It would be churlish to be too critical of Chris Huhne's acceptance of £17 207 (tax free, I think) severance pay after voluntarily resigning from his cabinet post. Probably, faced with outrageous lawyers' fees to defend him in court he feels that money from any source is welcome.
What I think will stick in the craw of most electors is the fact that cabinet ministers grant themselves such generous conditions. What other walk of life gives such a generous pay off when voluntarily leaving a job after less than two years? That £17 000 is the equivalent of Job Seeker's Allowance for over five years (except that you can claim JSA for only six months). Why are our masters so cut of from the reality of the lives of a substantial part of the population that they seem indifferent to the contrast between the lavish rewards thy arrange for themselves and the conditions of the people they are elected to serve?
Many will also question why ministers require such a massive salary (about £68 000 a year) on top of the parliamentary salary of over £60 000 which they already receive, and which Huhne continues to receive. There is, after all, no shortage of MPs wanting, indeed desperately anxious, to become ministers. It is interesting that, though the monetarist are in charge and believe that "the market rules, OK," they don't apply market rules to their own pay and conditions, where supply and demand would hardly determine such largesse.
Columnist Gabby Hinsliff claimed in yesterday's Guardian (29 February) that "the decision of Stephen Hester, the RBS boss, to relinquish his bonus in order to avoid becoming , as he put it, a 'social pariah', was a crucial signal to his City peer group that public opinion has consequences."
If Chris Huhne really is a multi-millionaire, as I have seen claimed, maybe he could have afforded to consider the effect of his decision on public opinion and the reputation of his and our party, and the consequences for Liberal Democrats seeking to retain or win council seats in a couple of months' time. The present publicity reinforces the impression , which in spite of everything I still believe to be erroneous, the all politicians are "in it for what they can get", and that the Liberal Democrats are no exception.
Showing posts with label Politics and society. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics and society. Show all posts
Thursday, 1 March 2012
Thursday, 9 February 2012
Orwell, thou shoulds't be living at this hour
It is incredible how the Tory spin doctors and their allies in the right-wing press have succeeded and continue to succeed in turning truth upside down.
The nonsense that our current financial difficulties are the result of Gordon Brown's profligacy and ineptitude rather than the failure of the international financial system is now taken as read. Even the Labour party itself has been convinced that Britain's public debt is at so dangerously high a level, which it isn't, that failure to give its reduction the highest priority will lead to a loss of international confidence and put us in a position similar to Greece, which it won't.
Now, with almost three million people, of whom over a million are young, unemployed because of a lack of demand which cuts in public expenditure exacerbate, the propaganda machine is succeeding in convincing even the unemployed themselves that the fault lies with them and their lack of drive and determination, as the article: "So I wonder, in the end does he think that being unemployed was his own fault." by John Harris in yesterday's Guardian (08/02/2012) so poignantly illustrates.
As more and more of the medical and associated professions call for the bill to"reform" the NHS to be dropped the government pretends that this is simply opposition from bureaucrats and providers rather than abhorrence at the prospects of privatisation.
And now George Osborne has the chutzpah to claim that the public's genuine and legitimate outrage at obscene payments to chief executives and the like is motivated not by a desire for fairness but by a culture that is "anti-business."
Yet, with the possible exception of the NHS (have Liberal Democrat peers in the House of Lords been listening?) the cries to the contrary are sadly muted. Comment may be free but the truth is not getting a fair airing. In a developing country with a largely illiterate population this could be understood. In a sophisticated and highly educated democracy it is a disgrace.
The nonsense that our current financial difficulties are the result of Gordon Brown's profligacy and ineptitude rather than the failure of the international financial system is now taken as read. Even the Labour party itself has been convinced that Britain's public debt is at so dangerously high a level, which it isn't, that failure to give its reduction the highest priority will lead to a loss of international confidence and put us in a position similar to Greece, which it won't.
Now, with almost three million people, of whom over a million are young, unemployed because of a lack of demand which cuts in public expenditure exacerbate, the propaganda machine is succeeding in convincing even the unemployed themselves that the fault lies with them and their lack of drive and determination, as the article: "So I wonder, in the end does he think that being unemployed was his own fault." by John Harris in yesterday's Guardian (08/02/2012) so poignantly illustrates.
As more and more of the medical and associated professions call for the bill to"reform" the NHS to be dropped the government pretends that this is simply opposition from bureaucrats and providers rather than abhorrence at the prospects of privatisation.
And now George Osborne has the chutzpah to claim that the public's genuine and legitimate outrage at obscene payments to chief executives and the like is motivated not by a desire for fairness but by a culture that is "anti-business."
Yet, with the possible exception of the NHS (have Liberal Democrat peers in the House of Lords been listening?) the cries to the contrary are sadly muted. Comment may be free but the truth is not getting a fair airing. In a developing country with a largely illiterate population this could be understood. In a sophisticated and highly educated democracy it is a disgrace.
Tuesday, 7 February 2012
Young unemloyed "ill prepared."?
You would think that the statement that one of the reasons for there being over a million unemployed young people in Britain is "poor preparation for the labour market" would come from someone on the far right. In fact it was from David Miliband, unsuccessful contender for the Labour leadership, on the BBC's "Today" programme yesterday (6th February). Genuine socialists in the Labour party must be breathing a sigh of relief that the younger brother won, and that the elder has now announced that he will remain in the obscurity of the back benches.
I find the statement alarming for two reasons. First, when there are five unemployed people for every advertised post, it is a nonsense to claim that so many of the young are unemployed because they're not capable of working. As has been repeatedly pointed out by those active in the system, all the training and retraining, polishing of CVs and application techniques are worthless if there are no jobs. The overwhelming majority of young people are very well qualified for work. Many are graduates or have proved their ability and stickability by completing similar demanding courses. To dismiss their failure to obtain employment as being due to "poor preparation" is an insult.
My second reason for finding the statement alarming from someone allegedly on the left is perhaps unfair, as it was not explicitly stated. Maybe I'm too sensitive but I think many listeners would gather the implication that David Miliband attribute the alleged poor preparation to our education system.
In my view education professionals and politicians should be insistent that the education system exists not to provide fodder for the economy but to open windows and give everyone, whatever his or her talents, the opportunity to reach their full potential. If in the process they happen to develop some skill that is useful to the economy, well and good, but it is not the main purpose of education
I know that this is an idealistic position, but there is quite enough pressure from both the young and their parents to see education mainly as a meal ticket, without educationalists and politicians joining in. One of the worst decisions a Labour government ever made was to create a "Department of Education and Employment." The two should be kept separate.
So one again thank goodness for the Liberal tradition, which sees people as individuals seeking fulfilment and not simply as cogs in an economic wheel.
