Blah Blah

The worry is that vulnerable tenants will not pay the rent. But it all gets complicated when things like bedroom tax are factored in and what happens too if a claimant is sanctioned? In that situation the only money they'll be receiving is the HB payment, and it's not hard to see why people with no money to live on will use the rent money instead. 63% of those sanctioned btw have mental health conditions. They are often people in the Work Related Action Group of ESA, so there is an acknowledgement that they have problems and yet the same harsh rules that apply to JSA recipients apply. The latest figures show the number of ESA claimants is up. Government policy is making already vulnerable people more ill and at the same time the resources to treat people are stagnating and being cut in many areas. There is so much denial from the DWP. A while back IDS stated that people who refused therapy would lose their benefits. Does IDS even know that NHS waiting lists for psychotherapy are around a year long? And that those sessions are rationed and in many cases are not over a long enough period to effectively treat patients? I just despair sometimes at ignorance of government.

More info here on how HSCIC use information. http://www.hscic.gov.uk/dataregister

Ok this a bit complicated but I'll try and explain as simply as possible how data is shared accross the NHS. Since 2013, GPs are required to take reasonable steps to inform patients of how their data will or can be used by the NHS and other companies. Failure to do so (and offering an opt out) can result in prosecution under the Data Protection Act. Why this came about is because practises started using a data extraction system run by the HSCIC (Health and Social Care Information Centre). The General Practice Extraction Service is the name of the service used. So what that means is that patient data can be cross referenced within the NHS to improve patient information and therefore lead to better care, which is a good thing. On the dowside, it also potentially opens the door to purchase by researchers or private companies for use outside the NHS. That is what you should be able to opt out from. My advice skedoodlelou, if you are concerned, would be to to ask your GP to make sure you are opted out from the personal data extraction scheme. I think it highly unlikely that your cold call was linked to your GP, but at the same time, data that changes many hands is always at risk. It just takes one unscrupulous individual. Hope that helps.

That sounds like your car was deliberately targetted to me.

Raising the pension age won't make any difference to whether people stay well enough to work, so they'll be in receipt of income support or ESA before they even get to 70 most likely. Just on healthcare though, as it's the field I work in and know something about. A lot of money could be saved in the longer term with better preventative care. Take something as simple as diabetes for example. The links with obesity and innactivity are undeniable. Other things such as heart disease and cholesterol issues are also preventable. Regulation of the food industry could save the NHS billions over the longer term. I'd favour taxes on foods that are unquestionably contributary to those things, whilst subsidising prices on healthier foods. Deep fried chicken and chips should be an occasional thing, not a staple diet. When I see overweight/obese children, I get rather angry, because in most cases, the only thing to blame is poor diet and lack of activity. I can't stress enough how bad it is for children to develop fat cells. They stay with that person for life and make weight control difficult to maintain. The same can also be said for dental care. Increasing numbers of children and having teeth removed because of totally unnecessary decay. Again it's another huge cost that could be significantly reduced.

Yes it's always money for a cab but most people would ring a friend for help, or speak to a neighbour that knows them if genuine.

I think all of Europe has the same demographic issues. Some are better prepared than others but it's going to be a challenge for everyone. Even Malthus argued that population growth had to be kept in check whereas free market economists think the opposite. Free marketeers want competition and cheap labour, whereas opponents argue that increasing the numbers of working age people to pay for pensions, is a self fullfilling ponzi pyramid, because with each generation you need more and more people to prop up the newly retired generation. And that only works if most of those of working age are working. THAT is a growing problem as well. Not enough employment there either.

Usually get that one in hospital car parks! My reply to that would be 'I'm a doctor, let me come and take a look at your wife for you'.

That has a lot to so with the style of economics advocated and being taught in Universities. I saw in the news yesterday that those ringfenced pensioner payments might have to be unringfenced too. Seems Ian Duncan Smith is turning his attentions there, unable perhaps to find 12bn more pounds of savings from the disabled and under 25s. Looks likely that winter fuel allowance may be reduced with things like free travel and TV licence becoming means tested to start with. At the meoment we are all focussed on the Labour leadership and a Corbyn era when the more interesting battles are surely going to be Europe (a regular mark of Tory implosion), efforts by IDS to remove anything from all those pensioners that put them into power and bill by bill battles over extended right to buy, human rights legislation etc etc. The sooner Labour get this damned leadership contest out of the way, and we can get down to the politics of reality, the better.

There's little that can be done to uncrowd a crowded city. People have to take responsibility for their own behaviour. What I see here is an excellent idea to bring an unused strip of land into public use. Just because some people can not 'manage' their own behaviour shouldn't be a reason for denying what could be a pleasant resource for everyone else.

Indeed. I think there's an element of la la land in council planning.

Check out website megatrain.com as well.

