NationStates Jolt Archive

After 9 years in power, a series of disastrous local election results on the 4th of May have shaken the Government to its foundations. Conventional wisdom would suggest that Blair should step aside to let Brown have a chance of winning the next election, but the recent cabinet reshuffle suggests that Blair wants to regain authority and control for as long as possible.

What do the good people of NS think about this? I'm of the opinion that he should stay on for as long as possible, so that he is eventually removed against his will by left-wing Labour MPs. This will be sweet revenge for those who have seen their beliefs and ideology ignored by the government, and will also thoroughly discredit the Labour Party just in time for the 2009 election. David Cameron will then cruise to victory as the head of new Tory Government, and can start undoing the damage Labour has caused.

He should go. I haven't heard anything from anyone, anywhere, in support of the man himself. Most people clinging on to their New Labour loyalties are only doing so because their confidence in the party is so insecure now, that they fear a leadership contest will hand the next election to the Conservatives.

I think he should stay. Let people hate Labour once again :D

We should send a record of this poll to him. It will undoubtedly convince him to leave.

Why would cameron be any better? I will be able to vote in the next election, and the conservatives sure as hell aren't getting my vote. He should go now.

I was going to click that he should go now, and then I saw the option that he should outlive Thatcher, and I thought, 'yes, we should let him stay for another two years, just so history doesn't think that we prefer Margaret Thatcher to him'.

Afterall, he's done quite a bit of good for the country, and he at least deserves to go out in dignity.

Let's look at some highlights of his third term so far, in just about a year:
- Peadophiles working in schools scandal.
- Foreign prisoners being released by the Home Office, some of which have commited more serious crimes that their original offences
- Prescott's affair
- The government losing the confidence of the health service
- Cash for honours scandal.
- Tessa Jowell financial thing
- Losing over 300 councillors in the local elections
- Getting a share of the vote in those elections that puts them behind both the Tories and the Lib Dems
- Massive job cuts in the NHS
- 50 Labour MPs signing a letter calling for his resignation date to be clarified

Hardly a stellar third term, is it?

I know much of it is stuff done by his ministers, but he is the PM he has to take responsibility at some point.

Let's look at some highlights of his third term so far, in just about a year:
*snip*

Hardly a stellar third term, is it?

I know much of it is stuff done by his ministers, but he is the PM he has to take responsibility at some point.

Yes, and his government has done alot of good stuff too. None of which the BBC reports, because guess what- its not news!

I was going to click that he should go now, and then I saw the option that he should outlive Thatcher, and I thought, 'yes, we should let him stay for another two years, just so history doesn't think that we prefer Margaret Thatcher to him'.

Afterall, he's done quite a bit of good for the country, and he at least deserves to go out in dignity.

He isn't half the man Thatcher is. (Don't go saying "but...but...Thatcher is a woman")

I think he should stay. Let people hate Labour once again :DHmmm, perhaps this is a good idea. It might just be what is needed to flush third way politics from the labour party. Out with the New and in with the Old... *ahem* c.c

I was going to click that he should go now, and then I saw the option that he should outlive Thatcher, and I thought, 'yes, we should let him stay for another two years, just so history doesn't think that we prefer Margaret Thatcher to him'.

Afterall, he's done quite a bit of good for the country, and he at least deserves to go out in dignity.

He deserves nothing but contempt, as that is all he has shown the British people. Thatcher will be remembered as a far more important PM than Blair, and will be viewed in a more favourable light. Hanging on to office will in the long run look poorly on Blair, as it shows that his only real achievement will have been outlasting the woman he secretly idolises.

He isn't half the man Thatcher is. (Don't go saying "but...but...Thatcher is a woman")

Thatcher is a woman? Oh thank god, im not gay after all.

Let's look at some highlights of his third term so far, in just about a year:
- Peadophiles working in schools scandal.
- Foreign prisoners being released by the Home Office, some of which have commited more serious crimes that their original offences
- Prescott's affair
- The government losing the confidence of the health service
- Cash for honours scandal.
- Tessa Jowell financial thing
- Losing over 300 councillors in the local elections
- Getting a share of the vote in those elections that puts them behind both the Tories and the Lib Dems
- Massive job cuts in the NHS
- 50 Labour MPs signing a letter calling for his resignation date to be clarified

Hardly a stellar third term, is it?