I find the statement alarming for two reasons. First, when there are five unemployed people for every advertised post, it is a nonsense to claim that so many of the young are unemployed because they're not capable of working. As has been repeatedly pointed out by those active in the system, all the training and retraining, polishing of CVs and application techniques are worthless if there are no jobs. The overwhelming majority of young people are very well qualified for work. Many are graduates or have proved their ability and stickability by completing similar demanding courses. To dismiss their failure to obtain employment as being due to "poor preparation" is an insult.
My second reason for finding the statement alarming from someone allegedly on the left is perhaps unfair, as it was not explicitly stated. Maybe I'm too sensitive but I think many listeners would gather the implication that David Miliband attribute the alleged poor preparation to our education system.
In my view education professionals and politicians should be insistent that the education system exists not to provide fodder for the economy but to open windows and give everyone, whatever his or her talents, the opportunity to reach their full potential. If in the process they happen to develop some skill that is useful to the economy, well and good, but it is not the main purpose of education
I know that this is an idealistic position, but there is quite enough pressure from both the young and their parents to see education mainly as a meal ticket, without educationalists and politicians joining in. One of the worst decisions a Labour government ever made was to create a "Department of Education and Employment." The two should be kept separate.
So one again thank goodness for the Liberal tradition, which sees people as individuals seeking fulfilment and not simply as cogs in an economic wheel.
Sunday, 5 February 2012
Baubles for bankers et al
As many commentators have pointed out, if de-knighting and de-nobling are to become the order of the day than many people in addition to Fred Goodwin need to be considered for having their "honours" taken away.
Whatever the pros and cons of that I believe it would change our culture in a helpful direction if we were far more selective in to whom honours are given in the first place.
My exclusion list would include:
+ anyone who kept wealth offshore to avoid taxation, or whose company avoided or evaded tax in a similar way:
+ anyone who was paid more than 20 times the lowest paid in his or her organisation (this ratio to be gradually reduced over the years):
+ anyone who had, or whose company had, donated more than say £1 000 per year to a political party:
+ any civil servant paid at a commercial rate rather than a public service rate, or whose "remuneration package" included a bonus.
Further suggestions welcome.
Whatever the pros and cons of that I believe it would change our culture in a helpful direction if we were far more selective in to whom honours are given in the first place.
My exclusion list would include:
+ anyone who kept wealth offshore to avoid taxation, or whose company avoided or evaded tax in a similar way:
+ anyone who was paid more than 20 times the lowest paid in his or her organisation (this ratio to be gradually reduced over the years):
+ anyone who had, or whose company had, donated more than say £1 000 per year to a political party:
+ any civil servant paid at a commercial rate rather than a public service rate, or whose "remuneration package" included a bonus.
Further suggestions welcome.
Monday, 16 January 2012
More micromanagement.
Yesterday's Radio 4 programme, "David Cameron's Big Idea" (13h30 on 15/01/12: available for a week on the BBC's "Listen Again" website) claimed that one of the areas of Conservative/Liberal Democrat overlap which excited the negotiating teams which formed the coalition was a mutual desire to put an end to Westminster and Whitehall dictacts and devolve decision making to the lowest possible levels.
Alas this enthusiasms for trusting professionals and the people has been very short lived. The year is as yet not a month old and nurses have been ordered from the top to visit their patients every hour. Local councils have been told they can no longer fine people for mixing up their rubbish or putting it out on the wrong day; (this on top of last year's instruction that they must collect the rubbish every week). Schools have been told that the existing curriculum for computer studies is boring and inadequate but, rather than trusting the teachers to decide for themselves what is best for their pupils, a new prescription is to be issued.
So once again we have the mixture as before, and the "top down" management for which Labour was rightly criticised simply continues. Is it any wonder that the electorate lack trust in politicians and believe "you're all the same."?
After failing in the 1960s I'm now making a second and, so far more successful, attempt at reading Joseph Heller's "Catch 22". This quotation from pages 130/131 of the 50th anniversary edition resonates:
Without realising how it had come about, the combat men in the squadron discovered themselves dominated by the administrators appointed to serve them. They were bullied, insulted, harassed, and shoved about all day long by one after the other.
For "combat men" read "nurses, teachers, councillors et at", for a"administrators" read central government.
Alas this enthusiasms for trusting professionals and the people has been very short lived. The year is as yet not a month old and nurses have been ordered from the top to visit their patients every hour. Local councils have been told they can no longer fine people for mixing up their rubbish or putting it out on the wrong day; (this on top of last year's instruction that they must collect the rubbish every week). Schools have been told that the existing curriculum for computer studies is boring and inadequate but, rather than trusting the teachers to decide for themselves what is best for their pupils, a new prescription is to be issued.
So once again we have the mixture as before, and the "top down" management for which Labour was rightly criticised simply continues. Is it any wonder that the electorate lack trust in politicians and believe "you're all the same."?
After failing in the 1960s I'm now making a second and, so far more successful, attempt at reading Joseph Heller's "Catch 22". This quotation from pages 130/131 of the 50th anniversary edition resonates:
Without realising how it had come about, the combat men in the squadron discovered themselves dominated by the administrators appointed to serve them. They were bullied, insulted, harassed, and shoved about all day long by one after the other.
For "combat men" read "nurses, teachers, councillors et at", for a"administrators" read central government.
Thursday, 5 January 2012
Back to the "undeserving " poor?
I don't pretend to be an expert on the highly complex welfare system, but it seems to me that, in his Guardian article, "Beveridge for this century" Liam Byrne wants the Labour Party to revert to making a distinction between the "deserving" and "undeserving"poor. Byrne, shadow Work and Pensions secretary, claims that state help should be based on "something for something" and should reward "those who are desperately trying to do the right thing." He quotes Ed Miliband: "..we (Labour) are on the side of people who work hard and do the right thing."
Well, of course they are, and so is everyone else, but there is in the article no mention of how to differentiate between these virtuous citizens and those who don't meet the criteria, nor what to do about these less virtuous fellow citizens. Will Labour let them (and, more poignantly, their children) starve, leave them to build tree houses in the woods? (Byrne points out that housing benefit costs and "unbelievable" £20bn a year.)
It must have been in the 1960s or thereabouts that either Richard Titmuss or Peter Townsend (I can't remember which, but both were eminent sociologists and experts on welfare) wrote:
When the economic history of this era comes to be written the problem of the skiver will not merit so much as a footnote.
In spite of this, then as now we let the mistaken concept that vast hordes are ripping off the system and undeservedly getting "something for nothing" dictate our welfare policy, to the detriment of the quality of our civilisation.
