labour only 2 points behind in polls

[simmo]

This is the whole problem in a nutshell which I said in my post before. The whole Labour philiosophy is the philosophy and ambition of the ordinary, the average, the under achiever, the never will achiever. They just want EVERYONE to be poor or at least EVERYONE to be financially under the cosh which makes the government all powerful and keeps the electorate down and out. How DARE anyone in this country aspire to have a good education or aspire to become a successful businessman through his own efforts and hard work and not rely on the state. How bloody DARE they. This is Labour in a nutshell.

You can see by some of the answers on here of Labour supporters that they have been almost indoctroniated to think like this. Why does it matter that someone went to an exceptionally good school (and a good education), surely that should be a far better criteria that the individual can do the task of running the country than if he went to a poor school (and has a poor education)!

Labour almost offer the politics of pure jealousy, rather than commending, admiring those that have achieved something for themselves and aspiring for us all to make success in our own lives, they show their petty jealousy's all the time, an example of this is that almost every word and every policy put forward and proposed by deputy Labour leader Harriet Harman is that of pure jealousy (mostly against men!).

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Indeed. Unfortunately we live in an age where believing in standards, good behaviour, civility and decency are mocked and derided by a Liberal establishment and their acolytes in the media.

Many people work bloody hard to send their children to good schools. That is choice and they have made theirs. I know of a couple near me who worked every hour that God sends, hardly ever went out and devoted themselves to providing the best they could for their children. Their two sons are now successful professional people. No doubt some on here would say they are privileged. They are, priviliged to have had caring hard working parents that put their children before their own materialistic desires.

The two lads earn excellent money and they deserve it.

The slight flaw in your story is that it is fine if you have parents who are willing to do this. What about children who's parents do not, or are not able to, make these sacrifices?

This idea is all very well but it discriminates against people who's parents cannot, for whatever reason, provide this.

Give everyone a decent school....not choices, as it's only the children with savvy or able parents who then get the better deal.

 

[sten_super]

The slight flaw in your story is that it is fine if you have parents who are willing to do this. What about children who's parents do not, or are not able to, make these sacrifices?

This idea is all very well but it discriminates against people who's parents cannot, for whatever reason, provide this.

Give everyone a decent school....not choices, as it's only the children with savvy or able parents who then get the better deal.

This is a very nice idea, and I support the idea of raising standards across the board (who wouldn't) but ultimately, no matter how good schools are, there are going to be better schools and worse schools. Generally speaking, public schools are better because they are i) better funded, and therefore ii) able to attract higher quality staff (teachers) due to higher wages and iii) have better facilities.

There is this fantastic idea that everyone should have equal opportunities. It is a pipe dream. It is not practical or even possible to present everyone with the same opportunities in life. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't do everything we can to improve the lot of those less fortunate, but it does (IMO) mean that we shouldn't be looking to penalise the fortunate just because they are lucky.

 

[Common as Mook]

This is a very nice idea, and I support the idea of raising standards across the board (who wouldn't) but ultimately, no matter how good schools are, there are going to be better schools and worse schools. Generally speaking, public schools are better because they are i) better funded, and therefore ii) able to attract higher quality staff (teachers) due to higher wages and iii) have better facilities.

There is this fantastic idea that everyone should have equal opportunities. It is a pipe dream. It is not practical or even possible to present everyone with the same opportunities in life. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't do everything we can to improve the lot of those less fortunate, but it does (IMO) mean that we shouldn't be looking to penalise the fortunate just because they are lucky.

Word.

I would also add that the opportunity to send your kids to private school is something to aspire and strive towards. You could say it was an incentive if it mattered that much to you.

 

[drew]

You can see by some of the answers on here of Labour supporters that they have been almost indoctroniated to think like this. Why does it matter that someone went to an exceptionally good school (and a good education), surely that should be a far better criteria that the individual can do the task of running the country than if he went to a poor school (and has a poor education)!

Labour almost offer the politics of pure jealousy, rather than commending, admiring those that have achieved something for themselves and aspiring for us all to make success in our own lives, they show their petty jealousy's all the time, an example of this is that almost every word and every policy put forward and proposed by deputy Labour leader Harriet Harman is that of pure jealousy (mostly against men!).

So you wouldn't be concerned if the entire labour cabinet was made up of ex union shop stewards, maybe all from one particularly militant union rather than from a cross section of society?

Unlike Cherie and Tony Blair too.

Hasn't most of their wealth been created by themselves rather than inherited. How did Cameron and Osborne make their millions?