I know much of it is stuff done by his ministers, but he is the PM he has to take responsibility at some point.

Perhaps if the "British" people of NI would vote for UK wide parties it would be easier to hold him to account.

Liasia']Yes, and his government has done alot of good stuff too. None of which the BBC reports, because guess what- its not news!
Yeah...it does.

Frankly, he's ballsed it up so much in the last year that he really should go before he destroys his own reputation and the possibility for any future Labour leader to win a General Election.

I mean...a 26% projected national vote, had it been a general election. Even the Lib Dems managed 27%, and the Tories 40%. Imagine what sort of a majority that would give in the Commons for Cameron.

Liasia']Thatcher is a woman? Oh thank god, im not gay after all.

Why are you thanking "god" for that? You should be cursing somebody.

Perhaps if the "British" people of NI would vote for UK wide parties it would be easier to hold him to account.
Perhaps if the UK wide parties would stand in any of the constituencies in NI (aside from the Tories in one constituency, once), then the "British" people of NI might vote for them.

Yeah...it does.

Frankly, he's ballsed it up so much in the last year that he really should go before he destroys his own reputation and the possibility for any future Labour leader to win a General Election.

I mean...a 26% projected national vote, had it been a general election. Even the Lib Dems managed 27%, and the Tories 40%. Imagine what sort of a majority that would give in the Commons for Cameron.

The turnout for local elections is rubbish. Therefore its likely the percentages would be a bit screwed up. I just hope the conservatives never get back in. Bastards.

Liasia']Thatcher is a woman? Oh thank god, im not gay after all.Eww...

Perhaps if the "British" people of NI would vote for UK wide parties it would be easier to hold him to account.

Perhaps if the British themselves were to have a more representative voting system, the little prick would have been held to account already.

- Foreign prisoners being released by the Home Office, some of which have commited more serious crimes that their original offences

Worse has happend in the home office for almost every party

- Prescott's affair

Affairs are no big deal

- The government losing the confidence of the health service

Press losing faith in the NHS, governement still happy to quote good figures

- Cash for honours scandal.

Which all 3 parties are responcible for

- Losing over 300 councillors in the local elections

On local issues, which for a 3rd term government could be worse. Not Blairs fault.

- Massive job cuts in the NHS

But still one of the biggest employers in the world (not thats what it should be there for...)

- 50 Labour MPs signing a letter calling for his resignation date to be clarified

Calling for him to set a DATE.

Why are you thanking "god" for that? You should be cursing somebody.

For thatcher being a woman errr ok. Curse you god! curse you!

Liasia']For thatcher being a woman errr ok. Curse you god! curse you!

No, for not being gay. Foo'

He deserves nothing but contempt, as that is all he has shown the British people. Thatcher will be remembered as a far more important PM than Blair, and will be viewed in a more favourable light. Hanging on to office will in the long run look poorly on Blair, as it shows that his only real achievement will have been outlasting the woman he secretly idolises.Uh... um... you do know how Thatcher left office, right?

No, for not being gay. Foo'

Oh i see. :p

Perhaps if the UK wide parties would stand in any of the constituencies in NI (aside from the Tories in one constituency, once), then the "British" people of NI might vote for them.

They have, but they got negligible numbers of votes, and consequently don't waste deposit money by doing it every 4 years. It seems that Ireland contains two types of politicians: Ulster nationalists (who pretend to be British patriots) and Irish nationalists.

Perhaps if the British themselves were to have a more representative voting system, the little prick would have been held to account already.

PR with 3 major parties! maddness. How will anything get done.

They have, but they got negligible numbers of votes, and consequently don't waste deposit money by doing it every 4 years. It seems that Ireland contains two types of politicians: Ulster nationalists (who pretend to be British patriots) and Irish nationalists.

