DEM not gonna CON dis NATION: Rolling UK politics in the short-lived Cleggeron era

Nice one, Liberals

The BMA also took issue with the "obsession" with competition, saying GPs would be set against hospitals - one of the objectives of the changes is to get more care done more cheaply outside hospitals.

No shit. I've no idea how "competition" is supposed to work in the NHS, or "choice" for that matter. I want my local hospital in Lewisham to be as good as possible if I need an operation, I don't want to "choose" to go to Enfield for it.

I blame Blair and Patricia Hewitt in particular for totally buying into all this bullshit, it seemed screamingly obvious it would enable the Tories to sell the NHS off piece by piece as soon as they got back in.

one of the objectives of the changes is to get more care done more cheaply outside hospitals.

.. bus drivers to supervise baby deliveries

Operations to be carried out in the car park

Hey Mark - it's the story near the end - http://hackneypodcast.co.uk/2010/02/edition-17-buses/

Don't give a fuck about this, never heard of it before but this quote:

"Nothing is more symbolic of Labour's war on the motorist than the M4 bus lane."

Cunts.

Gah. Mildly off topic, but that quote reminds me that whenever there's a tube strike in London, and the roads are jammed to gridlock, I think 'This is what you want? This is how public transport funding is war on the motorist is it? You massive massive twats. You're going nowhere'

Not sure giving motorways their own bus lane is really sensible in the first place.

for heathrow it makes sense, but generally nah not really

Was just reading some things on the bus lane, and this is a pretty good summary http://www.stableandprincipled.com/content/2010-10-01/wheels-bus-dont-go-round-and-round - there's a massive bottleneck because the elevated M4's only 2-lanes. Bus lane was only introduced because a load of empty space would look even worse.

Every Liberal Democrat supporter in the country should be sat down and made to watch single second of the Tory Conference, from beginning to end

i'm sure like most tories they'll have better things to do

David Cameron has launched a robust defence of the Government's economic policies, claiming they had been successful in getting Britain out of the "danger zone".

The Prime Minister said it had been essential to go in "hard and fast" in dealing with the deficit, an approach backed by the CBI, the IMF and the G20.

Yeah, it really worked for Ireland, didn't it? Backed by the geniuses at the IMF to boot.

A week of this shit to look forward too. I think I might go on holiday.

Under the new plans, "if you can work and if you're offered a job and you don't take it, you cannot continue to claim benefits. It will be extremely tough," he said.

it will be extremely tough and you may have to just die instead

Those new plans sound a lot like the old plans.

But on the other hand let us look at the issue of dependency where we have trapped people in poverty through the extent of welfare that they have... in terms of the work-related benefits you need a system that means you are always better off in work and working hard."

Shit like this makes me so fucking angry. If people on benefits are better off then they would be in work it's because wages are TOO FUCKING LOW. Benefit claimants can't simultaneously be too well off AND trapped in poverty. What he's saying is they should be in working poverty instead. This should lead to rioting in the streets, but it probably won't.

lol http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11461823

Yes, that's the part that always makes me mad. It costs about £20K a year in order for a single person to live here in a way that's not hand-to-mouth (FYI that's a wage of £400/week or £10/hr and you'll be paying a minimum of £400/month for rent in London, plus myriad monthly bills).

Oh it's so immature of me but whenever Warsi speaks I want to offer the following as translation service: 'ner ner ner, ner ner ner, blah blah'.

Yes, that's the part that always makes me mad. It costs about £20K a year in order for a single person to live here in a way that's not hand-to-mouth

This seems really untrue to me, but maybe we have different definitions of hand-to-mouth.

I define it as spending 25 per cent of income on rent instead of over half while having the opportunity to save a bit and not suffer with 'too much month at the end of the money' syndrome. Also, £5k of the £20k comes out in tax before the cash even lands in the bank, so you're really on a budget of £15k and over half of that is going to be non-food bills and council tax. On the c. £7/hr advocates of the living wage are promoting, that adds up to an income of £14,560/year - not really enough to live here, is it?

there are lots of facets to this, including pension provision -- pretty hard to pay into a pension scheme on less than £20k, and it seems pretty unlikely the state pension will mean a thing in a generation's time -- and the banking sector controlled racket that is the housing 'market': state benefits flow not very indirectly towards the landlords (and, so, the banks) as things stand. it's not so much a question of numbers but about the structure of the economy.