Just imagine the outrage and tantrums if people who went to public school started referring to these 'ordinary folk' as plebs and chavs.

Snobbery works both ways.

That's a good point. Perhaps Sir Nicholas Winterton could comment on this!

Indeed. Unfortunately we live in an age where believing in standards, good behaviour, civility and decency are mocked and derided by a Liberal establishment and their acolytes in the media.

Many people work bloody hard to send their children to good schools. That is choice and they have made theirs. I know of a couple near me who worked every hour that God sends, hardly ever went out and devoted themselves to providing the best they could for their children. Their two sons are now successful professional people. No doubt some on here would say they are privileged. They are, priviliged to have had caring hard working parents that put their children before their own materialistic desires.

The two lads earn excellent money and they deserve it.

Firstly, I believe in good standards of behaviour, civility and decency but that reinforces my leaning towards being a socialist.

As for your story about the two people working hard, that's great for them and their boys and good luck to them. They have earnt the opportunities they have given their children.

Labour voters will absolutely HATE that story.

Not at all. Perhaps that is your problem, you are so blinkered.

 

[simmo]

So you wouldn't be concerned if the entire labour cabinet was made up of ex union shop stewards, maybe all from one particularly militant union rather than from a cross section of society?

What??



Hasn't most of their wealth been created by themselves rather than inherited. How did Cameron and Osborne make their millions?

Again your pure jealousy comes through in this reply. Jealous of the fact that Cameron and Osbourne come from wealthy families.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

This is a very nice idea, and I support the idea of raising standards across the board (who wouldn't) but ultimately, no matter how good schools are, there are going to be better schools and worse schools. Generally speaking, public schools are better because they are i) better funded, and therefore ii) able to attract higher quality staff (teachers) due to higher wages and iii) have better facilities.

There is this fantastic idea that everyone should have equal opportunities. It is a pipe dream. It is not practical or even possible to present everyone with the same opportunities in life. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't do everything we can to improve the lot of those less fortunate, but it does (IMO) mean that we shouldn't be looking to penalise the fortunate just because they are lucky.

I'm not looking to penalize anyone, I'm just looking to raise standards and give people a decent schooling. If you want to send your kids to private school fine. But, below this then forget about choice...which is what the Tories want. According to their website, to make educational progress their state system will be "based on increased choice and accountability" Why should there be choices in state schooling? As I say, you have savvy parents then all well and good. If not then children can forget going to a decent school. It will simply polarise society. The end game should not be choice.....but raising standards across the board.

 

[larus]

The problem for me is that labour voters assume that the people that are voting for are doing the job out of a duty to society. Look at mandleson, Prescott, trade union leaders; they all succumb to self interest.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

This is a very nice idea, and I support the idea of raising standards across the board (who wouldn't) but ultimately, no matter how good schools are, there are going to be better schools and worse schools. Generally speaking, public schools are better because they are i) better funded, and therefore ii) able to attract higher quality staff (teachers) due to higher wages and iii) have better facilities.

There is this fantastic idea that everyone should have equal opportunities. It is a pipe dream. It is not practical or even possible to present everyone with the same opportunities in life. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't do everything we can to improve the lot of those less fortunate, but it does (IMO) mean that we shouldn't be looking to penalise the fortunate just because they are lucky.

..and I think we should at least aim to give everyone an equal chance. 100% equality might be a pipe dream but we should not abandon the idea simply because we cannot get right to the end.

Try, you never know you might succeed.

 

[Dandyman]

Indeed. Unfortunately we live in an age where believing in standards, good behaviour, civility and decency are mocked and derided by a Liberal establishment and their acolytes in the media.

.

And when were those standards ever part of the "no such thing as society" mentality?

We have had 30 years of undermining the concept of collective responsibility, social solidarity and decent behaviour in favour of a "me first" deregulated market driven society. Don't you think that might have more to do with it than the rather limp idea of a liberal (Murdoch? Birt? Blair?) conspiracy?

 

[Hatterlovesbrighton]

I'm not looking to penalize anyone, I'm just looking to raise standards and give people a decent schooling. If you want to send your kids to private school fine. But, below this then forget about choice...which is what the Tories want. According to their website, to make educational progress their state system will be "based on increased choice and accountability" Why should there be choices in state schooling? As I say, you have savvy parents then all well and good. If not then children can forget going to a decent school. It will simply polarise society. The end game should not be choice.....but raising standards across the board.

But choice does raise standards. Schools that are poor will have less children attending them which means less money to pay the teachers wages. That will prompt the Governors to make changes to the school in order to increase take up.

