Long time, couldn't be bothered.

I've come round to filling out the blog again.

Also I've been working nights and been listening to a lot of night radio. If you ever find yourself driving around London at night and want something different to listen to try Radio 3 on a Thursday Night from 00:00am. Not the most linear playlist, but you won't be bored.

Also, have re-confirmed to myself that my Dad's car's (two words, two apostrophe's but I think you'll find that it's grammatically correct) stereo is absolutely rubbish and has more treble than Alan Johnson's voice and is therefore difficult to listen to.

Have also been agitated by Nick Robinson's election coverage. Character assassination at every opportunity on Gordon Brown. Not what I was expecting from the BBC.

Have learnt to enjoy one's own company. Will be useful in the next few years of work-forced solitude.

Misunderstanding Existance

Industry has, for a long time, denied climate change for obvious reasons.


First of all, the science "just didn't add up". Then, the science was "shaky". Unfortunately, now that the scientific community has told the "spokespeople" (lobbyists) of these industries that they don't have a leg to stand on, they've had to silently acknowledge man-made climate change and come up with another way to prevent people from reducing their consumption.


I was lucky enough to hear one of these "spokespeople" and their statements today on the radio.


"Climate change is a very complex subject and can only be understood by very few scientists".


I assume the underlying message of that would be "you don't understand, so there is nothing to worry about, it might as well not exist".


Do they think that just because the public doesn't fully understand something will mean that they won't see how it could effect them?


I'm writing this on a computer and although I can make a mean PowerPoint, I can't begin to understand how my laptop works. That doesn't mean that computers don't effect me, or I can't understand what Asimov was trying to get at about artificial intelligence.


The reason why our economy is so tangled in legislation is due to a corporate-level moral irresponsibility, of which the denial of climate change is a prime example.


It seems our corporations have grasped the art of lobbying while ignoring the reasons they need to lobby in the first place.

"That's a good drawing." "Why? Who drew it?" "...ah."

It's well known that, in art, the artist is considered before the quality of the drawing. Usually this means that the well known artists get an instant leg-up.

"Drawings believed to be those that Adolf Hitler submitted in a failed attempt to gain entry into the Vienna Academy of Art are to be auctioned. A distinguished emeritus dean of art has studied them and said that today they would be considered only up to "moderate GCSE standard"

 I don't doubt how distinguished this emeritus Dean of Art (I assume he's dutch) is, but I can be confident that Dean has never seen GCSE Art coursework.

The World's Most High-Profile Elected Invalid

I've never understood the entertainment value catholics seems to wring from standing in St. Peters Square on Easter Sunday. I'm also puzzled by catholics eagerness to see the Pope in the flesh.


I started this thought train after reading the pretty unanimous reviews of the first Formula One race of the season. Formula One has for a long time had the problem of keeping people interested. The nature of Formula One for the competitors is to be as dominant as possible whereas the entertainment for fans is to be extracted from tight competition. That's not exclusive to Formula One of course, that's pretty much a standard for any televised sport, the only difference is that the amount of money tied into certain teams being dominant is too great to end up doing anything about it.


So the F1 big wigs at the FIA decided to change the rules, and then change them again, and then again... The rules have been changed so many times to so many levels of success that most of the anticipation felt before a new F1 season doesn't regard which driver or team are going to win, but whether the season will be worth watching at all. The rights holder, Bernie Ecclestone, points to "the spectacle" of the event as the thing that keeps it in business.


Formula One is struggling to keep its fans interested, but maybe it should have taken the advice from the Vatican. The Vatican schedule for Easter Sunday has never changed, indeed "the spectacle" of His Eminence's presence is enough to draw tens, maybe hundreds of thousands of Christians from around the world. Far from running around at 200mph producing 150dB, all the Pope needs to do is to sit in a very expensive chair and look old and frail, and people will flock back next year (and spend more money). Some will wave banners and sing like football hooligans. It's a very strange sight, and quite disturbing to see so many very obviously mad people collected in one area. I'm reading "Cell" by Stephen King at the moment and the parallels are frightening.


Personally, I've never seen the Pope move independently. I've always imagined that he was moved around  on a sack truck to photo-opportunistic places around the Vatican, or for longer journeys he's moved around in the Popemobile (proof that money can't buy style). When he needs to sit down there are three lockable pivots replacing his hip and knees which allow him to bend. His arms and direction his head faces in are controlled by Barry, his personal bodyguard of fifteen years who has a remote control around his neck. Set-up for particularly important photo shoots can take anything up to four hours. This one took an hour and a half because it was difficult to get him to balance with his hands together in from of him while leaning forward. I suppose this is a "spectacle" as well, but in the same way as the pyramids rather than F1. Although the pyramids were actually built and physically exist and can be proved, as opposed to the Pope's standing which is a fabrication.


