One Notion Labour - Cruddas suggested cutting benefits if parents did not vaccinate with MMR jab

[claig]

One Notion Labour - don't you just love them and don't they just love you?

Fortunately One Notion Labour have distanced themselves from this crackpot idea by one of their policy guru type One Notion 'thinkers'.

"Parents should lose their child benefit if they refuse to immunise their children with the MMR jab, a senior Labour MP has suggested.

Families will have to prove their child’s vaccination records are up to date to qualify for handouts, said Jon Cruddas, who is leading the party’s policy review.

The MP for Dagenham & Rainham suggested the measure, which is already in place in Australia, could be a way to link behaviour with state benefits and services.

However, Labour rushed to dissociate itself from the idea last night, saying ‘it is not part of the policy review’."

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2429738/Cut-benefits-parents-fail-children-MMR-jab-says-Labour-MP-party-moves-quickly-say-policy-review.html

zzzzzzzzzzzz

aaaaaaaaass

claig Labour does big government overtly, the Tories do it by handing us over to big business. Frankly, I don't see the difference - they're all equally bad.

I work in health research and I just don't recognise the 'Big Pharma = always bad' picture so many people paint. Yes, these companies are out to make money and they certainly could do with more regulation, but without their involvement a lot of non-commercial research just would not be possible.

And I just don't believe that vaccination poses a greater risk than not vaccinating. This is undoubtedly the case for some children and some adults too, but that is why we need research. Meanwhile in the real world, your chances of developing complications from measles are several orders of magnitude greater than your chances of developing complications from a vaccine. Life is about balancing risk and the 'I'm alright Jack' approach that some people advocate towards vaccination just sits ill with me.

I can't help remembering when DD1 was born in 2001, not that long after Wakefield's MMR scare. I had to wait for 13 months before I could protect her - until that time she was at risk from contact with unvaccinated children. How would I have felt had she contracted measles from an unvaccinated child, with her going on to develop complications whilst the unvaccinated child recovered unscathed? would not have begun to describe it.

I agree that Big Pharma are not all bad, but I think that some aspects are.

'And I just don't believe that vaccination poses a greater risk than not vaccinating.'
Yes, but some people disagree with you.

'your chances of developing complications from measles are several orders of magnitude greater than your chances of developing complications from a vaccine'
Some people disagree with that too. It's about the longterm impact of the constituents of the vaccine as well as any possible immediate consequences.

There are lots of people who do not believe that vaccines are safe. Those who believe the Chief Medical Officer etc should be free to take the vaccine, but those who don't believe in all of our officials should not be pressurised to take vaccines that they believe may not be as safe as official sources claim.

It's about freedom, and when it comes to health it is a very important issue. Some officials will always use scares to try and scare people into doing things that they are sceptical of, but when it comes to health, freedom of choice for the patient and patient consent are paramount.

It is disappointing to see senior political 'thinkers' considering cutting benefits to pressure poor people to take treatment that they may not be comfortable with. It is disappointing, but sadly where progressives are concerned, all too frequent.

claig the link is to child benefit. Which a majority of people in the UK get, not just the poor.

It's still a ridiculous idea though. However, I do worry about people who prize freedom above everything else, because freedom for one person or group of people often means that another person or group of people have certain freedoms taken away.

As for 'some people believe' - there is data about the complication rates in vaccines and in disease. So far the anti-vaccine brigade just haven't put forward convincing research in rebuttal. I'm open to persuasion, but as someone who works in the sciences, that persuasion has to be evidence-based, peer reviewed, methodologically sound and statistically significant.

Yes, but the poor are more reliant on it moren than the One Nation environmental lawyers and human rights lawyers that we read about with their salaries sometimes ranging from £200,000 to £600,000

'However, I do worry about people who prize freedom above everything else, because freedom for one person or group of people often means that another person or group of people have certain freedoms taken away.'

But that is what diversity is all about. We don't all agree, we differ politically and a society has to take account of diversity and run by consensus. Millions of us didn't believe in the claims of Iraqi WMDs, or in their claims of catastrophic climate change or in their dire warnings about swine flu.

Do you remember how some of the 'climate science' figures were doctored? The 45 minute dossier was also doctored. Who knows what else is doctored by the great and the good.

This article appeared in the Daily Mail, where readers are sceptical of doctored figures. Just read teh comments of Daily Mail readers about it and you will see what tens of thousands of people really think. The BBC and the Guardian probably didn't even report on this, but the Daily Mail did, because it knows that its readers are sceptical.

Why have we got a DM journo on here?

I didn't know pointy was a DM journo

And even if pointy is a DM journo, so what? Is this a Guardian only zone?

