The UK Politics and EU Referendum thread - merged

[RickBFA]

I think the cross party letter from the ex health secretaries calling for common agreement on health and care makes perfect sense.

To be fair, there is more money than ever going into health - £8.4bn above inflation by 2020.

I think whoever is in power there will have to be more funding going forwards but there also has to be an acceptance that the NHS has to develop and change to cope with the demands it will face.

[AlunB]

I think the cross party letter from the ex health secretaries calling for common agreement on health and care makes perfect sense.

To be fair, there is more money than ever going into health - £8.4bn above inflation by 2020.

I think whoever is in power there will have to be more funding going forwards but there also has to be an acceptance that the NHS has to develop and change to cope with the demands it will face.

I agree. And so does everyone I know who works in the NHS. But there is no debate, or even information on what's happening from the current lot. Five more years of it and I'm not sure what is left will really resemble an NHS at all.

[RickBFA]

Do you think NHS staff accept changes are needed to the way the NHS works?

I'm not just talking about putting more money in, I'm talking about acceptance of reforms, changes to working practices, efficiencies etc?

It's a genuine question.

[AlunB]

Yes I believe so. But there needs to be a dialogue. Simply telling people to work more for less money is not constructive. And the misinformation put out about the lack of a 24/7 NHS, for example, is ridiculous.

But that's not really the problem I was referring to.

[neeko]

The latest autopsy on election opinion polls is out.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35347948

Over 70's turned up at the polling station to vote and voted conservative, but ignored pollsters. Young people shouted loudly at pollsters but didn't go the the polling booth to vote labour.

The tories clearly knew this with the ridiculous interest rates paid on pensioner bonds just before the election, but now stopped. How did labour not realise too? Good job the current labour leadership is listening to those that actually vote in general elections and not those that make noises on social media (oh wait there not)

[TightEnd]

55% of LAB GE2015 voters tell YouGov that's it's unlikely that party will win next election if Corbyn remains.



Corbyn's ratings continues to decline continues with YouGov. Real worry is lack of support from GE LAB voters

[TightEnd]

beckett report

[MintTrav]

So, again today, our Prime Minister has said that the Leader of the Opposition is a threat to national security.

Surely this is not acceptable?

[DaveShoelace]

So, again today, our Prime Minister has said that the Leader of the Opposition is a threat to national security.

Surely this is not acceptable?

Why?

I'm not saying Corbyn is or isn't for the purposes of this debate, but why can't Cameron say so if he thinks Corbyn is?

Again, don't want to rehash our own debate about this, just asking why our PM cannot say this if he thinks it is true?

[MintTrav]

So, again today, our Prime Minister has said that the Leader of the Opposition is a threat to national security.

Surely this is not acceptable?

Why?

I'm not saying Corbyn is or isn't for the purposes of this debate, but why can't Cameron say so if he thinks Corbyn is?

Again, don't want to rehash our own debate about this, just asking why our PM cannot say this if he thinks it is true?

But surely Cameron doesn't really think it's true? "A threat to national security." It sounds almost as if Corbyn is plotting against the UK. And it is not just some no-mark blowing off about another - it is the Prime Minister accusing the Leader of the Opposition of something that sounds close to traitorism (although, if it becomes an issue, he can obviously row back and say that that's not what the words meant).

I don't think this kind of extreme language should be acceptable. They just have a different opinions about defence policy. It is just as valid to assert that Cameron is a threat to national security because of the policy he supports. Are MPs now all going to call each other a threat to national security whenever they disagree about defence policy?

[doubleup]

Yeah you have a point - Theresa May wants to steal everyone's porn because of "threats to national security", so they should at least give the term some meaning.

[DaveShoelace]

But surely Cameron doesn't really think it's true? "A threat to national security." It sounds almost as if Corbyn is plotting against the UK. And it is not just some no-mark blowing off about another - it is the Prime Minister accusing the Leader of the Opposition of something that sounds close to traitorism (although, if it becomes an issue, he can obviously row back and say that that's not what the words meant).

I do think he thinks that is true. Pretty certain there are folks in this thread who think it's true. I think it's true. Pacifism is a threat to National Security when it comes from the person in charge of (potentially) defending us. Does that make Corbyn a traitor? No, as a person that makes him admirable, but as a leader that makes him a threat.

I don't think this kind of extreme language should be acceptable. They just have a different opinions about defence policy. It is just as valid to assert that Cameron is a threat to national security because of the policy he supports. Are MPs now all going to call each other a threat to national security whenever they disagree about defence policy?

I don't think this is a sign of things to come in political debate, this is something very specifically aimed at Corbyn, because he has a very unpragmatic view of perhaps the biggest issue in politics right now. If a leader genuinely thinks this is a national threat, it would be remiss not to keep hammering the point.

Don't get me wrong, I do not like the way Cameron used this to deflect a question about the NHS (and I DO like the way Corbyn pressured him on this topic), and what the Tories are doing right now in that regard are equally as troubling for the country.

[neeko]

So, again today, our Prime Minister has said that the Leader of the Opposition is a threat to national security.

Surely this is not acceptable?

Why?

I'm not saying Corbyn is or isn't for the purposes of this debate, but why can't Cameron say so if he thinks Corbyn is?

Again, don't want to rehash our own debate about this, just asking why our PM cannot say this if he thinks it is true?

But surely Cameron doesn't really think it's true? "A threat to national security." It sounds almost as if Corbyn is plotting against the UK. And it is not just some no-mark blowing off about another - it is the Prime Minister accusing the Leader of the Opposition of something that sounds close to traitorism (although, if it becomes an issue, he can obviously row back and say that that's not what the words meant).

I don't think this kind of extreme language should be acceptable. They just have a different opinions about defence policy. It is just as valid to assert that Cameron is a threat to national security because of the policy he supports. Are MPs now all going to call each other a threat to national security whenever they disagree about defence policy?

It really does not matter what Cameron thinks is true, what matters it what he thought thinks will go down well with his voters and with enough floating voters.

Frankly the tories don't need to do anything, Corbyn seems to be upsetting enough voters on his own.

[MintTrav]

Cameron has been successful in having attention diverted from his government's programme to the detail of what is happening inside the Labour Party. Tighty has pointed out several times that time spent on the ins and outs of the Labour Party is time not spent holding the government to account.

Or, as Isabel Hardman of The Spectator put it today:

‏@IsabelHardman
"Every Commons session I've sat in on this week has seen MPs across House uniting to knock stuffing out of Labour. Including Labour MPs....which is interesting, but does mean Cameron could announce he'll spend entire NHS budget on building a Death Star without opprobrium."

[DungBeetle]

Cameron has been successful in having attention diverted from his government's programme to the detail of what is happening inside the Labour Party. Tighty has pointed out several times that time spent on the ins and outs of the Labour Party is time not spent holding the government to account.

Or, as Isabel Hardman of The Spectator put it today:

‏@IsabelHardman
"Every Commons session I've sat in on this week has seen MPs across House uniting to knock stuffing out of Labour. Including Labour MPs....which is interesting, but does mean Cameron could announce he'll spend entire NHS budget on building a Death Star without opprobrium."

It's true.  The Tories have had a shambolic 12 months.  They must be laughing at how things have panned out with the comedy show on the other side of the house.