ChezGiven

Would you mind expanding on that please? http://www.taxcredits.inlandrevenue.gov.uk...TaxCredits.aspx http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/index/life/b...king_tax_credit

How do you feel about the arabs? Yiddish?

11 years of labour rule. It has fostered a "I dont have to do anything I dont want to attitude in England". We need a Tory government who are willing to act like a tory government to get these fucks back into society and functioning again. If thety dont, let them starve IMO. Social change supercedes political change in this case. I dont agree that a government who came in in 1997 is responsible for a social underclass in the UK. Thats just fucking stupid tbh. I am not saying they are responsible but they have certainly encouraged it. It is more profitable to be out of work than in it for some. 1 in 5 in certain towns on the sick? Labour is responsible. Everything Labour has done to the tax structure has been designed to encourage people on low incomes to work more. The tory tax structure they inherited was designed to reward the middle and upper classes. Shut up tbh.

11 years of labour rule. It has fostered a "I dont have to do anything I dont want to attitude in England". We need a Tory government who are willing to act like a tory government to get these fucks back into society and functioning again. If thety dont, let them starve IMO. Social change supercedes political change in this case. I dont agree that a government who came in in 1997 is responsible for a social underclass in the UK. Thats just fucking stupid tbh.

She's the cause, without a doubt. We're approaching three generations in now and that's probably irreversible. She had the right idea though with suggesting that the focus should be on taking responsibility for your own actions and putting an emphasis on family. Sort of falls down when you think of the industries she destroyed overnight without any long-term thought (or concern) for the communities that were devastated as a consequence. It was a very much a case of 'I'm alright Jack'. Did the civil servants who advised the Tories to close the mines include the costs incurred since 1982 in regenrating the north east? I doubt it. If i ever had the time, i'd love to look at the financial data used to justify the decision to get rid of the coal industry in the north east and see whether it took account of the money they are now spending to try and maintain communities on social welfare and regenerative projects (including those from the EU etc). Yes Adam, but I've got you down as soft right whereas Thatch was hard right. I dont believe in ideology James.

She's the cause, without a doubt. We're approaching three generations in now and that's probably irreversible. She had the right idea though with suggesting that the focus should be on taking responsibility for your own actions and putting an emphasis on family. Sort of falls down when you think of the industries she destroyed overnight without any long-term thought (or concern) for the communities that were devastated as a consequence. It was a very much a case of 'I'm alright Jack'. Did the civil servants who advised the Tories to close the mines include the costs incurred since 1982 in regenrating the north east? I doubt it. If i ever had the time, i'd love to look at the financial data used to justify the decision to get rid of the coal industry in the north east and see whether it took account of the money they are now spending to try and maintain communities on social welfare and regenerative projects (including those from the EU etc).

Whenever I go to England there is always some hoo ha like this going on if it isn't a baby, its Muslims if not that then scroungers or summink, it has become a very blame orientated culture propagated by a broadly right wing media. IMO vast sections of the German under 30's seem to lack initiative or drive...Probably more a European wide sickness. I'm back and forth quite a bit but this weekend it was quite striking the extent to which people were talking about this. It has a lot to do with Baby P and the furore around that of course. As for your last point, thats because you hang out with crazy hippy types.

Parky is a 'socks and sandals' man.

An underclass is the class that has no aspirations to work which would imply 'working class'.

See my sig. Mostly in the UK it is our social welfare system (which goes back to the NHS in part), it's far too easy to have a but comfortable existence on it............. and it almost seems built to serve best those that will exploit it most. Having said that private industry does have a lot to answer for too (especially utility industries). A serious sort out a both ends of the spectrum is needed, but will likely never happen till the revolution comes. What does your sig say? C&P it i cant be arsed to turn them on. Relative poverty may be the answer but it must be more than that if relative poverty was worse in feudal and the industrial era?

That was just my take on it after a conversation with my dad. I dont think there is an accepted definition but i heard and read the phrase a lot over 4 days.

Is it not more a social thing than an economic one fop? Capitalism was more exploitative during the industrial revolution than today, hence Marx etc. The latter and middle parts of the 20th century were more characterised by unions and workers rights.

Everyone seemed to be talking about this 'underclass' in relation to discussions about Baby P and the disintegration of society. It was all a bit weird to me.

Pilot strikes nearly ruined my weekend.

Aye, why not.

I just spent the weekend in the UK, reading the papers and the streams of editorials regarding Baby P and the wider social implications of the case. It seems that there is a growing concern regarding the existence of a social underclass in the UK. It got me thinking about the type of society that permits its own members to fall so far below what is considered normal from a moral or behavioural point of view? People refer to the beginnings of the 20th century where values and social order were meant to be better than today. I’m not sure they were but lets assume that this view is correct (there is a lot to support it). What seems to have changed is the way in which we impose order and discipline on ourselves and our children. Over the 20th century, society ‘permitted’ more and more types of behaviour. Sex before marriage, single parents, binge drinking, drug taking and even elements of violence are more widely considered to be part of everyday life. There has at the same time, arguably, been an increase in our freedoms; our freedom to choose and a proliferation of choices (moral, social and consumer). Did the former follow the latter? The boundaries of acceptable behaviour have broadened so much that now a life with no ambition and no drive for betterment is considered acceptable. If you want to live a life on social benefits, society has to an extent, permitted you to do so; the permission or freedom to exist in the underclass. To many social observers this is a kind of social trap where behaviour is re-enforced by previous and subsequent generations. From freedom we have slavery just as Orwell predicted.

I liked that article in the latest edition of True Faith from the Murcia Mags bloke who highlighted the amount of English people living in english communities in spain, not speaking a word of Spanish, drinking in english pubs and complaining how Britain has gone to shit because of bloody foreigners who come to England and don’t blend into the culture.

