FlyTheNest

Tubby Isaacs wrote:Hadn't seen that IDS has said the "bulk" of claimants will not be on UC till 2019.

TechnicalEphemera wrote:

citizenJA wrote:A line from Sticky99's post earlier today -

Public transport is excellent to London and the town centre, everywhere else it is wholly inadequate.

citizenJA -
The rest of the country can have the excellent public transportation London enjoys. It's a choice leadership has decided that other regions don't have the good public transportation infrastructure London has.

TechnicalEphemera -
No they can't. All of our rail network converges on London.

citizenJA -
It doesn't have to remain converged in London, that's my point.

TechnicalEphemera -
London has the only tube network in England.

citizenJA -
That's a damned shame - other places in the UK can use a good network too - there's nothing stopping that from happening.

TechnicalEphemera -
Things are so hopeless that if I arrange a multi company meeting in England London is just about the only sensible venue, everything else is impossible to get to.

citizenJA -
Make another venue not impossible to get to.

TechnicalEphemera -
Don't believe me, consider people coming from Ipswich, Birmingham, Manchester, Bristol, Reading, Basingstoke and Hull. London is the only venue that makes sense, even though Birmingham is more central.

citizenJA-
(my bold) Why? Because London has what other regions don't?

TechnicalEphemera -
The costs would be huge per city, it would take 50 years...

citizenJA -
We can't begin any earlier - fifty years of work, eh? Sound likes lots of useful jobs employed in a useful purpose.

TechnicalEphemera -
...and who is going to pay for it?

Harry Leslie Smith ‏@Harryslaststand 1m1 minute ago
#CameronMustGo b/c under his watch the civilised state built under the premise that we are all in it together is dismantled brick-by-brick.

ben goldacre @bengoldacre · 2h 2 hours ago
This is without question the most stupid, insightless and irresponsible thing I have ever seen from a health minister

TechnicalEphemera wrote:Brilliant.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/celebri ... in-UK.html

Somebody should tell Angelina that the whole point of the mansion tax is to discourage rich tossers from buying up UK property.

It is clearly doing its job.

citizenJA wrote:

TechnicalEphemera wrote:

citizenJA wrote:A line from Sticky99's post earlier today - citizenJA -
The rest of the country can have the excellent public transportation London enjoys. It's a choice leadership has decided that other regions don't have the good public transportation infrastructure London has.

citizenJA -
It doesn't have to remain converged in London, that's my point. citizenJA -
That's a damned shame - other places in the UK can use a good network too - there's nothing stopping that from happening. citizenJA -
Make another venue not impossible to get to. citizenJA-
(my bold) Why? Because London has what other regions don't?citizenJA -
We can't begin any earlier - fifty years of work, eh? Sound likes lots of useful jobs employed in a useful purpose.

citizenJA -
The same organisation that paid for the NHS in 1948.

Ipswich to Birmingham, Manchester or Hull - you go via London.

ohsocynical wrote:

pk1 wrote:

yahyah wrote:What does Jeremy Hunt mean by: ''I think we have to recognise that society is changing and people don’t always know whether the care that they need is urgent or whether it is an emergency''.

What's changed in society ? Why are people less able to assess now whether the care they need is urgent ?

It's because the NHS is always there 24/7 & as a society, many people think they have 'entitlement' to a superior service than their health needs warrant so they turn up at A & E, grumble that they have to wait then whine that the Doctors didn't treat their twisted ankle with the full gamut of investigative techniques.

One could say that the NHS is a victim of it's success.

I'd also argue that doctors don't 'doctor' as they used to.
They don't do house calls, take out stitches, do weekend or night time cover. If your need is urgent unless you get on the phone at 8am, then wait for ages for them to pick up because it's busy, you won't get an appointment that day.
There is so much they don't do now, and A&Es are bearing the brunt.

TechnicalEphemera -

If you look at the train timetables you will see everybody can get to London rapidly by direct train, and nowhere else.

Manchester London Easy. Manchester Hull, Ipswich, Reading forget it. Even Birmingham is just a little slower than London, plus you have to take a cab from the station everywhere else.

Ipswich to Birmingham, Manchester or Hull - you go via London.

So yes it could be done and funded by the tax payer but the Green Party won't like it, neither will a lot of Nimbys when we start laying a full mesh railway network in.