Tell me, how then would the people of NI have the opportunity to vote for UK wide parties, as you so boldly implore them to do?

If they can't, then they won't. It really is quite simply, see?

PR with 3 major parties! maddness. How will anything get done.

Works in various other countries. It's called co-alition government. Likey in the UK the liberals and Labour would buddy up like they have in Scotland.

-Worse has happend in the home office for almost every party

Sure, compare bad things to other bad things...:rolleyes:

-Affairs are no big deal

They are when their "perpetrators" have been showing off their brilliant, stable families.

-Press losing faith in the NHS, governement still happy to quote good figures

NHS also losing faith in NHS...or do you not remember that conference?

-Which all 3 parties are responcible for

It's still scandalous

-On local issues, which for a 3rd term government could be worse. Not Blairs fault.

Labour were using that as a defence for the poor results on the Politics Show.

-But still one of the biggest employers in the world (not thats what it should be there for...)

Tell that to the people who lost their jobs.

-Calling for him to set a DATE.

Yeah...that's what Nadkor said.

Tell me, how then would the people of NI have the opportunity to vote for UK wide parties, as you so boldly implore them to do?

If they can't, then they won't. It really is quite simply, see?

I suppose it is a vicious circle. Perhaps we could ban NI-only parties to force the normalisation of NI politics, but the electorate would probably just abstain.

I suppose it is a vicious circle. Perhaps we could ban NI-only parties to force the normalisation of NI politics, but the electorate would probably just abstain.
Well, no, because it just wouldn't work like that. There would be no immediate normalisation of politics, and you would just show the idea of democracy in Northern Ireland to be a greater sham than it already is.

The main UK parties routinely complain that people here vote for the 'wrong parties', all the while steadfastly refusing to offer the N Irish people any alternative. Ridiculous. And that's just the mildest criticism of the form of 'democracy' that exists here.

Liasia']Works in various other countries. It's called co-alition government. Likey in the UK the liberals and Labour would buddy up like they have in Scotland.

I don't like it. I'd rather waste my vote and have a government that can do what its been voted in to do. Co-alitions will always occur and when things go wrong we can't blame anyone, cause each side will blame the other person. But I suppose thats just me, all ideals would be dropped...

Well, no, because it just wouldn't work like that. There would be no immediate normalisation of politics, and you would just show the idea of democracy in Northern Ireland to be a greater sham than it already is.

The main UK parties routinely complain that people here vote for the 'wrong parties', all the while steadfastly refusing to offer the N Irish people any alternative. Ridiculous. And that's just the mildest criticism of the form of 'democracy' that exists here.

In a way, democracy seems to be the worst possible form of choosing a government for Northern Ireland. It certainly helps to perpetuate unionist/nationalist divisions which in turn prevents any other themes from entering the political discussion.

If democracy is not the answer, a return to direct rule seems the only other option. If that doesn't meet the requirements of the Northern Irish and makes them desire unification with the Republic, so be it.

-Sure, compare bad things to other bad things...:rolleyes:

Well its an accepted difficult area. Having problems isn't gonna be grounds to call for the leader to go.


-They are when their "perpetrators" have been showing off their brilliant, stable families.

As much as I don't like the guy he gives off the kinda Im a big man image. "Personal issue" anyway, since no laws been broken.


-It's still scandalous

Well Labour was the party who made sure that donations had to be declaired creating the whole loans mess in the first place, surely they can't be blammed.

-Labour were using that as a defence for the poor results on the Politics Show.

Well mabey he has a point then :rolleyes:


-Tell that to the people who lost their jobs.

Sure some have lost their jobs that sucks. But you can ask all those extra people who are working in the public sector now so much extra money has been put into it and so many more jobs exist.


-Yeah...that's what Nadkor said

Considering he has said he's going to leave, its only fair his party ask when so they can plan things in advance...

In a way, democracy seems to be the worst possible form of choosing a government for Northern Ireland. It certainly helps to perpetuate unionist/nationalist divisions which in turn prevents any other themes from entering the political discussion.