If you have no choice and hence a steady flow of money, there isn't such a strong imperative to improve standards. Sure you can inspect and direct them to raise standards but its not going to be a strong a message as parents deciding to take their children elsewhere.

If there isn't a choice, there isn't a stri

 

[simmo]

The problem for me is that labour voters assume that the people that are voting for are doing the job out of a duty to society. Look at mandleson, Prescott, trade union leaders; they all succumb to self interest.

Absolutely, they will tell you about Archer, Aitken, Neil Hamilton etc and say how can anyone possibly vote Tory and Tory sleaze but seem to forget about Mandelson (the only cabinet minister I can ever remember to have resigned twice and is now back at the absolute heart of government), John Prescott, David Blunkett, Robin Cook, Cherie Blair, Keith Vaz. They seem to airbrush these out of their mind.

Both sides are as bad as each other, it is just the oppurtunity to abuse (be it for sexual favours or financial gain or whatever) power is easier when you are in government than when you are in opposition.

 

[Milton Keynes Seagull]

The slight flaw in your story is that it is fine if you have parents who are willing to do this. What about children who's parents do not, or are not able to, make these sacrifices?

This idea is all very well but it discriminates against people who's parents cannot, for whatever reason, provide this.

Give everyone a decent school....not choices, as it's only the children with savvy or able parents who then get the better deal.

There should of course be a decent standard of education available to all regardless of income, and also in health care and pension provision. However like with pensions, everyone should receive a decent state pension, while some choose to take out an additional private pension to supplement that. Should those that didn't because they spent it elsewhere then look on in envy and expect the state to penalise those that did?

The problem with state education (and both my own children went to state schools) is that those with talent and a desire to work hard and get on are held back instead of being encouraged in the interest of "cohesion" and "equality". There was also a marked lack of discipline and respect. Too many teachers tried to "engage with" the yob and feral element and not bring out those with outstanding qualities and who wished to get on. That is why many parents work damn hard to ensure that their children have opportunities many of them were denied themselves.

 

[ROSM]

I've tried to stay out of this as it's the same old stuff being trotted out by Bushy, Uncle Spielberg, Drew etc.

Fundamentally which school people went to is irrelevant - it's the skills they have. Wherever Osborne got his education, he still can't add up. To meet his commitment to the NHS he will need to cut Defence, policing and/or education budgets (he's not said this yet). I will predict now that he will not be Chancellor for more than 2 formal budgets. Ken Clarke is the financial heavyweight in the Tory party. Even Oliver Letwin would be a better option. Why Osborne is where he is I'll leave others to summise.

As for the mystery of the YouGov poll, I have it on fairly solid authority that the Conservatives far from feeling scuppered by the closing of the gap, actually welcome it as it staves off the 'we've won it alreday' feeling. The fact that it was the Sunday Times (a Murdoch paper that is now publicly backing the Tories) that published a revised closer poll that galvanised the Tory party just before their Spring Conference may just be a coincidence of course

 

[Milton Keynes Seagull]

As for the mystery of the YouGov poll, I have it on fairly solid authority that the Conservatives far from feeling scuppered by the closing of the gap, actually welcome it as it staves off the 'we've won it alreday' feeling. The fact that it was the Sunday Times (a Murdoch paper that is now publicly backing the Tories) that published a revised closer poll that galvanised the Tory party just before their Spring Conference may just be a coincidence of course

Manipulation of the political process by the media, surely not?!

I'm afraid it is the start of a very negative campaign. By that I mean it will not be based on "Vote for us because we have the right policies", but don't vote for the other lot because they're worse than us. It is also aimed at squeezing the Lib Dems and the minor parties to ensure that either New Labour or Blue Labour wins, thus keeping the powers that be happy.

 

[FREDBINNEY]

Deep breath.

What i will say specifically on the subject of the NHS is this:

I was an A&E Staff Nurse between 1992 and 1996 and previously to that had been a student Nurse trained in Brighton Hospitals and out of the Old School of Nursing in Kingsway, Hove and Sussex Uni.

In the years since I left Nursing and went into The Medical Industry I have continued to work closely with NHS Hospitals all over the UK and other Hospitals right around Europe. My current role means I work in the Intensive Care Medicine arena developing patient safety products.

For what its worth I have the following observations to make:

The NHS has improved massively in just about all critical care settings that is A&E, Coronary and Intensive Care. Facilities, equipment, morale and infrastructure have undergone a huge overhaul, the staff are better paid and the money that has been spent has, by and large, meant that your chance of leaving those areas alive has improved beyond measure.

