Blah Blah

You just can't refrain from insult can you? It's you that should get out more. Might help your mood a little. You seem to think all nurses are single and without families to support. That's the first failure of your analysis. And if you had actually read the information I posted, I told you that the four countries of the UK have different scales. So the cost of rent in Ireland has nothing to do with the cost of rent in England. The average rent of a one bedroomed property is ?660 p/m btw. Here is true reflection of rent to income for the whole country... I do think it is fair to have equal starting salaries when they are that low. There is London weighting which is supposed to help but it is also why many teaching hospitals provide their own accomodation for junior doctors and nurses. Needless to say that there is not enough of this accomodation to meet demand. I will dig out comparisons for you on costs between the NHS and private health care. There's is tons of data online (and lots of detailed reports and analysis) if you google. That isn't to say that some areas wouldn't be improved financially if they were part privatised. An example of that would be charging a small fee for doctors appointments and allowing a refund process after attendance. Millions of booked appointments are missed every year, at a cost to the tax payer, and the thinking is that it would be an incentive to reduce that. The downside is that we wouldn't want to disincentivise people from seeing a doctor when they need too either. These are debates that those of us engaged with policy makers have all the time, and finding ways to improve outcomes and efficiency is an ongoing process. Just back to salaries. A ?21k starting salary is not huge for any graduate (and is comaparable to other both public and private sector starting salaries). Debates around pay are increasingly mirroring a race to the bottom. We are not a poor country. It's easy for me to fight for the NHS, I work in it, but one thing I do know is that people who are healthy, in body and/or mind, are more productive. So in economic terms, it's worth paying for a good health service, just as it is worth paying for good education, housing etc for all.

I don't really know where I stand on nuclear weapons. They have kept a peace of sorts between superpowers, but done little to stop other forms of conflict, often backed by the superpowers. There's no doubting that nuclear weapons in the wrong hands would be a disaster for the world. But I also don't think a world free of nuclear weapons is possible either.

I think you might be right ????, but I kind of hope you are not (for the nicest of reasons). I enjoyed his speech. I didn't agree with everything but I really liked the spirit of what he said. I'm happy to see something like Mental Health being championed for example. That IS something that needs attention. I was left with an impression of caring politics. He may well be preaching to the converted but don't all parties do that at their conferences? A rally call to the foot soldiers to go forth and spread the message? The real task then becomes one of shifting wider public consciouness. There are lots of parallels between his election and Thatcher's election as leader of the Conservatives. She was an antithesis to the way many Tory MPs thought at the time. She started out with a cabinet of mixed views from all sides of the party too (before having to shuffle out the most opposed to her policies). The point is that Tories went through a radical transition themselves which is not too disimilar to the transition that Corbyn will have to bring about. The idea that that in itself makes any party unelectable isn't proven historically. It will depend on many things over the next four years as to how it pans out. Whilst I think most people would probably agree that Corbyn being able to swing Southern floating voters is a challenge too far, there's no doubting that in the North and Scotland, he is speaking for many people formerly disillusioned with politicians. The SNP in Hollyrood last year voted against a living wage introduction for example, so there are already cracks in their claim that they are an anti-austerity party. I think Corbyn can reclaim ground there, and let's face it, without those Scottish seats back, Labour have no chance of winning a majority ever. It's going to be an interesting four years.

I don't know where you get this idea that NHS staff are overpaid in other regions DaveR. All NHS staff are paid according to scale. England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland take different decisions on what those scales are but that's as far as non consensus goes. The starting salary (in England) for a Nurse is ?21,692. For a Doctor ?22,636 (rising to ?28,076 in year 2). I can't think of anywhere in England where either of those starting salaries could be described as overpaid. The cost of housing alone makes both those salaries ordinary. Even the second year rate for Junior Doctors isn't anything to be proud of, given the years taken to train, study, and the hours that have to be put in (not to mention the cost of student fees and loans etc). Even nurses increasingly need degrees. I am someone who has worked in the NHS for almost two decades. There is a lot of mythology around what people actually earn. If you want to talk about market rates, you'll find that actually, most NHS staff should be paid more according to their experience and skills, compared to those working comparably in the private sector. This is one of the biggest arguments against wholesale privatisation of the NHS. It would increase the cost of healthcare by five times. The NHS is actually very good value for money. An operation the costs ?2k within the NHS, costs ?10k in the private sector. And the more opportunity that becomes available in the private sector, the more difficulty we'll have keeping hold of those junior doctors for example. That's how the market really works. So you might want to re-think your position on that DaveR?

? uncleglen. What has where people live in proximity to family have to do with anything?

