Election then - Kinda inevitable. FF secret ballot!

[Dr_Pepper]

No you're right that is good, and they are improving quick it seems 4 years ago they were out of the top 20 on the times list but I think it's been top ten for 2/3 years now. The campus is great, virtually all the halls are on site although I can recommend some more than others - quick hint, if you want catered, go for towers. They look old but the rooms are the biggest by far!

The sports thing is mainly good (seen good 'ol Paula endless times as well) but it does cause problems - for example I would go so far as to say that I'm good at Tennis and Badminton, but there are so many people doing sports stuff I didn't even make the hall team

 

[bad_boy_racer]

Any hints where to go if I want to eat self catered - which is what I'm leaning towards?
I dunno if I'll get on any of the teams - I'm not bad at most stuff but I guess I'll find out IF I get there!

 

[The Negotiator]

Make sure you don't eat at Whitworth hall, the food was awful when I went.

 

[Dr_Pepper]

There's actually not that many self catering halls any more (I applied for self catering but they gave me catered anyway). Of the ones I have experienced, Butler court is very good and cheap but it's shared rooms (suits some people), Falk-Egg is a bit naff personally I would avoid, John Phillips is good if you're doing engineering but on the wrong end of campus for everything else, and Telford is the best by far (and new) but is expensive. The others I've not been inside. As I say I was in Towers, which is catered, and I can highly reccommend the food. Speaking as someone who is not fussy, some people moaned about it but I thought it was great.

On the election topic, anyone who is interested all the main party leaders will be on Question Time (With one of the Dimblebys, It's too early to say which), at 8.30 BBC.

 

[bad_boy_racer]

Well, well, well - that was intresting wasn't it! CK looked to come out of that very well in my opinion! MH got a bit of a roasting (really... will anyone vote for the Tories?!) and I really wish they hadn't spent half the time re-hashing Iraq with TB!! Oh and that bloke in the green on the front row was a ****.

 

[The Negotiator]

Interesting you say that Matt actually (re; tories).

See in my opinion you have the following choices:

Vote labour simply because they are a known quantity.
Vote lib dem because they actually have a fair few decent things to say.
Vote extreme because you have a specific problem etc. (e.g. UKIP, IMO that's extreme, places like BNP are not even a choice for obvious reasons.)

Tories to me offer nothing, they offer nothing better than labour, cut backs, limitations on immigration which could be detrimental to the NHS for example. They offer none of the benefits of the the lib dems (keeping local council tax, tutition fees etc.) and have worse people than Labour.

Sadly out of my 7 main mates at uni, 4 are voting tory, they can't explain why, one said "everybody in my area votes tory" the other "labour removed a lot of scholarships to private schools". They are all privately educated (as are most my uni friends). They're just doing it because their parents do and they can't think for themselves. Tories offer nothing for students which is another reason why it is a bit confusing for me that a student would vote tory.

So people will vote for the tories, why?! I really don't know. Can somebody explain to me?

 

[Dr_Pepper]

Here you go then...

Not watching Question time Paul

I didn't think Blair came out of it particularly well but then neither did the others...

 

[Neofolis]

I find it equally astonishing that people vote Tory. I live in a Tory area with Lib Dem as the only serious competition, but where I live there is a lot of wealth, so I can understand the Tory vote because of the historical benefits that Tories offered to the wealthier classes. I'm more concerned about the vote on here, where Tories also lead the votes, bearing in mind that most people on here are Fiat owners, it's certainly not a majority wealthy forum.

As far as wealth is concerned Tories current policies no longer benefit the wealthier classes greatly more than any other party, but for some reason most people don't change who they vote for with changes in policy. Why is that? Obviously many people do change who they vote for, otherwise the same party would stay in power at each constituency at each election, with the exception of minor changes due to new people adding to the electorate and others moving away/dying, but those changes could only affect minor swings.

So rather than change their vote due to changes in policy, most people change their vote based on who is popular at the time, so in fact most people vote without any need for knowledge of the candidates or their policies, which as far as I am concerned completely undermines the power of a democracy.