A&E in particular is worth mentioning because, I think I speak the truth here when I say, not one of you lot with the self important opinions on here, has ever worked in a trauma unit so your opinions, really, count for nought.

When I worked in that area, under the last Conservative Government incidentally, it was collapsing under the weight of targets/patient charters/cost cutting initiatives. The equipment was antiquated and often still being used long past its redundancy, in fact we used to routinely use single patient use devices on multiple patients because of budgetary constraints. Morale was just in freefall after years of governmental neglect, pay-freezes and chronic underfunding generally. What was happening across the whole Health Service was bordering on Criminal. Does anyone remember the 24 hour waiting in A&E, people dying in corridors? 18 month waits for cancer patients? IT WAS ALL TRUE...I WAS THERE.

The Conservatives operated a "Value for Money" system that meant that managers who spent less than their budget got large bonusses based on the savings they made. This simply led to a slashing of spending on vital equipment and services and big bonusses for the, often non clinical, managers.

The Tory way was to just spend nothing on essential public services. It was lazy, route one, stuff.

Fast forward to 2010. The changes made have altered things beyond recognition. True there are still issues, there always will be. True there are still complaints from nurses about poor pay...but you know what? Nurses are often young women who leave the profession to have kids or go into other areas of life so they dont have the continuity of experience that is required to have an informed opinion.


What is true is that you very really hear Nurses with 20 odd years of service under their belts comparing the situation as it is today unfavourably with the situation under the last Tory Govt. In fact I have NEVER heard this from that group. To a one they loathe the Tories of that era for what they did to the NHS, although obviously some are prepared to put this in the past and trust Cameron and the Conservatives once again.

Perhaps they have short memories or perhaps they are now senior Nurses and Managers more interested in how much they are going to be taxed by labour. What is true is that they are typically earing almost 50% more in real terms to do those senior roles than they would have under the last Tory administration.


I can recall some of my colleagues in those days voting Tory much to the horror of their colleagues. BUT I also recall that these weirdos usually had a rich Doctor Husband or similar comfortable home situation so Nursing was almost a hobby for them where they got to dress up and move among the poor dispensing mercy. For those of us trying to pay our ridiculous Mortgages or surviving with a family on pittance wages this was never a voting choice.

Because of my considerable experience in European Hospitals, again in Critical Care I have the following observations:

Firstly France. France has an excellent public health system which consistently delivers some of the best outcomes for diseases such as Cancer and Coronary disease in Europe. France also has some of the most overblown socialist Hospitals with ridiculous bureauracies that stifle innovation and haemorrage money. Their Intensive care areas are poor in comparison with the UK.The Reanimátion Nurses lack autonomy and care suffers as a consequence. Medication errors are common because the staff are relatively poorly trained. France also has no national reporting structure for things like this so it often goes unreported. General dissatisfaction levels among French people with their Hospitals are far greater than in Britain, and in my view, rightly so. The French system is basically inferior to the UK in every way that I have seen.

Germany.

The German Healthcare system, once the envy of the world is now in utter crisis. They enjoy the highest ratio of Doctors to patients and Nurses to beds in Europe but this system is not sustainable long term, especially now.

German Hospitals again operater a "Doctor knows best" system which means that Nurses and other ancilliary staff are little more than operatives with very little ability to challenge on behalf of patients. Their High Dependancy areas offer excellent care levels but, interestingly, relatively poor survival rates in comparison with the UK the insurance based system there means that Hospitals compete with each other for trade so are reluctant to report issues related to patient harm caused in their institutions. They are also reluctant to allow clinical studies which highlight such concerns because it would be bad for trade. Again not a system that should be considered "better" than the NHS although you would certainly feel very well looked after with all the extra Nurses.

The "Best" healthcare system I have seen is in Scandinavia. The investment in Healthcare there is massive and the skills of the Nurses are comparable to the UK. They have clean, well resourced and FREE healthcare with no up-front charges. Patient safety is something that the authorities are keen to pay for and the systems they employ are state of the art. Their populations are small and relatively rich, but highly taxed, so can afford the very best.

The Karolinka in Sweden is just an amazing Hospital with highly skilled, well paid staff. Truly this is the way all Healthcare should be modelled.

Overall UK is behind the Nordics but ahead of the French and German systems. The mediterranean countries do not really have integrated healhcare systems in the way we understand them so really do not bear comparison.

Britain is just behind them and quite a way ahead of France and Germany in my opinion, which, in the absence of anyone else on here actually knowing what they are talking about experientially, is the only opinion that should matter.