You completely miss the premise of my comments and the thread of discussion they were in reply to. I didn't realise that making a distinction between the lobbying interests of someone like Lord Ashcroft and Unions made me simple. You are a bit of a knob aren't you? I respect that you have a view that is different to me, but it doesn't make you more clever than anyone. At least I will look at independent reports instead of being lazy and expecting everyone else to do the work for me. To make it crystal clear for you. My comparison of Lord Ashcroft and the Union Bill was to highlight the hypocracy of any party that protects the tax avoidance of those who donate to it whilst trying to make donations to an opposition party more difficult to administer. That is ALL I was talking about. So I would appreciate it if you would refrain from making any assumptions on my cognitive ability, especially in relation to contexts I was even debating.

How do you know what a report contains if you don't read it? C'mom! Until you read it you have no idea of what it says or doesn't say. Using your own lazyness to dimiss my view is like a Judge saying he won't listen to any witnesses because he knows what they will say. The distinction I make between unions and millionaires is in who they represent. I would say that is fairly obvious by my comments. Unions repesent a mass, corporate millionaires, themselves. I'm finding your tone provocative to be honest. You are not interested in debate and as for being patronising, I think your post above is a perfect example of that. If you can't be bothered reading a report I posted, why on earth should I bother posting links to any other papers.

I think we get to the crux of the matter now. Your problem is with unions DaveR and you're not really interested in a discussion about wealth trying to buy power (which is where I personally started with this). I'm not going to get into a debate with you about unions (any more than I am going to paraphrase a well researched report that you are too lazy to read on lobbying and corruption). Union membership is not only found in the public sector. There are several unions that represent workers in lines of work that are private sector or freelance jobs. More than half of people in work do not earn the average wage. And that includes public sector workers. There is a huge difference between them and the millionaires that donate to political parties. Unions campaign for better working conditions and why shouldn't they, when we have a crop of corporations forcing a wage race to the bottom, while we subsidise them with tax credits and top up benefits. Even you should be able to acknowledge that.

Did you get out of bed the wrong side this morning DaveR? I was simply illustrating the hypocrasy of one party taking donations whilst trying to curb (by law) the ability of another to collect it's donations. It's also worth remembering that the Conservatives raise far more from their city backers than Labour do from all of theirs (including unions) and yes I do think there a difference between an organisation that reppresents workers and an individual who represents himself or his own corporate interests. You may disagree, which is fine, but I'm entitled to my view without insult from you. Azira, here is an in depth report into the inadequacies that lead to a fine line between lobbying and corruption. It contains many examples of unethical relationships between MPs and corporate interests. http://www.transparency.org.uk/publications/15-publications/81-corruption-in-the-uk-overview-policy-recommendations/81-corruption-in-the-uk-overview-policy-recommendations With regards to loans and donations. Political parties are required by law to report every quarter to the electoral commission. Everything you need can be found here. http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/find-information-by-subject/political-parties-campaigning-and-donations/donations-and-loans-to-political-parties/quarterly-donations-and-loans Both are reputable sources as I'm sure you'll agree.

There's plenty of evidence Azira. Lobbying and party donations for a start. Corporations fund election campaigns, they make donations to buy off interest groups that lobby in their interests, all things that ordinary people can't compete with. That's how you end up with people like the Koch brothers in America securring the legislation they needed for a controversial pipeline within months, and it taking years on the other hand for Obmama to get through a watered down version of his health reforms. We see the same thing here. A lowering in Corporation Tax (even though corporations already do everything they can to avoid paying it) whilst low waged working people have their support taken away. And the trade union bill, which the Tories seem to have conveniently convinced everyone (who hasn't read it) is about strike ballots, is actually about restricting Unions ablity to collect subscriptions and use some of those subscriptions to fund the Labour party. So it's ok for a non dom tax avoiding billionaire to fund the Tory party, but it's not ok for ordinary people to fund the Labour party through their union subscriptions. It's totally hypocritical. Big business can lobby and buy influence, while organisations representing ordinary working people are outlawed for doing the same thing. Familiarise yourself with parliamentary procedure Azira. Read the bills themselves (rather than the selctive spin the media uses in 'informing' us). It's all there in the public domain to read, inlcuding who donates what to which party.

Yeah it is funny, I agree with that :D

The dead pig isn't really the story though is it? Lord Ashcroft is a billionaire with non dom status so that he can avoid paying his fair share of tax. Yet he managed to cough up ?8 million to the Tory party, and expected a high profile job in government for it. Cameron didn't give him that job because he was worried about the impact of his non dom status on credibility (and rightly so). We have to stop this ability of tax avoiding, self serving rich people from buying political power. It's totally corrupt. Labour were right to suggest a move towards ending non dom status. It's totally unacceptable in the present economic climate. And that is exactly why someone like Corbyn has gained support. The public are fed up of it.