Formula One and catholicism have something else in common. Both have huge numbers of fans flocking to see someone dieing...

Unemployed or Economically Inactive?

Quote from The Times' website:


Youth unemployment was expected to be high up on the agenda in today’s Budget. Lower-than-forecast numbers of people claiming benefits — 1.6 million — means that the Government has more money to play with. However, behind the headline figures, the situation is dire. The “economically inactive”, people neither employed nor unemployed, stands at a record high of 8.16 million, suggesting that more young people are staying in education rather than face the dole. Unless the economy strengthens, a fresh wave of young unemployed could hit the market and destabilise recovery.


Full article here.


Much is made of those sitting in front of a television screen all day claiming benefits. There around 2 million people currently in higher education in the UK.


Are there really 6 million people who don't work and don't claim benefits and aren't in higher education? I don't see how this could be possible. I'm very confused.

"Common Sense" Mathematics and its Discrepancies

If the age of criminal responsibility is ten, why do we need to be eighteen years of ages before we can vote?

"Common sense" tells us that after our tenth birthday we should be held accountable for our actions, yet "common sense" also tells us that we aren't accountable for our vote until we are eighteen. In the eight years between these two dates, we are presumably accountable for actions that we take that affect others and yet not accountable for actions that we take that affect others.

I'm confused.

Disproportionate Uproar and Constitutionalist Interpretation

I quite like Boris Johnson as mayor of London. He's a character and a well-rounded representative for the city and I'm sure sticks in the minds of those who come to visit which, from a tourism officer's point of view, is probably useful. This doesn't mean, however, that I agree with anything that he says.

He wrote a slightly entertaining piece about Scandinavian crime dramas last week, where he told us that the Scandinavian brand of socialism and big government meant you had to drive around during the day with your headlights on and other health and safety nonsense. I see the point that he was making that governments should allow the people some common sense when setting laws.

But personally, I would install headlights on my forehead if I could enjoy the standard of living of the Scandinavians. I'd much rather have to have my headlights on during the day than pay more tax than a multi-billionaire.

If you want to see how utterly pathetic and insignificant the people of the UK can be, you need only have joined me yesterday on a delayed train from Manchester Piccadilly to Sheffield. The train was delayed by 10 minutes and therefore got stuck behind a slower, stopping train using the same route. The journey took, at most, 20 minutes longer than it would have anyway.

Because it was busy, I was standing in the vestibule area by the door, uncomfortably close to a man who drank 15 cans of McEwan's between Piccadilly and Stockport. There was a woman and her son who moved down to the vestibule when we were about 10 miles outside of Sheffield.

The announcer made a cleverly worded announcement saying:

"I apologise for the delay but due to our late departure from Manchester Piccadilly we are stuck behind a slower service and will therefore most likely be arriving at Sheffield between 15 and 25 minutes late."

After that announcement, the woman held her watch up to her left eyeball and counted down the 900 seconds. As that 900th second past she melodramatically looked around at everyone else with a "look how hysterical I currently am!" expression on her face and then said, "So much for 15 minutes!" and in the following minute tutted one hundred times. She then went on to try and organise some sort of passenger revolt against the ticket-man, accusing him of "lieing over the loudspeaker", trying to find someone who agreed with her. Other passengers gave fuel to her fire, baiting her with their own tales of similar misfortune encountered on previous rail trips. One old man said that he'd missed his connection and if they didn't pay him compensation he was going to take the matter to court. Another suggested that we move over to the other line and overtake the train in front of us and then made the (correct) assumption that there were going to be "some bloody health and safety regulation against it".

Eventually the train pulled in to Sheffield station and everyone left the metal enclosure of the carriage, and silently walked through the station.

Black people all over Europe, the US and Africa complained when they were slaves, in the 1910's and 20's women in the UK fought for their right to vote, in Zimbabwe the people are trying to survive while their government rapes their economy for their own individual gain.

In the UK, we tirelessly fight against the burden of a moments inconvenience caused by a Health & Safety law. We get "outraged" when a train is delayed. We find something to get upset about.

