State of the parties as 2015 General Election looms.

[P. G. Tipps]

Do 'we'? The SNP's first government in Scotland was a minority one - they didn't enter into a coalition with anyone, but got support for individual bills/policies from whichever party they could do a deal with. On economic matters that tended to be the Tories, on social matter Labour. I think if they hold a balance of power in Westminster they will follow much the same principle - not enter into a formal coalition but support, & influence, the policies they want.

Yes we (if not you) do!! The SNP has officially ruled out any formal agreement with the Tories at its recent conference (Alex Salmond), and this information was confirmed a few days ago by the new Deputy Leader (sorry, I've already forgotten his name!). In contrast, the SNP has pointedly declined to 'rule out' a deal with Labour which is hardly surprising as both are broadly social democratic parties.

Of course the SNP will 'support, & influence, the policies they want' ... one would hardly expect any party to do anything else!

[Flosshilde]

I haven't caught up with her speech yet. But beware of weasel words - if the Tory party, as the largest one, formed a minority administration, the SNP could still support some policies, even if they didn't enter into a formal coalition.

[MrGongGong]

Nicola Sturgeon, at the SNP Party Conference, said that the party would never give any help to the Tories getting into government.

Blimey someone with principles

(though the SNP aren't exactly free of taint)

[jean]

It was a scheme originally devised by the Tories; New Labour took it over & re-named it instead of abandoning it (which is what they should have done)

This is quite blatantly and deliberately reverting to tribal politics and has little to do with the subject and spirit of the OP.

It's my fault for raising a point from UKIP's policy statement.

But Flossie's comment isn't tribalism - it's the truth, and distributes the blame more fairly than I appeared to do, though I did know that the original idea hadn't been Gordon Brown's. It also recognises that UKIP has got something right.

From Prof. Pollock:

...The affordability problems caused by the high cost of PFI and debt finance are not new. Under New Labour, the Treasury and Department of Health signed off these PFI contracts, which lock the taxpayer into long-term debt. The chief executives of the trusts and PCTs were required to pass the affordability test set by the Treasury. In other words, they needed to show how the annual debt charge would be met from the operating budgets of hospitals and other services, ie the budget that normally pays for staff and supplies.

Since the policy was launched in 1992, report after report over almost two decades has shown how each wave of PFI has been associated with trust mergers, leading to 30% reductions in beds; staff lay-offs; and closures of hospitals, accident and emergency departments and an untold number of community services – all because of lack of affordability. PFI, once trumpeted as the largest hospital-building programme, was in fact the largest NHS hospital and bed closure programme.

When waiting lists rose under the last government, it injected new cash into healthcare but diverted the money to the private sector under the wasteful £4bn independent sector treatment centre programme instead of replacing lost capacity in the NHS. Now the needs of private financiers and banks are dictating the shape, size and scale of our health services. In 1990, hospitals paid no charge on their land, buildings and assets; today many PFI hospitals are paying more than 15%. The figure is rising fast. It is a product of ludicrously high fixed interest rates and a measure of "over-indexation", in which unitary charges are increased in line with inflation. At a time when the NHS budget is at best standing still or falling, this inflationary index means credit default or bankruptcy.

The debt is toxic...

(My emphasis)

The article was written over two years ago, and more recently there's been an example of a hospital buying itself out of one of these toxic deals.

That is excellent news, but it should never have been necessary in the first place.

.

[jean]

And before we end this diversion:


Critics of the controversial private-finance initiative (PFI) programme have called for a full independent inquiry after an NHS trust saved nearly £67m by buying one of its hospitals out of its expensive private-sector deal.

In the first such arrangement of its kind, Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust is borrowing £114m from the local council to pay off private contractors who built and ran Hexham General Hospital, leading to savings of about £3.5m every year over the next 19 years...

.

[jean]

some day, when it is needed, the powers that be will decide the time is ripe for real inter generational economic warfare, as part of the endless divide and rule policy.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/11231796/If-youre-under-30-bad-luck.-Youre-screwed.html

is just a taster.

People who see the world that way might very well see PFI as one part of that problem

I have no idea what you mean by this.

[P. G. Tipps]

I haven't caught up with her speech yet. But beware of weasel words - if the Tory party, as the largest one, formed a minority administration, the SNP could still support some policies, even if they didn't enter into a formal coalition.

Of course ... but isn't that the normal position of other opposition parties as well?

[P. G. Tipps]

It's my fault for raising a point from UKIP's policy statement.

But Flossie's comment isn't tribalism - it's the truth, .

It wasn't your 'fault' at all.

