Blah Blah

Not practical in terms of enforcement, unless it's the carriage next to the driver. It's not a controversial idea at all. It's only a media bias that is making it into something because they are determined to terrify the electorate as much as possible about a Corbyn leadership.

I wonder if the women only carriage idea was more to do with creating an environment that some women would feel safer travelling in, esp late at night? Whilst it's probably not a practical idea (which might explain it not being pursued), it's not a silly idea either when thought of in those terms. Someone somewhere considered there to be a need to think about addressing. Totally agree though on the hypocracy of who likes an idea!

Indeed Bawdy-nan. They have moved from a system that accounted for the diversity in employment status to one that tries to make one size fit all. They do this consciously. There is plenty of evidence now (and data, that the DWP refuses to publish, even when ordered to do so by the ICO) that their 'reforms' are causing great hardship and destitution. And now they are going after people who are working and low paid too. And yet we have to wait four years to see the living wage that is recommended NOW. Who knows what the recommendation will be in four years and that's if there are any more low paid workers or unemployed living in London.

What no Kanye West in there? I thought he was the greatest rock star ever? Seems the yoof of today beg to differ :D

They don't have to cancel several benefits though. The DWP inform HB and CT if there is a change of circumstances. And the reason for seperate applications has always been that some beneifts are independent of others and/or means tested. The form will still ask all the questions that three forms before asked. The other thing is that LAs directly took care of HB for claimants. This is important because the level of delay and incompetance experienced by many trying to deal with the DWP is not experienced with LAs in processing HB. UC might make bureacratic sense but there are downsides to it. People in part time work and in receipt of any kind of benefit will be treated like the fully unemployed. They will have to prove they are looking for more work (a job of up to 35 hours per week), attend interviews etc or risk losing their benefits. This is going to affect a lot of working single parents for example, who work part time to fit around their children. There are issues to this beyond just money management and rent payment.

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.