Funding tubes and trams everywhere would be slightly more practical but you still need a linkage. Maybe the answer is transit cities with fast links (in effect adding more hubs than just London). Maybe Birmingham, Leeds, Manchester, Peterborough, Swindon, Newcastle, plus a couple of Towns along the South Coast. Still a load of rail though.

rebeccariots2 wrote:Just noticed what a ghastly job I've now got ... Deputy PM .... hmmmm, where to look for a good role model ..... hmmmm, where not to look for a good role model ... could somebody please tell me who the current FTN PM is, then I might have some basis for a decision.

rebeccariots2 wrote:Has Toby Young stopped writing for the Telegraph / been 'let go'? Haven't seen anything from him there for some time now. Seems to be writing a bit for the Spectator - but not much. His Twitter profile has changed substantially. I see his now minimalist biog simply says Classical Liberal (what's that and is it really what he is?). No mention of free school involvement or other gigs ... and seems to be far fewer tweets generally.

Not that I'm missing him mind. Not at all.

citizenJA wrote:

TechnicalEphemera -

If you look at the train timetables you will see everybody can get to London rapidly by direct train, and nowhere else.

Manchester London Easy. Manchester Hull, Ipswich, Reading forget it. Even Birmingham is just a little slower than London, plus you have to take a cab from the station everywhere else.

Ipswich to Birmingham, Manchester or Hull - you go via London.

So yes it could be done and funded by the tax payer but the Green Party won't like it, neither will a lot of Nimbys when we start laying a full mesh railway network in.

Funding tubes and trams everywhere would be slightly more practical but you still need a linkage. Maybe the answer is transit cities with fast links (in effect adding more hubs than just London). Maybe Birmingham, Leeds, Manchester, Peterborough, Swindon, Newcastle, plus a couple of Towns along the South Coast. Still a load of rail though.

Thank you, yes, I need your help. I'm thinking nothing less than the entire UK transportation infrastructure renovated, fully functional - create the links - create the rail links, comprehensive, affordable, easy to use, integrated, interconnected, safe & frequent.

I made a comment to another commentator earlier about providing professional drivers to those requiring to get somewhere they're not able to walk or cycle. I wasn't being a smart ass. This service would be run nationally providing cab service to rural areas if it's cost effective, for example.

citizenJA wrote:

rebeccariots2 wrote:Just noticed what a ghastly job I've now got ... Deputy PM .... hmmmm, where to look for a good role model ..... hmmmm, where not to look for a good role model ... could somebody please tell me who the current FTN PM is, then I might have some basis for a decision.

My condolences - sincerely. Last time I checked I was Whip.

Tizme1 wrote:

AngryAsWell wrote:

Tizme1 wrote: Hi yahyah, and citizenJA, plus everyone else,

I read your question this morning yahyah but didn't have a chance to answer. So far I've managed to read page 1 of today's comments on here! I didn't bookmark the item at the time and I've had a quick look but haven't found it again. I may manage to do so later. It was written by a 'young green' explaining why they had switched from Labour. It struck me for two reasons, I pretty much agreed with the whole of it apart from the bit I mentioned. But also,given it was a young person who wrote it, I accepted they might be more aware of the policies being proposed by various parties regarding youngsters. Although having 3 under 25's myself, I do normally pick up on these things. And as I said, it didn't quite gel with my memory.

If I can find it again, I want to re read it and check specifically what was said. If it was that Labour propose to do away with JSA for under 25's then that is broadly correct. If it says Labour intend to do away with all benefits for under 25's it's wrong and I would feel I had to point that out.

From the Green perspective, we don't agree with withdrawing JSA and providing an alternative which is means tested on the parents earnings. So if the claim in the article is that Labour proposes withdrawing JSA from under 25's it's a fair comment. Particularly as this is the young person's explanation of how they feel, and why they have switched.

As to why many Greens feel angry towards the Labour party, there are I'm sure many reasons but for a lot of Greens, it's not misrepresented policies but actual policies that Labour are proposing. It's the acceptance of the Tory premise that there must be cuts to services and benefits, plus the lack of opposition, and in particular, the lack of help given to the sick, the disabled, and the vulnerable.

citizenJA - there are I'm afraid a whole raft of differences between The Greens and Labour. That said, if we have MPs after the election next year, they'd almost certainly be prepared to support a Labour gov to one degree or another but I imagine hell would freeze over before they entered any sort of arrangement with the Tories. I'm glad you find Caroline inspirational - I do too. By the same token, I find John McDonnell
very impressive. He should be a Green.

