[Archived] When will the next general election be called?

[JPTSwindon]

Back on topic.

Progress (significant and even welcomed by Labour) on Brexit (merits to be debated on another topic) today.

So Corbyn's claims he would be PM by Christmas is off.

As per my earlier posts, election a long way off.

[philipl]

15 minutes ago, JPTSwindon said:

Have you just plucked the £10bn out of the air?  

We do have an ageing population but Pensions is not included in the £50bn and remember DLA / PIP is not available to new claimants over 65.

The rise is mostly down to PIP being more accessible than the older DLA benefit, so more people are able to secure a higher (and correct) rate of support.  This is a good thing.

Rises to £30bn by 2020/2021

https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/projects/verdict/how-much-money-does-nhs-need

 

[JPTSwindon]

Just now, philipl said:

Rises to £30bn by 2020/2021

https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/projects/verdict/how-much-money-does-nhs-need

 

Right, so your £10bn was plucked out of the air as you are now quoting stuff on the NHS, very different to disability spending.

This article was 15/16, it asked for £8bn for the NHS, that was then confirmed in the subsequent Budgets and Autumn Spending Review.  Spending on the NHS has risen from £98bn in 2010 to £128bn.  This is a good thing.

[Mike E]

20 hours ago, JPTSwindon said:

Except the Gov is rightly spending £3bn a year MORE on supporting those with disabilities and long-term health conditions, but don't let the facts get in the way of your blinkered views.

Blinkered perhaps, but when you knew 2 people through University who mentioned the cuts in their suicide notes, it's hard not to be. One of thone people was forced out of his job through Remploy, then a year or so later he had his total allowance (PIP) reduced by £150/month. Me and some mates chipped in what we could in favours/cash but the black dog got him, triggered by such a reduction in life quality (as suggested by his GP and a mental health consultant).

As has been pointed out, just because the spending has gone up, it doesn't mean it's gone up in proportion to need.

Wider point: Due to my pretty severe views on this, I'm amazed by the work politicians do and you couldn't pay me enough to try it. But I'd have conscience enough not to take money from the needy while letting the wealthy keep more of theirs.

Whatever happened to the social contract of helping each other after WW2? Maybe it'll come after Trump triggers WW3.

[blueboy3333]

I've just been sat with an 85 year old lady for 3 hours in the freezing cold who'd had a fall. That's how long it took for an ambulance to get there.

 

[Reedy You're A Star]

Even taking into account the time of year, with xmas parties and whatnot and the general inclination for people kicking the ass out of it, that is a 'kin scandal!

[den]

6 hours ago, blueboy3333 said:

I've just been sat with an 85 year old lady for 3 hours in the freezing cold who'd had a fall. That's how long it took for an ambulance to get there. @#/? the Tory scum.

I’ve posted in the last couple of weeks about a family member being on a trolley in a hospital corridor for 17 hrs. The paras told us then, that the waiting time for an emergency ambulance was 1.5 hrs. The state of A&E is just not acceptable, but these Tories laugh in the face of their critics.

Just by chance, you weren’t waiting in the Debenhams car park in Preston at 7pm were you? There were a few people there tending to an elderly lady, looking like they were waiting for an ambulance.

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

We had to call an emergency ambulance for my 87 year old mum earlier this year. It took 3.5 hours to arrive and when it did it was a St John's ambulance. No disrespect to the two guys  who came with it, they were great. This was on a quiet Tuesday evening at tea time. You could drive to the A& E in a car in less than 10 minutes but we were told not to move her. When we got there we waited 1/2 hr to be triarged, then an hour in the waiting room , followed by about 1 1/2 hours waiting on a bed in one of the closets. All this time she was in a lot of pain.

On another tack I've had to go to our A&E department quite often recently for specialised treatment. Normal waiting time is usually about 3 hours. Listening to people talking I'd say at least half of them are there not because it's a genuine emergency or the result of an accident but because they can't get a GP appointment. A few are there because if you're lucky you can get a free prescription from the pharmacy.

[blueboy3333]

9 hours ago, den said:

I’ve posted in the last couple of weeks about a family member being on a trolley in a hospital corridor for 17 hrs. The paras told us then, that the waiting time for an emergency ambulance was 1.5 hrs. The state of A&E is just not acceptable, but these Tories laugh in the face of their critics.

Just by chance, you weren’t waiting in the Debenhams car park in Preston at 7pm were you? There were a few people there tending to an elderly lady, looking like they were waiting for an ambulance.

