Keeping us secure

 As far as I know keeping its citizens secure, protecting us from threats, is universally regarded as the first duty of any government.  Most governments seem very enthusiastic about protecting us from external threats,, particularly attacks from other countries.  so throughout history governments have been happy to raise taxes and spend them on the latest weaponry and the necessary forces to operate them.  I suspect that, as a result of the current confrontation between Russia and Ukraine we shall have further calls for greater expenditure  on our armed forces and their equipment.

Governments are more mixed in their devotion to protecting us and our property from internal threats.  They are keen to pass laws to protect our property and persons from battery and robbery, with severe penalties to enforce them.  i understand that in this country the penalties for assaults our private property are greater than the penalties for assaults against our persons.  However,  although wiling to pass draconian laws and punishments for  infringements, governments in this country are less wiling to spend money on constructive measures to prevent criminal behaviour (plenty of decent jobs, more community policemen - Birstall used to have nine, plus a sergeant,- a well-resourced probation service) and to house decently and try to rehabilitate those it deems necessary to incarcerate.  The Nordic counties are though to be good at this.

In a third area governments are expected to protect us from destitution.  I this country this has always been very skimpily done.  Until the 17th Century it was left to the charities, which meant, essentially the church.  After the dissolution of the monasteries  the church became less effective and, somewhat craftily               Elizabeth I's government devolved both the responsibility for operating it and raising the money to pay for it to the Parishes the local government of the time. This Poor Law was introduced in 1601.

I think the first reasonably comprehensive national system of social security was introduced by Bismark in Germany in the late 19th century.  The UK's Liberal government followed suit with Lloyd George's "People's Budget" of 1919 (which the Tories furiously opposed) and the post -1945 Labour government expanded and improved on this to create a comprehensively secure state in which non-one's quality of life need be hampered by ignorance, squalor,  idleness,  untreated sickness or want.

The basic essentials of this social security must surety be shelter, warmth and food.  Sadly Britain's system has deteriorated to such and extent that these are now far from guaranteed.

From Lloyd George's budget onwards a pension for retired people has been an essential part of the mix.  By coincidence I received this week an estimate of my state retirement pension for the coming year.  It is to increase by by £5.96 per week  from £164.42 per week to £167.38 per week.  Both figures include an additional 25p per week extra "age allowance" becasue i am over 80.

I emphasise "per week.  Members of the House of Lords, by the way, receive £323 per day (that's per day) just for turning up and signing the register.

I quote the exact figures for my retirement pension, not to attract sympathy becasue i don't need it.  i also receive my teacher's pension and, with the two together I live very comfortably indeed.

However, many people for various reasons do not have an additional occupational pensions, but must try to live on the state pension alone