Looks like Danny Alexander is as good as gone. Slightly embarrassing if Douglas follows him.

Every party has to make compromises in a coalition, I was referring to the idea of the SNP propping up the Tories as they've insisted time and again that they won't.

 

That seems unlikely unless they get a carrot they can't turn down - and there's not a lot left they can be promised additionally.

 

Libdems have never said they won't work with any particular party. They believe in democracy and accepting what the public vote for. Even if it backfires on them as the junior party. If Labour emerge as the largest party, whatever is left of the Libdems would support them as government, modifying policies but overall Labour would get (mostly) their way. The more difficult position would be if the Tories are largest party and only the libdems could keep them in power, having lost a chunk of MP's. There might still be a case for supporting a Labour coalition of SNP's etc. but it's not entirely convincing.

 

The Lib Dem position isn't 'we'll go into coalition with the biggest party'.

The Lib Dem position isn't 'we'll go into coalition with the biggest party'.

 

true, it would depend on whether the governing Tory party can claim it has a justification to govern if it barely won most seats, and other circumstances. If Labour won most seats, though, that's a slam-dunk no-contest. I don't see how they could NOT support them and I wouldn't expect them to do otherwise - even if not invited into the government in a formal coalition.

The Lib Dem position isn't 'we'll go into coalition with the biggest party'.

No, but it is that they would talk the that largest party first. That seems to be a logical position to take.

Sheffield Hallam polls in the last week have given Labour leads over Clegg of 10% and 3% respectively.

Meanwhile, Labour's saviour-in-waiting speaks:

 

When we ask [Andy Burnham]whether he prefers Alan Milburn or Nye Bevan, the shadow health secretary looks horrified. “That’s like asking me to choose between Liverpool and Everton. Nye Bevan, of course.”

 

...

 

He insists, however, that his party should not be ashamed to distance itself from the large corporations it tried to win over when Mr Blair was in charge. “At times we did get too close to big business . . . I fully sign up to the New Labour message of the early years that we need to be pro-business to support our aspirations for equality and public services, but there is a danger that if you become too close you are unable to disentangle what are vested interests from the national interest.”

 

Corporate tax avoidance has become a major issue for voters, he believes. “People are really angry about the sense that these companies are not paying their way. Starbucks, Google, Amazon and the rest . . . are damaging our town centres and the fabric of our life but they are not contributing to repair that damage. It’s a moral question.”

 

...

 

Although Mr Blair — and Liz Kendall, Labour’s junior health spokesman — argue that what matters is “what works”, whether the provider of services is public or private, Mr Burnham says: “Maybe there is a difference here. What works in my view is the public NHS. It’s worked for 67 years.”

 

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/politic...icle4346633.ece

So are we to take that last sentence as a full 360 back to him being in favour of his own reforms in government? If we're going by the public shibboleth, it hasn't been purely public for over 20 years.

So are we to take that last sentence as a full 360 back to him being in favour of his own reforms in government? If we're going by the public shibboleth, it hasn't been purely public for over 20 years.

 

God forbid a politician changes his mind and admits he was wrong :lol: He explains pretty clearly that, it's actually because he saw the "reforms" in action that he realised that hiving off parts off the NHS to the private sector doesn't work -- it increased costs and wasted money, resulted in decisions being made that weren't in the best interests of the patient, and those private companies couldn't be held to account in the way a fully public NHS can be (exhibit A: Hitchingbrooke Hospital).

Here's that evil 'Progress Tendency' horsewoman of the apocalypse Liz Kendall being oh so SILLY on reform

 

I’m delighted to be here, and honoured you’ve invited me to join you – not just for this session but for the workshops later on today.

 

I want to start by thanking John, Jeff and Paddy for all their work to make Britain fairer.

 

Day in, day out, you show how a great, constructive trade union can flourish in this country.

 

It's usually said that retail is the hardest sector to unionise, that you can't ‘organise the un-organisable’ - and yet USDAW does precisely this, every single year.

 

You are Britain's fastest growing union, you keep winning and you never give up, and I’m proud to stand alongside you.

 

I first worked with USDAW 10 years ago when I was director of the Maternity Alliance charity. Together, we campaigned to end pregnancy discrimination at work and to improve flexible working.

 

There was a time when some people thought these were fringe issues. But not USDAW.

 

You knew your members were suffering at work just for starting a family and caring for their kids.

 

You knew, too, that losing out on the talents, skills and experience of your members was bad for employers and bad for the economy as a whole.

 

Today, by championing better education through Learn4U centres like the McVities centre here in Manchester, and by campaigning to stop attacks and abuse at work, USDAW shows how a skilled, valued and respected workforce helps build strong businesses and a stronger economy.

 

You know business succeeds most when workers share in their success.

 

That’s one of the things this general election should be about.

 

The election is getting closer and I can tell you, I’m getting more and more frustrated at how politics is discussed.

 

Politics gets talked about like it’s a sport.

 

Who’s up, who’s down. Who played well and whose had a bad day.

 

But this isn’t a game. It’s people’s lives.

