Support NeoGAF

[Monty Mole]

Banning zero hours contracts could just lead to some employers thinking twice about creating new jobs. My belief in zero hours contracts is that it gives someone a foot in the door without too much risk to the employer, it's up to the employee then to use that foot in the door how they see fit - to prove themselves and progress in that organisation and then secure a better contract, or use it as experience to get a better role elsewhere.

I think the better solution is for the government to give tax incentives to employers for those roles/contracts which are over a set number of hours. This is blatantly just a political move on the back of it being such a hot topic at the moment.

Also interesting that Labour say they are banning zero-hour contracts with no additional detail - are we about to see thousands of 1-hour contracts instead?

Broken? It's one of the most efficient systems in the world.

My fiancée has had a number of A&E critical issues over the last 5 years and broken is a massive understatement. It's incredible that we get free* (*taxed) healthcare in the UK but the downside is that we have no private-health A&E option.

 

[CyclopsRock]

Ideologically the Lib Dems could work with Labour but everything I've read over the last 5 years suggests that the individuals at the top of each party just utterly hate each other. This was the case with Brown, too, but now both Ed's too. Any coalition would, I think, require some big changes at the top of at least one party and, obviously, that party would be the LDs.

 

[PJV3]

Banning zero hours contracts could just lead to some employers thinking twice about creating new jobs. My belief in zero hours contracts is that it gives someone a foot in the door without too much risk to the employer, it's up to the employee then to use that foot in the door how they see fit - to prove themselves and progress in that organisation and then secure a better contract, or use it as experience to get a better role elsewhere.

I think the better solution is for the government to give tax incentives to employers for those roles/contracts which are over a set number of hours. This is blatantly just a political move on the back of it being such a hot topic at the moment.

Also interesting that Labour say they are banning zero-hour contracts with no additional detail - are we about to see thousands of 1-hour contracts instead?

My fiancée has had a number of A&E critical issues over the last 5 years and broken is a massive understatement. It's incredible that we get free* (*taxed) healthcare in the UK but the downside is that we have no private-health A&E option.

Exploitative zero hour contracts, I think they mean the ones with no guarantee of hours etc but loads of conditions for the employees attached.

I hope so as some people like the freedom.

 

[Psychotext]

My fiancée has had a number of A&E critical issues over the last 5 years and broken is a massive understatement. It's incredible that we get free* (*taxed) healthcare in the UK but the downside is that we have no private-health A&E option.

A&E, maybe, but you can't judge the entire NHS on just one aspect.

 

[King_Moc]

Banning zero hours contracts could just lead to some employers thinking twice about creating new jobs. My belief in zero hours contracts is that it gives someone a foot in the door without too much risk to the employer, it's up to the employee then to use that foot in the door how they see fit - to prove themselves and progress in that organisation and then secure a better contract, or use it as experience to get a better role elsewhere.

I think the better solution is for the government to give tax incentives to employers for those roles/contracts which are over a set number of hours. This is blatantly just a political move on the back of it being such a hot topic at the moment.

Also interesting that Labour say they are banning zero-hour contracts with no additional detail - are we about to see thousands of 1-hour contracts instead?

Zero hour contracts are fucking horrendous. I've got a friend who works at a place where some people have them. They actually have to turn up to work every day to see if there is anything for them to do. If there isn't, they have to go home again, without pay. It puts all the power in the hands of the employer and takes away the main thing you want from a job - guaranteed money. It's exactly the sort of thing that caused unions to be needed.

 

[benjipwns]

Zero hour contracts are fucking horrendous. I've got a friend who works at a place where some people have them. They actually have to turn up to work every day to see if there is anything for them to do. If there isn't, they have to go home again, without pay. It puts all the power in the hands of the employer and takes away the main thing you want from a job - guaranteed money. It's exactly the sort of thing that caused unions to be needed.

Somewhat amusingly, in the U.S. a number of trade unions have setup this very system because they have more members than the companies need regular employees. And they base it on seniority.

 

[RedShift]

Just got my letter from my Tory MP. I live in a Labour/Tory marginal (700 majority according to the letter), so he's pretty desperate for votes.

Hilarious how much the letter piles in on Miliband. The whole thing is just WE NEED TO STOP MILIBAND BECOMING PM, and then it literally ends, "PS- Remember, a vote for any other party in this election will put Ed Miliband one step closer to becoming our Prime Minister".

Really hope this personality politics backfires.