I don't mean to be argumentative Tiz but...
Currently a young person who has no financial support from their parents (just a room in the house to sleep in) cannot go to collage to improve (or gain extra) qualification because by doing so they lose JSA. In other words they have zilch to live on and, as I have witnessed, some parents won't let their kids go to collage because they can't afford to lose the £50 and few pennies per week JSA from the household income. So the kids hang around looking for none existent jobs, only to be told on the odd interview they do get that they need better qualifications. Which they cant get because....and round the circle goes.
Under Labour's proposal they CAN go to collage to get those qualifications, and get Youth Allowance to the same level as JSA. This would apply to anyone who's parents earn under £44k (?to be confirmed, it might be 40K) This is the same amount as kicks in for university fees "means testing".
Sorry but anyone earning £40+K in this day and age can/should be able to afford to help their kids out till they start earning. If they can't then maybe its time to sell the second car.

I agree that it would be good if young people who were out of work, could go to college. It would be easy to change existing JSA laws though to allow that. In any case, why only young people? Why not also allow older people who are out of work, to retrain or take new qualifications? And what about youngsters who go to uni? The means testing there doesn't mean they get their course paid for. It just means they get a loan. They might start to wonder why the hell am I getting into 30k + of debt while my peers/siblings are paid to continue studying.

I disagree with the means testing of the parents. If I earned 40k a year, I'd be very comfortable. But if I was in rented accommodation in Watford, and if I had to use a car for work, and had to support my three youngsters, I would start to struggle. Not as much as many people already are struggling. Indeed not as much possibly as I struggle some months as it is. But why would I want to see people earning a good salary brought down to the same level of struggle as me?

What about a young person who left school at 17 and went straight into work. 7 years later they get made redundant. But, because they are only 24, the tax and NI they have paid doesn't count. How is that right? Finally though, at what stage do we consider a young person a citizen in their own right rather than an appendage of their parents? 18? 21? 25? Why not 30? Surely it should be once they reach adulthood?

Tubby Isaacs wrote:You can also do Ipswich to Birmingham via Ely, though for some reason it's far, far more expensive than going via London.

adam wrote:I wonder if one issue about a greater desire to see doctors is because we live in such an information rich environment and when it comes to medical information, almost whoever it's coming from online if there is any risk at all it's pretty much obliged to recommend seeking medical attention.

(Full disclosure - both of my daughters have direct access to the children's ward at the hospital, they are effectively permanent outpatients, so either something is bad enough to go straight there or perfectly fine to wait for an appointment).

Tizme1 wrote:

citizenJA wrote:

rebeccariots2 wrote:Just noticed what a ghastly job I've now got ... Deputy PM .... hmmmm, where to look for a good role model ..... hmmmm, where not to look for a good role model ... could somebody please tell me who the current FTN PM is, then I might have some basis for a decision.

My condolences - sincerely. Last time I checked I was Whip.

I noticed earlier that I am now a committee member. I'm sure I was something even more humble last time I looked. I hope I haven't missed too many committee meetings..........

TechnicalEphemera wrote:

citizenJA wrote:

TechnicalEphemera -

If you look at the train timetables you will see everybody can get to London rapidly by direct train, and nowhere else.

Manchester London Easy. Manchester Hull, Ipswich, Reading forget it. Even Birmingham is just a little slower than London, plus you have to take a cab from the station everywhere else.

Ipswich to Birmingham, Manchester or Hull - you go via London.

So yes it could be done and funded by the tax payer but the Green Party won't like it, neither will a lot of Nimbys when we start laying a full mesh railway network in.

Funding tubes and trams everywhere would be slightly more practical but you still need a linkage. Maybe the answer is transit cities with fast links (in effect adding more hubs than just London). Maybe Birmingham, Leeds, Manchester, Peterborough, Swindon, Newcastle, plus a couple of Towns along the South Coast. Still a load of rail though.

Thank you, yes, I need your help. I'm thinking nothing less than the entire UK transportation infrastructure renovated, fully functional - create the links - create the rail links, comprehensive, affordable, easy to use, integrated, interconnected, safe & frequent.

I made a comment to another commentator earlier about providing professional drivers to those requiring to get somewhere they're not able to walk or cycle. I wasn't being a smart ass. This service would be run nationally providing cab service to rural areas if it's cost effective, for example.

