Leaves, EU immigration/FOM what is it you actually want?

[fakenamefornow]

Tourist visas?
Working visas?
No visas, just no work?
Maximum length of stay?
Funded how?

I am really clueless about what exactly you want.

The other issue is what does this have to do with immigration? Either free at the point of service has health consequences or it doesn't. Surely, the claim can't be it only has health consequences for immigrants.

Being harsh on people tends to put their back up, so getting a bollocking from the Doctor for your smoking habit is more likely to stop you going to him or her.

I have never smoked - DB gave up when he worked out how much it was costing him.

Being harsh on people tends to put their back up, so getting a bollocking from the Doctor for your smoking habit is more likely to stop you going to him or her.

I agree. But 1) that's different from them quitting smoking (simply not visiting the doctor doesn't make you healthier or quit smoking) and 2) what does that have to do with payments?

The other issue is what does this have to do with immigration?

Like most "discussions" over peoples motives for voting leave, asking what part of FOM they have a problem with almost inevitably descends into issues that are really down to successive UK governments decisions, and nothing about the EU.

As far as delivery of health care is concerned, the EU lets individual member states get on with delivering it in the way they seem fit. A debate about how to deliver the optimum health care is badly overdue, but won't happen because of Brexit.

Like most "discussions" over peoples motives for voting leave, asking what part of FOM they have a problem with almost inevitably descends into issues that are really down to successive UK governments decisions, and nothing about the EU.

I think that's the major leave/remain issue. I am one who thinks there are a lot of problems with the EU, but many of the problems we blame on the EU are actually problems with the UK government, and some may be mixed.

chilipepper, it was my fault that we went off topic and discussed the French health service. I took the opportunity to ask Bobo's opinion on how it runs as she lives there. Apologies . Also, I took her point about giving patients a bollocking to be giving more background to the attitude of French doctors. I shall try to avoid going off at a tangent again.

I am one who thinks there are a lot of problems with the EU, but many of the problems we blame on the EU are actually problems with the UK government, and some may be mixed.

The timing of where we are betrays the motives.

For the 20% of us who remember the 2010 election, it scared the Bejesus out of all political parties. For a sneeze of time it looked like they might actually have to serve the electorate, rather than be able to boss us around.

The was a very real danger they might be held to account. They were starting to be exposed to scrutiny and publicity which they knew would prevent them stitching us up like they had been used to. Parliamentary reform, voting reform, political reform -

- Oh, what's that over there ? It's the EU ! GET IT !!!!!

and they were gone.

Like Keyser Soze.

what I asked, and you didn't answer, is why doctors here can't "give people a bollocking". that is independent from charging at the point of service.

Can you imagine if they did do that, the system would grind to a halt with all the complaints. A medic friend of mine was complained about for using the word 'fat' completely correctly.

For a sneeze of time it looked like they might actually have to serve the electorate, rather than be able to boss us around.

The was a very real danger they might be held to account. They were starting to be exposed to scrutiny and publicity which they knew would prevent them stitching us up like they had been used to. Parliamentary reform, voting reform, political reform.

It was the greatest pity IMO that Labour and the LibDems couldn't co-operate and the LibDems went into Coalition with the Tories. I would have preferred a minority Government as in 1974 when Harold Wilson formed a Government. I don't know why that wasn't possible - it might have meant that they thrashed out issues properly, instead of the ghastly point scoring which goes on now. There is just no place for this in today's world.....[Gets off soapbox.]

Now, I increasingly think that the only way forward is to have a proper Coalition as with the War time Coalition which domestically laid the foundations for the Welfare State and Internationally helped us to defeat Fascism.

Will it happen? Doubt it, unless May and her cronies make a complete and utter pig's ear of things, which they appear to be doing. All I know is that Farage, Johnson, and wealthy chums will come out of it OK, and it's you and me, and the rest of us who will be sold down the river.

It was the greatest pity IMO that Labour and the LibDems couldn't co-operate and the LibDems went into Coalition with the Tories.

No disrespect, but that was explained clearly at the time. Although I concede with the inane howlings of professional idiots trampling over each other to display their ignorance, it's easy to forget.

Nick Clegg made the point at the time, that Labout - who had been in power - had lost. With that starting point, he was bang on - it would have been profoundly undemocratic for the LibDems to prop them up after the electorate had rejected them.

Sadly (in hindsight) this made his decision to engage with the Tories - who did win most seats - principled.

I would have preferred a minority Government as in 1974 when Harold Wilson formed a Government. I don't know why that wasn't possible - it might have meant that they thrashed out issues properly, instead of the ghastly point scoring which goes on now. There is just no place for this in today's world.....[Gets off soapbox.]

Generally the UK doesn't do minority governments. Markets don't like them, nor do the people. I'm just old enough to remember what seemed like endless days of school elections in 1974. It's generally believed that the public mood swung against the Tories and let Labour in.

