Concise VIDEOS on the Lansley NHS reforms

The bill became law in March 2012, but here are some very good videos looking at different areas of the controversey... 

http://www.parliament.uk/education/newsletter/central-lobby-current-newsletter/chris-skidmore-nhs-future/

http://www.parliament.uk/education/newsletter/central-lobby-current-newsletter/andy-burnham-nhs-future/

http://www.parliament.uk/education/newsletter/central-lobby-current-newsletter/chris-skidmore-public-interest/

http://www.parliament.uk/education/newsletter/central-lobby-current-newsletter/andy-burnham-health-policy/

It’s not heartless to replace welfare with work - Telegraph.

It’s not heartless to replace welfare with work - Telegraph:

"The fundamentals upon which today’s benefits system was built were straightforward enough. They represented a moral response to the privations and penury of the urban poor in the years after the industrial revolution. The aim was to help people to help themselves and to provide a safety net for those who couldn’t, or who found themselves in temporary difficulties either through illness or unemployment. An essential principle for Chadwick and Lloyd George – and for William Beveridge, too – was that benefits should not be set so high as to deter a low-paid worker from taking a job  [see Medicine Through Time GCSE History textbook! - RWG]. They all recognised the dangers of creating what we now call a dependency culture, whereby state payments are so generous that the rational choice for recipients is to live on them rather than take what might be an arduous and poorly rewarded job."

....and Tom Chapman was there to witness the speech!!!! Chappers perhaps you could comment below on the speech and the atmosphere in the crowd. Is there any 'Thick of It' style political gossip to tell?



Does this represent the end of Cameron's 'compassionate Conservatism' or is it a reassertion of it? Do these ideas fit in with the coalition's current 'universal credit' which will be slowly introduced over the next couple of years?


Predictably Toynbee (a leftist's leftist - and therefore a gift for synopticity marks in the exam) counters (full article) here...

Behind in the polls, David Cameron cleaves to his one truly popular policy:cutting welfare. Pollsters say people want it cut even more. His speech hits every button, stirring up those on quite low incomes against those on very low incomes, dividing and ruling, distracting from the lifestyle of the rulers. With the rottweiler tendency on his backbenches growing restless, he throws them the vulnerable to chew on – all those luxuriating in the "culture of entitlement" on £71 a week unemployment pay. Politically, it works well – for now.
A red mist of despair poured from children's and disability charities, stunned at yet another assault on those they try to defend. Already the £18bn benefit cut is "without historical or international precedent," according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies. Cameron's 17 "ideas" may not all see the light of day, but another £10bn will be cut: housing benefit and US-style benefit time limits yield the big money.

....and a full scale attack via Guardian editorial here (if it's in an editorial, then the paper really mean it!

'via Blog this'

Telegraph VS Guardian over IDS speech on Welfare

Good for undertanding two opposing interpretations of the same news story this (i.e. synopticity).

Telegraph VS Guardian

What are feed-in tariffs?

What are feed-in tariffs?

Basically, a feed-in tariff is a fee paid by the government to groups/individuals for generating their own electricity (even if these groups/individuals use the electricity themselves). They were announced by Labour in 2008 but actually introduced under the coalition April 2010. The idea is that individuals or groups of individuals clubbing together, can install solar panels or wind turbines on their property. It is hoped that this will help the government reach its renewables target.

Individuals originally got around 40p per kWh of energy produced. For some, this meant a tax-free fee of around £1000 per year. Cameronites saw it as a way of matching green energy production with the promotion of the big society and localism agendas ( i.e. individuals, charities and communities taking on the burdens of the state/private companies). Many environmentalist groups welcomed the development, however other environmentalists such as George Monbiot were deeply critical of the idea, claiming it is an inefficient, gimmicky way of producing renewables. Perhaps it also links in with Vince Cable's joke that some of the coalition's policies were chaotic and Maoist. Chairman Mao (dictator of China '40s-'70s) used to promote industrialisation by forcing peasants to smelt tiny amounts of iron in their backyards.

More

Even more

Why is it in the news Dec 2011?

In October 2011 the coalition more or less halved the feed in tariff (for around 40p per kWh to around 20p per kWh). Parliamentary select committees have been critical of this.

Friends of the Earth and two solar panel companies ( who stand to lose business because of the loss of incentive to buy the panels) took the government to court for breaching their own consultation rules on the matter. whilst you were busy doing your Christmas shopping, the High Court ruled in favour of friends of the Earth/ the Solar companies. It is currently too soon to say, but:

The ruling opens the door for a judicial review that could force the government to delay its plans, potentially allowing thousands more people to claim the higher subsidy.

Here.

Updates on this issue may appear here.

All of this seems to add to an overall picture that the so-called "greenest government in history" are clearly prioritising cutting the deficit and placating the international financial community above sticking to their own green plans. Whether or not this is the right thing to do depends on who you ask.