^^^ Bingo, that's why everyone's been encouraged to paper over the cracks with consumer credit for a generation and oh shit what do you mean it went tits-up?

perhaps being a bit London-centric. you can surive perfectly well on less than 20k in Glasgow for instance. I technically earn under 20k, my basic is 17, but with overtime i can, and do, make a before tax maybe around 24. some months i don't bother to do OT and i get by fine, having money at the end of the month, despite the fact that i'm profligate with money and drink rather a lot. my rent, in the city centre, is 350, around a third of my basic take home, and i make a pension contribution as well.

xps - bloody Warsi (wARSEY more like amirite?) - I think she got off lightly there tbh.
"concerns raised by associations" - this is such bullshit.

warsi has made a fool of herself -- there almost certainly was voter fraud in tower hamlets; it was being reported even before the election, but it's stupid to make these accusations and not go all-in

£15k and over half of that is going to be non-food bills and council tax

That's 'non-food bills and council tax' of over £625 a month - surely no-one pays that much?

HM's point about pensions is a good one I think.

Precisely, she looks an idiot for not substantiating the claim. Warsi always strikes me as an asian from a privileged background who gets all annoyed cos the asian community won't just do what they're told and vote tory.

That's 'non-food bills and council tax' of over £625 a month - surely no-one pays that much?

she's including rent in non-food bills so, yes, they do pay that!

Oh the Warsi speech right now is unbearable. Apparently Mandelson is some kind of incompetent cunt and Eric Pickles is an amazing genius.

Oh right! Sorry, I misread that :(

Add it up: rent, council tax, TV license, utility bills including phone and internet connection, transportation for your commute?

My rent in London is about £400/month (but it's a small flat), council tax is £80, heat and hot water is £45, electricity is £20, phone £35, internet/landline £30, TV £12 and transport would be £100 if I was commuting but it's more like £50 because I live in zone 1.

Warsi isn't from poshness, but her dad did well - she strikes me as being Thatcherbaby lower middle class in outlook, even though she can pay for stuff.

I'm actually mostly wrong here! I guess that was predictable.

Yes, and I wasn't even figuring in the debts the average graduate is paying off! If someone's on JSA, using my costs, they'd have £480 covered by the state (rent and council tax) plus c. £280/month - £132 of which is fixed cost of bills that must be paid on time, leaving £148/month for food, necessary toiletries, transport to interviews and the like - that's £34.15/week, a superb foundation on which to build a return to work!

this is interesting

The prime minister's media adviser, Andy Coulson, personally listened to the intercepted voicemail messages of public figures when he edited the News of the World, a senior journalist who worked alongside him has said.

Coulson has always denied knowing about any illegal activity by the journalists who worked for him, but an unidentified former editor from the paper told Channel Four Dispatches that Coulson not only knew his reporters were using intercepted voicemail but was also personally involved.

I bet the Tories thought this problem had been dodged. HA.

Coulson's very disposable, think this is mostly small potatoes.

ehh, it'd be a pretty good scalp imo

All for scalpings, just don't think it'll do a lot of damage.

Under the new plans, "if you can work and if you're offered a job and you don't take it, you cannot continue to claim benefits. It will be extremely tough," he said.

it will be extremely tough and you may have to just die instead

― FORTIFIED STEAMED VEGETABLE BOWL (schlump), Sunday, 3 October 2010 11:12 (5 hours ago) Permalink

Those new plans sound a lot like the old plans.

― James Mitchell, Sunday, 3 October 2010 11:22 (5 hours ago)

As someone who actually works for the organisation that pays benefits, these plans sound exactly like the rules that have been in place for at least the last 10 years...

not going to be a massive deal if he goes. i don't think he's really associated with the govt by johnny voter to the same extent as say, campbell was.

lols though

"High earners":

Families earning over about £44,000 would be affected.

That's not actually what the article says, unless it changed since you put that. It's individuals earning over £44,000. A family with a combined income of over £44,000 wouldn't be affected unless one person earned over £44,000.

Yeah, for once I have no problem with this policy - higher rate tax payers don't need child benefit.

there was a thing about exactly this is the nyt last week: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/01/business/global/01welfare.html