That wicked Theresa May is trying to steal my inheritance! She wants my Dad to pay for his own care and leave me and my brother with a measly £50K each when he goes. How scandalous!
My dad is 96. He has worked all his life and owns a modest semi-detached house. He still lives there, reasonably independently on a modest pension, with a little help from me and my brother and a lady from Help The Aged who visits once a week and a red button service for emergencies.
I have long accepted that when he needs extra help at home, he will have to pay for it, and that if he needs to go into a home, he will have to sell the house to pay the fees. To be honest, I never realised that there might be a limit on the amount he had to spend. I was just glad that he kept well and that, if necessary, the money was there and he could be comfortable.
So criticism of Mrs May's announcement that people could keep £100K to pass on to their children has puzzled me. So many politicians and commentators seem to think it's mean to compel pensioners to pay for their own care at all. The state should pay for it (out of taxes paid by people like me) leaving the inheritance unencumbered. I just don't get this argument.
I can see the apparent inequity of people who have saved and bought houses having to pay, when those who could have done the same have chosen to spend money on living the high life, or risked everything on dodgy investments or failed business ideas. But isn't that just life? How can we judge other people's life decisions?
If you applied that argument to all state benefits, would you pay any means-tested benefits at all?
The whole point of the welfare state is to be a safety net for the less fortunate. This is an expensive business and the money must come, in some way or another, from taxpayers. The needs of taxpayers and receivers of any benefits must be balanced. There are many taxpayers who could never aspire to home ownership and savings in the bank and leaving an inheritance to their children. It makes no sense to spend their money to shore up private inheritance.
So thank you Mrs May for letting us keep £100K. You really shouldn't have been so kind.
Monday, 22 May 2017
Thursday, 29 April 2010
Manifesto 3: Why can't we talk about immigration?
Poor Gillian Duffy! She woke up this morning an ordinary Rochdale lady thinking about housework and shopping and what to have for tea. Tonight she finds herself at the centre of a political storm which could finally guarantee the downfall of a man who, firstly as Chancellor of the Exchequer and now Prime Minister, has been in power for thirteen years.
Mrs Duffy's moderate expressions of concern about the impact of immigration on the economy provoked Mr Brown to label her a "bigoted woman" - a paranoid over-reaction which revealed much about how he views the natural concerns of ordinary voters.
But behind Mr Brown's gaff lies a much bigger problem - the failure of all the main political parties to engage effectively with the issue of immigration over many years.
The standard mantra of the Labour Party (and, to a lesser extent, the Liberals) is to label anyone who suggests unbridled immigration may have drawbacks as a bigoted racist. The Conservatives, who traditionally have been less in favour of immigration, have exacerbated the problem by allowing themselves to be gagged, for fear of being labelled racist and losing the floating voters.
The effect of this stifling of debate is that the case for immigration has not been effectively made to the electorate, and there has been no recognition and mitigation of the effects on ordinary people of increased competition for jobs, social housing and health care.
This conspiracy of silence leaves a major concern of the voters open to exploitation by the far right parties - UKIP and the BNP - whose analysis of the issues and proposed solutions are simply unacceptable in a civilised country.
The major parties owe it to the electorate and the immigrant community to engage with their legitimate concerns and ensure that appropriate measures are put in place to deal with this issue.
Mrs Duffy's moderate expressions of concern about the impact of immigration on the economy provoked Mr Brown to label her a "bigoted woman" - a paranoid over-reaction which revealed much about how he views the natural concerns of ordinary voters.
But behind Mr Brown's gaff lies a much bigger problem - the failure of all the main political parties to engage effectively with the issue of immigration over many years.
The standard mantra of the Labour Party (and, to a lesser extent, the Liberals) is to label anyone who suggests unbridled immigration may have drawbacks as a bigoted racist. The Conservatives, who traditionally have been less in favour of immigration, have exacerbated the problem by allowing themselves to be gagged, for fear of being labelled racist and losing the floating voters.
The effect of this stifling of debate is that the case for immigration has not been effectively made to the electorate, and there has been no recognition and mitigation of the effects on ordinary people of increased competition for jobs, social housing and health care.
This conspiracy of silence leaves a major concern of the voters open to exploitation by the far right parties - UKIP and the BNP - whose analysis of the issues and proposed solutions are simply unacceptable in a civilised country.