Cheer the fuck up! (Sorry mum)

Boris Johnson might get the support of the knee-jerk morons I met on that train by moaning the popular tune about Health & Safety "madness", but he'll have to do a lot more to convince those with this "common sense" he seems so keen on.

**********************************************************************

Something I read earlier made me a little bit annoyed. In Texas, the curriculum the schools teach is being adjusted by the current state administration. The religious right wants to have more Christian values in textbooks and in teachings.

That didn't really annoy me because, at the end of the day, it's Texas. What annoyed me was that Cynthia Dunbar, a constitutionalist, has had Thomas Jefferson's name cut from the list of figures who inspired revolutions in the 18th and 19th century because he coined the term "separation between church and state". She is, unsurprisingly, a Christian who believes that the constitution was written on "Christian values".

David Bradley supports this by pledging money to charity if anyone can find the "separation of church and state" in the constitution.

Maybe Cynthia Dunbar could do her argument a favor and find the part of the constitution which proves it was written on Christian values...

One or the Other

The Facebook group "I hate it when my milkshake brings all the boys to the yard" has over 183,000 fans.


The Sun's petition calling for transparency in the recent Jon Venebles case and scrapping of rules protecting re-offending criminals has "over 70,000".


I know the two can't easily be compared but my point is that people will put their name to anything you put in front of them without thinking about it. The Sun sells more than a million copies a day and has managed to gain "over 70,000" peoples signatures, meaning that just over 7% of their daily readership agrees with them enough to put their name to it, despite having nothing to lose.


Oh, except the universal and indiscriminate right to a fair trial.


But in this case you can't have both "The right to know" through trial transparency and the universal "right to a fair trail", so which will it be?


Personally, I'd rather have the fair trial than find out information for the sake of finding out information.


So, they tell us and then what? The case will fall through because Jon Venebles can't have a fair trial. This is a classic example of the tabloids sprinting the first lap to be photographed at the front, without thinking about the gold medal at the end.

The Right to Know

1) 'The rights of the criminal are protected before those of the victim'


2) 'Jon Venebles should never have been let out of prison in the first place'


3) 'We have a right to know why Jon Venebles has gone back into custody'

1) Before the defendant is found guilty they have exactly the same rights as the victim and exactly the same rights as every other person in the country. Only when they have been found guilty do they stand to lose any rights. The victim doesn't lose any rights at any time during a trial. Therefore at no point does the criminal have more rights than the victim as the victim always has every right.


2) Debatable but our justice system works on rehabilitation. Jon Venebles was deemed rehabilitated. So far there is no evidence in the public domain to suggest that he doesn't remain rehabilitated.


3) You think you do but you just don't, and for very good reason i.e. to ensure trials by jury remain impartial.

Protest of the Blind

We know that the Greeks are bankrupt. We're pretty sure they won't be getting a cash bailout from the EU. We can be positive that they have been living beyond their means.

So the protests in Athens over the last few days will come as a bit of a surprise, not because they are unexpected, but because of what the Greek people are protesting about.

Usually, if a country doesn't have enough money to maintain the standards of living it has become accustomed to, it will borrow enough money to either invest or to balance it's books with. Unfortunately for the Greeks they have proven themselves irresponsible with large sums of money and as such have no-one to turn to for the kind of sums that they require.

So the fact that the Greek people are campaigning against quite evidently needed money saving and generating measures (such as public sector salary cuts and higher taxes) seems decidedly short-sighted and hot headed.

Surely they should be campaigning not against the measures put in place to correct, but the political forces who made the mistake. Or the people who sat back and enjoyed the good life, without a care in the world for what the politicians were doing with the country's finances. I'm sorry but I don't see how the huge budget deficits the Greek government had been posting could have gone unnoticed.

Going on strike and shutting down schools and hospitals doesn't sound to me like the kind of action needed to convince Angela Merkel or the EU of the country's sufficient stability for a bailout.

I may, however, be joining a similar protest in London soon...

Have you got the Uni-Factor?

I watched the first question on "First-Time Voter's Question Time" today:

"There are loads of people coming out of universities who are going straight onto the doll because they are overqualified for the jobs available. What are you going to do about it?"

I watched the first five words of David Lammy MP's response ("erm...er...well, the recession-") and turned the television off because I've heard this discussion a million times before and I could confidently predict what, as a Labour MP, Lammy was going to say. But thinking about it a bit more I wish I'd bared with him so I could listen to what the other members of the panel had to offer on the debate.

To me, the problem isn't one of the government not doing enough for graduates, it's with the university (and for that matter, education) system itself.

