Thought Id start this one going because its rather dead on this board at the moment and I suppose all my usual muckers are either at the Stella tennis event watching Dim Tim (lose again) or at Henly Regatta eating cucumber sandwiches (they wish,...NOT).

Anyway please feel free to just talk to yourself blast away and let it go on any company or subject you wish. Just wish Id thought of this one before.

cheers GF.

Strikes havent helped labour.

You can add a further 5 points on when they are forgoten to labours total.

This peado thing is setting the Tories back and will continue to do so.

Its Camorons biggest nightmare.

They won't be all Tory peado's ., LIB/Dems will have a surprising amount and Labour about the same as the Torys. but am only guessing.

I went swimming the other day, and as i was walking beside the pool towards a group of children the letter S fell off of my speedo's. I wondered why they run screaming

Cameron, himself, the biggest nightmare.

Almost typed night-ware!

This peado thing is setting the Tories back and will continue to do so.


More votes for UKIP

alders he he.

Iain Duncan Smith: Sir Bob Kerslake was right about universal credit business case
24DASH.COM Logo

Published by Jon Land for 24dash.com in Central Government and also in Housing, Universal Credit

Thursday 10th July 2014 - 10:06am

Iain Duncan Smith has been forced to admit that the lifetime business case for the implementation of universal credit has not yet been signed off by the Treasury.

In a heated exchange in the House of Commons, the Work and Pensions Secretary confirmed that funding for the flagship reform of the benefits system was being signed off on a piecemeal basis by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

He explained that although the Treasury had agreed universal credit business case plans "for the lifetime of this parliament" the full business case for the lifetime of the programme was still under discussion.

Duncan Smith also admitted, in a roundabout way, that the comments made about universal credit by Sir Bob Kerslake earlier this week were correct. He told the Commons: "My point is that the answer that Mr Kerslake, the head of the civil service, gave was correct in the sense, as I have said today, that the overall strategic business case for the full lifetime of the programme is in discussion right now for that completion."

Here are the highlights from Hansard of yesterday's universal credit debate:

Proves ESTER was telling porkies and lied to parliament.

The DWP is a department run by scumsters.

Work till you drop.....




Rising state pension age: work to 70 or 75?

Documents published by the Office of Budget Responsibility show estimated future state pension ages. What will yours be?



A worst case scenario would see today's 20-year-olds working to 75 Photo: HOWARD McWILLIAM



Andrew Oxlade
By Andrew Oxlade

2:29PM BST 11 Jul 2014



Today's teenagers have been given a hint of their eventual state pension age in an analysis conducted by the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR).


The OBR, the Government's economic forecaster, underlined how rapidly the age may need to increase, to cope with the cost of an ageing population, as The Telegraph reported today.


The state pension age is already rising but the ages are yet to be set in stone. Some proposed changes over the next few decades are waiting approval and beyond that the age will be linked to average anticipated lifespan.


What many people don't realise is that this could also affect the "private pension age", currently 55.


Here we explain all.






lots more here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/pensions/10961860/Rising-state-pension-age-work-to-70-or-75.html

What I would like to know is:

How many Nurses and Midwives are part timers in the NHS?

What proportion of auxiliary staff are part timers or have even minimal hours?

I have a feeling that the Hunt and cabal are deceiving the public with the figures they quote or in other words "lying through their teeth".

Cameron has been lying about the nhs less doctors less nurses the man is a liar
a lot now working for the nhs are part timers .

I AM ASHAMED TO SAY I HAVE WITH ALL MY FAMILY AND HUNDREDS OF GOOD FRIENDS VOTED FOR THESE LIARS ,

AS FOR THAT EVIL WOMAN FROM LIVERPOOL WHO IS A EVIL BITCH MUSY BE A FRIEND OF HITLER OR SHE IS HITLER DRESSED AS A WOMAN.
AS A CONSERVATIVE I AM SAYING DITCH THESE LIARS AND VOTE FOR ANY OTHER PARTY

HEAR IS NEWS FOR GOOD PEOPLE hamas firing rockets from hospital grounds and schools and the people of gaza allowing these terrorists to hide behind babies and women load of cowards .any one supporting these cowards must be terrorists them selves . the red croos should be banned feeding these scum allowing them to buy weapons . the red cross are as evil as hamas

has you see only black and white in my world or yes and no

for those that like money keep your eye on MRW will soon be some action do not miss the boat.

now off to the club big night ahead . have a good weekend all

TANKER calm down bud.

GF,

Perhaps, Haze could have a hyperbaric band around his head.

After all he is a bit of a fat head!

Have a good weekend!?

So what sort of band would you and Fishfinger have around your dicks then?

After all you're a pair of dickheads.

Certainly not one of yours.

Have you changed your knickers recently?

Or is that where your brain is?