All that helps perpetuate unionist/nationalist divisions is a poor economy, and a lack of a credible alternative. Nothing more, nothing less.

If democracy is not the answer, a return to direct rule seems the only other option.

As opposed to the direct rule that NI is currently under?

If that doesn't meet the requirements of the Northern Irish and makes them desire unification with the Republic, so be it.[/QUOTE]
You really know very little about N Irish politics, don't you?

-Sure, compare bad things to other bad things...:rolleyes:

Well its an accepted difficult area. Having problems isn't gonna be grounds to call for the leader to go.

It's a difficults area? Please, that reminds me of some new labour drone defending clarke by saying that the Home Office was a "difficult" department. If they think it's too difficult to solve, they shouldn't be in government.


They are when their "perpetrators" have been showing off their brilliant, stable families.

As much as I don't like the guy he gives off the kinda Im a big man image. "Personal issue" anyway, since no laws been broken.

In politics nothing is a personal issue. The arrogance it takes to have an affair shows that Prescott is an arrogant man, which will not endear him to the public. Prescott is a buffoon, who should never have held high office, and was only allowed to get as far as he did because Blair needed a token Northerner.



It's still scandalous

Well Labour was the party who made sure that donations had to be declaired creating the whole loans mess in the first place, surely they can't be blammed.

So they created the problem then, didn't they?


Labour were using that as a defence for the poor results on the Politics Show.

Well mabey he has a point then :rolleyes:

"We didn't do as badly as people said we would". They did actually, and I still don't see how that's a defence.



Tell that to the people who lost their jobs.

Sure some have lost their jobs that sucks. But you can ask all those extra people who are working in the public sector now so much extra money has been put into it and so many more jobs exist.

What about the people in the private sector, who've lost their jobs due to rising tax demands for the bloated public sector?



Yeah...that's what Nadkor said

Considering he has said he's going to leave, its only fair his party ask when so they can plan things in advance...

THe late the better, New Labour needs to be crushed.

Well its an accepted difficult area. Having problems isn't gonna be grounds to call for the leader to go.

- Maybe not, but Blair refused Clarke's resignation...then sacked him after a bad result.

As much as I don't like the guy he gives off the kinda Im a big man image. "Personal issue" anyway, since no laws been broken.

- Still quite an embarrassment

Well Labour was the party who made sure that donations had to be declaired creating the whole loans mess in the first place, surely they can't be blammed.

- Yeah, they made rules for themselves and then exploited those rules' loopholes.

Well mabey he has a point then :rolleyes:

- :)

Sure some have lost their jobs that sucks. But you can ask all those extra people who are working in the public sector now so much extra money has been put into it and so many more jobs exist.

- But Labour is the Labour party.

Considering he has said he's going to leave, its only fair his party ask when so they can plan things in advance...

- I don't disagree...

All that helps perpetuate unionist/nationalist divisions is a poor economy, and a lack of a credible alternative. Nothing more, nothing less.



As opposed to the direct rule that NI is currently under?

If that doesn't meet the requirements of the Northern Irish and makes them desire unification with the Republic, so be it.

You really know very little about N Irish politics, don't you?

Ireland is not supposed to be under direct rule; this is only temporary until the Assembly reconvenes. I'm only voicing the suggestion that direct rule would be a better permanent option, as NI politcians can achieve nothing themselves.

What poor economy? The huge public sector paid for by English taxpayers has lifted NI towards levels of properity enjoyed by the rest of Europe, and peace should see the situation improve further.

- Massive job cuts in the NHS

But still one of the biggest employers in the world (not thats what it should be there for...)That being said, the NHS now employs 30% more workers now that it did in 1995. Comparitively the number of managers in the NHS is now double what it was in 1995. The NHS is the largest it has ever been.

http://www.paramedic.org.uk/news_archive/2006/04/news_item.2006-04-24.2689076559

It's a difficults area? Please, that reminds me of some new labour drone defending clarke by saying that the Home Office was a "difficult" department. If they think it's too difficult to solve, they shouldn't be in government.
.

