Christmas Tree

Wrong again Do you break the £44k threshold though? Cant really take anyone srious on this issue who doesnt at least see this as a very good first move. Well off people dont need benefits. What about those with a household income of 80k? Thats why I said "first move". Lets look at the facts. 85% of people currently receiving child benefit wont be affected by this. of the ones who are, there will be some oddities as you describe. These will be miniscule. To make this change problem free you would then have to start means testing every family, filling in forms, more wasted in pen pushing than would probably be saved. I would rather see the 1 billion saving than get all heated up over the few exceptions. You have similar oddities in most current tax systems now. Hopefully this is just the sort of thing that will be tidied up when the single benefit comes in. I can see this being really painful for single-earning familes with several kids tbh, I don't think the 'oddities will be miniscule' either. Easy to applaud it when it doesn't affect you though (assuming you don't declare wages in excess of £44k). This is going to piss off a lot of Conservative voters actually, so in a way I applaud Cameron for being brave. You absolute tit, it only effects people paying higher rate tax!!!!! Yes you have a legal eagle wife and a cushy public sector job so some "poor bint" on plus £45,000 will probably seem hard done by to you Go and tell your little sob story to the majority who are on piss poor wages and see how much sympathy you get. Fucking astounding! Cameron could get up tomorrow and announce he had cured cancer and your response would simply be "What about the blind, he's done fuck all for the blind. You are an absolute tool of the highest order Well done for getting personal again you complete bell end. This is coming from a man who claims he can easily clear 70k driving a private hire cab for anyone who missed that particular claim. If you bothered reading what I said I didn't comment on whether this policy was right or wrong, I commented on the fact that it would really hurt a particular demographic, and these would mainly be Conservative voters. I was being serious when I said it was a brave policy for Cameron to roll out. I actually agree that universal benefits of all kinds need to be reduced or even stopped - including cold weather payments. I just think this should be done more fairly, and you know what, so do a lot of Conservatives and half the right wing press. You commented that someone earning in excess of £45,000 a year would find it really painful to lose child benefit. You are detatched from the real world if this is your idea of real pain. It is that simple.

Wrong again Do you break the £44k threshold though? Cant really take anyone srious on this issue who doesnt at least see this as a very good first move. Well off people dont need benefits. What about those with a household income of 80k? Thats why I said "first move". Lets look at the facts. 85% of people currently receiving child benefit wont be affected by this. of the ones who are, there will be some oddities as you describe. These will be miniscule. To make this change problem free you would then have to start means testing every family, filling in forms, more wasted in pen pushing than would probably be saved. I would rather see the 1 billion saving than get all heated up over the few exceptions. You have similar oddities in most current tax systems now. Hopefully this is just the sort of thing that will be tidied up when the single benefit comes in. I can see this being really painful for single-earning familes with several kids tbh, I don't think the 'oddities will be miniscule' either. Easy to applaud it when it doesn't affect you though (assuming you don't declare wages in excess of £44k). This is going to piss off a lot of Conservative voters actually, so in a way I applaud Cameron for being brave. You absolute tit, it only effects people paying higher rate tax!!!!! Yes you have a legal eagle wife and a cushy public sector job so some "poor bint" on plus £45,000 will probably seem hard done by to you Go and tell your little sob story to the majority who are on piss poor wages and see how much sympathy you get. Fucking astounding! Cameron could get up tomorrow and announce he had cured cancer and your response would simply be "What about the blind, he's done fuck all for the blind. You are an absolute tool of the highest order Chomp chompity chomp. Chomp chomp. If only it was that simple..... He actually believes what he says as his post over the last two years show. Theres lots of people posting on here with kids whether young and old and its a shame you cant discuss some of the topics of the day without everything derailling into the big bad tory thread. He's like the leazes / Skidmark of politics.