I also wonder why anything but essential repairs are being done given the massive cuts to LAs. Surely the money wasted of some road works could be better spent where it's needed more.

I just find it incredulous that stone has to come all the way from China!

Totally agree guys. They've made a right royal mess of things and seem incapable of seeing that.

As I bite into my lunch, might take a look at twitter. Labour kind of shot themselves in the foot with this ?3 to vote without being a true believer/ member nonsense.

Seems a fair response.

So there is nowhere in the UK that makes kerb stone? Good point Sue regarding Conway. Kind of makes a mockery of the tendering process if the same company always gets the contract.

I agree with all of that Otta except to say that there are currently thousands of children in the UK who are full time carers for a parent and have no choice but to be so. 'I don't consider the Nordics to be socialist. They are free market, capitalist economies with high taxation and public spending. ' I agree with this but we seem to be locked into a pattern of calling any increase in taxation and public spending the march of a socialist movement. You do hit on a interesting conundrum. The care sector creates jobs but it's also expensive because we have to pay people wages. But it is one of those areas were if relatives helped out more, demand could be eased. That's kind of where I'm going with collective responsibility.

Yeah sure. For example, there are many people who choose to put a parent into a care home, over having them at their home simply because they don't want to clean up after them for example. I'm not talking about situations where people have illness requiring specialist care but more the aspect of our culture where grandparents don't live with children under any circumstances, because we think we hold no responsibility for looking after or helping other members of our family. I am of course generalising and know that there are many individual reasons for everything etc etc. But it strikes me that if we had a culture of resposibility, like that found in Asian culture for example, we'd be better off in many ways. I don't know if anyone watched the Chinese school docs on BBC recently, but one of the things the Chinese teachers said about the difference between the attitude and work ethic between Chinese children and British children is that in China, education is the only way out of poverty. There is no welfare safety net. Children know this and work as hard as they can at studies. But in the UK children don't have to work if they don't want to. Obviously I am a supporter of a welfare system for obvious reasons but the comment did strike a chord with me. What I am saying is that we have broken down family connections. And dependency has shifted from other family members, to the state, in matters that could be taken care of within families (and in many other cultures are). Here's a simple example. If an elderly person is living alone and not eating properly, and a family member lives nearby, or even not so nearby, many people would take care of their elderly relative, either by visiting daily to make sure they eat or by moving them closer to them. In some cultures they would move in with adult children. But you would be amazed by the cost to the nation of NHS care and health visitors to make sure that person eats daily whilst family members nearby do nothing.

I knew you'd come back with that (my wife is Swedish btw). Sweden found a more cost effective way to stick by it's principles, that's my point. Denmark is a sucessful example of socialism at work. Even Cuba has no homelessness, and better healthcare and literacy than the USA. Are they perfect systems? Of course not, no system is. But the idea that the free market takes care of all is an equally ridiculous idea not born out in practise. Just as the idea that the best way to live is in a world driven by market forces is also now shown for the myth it is. There was a time when people lived just fine growing their own food and living off the land. Anxiety, stress, depression, people are being driven to an early grave trying to function just to pay tax and bills. What is the point of any of it? A good system will have an economic model at it's core that works by delivering a healthy quality of life for all. And to make that happen means not letting corporate interests have it all their own way. It means changing our attitudes to a whole range of things. Where I do agree is in the realisation that the nicely worked out pyramid that made sense in the post war regeneration no longer applied by the 90s. We seem to have no solutions for that beyond going back to the set up of before, where a few at the top do very well and everyone else becomes enslaved to the system, or dies (with charity being the provider of any lifelines). I don't think Corbyn has any answers to that either (because too much is outside of our control). Those paying the 40% tax rate are just 10% of the population, but they pay 53% of all income tax collected. Our economic system itself isn't working in so many ways anymore. We can't compete with the labour costs of Asia so what do we do? And yet, our policy makers are desperately trying to regain what we had pre 2008 because this time, they won't mess up will they! I can understand why people want to keep hold of their promised pensions. I can understand why people want to strike and unions want to fight for jobs and pay. I can understand why genuinely disabled and unemployed people feel victimised. On the other hand, I can't understand why children think it's the states responsibility to take care of their parents when they become ill. I can't understand why multi-millionaires seek to make more and more for themselves. I can't understand why someone wants the best for their kids but doesn't care if the kids next door get the best too. Winners never want anything to change.