Some years ago I heard a Radio 4 "Thought for the Day" speaker claim that, on top of the basic physical needs of security, shelter, warmth and food, all of us have three basic psychological needs:
-to know that somebody, somewhere, cares what happens to us;
-to feel that somebody, somewhere, has benefited from our existence;
-to pay our way.
All three of these make sense to me. In the context of welfare it is the third that is relevant. I cannot believe that there are many who are comfortable with being permanent spongers, either on their families, their friends or the state. Of course there are some, but we all have our pride and put a brave face on things when we are forced to accept welfare, and may make up boastful stories rather than admit that we can't find a niche in society which enables us to support ourselves. We mustn't let this minority and their self-justifying fictions wag the welfare dog.
The solution to the problem of these "undeserving poor" is to give to us all a Citizens' Income, as the Green Party has advocated and which the Liberal Democrats supported until we got cold feet. A Citizens' Income is received as or right, "deserved" because we are citizens. Those who chose to live on this very minimum income are welcome to do so and good luck to them.
Much better for Labour to adopt a visionary policy such as this rather than revert to a discredited and irrelevant Victorian concept
Well, of course they are, and so is everyone else, but there is in the article no mention of how to differentiate between these virtuous citizens and those who don't meet the criteria, nor what to do about these less virtuous fellow citizens. Will Labour let them (and, more poignantly, their children) starve, leave them to build tree houses in the woods? (Byrne points out that housing benefit costs and "unbelievable" £20bn a year.)
It must have been in the 1960s or thereabouts that either Richard Titmuss or Peter Townsend (I can't remember which, but both were eminent sociologists and experts on welfare) wrote:
When the economic history of this era comes to be written the problem of the skiver will not merit so much as a footnote.
In spite of this, then as now we let the mistaken concept that vast hordes are ripping off the system and undeservedly getting "something for nothing" dictate our welfare policy, to the detriment of the quality of our civilisation.
Some years ago I heard a Radio 4 "Thought for the Day" speaker claim that, on top of the basic physical needs of security, shelter, warmth and food, all of us have three basic psychological needs:
-to know that somebody, somewhere, cares what happens to us;
-to feel that somebody, somewhere, has benefited from our existence;
-to pay our way.
All three of these make sense to me. In the context of welfare it is the third that is relevant. I cannot believe that there are many who are comfortable with being permanent spongers, either on their families, their friends or the state. Of course there are some, but we all have our pride and put a brave face on things when we are forced to accept welfare, and may make up boastful stories rather than admit that we can't find a niche in society which enables us to support ourselves. We mustn't let this minority and their self-justifying fictions wag the welfare dog.
The solution to the problem of these "undeserving poor" is to give to us all a Citizens' Income, as the Green Party has advocated and which the Liberal Democrats supported until we got cold feet. A Citizens' Income is received as or right, "deserved" because we are citizens. Those who chose to live on this very minimum income are welcome to do so and good luck to them.
Much better for Labour to adopt a visionary policy such as this rather than revert to a discredited and irrelevant Victorian concept
Saturday, 17 December 2011
A Christian country? No.
Although firmly on the right David Cameron seems to have spent the last week clomping around with two left feet. First he quite unnecessarily upsets our European partners (and three cheers for Nick Clegg in his attempts to undo the damage.) Now he risks aggravating all those with non-Christian faiths and those who aggressively hold no faith by his equally unnecessary claims that Britain is a Christina country.
What we really are is a country with a Christian heritage. We can be proud of that if you like, though I am suspicious of pride in something for which you have no responsibility. But equally we most certainly have no need to apologise for it. Two of our major holidays, Christmas and Easter, are Christian (there used to be a third, Whitsuntide, until Harold Wilson shifted it) and so they should remain. Sunday, the Christian Holy Day, is our national day of rest (or was until greedy capitalists eroded it in order to make more profit,) our four national "protectors" are Saints from Christian history or mythology, and may that happily continue.
But to bang on and on about our being a Christian country is simply to imply that those who don't subscribe to the traditional faith somehow or other don't quite belong, and even caries overtones of a threat that they must "must conform or else."
Even to claim that our values are specifically Christian is a nonsense. Although English common law is based on the Ten Commandments, these we hold in common with Judaism and Islam so there is nothing exclusively Christian about that. But the principles of decent behaviour: integrity, fair play, generosity, kindness, concern for others, and particularly for the underdog. are common to most if not all religions and non-religious codes of behaviour.
It is not churlish, I hope, to point out that these virtues are not particularly evident in modern Conservatism as it was practised under Thatcher and now under Cameron.
A virtue that is not perhaps evident in most religions is tolerance, but that is a virtue which can be claimed as part of the British heritage, and is one of the great glories of the Church of England. Cameron's remarks do not help nurture tolerance and respect for others, but rather give encouragement to those even further to his political right.
What we really are is a country with a Christian heritage. We can be proud of that if you like, though I am suspicious of pride in something for which you have no responsibility. But equally we most certainly have no need to apologise for it. Two of our major holidays, Christmas and Easter, are Christian (there used to be a third, Whitsuntide, until Harold Wilson shifted it) and so they should remain. Sunday, the Christian Holy Day, is our national day of rest (or was until greedy capitalists eroded it in order to make more profit,) our four national "protectors" are Saints from Christian history or mythology, and may that happily continue.
But to bang on and on about our being a Christian country is simply to imply that those who don't subscribe to the traditional faith somehow or other don't quite belong, and even caries overtones of a threat that they must "must conform or else."
Even to claim that our values are specifically Christian is a nonsense. Although English common law is based on the Ten Commandments, these we hold in common with Judaism and Islam so there is nothing exclusively Christian about that. But the principles of decent behaviour: integrity, fair play, generosity, kindness, concern for others, and particularly for the underdog. are common to most if not all religions and non-religious codes of behaviour.
It is not churlish, I hope, to point out that these virtues are not particularly evident in modern Conservatism as it was practised under Thatcher and now under Cameron.
A virtue that is not perhaps evident in most religions is tolerance, but that is a virtue which can be claimed as part of the British heritage, and is one of the great glories of the Church of England. Cameron's remarks do not help nurture tolerance and respect for others, but rather give encouragement to those even further to his political right.
Saturday, 10 December 2011
Archbishop of Canterbury and the Riots
When talking or writing about the causes of his summer's riots it is perhaps best to avoid the word "understanding." This word is taken to imply sympathy with he rioters and promote shrieks of indignation and vigorous assertions that it is not the rioters but the victims who need sympathy. Of course they do: no one has ever claimed that they didn't. So, in terms of Rowan Williams's very preceptive article on the causes of the riots (see the Guardian, 6th September: "We must prove ourselves to those with nothing to lose")I will think of his views as an "analysis."