You've been found out I see http://www.toontastic.net/board/index.php?...st&p=787625

Defending the realm, again

Wrong again Do you break the £44k threshold though? Cant really take anyone srious on this issue who doesnt at least see this as a very good first move. Well off people dont need benefits. What about those with a household income of 80k? Thats why I said "first move". Lets look at the facts. 85% of people currently receiving child benefit wont be affected by this. of the ones who are, there will be some oddities as you describe. These will be miniscule. To make this change problem free you would then have to start means testing every family, filling in forms, more wasted in pen pushing than would probably be saved. I would rather see the 1 billion saving than get all heated up over the few exceptions. You have similar oddities in most current tax systems now. Hopefully this is just the sort of thing that will be tidied up when the single benefit comes in. I can see this being really painful for single-earning familes with several kids tbh, I don't think the 'oddities will be miniscule' either. Easy to applaud it when it doesn't affect you though (assuming you don't declare wages in excess of £44k). This is going to piss off a lot of Conservative voters actually, so in a way I applaud Cameron for being brave. You absolute tit, it only effects people paying higher rate tax!!!!! Yes you have a legal eagle wife and a cushy public sector job so some "poor bint" on plus £45,000 will probably seem hard done by to you Go and tell your little sob story to the majority who are on piss poor wages and see how much sympathy you get. Fucking astounding! Cameron could get up tomorrow and announce he had cured cancer and your response would simply be "What about the blind, he's done fuck all for the blind. You are an absolute tool of the highest order

New enterprise allowance announced. Upto £2000 worth of help for anyone who has been in employment for 6 months who now wants to start their own business.

Who knows? While some will jump on this as the big Tory political plan behind the cuts, it is allowing a real good shake up of spending that has been long overdue. Most governments shy away from this sort of thing because it is not popular and nobody wants to grasp the nettle, however I think out of these cuts will evolve a much leaner government more suited to the needs of today, not yesteryear. Getting rid of stupid handouts, sorting out welfare, defence etc should put us in a far better position to spend money in the right way and in the right areas. Less tanks, better schools etc. IDS launching the single benefit now on TV

Wrong again Probably will be by 2013 though, eh? You should make the previous post your sig btw. Wrong Again One more in the same thread on the same day should really entitle you to a prize or something Wouldn't want to steal your crown tbh. And I'm only going off you mentioning your daughter starting work in a bank. 1 down three to go

Wrong again Do you break the £44k threshold though? Cant really take anyone srious on this issue who doesnt at least see this as a very good first move. Well off people dont need benefits. What about those with a household income of 80k? Thats why I said "first move". Lets look at the facts. 85% of people currently receiving child benefit wont be affected by this. of the ones who are, there will be some oddities as you describe. These will be miniscule. To make this change problem free you would then have to start means testing every family, filling in forms, more wasted in pen pushing than would probably be saved. I would rather see the 1 billion saving than get all heated up over the few exceptions. You have similar oddities in most current tax systems now. Hopefully this is just the sort of thing that will be tidied up when the single benefit comes in.

Wrong again Probably will be by 2013 though, eh? You should make the previous post your sig btw. Wrong Again One more in the same thread on the same day should really entitle you to a prize or something

As with all handouts of any description which is why this move towards a single benefit seems a good idea. While a lot of these things are nice to have and obviously get used so are "useful / needed", I still think the government hands out far too much dosh. Tax people less rather than taking it with one hand and then giving it back with the other as they do with tax credits. The only one imo that should be universal is the winter fuel allowance. The case that if means tested, lots of needy pensioners would not apply is too strong. So basically you believe in reducing progressive taxation then, i.e. you don't believe in wealth redistribution. Typical tory. Surely stopping handouts to rich people is wealth redistribution? Typical commie tbf

Wrong again Do you break the £44k threshold though? Cant really take anyone srious on this issue who doesnt at least see this as a very good first move. Well off people dont need benefits.

Wrong again

As with all handouts of any description which is why this move towards a single benefit seems a good idea. While a lot of these things are nice to have and obviously get used so are "useful / needed", I still think the government hands out far too much dosh. Tax people less rather than taking it with one hand and then giving it back with the other as they do with tax credits. The only one imo that should be universal is the winter fuel allowance. The case that if means tested, lots of needy pensioners would not apply is too strong.

I spotted the deranged fucker on his bike last week heading into Liverpool St station - first "celeb" I've seen in London for ages. Surely most people love Boris? He is after all one of the true characters in Polotics.

Call it a hunch, but I bet you think Jeremy Clarkson is a visionary and a people's man too. No, he strikes me as one of those that plays the part of man of the people but is probably quite a snobbish prick in real life. He goes into my Alan Robson off night owls category.

Next one gets changed to his email address. And you can stick your grovelling PM up your arsehole carla, you've acted like nothing but a cunt on here.

Brilliantly funny interview between Paxman and Boris on newsnight tonight. Both on really top form and worth a look if you can get to see it.