 

[Yen]

…talk about not knowing how broken your system already is.
The NHS is a bloated broken system that is impossible to fix, it just needs money and been left alone. Anyone promising a fix this election is talking bullshit.

I know others have picked up on this, but it's worth saying again:

Britain's NHS is the world's best health-care system, says report.

"The United Kingdom ranks first overall, scoring highest on quality, access and efficiency," the fund's researchers conclude in their 30-page report. Their findings amount to a huge endorsement of the health service, especially as it spends the second-lowest amount on healthcare among the 11 – just £2,008 per head, less than half the £5,017 in the US. Only New Zealand, with £1,876, spent less.

In the Commonwealth Fund study, the UK came first out of the 11 countries in eight of the 11 measures of care the authors looked at. It came top on measures including providing effective care, safe care, co-ordinated care and patient-centred care. The fund also rated the NHS as the best for giving access to care and for efficient use of resources.

The only serious criticism of the NHS was its poor record on keeping people alive. On a composite "healthy lives" score, which includes deaths among infants and patients who would have survived had they received timely and effective healthcare, the UK came 10th. The authors say that the healthcare system cannot be solely blamed for this issue, which is strongly influenced by social and economic factors. Although the NHS came third overall for the timeliness of care, its "short waiting times" were praised. "There is a frequent misperception that trade-offs between universal coverage and timely access to specialised services are inevitable. However, the Netherlands, UK and Germany provide universal coverage with low out-of-pocket costs while maintaining quick access to speciality services,", the report added.

The NHS also outperforms the other countries – which include France, Germany and Canada – in managing the care of people who are chronically ill, the report said.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/nhs...rlds-best-health-care-system-says-report.html

 

[Lirlond]

Zero hour contracts are not a "foot in the door". Are you having a laugh? Zero hour workers exist for one reason and that's backup. You have your core, contracted, staff; one of them phones in sick, luckily you can phone your zero hour numpty and give him an hour to get in or he's not got a shift.

It removes any reliability of work, gives no guarantee of pay, and removes any semblance of control from employee.

 

[benjipwns]

The only serious criticism of the NHS was its poor record on keeping people alive. On a composite "healthy lives" score, which includes deaths among infants and patients who would have survived had they received timely and effective healthcare, the UK came 10th [out of 11].

Um...

 

[industrian]

My fiancée has had a number of A&E critical issues over the last 5 years and broken is a massive understatement. It's incredible that we get free* (*taxed) healthcare in the UK but the downside is that we have no private-health A&E option.

I would easily consider the treatment I received for my DVT/PE - from A&E, to treatment, to outpatient needs - in Taiwan and Korea to be superior to what I received in the UK. Then again it's quite unfair to compare a rural general hospital to a military hospital in Taipei or a university hospital in a city with 500k+ people.

The NHS is too much of a political pawn to ever see any sort of meaningful overhaul. The Tories will continue to fuck it up in order to create the conditions they need to call for greater privatisation, and Labour will just throw money at it which will just further the culture of waste that is endemic to a lot of government agencies. That and there's so many layers of bureaucracy and systems involved that it's hard to do anything about it.

Ideologically the Lib Dems could work with Labour but everything I've read over the last 5 years suggests that the individuals at the top of each party just utterly hate each other. This was the case with Brown, too, but now both Ed's too. Any coalition would, I think, require some big changes at the top of at least one party and, obviously, that party would be the LDs.

In regards to the big three parties: it's generally just theatre. And expect to see Nick Clegg leave soon after the election anyways (I'd be willing to bet on it if bookies were giving favourable odds.) The Lib Dems have had their seat at the table and won't leave it quietly. Expect them to join with whoever gets the most seats, regardless of if they hate Ed or not.

But when it comes to Scotland, all of the big three utterly despise the SNP. It's a case of "How dare those unwashed jocks from outside the established order try to take us on, and win."

 

[benjipwns]

Labour will just throw money at it which will just further the culture of waste that is endemic to a lot of government agencies. That and there's so many layers of bureaucracy and systems involved that it's hard to do anything about it.