Hey Hilary you seem game , hows about it. I could place a tight band with banana skin around my massive pleasure . Her indoors would not like it. but i bet you would.

I reckon you get off on this, just get in touch V DM mail contact.

ps..... dont tell Hays.

The NHS - Britain's national religion - doesn’t have a prayer

Britain can’t afford the ever-expanding NHS – it must charge for some services or cap the insatiable demands made on it by an ageing population


Free healthcare facility in Los Angeles, USA, where there is no national health service. Photo: BLOOMBERG



By Jeremy Warner

6:10AM BST 11 Jul 2014

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/nhs/10959391/The-NHS-Britains-national-religion-doesnt-have-a-prayer.html


Danny Boyle’s opening ceremony for the London Olympics rightly won plaudits for its celebration of all things British. What foreigners made of the lengthy section focused on hospital beds, nurses and sick children is another matter. Bewilderment probably best describes their reaction.


Britain’s love affair with the National Health Service – once memorably described by the former chancellor Nigel Lawson as the closest thing we have to a national religion – remains as strong as ever, to judge by the political heat it continues to generate.


Pretty uninstructive much of this debate tends to be, too, revolving as it largely does around the statistical fog of waiting times, cancer survival rates, and patient satisfaction surveys. In any case, the constant political barracking gives the impression of an organisation in more or less perpetual crisis – an odd thing, to put it mildly, to command such national pride and untouchable status.


One thing we do know about health spending, however, is that it continues to rise. We also know that unless something more substantial is done to keep it in check, it will eventually overwhelm the public finances.


To see the awful truth, look no further than the Office for Budget Responsibility’s annual “Fiscal Sustainability Report”, published yesterday. On present trends, the OBR concludes, healthcare spending will rise from 6.4 per cent of GDP in 2018/19 to 8.5 per cent 45 years into the future. This might not seem so bad, given the demographic pressures. Unfortunately, the OBR’s estimate relies on some fairly heroic assumptions about the scope for productivity improvement.


The OBR assumes that productivity gain in the NHS will match the long-term trend of 2.2 per cent for the economy as a whole. If it does, it will be a medical miracle tantamount to raising the dead. Productivity gains in health care are traditionally less than half that. If this poorer rate is applied, the OBR admits, you get a much more alarming public healthcare spend of nearly 15 per cent of GDP 50 years from now.

Nor does the forecast take account of the almost limitless nature of demand. To think it can be contained at present levels, given the rapid evolution of new treatments and ways of keeping people alive, is naive. People’s expectations of what the NHS can and should provide are on a strongly rising trend. One example suffices. The cut-off point for dialysis in the event of renal failure used to be around 60. Today, it is routine to treat this largely age-related disorder in the eighties and even nineties. Growing longevity comes at an extraordinarily high price.

Despite these realities, the clamour for ever higher levels of spending continues to mount. Chris Ham, chief executive of the King’s Fund, the health-care think tank, recently said that without extra funding to relieve pressure on services, scandals such as Mid Staffordshire would soon be commonplace.

The Conservative MP Sarah Wollaston, echoing remarks made by her predecessor as chairman of the health select committee, Stephen Dorrell, has likewise said that without more money, it is hard to see how present standards can be maintained, given the ever-rising demands of an ageing population.

Paul Burstow, a former health minister in the Coalition, is more apocalyptic: the NHS needs an extra £15 billion over the next five years, he says, to avoid collapse.

What none of them address is where the money is going to come from. Health spending is already ringfenced from the main thrust of the Government’s cuts. Spending on the NHS might therefore reasonably be seen as already at the outer limits of affordability relative to other public services. To spend more would require even deeper cuts elsewhere.

Alternatively, higher spending could be met through higher taxes, a possibility Labour seems to be flirting with via increased National Insurance contributions. Good luck with that one. As an electoral message, the idea of higher taxes tends to be even less popular than the apparent taboo of committing to healthcare spending cuts. The Government, meanwhile, puts its faith in a £30 billion efficiency drive. Again, good luck with that one. To the extent that it’s delivering at all, it’s substantially down to reduced pay, which is not a sustainable long-term solution.

A possibly better approach is the one suggested in a survey of NHS professionals by the Nuffield Trust. Almost half of them predicted that, such were the strains, that people would be forced to pay for some services within 10 years.

This is part-privatisation, and no doubt where we will end up. Throwing ever greater sums of public money at healthcare is not, and cannot be, the way forward even if the political consensus for it could be found.

Demand is a bottomless pit. If provision is seen to be effectively free at the point of delivery, it can never be sated.

There is no limit to what doctors can, and will, spend attempting to keep people alive. The older society becomes, the more expensive it gets. If a publicly funded NHS is to survive, some way of capping the demands that are put on it, leaving the rest to private provision, has to be found. Ethically, and morally, this is a much bigger challenge than the politically heated debate around largely futile NHS reform. Yet it must eventually be faced.