I'm saying no to that. Nice selective posting, entirely ignoring most of the rest of this thread and recent 'real world' events. There was Trevor MacDonald tonight thing on Monday btw which actually described the ethical dilemma in prescribing Avastin (for colon cancer) quite well; it showed the point of view of cancer sufferers, cancer charities, the drug company (evil Roche iirc), and NICE. Did you see it? Would Avastin be available under the NHS if you had your way, or conversely would it be fairer to let no-one have it? I did say "the WHOLE debate is moot" in response to no-one in particular - and with a wink. Can't see why I'm being picked up on not relating it to a specific point five months down the line. I didn't see it I'm afraid. Chez, i know "Its a mix of funding between, government, employers and individuals throughout Europe." but when it comes down to it, isn't the main difference between, say, France and the UK that they just spend more on their public system than we do on ours? In terms of % GDP. The massive increases in healthcare expenditure over the last 5 years in the UK have brought it in line with France, Germany etc in terms of % of GDP. About 9%. It was about 3% below average 8 years ago. I thought we were still below average... http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/334/7591/442 ...but that's over a year old. Apologies for googling something Renton. I see this sort of stuff as an opportunity to learn something though. A year old and data up to 2004 on spending as far as i can see. The spending trend has continued. Still between 8 and 9 per cent of GDP according to the Telegraph a couple of months back. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/article3081376.ece The BBC had it under 8% this year too http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7487834.stm Isn't france pushing 11%. I've no idea what the European average is currently sitting at. I can't find anything to say the UK met or surpassed it in the last 4 years tyhough. I'm not sure of your point here. France is pushing 11% if not more but over 20% of the funding is private. My last point was just for info (although you may choose not to believe what the OHE produces as it has links to industry - that would be daft though )

I'm saying no to that. Nice selective posting, entirely ignoring most of the rest of this thread and recent 'real world' events. There was Trevor MacDonald tonight thing on Monday btw which actually described the ethical dilemma in prescribing Avastin (for colon cancer) quite well; it showed the point of view of cancer sufferers, cancer charities, the drug company (evil Roche iirc), and NICE. Did you see it? Would Avastin be available under the NHS if you had your way, or conversely would it be fairer to let no-one have it? I did say "the WHOLE debate is moot" in response to no-one in particular - and with a wink. Can't see why I'm being picked up on not relating it to a specific point five months down the line. I didn't see it I'm afraid. Chez, i know "Its a mix of funding between, government, employers and individuals throughout Europe." but when it comes down to it, isn't the main difference between, say, France and the UK that they just spend more on their public system than we do on ours? In terms of % GDP. The massive increases in healthcare expenditure over the last 5 years in the UK have brought it in line with France, Germany etc in terms of % of GDP. About 9%. It was about 3% below average 8 years ago. I thought we were still below average... http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/334/7591/442 ...but that's over a year old. Apologies for googling something Renton. I see this sort of stuff as an opportunity to learn something though. A year old and data up to 2004 on spending as far as i can see. The spending trend has continued. OHE is funded by the pharma industry by the way.

Would GSK be interested in getting into a niche heathcare insurance product? You see I realise the underlying debate ain't about band aids it's about the allocation and supply of more exotic drugs. I would suggest GSK deliver an insurance product as an add on to supply special and expensive drugs if needed by the client. Any good? Isn't that in essence what is being proposed/becoming reality???? Yes. (just by insurance co's though - see link from when i bumped)

I'm saying no to that. Nice selective posting, entirely ignoring most of the rest of this thread and recent 'real world' events. There was Trevor MacDonald tonight thing on Monday btw which actually described the ethical dilemma in prescribing Avastin (for colon cancer) quite well; it showed the point of view of cancer sufferers, cancer charities, the drug company (evil Roche iirc), and NICE. Did you see it? Would Avastin be available under the NHS if you had your way, or conversely would it be fairer to let no-one have it? I did say "the WHOLE debate is moot" in response to no-one in particular - and with a wink. Can't see why I'm being picked up on not relating it to a specific point five months down the line. I didn't see it I'm afraid. Chez, i know "Its a mix of funding between, government, employers and individuals throughout Europe." but when it comes down to it, isn't the main difference between, say, France and the UK that they just spend more on their public system than we do on ours? In terms of % GDP. The massive increases in healthcare expenditure over the last 5 years in the UK have brought it in line with France, Germany etc in terms of % of GDP. About 9%. It was about 3% below average 8 years ago.

40 million uninsured is a measure of the fairness of the system not efficiency.

I'm saying no to that. Did you see that thread on the bodybuilder forum last week? You should have posted one of those 'Do Not Want' pics.

Any reformed NHS doesn't need to be based on the US model though. I'd hope it wasn't tbh, although I don't know enough about their system so I may be judging it harshly from afar. The US springs to mind from the thread title though. I think the vast majority of Europe is still predominantly publicly funded. The OP was a little provocative. Its a mix of funding between, government, employers and individuals throughout Europe.

Excellent point. In what way does 'national' healthcare win? The NHS is failing to deliver modern medicines to the UK. Countries with similar GDP per capita are able to pay more because of the way they are organised. The UK delivers the same quality of medicines as Slovakia due to its inefficiency. The US market is a bad example of an alternative as, at present, it represents the opposite extreme. I quoted Marshall in another thread but his insight is relevant here. The extremes are separated by degrees with multiple possibilities in between. The UK and the US have healthcare systems that represent the extreme 'public' (the most fair) and 'private' (the most efficient*) systems. Reforms to each represent trade-offs between these two extremes and social values. *The efficiency of the system depends on more than just the 'financing' of the system. Thats another debate though.