NHS bureaucracy talk always reminds me of this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-5zEb1oS9A

Although it was written from the imaginations of Lynn and Jay, they later discovered that "there were six such hospitals (or very large empty wings of hospitals) exactly as we had described them in our episode, notably one in Cambridgeshire in which there was only one patient: the Matron (head of nursing staff) who had fallen over some scaffolding and broken her leg."[1] There was also a large new hospital at Derriford near Plymouth which lay unopened for a significant period.

reframed full episode to escape takedown i assume: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dAE-wSRChY

 

[Psychotext]

I would easily consider the treatment I received for my DVT/PE - from A&E, to treatment, to outpatient needs - in Taiwan and Korea to be superior to what I received in the UK. Then again it's quite unfair to compare a rural general hospital to a military hospital in Taipei or a university hospital in a city with 500k+ people.

Oddly enough, I had a DVT and thought the treatment was excellent. I was diagnosed and given initial treatment the same day, and then had outpatient treatment after that.

I live in a relatively large city though.

 

[Xun]

I like the sound of this.

Let's just hope Labour don't implement shitty "Big Brother" ideas this time around like the ID Cards.

 

[Yen]

I don't see it mentioned in the OP, but a big thing in NI this election is the 'Unionist Unity' pacts, meaning DUP and UUP won't stand against each other in 4 constituencies.
This is how it currently stands:

Affiliation	Members
DUP	        8
Sinn Féin	5
SDLP	        3
Alliance	1
Independent	1

This'll likely only have implications in 2 constituencies (SF probably have a big enough lead in Newry and Armagh, and I would expect Dodds to hold onto his seat based on his profile alone). In Fermanagh & South Tyrone, SF won by 4 votes in 2010 against a Unity candidate - it was an obvious sectarian headcount then. I'd say the wildcard could be the Greens this time, they won't win, but there is a big anti-fracking movement in Fermanagh.
The other seat is East Belfast. The moderate liberal and non-sectarian Naomi Long of Alliance unseated Peter Robinson, so the DUP are desperate to unseat her.
"Whoever wins, we lose"

Spoiler

- though it's probably the death-knell of the UUP.

 

[Volotaire]

I don't see it mentioned in the OP, but a big thing in NI this election is the 'Unionist Unity' pacts, meaning DUP and UUP won't stand against each other in 4 constituencies.
This is how it currently stands:

Affiliation	Members
DUP	        8
Sinn Féin	5
SDLP	        3
Alliance	1
Independent	1

This'll likely only have implications in 2 constituencies (SF probably have a big enough lead in Newry and Armagh, and I would expect Dodds to hold onto his seat based on his profile alone). In Fermanagh & South Tyrone, SF won by 4 votes in 2010 against a Unity candidate - it was an obvious sectarian headcount then. I'd say the wildcard could be the Greens this time, they won't win, but there is a big anti-fracking movement in Fermanagh.
The other seat is East Belfast. The moderate liberal and non-sectarian Naomi Long of Alliance unseated Peter Robinson, so the DUP are desperate to unseat her.
"Whoever wins, we lose"

Spoiler

- though it's probably the death-knell of the UUP.

Thanks, I'll add this to the 'structure' part.

Also I think I'm mostly done with the OP. Please shout out if there is any other information you want in there.

 

[Walshicus]

Personally, I'm not voting this year.

I am going with the philosophy that I trust neither party running for election and want to display that disinterest by actively ignoring my right to vote.

I know many people who will be doing the same.

I know you probably think this is a good idea and a middle finger to the establishment... but you know what? They don't give a single flying fuck that you're not voting. You're just helping to concentrate more power into the hands of those who *do* vote.

You know why our politics sucks the way it does? Because people like you think you can just abrogate your democratic responsibility while bitching about the state our governance.

Sorry if that's harsh, but I truly believe your attitude is the biggest problem facing these countries of ours right now.

 

[SteveWD40]

The Lib Dems have had their seat at the table and won't leave it quietly. Expect them to join with whoever gets the most seats, regardless of if they hate Ed or not.

This much is a given. There is no way the Lib Dems are going to slink back into shouting from the margins having been in the big boys club for 5 years.

The question is, will they have enough votes to make a difference considering their base feels betrayed by them and may vote green / labour.

 

[Volotaire]

Well I don't think the Telegraph polled themselves.

Here's the survey, anyway:

http://www.bsa.natcen.ac.uk/?_ga=1.11892532.1236980617.1427465699

In other news, here's the predictions from a bunch of "leading academics" (Not sure how they're defining that). Quite a spread:

Here's another quiz thing for the parties: https://uk.isidewith.com/political-quiz

Will add all of this.

 

[benjipwns]

I know you probably think this is a good idea and a middle finger to the establishment... but you know what? They don't give a single flying fuck that you're not voting. You're just helping to concentrate more power into the hands of those who *do* vote.