It is a brilliant vision, but the opex might be eye watering, even if we write off the infrastructure build out.

AngryAsWell wrote:Anyone following feed / page ?
https://twitter.com/RealNatalieRowe" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

letsskiptotheleft wrote:Turns out Charlotte Vere is shortlisted for the Conservatives, well, well, there's a surprise, no wonder she wanted to disparage Labour's education policies..

AngryAsWell wrote:Anyone following feed / page ?
https://twitter.com/RealNatalieRowe" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

letsskiptotheleft wrote:And to think the EU want to slap 20% on marigolds!

pk1 wrote:Good night AAW & citizenJA, sleep well

rebeccariots2 wrote:Just noticed what a ghastly job I've now got ... Deputy PM .... hmmmm, where to look for a good role model ..... hmmmm, where not to look for a good role model ... could somebody please tell me who the current FTN PM is, then I might have some basis for a decision.

AngryAsWell wrote:

Tizme1 wrote:

AngryAsWell wrote: I don't mean to be argumentative Tiz but...
Currently a young person who has no financial support from their parents (just a room in the house to sleep in) cannot go to collage to improve (or gain extra) qualification because by doing so they lose JSA. In other words they have zilch to live on and, as I have witnessed, some parents won't let their kids go to collage because they can't afford to lose the £50 and few pennies per week JSA from the household income. So the kids hang around looking for none existent jobs, only to be told on the odd interview they do get that they need better qualifications. Which they cant get because....and round the circle goes.
Under Labour's proposal they CAN go to collage to get those qualifications, and get Youth Allowance to the same level as JSA. This would apply to anyone who's parents earn under £44k (?to be confirmed, it might be 40K) This is the same amount as kicks in for university fees "means testing".
Sorry but anyone earning £40+K in this day and age can/should be able to afford to help their kids out till they start earning. If they can't then maybe its time to sell the second car.

I agree that it would be good if young people who were out of work, could go to college. It would be easy to change existing JSA laws though to allow that. In any case, why only young people? Why not also allow older people who are out of work, to retrain or take new qualifications? And what about youngsters who go to uni? The means testing there doesn't mean they get their course paid for. It just means they get a loan. They might start to wonder why the hell am I getting into 30k + of debt while my peers/siblings are paid to continue studying.

I disagree with the means testing of the parents. If I earned 40k a year, I'd be very comfortable. But if I was in rented accommodation in Watford, and if I had to use a car for work, and had to support my three youngsters, I would start to struggle. Not as much as many people already are struggling. Indeed not as much possibly as I struggle some months as it is. But why would I want to see people earning a good salary brought down to the same level of struggle as me?

What about a young person who left school at 17 and went straight into work. 7 years later they get made redundant. But, because they are only 24, the tax and NI they have paid doesn't count. How is that right? Finally though, at what stage do we consider a young person a citizen in their own right rather than an appendage of their parents? 18? 21? 25? Why not 30? Surely it should be once they reach adulthood?

I'm not even sure I follow the last paragraph, if someone has worked for 7 years and are redundant they go onto JSA. Why would they not. Times have changed, young people are staying at home longer and until we can tackle the reasons for that (youth unemployment, high rent and house prices) we need to adjust our thinking. To my mind providing means to allow a young person to gain additional skills (and I include the arts in that) is a better option than leaving them hanging round the job centre.
The older person point is not relevant in a discussion about youth unemployment, they are treated separately under different schemes.
I disagree that someone earning 40k+ would struggle to look after their own child for a couple of years extra.
Sorry but we'll have to agree to differ on this one I think

Ian McMillan @IMcMillan · 16h 16 hours ago
Bloke said he was flirting with the Greens. Next thing I heard, he'd married a cauliflower.

TechnicalEphemera wrote:

Tizme1 wrote:

citizenJA wrote:My condolences - sincerely. Last time I checked I was Whip.

I noticed earlier that I am now a committee member. I'm sure I was something even more humble last time I looked. I hope I haven't missed too many committee meetings..........

You think you have problems, I am Chief Whip. Everybody hates me and sniggers behind my back.

Now piss off plebs I have got some public land to give away to my rich mate to build a joke school on.

refitman wrote:

rebeccariots2 wrote:Just noticed what a ghastly job I've now got ... Deputy PM .... hmmmm, where to look for a good role model ..... hmmmm, where not to look for a good role model ... could somebody please tell me who the current FTN PM is, then I might have some basis for a decision.