Its been a difficult area for all governments. I understand they messed up and its a fair criticism and Clarkes gone anyway. Nothing for Blair to resign over, a few criminals (who had served their time) not going home seems overblown as a huge scandal.


In politics nothing is a personal issue. The arrogance it takes to have an affair shows that Prescott is an arrogant man, which will not endear him to the public. Prescott is a buffoon, who should never have held high office, and was only allowed to get as far as he did because Blair needed a token Northerner.
.
Work and personal life are seperate things for most people. If my politician got a divorse, was gay or had an affair whatever, doesn't stop them being a good politician. The fact Prescot is actually a buffoon who has no place in politics is only a coincidence :p




So they created the problem then, didn't they?
.
Well really it looks like the problems existed all the way since Lloyd George who openly accepted cash for peerages. Labour just introduced the system where it was apparent that it existed.



"We didn't do as badly as people said we would". They did actually, and I still don't see how that's a defence.
.

Yeah its a blow for them. But all the other parties losing in 2004 was a bigger blow for everyone else.




What about the people in the private sector, who've lost their jobs due to rising tax demands for the bloated public sector?
.
Thats true. If its in refference to Rover I think it would have been difficult to compete with Eastern Europe. If not then its an ideological criticism not how well the governments been run.
.[/QUOTE]

Ireland is not supposed to be under direct rule; this is only temporary until the Assembly reconvenes. I'm only voicing the suggestion that direct rule would be a better permanent option, as NI politcians can achieve nothing themselves.

You said a return to direct rule; NI has been under direct rule since 2002. That is undeniable.

NI politicians were doing just fine until a British spy helped bring down the assembly.

And "Ireland" isn't under direct rule, no. Northern Ireland, however, is. Major, major difference.

What poor economy? The huge public sector paid for by English taxpayers has lifted NI towards levels of properity enjoyed by the rest of Europe, and peace should see the situation improve further.

Go up the Shankill, or the Falls, or out to the backwater villages and towns of Northern Ireland, and then tell me we have a strong economy. At the top end we do, but the poor are far too poor.

New labour needs to be crushed? lol Harsh words.

Anyhoodle, I voted he should serve his full term. He's british, they never give up.

That being said, the NHS now employs 30% more workers now that it did in 1995. Comparitively the number of managers in the NHS is now double what it was in 1995. The NHS is the largest it has ever been.

http://www.paramedic.org.uk/news_archive/2006/04/news_item.2006-04-24.2689076559

Exacly. I really dislike the media these days. The government create however many thousands of jobs over 9 years, then when a small number of people lose jobs its like the whole things is collapsing.

Firstly how many people employed shouldn't be an issue in the first place, it should be about if people are getting good service and value for money. Not if the government can make steddy jobs.

Go up the Shankill, or the Falls, or out to the backwater villages and towns of Northern Ireland, and then tell me we have a strong economy. At the top end we do, but the poor are far too poor.


No country is without its pockets of deprivation. In London there is Tower Hamlets, Hackney and Brixton, which many people consider no-go areas. How do you predict reduced income inequality would reduce sectarian divisions?

-Tell that to the people who lost their jobs.

Sure some have lost their jobs that sucks. But you can ask all those extra people who are working in the public sector now so much extra money has been put into it and so many more jobs exist.


It is sad that people lost their jobs. But the poster is right - many many more got jobs because of the spending splurge by the Labour govt. That I have a problem with.

When the Tories left back in 1997 the NHS had a budget of about GBP 35Bn if memory serves. Under Labour it went up to GBP 80 or 90Bn! (I can't remember the exact amount but, hey, what's 10Bn between friends?)

But get this - they used it to pay people a load more money, hire loads more administrators and managers AND THE STANDARD OF CARE DIDN'T GET ANY BETTER

I have used A&E rooms quite a few times (hazard of doing martial arts) and the last time I used one (broken toes), the queuing was awful, it was dirty and they just said 'there there now bugger off'. I went home and, as it happened, was sharing a house with a nurse. She kindly gave the treatment i needed.