You know why our politics sucks the way it does? Because people like you think you can just abrogate your democratic responsibility while bitching about the state our governance.

Sorry if that's harsh, but I truly believe your attitude is the biggest problem facing these countries of ours right now.

No matter how he votes, the results will be the same.

 

[Walshicus]

No matter how he votes, the results will be the same.

That's true of every single person individually. How is that even an argument?

 

[benjipwns]

That's true of every single person individually. How is that even an argument?

It's not his or anyone else's responsibility to perform a meaningless ritual as if it achieves something especially in a democracy. And it's definitely not the cause of politics being the way politics always is.

 

[Walshicus]

It's not his or anyone else's responsibility to perform a meaningless ritual as if it achieves something especially in a democracy. And it's definitely not the cause of politics being the way politics always is.

No, it absolutely is. And the idea that he's not complicit in the fuckitude of our politics that he's complaining about is absurd.

You can't complain that FPTP politics is meaningless if you then don't actually vote for parties that support abolishing FPTP. You can't complain about a two party system if you don't vote for the multitude of other parties that exist to cater to the whole gamut of political opinion.

By not voting you're reinforcing the two party system and no amount of mental gymnastics can get around the fact that you're responsible for that.

 

[benjipwns]

It doesn't take mental gymnastics to recognize that an individual voting or not voting doesn't alter election outcomes or reinforce electoral systems.

It takes mental gymnastics to blame the non-voter for perpetuating a system they didn't participate in and excusing all the people who voted for the very system to continue. And then saying only the latter have the right to complain when it's the very thing they voted for.

 

[nib95]

It doesn't take mental gymnastics to recognize that an individual voting or not voting doesn't alter election outcomes or reinforce electoral systems.

It takes mental gymnastics to blame that person for perpetuating a system they didn't participate in and excusing all the people who voted for the very system to continue. And then saying only the latter have the right to complain when it's the very thing they voted for.

There are far better ways to challenge the system than not voting. The latter is imo simply the easy, efforletless and lazy way to show discontent. To me it's always been more important to vote in the lesser of the evils, since actually it does make a massive difference to millions of people's lives, contrary to the belief of some, and then take to letters, protests, articles or whatever else to do the rest. Politics is often reactionary, so many of the parties run with main policy points (that are in line with their party ideology) that they know the public are supportive of or rally behind, so we do actually have some small semblance of sway.

 

[industrian]

Oddly enough, I had a DVT and thought the treatment was excellent. I was diagnosed and given initial treatment the same day, and then had outpatient treatment after that.

I live in a relatively large city though.

My treatment was as excellent as it could be (I'm still alive). Just the service was lacking. Well, outside of a doctor forgetting to give me my enoxaparin which nearly made me nearly die a day later. After that they allowed me to self inject. Which was actually quite fun.

In Korea and Taiwan they didn't let me leave the hospital until I was in a stable condition. No enoxaparin, just a heparin pump for a few days.

 

[phisheep]

No matter how he votes, the results will be the same.

It may not make any difference if Disagree Guy doesn't vote, other things being equal.

What makes a difference is if Disagree Guy *and everybody else who thinks the same* votes. And that certainly would make a difference.

So if DG doesn't get a result he personally doesn't like - it is the fault of everybody who acted the same way, and so partly his.

In short, get out and vote. Or don't moan afterwards.

 

[benjipwns]

There are far better ways to challenge the system than not voting. The latter is imo simply the easy, efforletless and lazy way to show discontent.

I never would suggest that it is, the only way is...as you later say, education, press and speech.

To me it's always been more important to vote in the lesser of the evils, since actually it does make a massive difference to millions of people's lives

But it doesn't. Because your vote will never affect the outcome of the election. The lesser or greater of the evils will take office irregardless.

So there's absolutely no reason to believe that this "sacred" ritual is the only way to be able to "legitimately" criticize anything in politics. Especially when the non-voter isn't in anyway complicit in the governments future actions anymore than someone who votes for the losing parties or the winning party.

What makes a difference is if Disagree Guy *and everybody else who thinks the same* votes. And that certainly would make a difference.

If everyone else thought like him he wouldn't have to vote.

So if DG doesn't get a result he personally doesn't like - it is the fault of everybody who acted the same way, and so partly his.

So then it's also the fault of everyone who votes for a party who doesn't win.

