Third Leader's Debate - BBC 29th April

[CatherineHMumsnet]

In anticipation of tomorrow's TV debate, MN will be launching a fifth poll of Mumsnetter voting intentions as soon as the debate finishes. Can Cameron regain the ground he's lost? Will Clegg continue to build on his success following the first and second debates? We'll have to wait and see - but in the meantime, we've put together a handy table showing how your voting intentions and attitudes towards the party leaders have changed over the past four polls

gaelicsheep, if a GP suspects a patient has cancer then yes, they will see a specialist for a specific diagnosis within 2 weeks.

In addition, the commitment is that, after diagnosis is confirmed, treatment should be started within 31 days.

"[bang bang bang] "

Come in ???

I suspect that a couple of years in the Conservatives are going to widen the permission to buy treatments/drugs outside NHS provision to a two-tier service. Just imo. Hope I'm proved wrong.

I'm watching Question Time. I get so annoyed at this silly 'style' vs 'substance' thing. Of course you can be stylish without much substance, or have lots of substance and no style, but usually I think they go much more hand in hand. Sometimes people are stylish because they've actually got something to say, they know how to explain and communicate it, they are clever enough to pick up on holes in each other's arguments and get to the point quickly, and they're passionate about their policies and clear on what they mean and what's important about them.

All this 'style vs substance' thing is just a way of one side annoying the other. Even Brown has some style - how many of us could get up and speak like that in front of the nation?

I'm voting Lib Dem, as I have the last two times, but it's not because I like Clegg (I don't really).

atlantis.

but please please, can you read my earlier post re the one off amnesty that libdems are proposing? please?

Whoever said that these debates won't change entrenched opinion seems to be right - IRO of Labour voters anyway. Anyone who is still going to vote Labour in spite of everything is clearly beyond help.

DH says Liam Fox is on Question Time - open invite to burglars. (just explained Mumsnet to him, by the way, and he thought DH meant dickhead!)

"but please please, can you read my earlier post re the one off amnesty that libdems are proposing? please? "

31 pages girl? post it again please.

I prefer the format of something like Question Time, you get more of an instant response and proper debates

fair enough here it is:

"illegal immigrants are here, their existence feeds criminality of the most pernicious kind (gangs), you CAN'T deport them because YOU DON'T KNOW WHERE THEY LIVE BECAUSE THEY ARE UNDERGROUND.

the ONLY solution to this problem is to offer a ONE OFF amnesty.

that way your illegal immigrant who has been here for 10 years starts to pay tax PLUS they have to do community service (so it's not a free handshake in any way).

if you do NOTHING (GB and DC propose this), you are simply ignoring a problem that will not go away. "

i left out the bit about explaining it to thickies people who were finding it hard to understand.

gaelicsheep
If I look at my parents home town, at the derelict building there, I can tell you that the reason that they are demolishing the buildings and rebuilding is that no one wants to live there.

Most of the houses that were demolished were either high rise flats or blocks of flats with open doorways (closes) and a communal garden.

Families in UK seem to prefer terraced or semi-detached houses to flats. Plus the flats were grotty, smelly piss-filled closes, small rooms.

They were demolished and several housing associations built houses, including adapted houses for people in wheelchairs. The houses are very popular, the estates are much better cared for.

Regarding inheritance tax, GB's position on this is disingenuous. He has stood by and watched ordinary families be dragged into the inheritance tax threshold as house prices have risen and risen and risen, knowing full well that it was never intended to catch ordinary people. DC simply intends to restore the original purpose of the tax. I have no problem with that ambition given that they have stated it isn't a priority at present.

"if you do NOTHING (GB and DC propose this), you are simply ignoring a problem that will not go away. "

Well it's not doing nothing, because if you really want to find someone you can, I work in local government and were picking people up all the time, trouble is the government then lets them out of license to return (because they are so honest) so they disappear again and have to be found.

So pick them up, hold them, ship them out, fine the company who is employing them so it becomes uneconomic to employ these people.

Now as for the amnesty itself;

1. they have to have been here for ten years ( well how are they going to prove they have been here that long, there's no records )

2. they have to not have committed a crime ( hmm, firstly there's no proof either way for certain crimes ) and ( they have all done something illegal, they are here illegally and have worked illegally ruling all illegals out.

MmeLindt - I live in a rural area where perfectly serviceable properties which are fit for purpose and suited to their environment are being routinely demolished to make way for unsustainable new build kit houses that will be redundant within 50 years. The amount of waste that this involves in terms of energy and materials is a disgrace. As for urban areas, appropriate regeneration by means of renovation is the way forward every time.

gaelicsheep you are so right, when my mum died just over a year ago tax had to be paid on her house over 300,000. Now where I live 3 bed houses cost that much, she wasn't rich by any means, worked hard all her life and had already paid tax on her money.

Except in the case you describe of the high rises that were put up after sweeping away the traditional buildings. They are merely an example of the very problem.

My mother died of cancer because her symptoms were "the menopause". In 1986. She was 49.

I'm sorry to hear about anyone who's lost relatives to cancer. But people do realise that the Tories are not planning to abolish cancer testing and treatment don't they?

"I'm sorry to hear about anyone who's lost relatives to cancer. But people do realise that the Tories are not planning to abolish cancer testing and treatment don't they? "

Yes, I'm still waiting for someone to show me where the conservatives are proposing this but no one can seem to find this policy.

Oh Schnitzel, that's awful. Knew someone whose GP told her she needed to get more exercise and join an aerobics club. She had third-stage (not sure if that 's correct term) breast cancer and died. Sorry, moving off subject a bit here.

Atlantis/gaelic, the point is that Labour have guaranteed to keep it. No one knows what would happen to cancer waiting times under the Tories because they haven't made any pledges about it.

I think this is about right.

First time I have seen Ed Balls in action, scary bloke.

gaelicsheep, thanks for the link. I've read the points re breast cancer and it sounds very simplistic.

There are numerous different kinds of breast cancer, with potentially differing symptoms and very different prognosis.

Inflammatory Breast Cancer, for example, is extremely aggressive and fast growing with a strong likelihood of secondary cancers and requires urgent treatment. On the otherhand, something like ductal in situ breast cancer, whilst still a terrible diagnosis, is usually slower growing and treatable with little chance of spreading beyond the ducts of the breast.

It would seem obvious that if more people are getting seen within 2 weeks, then of course less of them will actually be diagnosed with cancer. The point is, if a patient is presenting with symtoms of an aggressive form of breast cancer, it needs to be checked out urgently, even if that means ruling out a breast cancer diagnosis. That's a good thing surely?

I also wonder if the 'routine' group he talks about includes those women now covered by the national screening programme?

The link I posted earlier seemed to suggest that, like so many headline grabbing initiatives, there is considerable doubt whether the 2 week pledge is actually beneficial at all. It may be positively harmful.

My point was that the way people are talking you'd think the Tories were going to abolish testing and treatment altogether!