Who will be the Winner in Tonight's big political debate ?

[Hampster Gull]

Attractive woman, died far too early

View attachment 64307

Got my vote

 

[Westdene Seagull]

just right
having recorded the debate the thing that struck me was Milliband spoke straight to the camera (the British public) and Cameron looked like a rabbit caught in the headlights

Cameron did OK IMO ( and only just OK ) but Milliband just looked like he was pleading ..... the worst performer of all.

So in typical post match analysis, what were the scores :

In performance order :

1. Nicola Sturgeon - 8/10 - I would actually vote for her if I could. She put in a solid performance and had some decent responses to the standard elite.
2. Nick Clegg -7/10 - Seems an honest guy and some of his suggestions, including the rent to buy, seem sensible middle of the road policies.
3. Nigel Farage - 6/10 - didn't get enough air time ( as did none of the panel outside Milliband and Cameron ) but gave a reliable performance playing to his audience.
4. Natalie Bennett - 5/10 - liked some of her responses. Some decent ideas but there was little challenge on some of the Greens more wacky ideas.
5. CMD - 5/10 - did OK, there's not a lot more to say.
6. Leanne Wood - 3/10 - I actually like her but very light weight. Her challenges to Milliband were quite impressive though.
7. Red Ed - 2/10 - an utterly pathetic performance. Too wavey hand like and completely obsessed with some phrases ( 'the people at home' being by far the worst ). Puppy dog eyes pleading for votes followed by the disgusting grin when challenged by the others ( most notable when Leanne Wood tackled him ). If he's PM material then we're all doomed.

 

[Ernest]

Nobody really impressed last night, no point saying Nicola Sturgeon did well when 80% of the electorate or more can't vote for her party. Dave did his usual best, mentioning his dead son and the long term financial plan and Ed failed to get in any kind of KO punch.

The Sun and Telegraph had laughable headlines which no doubt were written before the debate but most people will have forgotten anything that was said by this time next week.

The only debate that would matter is Dave v Ed head to head but unfortunately Dave is running scared from it. Anything else is superfluous fluff.

 

[Soulman]

I remember Nicola pre SNP days.

 

[fat old seagull]

I hate to say this, as I'm not a fan. But to me Nicola Sturgeon was streets ahead of the others. Talked sense, and put people before £.s.d !

 

[Lord Bracknell]

Has anyone noticed the Tory plot to talk up Nicola Sturgeon in order to minimise the number of seats that Labour win in Scotland?

And they have the NERVE to criticise Labour for being prepared to cozy up to the SNP!

 

[Deleted member 22389]

I remember Nicola pre SNP days.

lol

 

[Moshe Gariani]

I hate to say this, as I'm not a fan. But to me Nicola Sturgeon was streets ahead of the others. Talked sense, and put people before £.s.d !

She was extremely impressive. The Labour and Tory spin doctors must desperately wish they had someone as natural and with such broad appeal.

I think Ed Milliband will be a perfectly good prime minister - he is clearly intelligent, hardworking and compassionate, with the requisite strength of character and purpose to match.

It is, however, strange to have someone relatively charmless in his role given the modern obsession with presentation and superficial factors.

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

Has anyone noticed the Tory plot to talk up Nicola Sturgeon in order to minimise the number of seats that Labour win in Scotland?

And they have the NERVE to criticise Labour for being prepared to cozy up to the SNP!

Be careful LB , there are "some" NSCers who'll just say you're a conspiracy theorist

 

[beorhthelm]

Has anyone noticed the Tory plot to talk up Nicola Sturgeon in order to minimise the number of seats that Labour win in Scotland?

i've heard it said, but where is this talking up, i dont recall anything positive about SNP from Tories.

She was extremely impressive. The Labour and Tory spin doctors must desperately wish they had someone as natural and with such broad appeal.

she's certainly a comfortable politician. but broad appeal? she represents a party who stand in only 59 seats and seeks independence, looking out for her nation at the expense of 90% of the UK population. her socialist ideal might sway the left wing in England to sympathise with her, how many would do so when they realise she wants to take their funds for her region?

 

[Soulman]

i've heard it said, but where is this talking up, i dont recall anything positive about SNP from Tories.



she's certainly a comfortable politician. but broad appeal? she represents a party who stand in only 59 seats and seeks independence, looking out for her nation at the expense of 90% of the UK population. her socialist ideal might sway the left wing in England to sympathise with her, how many would do so when they realise she wants to take their funds for her region?

Exactly. Tail wagging the dog to benefit her country. Very subtle.

 

[glasfryn]

Has anyone noticed the Tory plot to talk up Nicola Sturgeon in order to minimise the number of seats that Labour win in Scotland?

And they have the NERVE to criticise Labour for being prepared to cozy up to the SNP!

this might be true
but the SNP have already said they will vote against anything tory ..........so win,win shift to the left and a struggling tory party

 

[cunning fergus]

Yawn, Fergus. And not very cunning, too. The fact that one person has said this means jack shit. I could find you some other one -- perhaps even a professor of oncology speaking to a parliamentary committee -- saying something very different, even contradictory, yet that wouldn't make it an important point.
Instead, there are figures, consistent figures, that indicate that immigrants contribute far more in taxes than they extract in benefits.