 

[nib95]

I never would suggest that it is, the only way is...as you later say, education, press and speech.


But it doesn't. Because your vote will never affect the outcome of the election. The lesser or greater of the evils will take office irregardless.

So there's absolutely no reason to believe that this "sacred" ritual is the only way to be able to "legitimately" criticize anything in politics. Especially when the non-voter isn't in anyway complicit in the governments future actions anymore than someone who votes for the losing parties or the winning party.


If everyone else thought like him he wouldn't have to vote.


So then it's also the fault of everyone who votes for a party who doesn't win.

But not everyone else does think like him, and that's the problem, they never will. So it's a complete and utter waste, and usually to the glee of the far right, who are the kind I want in power least of all.

At the end the lesser of the evils is who I want in power, and it's precisely because I prefer their policies that I would rather they be put in to play. When people say all parties are the same, I can't help but feel they are spouting ignorant, apathetic nonsense. The parties all have similarities, and all make mistakes, but they also have fundamental differences that shape our living in very appreciably different ways, depending on who is or isn't in power. It's likely those who are more active in certain fields notice these differences more than others.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

No matter how he votes, the results will be the same.

I mean, it's very improbable that his vote will make a difference to who gets elected, but that's not the only purpose of a vote. A politician with a 2,000 vote majority will feel more secure in their policies than one with a 1,000 vote majority. If you look at the wet Tory/dry Tory divide, it's no surprise that wet Tories are very strongly associated with marginal seats and dry Tories with safe seats.

 

[benjipwns]

Again, we're talking about collective results that occur based on the actions of other people that you can't control. Especially with your single vote.

Why recognizing the futility of this means you abrogate your right to complain about politics continues to be beyond me.

If I vote Labour and Labour wins, why should I have the right to complain? I got what I want.
And if I don't vote or vote for another party and Labour wins, what's the difference?

 

[nib95]

Again, we're talking about collective results that occur based on the actions of other people that you can't control. Especially with your single vote.

Why recognizing the futility of this means you abrogate your right to complain about politics continues to be beyond me.

If I vote Labour and Labour wins, why should I have the right to complain? I got what I want.
And if I don't vote or vote for another party and Labour wins, what's the difference?

Voting labour doesn't mean you agree with every one of Labours policies, or condone everything they do. It just means you preferred their policies to those of the other parties. And the difference is you used your vote to help the party you most agree with, or helped prevent the party you least agree with from getting in to power.

 

[WayneMorse]

Banning zero hours contracts could just lead to some employers thinking twice about creating new jobs. My belief in zero hours contracts is that it gives someone a foot in the door without too much risk to the employer, it's up to the employee then to use that foot in the door how they see fit - to prove themselves and progress in that organisation and then secure a better contract, or use it as experience to get a better role elsewhere.

I think the better solution is for the government to give tax incentives to employers for those roles/contracts which are over a set number of hours. This is blatantly just a political move on the back of it being such a hot topic at the moment.

Also interesting that Labour say they are banning zero-hour contracts with no additional detail - are we about to see thousands of 1-hour contracts instead?

Banning non compete clauses would be a good idea. Considering one of the basic tenets of a lot of arguments for a capitalist system is that you can up and leave your job whenever you want if you don't like it and someone else is offering a better deal.

 

[Walshicus]

But not everyone else does think like him, and that's the problem, they never will. So it's a complete and utter waste, and usually to the glee of the far right, who are the kind I want in power least of all.

At the end the lesser of the evils is who I want in power, and it's precisely because I prefer their policies that I would rather they be put in to play. When people say all parties are the same, I can't help but feel they are spouting ignorant, apathetic nonsense. The parties all have similarities, and all make mistakes, but they also have fundamental differences that shape our living in very appreciably different ways, depending on who is or isn't in power. It's likely those who are more active in certain fields notice these differences more than others.

Just think how things could change if every non-voter actually put their cross against the party that represented them closest. How many majorities would be slashed? How many "safe" seats would go?

 

[benjipwns]

Voting labour doesn't mean you agree with every one of Labours policies, or condone everything they do. It just means you preferred their policies to those of the other parties. And the difference is you used your vote to help the party you most agree with, or helped prevent the party you least agree with from getting in to power.

Right, and not voting means there was nothing compelling enough offered for you to waste your time voting.

Just think how things could change if every non-voter actually put their cross against the party that represented them closest. How many majorities would be slashed? How many "safe" seats would go?

