I know that we all hate the bankers now.....Twisters. But you must have some sympathy for them after all they and insurance companies sell you a policy that you pay into regularly and then when the time comes for you to make a claim they tell you that you cant because of some small print or change in policy so you are left to suffer..... no-ones gone to gaol but they have had to pay compensation.

Now the government operates an insurance scheme that you pay into regularly and when the time comes that you want to make a claim, whether ESA or DLA. They tell you that you can't and change the rules so that you can't or will only get a limited amount back.

What's the difference they are both committing fraud.

Should the minister in charge of the DWP take responsibility and exchange their red box for a cell.
I share your bitterness but I don't actually blame the Government because I would expect nothing less from Eaton educated, millionares by birth, Tory elitists. I do blame the fools who voted for them and the treacherous Liberal Democrats who formed a coalition with them.
The great thing about Governments is that they can promise you the moon provided it isn't due before the next election. It doesn't matter if their harebrained schemes are doomed to failure as long as the final reckoning takes place on some future Cabinet's watch.

Take cigarettes (please don't). They bring in billions in taxes, for which all Governments are happy to grovel: even giving tobacco companies concessions and exclusions from new legislation. The fact that in 30 years' time today's smokers will be crammed into Oncology wards shoulder-high, at ten times the cost to the public purse than now, doesn't worry them at all.

The idea that current tax revenue from cigarettes could be either set to one side for future smoking-related medicine, or passed right now to the NHS for similar ring-fenced purposes, seems to miss them totally. They need the money right now (to buy electoral success next time round), so to hell with the next generation.

Plenty of other industries similarly provide HMG with income in huge quantities, but which everyone knows will later cost us dear. But we just turn a blind eye. One thing's for sure: your local MP, having crept all over you in order to get his seat in the Commons, will have NO interest whatsoever in what concerns you over the next 5 years. As soon as he arrives in Westminster his allegiance will immediately switch to his party leader. After all, the latter will need loyal yes-men for the vacant Ministerial jobs he has to fill, and which come with an immediate 100% pay hike. Who cares about the constituents' welfare worries now?

Politicians of all colours and background don't give a jot. Every one of them will personally get much more from this week's budget than you or me, via the cuts for higher-rate taxpayers. And when the time comes for all the banks WE had to rescue to be sold off on the cheap again, THEIR families will all manage to acquire a bundle of shares at a good price, be sure of that. Just like the (well substantiated) tales of MPs' family members acquiring dozens of ex-council houses and becoming private landlords. The whole thing is disgraceful. When did you last see a politician (with the possible exceptions of Dennis Skinner and Ken Livingstone) travel in an ordinary train compartment, or on a plane in Economy? Why not?

But the one thing which sticks in my head is the NHS, how proud of it we were as a nation, and what a mess it has become since Thatcher and Tebbit. I was born 2 years after the NHS, and remember my Dad explaining it to me, proudly. "Everyone contributes towards it", he told me, "even if they find it hard: we must all pay our share. But then when anyone becomes sick, has an accident or needs looking after when they're old, infirm or perhaps having a baby, everything will be there for them, at no further cost. All the doctors, nurses and facilities you need, just waiting there to help you. From the cradle to the grave."

That was the phrase on everyone's lips: "FROM THE CRADLE TO THE GRAVE."

I wonder how many of those post-war pioneers are turning in THEIRS, right now?
right on ray.

every day in every way i begin to see the attraction of direct action such as a guillotine.

unfortunately my direct action is limited to mockery.

(i would love to share my mockery but i think links are banned now.

however if someone were to combine'turnipmash' with a slash and'general-mischief' they would be able to see my small attempts at anger re-direction.)

one of the problems in the uk is 5 year terms - politicians need to be accountable more often. the other, unfortunately, is a huge number of ******** in the south east who are the backing for these unspeakable louts.

I have to pick you up on your thinking about smokers. Please forgive the thread hijack!

Smokers die young, from a disease that is generally quite fast to take the life of the people who are unfortunate enough to get cancer. Everyone has to die of something and so, if you think logically, a person who lives to 100 years old after a life time of chronic diseases like PD or diabetes are the ones that cost the most.

Smokers do not cost the NHS money. In fact, they pay in loads more than they get back!

I am prepared to move this thread if need be, but I find the economics of the NHS a fascinating subject.

Best wishes
Hi Spam.

My own experience of friends and relatives whose demise was attributable to smoking suggests that it can and does happen at any age. However before dying most spent long periods in hospital, utilising very expensive facilities and services.

I accept your argument that had they not smoked they would probably have ended up in a similar situation anyway as a result of some other terminal condition, but that since - on average - the smoker's life will be shorter, there will indeed be a net saving by HMG on pensions and benefits.

Don't forget the hidden costs, though, of millions of smokers having "ciggie breaks", the cleaning up of their mess, their time off with horrible gungy and pukey-sounding throat clearances and increased dental costs.

And I have to pick you up on your thinking about smokers "who are unfortunate enough to get cancer". Everyone knows nowadays - before they start - the likely outcomes of tobacco smoking. They are NOT unfortunate, they are totally reckless, and very selfish towards their families.

This is not the thread for this discussion. Please refer to the OCD section for continuation if you wish.

Ginger, sorry to thread hijack!!
I look forward to a new thread being initiated. The OCD thread is clearly not the right one.