bridge too far

Because he was only sacked from Top Gear. Although he wasn't actually sacked - he just didn't get his contract renewed.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/apr/07/senior-doctors-assess-governments-record-on-nhs-letter-in-full

Quite. From the blog I linked: "Finally, Labour in 1997 inherited a debt of 42% of GDP. By the start of the global banking crises 2008 the debt had fallen to 35% - a near 22% reduction page 6 ONS Surprisingly, a debt of 42% was not seen as a major problem and yet at 35% the sky was falling down?"

You may not fall for Osborne's spin and I certainly don't but a lot of people take what he says as fact without seeing the bigger picture and get frightened. And, BTW, they're the Tory blogger's points specifically and not mine.

Osbourne and Cameron have both rattled on about our debt being as bad as Greece's when they took office. This blog puts that 'claim' into perspective on two fronts. 1. Big economies can run bigger debts in the same way (as he implied) as a millionaire can get more credit than can you or I. 2. The UK (and the US) suffered more in the financial crisis because both are centres of financial business

Hmmmm very interesting blog from a Tory http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/ramesh-patel/growth-cameron-austerity_b_2007552.html?1428057164

From the outset, let me declare that I worked on 3 hospital PFI schemes. I was, and still am, against PFI but everyone should be aware that it was John Major's government that introduced the idea, not Labour. Having said all that, it's fair to say the the NHS estate is far more efficient and much better able to deliver the care needed in the 21st century. The backlog maintenance bill to bring the many old, often Victorian, buildings up to scratch would have been huge because of underinvestment in the previous years. For example, one scheme I worked on comprised nissan huts built during WW2. The huts were on a sloping site that required two porters to wheel patients through draughty exposed walkways. The savings on manpower alone by building fit for purpose new wards was immense on its own

He would suggest that children of disadvantaged families cease to get the support they need to help them become less likely to be obese, to be less likely to be subjected to violence and abuse, to be less likely to have parents that try to help them. But then again, there'd be even more of them entitled to free laptops, wouldn't there Batman?

Along with all the other major economies, you mean?

Too right. And, you know, I do wonder what would have happened if the last Labour government hadn't bailed out the mess caused by the banks. Remember, the Tories backed 'light touch regulation' and that regulation was more swingeing than anything employed by the previous Tory government. I wonder how many on here would have gone squinnying if the banks HAD been allowed to fail, taking everyone's money with them.

Here's another way the Tories are considering to find the additional £12bn of cuts http://www.michaelmeacher.info/weblog/2015/04/another-hit-for-low-paid-workers-one-of-the-hidden-benefit-cuts-making-up-osbornes-12bn-now-revealed/ Heaven help you if you've been out of work so have decided to start up your own business by becoming self-employed.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/02/astrazeneca-and-ladbrokes-withdraw-support-for-pro-tory-election-letter?CMP=share_btn_tw

http://labourlist.org/2015/04/are-labour-mps-really-hiring-people-on-zero-hours-contracts/

One of the benefit cuts being considered by the Tories is Disability Living Allowance in that it will be considered for income tax.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/04/02/nigel-farage-just-malfunc_n_6995270.html?1428002983

That's one crossed off my bingo list

Taking it to a logical conclusion - maybe everyone should pay for a private fire service, police service, rubbish collection service, etc. etc. if they can afford it too?

Private healthcare isn't taking the burden off the state for a number of reasons: The NHS pays for healthcare training. Private healthcare only takes on qualified medical staff - it offers no real training. Private healthcare is very risk averse and rarely takes on complicated treatment. It tends, in the main, to concentrate on eyes, hips and knees and cosmetic surgery. When private healthcare goes wrong, the NHS has to undertake corrective treatment - often at great expense (think silicon implants as a starter for 10)

However, you might well derive enormous relief if your mother, like mine, 'cost' the NHS £30K a year for her cancer treatment to keep her alive. Money she couldn't have found herself (even with help from her family).

With private healthcare you get LIMITED care - until the money runs out. With NHS care you get care as long as it's needed regardless of means. With private healthcare you get NO emergency treatment. With NHS care you get emergency treatment, even if it's to put right botched private healthcare

Many years ago it was reported that, as soon as Canada moved from public to private (or quasi private) healthcare, the incidence of gall bladder removal increased dramatically. More Canadians suddenly developing gall bladder problems or more surgeons seeing they could up their incomes by undertaking (perhaps) unnecessary procedures?

In other news http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/04/01/ukip-candidate-alan-harris-accused-of-racist-and-homophobic-facebook-posts_n_6984154.html?1427894797

Brilliant!

He is a dead ringer for my son-in-law - FACT! So much so that his own sons were convinced Dad was on TV when they were little!

Railways back into public ownership http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/train-tickets-would-10-cheaper-5430886