I must have been alone, but I was praying for a coalition/hung parliament last year. As I have grown older, I have seen successive governments abuse their majority to pretend they were put there by 100% of the electorate or God rather than the sub 40% in reality.

We are all reaping the rewards for decades of political apathy, and lazy voting.

I gather though that the outgoing PM is usually invited to try to form a Government, even though they have lost.

I remember 1974 well. In fact we only had two elections, and Harold Wilson went on about getting a mandate, but with a majority of 4 it wasn't all that great a mandate.

I too wanted a coalition last year, as would Cameron. He could have then parked the Referendum, blame the LibDems for thwarting him and cleared off in 2020 as promised.

I gather though that the outgoing PM is usually invited to try to form a Government, even though they have lost.

My recollection is that is what happened - but Clegg wouldn't take his calls, citing the reasons above.

One thing was true in all the crap that was spouted post 2010. And that is supply-and-favour type minority governments are probably the worst of all worlds, as you end up with behind-doors deals. At least the coalition was (as) visible (as could be).

The FPTP system has fared the UK well - and it has protected us from passing insanities, such as fascism. But it's also a throwback to a much more patrician view of government, where we are expected to know our place, and trust the lords and ladies (why do you think "Downton Abbey" is so popular). This is the result of 1000 years of a feudal, and then class system which dismisses the population as "the rabble" and insists they know best.

There was a mind-numbingly bucolically idiotic meme after June 23rd, of Piglet and Roo, going down the pub after disagreeing about Brexit (posted by a leaver friend). It's so naive as to be contemptible - it betrays a lack of insight on the poster who doesn't realise that the UK-EU dynamic transcends mere party politics. For some (on both sides) it's a tenet of how they see themselves.

Imagine if Wilberforce had lost the motion to abolish slavery. Would the losing side be expected to "suck it up" ?

For me, the two single biggest - simple - changes to our electoral system would be:

1. MPs must receive a true majority of their electorate to be returned. If no candidate gets that - no candidate returned. Might shake a few ideas up. Lets see how many constituencies given the chance dump their MP.

2. The second chamber to be made up of the runners-up of the primary election. With suitably limited powers (cf HoL today). Would provide a voice for the majority-minority.

I am available for political consultancies, after dinner speeches, and block paving at weekend .

Lurking - what would happen if a substantial number of constituencies returned No candidate? Would they just be unrepresented?

Second chamber - I don't know how it should be reformed, but now the backwoods Lords have been cleared out from voting, it seems to work better, and in recent years has revised legislation and thrown it back at the Commons.

One suggestion for reform of the voting system I heard was to have an STV system but with Constituencies based on Counties. So Oxfordshire, where I am, which currently represents 6 constituencies, would still have 6 MPs representing them, but would be from one ballot paper. Would it work? No idea, but it seems to be worth talking about.

I wonder if we should make voting compulsory? As long as there was the option to spoil your ballot, or be allowed exceptions if you were say, severely ill, would it be a bad thing?

Lurking - what would happen if a substantial number of constituencies returned No candidate? Would they just be unrepresented?

That question contains within it a presumption that we are currently "represented". I certainly don't feel so. On the few (and getting fewer) occasions I have contacted my MP, I have been to to shove it where the sun don't shine. Most recent example being Syria. Although it took 6 pages of 180gsm HoC paper to tell me - just in case I thought I wasn't getting my moneys worth as a voter.

At least you got a letter Lurking. I am still awaiting a reply to an email from the beginning of August, and have now sent two follow up letters, one three pages long this afternoon. Plus a number of letters which go with petitions that I have signed, which I don't expect answers to. I do expect answers to letters when I have sat down and written a carefully considered and polite letter.

Still a few more threats not to vote for her, might concentrate her mind a bit more come the next election.

"1000 years of a feudal, and then class system which dismisses the population as "the rabble" and insists they know best."

What about those - on Mumsnet and real life who think only those with an IQ above a certain level should be allowed to vote?
That's hardly democratic but certainly there were posters on mumsnet who actually said that.

Although it took 6 pages of 180gsm HoC paper to tell me - just in case I thought I wasn't getting my moneys worth as a voter.

No wonder MP stationery expense claims are so high.

Now, I increasingly think that the only way forward is to have a proper Coalition as with the War time Coalition

I also think that this may be what the country needs at the mo.

There are so many major shifts underway, and there are some great minds across all parties; a 5 year cross party government may be no bad thing for the next 5 years.

(But it's obvs just a pipe dream, because they're pretty much all out for themselves and I'm convinced they would waste the opportunity for a proper reset & rebuild by bollock swinging & point scoring).

A war coalition yes. This is what Frank Field said - the country was put on a war footing under churchill to win the war, without question we need that now.

Can we get that though with the other parties?

A coalition would generally mean May accepting Corbyn as deputy PM (or in some comparably senior role). I would say that the odds of that happening are slim.