The major parties owe it to the electorate and the immigrant community to engage with their legitimate concerns and ensure that appropriate measures are put in place to deal with this issue.
Friday, 16 April 2010
Manifesto 2: I don't want my leaders to be like me!
Don't get me wrong - I think I might make a good MP. I have a degree in economics and politics, I have a professional qualification and 48 years of life-experience to draw on. All these should make me eminently suited to serve my country in the political sphere. Except that I'm too lazy for all that campaigning and I prefer a quiet life.
What I mean is - I do not require my leaders to be like me in superficial ways in order to represent me in Parliament and make decisions on my behalf.
As the build-up to the general election gets under way, it is frequently commented by politicians, pressure groups and the media that the candidates are mostly white, middle-aged males who do not reflect the wide make-up of the electorate. In recent weeks, I have heard people suggest that there should be:
The first problem is practical - how do you ensure the right mix, without imposing candidates on the electorate before they vote? Women-only shortlists have been tried and found controversial, mainly because their imposition requires central party officials "meddling" with the appointment of local candidates. Where representation is based on geographical constituencies, it makes no sense to try to impose quotas in this way.
The second problem is also practical - how do you know what the "right" mix is? Who do you listen to? Do you select just one criterion - e.g. gender or age or ethnicity? Or do you try combinations of criteria? And how do you define the criteria? Will any Christian do? Or must we have quotas of Anglicans, Baptists, Catholics etc? And what about dog and cat owners? And motorists/cyclists/pedestrians? Don't they deserve a say?
The third problem is, once elected, the "representatives" may not always behave in the stereotypical way expected of them in this carefully-balanced mix. Individuals cannot be slotted into boxes in this way, and most of the issues considered by government cut across such divisions anyway.
And where does talent fit into this equation? The big political issues - economic, legal, foreign policy - are very complex, and require talented people to understand them. By emphasising superficial qualities, it is probable that genuinely talented candidates would be overlooked because they don't fit in the right boxes.
Good leadership is a very rare quality - very few great leaders conform to a stereotype - they are usually very special indeed. By limiting the political gene pool to "people like us" we risk overlooking true talent in favour of mediocrity.
What I mean is - I do not require my leaders to be like me in superficial ways in order to represent me in Parliament and make decisions on my behalf.
As the build-up to the general election gets under way, it is frequently commented by politicians, pressure groups and the media that the candidates are mostly white, middle-aged males who do not reflect the wide make-up of the electorate. In recent weeks, I have heard people suggest that there should be:
- More women MPs
- More black and ethnic minority MPs
- More Christian/Muslim/Hindu/Atheist/Jeddai MPs
- More retired/teenage MPs
The first problem is practical - how do you ensure the right mix, without imposing candidates on the electorate before they vote? Women-only shortlists have been tried and found controversial, mainly because their imposition requires central party officials "meddling" with the appointment of local candidates. Where representation is based on geographical constituencies, it makes no sense to try to impose quotas in this way.
The second problem is also practical - how do you know what the "right" mix is? Who do you listen to? Do you select just one criterion - e.g. gender or age or ethnicity? Or do you try combinations of criteria? And how do you define the criteria? Will any Christian do? Or must we have quotas of Anglicans, Baptists, Catholics etc? And what about dog and cat owners? And motorists/cyclists/pedestrians? Don't they deserve a say?
The third problem is, once elected, the "representatives" may not always behave in the stereotypical way expected of them in this carefully-balanced mix. Individuals cannot be slotted into boxes in this way, and most of the issues considered by government cut across such divisions anyway.
And where does talent fit into this equation? The big political issues - economic, legal, foreign policy - are very complex, and require talented people to understand them. By emphasising superficial qualities, it is probable that genuinely talented candidates would be overlooked because they don't fit in the right boxes.
Good leadership is a very rare quality - very few great leaders conform to a stereotype - they are usually very special indeed. By limiting the political gene pool to "people like us" we risk overlooking true talent in favour of mediocrity.
Friday, 26 February 2010
Manifesto 1: The West Lothian Question
With a general election inevitable in the next few months, this is the first of what may become a series of blogs on matters I would like to see addressed by the next government.