I read the Daily Mail because I need to know what the enemy is up to, claig. Their use of statistics is shocking and they swallow without question everything the DWP has said about benefit claimants being fraudulent. Hardly an authoritative source of information, I'm afraid. I've read articles on their that someone with basic GCSE maths could tear to pieces in terms of the statistics used. There's all their 'X raises your risk of cancer by 20%' stories - which never mention that this is 20% of an already very tiny risk. The Mail cares more about headlines than about people. Yes, it's a people that's read and trusted by very many people. That says more about the nature of its readership than about the quality of data it presents.

And you can't run a society by consensus without some sacrifice of individual freedom.

I do enjoy debating with you though, claig, although I suspect there is little we will ever agree on.

claig I do believe Sauvignon means you . I don't think anyone who's looked at my posting history for more than 45 seconds could mistake me for a DM journo... Guardian journo, maybe. I hear they're quite well paid.

Agree that the Daily Mail is not perfect and it is partisan politically and you do therefore need to take some of its stories with a large pinch of salt. But as a guarantor of our freedoms against oppression, it is unsurpassed!

You can sacrifice some areas of freedom, but when it comes to health and people's beliefs, taking away their freedom is more difficult. As long as the public are not apathetic and our press is vigilant, our freedoms will persist.

I enjoy debating with you too. We may not fully agree with each other, but our views may be altered by each other's arguments and we may move closer to a consensus.

'I hear they're quite well paid.'

I bet they are! They probably get more than than the One Nation environmental lawyers and that's saying something!

when it comes to health and people's beliefs, taking away their freedom is more difficult.

You see, I'd say where it comes to these things, balancing individual freedom with the good of society is about as essential as it is anywhere.

Re Vaccination: You are free not to vaccinate your children.
I am free not to have my baby die because he/she has been infected by your unvaccinated child. Not simple, is it? Which is why I am adamantly against making child benefit conditional against vaccination but broadly in favour of making parents accept the consequences of not vaccinating by not allowing them in state schools. Home education is a legal and viable option after all.

Re religion: Fundamentalist Christians are free to oppose abortion. They are not free to impose their opposition on people who do not share their religious views. This one is a bit more straightforward - the law of the land is as it is, and should apply to everyone. No faith exemptions to vaccinations, no denying service to legally married gay couples. If people want the law changed, they can petition and vote accordingly.

Personally I find the vitriol of the DM against benefit claimants, immigrants (I am one), women and anyone who isn't true blue British and Tory-leaning utterly distasteful. Then again I find the blinkered leftist attitude of the Guardian distasteful too. We need to find practical, human solutions to our human problems.

'I am free not to have my baby die because he/she has been infected by your unvaccinated child.'

I think that is the scare tactics that the authoritarian officials use to try and get their way. I didn't believe them on WMDs and I don't believe them on this.

'broadly in favour of making parents accept the consequences of not vaccinating by not allowing them in state schools'

the socialists are generally not as accepting of freedom of parental choice over schooling as the more freedom loving right wing parties. They would not want to bring about a situation where thousands of people decided to homeschool to avoid vaccinations. That is why they are unlikely to ever really implement such a policy. They know which side their bread is buttered on and they know that the Daily Mail is ever vigilant for public freedom.

"However, I would cautiously consider the idea of not allowing unvaccinated children into state schools. "
I find it utterly terrifying that there are people out there who actually think like this.

Anyway, the good news seems to be that there is no truth in the story and it seems to have only been a suggestion by an overactive socialist.

"He told me that the idea was originally floated by ‘Kevin Rudd in Australia’ and was ‘never part of the Labour policy review’. Cruddas also suggested the One Nation vaccination idea was ‘an interesting idea’ but just one of ‘loads of ideas put to me’."

blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/09/jon-cruddas-distances-himself-from-the-one-nation-vaccination/

Did someone leak the story to the Daily Mail? Is there a drunk spin doctor active in One Nation Labour?

Oh what a surprise, it isn't true.

Ha ha

Why not also force them to live in ghettos by capping housing benefit, make them work for free so that companies don't have to pay wages, rely on food banks to feed them adequately, steal their sleeping bags when they are homeless, and then make them write personal thank you letters to the monarchy for allowing them to continue to live in such a well developed country.

StarlightMcKenzie, please don't give them any ideas, they may incorporate them in One Nation policies because apparently Cruddas thought that the "One Nation vaccination idea was ‘an interesting idea’"

This was on the front page of the Times as well. Pah.

I am surprised there is no Damien McBride thread though. I would start one but I am off to bed now.

They've got a One Nation Policy Review going on. God only knows what will come out of it!

What a load of crap and as for people saying don't allow unvaccinated children into State schools- that really will lead to allowing well off parents make the choices they believe are right and those who have genuine fears but can't afford either private school or home ed having their arms twisted.

As for unvaccinated children infecting and killing babies?? FFS The vaccines don't always actually work anyway.

Before anyone says i'm anti vaccine- My ds is vaccinated but we didn't have the cocktail of god knows how many jabs at 8 weeks - we had one a month over a longer period of time.