Current Overall Majority Odds

Conservatives 1-3
No Overall Majority 3-1
Labour 28-1

Not at though betting at odds on is a way to riches, but based on all of the information to hand and the national mood, it does actual sound almost generous

Not sure stopping the nurses bursary was well thought out - or the tax/pension issue that affected a lot of doctors in the last year.

It's a good point, that overreliance on polls and predictions has led to a lot of eggs on a lot of faces over the past few years. I agree that there is a different feel this time around and Labour don't appear to be making anywhere near the required gains as polling day nears. The only way I can see them outperforming expectations is if there's much more tactical voting between Labour and Lib Dem voters in marginals than has been factored in. Who knows how the day will pan out, but a 50-60 seat Tory majority certainly wouldn't surprise me.

As you say May couldn't get people onside in the way that Boris can, and there was a sense back then of holding out for a different or better deal down the line, whereas with this election there's a feel of now or never to proceedings. As for Corbyn, I don't really disagree in that he had to tick an impossible number of boxes to cater for different factions within the party. Politically he would've likely done much better if he'd gone full on remain, and crushed Lib Dem support, but he clearly doesn't have much time for the EU either. Ironically he's very likely more anti EU than any of the other party leaders, Farage aside of course.

Yes as I said in the message following 'There is definitely much to be said for how ludicrously stretched the NHS is in some areas of the country compared to others. At least post brexit should should (in theory at least) more variables at play regarding who is allowed to use the health service and well as the numbers coming in.'

My concern going forward is that politicians are very good at saying the right things when they want your vote, but as we see from the current rising non eu numbers, is there really going to be a concerted effort to substantially cut these figures longterm?

I get your point about the negative impact on countries we take nurses and doctors from. That said, we're in such a state in this area that we need to be careful about how we move forward post Brexit since 1/8 of NHS staff are foreign. It's the only area of immigration I'd offer a soft touch to initially I think to avoid an exodus, while also making it much easier for doctors and nurses to be trained here so that we to gradually transition to something more sensible and sustainable

Edited by dollardays (10 Dec 2019 8.54pm)

Saying ‘foreign’ is another word and thing to get the easily offended into a strop these days.

COYP

I wonder how many issues Corbyn opposes the EU with in addition to rules on nationalising industry, fiscal policy rules in the Eurozone, and strict austerity programmes on Greece, so some different reasons.

COYP

According to George Galloway Emily Thornberry is 'making it clear' that she 'will be running for Leader' of the Labour Party.

With friends like these.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

I don't suppose that anyone here thinks otherwise and so don't have to be told by the forum's chief snowflake unless it was just an excuse to get in another insult

[Link]

Here's a handy fact sheet to prove otherwise.

There are many reasons why the NHS is costing more, but surely the 3 main ones are...

PFI: introduced by the Tories but accelerated by Noo Labour, private companies were tasked with building nearly 12 billion pounds worth of hospiyals. Gernous. Only thing is, NHS trusts are predicted to have to pay over 12 TIMES what they borrowed in future repayments. That puts the overall costs of the schemes at close to 100 billion for the taxpayer, and the figure is rising each year.

Worth a read: [Link]

2012 Health and Social Care Act: if you ask most doctors and medical experts when the scales changed, this was it. Brought in by the Coalition despite explicit manifesto commitments not to restructure the health service, this bill provided most of the legal framework for a bureaucratic reorganisation of the health service.

Among other things, the duty of the health Secretary to provide a public health service was taken away; managers were parachuted in from American private health companies; the cap on the amount of money hospitals could make from things like parking charges, private consultations and private medicines was raised from 2% to 50%.

Again, read this for a detailed analysis of just how devastating this legislation, which had no popular assent, has been [Link]

Finally, the increase in the price of pharmaceutical drugs: Pfizer and GSK, among others, have already been fined for this practice. In 2017, the price of the NHS buying in drugs from private firms rose 34% to nearly 16 billion. We know that after Brexit, one of the main areas of UK-US trade deals will be to remove regulation on this matter.

Read: [Link]

While demographic changes are a factor, there is simply no evidence that they are costing as many billions as these issues are. For all the talk of record spending on the MY, the simple fact is that the spending is needed just yo meet the debts incurred by each of these things.

And yes, the Tories are cognizant and supportive of this. Osbourne called it the biggest mistake of his government (2012 HSC Act), Rawnseley who brought in the changes now works for a private health firm; Hancock is on record supporting further structural reforms of Health care; Hunt worked for a private trust before being health Secretary.

So if you really want the facts....there you have em.

If punk ever happened I'd be preaching the law, instead of listenin to Lydon lecture BBC4

I see you didn’t like me commenting on your use of power. I will not respond in kind