Many people disagree. Quite a lot of them work in the NHS. I trust their opinion over yours.

And if your auntie had etc. It's not OK to force people out of their homes without an alternative and then say "Oh, yes, I see. We really should have thought of that. Sorry?"

I've seen a photograph posted of the (verified) ATOS report that says something along the lines of 'Applicant has symptoms of cerebral palsy. Check again in six months to see if condition has cleared'. I'll try and dig it up.

Is it? Why? What's your justification for that statement exactly? I personally think it's feasible, given they haven't had the best part of thirty years of a society which has become so so self-interested and amoral that we end up with the likes of the LIBOR scandal, massive (billions of pounds massive) insurance mis-selling, the hillsborough cover-up... there are numerous examples. We trust less than the Scandanavians because as a nation have become less trustworthy. Our politicians have been shown to be venal, self-regarding swindlers and have led us into wars we do not wish to fight. Our financial leaders have been shown to be duplicitous criminals. Our police have been shown to have falsified evidence and maligned the dead and dying. Our faith leaders have been shown to have sheltered peadophiles. Our press have been shown to falsify evidence, destroy evidence, spy on innocent people... We are less trusting as a society because the parts that should be the pillars of our society have been repeatedly shown to operate in a way that says they can't be trusted. And they reflect on us.

Not really. All the Scandanavian countries have nationalised health care, rather than 'health care providers' in the private sector paid for out of taxation. They also all run what is called the 'Ghent system' of social benefits which is a fixed benefit without requirement for assessment. Our systems are in fact becoming much more like America's. This doesn't actually surprise me much, one of the constant political factors since, well, since I was child has been that politicians have looked across the atlantic for policy pointers. This may be because they are more euro-sceptic than me, or it may be that the American ethos fits more with their way of thinking.
Not that we're talking 'Europe Good, America bad' in a dogmatic kind of way. But the simple truth is that you're going to have a much worse time in the US than in a lot of Europe if you're poor or disadvantaged. And, as the old adage goes, the true measure of a society is how it treats it's weakest.

Despite its reputation as a leftwing utopia, Sweden is now a laboratory for rightwing radicalism. Over the past 15 years a coalition of liberals and conservatives has brought in for-profit free schools in education, has sliced welfare to pay off the deficit and has privatised large parts of the health service.

Nevertheless, they remain wrong.

Oh come on. We both know you've bailed because you were [LIFTED] about Swedish healthcare and you are annoyed about getting called on it.

But Labour said the Lib Dems could not be trusted to deliver.

On the final day of their annual conference, all but one delegate voted for the motion after the Home Office minister Jeremy Browne condemned schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000 as "too broad and overbearing".

...

The Terrorism Act, introduced a year before 9/11 to crack down on dissident Irish republican terrorists, gives police the powers to detain an individual at a port or an airport even if they have no grounds for suspicion. Police then have to question the detainee to assess whether they are involved in the commission, preparation or instigation of terrorism.

In his speech on Wednesday, Browne said it was right that the police could stop and interview people at ports and airports. But he said the government would make substantial amendments to the act – drawn up before the detention of Miranda – to move the legislation "decisively in a liberal direction".

Browne said the changes include a reduction in the maximum period of detainment from nine hours to six, extending the right to consult privately with a solicitor, the extension of the right to have a person informed of their detention and the repeal of the power to take an intimate sample.

Nevertheless, they remain wrong. They can't tell the difference between insurance and provision, and neither can you or Amnesia10.

I would first ask the question 'Was there ever a time when politicians were civilized?' I can't help but think that the idea of a benvolent, representative, civic-minded legislature is now, and always was, a myth.

But, assuming that a civilized political establishment did once exist, the question I would ask is which way the causality runs. The last time I looked, neither the press nor the general populace have managed to steer free of cynicism - I'm guilty of more than my fair share of it to be honest. If I were a politician, and everyone automatically assumed that everything I ever said was a lie, why would I bother telling the truth? If I were a politician, and I knew that it is rarely the colorful character that wins, would I not refrain from being colourful? If implausible, is it not at least possible that the current state of politics is the result of society's cynicism, rather than the cause of it?

I just think it's too easy to blame politicians for everything. In truth, a pessimistic part of me says that we have exactly the parliament that we deserve.

Below is a chart of interpersonal trust, showing what proportion of people are willing to assume others are trustworthy.
It's unlikely that the Scandiwegians are twice as trustworthy as us, but they are much more trusting.
Our politicians are mostly there because they want to do good. The grassroots organizations that assist them are largely composed of honest and decent people who only want to assist honest and decent politicians in the doing of good work.
Many of the policies you hate so much (especially the ones involving private sector involvement in public services) are Scandinavian imports.
The Scandinavian politicians were able to explain these policies to both left and right wing voters and secure consent for them. Ours seem to be up against a barrier.

If you cannot see that the Conservatives are doing their utmost to wreck the NHS to then make the argument for privatisation easier, then you're more moronic than you even come across on here.