The list of proposed Bills announced in the Queen’s speech leaves plenty of room for criticism. Not least the commitment to eradicate child poverty by 2020. My views on this have been expressed previously. They haven’t changed.
However, the Bill I wish to discuss here is the Personal Care at Home Bill. The purpose of this legislation is to offer free personal care at home for those with the highest needs, regardless of means. It will be “the first step towards setting up a new National Care Service”.
The Bill will protect from future charges 166,000 people who currently get free care. Where “home adaptations or technology can increase a person’s independence and reduce care needs”, these would be offered. £130 million will be spent on “re-ablement” to help people to “maintain their dignity and rebuild their confidence so that they can live at home for longer”.
This Bill inspires in me more questions than answers.
I accept that, in an ideal world, these aims are honourable and desirable. But we don’t live in an ideal world. Why can someone in their twilight years expect the state to care for them in their own home free of charge? Why is the tax-payer protecting the savings of a few pensioners whilst these individuals enjoy the luxury of home care?
Are we to accept that, rather than pull resources at one care home (as we do presently), we are to pay for an individual’s home to be kitted out to make their life easier only for it to be all ripped out once they die? Which brings me to my next question: how on earth is this going to paid for? Sacrificing more important services elsewhere I would suggest…
In essence, what I don’t understand is why, when we reach a certain age, we should be able to expect the states care system to come to us. Are we to expect that the next step will be to offer all ages home care for all ailments? If I need my appendix removed should I, in future, expect the surgeons team to pay me a visit in my living room? Would the money not be better spent on investing in early years education or on getting kids who are caught up in the cycle of the penal system?
Investing what limited money we have in people with futures is, I would suggest, a far better use of our resources. And one that will have a return.
If you want free care you should be expected to go to a state institution.
If you want home care you should be expected to pay.
Simple as that…?
Friday, 20 November 2009
Tuesday, 17 November 2009
Death Row vs Bad Boy
OK.
I have decided to write another post. It has been a while but I suspect that as many people have missed me as will read this…but one can’t complain. You get back from the cyber-world what you put in and I haven’t put much in recently (or at any point really).
So, to the post...
The recent Glasgow NE by-election presented no earth shaking results. Far be it for me to criticise their selection but, as far as I can see, it is inexplicable that they continue to return Labour MPs. There are many problems in Glasgow but, in the north east at least, blind loyalty is clearly not one of them.
So, if we accept the inevitability of the result, so too must we accept the inevitability of the different campaigns.
True to form, Labour fought a ‘dirty’ campaign. Not anymore negative than we can expect, nor to shocking levels, but negative all the same. The SNP stuck to what it knows best, a relatively positive approach.
Nothing new there then. What was new (as far as I am aware), and what gives me a real cause for concern, was (step forward the mindless drone, Jim McMurphy) Labour’s claim that the SNP have rejected Glasgow. I hope that this was a one off campaign tact and won’t seep into wider campaigns. However, I am not holding my breath. Cornered rats an’ all…
It could be argued that it was, in part, past claims that a Tory government in Westminster had rejected Scotland that has helped prop up Labour’s support. Labour have now tried to use the same argument against an SNP led government in Holyrood for the same end.
If this ludicrous claim from Labour gains traction and is used more often it will only serve to further disenfranchise Glasgow from the political systems that govern it. This will, in turn, further deprive Glasgow of representatives who work with, rather than in opposition to, the governing party in Edinburgh, and perpetuate many of the problems they suffer.
However, with the prospect of a Labour led administration in Holyrood looking some distance away, Labour may stick to what they know and seek to ghettoise their support. One way of doing this is telling their voters in the west that that the east has forgotten about them.
At the recent Donaldson Lecture at SNP conference, Dr Gordon Wilson spoke of how the SNP needs to start playing nasty. As much as I admire the SNPs resistance, I suspect that power should corrupt.
I have decided to write another post. It has been a while but I suspect that as many people have missed me as will read this…but one can’t complain. You get back from the cyber-world what you put in and I haven’t put much in recently (or at any point really).
So, to the post...
The recent Glasgow NE by-election presented no earth shaking results. Far be it for me to criticise their selection but, as far as I can see, it is inexplicable that they continue to return Labour MPs. There are many problems in Glasgow but, in the north east at least, blind loyalty is clearly not one of them.
