Politics

[Park Life 71]

Actually looking for accountability from millionaires like Osbourne and so on is laughable. Their directorships when they leave office will depend on how much they fucked everybody over for the benefit of a handful of companies and interested parties.

[Kevin Carr's Gloves 3973]

I feel genuinely sorry for those who have been and continue to be struggling to make ends meet, but it's become far too easy to place all the blame for the current situation on Those Evil Bankers and pretend that a good proportion of the population didn't love it when their house prices were inflating and they could get cheap credit for this, that and the other. Of course the economy is in real trouble, of course we have some tough times ahead, and of course the government could be handling it better, but those who were quick to benefit when (they were being told that) times were good shouldn't be moaning now that (they're being told that) times are bad.

 

What complete and utter shit.

 

The people who gorged themselves the most are the ones paying the least.

 

What about those who didn't bother with lots of credit but are still in the shit because successive governments have failed completely to plan long term and just do what they think is right to win plaudits. And when proved wrong refuse to change because it would make them look foolish.

[Happy Face 29]

Actually looking for accountability from millionaires like Osbourne and so on is laughable. Their directorships when they leave office will depend on how much they fucked everybody over for the benefit of a handful of companies and interested parties.

 

Which is what the occupy crowd realise and demonstrate against...but they get shorter shrift than the union strikers trying to engage a corrupt government.

 

Staying in and watching I'm a celebrity is the least bother and gets least criticism, so that's probably the best bet.

[Meenzer 15716]

What about those who didn't bother with lots of credit but are still in the shit because successive governments have failed completely to plan long term and just do what they think is right to win plaudits.

 

Welcome to my world.

[Matt 0]

i have a lot of friends that work in the city that have assured me their bonuses this year are on track. my wife is investment management and despite taking 6 monthss maternity leave this year, her manager told her recently her bonus is looking good too.

 

it seems to me that the financial services sector is getting away quite lightly in the circumstances.

 

I think your friends have done rather well then!

 

The larger bank job cuts have received a lot of publicity but then there are smaller bank/brokers like Evolution and Jefferies where there have been wholesale losses too. The reality is that large parts of the financial services sector will not be as profitable as in the past, so pay and jobs will fall as a result.

[Phil 6]

The 1% cap has followed a two year pay freeze. With pension contributions going up, and inflation at close to 5%, this means that public sector pay will have gone down by some 15% in real terms. That is painful, especially for the millions of part time female staff. Yet the Tories still continue to divide and conquer, whilst their austerity policies have led to MORE public borrowing.

 

deficit: the amount by which a sum of money falls short of the required amount.

[Happy Face 29]

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

Did anyone watch Storyville? I missed the first hour due to work but caught the rest. I'd give it a B.

 

What strikes you about the financial sector is how completely bizarre it is and the human behaviour it has cultivated. Quite a few who appeared on the programme seemed to be grotesque and arrogant, and apparently this is reflected in their sexual practices and lifestyles.

[Happy Face 29]

Did anyone watch Storyville? I missed the first hour due to work but caught the rest. I'd give it a B.

 

What strikes you about the financial sector is how completely bizarre it is and the human behaviour it has cultivated. Quite a few who appeared on the programme seemed to be grotesque and arrogant, and apparently this is reflected in their sexual practices and lifestyles.

 

I didn't, but I'd expect them to be as arrogant and have lifestyles as grotesque as PL footballers....without the level of media intrusion into it.

 

That said, they all earn their money and private companies pay them what they see as the going rate. Government need to regulate business practices, not individual remuneration.

Edited December 8, 2011 by Happy Face

[Happy Face 29]

 

Now I'm not restricted to my phone..the point...

 

 

 

British Debt History

You really have to marvel, given that historical record, at the deficit panic now so widespread. Here’s debt as a percentage of GDP in Britain, back to 1830.

That uptick at the end — you’ll see it if you squint — is what’s driving the Cameron government’s insistence on slashing spending in a liquidity trap.