Probably not very many. Most non-voters probably would just vote Conservative and Labour like existing voters.

After compulsory voting was introduced in Australia, the voting rate shot up to 90+%, while the alternative parties from the main two saw their shares and seats drop over the next three elections and eventually the system returned to a two-party dominated one. (For many reasons.)

 

[kmag]

Banning zero hours contracts could just lead to some employers thinking twice about creating new jobs. My belief in zero hours contracts is that it gives someone a foot in the door without too much risk to the employer, it's up to the employee then to use that foot in the door how they see fit - to prove themselves and progress in that organisation and then secure a better contract, or use it as experience to get a better role elsewhere.

I think the better solution is for the government to give tax incentives to employers for those roles/contracts which are over a set number of hours. This is blatantly just a political move on the back of it being such a hot topic at the moment.

Also interesting that Labour say they are banning zero-hour contracts with no additional detail - are we about to see thousands of 1-hour contracts instead?

My fiancée has had a number of A&E critical issues over the last 5 years and broken is a massive understatement. It's incredible that we get free* (*taxed) healthcare in the UK but the downside is that we have no private-health A&E option.

There's nothing legally preventing a private A&E in the UK (although routing Ambulances there would be problematic). The reason you there's no pressure for one from private healthcare providers is that there is fuck all money in providing A&E services(it's a net cost for most American hospitals as well). In the UK we don't even have many private hospitals capable of providing surgery, most private operations are carried out in NHS operating theatre's using NHS surgeons during optional time allocated to them in their contracts if they want to have a private practice.

 

[Tregard]

Love living in Northern Ireland, means I don't get to vote in the actual important election, but rather get to choose between some Catholic interest dickheads, some Protestant interest dickheads, or Alliance and Greens who get drowned out anyway.

Northern Irish politics, such fun.

 

[Volotaire]

I'm done. And with that, I will leave this thread. Please read info here:

___________________________________________________________________________

ADMIN
___________________________________________________________________________

I will request a self ban on March 30th - mid June. After this date, I will no longer be able to update the OP about any crucial information. If you demand for information to be put in the OP, or want the exit poll data to be inserted in the title of the election results, then please contact a mod. This would include inserting manifesto links in the OP. This can be done by replacing the link where it says 'Manifesto' under each party title in Section 2 of this OP. Since Wes posts here, it would make most sense to PM him for any queries.

 

[Yen]

Love living in Northern Ireland, means I don't get to vote in the actual important election, but rather get to choose between some Catholic interest dickheads, some Protestant interest dickheads, or Alliance and Greens who get drowned out anyway.

Northern Irish politics, such fun.

I'm from a constituency where the seat is already sown up. I'm voting for the NI Greens (and not the Cannabis is Safer Than Alcohol Party).
A pity than more than half the seats will go to people who won't take their seats or to bigots.

 

[Masquerader]

Love living in Northern Ireland, means I don't get to vote in the actual important election, but rather get to choose between some Catholic interest dickheads, some Protestant interest dickheads, or Alliance and Greens who get drowned out anyway.

Northern Irish politics, such fun.

Yup. I guess I'll go for the Alliance or Greens, then. You'd do well to do the same, regardless of the viability of voting at all.

 

[Jezbollah]

I'm done. And with that, I will leave this thread. Please read info here:

Again, thanks Volo for the OT. See you soon.

 

[Volotaire]

Oh! One last thing. Go ahead and predict the election outcome and the coalition government combination that will result from it. It should be fun! Hopefully a kind poster will record all your predictions and ask a mod to record them in the 3rd post of the OT

 

[Stereogatari]

Whoever wins we lose.

 

[phisheep]

Oh! One last thing. Go ahead and predict the election outcome and the coalition government combination that will result from it. It should be fun! Hopefully a kind poster will record all your predictions and ask a mod to record them in the 3rd post of the OT

Much thanks for awesome OP Voltaire. See you when (if) we have a government!

 

[CyclopsRock]

Banning non compete clauses would be a good idea. Considering one of the basic tenets of a lot of arguments for a capitalist system is that you can up and leave your job whenever you want if you don't like it and someone else is offering a better deal.

Non competes are tricky for higher level employees though. Their knowledge of Business A's future plans would make them very, very desirable to Business B. Ultimately if people don't want this bind, they should simply not work for a company that requires it (in the same way they wouldn't work for an arms manufacturor if they're not fans of the military industrial complex).