The article drips with intelligent comment: "Too many of these young people assume they are not going to have any ordinary, human, respectful relationships with adults...Too many of them feel they have nothing to lose because they are told practically from birth that they have no serious career opportunities....These are not people who live complacently in a culture of entitlement*..."
The Archbishop goes on to write of the need of dependable family backgrounds which help young people to "take certain things for granted, so that they know they don't have to fight ceaselessly for recognition" and, bless him, that "we should be challenging an education philosophy too absorbed in meeting targets to shape character." He admits that "solutions will have to emerge slowly as we try to redirect a whole culture."
There are however two things with which I disagree: actually two words. Dr Williams writes of "unavoidable austerity" ahead.
Unavoidable? As has been hammered away by Nobel prize winners Stiglitz and Krugman, ex MPC member David Blanchflower and commentators such as Larry Elliot and Martin Wolf, among others, the UK's government debt is not at extraordinary levels, we are not in the same boat as Greece and so there cuts in public expenditure are not "unavoidable," they are ideologically driven. The correct approach to avoid further recession is for the government to spend more, not less.
Austerity? I define austerity as having to ration the essentials. Cutting back on the number of foreign holidays, making the car last a little longer, reducing the number of meals out, maybe drinking Languadocian wines rather than Bordeaux is not austerity. But it is in areas such as these that the majority of us will "tighten our belts" if we need to.
Unfortunately for the past 30 years, since the imposition of monetarist policies, some fifth of our population have suffered from real austerity: they have had to make choices about the basics, and in some cases do without some of them. Alas, the government's policies seem likely to increase this proportion to a quarter.
This punishment of the already poor is quite unnecessary. There are many solutions if we are prepared to share the problem and be "all in this together." For example, the closing of tax loopholes and the imposition of a wealth tax would ensure that this quarter could be brought back into the mainstream of a very comfortable society, and at the same time could close the current public deficit about which the government claims to be so worried.
* The Archbishop is far too Christian to say so, but I suspect he may have in mind such people as former members of the Bullingdon club.
The article drips with intelligent comment: "Too many of these young people assume they are not going to have any ordinary, human, respectful relationships with adults...Too many of them feel they have nothing to lose because they are told practically from birth that they have no serious career opportunities....These are not people who live complacently in a culture of entitlement*..."
The Archbishop goes on to write of the need of dependable family backgrounds which help young people to "take certain things for granted, so that they know they don't have to fight ceaselessly for recognition" and, bless him, that "we should be challenging an education philosophy too absorbed in meeting targets to shape character." He admits that "solutions will have to emerge slowly as we try to redirect a whole culture."
There are however two things with which I disagree: actually two words. Dr Williams writes of "unavoidable austerity" ahead.
Unavoidable? As has been hammered away by Nobel prize winners Stiglitz and Krugman, ex MPC member David Blanchflower and commentators such as Larry Elliot and Martin Wolf, among others, the UK's government debt is not at extraordinary levels, we are not in the same boat as Greece and so there cuts in public expenditure are not "unavoidable," they are ideologically driven. The correct approach to avoid further recession is for the government to spend more, not less.
Austerity? I define austerity as having to ration the essentials. Cutting back on the number of foreign holidays, making the car last a little longer, reducing the number of meals out, maybe drinking Languadocian wines rather than Bordeaux is not austerity. But it is in areas such as these that the majority of us will "tighten our belts" if we need to.
Unfortunately for the past 30 years, since the imposition of monetarist policies, some fifth of our population have suffered from real austerity: they have had to make choices about the basics, and in some cases do without some of them. Alas, the government's policies seem likely to increase this proportion to a quarter.
This punishment of the already poor is quite unnecessary. There are many solutions if we are prepared to share the problem and be "all in this together." For example, the closing of tax loopholes and the imposition of a wealth tax would ensure that this quarter could be brought back into the mainstream of a very comfortable society, and at the same time could close the current public deficit about which the government claims to be so worried.
* The Archbishop is far too Christian to say so, but I suspect he may have in mind such people as former members of the Bullingdon club.
Saturday, 3 December 2011
Are you H - A - P - P - Y?
In the past 48 hours keynesianliberal has passed another milestone and received its 2 000th "pagehit." This is an average of just over 30 "hits" a day, which is quite gratifying, but still nowhere near the "big time." I remain disappointed that I haven't been noticed or recommended by Libdemvoice but, even if readership is modest, feel a certain satisfaction in having my views on record, though, unlike Harold Wilson, I cant remember the time and date of when I said, or in my case, wrote, what.
I am proud to stand by my very first post, written before the 2010 election and pointing out that, as far as the UK is concerned, talk of a financial crisis is a Tory con to excuse and justify their ideological project to roll back the state. They have been very successful, both in their attack on our public services and in apparently persuading the majority of us that it is both necessary and inevitable.
The most viewed post continues to be "An airy fairy measure," now with over 800 "hits", though I suspect the "hitters" think it is about something other than its actual subject, the measurement of the UK's level of national happiness. As it happens, the results of the UK's first official survey on this, instigated by David Cameron, was published this week at a cost of £2m. Apparently, when asked how we feel about various things on a scale of 1 to 10 we come out with an average of 7.4.
Since I qualified in and earned my living through social sciences I cannot decry the value of such surveys, but I stick with the conviction that there are many more concrete measures of the overall health (and happiness) of our society: stability of marriages and partnerships, proportion of the population in prison, suicide rate, level of mental illness and depression, teenage pregnancies, unemployment rate and measure of equality (Gini coefficient), to name not a few.
An agreed index based on these could be used internationally, and also at the beginning and end of each government's period of office, to measure both comparative standards and real progress. As it is, we're left with vague allusions to Britain's good old Dunkirk spirit in the face of austerity. Comforting, but not really very useful.
I am proud to stand by my very first post, written before the 2010 election and pointing out that, as far as the UK is concerned, talk of a financial crisis is a Tory con to excuse and justify their ideological project to roll back the state. They have been very successful, both in their attack on our public services and in apparently persuading the majority of us that it is both necessary and inevitable.
The most viewed post continues to be "An airy fairy measure," now with over 800 "hits", though I suspect the "hitters" think it is about something other than its actual subject, the measurement of the UK's level of national happiness. As it happens, the results of the UK's first official survey on this, instigated by David Cameron, was published this week at a cost of £2m. Apparently, when asked how we feel about various things on a scale of 1 to 10 we come out with an average of 7.4.
Since I qualified in and earned my living through social sciences I cannot decry the value of such surveys, but I stick with the conviction that there are many more concrete measures of the overall health (and happiness) of our society: stability of marriages and partnerships, proportion of the population in prison, suicide rate, level of mental illness and depression, teenage pregnancies, unemployment rate and measure of equality (Gini coefficient), to name not a few.