You're currently the highest ranking member of the site. Ohso, Tubby & AAW are all Speakers and letsskip is Chancellor.

rebeccariots2 wrote:

refitman wrote:

rebeccariots2 wrote:Just noticed what a ghastly job I've now got ... Deputy PM .... hmmmm, where to look for a good role model ..... hmmmm, where not to look for a good role model ... could somebody please tell me who the current FTN PM is, then I might have some basis for a decision.

You're currently the highest ranking member of the site. Ohso, Tubby & AAW are all Speakers and letsskip is Chancellor.

I think I might have to go quiet for a bit. If I reach the heady heights of PM you'll all be plotting and sniping against my leadership - anonymously no doubt.

RogerOThornhill wrote:

AngryAsWell wrote:Natalie Rowe ‏@RealNatalieRowe · 15 mins15 minutes ago
To all my twitter friends, a little known fact to you guys but known for a long time by the media, regarding @George_Osborne is coming up

Is this a story of substance do you think?

Tizme1 wrote:

TechnicalEphemera wrote:

Tizme1 wrote: I noticed earlier that I am now a committee member. I'm sure I was something even more humble last time I looked. I hope I haven't missed too many committee meetings..........

You think you have problems, I am Chief Whip. Everybody hates me and sniggers behind my back.

Now piss off plebs I have got some public land to give away to my rich mate to build a joke school on.

Shouldn't you call me a sweaty shit or something? I only ask 'cos obviously I need to learn my place.

TechnicalEphemera wrote:

citizenJA wrote:A line from Sticky99's post earlier today -

Public transport is excellent to London and the town centre, everywhere else it is wholly inadequate.

The rest of the country can have the excellent public transportation London enjoys. It's a choice leadership has decided that other regions don't have the good public transportation infrastructure London has.

No they can't. All of our rail network converges on London. London has the only tube network in England. Things are so hopeless that if I arrange a multi company meeting in England London is just about the only sensible venue, everything else is impossible to get to.

Don't believe me, consider people coming from Ipswich, Birmingham, Manchester, Bristol, Reading, Basingstoke and Hull. London is the only venue that makes sense, even though Birmingham is more central.

The costs would be huge per city, it would take 50 years and who is going to pay for it?

ErnstRemarx wrote:

TechnicalEphemera wrote:

citizenJA wrote:A line from Sticky99's post earlier today - The rest of the country can have the excellent public transportation London enjoys. It's a choice leadership has decided that other regions don't have the good public transportation infrastructure London has.

No they can't. All of our rail network converges on London. London has the only tube network in England. Things are so hopeless that if I arrange a multi company meeting in England London is just about the only sensible venue, everything else is impossible to get to.

Don't believe me, consider people coming from Ipswich, Birmingham, Manchester, Bristol, Reading, Basingstoke and Hull. London is the only venue that makes sense, even though Birmingham is more central.

The costs would be huge per city, it would take 50 years and who is going to pay for it?

That's the choice TE.

We could haul back and integrate bus, rail, tram and so forth were there a political will to do so - and the balls to tell shareholders to get stuffed. They'd call it expropriation, I'd call it justice, seeing as they were actually given the bloody infrastructure in the first place.

In the end, we have no choice. I own a car but the car is not the panacea to sort out our transport issues, particularly in a time of post peak oil and global warming. We either get serious about transport issues or else we are walking into a blind alley.

We can - as a nation - do whatever we want. We only have to have the courage and imagination as a people to get that and plan out how we get there and our priorities, and I suspect that that's going to be breaking new ground within western economies if we're brave enough to do it.

In a way, we don't have a choice. The car owning democracy was a nice little dream for the 80s, in the same way that some thought that Dire Straits were a good idea too. The reality, even then, belied the dream, and we simply can't afford any more right wing dreams like that, socially, economically or environmentally.

Incidentally - best to you; the above isn't in any way criticism of you personally.

AngryAsWell wrote:Anyone following feed / page ?
https://twitter.com/RealNatalieRowe" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

- The start of Universal Credit replacement of Tax Credits from January 2015 has been abandoned. DWP has delayed plans by at least 2 years for the transfer of the majority of tax credits claimants to Universal Credit to 2019. It does not have plans to transfer the remaining 555,000 tax credit and Employment and Support Allowance claimants before 2020.