NHS - bloody waste of money.

Time to privatise it and bring in an insurance-based model to pay for healthcare.

It is sad that people lost their jobs. But the poster is right - many many more got jobs because of the spending splurge by the Labour govt. That I have a problem with.

When the Tories left back in 1997 the NHS had a budget of about GBP 35Bn if memory serves. Under Labour it went up to GBP 80 or 90Bn! (I can't remember the exact amount but, hey, what's 10Bn between friends?)

But get this - they used it to pay people a load more money, hire loads more administrators and managers AND THE STANDARD OF CARE DIDN'T GET ANY BETTER

I have used A&E rooms quite a few times (hazard of doing martial arts) and the last time I used one (broken toes), the queuing was awful, it was dirty and they just said 'there there now bugger off'. I went home and, as it happened, was sharing a house with a nurse. She kindly gave the treatment i needed.

NHS - bloody waste of money.

Time to privatise it and bring in an insurance-based model to pay for healthcare.

If only it were possible to convince the British public that such a move would not mean the end of free (at the point of use) healthcare, and you might be able to win an election.

That being said, the NHS now employs 30% more workers now that it did in 1995. Comparitively the number of managers in the NHS is now double what it was in 1995. The NHS is the largest it has ever been.

http://www.paramedic.org.uk/news_archive/2006/04/news_item.2006-04-24.2689076559


True. Only the Indian State Railways and the Chinese Red Army employ more people!

True. Only the Indian State Railways and the Chinese Red Army employ more people!

Macdonalds? microsoft?

No country is without its pockets of deprivation. In London there is Tower Hamlets, Hackney and Brixton, which many people consider no-go areas. How do you predict reduced income inequality would reduce sectarian divisions?
Because the sectarian divisions are 99% a 'working class' thing. None of the so-called middle class really care much, it's only in areas such as the Shankill, or the Falls, or Andersonstown, or east Belfast, where the sectarian thing really happens.

New labour needs to be crushed? lol Harsh words.

Anyhoodle, I voted he should serve his full term. He's british, they never give up.Would you like to tell that to the 5,000 people in the UK who commit suicide each year?

Liasia']Macdonalds? microsoft?


No, really. Top 3 (descending order)

1 Chinese Army
2 Indian State Railways
3 NHS (UK)

Source: the Economist

It is sad that people lost their jobs. But the poster is right - many many more got jobs because of the spending splurge by the Labour govt. That I have a problem with.

When the Tories left back in 1997 the NHS had a budget of about GBP 35Bn if memory serves. Under Labour it went up to GBP 80 or 90Bn! (I can't remember the exact amount but, hey, what's 10Bn between friends?)

But get this - they used it to pay people a load more money, hire loads more administrators and managers AND THE STANDARD OF CARE DIDN'T GET ANY BETTER

I have used A&E rooms quite a few times (hazard of doing martial arts) and the last time I used one (broken toes), the queuing was awful, it was dirty and they just said 'there there now bugger off'. I went home and, as it happened, was sharing a house with a nurse. She kindly gave the treatment i needed.

NHS - bloody waste of money.

Time to privatise it and bring in an insurance-based model to pay for healthcare.

What can also be a big waste of money is when a poor person gets ill and not only can he not work cause of sickness but without treatment he'll prob spread it to other people (who in tern might not have insurence ect..)

I'll agree with a lot of what you're saying though, too much money is in it and its being handled poorly. Its never good for the government to employ sooo many people, problems are expected. I would say the standards are better (to just defend Labour) but its not been worth the money.

To be fair most people seem to want him to put all this money in though, so I doubt he's been losing votes because he's doubled spending or whatever the figures where.

Because the sectarian divisions are 99% a 'working class' thing. None of the so-called middle class really care much, it's only in areas such as the Shankill, or the Falls, or Andersonstown, or east Belfast, where the sectarian thing really happens.

If that's the case, why do around 60% of the Irish electorate still vote for sectarian parties?