Since the start of this campaign, I have been going out of my way to research manifestos and any changes in policy from local and national government and it is really not that easy to get reliable up to date information.

In all the Party Political Broadcasts I have seen on TV, heard on the Radio, I have not heard any mention of a single policy. We seem to be approaching the showbiz style elections of the US. It's all about popularity not policies as far as the big parties are concerned, the policies seem secondary. It's as though the policies are just created as something to have as a background, so that people don't think they don't actually have any policies.

 

[Dr_Pepper]

People might vote tory because:

-Howard is more genuine than Blair
-Torys are the only people who actually might get in power
-Good immigration/asylum policy (I agree with it)
-No to the Euro
-Lower taxes (It's a fact, under his plans people will pay less).

They won't get my vote even though I like many of their policies. I totally disagree with any notion of cutting tax, I refuse to believe it is possible and I don't believe they can effectively save money on what Labour has spent. I don't like Labour's policies on the same subject although I do like the govenment overall, and believe it or not, of the three leaders I honestly prefer Blair.

 

[The Negotiator]

Howard hasn't been tested, how genuine he is isn't known.
Not really a reason IMO, like "my parents...."
You agree with it? Even after reading it? Are you crazy? Numerical limits!
No to the euro - referendum is fairer, labour will do one.
Lower taxes - a lot of people feel like yourself on this.

 

[bad_boy_racer]

It's a shame as a few of the parties have views that I strongly agree with, but no party has enough of the policies I want to see as a new, young voter for me to take a direct decision. It may come down to who I fancy on the day, which is a shame - BUT it will not be Labour! One thing that tonight's debates did show me though was that Blair is still a liar, Howard doesn't look like he has anywhere near the support he should have as an effective opposition leader and surprisingly, I no longer think that CK the drunk (after all Bush is an alcoholic!), would be such a poor leader!!! In fact I was impressed!!!

 

[bad_boy_racer]

Howard hasn't been tested, how genuine he is isn't known.
Not really a reason IMO, like "my parents...."
You agree with it? Even after reading it? Are you crazy? Numerical limits!
No to the euro - referendum is fairer, labour will do one.
Lower taxes - a lot of people feel like yourself on this.

Numerical limits YES! Howard is in fact correct, as you point out this may cost us NHS staff, but if the government stopped treating the crucial medical staff in the NHS like utter, utter ****e (my Mum is a Midwife, the conditions she is forced to work with are disgusting and the pay she recieves for it is equally dispicable... after going back to the poor university system!!) we would NOT need these extra staff!
No to the Euro damn right! Labour will only do one reluctantly, pose an un-simple question and if he could Blair would not do it (and if he says he won't he probably will...)
Lower taxes is achievable if government wastage and inefficiency wasn't so high - look at Gladstone's policies of good government and retrenchment... simple yet effective. Would politicians go back to then - no. Why? Because they would have to stop lying.

 

[The Negotiator]

Matt, don't be led down the road that government wastage can be reduced, if it could be effectively it would have been done already. Every government states that they will do it, it makes no difference whether it's a policy or not, no party intends to spend more than they have to. On top of this aswell, cutting wastage has knock on affects. The idea that everybody will suddenly start working more effectively when the tories get into power is laughable!

Numerical limits no, looking at each case individually yes, more stringent yes but having a fixed number for immigration is crazy talk. If he said he would be using tighter controls many more would agree with the policy but the idea of putting numerical limits is stupid.

How does the government not treat medical staff like ****? Up their wages? UK doctors are already paid some of the highest figures in the world and considering it's a public industry and not privatised, this is odd. French doctors for example (the French have one of the best health service's in the world and it is sort of a private/public partnership system) get paid just less than £40k/year and they have higher income taxes.

No more people will do a medics degree/become a nurse than currently except maybe with the new EU (yes EU!) work time directive. Few can say it's a bad EU policy either. So where will these people come from? Abroad, yet he wants to put numerical limits on immigration. That's detrimental to our health systems and hence our country. It's a destructive policy.

 

[Dr_Pepper]

well Paul - that's your view I guess but they remain the reasons people might vote tory. Many people don't agree with you, so we'll leave it there except...