I've sent you a PM. Hope your relative is ok. I read of someone waiting for 5 hours for an ambulance in Wales somewhere a couple of days ago. It's a national disgrace but the press are so obviously (and conveniently) obsessed with Brexit that nothing else matters. Here's a link to a story of ambulances being turned away from Preston and on to Blackburn. This will get worse as the winter goes on and will cost many lives.

https://www.lep.co.uk/news/health/ambulances-turned-away-from-busy-hospital-1-8901041

[den]

You’re right, it is an absolute disgrace.

good job it’s not Labour in charge. The press wouldn’t ignore it then.

[Paul]

On 07/12/2017 at 23:46, JPTSwindon said:

Except the Gov is rightly spending £3bn a year MORE on supporting those with disabilities and long-term health conditions, but don't let the facts get in the way of your blinkered views.

I have a genuine interest in this in relation to the disabled. Would you provide some links or information. 

Recent experience would suggest the opposite is true. One aspect of support for the disabled which is widely misunderstood is the contribution they are expected to make to their care. It works like this, a disabled person who requires care will receive:

Annual “package” of money which can be used to purchase the most appropriate type of care. The ability to tailor care, introduced by Labour, was a huge step forward in accessing appropriate services. 

Individuals requiring care will receive DLA, usually ESA, Housing Benefit and Council Tax relief.

We are all expected to contribute financially to our care. In the case of the disabled this is calculated by totalling their benefits net of DLA. From this figure is deducted essential living expenses, food, utilities etc. What may come as a surprise is the government exclude items such as clothes, shoes, toiletries and many other things we might all deem essential from this calculation. This provides a figure which is considered as the individual’s net disposable income.

Once the net figure has been arrived at the local authority which provides the care reclaims 85% of the individual’s disposable income as the contribution to care. In the case of LCC the rules have been rewritten in relation to what LCC deem allowable expenses. 

Three weeks ago LCC increased my son’s contribution to his care by 42%.

The issue we have is this. Using one figure, the “package,” it is possible to indicate a substantial increase in funding. What no one ever speaks of in public is the government then reclaims as much of this care “package” as possible from other state benefits.

I am therefore very interested to understand where the additional £3bn is so I can try to access more cash for my son. 

Anyone who believes this country treats the disabled, disadvantaged, those needing long-term health care in a decent and generous manner is in cloud cuckoo land. 

Let me throw out a challenge. How many members here can honestly say after paying for housing, utilities and food they could live on just 15% of their disposable income? In other words for every £100 in your pocket rather than spend £100 you just have £15 available.

In a supposedly modern, wealthy, caring society the situation is a disgusting indictment of our government and our willingness as a society to look after the vulnerable. 

[blueboy3333]

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/economy/2017/03/disability-benefit-cuts-philip-hammond-forgot-mention-budget-2017

I certainly wouldn't like to be disabled in the caring sharing Tory world.

[broadsword]

The tories : an affront to human decency

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=690794987774934&id=10513336322&ref=content_filter

[den]

While we are talking about the Tories and the state of the NHS, Bob Kerslake has decided to resign over the underfunding and the refusal to take its problems seriously.

I’m quitting as a hospital boss: dire NHS funding problems give me no choice

https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/dec/10/quit-hospital-boss-nhs-chair-kings-college-hospital-london?CMP=soc_3156&__twitter_impression=true

 

 

[blueboy3333]

https://www.lep.co.uk/news/health/lancashire-county-council-award-104m-nhs-contract-to-virgin-care-1-8903287

Privitisation of the NHS continues....making profit out of suffering.

[Baz]

4 hours ago, blueboy3333 said:

https://www.lep.co.uk/news/health/lancashire-county-council-award-104m-nhs-contract-to-virgin-care-1-8903287

Privitisation of the NHS continues....making profit out of suffering.

It's nothing new, it's a direct result of the Tories ideals of allowing free competition to allow for 'best value', so you have an expensive (to run) bidding process where not for profit trusts are set against big commercial companies, who can spend more money and have more experience in a bidding process. The process is mandatory, but the bidders can choose which parts they want to bid for, so the smaller parts of the service, where there's not much profit likely, they can bypass leaving those to the NHS trust to run. This isn' a NHS contract, this is a council health and social care program that hàs traditionally been run by the local NHS trust.

It's open season on the NHS and related health and social care spending, and by the time Labour can field a new government, many of these services will have gone. I'm all for tightening over-expenditure in the public sector, but this actually stops it.

