Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
Based on this, I'm going with "no".
Taking benefits from the disabled, ill and vulnerable people will save us millions.
We'll be swimming in cash by the time all these lazy fuckers with learning disabilities, chronic diseases and mental health problems get a part time jobs in WH Smiths.
of sixth-form political debating techniques...
I don't see what is wrong with having a review into something. Better than just letting it stay as it is?
Christ, you guys are so "small C" conservative.
But I think I make a fair point.
The Guardian article is couched in Weasel Words. Such as "could" and "may". I don't see how you could have a review of building standards and not look at things such as fire regulation, even if you have no intention to make changes to them. There is no point having an incomplete review.
Just reading the article, it is clear that there are regulations that are holding back development. If there is no reason to have them, I don't see why we should!
So there's a need to simplify, whilst ensuring that homes are made to the correct standard.
Similarly, the sustainable homes regulation mentioned in the article features a regulation on properties "needing an extra room for an office". Whilst I can see why this regulation was introduced, if it is holding back development then it should be scrapped- we're in the middle of a housing crisis and have a struggling economy.
I'm not ideologically opposed to regulations, but surely a review to see which ones are working is a good thing.
The regulation about making homes suitable for working is a matter of opinion, I guess – in the long term it could lead to a stronger and more flexible economy, so you'd have to make a decision on whether that's more important than stimulating construction in the shorter term.
It'll be tied into Code For Sustainable Homes standards and those related to Housing Association standards, which do not have to be adhered to for private-sector, speculative developments.
actually aren't holding back growth at all? Hmm, interesting.
that's just an example and I don't necessarily agree with it, as I can see the argument for having it.
Just think it's a funny thing to pick the Government up on, as I can think of plenty to criticise the government for over the past couple of years, but a review such as this (if well handled) isn't really one of them.
always a problem.
the complete cessation of state-initiated home building after 1979. the level of private home building has been almost uniform since the 1950s. it's the post-Thatcher death of state-led construction that has led us to this situation.
it's also pretty much true that profit-motivated home building has /always/ failed to cater towards the lower end of the market, which is exactly why the state stepped in back in the 1920s.
(of course, the "crisis" is almost entirely spoken of in terms of the south east, where it is a genuine issue. but it's exacerbated by inconsistent government economic policies towards the regions that have led to the south east becoming overheated to the extent that housing is in massive and unrealistic demand. a more consistent approach to economic policy that spreads jobs out over a wider range would largely negate the problems in the south east.)
except that it isn't just a political factor. Also have to factor in the increasing and aging population and the way that society has changed, meaning that more people live on their own, often in houses big enough for full families.
I agree with you about state owned housing stock. It seems mad to me that the state allows Housing Benefit to be paid to Private Landlords so often- it feels like the worst of both capitalism and socialism combined.
They're planning on shutting Lewisham A&E in an attempt to force people to use an inferior hospital more. It'll leave the area of London with the lowest male expectancy with no A&E and 1 million people will now have 10 miles further to go.
Plus they'll have a newly kitted out A&E just waiting to be sold privately.
Ah, you have worked out what the Tories really want: inferior healthcare!
The report stated that a hospital 3 miles up the road (Queens Road i think?), doesn't have enough people using it for it's size. Therefore the feeling was if they shut Lewisham, it'd draw more attention to it. But it's a way worse establishment and far smaller.
If you're trolling, that's cool, but if you want a sensible debate it's best not couch your arguments in trolly language.
I still have no idea who is trolling, what trolling is, why people feel the need for fake usernames and have to get Theo to ban them because they can't sometimes turn their net off and do some work. So yeah, in short... don't know who you are pal?
Actually, in a sense yes. They're destroying the NHS, one of the most efficient and popular healcare systems in the world. Why? Because it's an ideological attack on state funded institutions. Why? Because it's the belief in private competition, even if it's putting profit in front of lives. Why? Because cutting £20b from the NHS budget is easy when it's hidden under the guide of streamlining and a "shake up". Why? Because like it or not CG, the Tories are short-term cunts who have little interest in pandering to the social needs of the poor and vulnerable and they have no connection to these people nor do these people vote for them.
So yes, they do want inferior healthcare as it ticks a lot of ideological boxes.
It's the proposals from NHS strategists (who will probably be scrapped/privatised under the government's reforms).
Like with cancer care and maternity services, closing some A+E departments and centralising expertise will actually increase survivial and recovery rates.
But isn't the point of A&E that sometimes you do stuff like break your arm or cut off a finger and need medical help pretty urgently? Surely you need a fair few of them around?
Where reduced care due to travel times to and from a hospital are weighted against increased care due to specialised expertise.
There are various ways of modelling this, taking into account populations, travel times, travel distances, hospital sizes and hospital capacity and potential capacity and the like.
You can see a similar thing going on with Children's heart surgery at the moment, which has become this horrible politicised thing.
The thing is, the closure of an A+E department is always going to be a disadvantage to some people, but it is the Government's duty to make sure care is optimised for the greatest amount of people. The only worry is if they are going off of borked statistics.
I'll go to another thread to moan today. Probably about how shit CoD is.
to sell off a fancy new A&E to the private sector
The political loss of making a decision like this is too great.
making private gain
and the two are linked - if your campaign funding comes from private healthcare trusts then your political loss might come in the form of you those contributions being withdrawn
Picked up by the main stream media. Knowing those three sources, I think it all seems a bit balls, especially when they refer to donations from Non-execs and shareholders...
also, that graph in that eoin-clarke blog made me think I didn't know what he was talking about.
maybe it is
maybe it will become one
here's an article on the BBC's reporting of the progress of the Health and Social Care Act
and here's a run down of the vested interests of the Lords who finally passed it
The Tories are never going to win a seat like Lewisham anyway, and so coverage in local papers will not be of concern to them.
And when it comes to national papers, I would be very surprised if, outside of the Guardan and Independent, it was covered at all.
that is so alien to me i can't begin to explain the reasoning for it to myself. is it wishful thinking to assume there's a motive other than money/vested interests behind such a belief? just any sort of ideology behind it that stretches beyond that.
I'm trying to think of any sector where self-regulation hasn't led to a colossal fuck-up somewhere along the line though.
I hope they blackball that suggestion
And that is as a result of the electorate voting. Hence, we voted them in to all intents and purposes.
Head out of the sand please.
Nearly 25% of voters wanted a Tory government, so you can't complain now we've got one. Wake up and smell the coffee.
Not an earth-shattering figure, granted, but when you consider that a grand total of just SIX council houses (all in Shetland) were built under Labour's last FOUR YEARS in office, I reckon the story kinda tells itself.
As your mum would surely confirm, basic house rules are vital in letting everyone know where they stand, and a swift injection of capital stimulus can go a long way.
she knows damn well you'll be back for more.
The link I posted actually happened
until you actually say something about it, Verbal is gonna be doing a small permacry.
During the period of the Millionprogram, median wages in Sweden increased by 30% in 5 years
It's amazing what taxation can acheive
that's all good, and housing is great, and infrastructure is great, and I posted those links as support/alt/follow-on 'why not?' possibilities to the example you gave, rather than suggesting it is/was pie-in-the sky, and I thought Verbal thought I was trying to contradict you, and I don't think I was, especially now you've clarified, and this subthread is working out really well, huh, and can we just agree that building stuff is a good suggestion, yeah?
We built a big submarine to put some big missiles in it?
Although... if we built the houses as well, we could put missiles on them too. Whatever. Just as long as the plan involves missiles.
ones that we don't actually own and have to ask their permission before we use.
If it wasn't for the US we'd all be speaking German
It's interesting though that Sweden managed to build 1,000,000 homes at a time when their population was only just 8 million