2015 Election - antidotes?

Do you think this could be true?

"The key to losing the next election

Campaigning for this year’s general election is already well under way. Most people assume this is because it will be a close-fought race and that the main parties are therefore desperate to get an early lead. This is what they want you to think.

In fact, all of our leading politicians are desperate to lose, but losing requires careful planning.

Mr Cameron and Mr Clegg have already had a taste of what it’s like to lead the country through a recession in a coalition government. It’s not an experience either man would like to repeat. Most polls suggest that few voters want them to repeat it either.

Mr Miliband claims he would like to be the next prime minister but has skillfully managed to avoid effective opposition. Commentators put it down to ineptness, but Mr Miliband knows what he is doing. He is engineering a tactical third or fourth place, tucking in behind Mr Farage and the Greens, saving his energy for a run at the next election but one.

Career politicians know that timing is everything and the timing of this election is no good. In 2015, Britain is simply not worth running. The economy, immigration, Europe, terrorism, social unrest, corporate crime, sex scandals and a new series of Celebrity Big Brother – it’s not an attractive proposition.

So our current crop of political leaders, all young men with plenty of years left on the clock, will sit it out and watch someone else muddle through the next five years of austerity. They will wait for the next economic upswing and the last seventies entertainer to be put behind bars before making their move.

When you grasp the basic strategy, all parties’ NHS policies suddenly start to make sense. The NHS is a political headache in its own right, a great thumping mass of problems no one knows how to solve, and the ideal subject for political strategists hoping to put their parties on a course for electoral disaster.

Here is a selection of losing tactics gleaned from the politicians hoping to limp home in the middle of the field in April.

1. Wait until the NHS is a top issue for voters, then pretend you’ve never heard of it. Some politicians have stopped mentioning the NHS at all in case they inadvertently say something vote-winning.

2. Go for the popular vote. Labour is promising to turn mansions into hospitals staffed by the former chief executives of bankrupt tobacco firms. Perfect.

3. Promise more money for health but refuse to make it clear how any increase will be funded, exactly how much you mean to spend or over what period. Keep it nice and vague and roughly in line with what everyone else is promising. £2.5 billion is about right.

4. Alienate potential supporters. Tell the people whose goodwill could propel you to an unwelcome victory that you value their commitment and admire their dedication, then cut their pay.

5. Claim to have complete faith in your top team. Phrases like “I have every confidence in Jeremy…” and “Andy has a credible plan to save our NHS…” will convince everyone that you are completely out of touch and beyond help.

6. Propose one new far-fetched scheme each month or so. Suggest that health and social care budgets are to be merged under a new commissioning body run by the General Synod of the Church of England. Confirm their worst fears by adding that you can pull it off without resorting to top-down structural reform. Appoint Andrew Lansley as Archbishop of Canterbury.

7. Insist that Circle was just a bit unlucky and that privately run NHS hospitals are the way forward. Invite hedge fund managers to debate the issue at the Royal College of Nursing’s annual conference. Stand well back."

No, don't think this is true at all. When it comes down to it, all parties want to be in power, and having been in power, want to keep being in power.This is just a 'clever' bit of writing that's all.

Obviously.
The strange thing is that Cameron has put Lansley forward to be the UN humanitarian ambassador, so nothing in the above would surprise me.

"David Cameron has nominated ex-health secretary Andrew Lansley as the UK's candidate for one of the UN's most influential roles, reports claim.

Channel 4 News said that Mr Lansley, who left the Cabinet in July, was the prime minister's choice for the job as the UN's Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Co-ordinator."

Why vote for any of them when it looks often as if they are rarely there? Too busy with other jobs constituents' problems?

Should there be a minimum time that they have to attend?

Whether true or not it is very funny. I never thought that politics would make me lol

What a load of rubbish printed by the Labour supporting Daily Mirror.

What, magpie? It's taken you 19 days and 5 pages of comments to write that!
How about reading a lot of rubbish written in the Times, the Daily Mail and every other paper supporting the Tories.

durhamjen I do have a life, I'm not glued to Gransnet and yes I have only just seen this. I stand by what I have said complete rubbish.

Magpie, you started the Ed Miliband versus Nick Clegg thread on 20th January, so do not pretend you have not been on here.
I'm not glued to Gransnet either, but if you haven't been on for a while, it does make sense to find out if there's another thread on a similar topic on the same forum.
As it is, all you are doing is perpetuating the hatred you feel for anyone who does not accord with your views.

durhamjen I didn't realise when I came on Gransnet I had to read every thread like you seem to do. Your not bias are you Ed and the NHS party come to mind

I think it's a bit discourteous commenting on the OP without reading the five pages of comments in between.
Of course I am biased. Everyone is, one way or another. The difference is that I do not pretend otherwise, like some do.
What do you mean, Ed?
And yes, I am biased in favour of the NHS. I would hope everyone would want that, rather than it being privatised like the railways, water and other services.
I've mentioned on another thread about one man in Hong Kong owning far too much of our infrastructure. The same will happen to the NHS if we do not stop it.

I have just received an election notice from the Conservative Party. Apparently the candidate is a member of the Health and Wellbeing Board. Does anyone know what this is without googling it?

Oh and the heading is Building a Better Health Service!

I don't just see this as a British problem. When 50% of global wealth is owned by 1% of the world's population, it is surely dangerous, as well as outrageous, to allow this situation to continue unchecked?

I feel that if more countries demonstrated their opposition to this massive (and increasing) inequality by voting for parties that offer a radical alternative, even if they fail to win, if they gain significant numbers of votes they will be recognised as a body of opinion that cannot be ignored. Furthermore, it will encourage people at future elections to vote for parties that challenge the stranglehold of the two/three major parties.