 

[Whitechocolatekrispies]

Broken? It's one of the most efficient systems in the world.

Yeah, I agree with bloated, there's a layer or two of management that seems superfluous, but it certainly isn't broken.

I know others have picked up on this, but it's worth saying again:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/nhs...rlds-best-health-care-system-says-report.html

Yeah technically correct, collectively the NHS works. As a building it is standing, but if you look closer you see the foundation is cracked, the structural supports are rotting and it needs a new roof.

Yes it does provides healthcare to us all. However you go into any detail of the intimate functions, departments and areas of the NHS and you'll see it is quite broken, propped up merely on brute force funding (source: half my family works in healthcare, manager, doctors, radiographer, pathologist, nurse etc etc).

But then I reiterate my previous point. Politicians are claiming they will come along and replace the roof, put new structural support in and also re-pour the cracked foundation. But you can't do that, if you want to fix the NHS you have to literally tear the whole thing down and rebuild it from the ground up. Now that won't happen. Politicians promising that are full of shit. They will just come along promising the world, but they'll just end up getting in the way of the people working and proclaiming victory after slapping wet duck-tape over the cracks.

If a politicians comes along and says 'fuck changing the NHS, Ima leave that deadweight alone' they have my vote.

 

[Par Score]

SNP vows to use any Westminster influence for reform and to oppose austerity.

"As long as Scotland remains part of the Westminster system, we will be your allies in seeking to shake up and reform that outdated and discredited system once and for all.

"Westminster needs to change. To be more responsive to the needs and demands of ordinary people, wherever they are in the UK.

"So to people in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, I make this promise. The SNP stands ready to work with you in making that positive change for all of us."

The politician pledged that if there were a hung parliament, SNP MPs would vote to "stop a Tory government even getting off the ground".

Ms Sturgeon then set a challenge to Labour to "match" her pledge and "join forces with a vote of confidence to "lock David Cameron out of Downing Street".

She went on: "If Labour fails to make that commitment, the only conclusion people will draw is that Labour would rather have the Tories back in power than work with the SNP."

I'm not Scottish, and I think Scottish Independence would be bad for Scotland and for the rest of the UK, but I'm really hoping the SNP end up with the 50+ seats current polls suggest.

 

[CyclopsRock]

SNP vows to use any Westminster influence for reform and to oppose austerity.

I'm not Scottish, and I think Scottish Independence would be bad for Scotland and for the rest of the UK, but I'm really hoping the SNP end up with the 50+ seats current polls suggest.

How come?

 

[Nicktendo86]

Apparently 2/3 of people literally switched off when Miliband came on during the Paxman grillings this week.

 

[phisheep]

Yeah technically correct, collectively the NHS works. As a building it is standing, but if you look closer you see the foundation is cracked, the structural supports are rotting and it needs a new roof.

Yes it does provides healthcare to us all. However you go into any detail of the intimate functions, departments and areas of the NHS and you'll see it is quite broken, propped up merely on brute force funding (source: half my family works in healthcare, manager, doctors, radiographer, pathologist, nurse etc etc).

But then I reiterate my previous point. Politicians are claiming they will come along and replace the roof, put new structural support in and also re-pour the cracked foundation. But you can't do that, if you want to fix the NHS you have to literally tear the whole thing down and rebuild it from the ground up. Now that won't happen. Politicians promising that are full of shit. They will just come along promising the world, but they'll just end up getting in the way of the people working and proclaiming victory after slapping wet duck-tape over the cracks.

If a politicians comes along and says 'fuck changing the NHS, Ima leave that deadweight alone' they have my vote.

I concur. The NHS is a big rickety-rackety bedraggled monster of an organisation - the finances are fouled up, the contracts are fouled up, the information flows are 1950s at best, the management structures are all to cock, customer service is at times absolutely appalling and so on and so forth. It lacks pretty well everything you'd expect as basic controls in a business, and it wouldn't be helped any by an army of consultants with bugger-all knowledge of end-to-end healthcare.

Whatever the answer is, it isn't in target-setting or having unrealistic expectations set from the top, because the first priority of many managers seems to be to fiddle the figures to meet the targets. The very first branch of the NHS that implements the very basic primary requirement of honest reporting should get a medal, whereas instead it is likely it would be shot down in flames by the Department. Which means that all the incentives are back-to-front.

It's a miracle the thing works at all.

I don't know what the answer is, but playing political football isn't it.