It’s also interesting to note — contrary to what you often hear — that at the time Keynes was writing, and calling for fiscal stimulus, Britain was substantially deeper in debt than Britain or the United States are now.

Edited December 8, 2011 by Happy Face

[Sonatine 11542]

 

 

Cancer patients to face welfare tests during chemotherapy, charities warn

 

Report to MPs recommends medical tests and 'back to work' interviews for thousands undergoing treatment

• 
  Randeep Ramesh, social affairs editor
  
• guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 6 December 2011 19.19 GMT
  
• Article history
  

 

Cancer patients will have to prove they are too sick too work under new government proposals.

 

 

Thousands of seriously ill cancer patients will be forced to take medical tests and face "back to work" interviews, despite assurances from ministers that they would not make it harder for the sick to get welfare, charities have warned.

Buried in a report to ministers by Prof Malcolm Harrington, the government adviser on testing welfare recipients, are proposals to force cancer patients who are undergoing intravenous chemotherapy to prove they are too ill to work.

At present, patients who are unable to work because of cancer and the side-effects of treatments are allowed to claim the highest rate of employment support allowance (ESA), worth up to £100 a week. More than 9,000 cancer patients were placed automatically on the welfare payment from October 2008 to June 2010. However, the expert report says this "automatic entitlement" has encouraged dependency on benefits, "encouraging wrong behaviours from employers and stigmatising cancer as something that can lead to unemployment or worklessness".

Instead, cancer patients on chemotherapy in hospitals will now have to prove that they are too sick to work, and take part in the controversial work capability assessment to determine whether someone is eligible for benefits. If cancer patients are found able to return to employment they may also be required to participate in work-related practice job interviews, as a condition of receiving their benefit.

Such assessments have been attacked by charities amid mounting evidence that people with serious illnesses are being judged fit for work when they are not.

Cancer experts and 30 cancer charities argue that patients undergoing "stressful" cancer treatment – and who have to leave work – should be automatically eligible for ESA. Ciarán Devane, chief executive of Macmillan Cancer Support, said: "Cancer patients in the middle of treatment are, in many cases, fighting for their lives.

"Yet the government is proposing to change the rules so all cancer patients will have to undergo a stressful assessment to prove they are unable to work.

"This shows a clear disregard and misunderstanding of what it's like to undergo punishing treatment. Patients who previously had peace of mind would face the stress and practical difficulties of getting assessed for work they are too poorly to do."

The new policy also reverses the government's own position on benefits that can be obtained by cancer patients. Iain Duncan Smith, the work and pensions secretary, earlier this year amended regulations concerning ESA so that even patients who were likely to receive chemotherapy within six months would be exempted from medical tests and face-to-face interviews and get benefits automatically.

This move allowed him to taunt Labour, claiming: "It was this government who exempted cancer patients on chemotherapy in hospitals; they were not exempted by the previous government. Our record on this is therefore quite good."

Labour called on the government to "listen very carefully" to its critics on the issue. The shadow work and pensions secretary, Liam Byrne, said: "This government is simply not thinking hard enough about the special circumstances of cancer sufferers in this country. People with obviously serious conditions don't need to be tested and retested – they should be allowed to get on with their treatment."

The government has already been forced on to the back foot over its changes to ESA, designed to save more than £1.2bn. In the summer, David Cameron refused to back down over plans to cut up to £94 a week from ESA, a move that could affect as many as 7,000 cancer patients. Devane said: "To make matters worse, the government is pressing ahead with proposed changes in the welfare reform bill that will make 7,000 cancer patients lose ESA after 12 months simply because they have not recovered quickly enough. We hope ministers will rethink these proposals.

"Cancer is the toughest fight many people will have to face; the government should not be making it tougher for them."

The ESA replaces a range of incapacity benefits. All fresh claimants now undergo a work capability assessment, and 1.5 million existing recipients will be reassessed using the new system from this month. The welfare reform bill introduces a one-year time limit on those people claiming ESA in the "work-related activity group", who are expected to move into work.