Or more specifically, the incompatibility between the university system and the companies it's intended to provide graduates for, and people's confusion between giving opportunities and just giving.

The university was set up to either give very fortunate people a benchmark academic knowledge required for high end jobs in industry, or (for the more fortunate) to provide a place where people could learn much about a subject of their choice. Because of the high fees, university was a privelidge for the few and semi-unintentionally ensured that the establishment remained the establishment. As the country developed, the people realised that this was unfair and eventually (and I've skipped a fair amount out here) the student loan was set up to allow people from any upbringing the opportunity to study.

At this point things seem near enough balanced on the face of it, but still the majority of students were from well heeled backgrounds, and there was still a shortage of graduates in many industries

Then two things happened. Firstly, polytechnic colleges started to become universities, and were allowed to award degrees to students. Secondly, Labour came to power, with a the sound-bite of "education, education, education" ringing in people's ears.

Because polytechnics didn't have the kind of reputation to lose that the established universities had, they realised that they could offer nearly as many courses as they liked on as many subjects as they liked and receive more funding from the authorities. They could use this money to improve their facilities. So they did, and they did.

They created a model which provided to hundreds of thousands of people who wouldn't have otherwise gone into higher education.

This is where the boundarys between "giving opportunities" and "giving education" are blended. You don't "give" people education, you "give them the opportunity" of education.

The big problem is, unlike our university system, our job system still runs in the same way that it always has. You still have a triangle, with the big boss at the top, the different layers of management in the middle and the majority (the workers) at the bottom. For big companies (which employ the majority) that triangle isn't going to upend itself any time soon. Not if the big boss has anything to say about it anyway.

If you have a room filled with 1000 potential students, sit them down with an entrance exam and tell them that the top 100 people will go to university, you aren't denying the other 900 the "opportunity" of higher education. They've all had equal opportunity, the other 900 will have to accept that they just didn't meet the entry requirements.

Well, the other 900 kicked up a fuss, and Labour thought they had a problem, and instead of being brave enough to tell that 900 that that's how the system had to work and they should get over it, instead they looked to the ends of their noses and encouraged more to go to universities. This, fortunately for Labour, had the miraculous side-effect of boosting their education figures! What luck!

Which leaves us in the situation we have today, with graduates from universities having qualified themselves for jobs which never existed anyway. They realise that a graduate position in a company had been a mirage all along, only now they've walked for 3 years in the wrong direction. They realise that they should have gone from 6th Form to work. They should have found an apprenticeship. They should have found a sponsored course with the real prospect of a job at the end of it (in joke).

But of course, people don't actually realise this. People are vain. They are now graduates, after all. They are "overqualified" for a position on the shop floor, they'd rather not work out of principle!

I suppose I'll have to summarise at some point, and it might as well be now.

At the end of the day, there are just as many "opportunities" in education as there ever have been. There might be more people going to university, but they shouldn't assume that university is an "opportunity". Universities are utterly brilliant things, but even they can't change supply and demand.

In a perfect model, universities would only provide the right number of people with the benchmark academic learning required for the appropriate roles in a company. The universities would provide the courses needed in accordance with what various industries needed. Those who wanted to learn about something specific to an industry which was full would still learn, but accept the prospect of a period of unemployment, or employment for a while in an unskilled job.

Instead, the graduate market for employers is more like a really boring episode of X-factor which doesn't have crap singing but does have a sweaty palmed twenty-something talking scripted tosh about what they'd bring to a team. It reduces the diversity of  knowledge and experience gained from a degree into a single boolean value, just like the X-factor reduces the art of music to a Christmas number 1.

But then that's all education has become really, a boolean value, only the question is "were you lucky enough for it all to fall into place for you?".

The figures might look better, but we're in exactly the same position we always were.

Hang on, at what point did we start talking about God?

The internet is a free platform for imbeciles who happen to be religious. The comments sections of the Times' website seems to be their medium of choice.


In the comments section below a story about Rio's teenage gangs, Jaheed Jayeel (from "Londonistan") seemed to have copied and pasted a universal comment in, before adjusting it to fit the story:


"God willing, the young motorcycle-martyrs of Brazil will avenge the down-trodden peopoles(sic) of Afghanistan and Iraq. God be praised."


If you took out the words "motorcycle" and "Brazil" but left room to fill those blanks with another proper noun and place name, you can reuse that comment as many times as you like, causing just as much controversy and ill feeling every time.


