Osborne is showing his intention at last

Good nursery provision is a must for working parents. But when I've dropped my GC off there, over the years, it was clear some children were being offered places for other reasons. It is a sad reflection on society that this is being used as a 'sticking plaster' rather than tackle the issue of inadequate parenting at source.

I am of the belief that most parents want better for their child. Better than they had themselves, but some haven't a clue. OK nurseries are part of the answer, but that's not enough. Sadly there are parents who need to be shown how to parent and have their own aspirations raised.

It's just not happening. Any more.

When they voted them in, they did not expect this to happen, because Osborne would not tell them where he was going to cut the £12 billion in benefits. Even people on this site kept saying we should wait and see before we complained about the cuts.
Now it's happened and is worse than many people thought.

Neither would Labour DJ no matter how many times they were asked.

Do you not recall Labour said they were going to be 'tougher on welfare than the Tories'?, it's well documented and it was a Labour mantra during the election campaign.

Labour supported/voted for £30 billion cuts didn't they!

There is certainly a substantial section of Labour MPs that has gone along with the austerity agenda. There are also significant numbers of Labour MPs who reject it - particularly the ones who were recently elected. Had Labour got in, the anti-austerity MPs and like-minded MPs from other parties would have had at least some influence on the sort of policies pursued.

My own feeling is that it is the right wing, Blairite, Labour MPs who have alienated many Labour supporters - particularly the young. When questioned, they indicated that there was very little to choose between the mainstream parties and so they didn't see the point in voting. Since the Conservative vote was shown to very reliant on the over 60's, I'm hoping that if young people become more politically active - and Corbyn has certainly piqued their interest - the political climate may change.

And dj makes a very good point. Those that were previously expressing disagreement with and concern about the sort of Conservative policies that were being proposed were accused of unfounded and alarmist speculation. Now it appears that their concerns were more than justified.

I think that Labour were hit by Scotland[going more left than them].
And the rest [going more right than them].
Maybe Labour, long term, will end up getting torn in two directions?

I hesitate to get involved in this, but I think that is an oversimplification of why Labour lost Scotland. Left or Right? As I saw it, one of the principal factors, if not THE principal one was the feeling that the Labour Party was London-centric, out of touch with their erstwhile Scottish supporters and frankly, in the run up to the Independence referendum, patronising.
As Mhairi Black said, she didn't leave the Labour Party, it left her and she will be speaking for thousands of Scottish socialists.

Eloethan, I think you've got something when you say ' they indicated that there was very little to choose between the mainstream parties and so they didn't see the point in voting.' This is what turned the Scots to the SNP who did offer an anti-austerity agenda. Surely this should be a lesson for the Labour Party and to the greatest losers in the election, the hapless Lib Dems.

Here's an interesting article from a doctor about why the NHS is in the mess it is in.
It's because of the cuts to every other department that we rely on to keep us in good health, as well as the NHS.

www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/07/open-letter-doctor-jeremy-hunt

Very disturbing article, durhamjen but thanks for posting it.

The SNP is making cuts too.

The SNP does not have the ability to raise taxes. Scotland is treated like a better off council, with the government sharing out the taxes it takes in to the English, Welsh and Scottish councils.

If the SNP kept all the taxes raised in the country, which is what they wanted, they would do much better than in England and not have to make so many cuts.
The agreement that Cameron made to keep Scotland in the UK has still not been ratified in parliament. That's why Nichola Sturgeon is still raising the spectre of another referendum.

That's what I thought, Lilygran. It's easy enough for Cameron to say the NHS is ringfenced, but even the NHS has to make £30 billion of cuts before 2020. How is that ringfencing? They then have to pick up the pieces from the cuts in other departments.

By the way, £30 billion of cuts, £22 billion after kindly giving them the £8 billion promised over the next five years; it sounds like a lot of money, but it's only about a thousand pounds per household, or £200 per household per year. They are just trying to frighten us with big figures.

Time for the NHS to go to some sort of insurance scheme, I am afraid.
Doctors are telling us it is not safe.

Not according to this, *dj*.

fullfact.org/article/economy/scotland_cuts_barnett_ifs-36359

It is according to this, bags. Scotland still gets its money from Westminster according to the Barnett formula.

I don't know how I missed this thread but I have enjoyed reading it, as much as one can enjoy such a subject. There are very many thoughtful and well evidenced posts.

However, I still feel unutterably sad about the way things are going.

The NHS has an insurance scheme, soon. It's called National Insurance.

Lives are being endangered says the doctor.

National Insurance contributions just go into the general pot and always have done, as you must know, dj.

And then the general pot gets shared out, with much of it going to the NHS, Ana, as you must know.

Lives are being endangered because the government made a promise not to put up NI or tax, and that's why it got in, soon. If you ask people if they would rather pay an extra penny in tax or NI or take out insurance for the NHS, they would mostly say the former.
Which would you rather do?

"National insurance benefits are funded by a system of compulsory contributions on earnings, paid by employees, employers and the self-employed. Receipts from these contributions – NICs, for short – are paid into the National Insurance Fund, kept separate from all other revenue raised by national taxes. A fixed proportion of NI receipts are not paid into the Fund but go to the National Health Service."

From a Government briefing paper on NICs, this year.

The latter nowadays dj.
Because I suspect an extra penny is nowhere near enough.
I want a fully funded NHS.

I am pleased you have enough money and are not ill enough to be able to take out insurance. Some of us, I suspect, would be uninsurable. I include myself among those. Better go and have assisted suicide in Switzerland while I'm still able.

This should suit you, soon.

www.theguardian.com/business/2015/aug/02/dr-now-smartphone-app-contact-gp-fee