An agreed index based on these could be used internationally, and also at the beginning and end of each government's period of office, to measure both comparative standards and real progress. As it is, we're left with vague allusions to Britain's good old Dunkirk spirit in the face of austerity. Comforting, but not really very useful.
Sunday, 20 November 2011
Missed opportunitiy (1)
The good thing that came out of the banking crisis was the chance to break the existing pattern of the industry by doing something constructive with the bank we taxpayers own and the two that we part own. Northern Rock in particular could have been returned to the mutual sector, from which it originated and to which it belonged for most of its existence. This would have provided a boost to the growing mutual, profit-sharing and co-operative sector of which Liberals have been keen advocates for most of our existence
Even better, in my view, Northern Rock could have been retained in public ownership and charged with the duty, not of maximising profits, but of providing investment finance at low rates of interest to businesses in its area, on the model of some of the German banks. That is just what the depressed North East needs and is in the fine tradition of the original Northern Rock, with its strong local roots and tradition of service to the local community.
Instead Northern Rock has been flogged off at a bargain price to the private sector: a return to the Tory practice established in the 1980s of flogging off public assets (comparable to the family silver, said Harold Macmillan) to their mates.
Even better, in my view, Northern Rock could have been retained in public ownership and charged with the duty, not of maximising profits, but of providing investment finance at low rates of interest to businesses in its area, on the model of some of the German banks. That is just what the depressed North East needs and is in the fine tradition of the original Northern Rock, with its strong local roots and tradition of service to the local community.
Instead Northern Rock has been flogged off at a bargain price to the private sector: a return to the Tory practice established in the 1980s of flogging off public assets (comparable to the family silver, said Harold Macmillan) to their mates.
Monday, 14 November 2011
Call to Remembrance
The long weekend of "remembrance" which has just passed has been the usual uneasy mixture of national pride, nostalgia, sanitisation of the effects of war, and mourning. What I believe should be its principal purpose, an acknowledgement of the horror futility of wars, which occur through the failure of politics, is barely acknowledged.
I applaud the British Legion's attempts to transfer the remembrance events (sure the term "celebration is a misnomer) to the 11th November rather than the nearest Sunday, which is something the French do, and it is a public holiday, perhaps meant to be observed in the original derivation of the word, as a "Holy" day. However, when I "observed " it in my year in Pau in 2005 the mixture was very similar to that in Britain. There were detachments of the French armed forces,, lots of "Garde-à -vous" and "Repos," a band playing bursts of chirpy French military music, and a dignitary in a cap with lots of gold braid whom I first supposed to be an admiral but later realised was the "préfet," who gave out medals on behalf of the President of the Republic.
Public attendance at the event was sparse. A young engineer whom I asked said that for him and his generation it was "just another day's holiday."
So changing to the correct day is not in itself enough. In my view the it is time to change the character of the day from one which effectively celebrates national pride and past military glory to one of repentance and reflection. There should be no marching in step, military music and "the usual shallah-humps and shalla-hoops," no politicians, no singing of nostalgic songs: just lots and lots of reminders, pictorial and otherwise, of the futility of war, the refugees, the loss of life, the mutilated, the widowed and nowadays widowered, the fatherless and motherless. No comforting hymns - just an acknowledgement and bleak reminder of the horrors when politics fails.
I applaud the British Legion's attempts to transfer the remembrance events (sure the term "celebration is a misnomer) to the 11th November rather than the nearest Sunday, which is something the French do, and it is a public holiday, perhaps meant to be observed in the original derivation of the word, as a "Holy" day. However, when I "observed " it in my year in Pau in 2005 the mixture was very similar to that in Britain. There were detachments of the French armed forces,, lots of "Garde-à -vous" and "Repos," a band playing bursts of chirpy French military music, and a dignitary in a cap with lots of gold braid whom I first supposed to be an admiral but later realised was the "préfet," who gave out medals on behalf of the President of the Republic.
Public attendance at the event was sparse. A young engineer whom I asked said that for him and his generation it was "just another day's holiday."
So changing to the correct day is not in itself enough. In my view the it is time to change the character of the day from one which effectively celebrates national pride and past military glory to one of repentance and reflection. There should be no marching in step, military music and "the usual shallah-humps and shalla-hoops," no politicians, no singing of nostalgic songs: just lots and lots of reminders, pictorial and otherwise, of the futility of war, the refugees, the loss of life, the mutilated, the widowed and nowadays widowered, the fatherless and motherless. No comforting hymns - just an acknowledgement and bleak reminder of the horrors when politics fails.
Friday, 4 November 2011
Heads you lose, tails your lose - but only if you're at the bottom of the pile.
In the bad old Labour government days state welfare benefits and pensions were indexed in the following April according to the inflation rate in the previous September. One year, I forget which, the September inflation rate was so low that state pensioners received only a 75p increase. Even Labour was embarrassed, maybe more by the PR disaster than the plight of the pensioners, but, whatever the reason, Labour has promised that under them this should never happen again.
We Liberal Democrats promised in our election manifesto that such payments would be indexed according to a "triple lock" of wage inflation, price inflation,or 2.5%, whichever is the higher. To our joy this was accepted by the Tories and included in the Coalition Agreement. It was a bit of a let-down that the price inflation measure to be used was to be CPI rather than the normally higher RPI, but, even so, it wasn't a bad deal.
Even by this lower measure inflation last September was 5.2%. Pensioners and welfare recipients will still have to endure these increased costs for another six months before they get relief, but even so, it is something to look forward to.
Alas, George Osborne is alarmed and it is rumoured that instead of keeping to the agreement he is keen to adjust these payments to a six month average figure, which he hopes will be lower than the September figure
Well, our Liberal Democrat leaders have broken one promise and it could be years before we're allowed to forget it. Lets hope they have the guts to tough this one out. We must not connive with a government which seems totally incapable of tackling the bankers' bonuses and the near 50% rises of top CEOs, but as soon as those at the bottom of the pile strike it lucky, skim off their little bit of the cream.
We Liberal Democrats promised in our election manifesto that such payments would be indexed according to a "triple lock" of wage inflation, price inflation,or 2.5%, whichever is the higher. To our joy this was accepted by the Tories and included in the Coalition Agreement. It was a bit of a let-down that the price inflation measure to be used was to be CPI rather than the normally higher RPI, but, even so, it wasn't a bad deal.
Even by this lower measure inflation last September was 5.2%. Pensioners and welfare recipients will still have to endure these increased costs for another six months before they get relief, but even so, it is something to look forward to.