Also, Jaheed manages to mention God twice in two sentences, which makes me think that he's probably not much fun on a night out. Saying that though, the second sentence only exists to include the word "God" again.


Yes, it may be someone's idea of a joke, but a very obscure one.

Jaheed's religious views could be the thing that alienates him from the majority of us, to such an extent that we can call them "radical", but really in this case the first thing which makes us disagree with him is that his views are completely out of context with the point of the article.

And that's because he hasn't read the article.

I'll be honest, there have been times before where I have formed an opinion on something I don't really know about. There have been times before where I have formed an opinion based on just the title of the article in question. But justice prevails and I end up looking like a complete tool when I then try and voice said opinion to someone who has read the article, or can understand the real issues surrounding a topic.

But what are the chances of Jaheed's unconsidered opinion being opened up to scrutiny? What are the chances that Jaheed will hear an alternative opinion from someone that he respects?

Well considering that Jaheed's views were probably conditioned by his upbringing or the social circle that he's a part of, I'd say pretty slim.

And for all the good intentions that the founders of the largest two religions first set out with, they have inadvertently created the social barriers which stop Jaheed from hearing an alternative opinion with the kind of perceived credibility that will actually stand a chance of changing his mind.

Anyone with a link to Christianity won't change a radical Muslim's mind, and neither will anyone with a link to Islam change a radical Christian's mind.

I've used Islam as an example, and probably unfairly so. But really I think that Christianity is just as bad, and over the last 500 years has been responsible for far more bloodshed and evil than what the Christian West blames Islam for today.

Which handily proves my point, always read the entire article before thinking about forming an opinion...

Letter to the Times

Here's a letter I'm just about to the post. I may be drunk, but I can still compose a mean letter without the help of the paperclip:

Dear Sir,

From personal experience and as a student at one of the countries many “polytechnic” universities, I can confidently assure your readers that there are many young people at this country’s lower-table universities who ought not to be there.

I can, however, also assure your readers that many students at the countries “top” universities are just as ignorant and alien to the real world as those at seemingly lesser establishments.

Therefore I beg employers to not look at the university an employment candidate went to, more look at whether the candidate in question is a complete and utter dickhead or not. Base your decision on that factor and you may not be successful statistically, but at least you’ll have taught the arrogant tosser a lesson.

Yours faithfully,

Jack Worrall

Railway Engineering Student

Sheffield Hallam University

Sheffield.

"Indirect Proximity Carbon Offsetting"

The estimated cost of raising a child until a certain age vary's wildly, with the news naturally giving airtime to the most shocking figures.

It's obvious (to a cynic like me) that the story is simply a filler in between more important (and more true) stories coming along. I base this assumption on the fact that the news can use it numerous times over a decade.

Here is an article from 2002. Here is an article from 2006. Here's an article from the other day.

What strikes me is that none of this information they give is very useful. It's not like you can see whether any trends are forming from a sample of reports over, say, 10 years because every report has different variables.

Some of them are based in London, some for the entirety of the UK. Some reports are based on paying for private education, some on state. Some are based on two full-time working parents, some are based on a single working parent.

What good is that?

Newspapers aren't the most reliable source for figures at the best of times, but the findings of these reports could make the difference between whether a couple decides to have a baby or not.

Which is why, from the perspective of someone who has a primary school grasp of maths and can therefore see a world population catastrophe on the horizon, these reports are vital to the cause!

Next time you meet anyone who is likely to get pregnant accidentally (you know who I mean), or is stupid enough to think that by reproducing they will raise an asset to society, you should use these articles and their "findings" to discourage them.

Call it "indirect proximity carbon offsetting".

If you talk to them a year later and they haven't reproduced "because of the cost" then you can fly away on holiday guilt free for at least another year! It's a win-win-win.

1. The environment is happy there isn't another person pumping carbon dioxide into the air for approximately 72 years.
2. The mother is happy she can still go out and get wrecked mid-week.
3. And most importantly, you're happy because you've got an exotic holiday to look forward to.

Democracy Recorded

There's been a lot of talk recently about the UK's democracy being behind the US's SUPER-DEMOCRACY.

This is, according to some, the result of the UK media being slow to see the benefits, both for democracy and for commercial broadcasters advertising revenues, of live televised debates. These prime-time televised debates, they argue, would give modern UK politics the kind of exposure it has been lacking with the "couldn't care less" X-Factor watching audiences of which hardly any are voting.

It is, certainly, a tragedy that people aren't taking an active part in politics anymore, but hardly surprising. Even the most dedicated follower of UK politics must get tired of the endless sleaze and spin seen by all sides of the house of commons, now imagine trying to sell that to someone who had no interest anyway.

