Advanced search

A New Political Party. Would you consider voting for them?

(17 Posts)
edam Tue 20-Nov-12 22:40:50

MrsjRE, people often say that about politicians, but we are talking about doctors. Not generally accused of being self-serving or fake as a breed.

edam Tue 20-Nov-12 22:38:59

Losing, I'm not an expert in pension schemes, but I would guess that there's a key difference between the NHS pension scheme that takes in contributions from more than a million people and the pension scheme of a private provider who might manage one local clinic, or even one hospital, or even a handful of hospitals. Presumably there is risk pooling and economies of scale and so on - you'd know better than me.

MrsjREwing Tue 20-Nov-12 22:35:57

No, they are all the same, fake and selfserving.

threesocksmorgan Tue 20-Nov-12 22:34:42

i wouldn't vote for them as things stand.
there are more things to worry about than the NHS,
unless they are going to stop negligence in hospitals. now that would be good

edam Tue 20-Nov-12 22:32:22

completely un-electable, you say? Not so.

OutragedAtThePriceOfFreddos Tue 20-Nov-12 22:02:55

I'd vote for them. Lets face it, they wouldn't get into government anyway, but if enough people voted for them then it would send a loud and clear message to the winners of the election that the NHS is an important priority.

The NHS is the only thing that will touch every one. It deserves far more consideration and money than it is getting.

losingtrust Tue 20-Nov-12 20:29:19

And the reason the pensions would not be taken on by a private company? Sorry have managed private sector pension schemes all my working life and if they are not affordable for a private company due to low interest rates and increasing longevity they are not affordable by the tax payer.

Lulabellarama Tue 20-Nov-12 20:25:36

Single issue parties are totally unelectable

edam Tue 20-Nov-12 20:24:05

(Am not a doctor nor married to one or anything else, btw.)

edam Tue 20-Nov-12 20:23:19

losing, that's a bit cynical. The government is keen to savage doctors' pensions because that makes it a hell of a lot easier to privatize - otherwise the costs of pensions is a major stumbling block for Capita or G4S or United Health or whichever mob is eyeing up the British taxpayer thinking they've got it made.

losingtrust Tue 20-Nov-12 19:24:19

They are only doing it to keep their pensions and benefits intact. Sorry but very cynical and would not vote for it.

Solopower1 Fri 16-Nov-12 06:21:25

I think the existence of this party raises the profile of the issues but I was a bit disappointed tbh, because I think all the different groups who are against the NHS changes should join together and form a pressure group against the government instead.

Couldn't they negotiate with one of the bigger parties and join en masse? Then they would have a realistic chance of winning, and once in power could hold the party they have joined to their commitments. But I suppose the strength of a single-issue party like this is that they will have members from different parties.

I don't know. Gearing a party up for election will take a lot of time and money which could, probably, be better spent putting pressure on the govt and raising awareness in different ways. They don't have a realistic chance of winning so what will happen to them after the elections? I hope they won't just disappear, because we really need them, like never before, to organise resistance to these changes and fight our corner for us (with our support).

kdiddy Thu 15-Nov-12 23:03:52

No, I wouldn't. They have one area of expertise, and as important as the NHS is - it's not everything. They'd be far more influential if they integrated with existing parties and sought influence from there. At least they'd be more likely to end up with some power and authority rather than just railing against the system from the outside.

Single-issue parties aren't going to get anywhere IMO.

edam Thu 15-Nov-12 23:01:38

I'd be tempted to vote for them as a last-ditch attempt to stop the wholesale privatisation of the NHS.

The NHS is pretty important to your daily life the second you or someone you love gets ill or has an accident. No NHS = you are fucked. Something like a third of people aged over 40 have some kind of chronic medical condition. One in three of us will get cancer. Almost every woman uses contraception. This stuff is vital.

Education and the economy are also important, so I'll want to see what they have to say about that, but you won't be able to go to school or go to work if there's no NHS to help you when you get ill or need preventative medicine such as vaccination.

DontmindifIdo Thu 15-Nov-12 16:48:45

hmm, a party with no ideological background, so you know where they stand on the NHS, but what would they do about everything else ? The NHS, in the grand scheme of things, isn't all that important to most people's every day lives, whereas my daily life is going ot be much more closely effected by transport policy, taxation policy, education policy, law and order... I could go on. NHS doesn't come into it too much for me. I want to vote for someone where I know what they stand on these, and if I don't know specifically, I know their basic ideology so I can probably work out what they'd do when facing a new decision.

In the same way only crazy people will vote UKIP, only people who are either working in the NHS or need it massively above average will vote for this party.

Nancy66 Thu 15-Nov-12 16:41:56


I'm sure they mean well and the NHS is important but so is:

the economy
law and order

etc etc etc

....what do they know about those?

RedToothbrush Thu 15-Nov-12 14:16:20

Doctors who are launching a new political party are promising to make the NHS one of the key issues at the next election.

I have to say, I'm not sure how much I support the idea or not for various reasons, but it would be interesting to see how much it forces health up the agenda.

The other thing that struck me about the report though was the curious comment by the Department of Health spokesman: "There is no reason for this party to exist.

If people feel they need to start a political party then theres a need for the party to exist, and I find comments like that rather troubling in terms of democracy.

Just curious as to what people's thoughts are on this and whether there is a down side to doctors forming a political party too. (I'm thinking possibly corruption, power concentration, conflicts of interest and other issues being neglected being possible downsides)

As a general rule, I think we need more input from other individuals and groups to try and start setting agendas rather than the same old shit from the three main parties.

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now »

Already registered? Log in with: