'We should never forget that one third of people do not have access to a car'
Taxi for the loon!
Edit: And how many of those are children, seriously disabled, in hospital, nursing home (or eq)? The norm around here (Chester area) seems to be > one car/bedroom of the house, with a significant rise in 'hobby cars' which are only used rarely and might include 4x4's or modified sports (or even racing) cars.
The statistics seem to both contradict him and back him up. From the RAC (1): "Car ownership is closely related to the number of households and the number of people in the household. Over 77% of households in Great Britain have a car and because car-owning households tend to have more than one person (most noncar owning households are single person households) the number of people with access to a car in the house is 81% of the total population"
The government's official statistics say that 75% of all households had access to a car (2010 figures).
However from the poverty website (3): "In 2010, 22% of women and 17% of men lived in households that did not have car. Thirty five years ago, both these proportions were about twice as high. While the gap between men and women in terms household car ownership is only 5 percentage points, the gap in terms of who can drive the car is much larger, with 25% of men but 40% of women either lacking a car in their household or not having a driving license. These proportions, too, have both halved over the last thirty years."
If you do not have a licence, or have no car in your household, you are more reliant on public transport. A rough average of the 25% and 40% figures above would be around a third. So he was sort of right, although imprecise in his terminology.
Would be interesting if Dave had a nice little "put up or shut up" moment to end destructive leadership chatter.
To Tories: is this even possible under the new leadership rules, would the party HAVE to ballot the members under all circumstances?
I think that's the most likely outcome - if the number of no-confidence letters gets close to the threshold Dave will do a John Major - resign and offer himself for re-election. And, like Major, I'd expect the ploy to work.
But this always supposes that Cameron has the dangling bits of Gillard.
It would also raise an issue about even if you don't have access to a car, how much you need rail travel. I'm sure bus travel is used much more frequantly
@antifrank My (dim) recollection is that the majority of people who do not own a car (in their household, which I assume is what this commentator meant) live in our large conurbations, where poor local Govt decisions have led to expensive parking, poor roads and an incentive-driven policy on minor parking infringements.
If you can walk, cycle or get a bus/taxi from home to work, and use on-line shopping for your weekly grocery shop, then a car becomes something you can do without.
The reverse is true in rural areas, of course!
IIRC, under 10% of the population use the train (not sure if that's weekly, monthly or annually!), but many thousands commute into our large cities by train - particularly, of course, into London.
The first thing Cameron and Lansley did in office was to dump Darzi's findings on moving to polyclinics and regional specialist centres, thus foregoing billions in savings and lowering outcomes
Darzi clinics were dumped because they were badly located, poorly staffed (by doctors who couldn't find better jobs), poorly supported by patients (who can pretty quickly sense when they're getting the also rans to look after them) and because they were draining resources from the more efficient and effective parts of the local health economy.
Quite possible. It's not a very affluent area compared with surrounding places (Portsmouths a bit of a dump all in all anyway), so would test a different segment of the populace.
Can labour afford to run another non-campaign again? Possibly..
Thank you for your research into that. My somewhat tongue-in-cheek point was that 100% of people DO have access to a car - in the form of taxis - whether a commercial one or 'Mum's taxi' (eq), when required.
I strongly suspect that for most households it would work out cheaper to sell their car(s) and rely on bikes and taxis, BUT it would also prove to be much more inconvenient.
Much the same logic and principles apply to the 'Bedroom Tax' principles: the taxpayer should not subsidise people to live in homes which are larger than the occupant needs, BUT if you have lived in one house for >5 years or so, you have powerful emotional reasons to want to remain there.
I have no problem with tenants paying more in rent to continue to live in their current homes, should they so choose. A carrot is always better than a stick - so providing them with an incentive would have been better than beating them with a stick, as seems to be the current proposal (and I may well be wrong there - I'm relying on MSM accounts)
1950s education was pretty rubbish, certainly outside the grammar school system. Literacy rates were even lower than now.
Rubbish! In the rural county where I was brought up, yes some people left school at 14, but never met anyone who left school neither literate nor numerate
I refer you to On The Move, a BBC programme that tried to address the probem of illiteracy in the mid 1970s.
Re: bigboobgate. If Miss Cunningham is being honest (and we have no reason to assume otherwise) and that being fake-chested has caused her major psychological distress, then the boob job is surely valid.
Many women do find being flat-chested very distressing, it affects their self-esteem, so rather than the knee-jerk reaction we need to consider whether there may be a case for this measure by the NHS.
Re: bigboobgate. If Miss Cunningham is being honest (and we have no reason to assume otherwise) and that being fake-chested has caused her major psychological distress, then the boob job is surely valid.
Many women do find being flat-chested very distressing, it affects their self-esteem, so rather than the knee-jerk reaction we need to consider whether there may be a case for this measure by the NHS.
I don't particularly see, in a time of constrained resources, why the taxpayer should be paying for self-esteem.
1950s education was pretty rubbish, certainly outside the grammar school system. Literacy rates were even lower than now.
Rubbish! In the rural county where I was brought up, yes some people left school at 14, but never met anyone who left school neither literate nor numerate
I refer you to On The Move, a BBC programme that tried to address the probem of illiteracy in the mid 1970s.
That was twenty years later. Educational standards had already diminished significantly by the mid-70s.
Re: bigboobgate. If Miss Cunningham is being honest (and we have no reason to assume otherwise) and that being fake-chested has caused her major psychological distress, then the boob job is surely valid.
Many women do find being flat-chested very distressing, it affects their self-esteem, so rather than the knee-jerk reaction we need to consider whether there may be a case for this measure by the NHS.
I don't particularly see, in a time of constrained resources, why the taxpayer should be paying for self-esteem.
Re: bigboobgate. If Miss Cunningham is being honest (and we have no reason to assume otherwise) and that being fake-chested has caused her major psychological distress, then the boob job is surely valid.
Many women do find being flat-chested very distressing, it affects their self-esteem, so rather than the knee-jerk reaction we need to consider whether there may be a case for this measure by the NHS.
I don't particularly see, in a time of constrained resources, why the taxpayer should be paying for self-esteem.
So you wouldn't advocate cosmetic surgery on the NHS if a girl had been slashed by a knifed across her face, yet the only lasting damage of the injury was to her self-esteem?
So you wouldn't advocate cosmetic surgery on the NHS if a girl had been slashed by a knifed across her face, yet the only lasting damage of the injury was to her self-esteem?
In that situation if there was no scarring then there would be no need for comestic surgery would there?
1950s education was pretty rubbish, certainly outside the grammar school system. Literacy rates were even lower than now.
Rubbish! In the rural county where I was brought up, yes some people left school at 14, but never met anyone who left school neither literate nor numerate
I refer you to On The Move, a BBC programme that tried to address the probem of illiteracy in the mid 1970s.
That was twenty years later. Educational standards had already diminished significantly by the mid-70s.
Re: bigboobgate. If Miss Cunningham is being honest (and we have no reason to assume otherwise) and that being fake-chested has caused her major psychological distress, then the boob job is surely valid.
Many women do find being flat-chested very distressing, it affects their self-esteem, so rather than the knee-jerk reaction we need to consider whether there may be a case for this measure by the NHS.
I don't particularly see, in a time of constrained resources, why the taxpayer should be paying for self-esteem.
Re: bigboobgate. If Miss Cunningham is being honest (and we have no reason to assume otherwise) and that being fake-chested has caused her major psychological distress, then the boob job is surely valid.
Many women do find being flat-chested very distressing, it affects their self-esteem, so rather than the knee-jerk reaction we need to consider whether there may be a case for this measure by the NHS.
I don't particularly see, in a time of constrained resources, why the taxpayer should be paying for self-esteem.
So you wouldn't advocate cosmetic surgery on the NHS if a girl had been slashed by a knifed across her face, yet the only lasting damage of the injury was to her self-esteem?
I'd be happy for the NHS to do the work, but the savage that slashed her with a knife should be paying for it.
The No campaign would like us to think that oil & gas is the only thing going for Scotland and our economy, but nothing could be further from the truth. If we strip out oil & gas from our GDP figures, Scotland’s national wealth is still 99% of the UK level.
Building for the future, we have 25% of the EU’s potential for offshore wind and tidal energy, and 10% of wave power, altogether worth up to £14 billion each year by 2050. We have the whisky industry with exports worth £4.2 billion - 23% of the UK’s food and drink exports, the food and drink industry worth £10 billion, with fish and aquaculture Scotland’s largest food export, tourism which generates over £5 billion and 200,000 jobs, the Scottish construction industry worth around £21.4 billion annually and agricultural output worth £2.7 billion and 11.4% of UK total agricultural output.
And, we have Scottish ingenuity – for our size we have more highly ranked Universities than the UK, the US or Europe. Good ideas generated by Scots and Scotland have changed the world around us and will continue to do so.
So think on these many strengths and ask yourself, why aren’t we doing better economically?
Regarding Hancock MP, why do Lib Dems hold their MPs and senior staff to such a low standard of behaviour? Oaten, Huhne and Rennard are just the ones that have come to light in recent years.
A problem about the leadership speculation which I remember well from the latter years of the last government is that everything the Ministers do is seen through that prism, partly overshadowing whatever virtues the policy may have. Whether it's a good idea to abolish the Borders Agency or not, it'll be primarily seen as May on maneouvres. Similarly, Cameron isn't really getting credit (or debit) for making tough noises on immigration, since it's clear that it's happening now as a response to UKIP.
Suggest appropriate caution in any comments on Hancock. There is a civil case outstanding, I believe, so it's sub judice, regqrdless of whether anything comes of the latest report.
If we strip out oil & gas from our GDP figures, Scotland’s national wealth is still 99% of the UK level.
That is the only fact in that quote that makes a strong point. Everything else is just drops in the ocean. £380m a year for wave and wind for example, is a pittance in national economy terms. Even for a small nation like Scotland.
The No campaign would like us to think that oil & gas is the only thing going for Scotland and our economy, but nothing could be further from the truth. If we strip out oil & gas from our GDP figures, Scotland’s national wealth is still 99% of the UK level.
Building for the future, we have 25% of the EU’s potential for offshore wind and tidal energy, and 10% of wave power, altogether worth up to £14 billion each year by 2050. We have the whisky industry with exports worth £4.2 billion - 23% of the UK’s food and drink exports, the food and drink industry worth £10 billion, with fish and aquaculture Scotland’s largest food export, tourism which generates over £5 billion and 200,000 jobs, the Scottish construction industry worth around £21.4 billion annually and agricultural output worth £2.7 billion and 11.4% of UK total agricultural output.
And, we have Scottish ingenuity – for our size we have more highly ranked Universities than the UK, the US or Europe. Good ideas generated by Scots and Scotland have changed the world around us and will continue to do so.
So think on these many strengths and ask yourself, why aren’t we doing better economically?
In fact isn't there some kind of test you can do on writing to judge the mental age or something? I'd like to see that done to a 1940s and modern Mirror.
from memory the Sun aims for the reading age of a 10 year old, the mail a 12 year old and the times 14 (which is about the maximum). I will point out those figures were ones I was told about 30 years ago (by a Mail reporter) so things may have changed since then. And I'm sure the Times has moved more towards the Mail.
In fact isn't there some kind of test you can do on writing to judge the mental age or something? I'd like to see that done to a 1940s and modern Mirror.
from memory the Sun aims for the reading age of a 10 year old, the mail a 12 year old and the times 14 (which is about the maximum). I will point at this is from 30 years ago so things may have changed since and I'm sure the Times has moved more towards the Mail.
I am very impressed by the Labour supporters' chutzpah in trying to claim that the appalling failures of the NHS under Labour's watch - remember, 13 whole years with massive majorities, and with unprecedented spending based on the City producing tax revenues never before seen in history, supplemented by borrowing as well - were somehow absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Labour.
Reading this thread Richard I think you will now be accused of spinning for pointing this out.
Floater, BenM is factually correct when he says that most people think the NHS is a great success despite intermittent problems and the occasional disaster (which arguably are likely now and then in any large country's health system). You might it's wrong, but I've never found it works to debate major controversies here - we just disagree and it saves electrons to assume that outcome.
It's more sensible to look at what most voters think, and that isn't in doubt - it's partly why Cameron has gone on about his undying love for the system for ages, even making it a key posters pledge.
Does UKIP have a health policy, as a matter of interest?
@NickPalmer I would gently suggest that the national perception of the NHS is not dissimilar to that of cult members: the actuality and the perception/spin/propaganda are wildly different.
All those working in it complain of excessive paperwork and bureaucracy; of the box-ticking culture; of Management who need to learn basic clinical needs, before they can even begin to do their job - and they then impose an ideal *management* solution, rather than an ideal *clinical* solution - and no-one bothers to ask the patients/potential patients *at all* when commissioning a new building (etc): if they did, they would (just for basics) have vastly bigger car-parks, a wide range of meals, bought and paid for by the patient as they wish (ie why does the NHS pay for your food, when you'd pay for that at home anyway? And why is there no choice of quality and supplier? Not to mention meal times, volume etc)
The experience of an individual patient then colours their perception of the entire organisation - a handful of polite, caring and efficient nurses means the NHS is wonderful - and a handful of Stafford Hospital types means it's lethal and unfit for purpose.
My starting point is simple - where's the competition, where's the consumer input as the driver of change and where's the adoption of an NHS-model around the world? If other nations have an insurance-based system, in which waiting-lists are completely unknown and where the patient rules the system (and not Consultants (to 1990) and Managers (since then)) by simple right to change their insurer?
No insurance system can provide for certain treatments - or, at least, not at an affordable cost - and there will always be those who cannot afford insurance cover, so some form of 'State Health System' is inevitable - even the US has one.
What's wrong with the NHS is that it is a monopoly and a political football, where its funding is determined in Downing St and not in the homes and wages of individuals.
On this point, the BBC love-in on the NHS (8 weekly programmes, beginning tonight) will, I hope be followed by a similar series based on PRIVATE hospitals (maybe around the world/EU), so that the ordinary viewer can see the contrast between the State care served up in the UK and that provided in other systems.
Every nation's health system will have its strengths and weaknesses, but the NHS has no imitators, and the idea that because it is *cheaper* it is necessarily *the best option* is farcical: it's what led to the Trabant in E Germany, for example. We want the best for each person in the UK, and we want health care which we pay for, in a transparent way, in which any culpable incompetence is followed by dismissal and, in serious cases, by prosecution, NOT a cover-up.
Comments
The government's official statistics say that 75% of all households had access to a car (2010 figures).
However from the poverty website (3): "In 2010, 22% of women and 17% of men lived in households that did not have car. Thirty five years ago, both these proportions were about twice as high. While the gap between men and women in terms household car ownership is only 5 percentage points, the gap in terms of who can drive the car is much larger, with 25% of men but 40% of women either lacking a car in their household or not having a driving license. These proportions, too, have both halved over the last thirty years."
If you do not have a licence, or have no car in your household, you are more reliant on public transport. A rough average of the 25% and 40% figures above would be around a third. So he was sort of right, although imprecise in his terminology.
(1): http://www.racfoundation.org/assets/rac_foundation/content/downloadables/car ownership in great britain - leibling - 171008 - report.pdf
(2): https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/tsgb-2011-vehicles
(3): http://www.poverty.org.uk/75/index.shtml
My (dim) recollection is that the majority of people who do not own a car (in their household, which I assume is what this commentator meant) live in our large conurbations, where poor local Govt decisions have led to expensive parking, poor roads and an incentive-driven policy on minor parking infringements.
If you can walk, cycle or get a bus/taxi from home to work, and use on-line shopping for your weekly grocery shop, then a car becomes something you can do without.
The reverse is true in rural areas, of course!
IIRC, under 10% of the population use the train (not sure if that's weekly, monthly or annually!), but many thousands commute into our large cities by train - particularly, of course, into London.
Can labour afford to run another non-campaign again? Possibly..
Thank you for your research into that.
My somewhat tongue-in-cheek point was that 100% of people DO have access to a car - in the form of taxis - whether a commercial one or 'Mum's taxi' (eq), when required.
I strongly suspect that for most households it would work out cheaper to sell their car(s) and rely on bikes and taxis, BUT it would also prove to be much more inconvenient.
Much the same logic and principles apply to the 'Bedroom Tax' principles: the taxpayer should not subsidise people to live in homes which are larger than the occupant needs, BUT if you have lived in one house for >5 years or so, you have powerful emotional reasons to want to remain there.
I have no problem with tenants paying more in rent to continue to live in their current homes, should they so choose. A carrot is always better than a stick - so providing them with an incentive would have been better than beating them with a stick, as seems to be the current proposal (and I may well be wrong there - I'm relying on MSM accounts)
Rubbish! In the rural county where I was brought up, yes some people left school at 14, but never met anyone who left school neither literate nor numerate
I refer you to On The Move, a BBC programme that tried to address the probem of illiteracy in the mid 1970s.
Many women do find being flat-chested very distressing, it affects their self-esteem, so rather than the knee-jerk reaction we need to consider whether there may be a case for this measure by the NHS.
Rubbish! In the rural county where I was brought up, yes some people left school at 14, but never met anyone who left school neither literate nor numerate
I refer you to On The Move, a BBC programme that tried to address the probem of illiteracy in the mid 1970s.
That was twenty years later. Educational standards had already diminished significantly by the mid-70s.
That was twenty years later. Educational standards had already diminished significantly by the mid-70s.
The No campaign would like us to think that oil & gas is the only thing going for Scotland and our economy, but nothing could be further from the truth. If we strip out oil & gas from our GDP figures, Scotland’s national wealth is still 99% of the UK level.
Building for the future, we have 25% of the EU’s potential for offshore wind and tidal energy, and 10% of wave power, altogether worth up to £14 billion each year by 2050. We have the whisky industry with exports worth £4.2 billion - 23% of the UK’s food and drink exports, the food and drink industry worth £10 billion, with fish and aquaculture Scotland’s largest food export, tourism which generates over £5 billion and 200,000 jobs, the Scottish construction industry worth around £21.4 billion annually and agricultural output worth £2.7 billion and 11.4% of UK total agricultural output.
And, we have Scottish ingenuity – for our size we have more highly ranked Universities than the UK, the US or Europe. Good ideas generated by Scots and Scotland have changed the world around us and will continue to do so.
So think on these many strengths and ask yourself, why aren’t we doing better economically?
http://stephennoon.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/weve-heard-it-all-before.html
Suggest appropriate caution in any comments on Hancock. There is a civil case outstanding, I believe, so it's sub judice, regqrdless of whether anything comes of the latest report.
from memory the Sun aims for the reading age of a 10 year old, the mail a 12 year old and the times 14 (which is about the maximum). I will point out those figures were ones I was told about 30 years ago (by a Mail reporter) so things may have changed since then. And I'm sure the Times has moved more towards the Mail.
"Because of the habit of voting Labour in the recent past?"
Good point. If we hadn't done that we would never have ended up with a Tory government in 2010. Hopefully the lesson has been learned.
I mean, you can't really be calling it a success story can you?
Wonder what failure would look like in your eyes?
"That is the only fact in that quote that makes a strong point."
Just as well that fact is the central point he's making, then. The rest is supporting evidence.
Richard III's distant relatives threaten legal challenge over burial
Relations say king should be buried in York and government's failure to consult them is in breach of human right to family life
It's more sensible to look at what most voters think, and that isn't in doubt - it's partly why Cameron has gone on about his undying love for the system for ages, even making it a key posters pledge.
Does UKIP have a health policy, as a matter of interest?
I would gently suggest that the national perception of the NHS is not dissimilar to that of cult members: the actuality and the perception/spin/propaganda are wildly different.
All those working in it complain of excessive paperwork and bureaucracy; of the box-ticking culture; of Management who need to learn basic clinical needs, before they can even begin to do their job - and they then impose an ideal *management* solution, rather than an ideal *clinical* solution - and no-one bothers to ask the patients/potential patients *at all* when commissioning a new building (etc): if they did, they would (just for basics) have vastly bigger car-parks, a wide range of meals, bought and paid for by the patient as they wish (ie why does the NHS pay for your food, when you'd pay for that at home anyway? And why is there no choice of quality and supplier? Not to mention meal times, volume etc)
The experience of an individual patient then colours their perception of the entire organisation - a handful of polite, caring and efficient nurses means the NHS is wonderful - and a handful of Stafford Hospital types means it's lethal and unfit for purpose.
My starting point is simple - where's the competition, where's the consumer input as the driver of change and where's the adoption of an NHS-model around the world? If other nations have an insurance-based system, in which waiting-lists are completely unknown and where the patient rules the system (and not Consultants (to 1990) and Managers (since then)) by simple right to change their insurer?
No insurance system can provide for certain treatments - or, at least, not at an affordable cost - and there will always be those who cannot afford insurance cover, so some form of 'State Health System' is inevitable - even the US has one.
What's wrong with the NHS is that it is a monopoly and a political football, where its funding is determined in Downing St and not in the homes and wages of individuals.
On this point, the BBC love-in on the NHS (8 weekly programmes, beginning tonight) will, I hope be followed by a similar series based on PRIVATE hospitals (maybe around the world/EU), so that the ordinary viewer can see the contrast between the State care served up in the UK and that provided in other systems.
Every nation's health system will have its strengths and weaknesses, but the NHS has no imitators, and the idea that because it is *cheaper* it is necessarily *the best option* is farcical: it's what led to the Trabant in E Germany, for example. We want the best for each person in the UK, and we want health care which we pay for, in a transparent way, in which any culpable incompetence is followed by dismissal and, in serious cases, by prosecution, NOT a cover-up.