It could be the electorate are just too intelligent to vote for a party ensconced in the 1970's. Their ideas were rejected then and will be again in June.
The electorate are not intelligent in that way.......... and there is no such thing as the electorate....... the country is split and in a shambolic state post the Brexit vote..... But then we all know about divide and rule. Just look at what our forebears did in India....
The 'electorate' means all the people in an area or district who are entitled to vote. The voters may not be that intelligent but they are not stupid enough to vote for policies that have been previously rejected decades ago. The current crop of Labour MP's must be cringing with embarrassment. The LP manifesto has rightly been described as the second longest suicide note in history.
The term 'electorate' may refer to all the people in an area entitled to vote. However it is not a singular beast. It cannot be "intelligent" or "stupid" since that would mean every member of it would choose to vote in identical fashion. They clearly don't.
The UK electorate is singular, of course it is made up of voters with differing views but the majority view is the defining issue. Thankfully the UK electorate remember the incompetence of Labour past.
If Virgin (owned by the well know socialist Branson) can make medical practices profitable, why can't the NHS management do the same or just break-even, even? Is Branson charging patients and get a sub from the NHS perhaps?
The figures issued from the NHS tonight on waiting times are really scary. Just about every EU country regards it's residents as worth spending more money on health than the UK. That cannot be right.
There - fixed that for you... Or this... www.theguardian.com/society/2016/oct/12/virgin-care-patients-being-forced-to-make-appointments-to-boost-profits-says-labour-mp-paula-sherriff
My friend in Dorset who I see once or twice a year, had a back problem, and was referred to a private BUPA hospital for surgery as the waiting list for his type of operation on the NHS was two years. For him it was great, he only had to wait about three months, but it was paid for at commercial rates by the NHS. He didn't have to pay anything, and was very happy with the treatment he received from a private hospital. It seems to me that there is gap of about 2% of GDP between what different countries in the EU and the UK are prepared to pay for their populations health care. It comes down to choice of course, but when most people are looking to live without pain, then to offer a rationed healthcare system seems unfair.
For both knee replacement operations I was given the option of SNHS or private - whichever rang me first. Both times the SNHS rang first, and I was operated on within 8 weeks for the first and within 10 weeks for the second. Both times, had the private hospitals got in first, I would have said no anyway - Edinburgh, Glasgow or Dundee, all too far away for family/friends to visit, no way of getting home safely after being discharged - and no aftercare on offer. One of the many reasons I will never vote Tory - they simply don't care about people as people. To them we are simply economic units - there to get as much out of us as they can, and give back as little as they can.
http://www.lbc.co.uk/politics/elect...aders-live-on-lbc-theresa-may/#competition-33 Live on air at 7:00pm to answer your questions - once they have been carefully vetted of course. I'd like to ask her why she won't allow another Brexit referendum, or why she (thinks she) won't allow Scotland another Independence referendum, but why it's ok for her to vote on overturning the fox hunting ban. I somehow think I wouldn't get past step one...
NHS has been in terminal decline for more than twenty years spanning both main political parties time in office. It's not fit for purpose and needs radically overhauling to bring it back into line. It would be nice that in the interests of the British population that it could be made a cross-party agreement to work to together to make it once again a health service that is the envy of the world and truly serves its population with top draw healthcare. But no, it will continue to be used as a cheap shot at those in power flagging up how awful things have become all the time conveniently forgetting that when the others were in power it was still a postcode lottery as to how the standard of care you got depended on where you lived. When the NHS was set up it worked for its time, but things have changed on so many fronts that it is unrealistic to expect it to be able to cope without a major overhaul on how it is to deal with the demand placed upon it in the twenty-first century.
I have to agree with you Flittonhorn, and as I have a daughter who works for the NHS and have received treatment here in France do see the good and the bad. Money goes into government through national insurance contributions, but it is dealt with purely as tax income. The government then decides how much of that income is spent on the NHS. There is a shortage of government money in the UK because of low productivity, so what has come in does not cover all the government expenditure. In round figures the UK spends 9% of it's income on the NHS, while France spends 11% and Germany 12%. France has problems attracting GPs to work in rural areas because of the hours expected, one of which I live in, but need an appointment to see mine, and they apologize if they cannot give you one for two days, whereas my daughter in England will have to wait three weeks. Treatments have changed, and years ago what was a five day stay in hospital can be done in day surgery, but not all, and from what I see there are too many sent home before it is safe, simply to free up a NHS bed. Every month my daughter goes to another leaving party as nurses and doctors leave to go back to their home countries, in part because of the stress working for a system that is failing. Yes it does need a radical overhaul, but a party that is penny pinching and another that promises what it cannot pay for does lead me to believe that a different approach is required, and one that asks the population just what they want, what they expect, and are they willing to pay for it.
I was referring to the state of our 'democracy' rather than party politics, sh. In terms of the latter it seems the greedy and self-serving may well win the day. Shame really, because it's not policy led - Labour's policies are very popular. A lot comes down to greed, racism, and mind-control dictated by non-dom, super-rich media magnates. If you're proud of that state of affairs, good luck to you.
The UK voters correctly do not trust Labour to properly cost or deliver their often well meaning policies. The incompetence of the shadow cabinet has been clearly highlighted recently. If most of Labour's MP's express no confidence in their own leaders why would anybody else? Shambles.
Whilst the greedy, the racists, the non-dom media magnates are all organised. What a compelling case you make for our 'democracy' and future under the Tories. And I mean under.
You fail to make the case for the average Joe to trust these Labour clowns when their own elected members do not. You actually insult the intelligence of the UK voters. It is not difficult to understand the increasing support for the Tories as there is no viable alternative.
Given that they do already pay for it, perhaps asking what they would like their money spent on would be more pertinent. I'd lay odds that their priorities would be radically different from those of the powers-that-be, who spend it as they themselves see fit.