...the asylum thing. I think there are too many people coming into this country - I do not think that we should take in everybody who turns up at Dover and wants in. We'd have half of Africa coming in, and then they expect benefits etc, which we can't afford to give to just everyone.

This policy is not racist. It is not important to what race these people belong. it's just that I do not believe that we should take people in that will have a detrimental effect on our economy - we cannot help everybody and that way the government can decide how many people it is possible to help.

In the sixties, we invited in immigrants, from India and Pakistan in particular, because it was benificial to the economy - we had a labour shortage. Right now, we don't, so letting too many people in would leave either them or others unemployed, and the economy having to support them. I repeat, I think the conservative policy is solid.

Labour's policy is to let people in apparently at random. What would your policy be Paul?

 

[Dr_Pepper]

To be honest I think I'm more willing to believe all the figures showing how nurses are leaving because of the poor conditions than your "they're OK" view Paul.

 

[The Negotiator]

Firstly labour don't let in randomly, infact only 14% of asylum seekers make applications for asylum and the recent changes mean that no application = deportation. The people that get in illegally won't stop if the tories get into power, not if you consider how much has already been put in place to try to stop it in the first place.

Secondly, I am not voting labour but I certainly don't agree with the Tory policy. You know I am from an immigrant family and the idea of voting for a party who would have prevented my birth if they were in power with the same policy is just ludicrous.

As is putting up their "limiting immigration isn't racist" in Rusholme (a massive foreign population, similar to parts of L'boro) sums up them to me.

 

[The Negotiator]

I never said they are ok? I did say it will improve with the work time directive, a policy that as a UKIP voter you're voting against.

It's hard to control the biggest organisation in the country and one of the largest in the world effectively, that's economies of scale for you.

 

[Dr_Pepper]

Firstly, you didn't answer my question. Secondly, I don't see in any way how changing the immigration laws makes people racist against the immigrants that are already here. So what if your family are immigrants, that makes no difference. What if William the Conquerer hadn't been allowed in - oo maybe I wouldn't have been born. I think that to talk about it like that is crazy, for obvious reasons. If my family had moved to Poland, maybe I'd not have been born. Or maybe I'd just be Polish.

I don't know what the work/time directive is but it sounds like red tape to me. Whatever it is, just because UKIP don't support it doesn't mean they don't support better hospitals. Not that any of that matters because their domestic policy is, in my view, virtually irrelevant.

 

[bad_boy_racer]

Well seeing as EVERY political party espouses "children are the future" and education is sooo important shouldn't a Midwife be paid more than 17k per year after 4-7years of very hard study to gain qualifications? They are the ONLY part of the medical establishment that is unable to get private insurance, because the job they do is SO crucial and important. Can you imagine how much an insurance company would have to pay in compensation if a mistake was made which cost them their child?! And that is what is happening, childrens lives are at risk. What happens in a normal job when staff are overworked and underpaid - they either walk out (what is happening) or mistakes happen.

So in answer to your question - yes, damn well pay them more money - this would hopefully eliminte the shortage of them too as not a day goes by that my Mum has schedualed off work that the hospital does not call her asking her to work more overtime. They deserve it and I'd bet my car on it that you will think exactly the same if you ever have children delivered by a midwife!

 

[The Negotiator]

A midwife's pay starts at 17.6k, a reasonable sum for a newly qualified graduate.

A midwife's pay can increase to 48.2k once experience is gained. That's plenty.

Reference: http://www.rcm.org.uk/data/education/data/midwife.htm#work
(royal college of midwives)

But you're voting UKIP, the same party that will stop student loans, so isn't education important to you?

For the record, the work time directive information can be found:

http://www.incomesdata.co.uk/information/worktimedirective.htm

It will legislate against people working more than 48 hours a week. Once the NHS adopt this it will mean big changes to the standards expected, then again, it will mean fewer workers are likely to be in a hospital at one time. This will require additional staff. Though voting for UKIP we won't be in the EU, which means we probably wouldn't adopt a EU policy, which wouldn't help the NHS.