Friday night you will not question this. I did once and it was hell.

 

[Gwylan]

This A&E debate really needs to take into account the cost to the taxpayer of alcohol abuse. I don't know the veracity of these figures but Alcohol Concern published these figures late last year:

A new map of alcohol harm published today has shown that the total number of alcohol-related NHS admissions, including inpatient, outpatient and A&E visits, hit almost 10 million in England during 2012-13.
The findings, taken from Alcohol Concern’s newly updated Alcohol Harm Map, show that whilst A&E admissions accounted for 6 in every 10 alcohol-related hospital visits, inpatient admissions were responsible for almost two thirds of the total cost burden.
https://www.alcoholconcern.org.uk/n...-related-admissions-england-nears-10-million/

There were 21 million visits to A&E in total so that means nearly a third of ALL A&E visits are alcohol-related. That there is a massive part of the problem and no amount of party politics is going to solve the problems of the NHS without addressing this massive issue.

This is spot on.

I was at a conference a few months ago about technology in healthcare. There was a bloke from the NHS talking about how technology could help solve some of the funding gap but he said that much of the cash crisis could be sorted out if there were more preventative measures.

Obviously, alcohol is a biggie (which is why so many health bodies want a stiffer tax) but there's also obesity, the rise in diabetes and the large volume of respiratory illnesses - many of these could be reduced if the right measures were introduced (higher taxes on fatty and sugary food, cheaper exercise, more restrictions on motorists etc) but there's no political will from any of the political parties do to this

 

[Buzzer]

If they get other parties to support this stand, which they most likely will, it will totally isolate Cameron and show him up for the bottler he is....It's not that important in the grand scheme of things.

I think you need to take your red-tinted specs off for a moment. If it's not important then no-one will care about the debate and not too much will be made of the Tories insisting the Greens take part. If on the other hand there's a big deal made about a political party running scared during an election then obviously it IS important.

My view - for anyone interested in the next General Election then the TV debates are a must-watch. For the parties, I can assure you they will take them very seriously and regard them as of the utmost importance. And there's no way on earth that Labour will see Green participation in a live TV debate as a good thing and this, I think is partly influencing your view. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.