By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - The UK 2010 Election Thread- Who will/would get your vote?

 

The UK 2010 Election Thread- Who will/would get your vote?

Conservative - David Cameron 19 32.20%
 
Labour - Gordon Brown 11 18.64%
 
Liberal Democrats - Nick Clegg 22 37.29%
 
Other Party (Green/UKIP/Etc) 5 8.47%
 
Undecided 2 3.39%
 
Total:59
Slimebeast on 21 April 2010
Kasz216 said:
SciFiBoy said:
Kasz216 said:
I would probably vote Liberal Democrats. I feel like the Authortarian levels of Britain are at a scary high level.

I mean stuff we complain about in the patriot act is stuff that happens in the UK all the time.

Conservative is a close second though based on the "Key issues" i've read between the two so far. I'll keep you up to date on my "non" vote.


Also, what's up with the health care saying "It's for the people who need it not who can pay."?

I mean, you guys have universal healthcare. Is there some rampant discrimination against the poor? I mean, I know if your poor your MUCH more likely to die of random diseases in the UK but I thought that was just due to the fact that the poor usually have a worse lifestyle.

hmm?

I think the NHS should always be a priority for the goverment, all the main parties support it.

 

They are saying it in a way that makes it sound like NHS discriminates against the poor.  Both Conservative and Liberal Democrats say "Healthcare should be about who needs it not who could pay."

This would be analgous to someone saying "Black people should be allowed to vote" in the US.  Black people already can vote... and have been able to for a while... why are you bringing this up?  Are there black people who can't vote?"

No. The national health care system in the UK doesnt discriminate against the poor. Just like here in Sweden they argue that it's important to keep the currnt system with strong public health care, and not let private alternatives get too strong and 'sneak in' a class based health care system in the long run when/if people lose their trust in the qualify of public health care.



Around the Network
FootballFan on 21 April 2010

The NHS is excellent. but, under stupid government imposed rules it is now a laughing stock in some regions.

For example, in my region a friend of mine needed a drug to restore some sort of deficiency he has. However, in my regional zone the NHS has decided this drug is too expensive to provide him with. Consequently, forcing him to go private.

Heres the catch. If he lived in Lincolnshire or Lancashire he would have been given this drug on the NHS because they elected to include it in their funding. Talk about a ridiculous scheme!



damkira on 21 April 2010

If we're not British, do we get to vote?

 



SciFiBoy on 21 April 2010
FootballFan said:
The NHS is excellent. but, under stupid government imposed rules it is now a laughing stock in some regions.

For example, in my region a friend of mine needed a drug to restore some sort of deficiency he has. However, in my regional zone the NHS has decided this drug is too expensive to provide him with. Consequently, forcing him to go private.

Heres the catch. If he lived in Lincolnshire or Lancashire he would have been given this drug on the NHS because they elected to include it in their funding. Talk about a ridiculous scheme!

ideally the government should increase NHS funding and also redirect funds from things like the riddiculous over payment of managers (many of which may not even be needed anyway)



FootballFan on 21 April 2010
damkira said:

If we're not British, do we get to vote?

 


If you live in England and aren't British you can vote. However you may have missed the registration times



Around the Network
Kasz216 on 21 April 2010
FootballFan said:
The NHS is excellent. but, under stupid government imposed rules it is now a laughing stock in some regions.

For example, in my region a friend of mine needed a drug to restore some sort of deficiency he has. However, in my regional zone the NHS has decided this drug is too expensive to provide him with. Consequently, forcing him to go private.

Heres the catch. If he lived in Lincolnshire or Lancashire he would have been given this drug on the NHS because they elected to include it in their funding. Talk about a ridiculous scheme!

That would explain the "for those who need it not who can afford it statement.

Honestly, I had no idea the regionalization was so bad. I thought it was more they just put caps on treatments.

It's bothersome... it feels like... it would be to expensive no matter what system you use, to treat everybody for everything.



tombi123 on 21 April 2010
Kasz216 said:
SciFiBoy said:
Kasz216 said:
I would probably vote Liberal Democrats. I feel like the Authortarian levels of Britain are at a scary high level.

I mean stuff we complain about in the patriot act is stuff that happens in the UK all the time.

Conservative is a close second though based on the "Key issues" i've read between the two so far. I'll keep you up to date on my "non" vote.


Also, what's up with the health care saying "It's for the people who need it not who can pay."?

I mean, you guys have universal healthcare. Is there some rampant discrimination against the poor? I mean, I know if your poor your MUCH more likely to die of random diseases in the UK but I thought that was just due to the fact that the poor usually have a worse lifestyle.

hmm?