I think I am right in saying that the 1% level starts at £530,000. Not as high as I thought.
Which is taken as assets minus debts. So anyone say in this country who has paid off their £500,000 mortgage and owns a good car with some savings, qualifies as being in the top 1% wealthiest people on the planet.

The UK has about 2.3 million people who qualify.
Surprisingly Japan has 4 million.
USA about 7 million.

durhamjen the Health and Wellbeing Board is a multiagency strategic forum in each Council area. It includes Heath, Social Care, voluntary sector, Council and Healthwatch representatives.
Anyone can attend their meetings and usually details can be found on your Council's website. You can ask questions of the Board and their remit is the development, delivery and evaluation of health and social care services locally.
Usually meet regularly and can be very interesting to hear the debates.

And no, I didn't Google it, I used to attend the meetings and speak on relevant topics to my line of work.

Just 85 people own as much wealth as the bottom 50% according to this report.

It's not the people who have paid off their mortgage and include their pension fund and modest savings, soontobe, it's this lot.
What on earth do they spend it on? Thank goodness they can't take it with them.

Sorry, here it is:
www.theguardian.com/business/2014/jan/20/oxfam-85-richest-people-half-of-the-world

Thanks, loopy. I have googled it, but wanted to know how many had heard of it.
It is supposed to do joined up work on behalf of health and social care, but does not seem to be doing a very good job, if that is the case.
If they were doing their job and chasing up care companies, the NHS would not have such a problem getting the elderly out of hospital beds.

Roseq, I bet they are all at Davos.

Sorry, I wrote that before I clicked your link, roseq.

"Nothing, though, has been done to reduce inequality. Indeed, the trend has been in the opposite direction. In both Europe and a lesser extent the US, investment has fallen as a share of national output, harming productivity growth. Jobs have been created, but far too many of them have been low paid. What’s more, QE has done far more to boost financial assets than it has to boost real economic activity. The real beneficiaries of central bank activism have been the undeserving rich.

As usual, there was plenty of hand-wringing in Davos about the need to do something to reverse this trend. As usual, there was a failure to contemplate what this might mean, apart from the motherhood and apple pie of education, training and skills. It actually means a repudiation of austerity. It means the willingness of governments to take advantage of low interest rates to borrow for public investment. It means closing tax loopholes and tax havens so that governments can afford to invest more in education and training. And it means stronger trade unions. Business leaders have a choice. Understand that less inequality equals stronger, less debt-dependent growth. Or watch as secular stagnation takes hold."

From an article by Larry Elliot in the Observer.

Anyone else think that hotel in Davos looks just like an old fashioned straw beehive?

rosequartz The problem is that although they can't take it with them they can - and do - ensure that it remains with their families. I believe the statistics indicate that a substantial percentage of wealth is inherited wealth.

Good point that nothing is being done about inequality.

Good point that the over wealth can stay in families.

I think the country has gone far enough.
I would like the top to care more.

I've been busy coping with health issues for a couple of months so I am catching up. Some observations on the NHS and politics.

It is strange to me, an avid political animal that people who are cheesed off with politics would follow the 'politics' thread and deplore the coverage of politics from now until the general election. I would like to make comments on politicians.

I was inadvertently elected in 1995 as a local government Cllr. I had said I would stand as a 'paper' candidate in a ward which had always been Tory. That year Labour had a landslide and I was elected. I was a Cllr for 12 years before the electorate decided to have a change. During that time I was a wife, mother and nurse. I firmly believe that I did not lie once in my dealings with my constituents or the public. I did the job to the best of my beliefs and ability. I didn't always get what I wanted, sometimes I lost the vote. Once, on a planning committee the tension and emotions were so high, I had to run out and vomit. I did not always claim every expense that I could but that was because with a decent job and a well-paid husband, it was sometimes more of a pain, however, expenses are essential so that ordinary people can do the job without being out of pocket. Many politicians pay for stuff out of their own pockets. So, when I hear politicians being scorned and rubbished it hurts. Of course there are some scoundrels but that is the case in all walks of life. A wunch of bankers comes to mind.

This is probably the most crucial election of our times if we want to stop the NHS being sold to private companies. Make no mistake, the private sector only wants the easy jobs. While I was nursing I knew of patients who were told by consultants not to use the private sector for their complicated conditions because they would not get the care needed.

I recently had occasion to use the choose and book system for an appointment with a consultant with a view to a gastroscopy. I unwittingly chose what turned out to be a contract with the private sector.

First, they got my name completely wrong, a potentially risky business. I had to attend one centre for the initial appt, another centre for the gastroscopy and a third different centre for the follow-up discussion. Meanwhile, although nothing was found to be wrong, it was proposed to send me for a barium meal as well. Why? An unnecessary procedure which would have cost the NHS another packet of cash going to the pockets of shareholders under the contract system. I refused and the consultant agreed that it was not needed.

In my Labour party branch we have 40+ members who deliver leaflets to houses. Not so many like to knock on doors or do cold calling by phone. When we do knock, many people don't answer the door even though you can see them watching TV, so it is a thankless task at times but when you persuade one person, especially a young woman to vote, it can seem worthwhile. We have a woman candidate.

This will be my last general election I think. Waiting for my second hip replacement, I do computer work and organising .... and talking to Gransnet.

Lastly, watch Greece. Be afraid for them. If you haven't seen the Oliver Stone series 'The untold story of the USA' buy it and watch all 10 hours of CIA interference in democratically elected governments. Shocking even to an old lag like me.