 

And this election isn't about politicians. It’s about you.

 

Your jobs and careers. Your rights and dignity at work.

 

Your homes, communities and local services.

 

Your kids and your hopes for a better future.

 

Without progress on all these issues, families will continue to struggle and we’ll struggle as a country too.

 

To make that progress, we’ve got to back enterprise and wealth creation in every part of Britain.

 

We need thriving businesses that can create good jobs, pay a decent wage and compete with the best in the world.

 

Your members don’t want Tesco to struggle, they want it to grow and succeed, even when the management has a bad year.

 

We passionately want businesses to expand, thrive and invest in our future.

 

And we want them to pay their taxes, too.

 

Not just because it is deeply unfair that when most people work all the hours and pay every penny they owe, some companies get away with daylight robbery.

 

But because businesses depend on the things our taxes pay for.

 

They need great schools, colleges and universities that teach people the right skills. They need good infrastructure - roads and railways and world-class science research.

 

And they don’t need to pay over the odds for healthcare like companies do in so many other countries – but not with our NHS.

 

A fair tax system that pays for good public services isn’t a drain on British business, its essential to their success – as all good companies know.

 

We’ve also got do more to value the most crucial part of any business.

 

You. The women and men who work day in, day out, who are the heart of every business, the backbone of our economy and Britain’s best asset.

 

We rightly hear a lot about how infrastructure, technology and investment are crucial to helping our businesses grow.

 

But work and workers must be equally valued in building our economic success.

 

Creating an economy that works for everyone has been Ed’s driving mission since he became Labour leader.

 

And its what he’ll deliver as Britain’s next Prime Minister.

 

That’s why we’ll establish new regional business banks to back companies and create new jobs in every part of the country.

 

We’ll create thousands of new technical degrees and gold standard apprenticeships so people can get the skills they need to earn a decent wage, and businesses can compete across the globe.

 

We’ll help make work pay by raising the minimum wage and incentivising businesses to pay the living wage.

 

And we’ll give workers a voice on executive remuneration committees, to help make sure managers listen to employees when top salaries are negotiated and bonuses are awarded.

 

We will also value work and workers by respecting people’s family lives.

 

I campaigned alongside USDAW for better maternity rights and flexible hours, because helping people at work isn’t just about what happens in their job.

 

People want the security of knowing they can work enough hours that fit around their family life, so they can pay the bills and care for the people they love.

 

That’s good for your members, who don’t want to have to rely on benefits or turn to pay day lenders just to make it to the end of the week.

 

It’s good for business, because when more people can work and care for their families, companies can hire the best person for the job not just the one with the fewest responsibilities.

 

And it’s good for the country, because making sure people earn a decent wage reduces the welfare bill, increases the tax take and helps pay down the deficit.

 

I am very proud that the last Labour government put childcare at the top of our agenda, because we know it’s as important to helping people work as good skills, roads and railways.

 

We made great progress, and we’ll go further with our new plan for 25 hours free childcare for working parents with three and four year olds.

 

Alongside better childcare the next Labour government will make caring for elderly relatives a priority too.

 

We live in an aging society and family life is changing.

 

More and more of us are working and caring for our elderly mums and dads, or disabled partners, and often minding the grandchildren too.

 

Yet it’s still far too hard for people to provide for their families and care for those they love.

 

It is a scandal that 1 in 3 unpaid family carers have to give up work or reduce their hours because they cant get the support they need, or arrange flexible working hours.

 

This must change.

 

Last month, when I launched Labour’s pledge to help family carers, I went to see Lesley Jarvis – an USDAW member who has been caring for her husband since he had a stroke ten years ago.

 

Lesley is 63 and works for Tesco in Croydon. She’s a tough lady, but her life can be a real struggle.

 

If her shift changes, her husband’s care needs to change. If a care worker turns up late, her job gets more difficult.

 

And if all the different NHS and council services don’t talk to one another, it’s left to her to try and fix the problem when she should be at work.

 

Lesley wants to work. She wants to care.

 

But to do this, she needs an employer and care services that listen to her and back her efforts.

 

USDAW is already making a difference for Lesley. And a Labour Government will support family carers like her right across the country.

 

We will give families more say and greater control over their care services, because people need more power at home as well as at work.

 

We’ll make sure care fits around families, with a single point of contact, so they don’t have to battle all the different services and tell their story time and time again.

 

We’ll give family carers the right to ask for an annual health check and properly ring-fence funding for breaks, so people like Lesley don’t end up seeing their own health suffer too.

 

And we’ll champion more flexible working, in partnership with employers, trades unions and carers’ organisations.

 

We need a Britain where businesses and workers are valued, and where both contribute to and share fairly in our country’s success.

 

That’s Ed's agenda. And it’s my passion too.

 

But we all know there's another way on offer.

 

Unfortunately I have to spend a lot of time listening to Tory MPs.

 

I love my work, but every job has its downside.

 

The Tories think the way the country succeeds is when we cut taxes for the rich while squeezing the least well off.

