2015 Election - antidotes?

I think I am right in saying that the 1% level starts at £530,000. Not as high as I thought.
Which is taken as assets minus debts. So anyone say in this country who has paid off their £500,000 mortgage and owns a good car with some savings, qualifies as being in the top 1% wealthiest people on the planet.

I don't just see this as a British problem. When 50% of global wealth is owned by 1% of the world's population, it is surely dangerous, as well as outrageous, to allow this situation to continue unchecked?

I feel that if more countries demonstrated their opposition to this massive (and increasing) inequality by voting for parties that offer a radical alternative, even if they fail to win, if they gain significant numbers of votes they will be recognised as a body of opinion that cannot be ignored. Furthermore, it will encourage people at future elections to vote for parties that challenge the stranglehold of the two/three major parties.

I have just received an election notice from the Conservative Party. Apparently the candidate is a member of the Health and Wellbeing Board. Does anyone know what this is without googling it?

Oh and the heading is Building a Better Health Service!

I think it's a bit discourteous commenting on the OP without reading the five pages of comments in between.
Of course I am biased. Everyone is, one way or another. The difference is that I do not pretend otherwise, like some do.
What do you mean, Ed?
And yes, I am biased in favour of the NHS. I would hope everyone would want that, rather than it being privatised like the railways, water and other services.
I've mentioned on another thread about one man in Hong Kong owning far too much of our infrastructure. The same will happen to the NHS if we do not stop it.

durhamjen I didn't realise when I came on Gransnet I had to read every thread like you seem to do. Your not bias are you Ed and the NHS party come to mind

Magpie, you started the Ed Miliband versus Nick Clegg thread on 20th January, so do not pretend you have not been on here.
I'm not glued to Gransnet either, but if you haven't been on for a while, it does make sense to find out if there's another thread on a similar topic on the same forum.
As it is, all you are doing is perpetuating the hatred you feel for anyone who does not accord with your views.

durhamjen I do have a life, I'm not glued to Gransnet and yes I have only just seen this. I stand by what I have said complete rubbish.

What, magpie? It's taken you 19 days and 5 pages of comments to write that!
How about reading a lot of rubbish written in the Times, the Daily Mail and every other paper supporting the Tories.

What a load of rubbish printed by the Labour supporting Daily Mirror.

Whether true or not it is very funny. I never thought that politics would make me lol

Why vote for any of them when it looks often as if they are rarely there? Too busy with other jobs constituents' problems?

Should there be a minimum time that they have to attend?

Obviously.
The strange thing is that Cameron has put Lansley forward to be the UN humanitarian ambassador, so nothing in the above would surprise me.

"David Cameron has nominated ex-health secretary Andrew Lansley as the UK's candidate for one of the UN's most influential roles, reports claim.

Channel 4 News said that Mr Lansley, who left the Cabinet in July, was the prime minister's choice for the job as the UN's Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Co-ordinator."

No, don't think this is true at all. When it comes down to it, all parties want to be in power, and having been in power, want to keep being in power.This is just a 'clever' bit of writing that's all.

Do you think this could be true?

"The key to losing the next election

Campaigning for this year’s general election is already well under way. Most people assume this is because it will be a close-fought race and that the main parties are therefore desperate to get an early lead. This is what they want you to think.

In fact, all of our leading politicians are desperate to lose, but losing requires careful planning.

Mr Cameron and Mr Clegg have already had a taste of what it’s like to lead the country through a recession in a coalition government. It’s not an experience either man would like to repeat. Most polls suggest that few voters want them to repeat it either.

Mr Miliband claims he would like to be the next prime minister but has skillfully managed to avoid effective opposition. Commentators put it down to ineptness, but Mr Miliband knows what he is doing. He is engineering a tactical third or fourth place, tucking in behind Mr Farage and the Greens, saving his energy for a run at the next election but one.