[Paul]

7 hours ago, blueboy3333 said:

https://www.lep.co.uk/news/health/lancashire-county-council-award-104m-nhs-contract-to-virgin-care-1-8903287

Privitisation of the NHS continues....making profit out of suffering.

There will be a lot of experienced people looking to take MARS (mutually agreed redundancy scheme) now this has happened

[jim mk2]

7 hours ago, blueboy3333 said:

https://www.lep.co.uk/news/health/lancashire-county-council-award-104m-nhs-contract-to-virgin-care-1-8903287

Privitisation of the NHS continues....making profit out of suffering.

 

Bit by bit, the Conservatives have been dismantling the welfare state for the past 40 years and now they are going for their last big target - the NHS. Jeremy Hunt is behind all this; the right wing now has a firm grip on all social and economic policy. It could be 5 years to the next election and even if Corbyn wins there will be large chunks of the NHS in private hands by that time. Unions should be mobilising to fight this all the way. 

[Paul]

An aspect of the Branson takeover is employees’ future. In these situations existing NHS staff have the option to move from NHS employment to, in this case, Virgin.

Two points here; an employee’s pension built up over the years will presumably remain with the NHS. I wonder if private providers are reducing future pension values to cut costs to be competitive and more profitable?

Secondly many new posts in the NHS are advertised internally. Someone who leaves NHS employment as a result of a Virgin takeover, effectively being forced to work for Virgin, might struggle to return to the NHS simply through not knowing of new opportunities. 

Both are/have been significant benefits of being an NHS employee. 

[Baz]

17 hours ago, Paul said:

An aspect of the Branson takeover is employees’ future. In these situations existing NHS staff have the option to move from NHS employment to, in this case, Virgin.

Two points here; an employee’s pension built up over the years will presumably remain with the NHS. I wonder if private providers are reducing future pension values to cut costs to be competitive and more profitable?

Secondly many new posts in the NHS are advertised internally. Someone who leaves NHS employment as a result of a Virgin takeover, effectively being forced to work for Virgin, might struggle to return to the NHS simply through not knowing of new opportunities. 

Both are/have been significant benefits of being an NHS employee. 

The staff will be given the option to TUPE across on their existing terms and conditions including pensions and years service, or Virgin will be allowed to make them redundant- the payout based on ther NHS terms.

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

On 11 December 2017 at 23:36, jim mk2 said:

 

Bit by bit, the Conservatives have been dismantling the welfare state for the past 40 years and now they are going for their last big target - the NHS. Jeremy Hunt is behind all this; the right wing now has a firm grip on all social and economic policy. It could be 5 years to the next election and even if Corbyn wins there will be large chunks of the NHS in private hands by that time. Unions should be mobilising to fight this all the way. 

Unfortunately Jim " the unions " are paper tigers these days. We keep hearing about the pundits being mystified as to how we can have " full " employment yet no wage inflation. The answer is  simple to me. Individuals have very little leverage when it comes to negotiating pay rises. Only when workers learn the value of banding together will things change.

[Baz]

1 hour ago, Tyrone Shoelaces said:

Unfortunately Jim " the unions " are paper tigers these days. We keep hearing about the pundits being mystified as to how we can have " full " employment yet no wage inflation. The answer is  simple to me. Individuals have very little leverage when it comes to negotiating pay rises. Only when workers learn the value of banding together will things change.

Unemployment dropped, but the number of people in employment dropped too. 

We have around 1.4m unemployed, yet there were 8.9 million people aged from 16 to 64 who were economically inactive (not working and not seeking or available to work), 115k more than in May - July 17. That number looks too high to me - I'm presuming it includes people unfit for work, and stay at home mums, but even so it looks high.

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

I see the Tories have lost the vote in Parliament tonight. One step nearer overturning Brexit.

[Gav]

So Damien Green has been sacked for having porn all over his laptop, if I had porn all over my work laptop I'd expect to be sacked as well, he should have gone weeks ago.

The police leak is one thing, but the Tories and right wing medias attempts to divert attention, shift blame hasn't worked.

May is now on very very shaky ground, election in 2018? lets hope so

[jim mk2]

24 minutes ago, Gav said:

So Damien Green has been sacked for having porn all over his laptop, if I had porn all over my work laptop I'd expect to be sacked as well, he should have gone weeks ago.

The police leak is one thing, but the Tories and right wing medias attempts to divert attention, shift blame hasn't worked.

May is now on very very shaky ground, election in 2018? lets hope so

 He's not been sacked for having the porn, which is not proven,  but for “inaccurate and misleading” statements about the pornography found on his parliamentary computer in 2008. In other words, he lied.