The logic is spot on. If half of working people in London make the average wage, you then have to assume they are all in stable relationships as well. They won't be of course, so the number of actual couples with that income is going to be less than half the working population. What we don't know of course is how much less. We broadly agree though on the situation overall.

Not looking for an argument at all. Just providing data that suggests it's actually above the average salary, so most people don't qualify. The housing situation in London is just wrong. There is no upward social mobilty for most hard working people. And the term 'affordable housing' is a joke.

It is such a bizarre story! But it also reminds me of the Hatred Goldsmith eventually had for the Tory Party. Hell hath no fury like a billionaire donor scorned.

Jeremy, why would two people live in a one bedroomed flat? Right away that joint salary is only going to work for couples with stable long term relationships. According to the Office for National Statistics, the median gross annual wage for people working in London is ?34,473. The median wage for the UK as a whole is ?22,044. So half the people in London earn less than than ?34.473 and half of your 71k is ?35,500, so more than half of Londoners are earning less than that. It's exactly why 52% of Londoners are forced to rent compared to 30% nationwide.

People keep asking why refugees don't go to other middle eastern countries and Saudi Arabia? Looking at Saudi's part in trying to destroy Yemen perhaps is a clue. The reason why refugees want to come to Europe is because it's safe. The Middle-East on the other hand is riddled with dictatorships and civil wars. BBC made this film about Yemen. It's on iplayer. It shows just what it's like to live in a conventional war zone. And exposes how we and the USA are selling the arms that Saudi is using in Yemen. http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b06dst11/our-world-yemen-the-hidden-war

The view seems to be that Farron is wishful thinking. The Libdems no longer have a fancy office at Westminster (that went to the SNP) and Farron is based at Party HQ. He's not at Westminster enough to know what Labour MPs are thinking.

It is a global problem. Pyschological stresses on refugees can be anything from the trauma of witnessing death and murder to the impacts of exhaustion and hunger. Very few people probably know what it's like to not eat for a couple of days. Poor diet leads to nutrient deficiencies that have specific impacts on energy levels and general mental health. When a group of people are hungry and irritable (a symptom of hunger), without access to sanitation and shelter, a fight or flight mindset takes over. So it's perfectly understandable that a group of desperate people being turned away by people who could help them but choose not to, would resort to violent conduct to force something to change.

He has been forced to support membership of the EU as the party line. Trident is going to be a different battle but he might be best to let the party vote freely on that instead of forcing a whip that many MPs don't agree with. You can already see what's coming. He will compromise on things he doesn't personally believe in to bring the party together and the media will challenge him on that again and again. I don't care if he sings the National Anthem or wears a poppy or not. Policy wise, I agree with his stance on welfare, austerity, housing, jobs, trade unions, tax etc. I don't agree with his stance on NATO or defence and on Trident I have no strong feelings either way. It is very clear that the majority of Labour MPs don't share his views on defence and I suspect a disproportionate amount of time will be given to his difficulties negotiating around that issue. But on others things, I can't see why he can't bring the party to a united consensus. He and McDonnald I suspect, are going to be damned if they do and damned if they don't. The media will do it's best to scare the electorate out of voting for either of them.

Great gesture DH. Even though I hate footy I shall bring my family to that match :) A very worthwhile charity. Need for Mental health treatment is increasing and resources to treat people effectively are being reduced. None of that is helped by the wider public ignorance of how mental health issues can destroy some peoples lives. People CAN be treated, and returned back to functioning lives, BUT there are nowhere near enough resources available to achieve that at present. So every bit helps.

Let's remember though that when he stood for the leadership, he probably didn't think he'd actually win it? Personally I want to see him do well but it is absolutely right to say that he will have to compromise his personal stance on a few things to appease the party. Once there are some policies in place I hope the media attention will focus on those instead.

Great to see a retail company commit to the living wage. The politics show reports it will cost the company ?9 million to deliver. Seems like not a lot of money in relative terms and shows it CAN be done by these companies.

I didn't buy the national Anthem story either. And if that story is true, Corbyn needs to wise up and start understanding the position he's now in. I saw a news interview in which he was asked about that and what he would do when he goes through the ceremy for acceptance to the privvy council (where he will be expected to bow). He was dithering and making no sense. I thought John McDonnell did well too but until we see some solid party policies it's hard to know how this will play out.

I'm inclined to agree on your sentiment ????. The first few days have shown Corbyn is out of his depth to me too. There is niaivity there, just in terms of the damage the media can do to any campaign, if nothing else. He's going to have to learn fast, and one of the things he has to learn is that attracting attention for trivial matters like not singing a National Athem is a mistake, if he ever hopes to be taken as a serious contender for Prime Minister. All of that stuff can be fixed, if he's willing to take advice on presentation and I suspect that once the Labour party begin to formulate some firm policies he will find things easier. It's not going to be enough to be a man of the people. He needs to be a leader too.