In my opinion these people have no interest because they've been having it so good under a government which is happy to have a full-time unemployed demographic on benefits (it's not wrong, it's just one way of doing things).

Voting for the Conservatives would likely give that demographic something to get involved about as their quality of life would go down, either forcing them back to work (and becoming a taxpayer) or compelling them to fight for the kind of benefits they've been receiving under Labour (by, heaven forbid, voting).

Which poses a couple of pretty serious questions... With it's generous (and widely regarded as excessive) benefits scheme seen over the last 13 years, has Labour intentionally or unintentionally bought insurance against a Conservative victory? And how much will the Conservatives benefit long term by opening up to the Saturday-night prime-time, assuming that traditional class-party relationships are still relevant?

Has this country's right leaning press done enough to convince the non-voting layman to vote Conservative and how long will that last?

Doug Stanhope

Doug Stanhope isn't the kind of comedian you could see hosting a mainstream awards ceremony anytime soon.

If I was to compare his comedy to anyone I would struggle, with Bill Hicks being my best attempt, but comparing his personality, or the reasons for his (pleasingly modest so as not to be mainstream) success, to Russell Brand would be easy. The only difference is, as a person, Russell Brand is a hot toddy to Doug Stanhope's pint of vodka.

Russell Brand shocked a lot of the hedge-pruning middle England Daily Mail readers when he first came to Joe Public's attention, and rightly so (that was probably what he set out to do anyway). He lays his personality out, warts and all, for everyone to see and then prods it with a stick for other's amusement. It makes people laugh and he's been successful doing something that others haven't had the balls to do. But the difference between Brand and Stanhope is simple. Russell Brand is likeable, a bit cheeky at times, but he's good looking and erudite. He has to fend women off with a hot poker. He even hosted the VMAs.

When Stanhope talks about anything, he puts himself on the table in front of you and says "that's it". You can easily imagine him with moths in his wallet and holes in his socks, but he accepts it. He gets up in front of an audience and says, "I'm a drunk bastard, but there's more important things going on in the world, so enough about me, let's talk about them and get this over with". If Russell Brand were to lose his comedy, he'd have his good looks and way with words to build his life on afterwards. If Doug Stanhope stopped being funny, he'd have nothing.

Which is why he's my new favorite person in the world.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExAw4hIhRIU&feature=related

LABOUR TO TAX DEATH!

The Conservatives have unsurprisingly rounded upon Labour's National Care Service plans.

Yes, this "death tax" will tax you, for dieing. You might as well not look into it anymore, because there is nothing more to say on the matter.

For those who were sensible enough to not take that last sentence literally, here is the run-down on the National Care Service.

The alleged plan is to charge everyone £20,000 to cover the cost of their care once they retire.

There are three different types of people who will use the National Care Service. Let us assume that we are talking about people who the National Care Service plans to cater for i.e. those with the "greatest needs".

- People who can afford to pay the £20,000 when they retire, and so will do.

- Those who can't afford to pay £20,000 when they retire, but hold that or more in assets. These people will have that £20,000 recovered from their estates when they die (the "death tax").

- Those who can't afford to pay £20,000 when they retire, and don't have the assets to leave £20,000 after death. They will be covered by the state.

The Conservatives have made it clear that a National Care Service would be too costly, and that even this "death tax" wouldn't raise enough money to keep it going, instead predicting that Labour will cut other parts of the NHS to help fund it.

Andrew Lansley, Shadow Health Secretary, has said the Conservatives want to allow people to "leave as much of their lifetime’s savings as possible to the next generation" and has suggested a voluntary one-off premium of £8,000 to fund care. Under his plan "no-one would be forced to sell their home to pay for care".

I don't suppose he'll be willing to make any guarantees on that statement.

The idea for the service will provide to middle-income pensioners what a mortgage provides to non home owners, or finance provides when you're buying a car; the ability to benefit from something now, for payment later. The only difference is that with the NCS, middle-income pensioners won't have payments to make when they are alive and living off a relatively small pension, instead the payment is deferred until their weekly living costs are exactly nil, i.e. when they die!

I think the Conservatives will have to be careful with how aggressively they criticize the plans for the NCS as it's dangerously close to being a good one which could garner strong public support. They certainly won't look good if they were seen to criticize a something that worked!

The opposition's sound-bite is also pretty good, though. It'll be interesting to see how this one pans out...