 

They say we have to reduce workers’ rights so business can increase their profits.

 

It’s a view of society where for some to succeed, others must suffer.

 

Where for the economy to grow, we can’t invest in our people.

 

But that just isn’t true. It leads to division and resentment, and it doesn't even work.

 

Because as you’ve shown time and time again, as the last Labour government proved, and as we’ve learned ever since the founding of the welfare state:

 

Britain does best when every Briton can do well.

 

When we work together to get a better deal for all.

 

That’s what’s at stake on May 7th.

 

So don’t let anyone, ever tell you we don’t have the guts or determination to take on the Tories and fight for our future.

 

My constituents and your members desperately need a Labour government that will back the efforts of all those who make this country great.

 

I know politics isn’t perfect – far from it.

 

But it matters, and it makes a difference.

 

We won’t always get it right. And we wont always agree.

 

But I promise you this: with Ed in Number Ten we’ll never stop listening.

 

We’ll never stop working or being by your side.

 

We can and we will change this country if we campaign together, fight together and work together.

 

We can’t do it without you.

 

So lets get out there on the doorstep, on the shop floor, in all our communities.

 

Lets go out and fight for what we believe in - and together, transform Britain for all of us.

If she was Labour leader not only would she have my vote but I'd be as rabid a fanboy as Tirren is when it comes to getting others to vote labour.

That's a ridiculously one-dimensional view of how private involvement in the NHS works. The only part where profit plays a motive is in the bidding process for a contract, and even then the profit only comes from the difference in the cost a private provider can provide the service for compared with the cost the NHS can provide it for - there's no remit for anyone treating a patient on an individual level to make a decision based on profit.

 

NHS doctors taking bribes from private healthcare firms and hospitals

If it's a bribe then that's against the law and the GMC's guidelines, not a part of a private tender.

If it's a bribe then that's against the law and the GMC's guidelines, not a part of a private tender.

 

Obviously it's not the intention, but the door is ALWAYS going to be open to abuses like this as long as any private involvement is allowed in the NHS.

Generally I'd trust most doctors to not commit a crime. I don't think we should base health policy on assuming the worst of our doctors, just as I wouldn't have said Harold Shipman showed why morphine should require two doctors to sign off on.

I'd be more concerned with NHS doctor's not doing their job than trying to get rich out of it, they can always go private and charge what they like to rich people to get rich. There are some life-threateningly crap doctors out there, trust me. My mate was on his virtual deathbed (not expected to live more than 2 days) by the time I managed to get his GP's to leisurely turn up and show them he wasn't just a hypochondriac "drama queen" (his words), as one of them had been insisting for 4 months or more, and he trusted they knew what they were doing. I didn't. Happily he didn't die, as the experts advising his dad to make funeral arrangements were expecting.

 

This was 3 years ago, so it's current NHS staff.

Labour's poll lead appears to have ticked up slightly after a couple of weeks where Miliband has dared to say some vaguely "left-wing" things and criticised smug, entitled businessmen and super-rich tax-dodgers.

 

No doubt he'll soon lose his nerve and be back to prattling about being "pro-business" and posturing about how "tough" he'll be in cutting spending within a couple of weeks, though.

well the right-wing press have actually attempted to do some journalism so they can tar Labour with the same tax-dodging rich bstards bad press, and stuck it on yesterdays front pages. Of course, these are the newspapers owned by rich people who can hire accountants and liaise with banks to creatively store their wealth, so they may have a somewhat biased viewpoint. The ones that are actually British-residents and I'm sure pay the same amount of tax as the rest of us.....

I had to picked up off the floor yesterday when the TORYGRAPH wrote an article praising tuition fees and David Cameron, which also suggested that those from poor backgrounds would be better off studying in England than in Scotland. Haha, comedy newspaper! :lol:

 

Here is the direct verbatim quote: "The Scottish government, which abolished tuition fees, now has an embarrassing admission to make: if you’re gifted, poor and set on university, then England is the best place to be."

 

COMEDY GOLD. No doubt written by some rich, elitist tosser who hasn't got a clue.

Edited February 15, 201510 yr by Doctor Blind

Why is it rich and elitist? Most universities in England actually set about providing more access schemes and more generous bursaries as part of sweetening the higher fees package, so there is actually an argument there. And the biggest lie the left has told for the last five years is that higher fees do a thing to make you worse off if you're less well off - you only start repaying if you're earning over £21k (indeed, £9k kids are better off than £3k kids in the short term - ours starts at £15k), the sunset clauses mean if you haven't repaid in full after 25 years then it's all written off, and even if you are repaying the whole 9 grand you're earning so much that frankly I don't understand why you should be a priority for a left-wing government.

 

There's a LOT to criticise £9k fees for - ramping up the amount students pay for with relatively little difference in teaching quality, cooking the books by pretending it's shifting the burden of higher education spending onto wealthier students when in practice the government is going to have to pick up a lot of those bills in 25 years, you name it. Disadvantaging less well-off students absolutely isn't one of the things £9k fees can be criticised for.