Alas, George Osborne is alarmed and it is rumoured that instead of keeping to the agreement he is keen to adjust these payments to a six month average figure, which he hopes will be lower than the September figure
Well, our Liberal Democrat leaders have broken one promise and it could be years before we're allowed to forget it. Lets hope they have the guts to tough this one out. We must not connive with a government which seems totally incapable of tackling the bankers' bonuses and the near 50% rises of top CEOs, but as soon as those at the bottom of the pile strike it lucky, skim off their little bit of the cream.
Saturday, 29 October 2011
"Stand up, stand up for Jesus..."
Thank goodness there is at least one senior clergymen of the Church of England prepared to "Stand up for Jesus" or, more prosaicly, for what Jesus stands. The protest immediately outside St Paul's was a heaven-sent (you can take that literally or metaphorically) opportunity for the Church to demonstrate its relevance.
Rather than grasp the opportunity to show the Church as faithful to the teachings of Jesus, our leaders, with the exception of Giles Frazer, have emerged tainted with hypocrisy. The initial appeal to "health and safety", an attempt to shift responsibly reminiscent of that of Pilate, is shown to be false as the Cathedral has now opened with the "camp" still there. Subsequent official statements showed the Cathedral management's primary concern to be their loss of income.
How different would be our Church's reputation if the Frazer approach had been followed, an accommodation made with the protesters for ease of access, and the Church seen to be a willing partner in promoting a debate on the creation of an economic order based on something other than short-term greed and self aggrandisement. After all, isn't that one of the principal reasons for its existence?
Happily our current top cleric, Rowan Williams, does have the courage to wrestle " against the rulers of the dankness of this world." Unhappily there are rumours that he is contemplating jacking it in and retreating to the relative peace and calm of an Oxbridge college. I hope he will tough it out (just as I wish Ming Campbell had toughed it out), but if and when a vacancy at Canterbury arises, I'm sure Giles Frazer will now be in the frame.
Rather than grasp the opportunity to show the Church as faithful to the teachings of Jesus, our leaders, with the exception of Giles Frazer, have emerged tainted with hypocrisy. The initial appeal to "health and safety", an attempt to shift responsibly reminiscent of that of Pilate, is shown to be false as the Cathedral has now opened with the "camp" still there. Subsequent official statements showed the Cathedral management's primary concern to be their loss of income.
How different would be our Church's reputation if the Frazer approach had been followed, an accommodation made with the protesters for ease of access, and the Church seen to be a willing partner in promoting a debate on the creation of an economic order based on something other than short-term greed and self aggrandisement. After all, isn't that one of the principal reasons for its existence?
Happily our current top cleric, Rowan Williams, does have the courage to wrestle " against the rulers of the dankness of this world." Unhappily there are rumours that he is contemplating jacking it in and retreating to the relative peace and calm of an Oxbridge college. I hope he will tough it out (just as I wish Ming Campbell had toughed it out), but if and when a vacancy at Canterbury arises, I'm sure Giles Frazer will now be in the frame.
Sunday, 23 October 2011
Anti-capitalist or Pro-Justice?
The Lord Mayor of London, is reported to have complained that the protest outside St Paul's Cathedral is not a positive protest for jobs but " 'anti-this' and 'anti- that' (so) it's difficult to get a handle on how to respond." (Guardian 22/10/2011). This is not Boris Johnson but a Sir Michael Bear, who is Lord Mayor of the City of London. According to its website he is elected for one year, though they don't say by whom, and is, they claim somewhat improbably "apolitical."
According to Polly Toynbee's summary in the Guardian on 18/10/11 (yes I know that if I were a half-decent observer I should go for primary sources, but I haven't time) the occupiers believe;
1. That the cuts are neither necessary nor inevitable.
2. That regulators should be independent of the organisations they regulate.
3. That our democracy should represent the people rather than corporations.
and they support:
4. Global tax justice.
5. The strike by public service providers on 30th November.
6. The student strike on 9th November.
7. Actions to defend our health services, welfare, education and employment.
8. Actions to end wars and arms dealing.
That sounds a pretty positive manifesto to me and I subscribe to most of it. (I have reservations about the public service strike, which seems to be mainly about pensions, but that's a subject for another post).
In my view the Church would be fulfilling its mission of trying to bring about the Kingdom "on earth as it is in heaven" if it were solidly behind the movement rather than hiding behind weasel words of "health and safety." I also regret that the BBC reports the "health and safety" issue as a fact rather than an excuse.
According to Polly Toynbee's summary in the Guardian on 18/10/11 (yes I know that if I were a half-decent observer I should go for primary sources, but I haven't time) the occupiers believe;
1. That the cuts are neither necessary nor inevitable.
2. That regulators should be independent of the organisations they regulate.
3. That our democracy should represent the people rather than corporations.
and they support:
4. Global tax justice.
5. The strike by public service providers on 30th November.
6. The student strike on 9th November.
7. Actions to defend our health services, welfare, education and employment.
8. Actions to end wars and arms dealing.
That sounds a pretty positive manifesto to me and I subscribe to most of it. (I have reservations about the public service strike, which seems to be mainly about pensions, but that's a subject for another post).
In my view the Church would be fulfilling its mission of trying to bring about the Kingdom "on earth as it is in heaven" if it were solidly behind the movement rather than hiding behind weasel words of "health and safety." I also regret that the BBC reports the "health and safety" issue as a fact rather than an excuse.
Tuesday, 18 October 2011
Testament of Yoof, 3
For the background to this post please see Testament of Yoof 1
Fourthly, a Liberal is a Rationalist.
He will base his arguments on facts rather than emotion. He thinks with his head and not his stomach. Thus he is not hampered by delusions of imperialistic grandeur, nor attachment to a dogma that is already out of date. Hence to improve industrial relations he advocates, along with Co-ownership, Works Councils, rather than silly threats of penal sanctions against Trade Unionists which experience in other parts of the world shows simply do not work.
Well, forty years later I certainly stand by all of that, though once again it is interesting to see the emphasis on industrial relations, indicating a time when manufacturing industry was a much more significant part of the economy.
Around that time I was studying some social psychology and came across a thesis that purported to show that about 25% of the population were rational altruists. If I remember correctly the point of the thesis was that this 25% remained constant whether the populations were measured at age 25, 35, 45 etc. so, if rational altruism is equivalent to maturity, then we don't mature with age. A longitudinal study was required to confirm whether or not the composition of the 25% remained constant.
Be that as it may, I have since believed and still believe that most of those 25%, rational in that they were prepared to work things out rather than stick to tribal loyalties, and altruistic in the sense that they were prepared to give at least some consideration to the welfare of society as a whole rather than pursue mere self-aggrandisement, were and are potential Liberal voters. Of course, in order to garner their permanent support we need to tell them what our beliefs and principles are as well as prove ourselves worthy and successful "pavement politicians."