I think the NHS should always be a priority for the goverment, all the main parties support it.

 

They are saying it in a way that makes it sound like NHS discriminates against the poor.  Both Conservative and Liberal Democrats say "Healthcare should be about who needs it not who could pay."

This would be analgous to someone saying "Black people should be allowed to vote" in the US.  Black people already can vote... and have been able to for a while... why are you bringing this up?  Are there black people who can't vote?"

I think it might have something to do with some cancer cures that aren't offered by the NHS because they are expensive so you have to go private which the poor can't afford to do. Not completely sure though. 

Liberal Democrat. Before someone accuses me of jumping on the band wagon, I was going to vote for them before the live debate.



FootballFan on 21 April 2010
SciFiBoy said:
FootballFan said:
The NHS is excellent. but, under stupid government imposed rules it is now a laughing stock in some regions.

For example, in my region a friend of mine needed a drug to restore some sort of deficiency he has. However, in my regional zone the NHS has decided this drug is too expensive to provide him with. Consequently, forcing him to go private.

Heres the catch. If he lived in Lincolnshire or Lancashire he would have been given this drug on the NHS because they elected to include it in their funding. Talk about a ridiculous scheme!

ideally the government should increase NHS funding and also redirect funds from things like the riddiculous over payment of managers (many of which may not even be needed anyway)

If I was in charge I would hit the millionaire bankers a lot harder with taxes. In addition, transfer the pay increases from the higest earning managers in the NHS to the lowest paid nurses. The NHS needs much much more funding but I don't quite know where the source of that could come from.....

Ideally the government would legalise many drugs. Charging obscence prices and profiting massivly from taxation. Only the rich would be able to consume these goods and the NHS would be placed under less strain as they wouldn't be as popular as they are know! 



Slimebeast on 21 April 2010
tombi123 said:
Kasz216 said:
SciFiBoy said:
Kasz216 said:
I would probably vote Liberal Democrats. I feel like the Authortarian levels of Britain are at a scary high level.

I mean stuff we complain about in the patriot act is stuff that happens in the UK all the time.

Conservative is a close second though based on the "Key issues" i've read between the two so far. I'll keep you up to date on my "non" vote.


Also, what's up with the health care saying "It's for the people who need it not who can pay."?

I mean, you guys have universal healthcare. Is there some rampant discrimination against the poor? I mean, I know if your poor your MUCH more likely to die of random diseases in the UK but I thought that was just due to the fact that the poor usually have a worse lifestyle.

hmm?

I think the NHS should always be a priority for the goverment, all the main parties support it.

 

They are saying it in a way that makes it sound like NHS discriminates against the poor.  Both Conservative and Liberal Democrats say "Healthcare should be about who needs it not who could pay."

This would be analgous to someone saying "Black people should be allowed to vote" in the US.  Black people already can vote... and have been able to for a while... why are you bringing this up?  Are there black people who can't vote?"

I think it might have something to do with some cancer cures that aren't offered by the NHS because they are expensive so you have to go private which the poor can't afford to do. Not completely sure though. 

Liberal Democrat. Before someone accuses me of jumping on the band wagon, I was going to vote for them before the live debate.

I call BS.



Kasz216 on 21 April 2010
FootballFan said:
SciFiBoy said:
FootballFan said:
The NHS is excellent. but, under stupid government imposed rules it is now a laughing stock in some regions.

For example, in my region a friend of mine needed a drug to restore some sort of deficiency he has. However, in my regional zone the NHS has decided this drug is too expensive to provide him with. Consequently, forcing him to go private.

Heres the catch. If he lived in Lincolnshire or Lancashire he would have been given this drug on the NHS because they elected to include it in their funding. Talk about a ridiculous scheme!

ideally the government should increase NHS funding and also redirect funds from things like the riddiculous over payment of managers (many of which may not even be needed anyway)

If I was in charge I would hit the millionaire bankers a lot harder with taxes. In addition, transfer the pay increases from the higest earning managers in the NHS to the lowest paid nurses. The NHS needs much much more funding but I don't quite know where the source of that could come from.....

Ideally the government would legalise many drugs. Charging obscence prices and profiting massivly from taxation. Only the rich would be able to consume these goods and the NHS would be placed under less strain as they wouldn't be as popular as they are know! 

Well the problem with massivly taxing drugs is that if they end up more expensive then street value by a significant amount... you won't get rid of the black market and most people will buy from the black market.

Functionally, all you end up doing is making it so it is harder to catch people with illegal drugs since they can just claim they purchased them legally.