The Labour Government has, since its election in 1997, devolved a certain range of powers and responsibilities to Scotland and Wales by creating a directly-elected Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly. In doing so, England is left in an anomalous position, since there is no equivalent English Assembly to exercise the same powers and responsibilities in England.
It's not like they weren't warned of the problem. As early as 1977, when devolution was discussed in the House of Commons, the MP for West Lothian asked "For how long will English constituencies and English Honourable members tolerate... at least 119 Honourable Members from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland exercising an important, and probably often decisive, effect on English politics while they themselves have no say in the same matters in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland?" This issue has since this time become known as "The West Lothian Question"
This situation has already caused controversy, with the government relying on Scottish MP's to win a vote to ensure English students pay top-up fees at university, while the Scottish Parliament ensured that Scottish students did not have to pay them.
The absurdity of this situation was illustrated for me at work today. I work for a charity which lobbies governments - the UK Parliament, The Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament. In drawing up a manifesto to give to MP's for the Westminster election, the following became clear:
a) The points in the manifesto for the Westminster elections could only relate to England, since the matters considered were devolved in Wales and Scotland to their respective devolved assemblies, which had separate elections.
b) The manifesto would go to English candidates - the issues would affect their constituents and they might win or lose votes on these issues
c) Scottish and Welsh MPs also received a copy of the manifesto, with a cover note explaining that these issues would not affect their constituents at all, but they might like bear them in mind because they would be able to vote on them in England!
This blatantly unjust anomaly must be resolved, either by limiting votes on English matters to English MPs or by creating a separately elected English Parliament. Failure to do so brings British democracy into disrepute, and over time, the resentment caused will fuel English Nationalism and poison the relationship between the nations of the UK.
The Labour Government has, since its election in 1997, devolved a certain range of powers and responsibilities to Scotland and Wales by creating a directly-elected Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly. In doing so, England is left in an anomalous position, since there is no equivalent English Assembly to exercise the same powers and responsibilities in England.
It's not like they weren't warned of the problem. As early as 1977, when devolution was discussed in the House of Commons, the MP for West Lothian asked "For how long will English constituencies and English Honourable members tolerate... at least 119 Honourable Members from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland exercising an important, and probably often decisive, effect on English politics while they themselves have no say in the same matters in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland?" This issue has since this time become known as "The West Lothian Question"
This situation has already caused controversy, with the government relying on Scottish MP's to win a vote to ensure English students pay top-up fees at university, while the Scottish Parliament ensured that Scottish students did not have to pay them.
The absurdity of this situation was illustrated for me at work today. I work for a charity which lobbies governments - the UK Parliament, The Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament. In drawing up a manifesto to give to MP's for the Westminster election, the following became clear:
a) The points in the manifesto for the Westminster elections could only relate to England, since the matters considered were devolved in Wales and Scotland to their respective devolved assemblies, which had separate elections.
b) The manifesto would go to English candidates - the issues would affect their constituents and they might win or lose votes on these issues
c) Scottish and Welsh MPs also received a copy of the manifesto, with a cover note explaining that these issues would not affect their constituents at all, but they might like bear them in mind because they would be able to vote on them in England!
This blatantly unjust anomaly must be resolved, either by limiting votes on English matters to English MPs or by creating a separately elected English Parliament. Failure to do so brings British democracy into disrepute, and over time, the resentment caused will fuel English Nationalism and poison the relationship between the nations of the UK.
Thursday, 4 February 2010
You can be good without god...
...... and the prisons are full of theists.
Cherie Booth (aka Cherie Blair) has decided that claiming to be a "devout" Muslim is a reason for leniency in sentencing. The "devout" Muslim receiving a suspended sentence in this case was convicted of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, having thumped a man so hard he broke his jaw. Her precise words (as reported in today's "Independent") were “I am going to suspend this sentence for the period of two years based on the fact you are a religious person and have not been in trouble before.....You caused a mild fracture to the jaw of a member of the public standing in a queue at Lloyds Bank. You are a religious man and you know this is not acceptable behaviour.”
What exactly is her point here? Is she saying that those professing a religion (whilst clearly not sticking to the letter of it) are intrinsically better than those of no religion, deserving a lesser sentence simply because of their religious beliefs? Do atheists not know what is acceptable behaviour, and what is not? Does ignorance require a harsher sentence than hypocrisy?