In an email, Harrington said: "Macmillan provided me with compelling evidence that different cancer treatments can have an equally – and varied – debilitating effect on individuals. However, I agree with the government that forcing people to a life on benefits when they want to work is wrong." The government said that patients would be allowed to prove they were too ill to work with "documentation", and would not always be asked to undergo a complete assessment.

A DWP spokesman said: "This must be about an individual's needs. Our proposals would ensure a person would only be asked to attend a face-to-face assessment where absolutely necessary."

[Kevin Carr's Gloves 3973]

 

Now I'm not restricted to my phone..the point...

 

 

 

 

 

British Debt History

You really have to marvel, given that historical record, at the deficit panic now so widespread. Here’s debt as a percentage of GDP in Britain, back to 1830.

That uptick at the end — you’ll see it if you squint — is what’s driving the Cameron government’s insistence on slashing spending in a liquidity trap.

It’s also interesting to note — contrary to what you often hear — that at the time Keynes was writing, and calling for fiscal stimulus, Britain was substantially deeper in debt than Britain or the United States are now.

 

So debt is 65% of our GDP?

[Kevin Carr's Gloves 3973]

 

Now I'm not restricted to my phone..the point...

 

 

 

 

British Debt History

You really have to marvel, given that historical record, at the deficit panic now so widespread. Here’s debt as a percentage of GDP in Britain, back to 1830.

That uptick at the end — you’ll see it if you squint — is what’s driving the Cameron government’s insistence on slashing spending in a liquidity trap.

It’s also interesting to note — contrary to what you often hear — that at the time Keynes was writing, and calling for fiscal stimulus, Britain was substantially deeper in debt than Britain or the United States are now.

 

And more than it was in the 70's when the IMF nearly declared Britain bankrupt?

[Phil 6]

 

 

Cancer patients to face welfare tests during chemotherapy, charities warn

 

Report to MPs recommends medical tests and 'back to work' interviews for thousands undergoing treatment

• Randeep Ramesh, social affairs editor
  
• guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 6 December 2011 19.19 GMT
  
• Article history
  

Cancer patients will have to prove they are too sick too work under new government proposals.

 

 

Thousands of seriously ill cancer patients will be forced to take medical tests and face "back to work" interviews, despite assurances from ministers that they would not make it harder for the sick to get welfare, charities have warned.

Buried in a report to ministers by Prof Malcolm Harrington, the government adviser on testing welfare recipients, are proposals to force cancer patients who are undergoing intravenous chemotherapy to prove they are too ill to work.

At present, patients who are unable to work because of cancer and the side-effects of treatments are allowed to claim the highest rate of employment support allowance (ESA), worth up to £100 a week. More than 9,000 cancer patients were placed automatically on the welfare payment from October 2008 to June 2010. However, the expert report says this "automatic entitlement" has encouraged dependency on benefits, "encouraging wrong behaviours from employers and stigmatising cancer as something that can lead to unemployment or worklessness".

Instead, cancer patients on chemotherapy in hospitals will now have to prove that they are too sick to work, and take part in the controversial work capability assessment to determine whether someone is eligible for benefits. If cancer patients are found able to return to employment they may also be required to participate in work-related practice job interviews, as a condition of receiving their benefit.

Such assessments have been attacked by charities amid mounting evidence that people with serious illnesses are being judged fit for work when they are not.

Cancer experts and 30 cancer charities argue that patients undergoing "stressful" cancer treatment – and who have to leave work – should be automatically eligible for ESA. Ciarán Devane, chief executive of Macmillan Cancer Support, said: "Cancer patients in the middle of treatment are, in many cases, fighting for their lives.

"Yet the government is proposing to change the rules so all cancer patients will have to undergo a stressful assessment to prove they are unable to work.

"This shows a clear disregard and misunderstanding of what it's like to undergo punishing treatment. Patients who previously had peace of mind would face the stress and practical difficulties of getting assessed for work they are too poorly to do."

The new policy also reverses the government's own position on benefits that can be obtained by cancer patients. Iain Duncan Smith, the work and pensions secretary, earlier this year amended regulations concerning ESA so that even patients who were likely to receive chemotherapy within six months would be exempted from medical tests and face-to-face interviews and get benefits automatically.

This move allowed him to taunt Labour, claiming: "It was this government who exempted cancer patients on chemotherapy in hospitals; they were not exempted by the previous government. Our record on this is therefore quite good."

Labour called on the government to "listen very carefully" to its critics on the issue. The shadow work and pensions secretary, Liam Byrne, said: "This government is simply not thinking hard enough about the special circumstances of cancer sufferers in this country. People with obviously serious conditions don't need to be tested and retested – they should be allowed to get on with their treatment."

The government has already been forced on to the back foot over its changes to ESA, designed to save more than £1.2bn. In the summer, David Cameron refused to back down over plans to cut up to £94 a week from ESA, a move that could affect as many as 7,000 cancer patients. Devane said: "To make matters worse, the government is pressing ahead with proposed changes in the welfare reform bill that will make 7,000 cancer patients lose ESA after 12 months simply because they have not recovered quickly enough. We hope ministers will rethink these proposals.

"Cancer is the toughest fight many people will have to face; the government should not be making it tougher for them."

The ESA replaces a range of incapacity benefits. All fresh claimants now undergo a work capability assessment, and 1.5 million existing recipients will be reassessed using the new system from this month. The welfare reform bill introduces a one-year time limit on those people claiming ESA in the "work-related activity group", who are expected to move into work.

In an email, Harrington said: "Macmillan provided me with compelling evidence that different cancer treatments can have an equally – and varied – debilitating effect on individuals. However, I agree with the government that forcing people to a life on benefits when they want to work is wrong." The government said that patients would be allowed to prove they were too ill to work with "documentation", and would not always be asked to undergo a complete assessment.

A DWP spokesman said: "This must be about an individual's needs. Our proposals would ensure a person would only be asked to attend a face-to-face assessment where absolutely necessary."

 

 

 

Why should anyone be exempt from the assessment?

Edited December 8, 2011 by Phil

[Phil 6]

 

Now I'm not restricted to my phone..the point...

 

 

 

 

British Debt History

You really have to marvel, given that historical record, at the deficit panic now so widespread. Here’s debt as a percentage of GDP in Britain, back to 1830.

That uptick at the end — you’ll see it if you squint — is what’s driving the Cameron government’s insistence on slashing spending in a liquidity trap.

It’s also interesting to note — contrary to what you often hear — that at the time Keynes was writing, and calling for fiscal stimulus, Britain was substantially deeper in debt than Britain or the United States are now.

 

And more than it was in the 70's when the IMF nearly declared Britain bankrupt?

 

 

I think what he's saying is, why worry - we had it worse after two world wars.

[Happy Face 29]

 

Now I'm not restricted to my phone..the point...

 

 

 

 

 

 

British Debt History

You really have to marvel, given that historical record, at the deficit panic now so widespread. Here’s debt as a percentage of GDP in Britain, back to 1830.

That uptick at the end — you’ll see it if you squint — is what’s driving the Cameron government’s insistence on slashing spending in a liquidity trap.

It’s also interesting to note — contrary to what you often hear — that at the time Keynes was writing, and calling for fiscal stimulus, Britain was substantially deeper in debt than Britain or the United States are now.

 

And more than it was in the 70's when the IMF nearly declared Britain bankrupt?

 

 

I think what he's saying is, why worry - we had it worse after two world wars.

 

 

The current "war" has outlasted both of those world wars and hardly caused any more than a blip.

 

There's cause for correction, but not such foolhardy austerity measures. The debt was MUCH worse when Keyne's style stimulus was the order of the day after those wars.

Edited December 8, 2011 by Happy Face

[Happy Face 29]

 

Now I'm not restricted to my phone..the point...

 

 

 

 

 

 

British Debt History

You really have to marvel, given that historical record, at the deficit panic now so widespread. Here’s debt as a percentage of GDP in Britain, back to 1830.