Career politicians know that timing is everything and the timing of this election is no good. In 2015, Britain is simply not worth running. The economy, immigration, Europe, terrorism, social unrest, corporate crime, sex scandals and a new series of Celebrity Big Brother – it’s not an attractive proposition.

So our current crop of political leaders, all young men with plenty of years left on the clock, will sit it out and watch someone else muddle through the next five years of austerity. They will wait for the next economic upswing and the last seventies entertainer to be put behind bars before making their move.

When you grasp the basic strategy, all parties’ NHS policies suddenly start to make sense. The NHS is a political headache in its own right, a great thumping mass of problems no one knows how to solve, and the ideal subject for political strategists hoping to put their parties on a course for electoral disaster.

Here is a selection of losing tactics gleaned from the politicians hoping to limp home in the middle of the field in April.

1. Wait until the NHS is a top issue for voters, then pretend you’ve never heard of it. Some politicians have stopped mentioning the NHS at all in case they inadvertently say something vote-winning.

2. Go for the popular vote. Labour is promising to turn mansions into hospitals staffed by the former chief executives of bankrupt tobacco firms. Perfect.

3. Promise more money for health but refuse to make it clear how any increase will be funded, exactly how much you mean to spend or over what period. Keep it nice and vague and roughly in line with what everyone else is promising. £2.5 billion is about right.

4. Alienate potential supporters. Tell the people whose goodwill could propel you to an unwelcome victory that you value their commitment and admire their dedication, then cut their pay.

5. Claim to have complete faith in your top team. Phrases like “I have every confidence in Jeremy…” and “Andy has a credible plan to save our NHS…” will convince everyone that you are completely out of touch and beyond help.

6. Propose one new far-fetched scheme each month or so. Suggest that health and social care budgets are to be merged under a new commissioning body run by the General Synod of the Church of England. Confirm their worst fears by adding that you can pull it off without resorting to top-down structural reform. Appoint Andrew Lansley as Archbishop of Canterbury.

7. Insist that Circle was just a bit unlucky and that privately run NHS hospitals are the way forward. Invite hedge fund managers to debate the issue at the Royal College of Nursing’s annual conference. Stand well back."

Crun I think the campaign officially starts when Houses of Parliament breaks up for Easter( some date in March, cant remember exact date), but it does seem it has started now, so heavens knows how sick of it we will all be by May, and that's just when we should be taking notice....

That's what I meant, Eloethan. I think it would take more money to process the paperwork for all pensioners who get free prescriptions now than the £10 per month.
The free bus pass is not worth arguing about either. Nobody has to apply for one if they do not want to use one.

I think I have largely switched off actually.

No idea crun.
I dont read so much newspapers, or watch so much news as I did even say 4 years ago.
So it seems a pretty tame start to me.

Isn't a prescription season ticket, in effect, a concession? It's presumably not funded by the drug companies or the pharmacies so I imagine the government subsidises it?

I am talking about getting rid of all concessions to pensioners, a prescription season ticket is no more a concession than a bus or train season ticket is, and it is open to anyone receiving regular medication.

Why bother to save for your old age. They'll take it off until you're poor enough to qualify for credits. Depressing prospect. Grind us all downwards. Alternatively move the focus from those whove always paid their taxes in full - no fancy evasion schemes - to the super rich. See that thread. Wish I was rich enough not to pay tax and not to lose my hard earned bus pass etc

But you are talking about getting rid of all concessions. Cheap prescriptions are a concession.

Every time I see the title of this thread I think of that silly song:

Mairzy doats and dozy doats
And liddle lamzy divey
A kiddley divey too, wouldn't you?

So perhaps I will sing that every time anything to do with politics comes on the radio or tv as an antidote.

Flickety

I like your last paragraph.

You can get season tickets for prescriptions and if you are on a low pension income you would be compensated for this through a substantial rise in Pension Credit.

Durhamjen your £64 a month of prescriptions with a season ticket would cost you less than £10 a month. A three month prescription season ticket costs £29.10 (just under £10 a month). An annual season ticket would cost £104 ( less than £ 9 a month).