How far does her prejudice extend? Would she say the same about a devout Wiccan? Or a self-proclaimed Jedi Knight? Where does she draw the line? What gives her the right to draw a line anywhere, when religion, by definition, relies on faith, and one man's faith is another man's heresy?
It is the height of arrogance, and a common fault, for those of a religious persuasion to claim moral superiority over those who do not have a faith. These prejudices have no foundation in fact. Three quarters of the prison population claim to be religious, and religion has often been a major factor in inspiring such criminal activities as terrorism, gay-bashing and so-called honour killings.
I hope the official objection made to the Judicial Complaints Office by the National Secular Society succeeds in raising awareness of this issue and prevents such rubbish being spouted in court in future.
Cherie Booth (aka Cherie Blair) has decided that claiming to be a "devout" Muslim is a reason for leniency in sentencing. The "devout" Muslim receiving a suspended sentence in this case was convicted of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, having thumped a man so hard he broke his jaw. Her precise words (as reported in today's "Independent") were “I am going to suspend this sentence for the period of two years based on the fact you are a religious person and have not been in trouble before.....You caused a mild fracture to the jaw of a member of the public standing in a queue at Lloyds Bank. You are a religious man and you know this is not acceptable behaviour.”
What exactly is her point here? Is she saying that those professing a religion (whilst clearly not sticking to the letter of it) are intrinsically better than those of no religion, deserving a lesser sentence simply because of their religious beliefs? Do atheists not know what is acceptable behaviour, and what is not? Does ignorance require a harsher sentence than hypocrisy?
How far does her prejudice extend? Would she say the same about a devout Wiccan? Or a self-proclaimed Jedi Knight? Where does she draw the line? What gives her the right to draw a line anywhere, when religion, by definition, relies on faith, and one man's faith is another man's heresy?
It is the height of arrogance, and a common fault, for those of a religious persuasion to claim moral superiority over those who do not have a faith. These prejudices have no foundation in fact. Three quarters of the prison population claim to be religious, and religion has often been a major factor in inspiring such criminal activities as terrorism, gay-bashing and so-called honour killings.
I hope the official objection made to the Judicial Complaints Office by the National Secular Society succeeds in raising awareness of this issue and prevents such rubbish being spouted in court in future.
Sunday, 24 January 2010
Blame it on the Burqa?
Following the example of France, UKIP now propose to ban women from wearing the burqa and niqab in public in the UK. Their excuse? According to Lord Pearson of Rannoch, the leader of UKIP as quoted in "The Times", "this is incompatible with Britain’s values of freedom and democracy.”
This excuse is, of course, dangerous nonsense. I have always understood "freedom" to include the right to wear what you wish - whether it is a bikini or a burqa, it is a British woman's right to choose what they wear in public. This right should not be eroded.
Why the antipathy to the burqa and niqab? lets look at some of the arguments put forward :
"The burqa and the niqab....
a)......have no basis in Islam" So what? As an atheist, I do not accept the need to follow the rules of any religion. I do accept that a large number of people do follow religious rules, and it is their right to do so, as long as they do not seek to impose them on others. There are infinite varieties of religious and philosophical belief and it is no business of a democratic government to impose a "national standard interpretation" on any of them.
b) ......are a threat to gender equality and marginalise women" So how does a ban solve this one? It's not the garment that is the problem here, it's men's attitudes. If a man forces his wife or daughter to wear a burqa in public, a ban would give him an excuse to keep her entirely at home. If a woman wears one of her own free will, out of personal religious conviction or cultural habit or as a fashion statement, a ban denies her the freedom to express herself.
c) ......endanger the public safety because terrorists could use them to hide their identity" Where identity verification is necessary, a woman may be asked to remove her veil e.g. when passports or driving licenses are checked. This is no excuse for an outright ban.
Banning the burqa, niqab or any other outward symbol of a religion is counter-productive and will be used as evidence of repression by extremists who reject western values. It will not persuade the wearer to change the way they interact with society for the better.
This excuse is, of course, dangerous nonsense. I have always understood "freedom" to include the right to wear what you wish - whether it is a bikini or a burqa, it is a British woman's right to choose what they wear in public. This right should not be eroded.