Unfortunately there are still a lot of "delusions of imperialistic grandeur" around, hence all the huffing and puffing about Dr Fox's antics being a "threat to national security," though I suspect the Labour leadership, if not their followers, have abandoned much of their "outdated dogma." Equally unfortunately, although Tony Blair toyed for a while with the "stakeholder society" industrial and commercial partnership has made little progress, and, alas, we don't now hear much about it from the Liberal Democrats either.
My own belief remains that a revision of company law, so that all firms are required to take into account the interests of their workers, customers and the communities in which they operate, is still urgently needed. As long as the profits of shareholders remain the sole formal objective of operations we shall not create a society "at ease with itself."
Fourthly, a Liberal is a Rationalist.
He will base his arguments on facts rather than emotion. He thinks with his head and not his stomach. Thus he is not hampered by delusions of imperialistic grandeur, nor attachment to a dogma that is already out of date. Hence to improve industrial relations he advocates, along with Co-ownership, Works Councils, rather than silly threats of penal sanctions against Trade Unionists which experience in other parts of the world shows simply do not work.
Well, forty years later I certainly stand by all of that, though once again it is interesting to see the emphasis on industrial relations, indicating a time when manufacturing industry was a much more significant part of the economy.
Around that time I was studying some social psychology and came across a thesis that purported to show that about 25% of the population were rational altruists. If I remember correctly the point of the thesis was that this 25% remained constant whether the populations were measured at age 25, 35, 45 etc. so, if rational altruism is equivalent to maturity, then we don't mature with age. A longitudinal study was required to confirm whether or not the composition of the 25% remained constant.
Be that as it may, I have since believed and still believe that most of those 25%, rational in that they were prepared to work things out rather than stick to tribal loyalties, and altruistic in the sense that they were prepared to give at least some consideration to the welfare of society as a whole rather than pursue mere self-aggrandisement, were and are potential Liberal voters. Of course, in order to garner their permanent support we need to tell them what our beliefs and principles are as well as prove ourselves worthy and successful "pavement politicians."
Unfortunately there are still a lot of "delusions of imperialistic grandeur" around, hence all the huffing and puffing about Dr Fox's antics being a "threat to national security," though I suspect the Labour leadership, if not their followers, have abandoned much of their "outdated dogma." Equally unfortunately, although Tony Blair toyed for a while with the "stakeholder society" industrial and commercial partnership has made little progress, and, alas, we don't now hear much about it from the Liberal Democrats either.
My own belief remains that a revision of company law, so that all firms are required to take into account the interests of their workers, customers and the communities in which they operate, is still urgently needed. As long as the profits of shareholders remain the sole formal objective of operations we shall not create a society "at ease with itself."
Thursday, 13 October 2011
Unequal Britain
A few days ago I read that a Lord Hunt of Wirral is the "front runner" to become Chairman of the Press Complaints Commission. I am sure he is eminently qualified for the post, which doesn't seem to me to require any particular expertise (it can't be al that difficult to decide whether something is genuinely in the public interest, or just of prurient interest to the public and therefore likely to sell more newspapers) but am appalled that if he gets the job he will be paid £170 000 a year for a three-day week.
Lord Hunt of Wirral is 69 years old so presumably already receives his Old Age Pension of £102.15 a week (£160.65 if he has a partner), assuming he has a full record of stamps. He will receive his £200 winter fuel allowance and free bus pass whether he has paid his stamps or not. In addition he is a former Tory MP so will have a generous pension for that. He is also a former Minister and may even get more pension for that - I don't know. In addition, Lord Hunt of Wirral is a member of the House of Lords, so can claim £86.50 for every day he attends (I believe he doesn't have to do anything - just sign the book) plus an overnight allowance of £174 as he lives outside London, which, being "of Wirral" he presumably does.
So what on earth does he need an extra £170 000 a year for, over £1 000 for each day's "work" even if he does three days for every week in the year? Even more intriguing, since all his needs are already more than comfortably supplied, what on earth is he going to do with it, other than shore up further advantage and privilege for his children and their children if any.
Perhaps I'm being unfair and he'll give it to Oxfam, but it seems to me a nonsense for the public purse to lavish further wealth on the already well-heeled whilst expecting job seekers to fire off application after application for non-existent jobs and remain keen, enthusiastic and dedicated while they survive on £67.50 a week.
Lord Hunt of Wirral is 69 years old so presumably already receives his Old Age Pension of £102.15 a week (£160.65 if he has a partner), assuming he has a full record of stamps. He will receive his £200 winter fuel allowance and free bus pass whether he has paid his stamps or not. In addition he is a former Tory MP so will have a generous pension for that. He is also a former Minister and may even get more pension for that - I don't know. In addition, Lord Hunt of Wirral is a member of the House of Lords, so can claim £86.50 for every day he attends (I believe he doesn't have to do anything - just sign the book) plus an overnight allowance of £174 as he lives outside London, which, being "of Wirral" he presumably does.
So what on earth does he need an extra £170 000 a year for, over £1 000 for each day's "work" even if he does three days for every week in the year? Even more intriguing, since all his needs are already more than comfortably supplied, what on earth is he going to do with it, other than shore up further advantage and privilege for his children and their children if any.
Perhaps I'm being unfair and he'll give it to Oxfam, but it seems to me a nonsense for the public purse to lavish further wealth on the already well-heeled whilst expecting job seekers to fire off application after application for non-existent jobs and remain keen, enthusiastic and dedicated while they survive on £67.50 a week.
Saturday, 1 October 2011
Respect
This is a post-script to the previous post, Upwardly Mobile Tadpoles.
One of things things I do in order to try to keep senility at bay is try to memorise things. For many years this took the form of brushing up my schoolboy French, but that has now been put on the back burner (mettre en veilleuse)at a disappointingly modest level. Now my efforts centre round taking small parts with not many lines in plays.
In between plays I've been brushing up on selected verses of Gray's "Elegy", one of the poems I "did" for "O" level. This stanza, slightly amended, is, I think, highly relevant to the equality debate:
Let not th'Ambitious mock our useful toil,
Our homely joys and destiny obscure;
Nor grandeur hear with a disdainful smile
The short and simple annals of the poor.
In a word, in a truly egalitarian society, "all sorts and conditions of men" (and women)deserve, and will receive, respect.
One of things things I do in order to try to keep senility at bay is try to memorise things. For many years this took the form of brushing up my schoolboy French, but that has now been put on the back burner (mettre en veilleuse)at a disappointingly modest level. Now my efforts centre round taking small parts with not many lines in plays.
In between plays I've been brushing up on selected verses of Gray's "Elegy", one of the poems I "did" for "O" level. This stanza, slightly amended, is, I think, highly relevant to the equality debate:
Let not th'Ambitious mock our useful toil,
Our homely joys and destiny obscure;
Nor grandeur hear with a disdainful smile
The short and simple annals of the poor.