My point was not to dispute the veracity or otherwise of what the member posted but to remind her (in a friendly semi-coded form!) what she, herself, had posted only yesterday about members going off-topic in a different direction.

I'm fine about always trying to stay on-topic, but members who urge others to abide by these sometimes difficult rules should be the first to set an example, surely. :winkeye:

[ahinton]

You may well be right. However, at present, we know the SNP will not entertain any sort of agreement with the Tories and they could well be the third party in terms of seats. Even if there is not an official coalition an agreement between Labour and the SNP will be the only show on offer after an indecisive result, short of a remarkable Liberal Democrat recovery which seems unlikely for the foreseeable future.

As I wrote, the issue with SNP is that whatever level of support it might attract in terms of voter numbers, more than 90% of UK voters will not be entitled to vote for them so the number of seats with which they end up might well be disproportionately low; if despite this fact they end up as the third party in terms of numbers of voters, another problem altogether will have emerged, quite separate from and in addition to that of how to form a coalition. Its continuing success in Scotland will not, I imagine, provide much encouragement to adopt any different attitude to Labour than they have indicated that they already have to the Tories.

I'm not at all convinced UKIP will win enough seats to be a serious part of any deal, I suspect they might just hold on to Clacton at best.

I cannot see UKIP doing that badly but I agree that its chances of holding the balance of power in is own right would not only be vanishingly small but would first be dependent upon revision of its decision on the number of candidates that it proposes to field in the election; with a mere dozen, all that they'd be able to do is achieve electoral footnote status.

Like the last election, I doubt any party would want a repeat poll so the likelihood is that some sort of coalition will be formed and the SNP seems best placed to hold the balance of power given a hung parliament. The SNP already does not vote on solely 'English' issues though I well understand the 'grey areas' could cause real problems here. So, however well-meaning the party leaders involved, eventual political chaos cannot be entirely discounted.

I cannot agree with the above apart from your last sentence. SNP's ultimate responsibility is towards Scotland - that's what it's there for - so, given that Westmonster gave it free rein to advocate and try to achieve "independence" of that country from the remainder of UK but that its bid for that failed, the likelihood of co-operation of the kind that you suggest between Holyrood and Westmonster is surely very remote indeed! "Grey areas"? - many of them and fifty shades thereof, no doubt!

But all mere speculation on everyone's part of course ...[/QUOTE]

[amateur51]

It wasn't your 'fault' at all.

My point was not to dispute the veracity or otherwise of what the member posted but to remind her (in a friendly semi-coded form!) what she, herself, had posted only yesterday about members going off-topic in a different direction.

I'm fine about always trying to stay on-topic, but members who urge others to abide by these sometimes difficult rules should be the first to set an example, surely. :winkeye:

The candour with which you express your personal involvement renders it almost Damascene, scottyTipps.

Unless, of course, I've misread you.

[Beef Oven!]

I cannot see UKIP doing that badly but I agree that its chances of holding the balance of power in is own right would not only be vanishingly small but would first be dependent upon revision of its decision on the number of candidates that it proposes to field in the election; with a mere dozen, all that they'd be able to do is achieve electoral footnote status.

The UKIP have been saying for more than a year now that they will be contesting every single seat in the 2015 election. It's also clearly stated on the party's website. You keep referring to "UKIP's decision to field just 12 candidates". Why do you keep saying this?

[P. G. Tipps]

Unless, of course, I've misread you.

Yes, of course, but you missed out the crucial 'quite deliberately' part, Scottytipps!

[ahinton]

The UKIP have been saying for more than a year now that they will be contesting every single seat in the 2015 election. It's also clearly stated on the party's website. You keep referring to "UKIP's decision to field just 12 candidates". Why do you keep saying this?

I refer to http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...y-9691712.html which I cited earlier; I'm not suggesting that it's necessarily correct or that it might not be misleading, but it is published. See also your post #632.

I would be surprised if UKIP does not field candidates in the majority of constituencies, especially as the Greens say that they'll field them in 3 out over 4.

[amateur51]

Yes, of course, but you missed out the crucial 'quite deliberately' part, Scottytipps!

There you go again with your mind-reading routine.

I know variety is dead but try not to miss it so.

[Beef Oven!]

I would be surprised if UKIP does not field candidates in the majority of constituencies, especially as the Greens say that they'll field them in 3 out over 4.

So would I, and so would the UKIP. That makes three of us!

Maybe drop this 12 idea, it's clearly just their prime list. Consistently referring to 12 candidates being fielded detracts from your otherwise instructive posts.