Why the antipathy to the burqa and niqab? lets look at some of the arguments put forward :
"The burqa and the niqab....
a)......have no basis in Islam" So what? As an atheist, I do not accept the need to follow the rules of any religion. I do accept that a large number of people do follow religious rules, and it is their right to do so, as long as they do not seek to impose them on others. There are infinite varieties of religious and philosophical belief and it is no business of a democratic government to impose a "national standard interpretation" on any of them.
b) ......are a threat to gender equality and marginalise women" So how does a ban solve this one? It's not the garment that is the problem here, it's men's attitudes. If a man forces his wife or daughter to wear a burqa in public, a ban would give him an excuse to keep her entirely at home. If a woman wears one of her own free will, out of personal religious conviction or cultural habit or as a fashion statement, a ban denies her the freedom to express herself.
c) ......endanger the public safety because terrorists could use them to hide their identity" Where identity verification is necessary, a woman may be asked to remove her veil e.g. when passports or driving licenses are checked. This is no excuse for an outright ban.
Banning the burqa, niqab or any other outward symbol of a religion is counter-productive and will be used as evidence of repression by extremists who reject western values. It will not persuade the wearer to change the way they interact with society for the better.
Saturday, 19 December 2009
Bah! Humbug. Who cares about the Xmas No. 1?
Having not heard either of the candidate songs currently tipped for the Xmas No.1 this year, I am ideally placed to comment impartially on the unedifying scramble between X Factor winner Simon Cowell and Rage Against the Machine.
“There is a lot of smugness in the certainty that they own the No 1 spot. We want to wipe that smug grin off their faces." says Tom Morello, of RATM, sounding more like a pro boxer than a musician.
So in the blue corner we have one over-hyped, TV promoted single from X factor's Joe McElderry and in the red corner another, over-hyped, Facebook promoted single from RATM.
The facebook crowd seem to think that by taking on the Cowell machine they are somehow striking a blow for "real" music over the "bland mediocrity" (Morello's phrase) of X-factor fodder. But who is defining their music as "real"? A bunch of self-appointed members of the general public who spend time on facebook and who happen to dislike the tastes of another section of the general public who prefer to watch telly with their families. They are using the RATM single as a symbolic rallying flag to make their point.
Whoever first said the often-repeated saying "There are only two types of music, good and bad" was both arrogant (in presuming to know the difference) and wrong. There are three "types" of music - music you like, music you don't like and music you haven't heard yet. And "liking" is a subjective judgement made by each listener, influenced by mood, timing, familiarity, purpose. It is also likely to change over time as people themselves change. Any attempt to apply an objective "quality" test is doomed to failure.
The race for Christmas no. 1 is just an amusing sideshow - a measure of how various media methods can effectively combine to rally groups of people into buying singles to score points, with making money as a side-effect. It has little to do with music at all.
“There is a lot of smugness in the certainty that they own the No 1 spot. We want to wipe that smug grin off their faces." says Tom Morello, of RATM, sounding more like a pro boxer than a musician.
So in the blue corner we have one over-hyped, TV promoted single from X factor's Joe McElderry and in the red corner another, over-hyped, Facebook promoted single from RATM.
The facebook crowd seem to think that by taking on the Cowell machine they are somehow striking a blow for "real" music over the "bland mediocrity" (Morello's phrase) of X-factor fodder. But who is defining their music as "real"? A bunch of self-appointed members of the general public who spend time on facebook and who happen to dislike the tastes of another section of the general public who prefer to watch telly with their families. They are using the RATM single as a symbolic rallying flag to make their point.
Whoever first said the often-repeated saying "There are only two types of music, good and bad" was both arrogant (in presuming to know the difference) and wrong. There are three "types" of music - music you like, music you don't like and music you haven't heard yet. And "liking" is a subjective judgement made by each listener, influenced by mood, timing, familiarity, purpose. It is also likely to change over time as people themselves change. Any attempt to apply an objective "quality" test is doomed to failure.
The race for Christmas no. 1 is just an amusing sideshow - a measure of how various media methods can effectively combine to rally groups of people into buying singles to score points, with making money as a side-effect. It has little to do with music at all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