In a word, in a truly egalitarian society, "all sorts and conditions of men" (and women)deserve, and will receive, respect.
Tuesday, 27 September 2011
Upwardly mobile tadpoles
All the parties, and even the egalitarian Polly Toynbee, are currently obsessed by the concept of social mobility: that everyone, regardless of their background, should have the ability to rise. This is essential a Tory concept as it accepts as an ideal a hierarchical society. Liberal Democrats should have no part in it.
In the context of social mobility equality of opportunity means equal opportunity to become unequal. Surely for Liberal Democrats the ideal is for everyone to have an equal opportunity to develop their full potential, be it barrister or bricklayer, plasterer or politician, businessman or blacksmith (or both, as with Christopher in The Archers), or even just a successful parent with 2.4 children in a decent council house near a competent school and a bus stop with a reliable service
No one puts this better than R H Tawny in his celebrated Halley Stewart lectures on Equality, given in 1929
It is possible that intelligent tadpoles reconcile themselves to the inconvenience of their position, by reflecting that, though most of them will live and die as tadpoles, and nothing more, the more fortunate of the species will one day shed their tales, distend their mouths and stomachs, hop nimbly on to dry land, and croak addresses to their former friends on the virtues by means of which tadpoles of character and capacity can rise to be frogs.
Page 142, Allen and Unwin edition
Rather than upward mobility, Liberal Democrats should be looking to build a society in which: "The aristocrat who banks with Coutts, The Aristocrat who cleans the boots...They all shall equal be." I know it didn't quite work out in Barataria, but Liberal Democrats are nothing if not optimistic, as our Birmingham conference demonstrated.
In the context of social mobility equality of opportunity means equal opportunity to become unequal. Surely for Liberal Democrats the ideal is for everyone to have an equal opportunity to develop their full potential, be it barrister or bricklayer, plasterer or politician, businessman or blacksmith (or both, as with Christopher in The Archers), or even just a successful parent with 2.4 children in a decent council house near a competent school and a bus stop with a reliable service
No one puts this better than R H Tawny in his celebrated Halley Stewart lectures on Equality, given in 1929
It is possible that intelligent tadpoles reconcile themselves to the inconvenience of their position, by reflecting that, though most of them will live and die as tadpoles, and nothing more, the more fortunate of the species will one day shed their tales, distend their mouths and stomachs, hop nimbly on to dry land, and croak addresses to their former friends on the virtues by means of which tadpoles of character and capacity can rise to be frogs.
Page 142, Allen and Unwin edition
Rather than upward mobility, Liberal Democrats should be looking to build a society in which: "The aristocrat who banks with Coutts, The Aristocrat who cleans the boots...They all shall equal be." I know it didn't quite work out in Barataria, but Liberal Democrats are nothing if not optimistic, as our Birmingham conference demonstrated.
Tuesday, 2 August 2011
Scarlet Tape
The removal of people's employment rights etc affects this generation only, but the proposed bonfire of planning regulations will affect our "green and pleasant land" for generations.
Of course, people have to live somewhere and there is a crhttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifying need for more and affordable housing, but this does not justify the invasion of green-field sites which, once despoiled by urban sprawl, will take several hundred years, if ever, to recover. As Simon Jenkins pointed out in his excellent article in the Guardian last week:
"There is no "need" to build on green-field sites anywhere in Britain. There is merely a "demand" from those wishing to profit from it. There is now probably more development land left over from manufacture and lying unused in England than ever in history. It is mostly serviced, with infrastructure, housing, schools and a working population to hand. By definition it is more sustainable than virgin countryside. It is there that planning should direct development...For the unprotected countryside to become the latest victim of the credit crunch is tragic..."
And the minister responsible is our own Vince Cable. He should think again, or the desecration of the land will be the longest lasting legacy of this coalition government.
Of course, people have to live somewhere and there is a crhttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifying need for more and affordable housing, but this does not justify the invasion of green-field sites which, once despoiled by urban sprawl, will take several hundred years, if ever, to recover. As Simon Jenkins pointed out in his excellent article in the Guardian last week:
"There is no "need" to build on green-field sites anywhere in Britain. There is merely a "demand" from those wishing to profit from it. There is now probably more development land left over from manufacture and lying unused in England than ever in history. It is mostly serviced, with infrastructure, housing, schools and a working population to hand. By definition it is more sustainable than virgin countryside. It is there that planning should direct development...For the unprotected countryside to become the latest victim of the credit crunch is tragic..."
And the minister responsible is our own Vince Cable. He should think again, or the desecration of the land will be the longest lasting legacy of this coalition government.
Monday, 4 July 2011
Care Cap
From time to time the media publish shock-horror stories that people are having to sell their houses in order to fund their elderly care. I can see a difficulty if one partner not needing care still lives in a house which is too small to "downsize" from and there are no available council flats, but otherwise what's the problem?
I can see no reason why the state should pay for someone's elderly care over and above £35 000, as proposed by the Dilnot Commission, so that the rest of their personal wealth can be passed on to buy advantages for their children and grandchildren, or even the Battersea Dogs' Home. The concept is even more absurd when we recognise that the wealth contained in a house is largely unearned. My own house has increased in monetary value, through no effort of mine, by 600% since I bought it 25 years ago. If some or all of that accrued value is needed to pay for my personal care in my latter days, so be it.
The real difficulty in this area is to distinguish between medial care, which should be free at the point of use as part of the NHS, and personal care, which, in my view, should be paid for by those who can afford it.
In a related area, I see no reason why the rise in value of a "principal private residence" should be free of capital gains tax. If it were not, that could help stabilize the property market and slow down the rise in property values, a major cause of inequality.
Once again our society seems to be going out of its way to cosset the "haves" whilst continuing to hound the "have-nots."
I can see no reason why the state should pay for someone's elderly care over and above £35 000, as proposed by the Dilnot Commission, so that the rest of their personal wealth can be passed on to buy advantages for their children and grandchildren, or even the Battersea Dogs' Home. The concept is even more absurd when we recognise that the wealth contained in a house is largely unearned. My own house has increased in monetary value, through no effort of mine, by 600% since I bought it 25 years ago. If some or all of that accrued value is needed to pay for my personal care in my latter days, so be it.
The real difficulty in this area is to distinguish between medial care, which should be free at the point of use as part of the NHS, and personal care, which, in my view, should be paid for by those who can afford it.
In a related area, I see no reason why the rise in value of a "principal private residence" should be free of capital gains tax. If it were not, that could help stabilize the property market and slow down the rise in property values, a major cause of inequality.
Once again our society seems to be going out of its way to cosset the "haves" whilst continuing to hound the "have-nots."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)