I always respect others views Dave but comparing the uk or anything Corbyn is talking about to Venezuela is equally ridiculous. Let's talk about Sweden instead eh? With it's high taxes and great social care. A failed state? I don't think so. You might think that showing the flaws in what we have is soundbite rhetoric but you don't see the people I deal with every day through my job and how miserable their lives are BECAUSE of the the policies of this country and the trend of the last 30 years, which I will be the first to admit has had positives but equally has flaws that has turned us into a country of self interested individuals that lead to the kind of politics we have dominating Westminster, and the kind of lazyness we have dominating some aspects of our population. It's a quality of life thing. We are not the only country like that. America is even worse. Corbyn wants to have a debate about those things, and suggest another way (whether he is right or wrong). I don't see anyone else in Westminster coming to the fore to raise that debate. ????, I respect and accept all that. And you do engage in a debate which is great. I guess it's just my aversion to seeing politics and economics as black and white. They are not. All any party ever does is tinker at the edges anyway because we are dependent on other things going on in the world, and it also takes a generation or two to change anything. Things come about by stealth and equally tend to be dismantled by stealth. I doubt if Corbyn will be leader by the next election anyway. Cameron has also said he's not going to run another term (we'll see if he keeps to that). Will we end up with Osbourne vs DM? Who knows. It takes time for a party to find a right leader after falling from years in government. It was exactly the same for the Tories after Thatcher, and some might say they still haven't got there yet.

I completely agree Sue. I don't think he's unelectable either. It will all depend on how the next four years go. I think Corbyn can take some of the electorate back to a sense of collectivism, as well as engaging with those that have felt disengaged by Westminster for a while now. Jeremy, the battle between right and left in terms of Corbyn, is something that the right (including some in the Labour Party themselves) have shouted from the rooftops, not the other way round. Only those doing best by the current system think there is no better alternative. No-one in their right mind could argue that society is fairer than 30 years ago, or that prosperity and upward social mobility is something open to the many. There are many elephants in the room that could destroy the myth that the Tories have brought us back from economic disaster. What do you think will happen when interest rates go up for example (as they will have to)? When the housing bubble bursts (and it will)? Corbyn IS going to provide a challenge to every word uttered by Cameron. There will be no opportunity for the Tories to get away with conning the public into believing myths about the economy this time. That imo is a good thing. David Milliband had plenty of opportunity to do all of those things when he was in cabinet. I agree Miga, that is exactly what I think Corbyn will bring in effect to the Labour Party - a slight move away from being Tory -lite. I don't even see him alienating too many Blairite supporters either because as you say, even the middle classes are feeling the squeeze of the costs of housing and living. And change comes usually when the middle classes start to suffer. There's only one reason why the Tories ringfenced all pensioner benefits and shafted the young. Votes votes votes. There's plenty for Corbyn to go after in terms of support AND there are many older people who only have the pensions they do because of the value placed on employee rights by post war governments. His message might strike a chord with them too. DaveR, I can take any reply out of context too. Take a look at the post I was responding to and then tell me who was being dismissive. ???? has a tendancy to completely dismiss views that are not his own. He IS someone who likes the current economic system and I disagree with him, that's all. I was simply throwing back his style at him, which is all anyone can do to a comment like - " = 10 years of Tory rule...but At least you've voted with your conscience based on someone not being one of them but with a bunch of policies which would have us all in penury. Bravo." I find his fear of a fairer society mystifying, just as I find your dismissal of everything he says mystifing. Let's look at this.... "he has exactly the same intolerant, anti-individual, ultimately anti-freedom tendencies as all of his ilk on the left." That's a big statement. Intolerant of what? Isn't it the left that delivers equal rights and fights discrimination traditionally? Anti_individual? Really? When corporate greed has hoovered wealth away from ordinary people? When the planets resources are bing wasted away whilst we engage on a binge of inbuilt obsolescence? When we are increasingly being told what to think, trapped by cameras and surveillance and the options for escape to a free way of life are being increasingly narrowed by falling wages and higher costs of living? We are being turned into robots. What is the individual is a whole debate in itself but communities that work together often function better than ones that hide in gated compounds. Anti-freedom? Again really? The Housing Crisis, the banking crashes of the last 30 years, higher unemployment, the richest getting richer whilst the masses get comparative poorer. These are all the consequences of removing regulation for private corporations, whilst the state increase the regulation on the rest of us, the right to protest, the right to park, the right to even fart. You see how making blanket statements about right and left gets you into trouble? Life, societies and economies are never that black and white. We do need some regeulation back - not all of it of course - but we do need some because we are on a trajectory that is making a lot of ordinary people poorer and ill. And the young, who have their whole lives ahead of them, are looking into an abyss of stundent debt, rip off landlords, low wages, no pension or employment protections and who knows, even a world without state healthcare and welfare. They will kick back and when they do, it won't be pretty.

I disagree ????. I'm voting against the bunch of victorians in power who seem to thinkgs it's ok to take us back to the workhouse, to erode away social services and just about every safety net the most vulnerable have. You strike me as a bit of an I'm all right Jack anyway. Clearly you like inequality, and upward social mobility for the few. You like 90% of the UKs wealth being owned by the 1%. Bravo to you as well.

I think David Miliband is happier where he is stateside. I think I'm going to do it and tick the Corbyn box.