You also miss the fact that an increasing number of those working in the health system are immigrants. You also miss that the UK has an ageing population, requiring more healthcare, and a declining birthrate, thereby requiring an influx of workers to deal with the elderly in need of such healthcare.

While you are busy gathering your counter evidence to Professor Merrion Thomas, I thought I could help you out. The report below from Public Health England confirms that 2/3rd of heterosexual HIV cases in England are from Africa, about 60,000 people (imagine a full Emirates stadium)

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa..._HIV_annual_report_draft_Final_07-01-2015.pdf

The cost per annum for treating an individual with HIV is approx. £18,000.

http://www.avert.org/hiv-treatment-uk.htm

So, simple maths are that the cost to the NHS is a billion per annum, notwithstanding this situation as a drain on NHS resources.

The increase in treating HIV positive Africans is a trend which has developed in last 10-15 years.

So, let's say for arguments sake circa £10 billion of NHS money has been allocated for these people.

Looking forward to your counter evidence............

 

[knocky1]

While you are busy gathering your counter evidence to Professor Merrion Thomas, I thought I could help you out. The report below from Public Health England confirms that 2/3rd of heterosexual HIV cases in England are from Africa, about 60,000 people (imagine a full Emirates stadium)

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa..._HIV_annual_report_draft_Final_07-01-2015.pdf

The cost per annum for treating an individual with HIV is approx. £18,000.

http://www.avert.org/hiv-treatment-uk.htm

So, simple maths are that the cost to the NHS is a billion per annum, notwithstanding this situation as a drain on NHS resources.

The increase in treating HIV positive Africans is a trend which has developed in last 10-15 years.

So, let's say for arguments sake circa £10 billion of NHS money has been allocated for these people.

Looking forward to your counter evidence............

In the first report where is the info.? I had a look at 51 pages but could not find it. Perhaps the great news is the decline in AIDS or your figures would be between £10 billion to a £100 billion.

 

[dingodan]

In the first report where is the info.? I had a look at 51 pages but could not find it. Perhaps the great news is the decline in AIDS or your figures would be between £10 billion to a £100 billion.

So...what you are saying is...good thing it's only £10B...?

 

[Greyrun]

While you are busy gathering your counter evidence to Professor Merrion Thomas, I thought I could help you out. The report below from Public Health England confirms that 2/3rd of heterosexual HIV cases in England are from Africa, about 60,000 people (imagine a full Emirates stadium)

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa..._HIV_annual_report_draft_Final_07-01-2015.pdf

The cost per annum for treating an individual with HIV is approx. £18,000.
M
http://www.avert.org/hiv-treatment-uk.htm

So, simple maths are that the cost to the NHS is a billion per annum, notwithstanding this situation as a drain on NHS resources.

The increase in treating HIV positive Africans is a trend which has developed in last 10-15 years.

So, let's say for arguments sake circa £10 billion of NHS money has been allocated for these people.

Looking forward to your counter evidence............

Speaking to friend who is involved in hiv treatment and sexually transmitted diseases at the county and she said the vast majority of patients on anti-viral drugs were immigrants .

 

[cunning fergus]

In the first report where is the info.? I had a look at 51 pages but could not find it. Perhaps the great news is the decline in AIDS or your figures would be between £10 billion to a £100 billion.

I think you are mad.

I bet you are one of the people on here that whine on about the lack of money for the NHS yet it's able to fund free HIV treatment to foreigners. This policy introduced by the way by a Tory dominated administration ( so much for the nasty party).

If we are able to gift 18k NHS treatment p.a. to foreigners we clearly don't have a debt crisis..........there is absolutely no need to increase taxes is there?

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

In the first report where is the info.? I had a look at 51 pages but could not find it. Perhaps the great news is the decline in AIDS or your figures would be between £10 billion to a £100 billion.

I had a scan through and couldn't find anything about the amount of care given to immigrants either. Diagnosis yes, care no.

 

[cunning fergus]

I had a scan through and couldn't find anything about the amount of care given to immigrants either. Diagnosis yes, care no.

From their own website.....

http://www.foreignersinuk.co.uk/new...given_free_hiv_treatment_in_england_3811.html

 

[cunning fergus]

I had a scan through and couldn't find anything about the amount of care given to immigrants either. Diagnosis yes, care no.

Save you the effort of scanning the link again for cost detail............

"The cost of treating someone with HIV in the UK is estimated at around £18,000 per year, although this varies depending on the type and number of drugs taken and the stage of HIV infection. 17 As new, improved drugs are becoming available, the cost of antiretroviral treatment is increasing. Prior to 2008, a growing number of people required more expensive drugs as they become resistant to previous combinations, but this has stabilised since, helping to steady the cost of antiretroviral treatment. 18"

http://www.avert.org/hiv-treatment-uk.htm