Judging by the fact that Hetherington gave Mulholland a full page in the Leeds programme today to set out his case, alongside a picture of the pair of them and Sinfield, it seems Leeds are very keen for him to be re-elected

However I do think Mulholland's personal vote is very substantial indeed and this isn't uncommon in Lib Dem-held constituencies. My mum and dad have lived in Leeds NW since before I was born and voted solid Conservative from Donald Kaberry, through Keith Hampson to the various no-chance Tories in 01 and 05. But they are so resolutely in the "Mulholland is a great bloke" camp it's quite startling.

I live now in the other West Yorkshire constituency with a Lib Dem MP, albeit a slightly more controversial one. I'm going to vote for him, but he's unlikely to withstand being swamped by Labour - but again from what I can see his personal vote seems very strong.

Interesting comment.
This government, especially the IDS operated part, could well argue that social care has been "well managed". Some of the "horror stories", that have done the rounds regarding elderly couples, one being a carer for another with multiple requirements and having "beneits" cut would seem to fit the IDS model perfectly and they could argue that this is a success.
Its down to perspective and original starting point. Cuts were all that IDS has wanted and implemented. Basic humanity was a long way down the list and still is.
The trouble is there is no "one size fits all" solution to social care, simply because everyone is different in needs, BUT there are core skills/requirements which could/should be in place and when these are being eroded/eliminated how can these people call themselves "civilised".
If people want more of the same, or worse, then people know to vote for.

But if its not happening to them and have the "I'm alright Jack" attitude then they don't care if more of the same happens and prefer to stick their head in the sand or pretend its not as bad as "lefties" make out.......until it DOES happen to them and they have to experience the system, then the penny drops.

I'd say exactly the opposite. It needs more managers and admin staff. Spending on management consultants has doubled. When I worked for the NHS management and admin was done on the cheap and ended up causing more problems and so cost. To the point where nursing and clinical staff were having to do admin work. And that's when Labour were putting money into the NHS.

I'm sure there are efficiencies that can be made, reducing the amount of expensive management consultants, agency admin staff and agency clinical staff would be a start. But that requires an increase in planned expenditure.

During the years 1998-2008 NHS spending increased roughly 6% per year. The Kings Fund estimate the NHS needs an increase of £8bn per year just to stand still, that's roughly 7%. Not to mention that in a few years time there will be 20% additional over-65's to treat and care for.

The NHS needs more money. The ageing population, increasing drug and medication costs and population growth etc mean whilst efficiency should be promoted and prioritised (and I agree we need some change in how we make NHS Chiefs and hospital bosses accountable) but it also needs regular increases in spending to keep pace.

And the money Labour put in wasn't excessive, it's what was needed.


Definitely agree Education needs an overhaul. It's a mess and needs a total re-direction away from passing exams. I sort of view education as a bit like amateur RL. It's obsessed with passing exams/winning games rather than developing children/developing skills.
However it also needs more money. Class sizes are too high. There are still classes of 30+ which is just impossible to adequately teach.
That alongside desperately needed reforms such as reducing and re-prioritising a ridiculously out of date curriculum and things like longer lessons in the same subject rather than a child having to do 6 or 7 wildly different subjects in 1 day.

I have never viewed home ownership as elitist. I view it as an option but certainly not aspirational. To view it as aspirational is to condemn those renting (by choice or necessity), as inferior to home owners. Renting is not stigmatised in any European country in the way it is here and increasingly more people are preferring renting - rlGeneration Rent Reportrl You may also want to listen to today's Radio 4 You and Yours programme on iPlayer. Very enlightening from a range of buyers and renters

You may well view renting as "barmy" but how do you suggest someone on a zero-hours contract gets the money for a deposit and then finds a bank willing to offer a mortgage?

Houses are now viewed as an investment to be borrowed against, as opposed to somewhere to live. That is wrong! The house-price boom started with 'Right to Buy' and the liberalisation of banks and building societies. Mortgages became easier to get and with ever lower deposits. All predicated on house prices rising at a greater rate than inflation. This led to the ridiculous situation where Northen Rock were offering 110% mortgages - "here have a house and go on holiday with the rest of it, you'll only be paying for the holiday for the next 25 years".

House (or more accurately, LAND) prices continued to rise simply because we weren't building enough - the housing shortage that you don't believe in.

The only way to return to some semblance or normality is to embark on another housebuilding spree as we did post-WW2. This will of course have the effect of reducing property prices nationwide, possibly even plunging some into negative equity. But hey, why should that bother anyone? In reality they'll still be paying the same monthly amount for the same house, the bank will still be getting their money. So what's the problem?

What this country needs is some radical thinking. We could solve our problems very quickly if we did. 4 ideas that nobody would have the guts to introduce:

1. Ban non-EU citizens owning property here. Would free up many thousands of flats overnight.
2. Ban baby boomers from passing on wealth. A medium term 100% inheritance tax charge allied to short-lived high tax rates (income, corporation tax and VAT) with a view to clearing the deficit and building up a sovereign wealth fund to fund future public expenditure. Get rid of business rates.
3. Ban private education for a generation.
4. Legislate to ban retail outlets from having more than 30- or 40 outlets nationally. That would help create more diversity in our shopping areas, better customer service, more jobs and a meritocratic, entrepreneurial explosion when allied to the above points.

Business rates are crazy and distortive. Retailers are at a huge disadvantage compared with online traders. Small businesses are taxed too highly through them and they represent a big cost especially for start-ups. Much better to increase taxes on profits to cover the lost revenue to the public sector. For example, as a micro-business we pay several thousand pounds per annum effectively for access to the police and the fire-brigade in the event of need. We pay privately for a security guard and privately for refuse collection. We don't live in the area nor do we especially earn revenue from the residents of the area. We and others like us are effectively a cash cow for the local authority. Much better to reduce / scrap rates and encourage would-be employers?

As Dally mentions above, refuse collection from business premises was removed from the responsibility of the local councils at least fifteen years ago, instead you now get fleeced by the likes of Biffa who assume that all businesses need skip-sized wheelie bins to remove a couple of waste paper baskets of general office rubbish every week.

And you still have to pay the same business rates, it really is an inadequate and inequitable system of simply removing profit from a business and one of the main reasons why so many independents fail on the High Street.

They should give everyone a lifetime's allowance for how much they can receive untaxed from inheritances. Tax the recipient rather than the estate.

And replace it with what? Totalitarian state control? How are you going to get all teachers of the same standard to make sure everyone get's the same level of education? How are you going to ensure all class sizes are the same? What about kids with special needs, or are you just lumping them in with everyone else? Or are you going to conveniently just turn a blind eye to the startling impracticalities of it all, because, y'know, private = rich = bad and therefore we have to drag everyone down to that level, then the likes of DaveO and cod'ead will be happy.

Then what if a parent wants young Timmy to do a bit of extra reading? Will that be banned? And when you've churned out this generation of robots, what jobs are they going to do?

Utter, utter, tripe. The same old tired excuses, it's always someone elses fault. So, you're answer to create these entrepreneurial free thinkers is to have everyone educated in exactly the same way? FFS