That uptick at the end — you’ll see it if you squint — is what’s driving the Cameron government’s insistence on slashing spending in a liquidity trap.

It’s also interesting to note — contrary to what you often hear — that at the time Keynes was writing, and calling for fiscal stimulus, Britain was substantially deeper in debt than Britain or the United States are now.

 

And more than it was in the 70's when the IMF nearly declared Britain bankrupt?

 

 

The IMF suck balls.

[ewerk 31202]

What were the interest rates and repayment terms of that historic debt?

[Meenzer 15716]

 

Now I'm not restricted to my phone..the point...

 

 

 

 

 

 

British Debt History

You really have to marvel, given that historical record, at the deficit panic now so widespread. Here’s debt as a percentage of GDP in Britain, back to 1830.

That uptick at the end — you’ll see it if you squint — is what’s driving the Cameron government’s insistence on slashing spending in a liquidity trap.

It’s also interesting to note — contrary to what you often hear — that at the time Keynes was writing, and calling for fiscal stimulus, Britain was substantially deeper in debt than Britain or the United States are now.

 

And more than it was in the 70's when the IMF nearly declared Britain bankrupt?

 

 

I think what he's saying is, why worry - we had it worse after two world wars.

 

 

The current "war" has outlasted both of those world wars and hardly caused any more than a blip.

 

Its magnitude is hardly comparable though.

[Happy Face 29]

It's getting there...Stiglitz predicts the total cost is going to be $3trillion, when WW2 cost $4trillion in 2011 money.

 

The cause of debt isn't really important though.

 

Stimulus was the way we reduced debt from 250% to 50%. Debt is nowhere near that out of hand at the moment, but we're doing the opposite of what decades old economics tells us.

Edited December 8, 2011 by Happy Face

[Meenzer 15716]

I meant in terms of population/demographics and infrastructure, not pure cost. The latter would be the banker's view.

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

Did anyone watch Storyville? I missed the first hour due to work but caught the rest. I'd give it a B.

 

What strikes you about the financial sector is how completely bizarre it is and the human behaviour it has cultivated. Quite a few who appeared on the programme seemed to be grotesque and arrogant, and apparently this is reflected in their sexual practices and lifestyles.

 

I didn't, but I'd expect them to be as arrogant and have lifestyles as grotesque as PL footballers....without the level of media intrusion into it.

 

That said, they all earn their money and private companies pay them what they see as the going rate. Government need to regulate business practices, not individual remuneration.

 

Moreso really. Imagine Titus bramble, if he was a cokehead and had a small winky.

[ChezGiven 0]

 

Now I'm not restricted to my phone..the point...

 

 

 

 

 

British Debt History

You really have to marvel, given that historical record, at the deficit panic now so widespread. Here’s debt as a percentage of GDP in Britain, back to 1830.

That uptick at the end — you’ll see it if you squint — is what’s driving the Cameron government’s insistence on slashing spending in a liquidity trap.

It’s also interesting to note — contrary to what you often hear — that at the time Keynes was writing, and calling for fiscal stimulus, Britain was substantially deeper in debt than Britain or the United States are now.

 

So debt is 65% of our GDP?

Excluding financial sector intervention. Its 140% when you add in the bail-outs. It was around 180% by the end of the war and we had to send Keynes to Washington, cap in hand, to get the US to bail the whole country out. I think the peak post-war in that graph reflect the additional debt taken on It took him years to persuade them and the stress of doing so (due to his precise understanding of the consequences of carrying that debt) actually killed him.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-American_loan

 

The reference to Keynes in this thread might make you think it was an obvious and accepted wisdom that we spend our way out of the post war problems. The policies that were implemented were successful as the world economy was about to go mentally upwards for the rest of the century.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post–World_War_II_economic_expansion

 

This is looking unlikely for us.

[Happy Face 29]

For us.

 

But not for China and india \o/

[ChezGiven 0]

I think Keynes knew the score at the time but he was considered to be one of the most intelligent people alive.

 

The answer has to be tax and spend for us.