One of the all time greats that filled our house with laughter. Had the very good fortune to meet him at the NEC over lunch and could not believe how gracious he was and more importantly how posh he spoke in real life. There will be national days of mourning in Albania...

I know they are only talking about 50,000 who are over the £500 per week figure but still, you have to wonder why anyone would even contemplate giving that lot up to go and drive a bus or work in a call centre for a lot less.

Only you could claim the BMA is being supportive of the reforms. NHS reform is a 'slash and burn' approach say Doctors' union. What exactly is your knowledge of PCTs then? How is it irrelevant to the discussion if Labout introduced walk-centres that you value and the Conservatives scrap them? As for childish, claiming Cameron is the best PM during your life time is beyond infantile. Typical Renton smokescreen with a Guardian story thrown in as well. I said the BMA agreed with most of the White paper especially with regard to GP's having more control. What they are complaining about is GP practises having to compete against each other. It really depends what meat is on the bones of this but in general I have no problem with a patient being able to choose to join a different practise if their current one is shit. You also forget that at this stage it is at consultation stage. Even last week when the BMA met it was very divided on the issue with mainly a few commie members being the ones up in arms. I do understand that your bias, along with your job security makes it very difficult for you to be objective. You would come across more believable if you sometimes included the positives as well as the negatives. This after all is what the BMA have done. The Guardian article is merely reporting what the BMA said, using verbatim quotes. There is nothing out of context there. Also you'd be hard pressed to find many, if any, 'commie' doctors, the majority are very well heeled public school boys and girls and many (most I'd say) are natural conservatives - especially GPs. It's fine you saying you want the right to choose whatever GP practice you want regardless of where you live, but it should be obvious to anyone with a half a brain cell that this isn't really viable, and 'better' practices will have to ration their lists using some method. We can't all have the best doctors. In particular, there is a real concern that practices in city centres will boom with this system as professionals will use them near the places they work. Thus these practices will receive large capitation fees and also inherit a relatively young and healthy patient list - result is the GPs here will be quids in. However, this will also have a detrimental effect on rural practices who will have a dwindling patient list comprised of older, iller, more expensive patients. Practices here will have less money and therefore offer worse services, and very soon you will have a negative spiral with increasing inequity for those who are less mobile. This is just one example of the perversities this free 'market system' might have, there are plenty of other difficulties involved. As for GP commissioning for me personally, it could well bring a lot of work my way as it happens. More than ever GPs will need advice on how to utilise their budgets. But I honestly, fundamentally, don't think it's a good move, I just don't see the benefits you imply there are. At present the NHS spends about 1-2% on management, does this strike you as being particularly excessive for such an enormous and complex organisation? It's be interesting to see how it compares with other similar private sector organisations - very favourably I would imagine. Even the Conservatives have admitted that cutting bureaucracy in the NHS (which as I say I don't think they will achieve) will have a neglible impact on the NHS budget (it's in there in the white paper if you read it fully). Perhaps you might do well to heed the BMA who say 'We urge the government and NHS organisations to focus on those areas where they can truly eliminate waste and achieve genuine efficiency savings rather than adopt a slash-and-burn approach to health care, with arbitrary cuts and poorly considered policies' [verbatim quote, plenty of others if you want them]. The BMA said today it was "interested" in these proposals and the greater efficiencies they could bring". Dr Meldrum said: "There are proposals in the White Paper that doctors can support and want to work with". "The BMA has consistently argued that clinicians should have more autonomy to shape services for patients". Chairman BMA The difference is Renton is that you come at from a purely political viewpoint where as the BMA and my good self come at it from an objective overview. Some things will be better, some things may be worse. Your "everything Conservative is evil" standpoint spoils any chance of serious debate tbh. I'm coming from an elightened viewpoint, you are coming from a position of ignorance. You refuse, or are unable to, answer any of my points, instead choosing to cherry pick out of context quotes using Google as if it counters them. If you look at the BMA statements in its entirety, it is impossible to conclude overall they are favourable and there are not major concerns for the future of the health service under these plans. Look at the headlines even in the tory press if you don't believe me. As for serious debate, you are the one that believes Cameron is the best PM in modern history, and you are the one trying to put ridiculous quotes like 'everything Conservative is evil' into my mouth. Is this your attempt to evade my points, none of which you have addressed? It won't wash with me or the members of this board I'm afraid, you're rightly regarded as a bit of a joke my coniferous friend.