The day I start pontificating about the Bond Market, derivitives trading or Share price futures is the day that you lot can give an opinion obn the relative merits of Tory or other management of the Health Service.

Shut the f*** up eh? you're just embarrassing yourselves.

You would say that wouldn't you ? to quote Christine Keeler.

 

[FREDBINNEY]

Manipulation of the political process by the media, surely not?!

I'm afraid it is the start of a very negative campaign. By that I mean it will not be based on "Vote for us because we have the right policies", but don't vote for the other lot because they're worse than us. It is also aimed at squeezing the Lib Dems and the minor parties to ensure that either New Labour or Blue Labour wins, thus keeping the powers that be happy.

Nail on head.

 

[FREDBINNEY]

There should of course be a decent standard of education available to all regardless of income, and also in health care and pension provision. However like with pensions, everyone should receive a decent state pension, while some choose to take out an additional private pension to supplement that. Should those that didn't because they spent it elsewhere then look on in envy and expect the state to penalise those that did?

The problem with state education (and both my own children went to state schools) is that those with talent and a desire to work hard and get on are held back instead of being encouraged in the interest of "cohesion" and "equality". There was also a marked lack of discipline and respect. Too many teachers tried to "engage with" the yob and feral element and not bring out those with outstanding qualities and who wished to get on. That is why many parents work damn hard to ensure that their children have opportunities many of them were denied themselves.

Absolutely right.

 

[Guy Fawkes]

The biggest problem with politics is that any Government has to be seen as successful with its policies straight away, everything must improve straight away or they run the risk of being voted out at the next general election and the opposition benefit from their policies and appear to be the ones responsible for the good times.

The current state of the economy is something that will take a long time to redress, a reason for this is the vast national debt we now have. Maybe the risks that Labour have taken, by trying to spend their way out of recession will ultimately prove worthwhile, but equally they might blow up in the next Governments or a future Governments face.

The biggest problem is that we have seen the debt climb and climb to about 60% of GDP. This is something that the next Government needs to address, whoever they are. Cuts are going to be needed to reduce this burdon on our economy, otherwise servicing this debt will drain much needed money away from vital areas such as healthcare, education etc.

The question is who will do a better job at this:
Labour? - a Government that presided over over a long period of economic growth, but failed to prepare for such a collapse in the economy, who sold of financial assets at rock bottom prices (like our gold reserves a few years back) who despite increasing the tax burdon on working individuals while in power have continually overspent compared to income from taxes etc, making this situation worse and damaging the long term future of this country and its economy?
Or the Conservatives? - Its a matter of trust, and its whether people will chose to trust them in power. It could be argued that during the last major recession in the early 90's, they were seen as uncaring, allowing interest rates to soar, house prices to fall etc. but allowed the economy to correct itself. However was that correction to our economy neccessary or should we have just spent money that we didn't have to get through it?

Maybe the eonomy needs to correct itself again now and Labour is only delaying the inevitable, house prices for example are now so high it has severly affected the younger generations who now can't get onto the property ladder, who struggle to make ends meet because of the high rents that are charged because the landlord owns several properties and your rent is basically paying his mortgage on the place.

There is a housing shortage as demand far outstrips supply but not enough new housing is being built to help combat this problem, but would a Government do something about this, especially as our economic growth has been based on high property prices so building faster will risk falling prices. Also there is next to no council properties available, so these people are forced to take on more and more debt just to survive despite working full time.

I know alot of people who are really struggling, even before the recession. Increasing taxation, higher fuel and food costs, high cost of renting and no chance of ever owning a property etc.. if you earn about £15,000 pa you are no better off working full time than being on benefits, most jobs in the area are low paid so there is little incentive for these people to work.

It seems that unless you own a property, are married / living with someone, have kids or a minority, this Government arn't interested in your wealth or wellbeing, just how much extra can they tax from you.

Labour arn't interested in looking after those in society that actually need help, they are only looking to influence those who vote so that they will get elected, same with any political party.

 

[Guy Fawkes]

Those who think that someone like Cameron being educated at Eton should count against him should remember this. Politicians tend to be wealthy, whatever the party, they tended to have good high paid jobs like Lawyers or Barristers before moving into politics, does being an ex- Lawyer mean you will be good at running the state education system or being an ex-barrister mean you are highly qualified to run the country?

There are very few from what would be considered a normal background which those who point the finger at Cameron and co would consider them to be in touch with reality and have experience of the real life running of institutions like schools / hospitals etc...

How many of the current batch of MP's were teachers, nurses or retail shop workers? so what makes any of them more qualified to know what its like and what is best for those in low paid jobs?