The Thin End

The majority of people on benefits in the UK are hard working and on low pay.  Many of them would be on the kind of zero hours contracts that the Prime Minister conceded, eventually,  in his interview with Jeremy Paxman that he would not like to be on.  He was also asked by Jeremy Paxman where the cuts would fall to deal with the deficit.  The answer of course is 'cutting benefits' and through further 'efficiency savings'.   It is all pie in the sky.  Either the Prime Minister has no idea how they would cut the deficit or the Tories have a hidden agenda.  Actually, it is not so hidden. They will cut 'welfare'.  That is what would happen - swingeing cuts in welfare. Swingeing cuts in welfare will hurt the hard working poor.  The poorest are already paying disproportionately more tax than the wealthiest.  They have already suffered through measures such as the 'bedroom tax' and other cuts in benefit. At the outset of the coalition five...

Mr Cameron's shameless 'promise' to provide a 'seven-day a week' NHS has rightly been condemned by the BMA, the doctor's association.  What Mr Cameron needs to demonstrate his how he would fill the £30 bn gap in funding that will develop by 2020.  Unless any of the political parties can explain that then their promises are empty rhetoric. The coalition government has effectively cut funding for the NHS at a time when demand on its services is increasing.  Mr Cameron was quick to boast in his interview with Jeremy Paxman this week that spending on the NHS has increased.  What he failed to say was that it was by just 0.9% per year, the lowest levels on record.  With 40% cuts in local authority funding leading to 20% cuts in social care the burden on the NHS has increased.  This is a direct result of government policies.  In addition the NHS has had to find £20 bn in 'efficiency savings' at a time of complex 'top down' reorganisation imposed by th...

The Labour Leader did a decent job of his interview with Jeremy Paxman last night. My judgement is that he 'won' the debate that wasn't held - instead we had the two main party leaders facing separately Jeremy Paxman and the studio audience.  There was no head-to-head confrontation.  But in my view Ed Miliband 'won' because he didn't 'lose'; in contrast, David Cameron 'lost' because he didn't 'win'. What really came out of it was Ed Miliband in a different light - not the 'geek' he has been portrayed, but a forceful and motivated leader.  This came out in his answer to the question of why he stood against his brother, David, for the leadership.  He gave a good account of himself.  But, and it is a big but, there was nothing from either of the two leaders about how they would deal with the £30 bn gaping hole in funding that will develop in the NHS over the next 5 years. The NHS is uppermost in the issues of concern to voter...

Is HS2 (the proposed High Speed Rail link between London and the North) value for money?   A new report by the House of Lords Economic Affairs Select Committee says not - or at least that the government has failed to make a sound economic case. The construction of the railway and purchase of rolling stock is estimated to cost up to £50 billion. The net cost to the taxpayer is expected to be £31.5 billion at 2011 prices over 60 years.  This is a costly project.  You would think then that a sound case had been made.  But the committee concludes that such a case has not been made. The Government's principal justification for building HS2 is to provide capacity to meet long-term rail demand.  But the committee finds that  inadequate information on rail usage and demand modelling makes it difficult to determine whether this is correct. Overcrowding appears to be caused by commuter traffic, not long-distance traffic, and is exacerbated by inflexible pricing....

The King's Fund has produced a devastating analysis of the impact of the coalition government's austerity measures on the NHS and on Social Care.  Cuts in local government funding of some 40% have led to a 20% cut in funding of social care provision.  This in turn has led to an increased load on the NHS at a time when funding has been restricted and it has had to find £20 billion in 'efficiency savings'.  The real terms increase in spending on the NHS over the last five years is the lowest it has ever been at 0.9% per year.  The result is an NHS in crisis with patient care under risk. it estimated that a funding gap of £30 billion will develop over the next five years. Today the BMA, the doctor's representative body has issued its response to the King's Fund report.  Dr Mark Porter, BMA council chair said: “This report highlights the damage done to the NHS by the Health and Social Care 2012, which distracted attention from rising pressure on services and...

In the run up to the general election I am wary of many statements I hear abut the NHS and social care.  One general statement is that 'it isn't all a question of money'.  This is true - of course it isn't all about funding.  But what are we to take from such a statement. It is usually made when people complain about the level of funding.  It is a 'catch all' reply.  It is also somewhat disingenuous as a reply because it is meant to avoid the real issue, funding.  We now spend 17% less on social care than we did I've years ago.  This is not surprising because  social care is mostly funded through local government, which has seen its financial support from central government cut by over 40 per cent in real terms since 2010.  Yes, 40%!  That is the nature of what we have been doing over the last 5 years to 'cut the deficit'.   In his budget last week Mr Osborne cut taxes on beer and spirits to try to generate a 'feel good' factor f...

The way Sir Cliff Richard has been treated by the police and the BBC in relation to allegations of sexual misconduct is a disservice to justice.  The deliberate leaking and collusion with the media to provide maximum publicity is a shocking breach of trust.  Allegations of sexual abuse must be pursued where there are sufficient grounds for doing so,  but deliberately making known the identity of a suspect is to put justice at risk for both potential accused and victims.  It sets up a 'trial by media' where those accused have no rights to defend themselves or facility for rebutting allegations. It creates a 'no smoke without fire' concept and tarnishes reputations. It has become a particular problem with the investigation of historic cases following the Jimmy Savile revelations. Almost anyone in the public eye has become 'fair game' for the police and the media without a thought of the normal process of justice.   The police on the one hand want to widen their ...