Only you could claim the BMA is being supportive of the reforms. NHS reform is a 'slash and burn' approach say Doctors' union. What exactly is your knowledge of PCTs then? How is it irrelevant to the discussion if Labout introduced walk-centres that you value and the Conservatives scrap them? As for childish, claiming Cameron is the best PM during your life time is beyond infantile. Typical Renton smokescreen with a Guardian story thrown in as well. I said the BMA agreed with most of the White paper especially with regard to GP's having more control. What they are complaining about is GP practises having to compete against each other. It really depends what meat is on the bones of this but in general I have no problem with a patient being able to choose to join a different practise if their current one is shit. You also forget that at this stage it is at consultation stage. Even last week when the BMA met it was very divided on the issue with mainly a few commie members being the ones up in arms. I do understand that your bias, along with your job security makes it very difficult for you to be objective. You would come across more believable if you sometimes included the positives as well as the negatives. This after all is what the BMA have done. The Guardian article is merely reporting what the BMA said, using verbatim quotes. There is nothing out of context there. Also you'd be hard pressed to find many, if any, 'commie' doctors, the majority are very well heeled public school boys and girls and many (most I'd say) are natural conservatives - especially GPs. It's fine you saying you want the right to choose whatever GP practice you want regardless of where you live, but it should be obvious to anyone with a half a brain cell that this isn't really viable, and 'better' practices will have to ration their lists using some method. We can't all have the best doctors. In particular, there is a real concern that practices in city centres will boom with this system as professionals will use them near the places they work. Thus these practices will receive large capitation fees and also inherit a relatively young and healthy patient list - result is the GPs here will be quids in. However, this will also have a detrimental effect on rural practices who will have a dwindling patient list comprised of older, iller, more expensive patients. Practices here will have less money and therefore offer worse services, and very soon you will have a negative spiral with increasing inequity for those who are less mobile. This is just one example of the perversities this free 'market system' might have, there are plenty of other difficulties involved. As for GP commissioning for me personally, it could well bring a lot of work my way as it happens. More than ever GPs will need advice on how to utilise their budgets. But I honestly, fundamentally, don't think it's a good move, I just don't see the benefits you imply there are. At present the NHS spends about 1-2% on management, does this strike you as being particularly excessive for such an enormous and complex organisation? It's be interesting to see how it compares with other similar private sector organisations - very favourably I would imagine. Even the Conservatives have admitted that cutting bureaucracy in the NHS (which as I say I don't think they will achieve) will have a neglible impact on the NHS budget (it's in there in the white paper if you read it fully). Perhaps you might do well to heed the BMA who say 'We urge the government and NHS organisations to focus on those areas where they can truly eliminate waste and achieve genuine efficiency savings rather than adopt a slash-and-burn approach to health care, with arbitrary cuts and poorly considered policies' [verbatim quote, plenty of others if you want them]. The BMA said today it was "interested" in these proposals and the greater efficiencies they could bring". Dr Meldrum said: "There are proposals in the White Paper that doctors can support and want to work with". "The BMA has consistently argued that clinicians should have more autonomy to shape services for patients". Chairman BMA The difference is Renton is that you come at from a purely political viewpoint where as the BMA and my good self come at it from an objective overview. Some things will be better, some things may be worse. Your "everything Conservative is evil" standpoint spoils any chance of serious debate tbh.

Only you could claim the BMA is being supportive of the reforms. NHS reform is a 'slash and burn' approach say Doctors' union. What exactly is your knowledge of PCTs then? How is it irrelevant to the discussion if Labout introduced walk-centres that you value and the Conservatives scrap them? As for childish, claiming Cameron is the best PM during your life time is beyond infantile. Typical Renton smokescreen with a Guardian story thrown in as well. I said the BMA agreed with most of the White paper especially with regard to GP's having more control. What they are complaining about is GP practises having to compete against each other. It really depends what meat is on the bones of this but in general I have no problem with a patient being able to choose to join a different practise if their current one is shit. You also forget that at this stage it is at consultation stage. Even last week when the BMA met it was very divided on the issue with mainly a few commie members being the ones up in arms. I do understand that your bias, along with your job security makes it very difficult for you to be objective. You would come across more believable if you sometimes included the positives as well as the negatives. This after all is what the BMA have done.

I would guess this is because it might be tied in with this universal benefit which is being introduced which will take time to get up and running.