No, really. Top 3 (descending order)

1 Chinese Army
2 Indian State Railways
3 NHS (UK)

Source: the Economist

Shame the NSH can't be run as efficiently as the red army

I think everyone, including Blair, should go when they have to. It's not to safe to hold it and wait. When nature calls, you gotta answer.

*sees the poll*

oops.... nevermind

Would you like to tell that to the 5,000 people in the UK who commit suicide each year?

One questionable achievement of this government has been the reduction of annual suicides since 1997. They ought to use it in the 2009 election, as they won't have much else to boast about.

If that's the case, why do around 60% of the Irish electorate still vote for sectarian parties?
Northern Irish.

The Irish electorate do nothing of the sort, the prefer Fianna Fail.

Would you like to tell that to the 5,000 people in the UK who commit suicide each year?

How can I when they are all dead?

Shame the NSH can't be run as efficiently as the red army

In what possible way could the Chinese Army be described as efficient? If it's anything like its Russian counterpart, it probably treats every soldier as nothing more than cannon fodder, and relies on numbers rather than skill to win.

In what possible way could the Chinese Army be described as efficient? If it's anything like its Russian counterpart, it probably treats every soldier as nothing more than cannon fodder, and relies on numbers rather than skill to win.

They set themselves a target they won't fall short ;)

Northern Irish.

The Irish electorate do nothing of the sort, the prefer Fianna Fail.

Are you going to answer the question?

Are you going to answer the question?
Turnout was about 60%. The working class in NI makes up probably over 60%. Apathy among the middle class who would likely vote for non-sectarian candidates if they could was very high, voting for the UUP at a push.

Put it together and you get roughly 95% of voters going for the four main sectarian parties.

Turnout was about 60%. The working class in NI makes up probably over 60%. Apathy among the middle class who would likely vote for non-sectarian candidates if they could was very high, voting for the UUP at a push.

Put it together and you get roughly 95% of voters going for the four main sectarian parties.

Do you think the introduction for STV for electionsi NI would help, perhaps treating the whole province as a single constituency?

Do you think the introduction for STV for electionsi NI would help, perhaps treating the whole province as a single constituency?
We already use STV in Assembly, local government, and EU elections.

We already use STV in Assembly, local government, and EU elections.

I meant for Westminster.

I meant for Westminster.
Evidence from the 3 it is used for suggests nothing would change.

It is sad that people lost their jobs. But the poster is right - many many more got jobs because of the spending splurge by the Labour govt. That I have a problem with.

When the Tories left back in 1997 the NHS had a budget of about GBP 35Bn if memory serves. Under Labour it went up to GBP 80 or 90Bn! (I can't remember the exact amount but, hey, what's 10Bn between friends?)

But get this - they used it to pay people a load more money, hire loads more administrators and managers AND THE STANDARD OF CARE DIDN'T GET ANY BETTER

I have used A&E rooms quite a few times (hazard of doing martial arts) and the last time I used one (broken toes), the queuing was awful, it was dirty and they just said 'there there now bugger off'. I went home and, as it happened, was sharing a house with a nurse. She kindly gave the treatment i needed.

NHS - bloody waste of money.

Time to privatise it and bring in an insurance-based model to pay for healthcare.The massive pay increases given to doctors are performance related. The reason why the pay increases were so ridiculous is because the government and the public vastly underestimate how much the NHS actually does, and how much value for money it is. The cost per capita of the NHS is significantly below that of the USA (approximately half that of the USA).

I'll take NI as an example. The total number of patients have increased by about 10%. Access to an NHS dentist has increased by about 40%. Total presciptions dispensed has increased by 140%. More staff have been hired reducing the work hours of staff, thus reducing stress and increasing quality of care. Need a remind you that doctors in the UK work an average of 56 hours per week. That's 8 hours a day every day.

The service that the NHS provides for the funds it is allocated is phenomenal.

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/StatBase/ssdataset.asp?vlnk=6551&Pos=5&ColRank=1&Rank=288

How can I when they are all dead?The ones that are going to commit suicide next year aren't.

Yes, and take his puppet master Bush with him.:upyours: