DJKillaQueen

Rosie. If dogs are kept on leads....they are less likely to chase and kill anything. We can have a debate about keeping cats indoors if you like but it IS a seperate issue. And in no way should it be argued that unless cats are kept indoors, dog owners shouldn't have to keep their dogs on leads at appropriate times either, which is what your comparison seems to imply.

Oooh it's worse.....from a 2010 repor on welfare spending.... 'The main areas of expenditure on welfare are on elderly people and families. Only 12 per cent of welfare expenditure is spent on the major out of work benefits, while 42 per cent (?80 billion) is spent on the elderly and 21 per cent (?41 billion) is spent on working families. In 2008, 60 per cent of households were in receipt of at least one benefit; that figure rises to 93 per cent for households with children.' Full report here.... http://www.reform.co.uk/resources/0000/0320/Welfare_briefing_FINAL.pdf The crucial question here is, why do so many working families receive benefits? We know that tax credits go to some families who don't need them, along with child 'family' allowances etc. Look particularly at table 2 on page 4 for some interesting spikes in welfare spending that may merit discussion. Ask why of all the reforms, child tax credits (and some families with incomes of 50k are eligible for tax credits btw) and other generous non means tested benefits have not been attacked in the way those benefits of the truly poorest have.

I think last time I looked at figures, approx one third of all welfare spending went on the over 60s.....but don't quote me on that.....will go check :)

This is a really sad story and so sad for you Steph. My mother had dogs all her life (and all sizes, breeds) and not a single one of them would ever have chased or harmed a cat or any other living thing. Some owners just shouldn't be allowed to keep dogs. It reminds me of one time when one of my cats was attacked by a dog off it's lead. It cost me almsot ?200 in emergency vet fees (although thankfully he wasn't hurt - the blood was not his) and in spite of this...the very next day I saw the same guy walking the same dog, off it's lead past my home. Owners like that really do not care whilst having absolutely no control over their pets.

I think everyone's making good points and let's not spoil what could be a really interesting discussion with digs at left and right this and that. We are stuck with the same economic system and it's consequences whether we have a left or right government. To backtrack a lttle to Quids point regarding birthrate and how perhaps we are in a better shape for the future than some other European countries, I agree with that. And expansive immigration has played a role in that. I would say though that we still need employment for that increased workforce (for obvious reasons) but quids is right in that the short term pain, whilst the current baby boom raches adult age, leads to a perhaps better balance of population demographic in the longer term future, which is a good thing. Not sure about LondonM's idea that pensions might be linked to offspring in the future, especially when many women forfeit family life for careers...... 'Is the lot of someone relying on welfare today any better? I?m no expert but it would seems not.' In a word Brendan....no. The cost of living proportionate to the value of base benefit has risen (and in all areas - from food and utilities to rent). It's an interesting thing to point out that when Governments 'cut' benefits that they only ever cut the benefits that are in addition to base levels of benefit and not the base level itself. This is because the base level was originally set by judicial review with an annual linked increase set in stone. To change this would require another judicial review which may well decide that the base level of benefit needs to actually increase (in line with increased costs of living) and no government wants to risk that. That ?64 or so a week base level (with its automatic annual increase) is what the law says a person needs at least per week to live on. It can not be changed at will by any government. The higher cost of welfare is a combination of things. Higher unemployment and remember that most people not in employment are not counted in unemployment figures, hence the tendancy to move people from Incapacity Benefit to Employment Support Allowance and not Jobseeker's Allowance. Moving them to the latter would significantly increase the offical unemployment figures. But also, the astronomical cost of housing, has produced a massive welfare bill through Housing Benefit. Your conundrum Brendan is a valid question. I don't think any of your abc proposals are the answer though, or would make that much of a difference. The answer lies in employment and enterprise, and I'd also say better education.

LOL Chippy.....good point. Herrick by your analysis we should throw money at all the emergency services 'just in case'. This is just not realistic. There isn't a bottomless pit of tax payers money available and the fire service like any other public service has a duty to be cost effective and efficient. If the number of call outs has dropped (which it has over the past ten years) then being efficient means reflecting that. It's not a good argument to say we shouldn't change anything because x might happen or y might happen. That would be like saying there should be a police officer on every street corner because serious crime 'might' happen. I think the public do in general support public services, but just not at any cost.

I wouldn't say that supporting gay marriage puts him at odds of the political mood of the country SF.....most people in random surveys support it. And constitutional reform, including the reform of the House of Lords is something that many people have a view on also. What puts him at odds is his lack of affinity with anyone outside of the privilaged bubble he was was born into. You are right in that his inexperience of constituent politics shows. Basically he is just too young. I would say the same too of Cameron, who strikes me as being only of average intelligence. Affluence and privilege are why he is where he is also....not talent. Niether of them has ever had to really work for anything.

It's a very good question quids with no easy answer. I have some views but by no means any view that would cure the present ills of the system we live in. If we take the first point... - We spend ?1bn every 3 days just paying the interest on our debt, over a year that's more than our education budget. ...there's no getting away from that. It tells us that as a nation we are not productive/ efficient enough to cover our running costs. I get a bit confused when we talk of global national debt because I can never quite figure out who underwrites it all. Who is lending the money? The World Bank? And who owns the world bank? Who is taking all that profit from the interest and what are they using it for? It's a bit like Lloyds being the biggest under writer of insurance. Who under writes them? In that case we know it's shareholders, who were very happy to take the dividends in the good years, but not so happy to cough up when Lloyds hit trouble in recent history. With banking it is usually underwriten by government bonds but here's the irony. The US has national debt but also it's own federal reserve underwrites loans to other countries. So the banking institutions and those who really profit from them are having the best of both worlds......and brings me back to the question that I've always asked - is fractional reserve banking really the best system for a capitalist economy? Sure the UK has national debt...but we also have countries paying the interest to us on debts we have underwritten to them. - over the past 50 years our economy has trebled in size, our welfare budget has gone up seven fold. This is where we can really get to the crux of what is failing economically for us. We don't have enough of a percentage of the population working and earning enough to pay the required taxes to look after everything. We are living longer, the burden on the state of the growing number of elderly members is a huge challenge for the immediate future, and a growing population in certain places (namely large cities) is stretching everyday resources in those areas. We have to get more people into work, but before we can do that, we have to get private enterprise creating jobs, and they have to be decent enough jobs....with some stability of employment on offer. They also have to be a range of jobs, and they have to be widespread across the country. Young people are being particularly poorly aerved by the employment market at the moment, along with the over 50's. The hard part is finding industries that we can compete in globally. We can't compete on most manufacturing levels, with the far east, India and China, and that is a problem for all of the Western economies. Unemployment aside, the cost of housing is a major burden on the Welfare state. 700,000 people in FULL TIME work need Housing Benefit to pay part of their rent. House and rent prices have become totally unrelated to salaries and this I think is a major challenge for the future. The coalition changes to HB have saved nothing. The number of families housed in expensive B&B accomodation by local authorities has shot up by 40% since those changes came in (and as a direct result of those changes) for example. But there is also no quick fix to this problem. Filling the pockets of private landlords with taxpayers money through benefits has never sat comfortably with me. I think the coalition felt that by reducing the caps, some landlords would be forced to reduce rents, but the opposite has happened. Rents are at an all time high and many landlords simply removed themselves from LA housing schemes. The result is even more pressure on LA's to magic non-existent affortable housing out of thin air. I find it all quite depressing but I've never been niaive enough to think that taxing the rich heavily is a solution to all of it either. I said it before, but tax avoidance by the rich, is the issue we should be looking at if anything. The answer is simple enough....in a capitalist economy we need x percentage of people in work and paying x amount of taxes, to create x amount of GDP, to cover x amount of outgoings. The hard part is figuring a way to achieve that.

Ah thanks.......so no option for further savings there.

I think part of the problem is that that the job of a fireman used to have a lot of down time, so much so that some firefighters could hold down second jobs knowing they could catch up on sleep at the fire station. Many of the changes to the roles of Fire Fighters have been in part to put that down time to good use. Training and fire prevention schemes are all good uses for that time. And whether true or not, I think it sometimes feels as though Fire Unions protesteth too much at the idea that a full time job should actually be a full time job. Most people in full time work, and especially in the public service sector, are having to cope with increased works loads and pay freezes. I don't know if the Fire Service is currently under a pay freeze, but if not,that might be a good option. As for shift work.....if changes increase efficiency and save money, then change is right. The Fire Service is not in a bubble. It must change as other things change.

I'm also trying to make the point that I feel that the LFS are distorting the facts...aided by the media, and that the LFS's own published accounts are proof of distortion of the facts. The LBS boast in their annual report that they came in 5% under budget last year and yet now, an enforced 12% cut (across two years) is going to reduce the service by 25%? And when something doesn't make sense like that you have to ask why? Organisations are prone to deliberate exaggeration of the facts when fighting cuts, it's something we see all the time.

The real financial data is in the public domain Chippy and there for all to see. They have to publish detailed annual accounts by law. And yes I did spend more than five minutes looking at it and nowhere can I see any proof that an 8% cut to their budget will be equal to the closure of a quarter of all fire stations in London. Now if you can provide me with financial data to support that claim then I'll stand corrected, but from what I can see it is simply is not true. So all I can conclude is scare mongering tactics, I presume, to get the public on side. Edited to add that page 15 of this document.... http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/statistics/pdf/568234.pdf ....has a table that shows that fires and call outs have declined significantly over the last ten years and the evening standard article claims the cuts are being demanded in relation to this falling trend in incidents. That makes sense to me.

Because TFL issues funding for road improvements on a two year rolling basis. So the next round of bids if memory serves me correctly should be due soon. It's a substantial amount of money on offer for major improvements, so only right that local authorities take advantage of it. What I can't understand in this case is who is slow rolling, TFL? or the Council?

And that would only be one option of many...so why not list other options too? Or are we going down the same road of alarmism that so many debates around public sector cuts go? The figures I highlighted were published by the LFS themselves so it makes no sense now for them to claim they would have to cut so many personel and stations based on those figures. I suspect a bit of scaremongering is going on. That is why I believe nothing from public sector claims until I see quantifiable data to support it. In this instance the LFS's own finacial reports don't support this level of impact from the proposed cuts. The only cut that will realisitcally impact is the second 8% cut. Well you don't have to be a star mathematician to get that 8% does not equate to closing a quarter of London's fire stations. If we do accept that then that means that some 68% of current LFS funding is not spent on fire stations and personnel to run them at all, or that a whooping 92% of funding pays for 75% of the stations currently in use - neither of which make no sense to me.

I've pointed this out before but just to clarify, this junction IS part of the TFL two year funded improvements scheme. Consultation took place the year before last so works should be imminent. It would be useful if either TFL and/ or the council could deliver a schedule, which surely by now must be in place. It's also worth pointing out that the works to the juction of Scylla Road and Peckham Rye and to the Eastern side of Peckham Rye were part of the same consultation and they have been completed. The juction of Barry Road and Peckham Rye West was also part of the same consultation but no work has been done their either. I think it's more a case of the most heavily used junctions being left til last tbh. After all...most easy diversionary routes, whilst the work takes place have been blocked off as no through roads and I'm guessing residents will not like their streets being reinstated as rat runs whilst work take places. The blocking off of all the ED side streets around this junction is also a reason why this junction is so heavily used. It frankly just can't cope with the amount of useage at peak times, and no amount of tinkering with lights etc is going to change that.

More traffic means lower speeds Renata because the roads are more congested. And you will also know that 30 years ago ther was a massive road safety campaign aimed at children through the media and schools along with speed awareness campaigns aimed at drivers.....because, just like today, some (not all) motorists speed and some (not all) pedestrians aren't careful.

Yeah but as I've demonstrated above, the comments on the 'well respected' site aren't exactly in persepective are they?'. It's that kind of misinformation that makes it deserving of dismissal in this debate.

Everything one needs to know about London's Fire Service budget can be found here..... http://www.london-fire.gov.uk/CorporatePublications.asp#Statement_of_Accounts This document (published by the LFS itself) reports that London fire service was allocated ?437.3 million last year and came in under budget by 21 million or 5% http://www.london-fire.gov.uk/Documents/Summary_of_Accounts_201011.pdf So if we apply the figures in the OP....29 million is approx 6%. Well the fire service came un 5% under budget last year. 35 million the following years equates to a further cut of 8% for that year. It's perfectly obvious from those figures that the first cut can be met. The second can be debated. But the claim that 35% of London's fire stations could go from a 14% cut in budget is just ridiculous and makes no sense based on the actual figures. But then why are we suprised that campaign groups and politicians mislead the public. It took me all of five minutes to find the real financial data. It's a pity the OP couldn't do the same research before posting the OP.

Well I make no secret of my view that the council have indeed gone hump mad......and don't get me started on the money wasted on many of these schemes. However did any of us get across the road safely 30 years ago? Oh we actually looked for traffic before crossing the road........ In my view.....all that humps do in the wrong places, is take away responsibility from drivers and pedestrians alike, for their own safety. And tbh does nothing to stop those drivers intent on speeding.

I personally don't think breed matters. Ultimately it is the responsibility of the owner to make sure their dog is under control and properly socialised. If they can't manage that then they shouldn't have a dog. I would favour the reintroduction of dog licensing along with compulsary chipping. Irresponsible owners won't bother with any of that which will make taking action easier for the authorities I think.

First of all....to say the fire service is being dismantled is not true is it. It's interesting to note that the OP has c&p'd comments from a site called liberalconspiracy.org ......must be true then!!!!! I would like to see the details of where the cuts are to be made before jumping to the mathematical conclusion that it will automatically close a proportionate number of stations etc. I'm sure some of the cuts will be met by efficiency savings rather than cuts to front line services. Unfortunately we are seeing cuts everywhere, and accross all public sector services. The real question perhaps is whether the fire service should be immune, when the Police and other emergency services have had to endure cuts? What the OP doesn't say for example is what percentage of cuts these are to the overall budget. There is an insight to local authority spending (including fire services) across the UK in this document from the Institute of Fiscal Studies (perhaps a little more objective than 'liberalconspiracy.org').... http://www.ifs.org.uk/budgets/gb2012/12chap6.pdf I also read that the cost of false alarms to the fire service is 37m per year......so maybe some savings could be made there by better weeding out those.

Like anyone I don't know what the exact truth of the matter is, but what I do know is that if you purchase an item that is faulty, you are perfectly within your rights to return the item and ask for a refund within a certain amount of time. That someone returning an item should end up being chased and beaten with sticks leaves me with a gut feeling that the protestors may have a point. Whatever the truth, obviously something serious happened for the police to be investigating.

You are making exactly the same arguments here as you did on the gay marriage thread silverfox...that it's the beginning of a road to doom and catastrophe (or as you really believe, a threat to traditional family life). To say that we are somehow defining people as 'defective' and using gene science to 'cure' them is also utter tosh. As H and others have pointed out, the overwhelming agenda of medical science is to prevent, eradicate and cure disease. We already test pregnant women for downs syndrome and other conditions. I think the real issue you have is that of a moral objection to genetic intervention and this comment explains why perfectly..... 'From a cursory scan through his past posts, I suspect that silverfox is less concerned about medical ethics than about the Outrageous Overthrowing of Normal Family Life and all who sail in it.' We've had IVF for decades, surrogacy for decades and even adoption and fostering. All of these things involve more than two parents and none of those things have destroyed the existence of traditional family life. What I would say though is that, given how many children are in care, I wish some would be parents would consider that as an option rather than going down some of the other routes on offer.

Hmm Tarot...how then do you explain the falling populations of cities like Liverpool? A city that has lost a third of it's population over the past 30 years.......Would you extend your view to internal migration too? Let's keep the northerners out of the south etc?

In the case of Hillsborough it's a demand for the truth. The families knew at the time there was a cover up, and those there on that day certainly did. I was growing up in Liverpool at the time....and I knew people who were there and sadly some of those who lost loved ones on that day. For me, the biggest disgrace is that Police Officers deliberately shunted the blame elsewhere and that the media and government helped them to do it. Now the truth is out at last.