So, if we accept the inevitability of the result, so too must we accept the inevitability of the different campaigns.
True to form, Labour fought a ‘dirty’ campaign. Not anymore negative than we can expect, nor to shocking levels, but negative all the same. The SNP stuck to what it knows best, a relatively positive approach.
Nothing new there then. What was new (as far as I am aware), and what gives me a real cause for concern, was (step forward the mindless drone, Jim McMurphy) Labour’s claim that the SNP have rejected Glasgow. I hope that this was a one off campaign tact and won’t seep into wider campaigns. However, I am not holding my breath. Cornered rats an’ all…
It could be argued that it was, in part, past claims that a Tory government in Westminster had rejected Scotland that has helped prop up Labour’s support. Labour have now tried to use the same argument against an SNP led government in Holyrood for the same end.
If this ludicrous claim from Labour gains traction and is used more often it will only serve to further disenfranchise Glasgow from the political systems that govern it. This will, in turn, further deprive Glasgow of representatives who work with, rather than in opposition to, the governing party in Edinburgh, and perpetuate many of the problems they suffer.
However, with the prospect of a Labour led administration in Holyrood looking some distance away, Labour may stick to what they know and seek to ghettoise their support. One way of doing this is telling their voters in the west that that the east has forgotten about them.
At the recent Donaldson Lecture at SNP conference, Dr Gordon Wilson spoke of how the SNP needs to start playing nasty. As much as I admire the SNPs resistance, I suspect that power should corrupt.
Tuesday, 23 September 2008
Aren't we all just great?
My suspicions were correct.
I sensed my reality check may not sit comfortably with Team Green’s captain, one Kez Dugdale. My foresight led me to save my post which was so cruelly censored from Kez’s comments (unlike the 11 hysterical supporters).
I have also edited the original post slightly.
Perhaps I am being cynical but all I see here is sanctimonious rabble.
Yes Kez, your routine is mundane, but it is the expression of detail that leaves me confused. Why tell us that you browse in Oxfam and shop in the Co-op? This is clearly born of self promotion.
I hope that your shower is a cold one to save baby seals. I hope that your alarm clock runs on solar power. I hope your washing powder protects rain forest frogs.
Why don’t you read the papers online to save on printing poisons? Why don’t you reduce the need to heat a whole shop for you to sit in by making your own coffee?
You were livid? Of all the things going on around you, you get livid from someone throwing out a jug of milk? You recycle religiously? Is that even possible?
On the subject of the ‘self-explanatory’ questions, I would appreciate explanation as to why a coffee shop should support Fairtrade? This scheme is all very well if you are one of the farmers involved but if you’re not, you’re screwed. Not only does this scheme artificially distort the local markets where it is introduced, it will impoverish more than it will enrich.
Help the planet? Don’t worry about the planet, it will be fine. It is us that’ll be fecked. We’re not destroying the planet, only making it inhospitable for humans.
I admire your motivation to embark on such a campaign but I really can’t understand the target.
I for one can not wait for you to publish your results.
No really.
I sensed my reality check may not sit comfortably with Team Green’s captain, one Kez Dugdale. My foresight led me to save my post which was so cruelly censored from Kez’s comments (unlike the 11 hysterical supporters).
I have also edited the original post slightly.
Perhaps I am being cynical but all I see here is sanctimonious rabble.
Yes Kez, your routine is mundane, but it is the expression of detail that leaves me confused. Why tell us that you browse in Oxfam and shop in the Co-op? This is clearly born of self promotion.
I hope that your shower is a cold one to save baby seals. I hope that your alarm clock runs on solar power. I hope your washing powder protects rain forest frogs.
Why don’t you read the papers online to save on printing poisons? Why don’t you reduce the need to heat a whole shop for you to sit in by making your own coffee?
You were livid? Of all the things going on around you, you get livid from someone throwing out a jug of milk? You recycle religiously? Is that even possible?
On the subject of the ‘self-explanatory’ questions, I would appreciate explanation as to why a coffee shop should support Fairtrade? This scheme is all very well if you are one of the farmers involved but if you’re not, you’re screwed. Not only does this scheme artificially distort the local markets where it is introduced, it will impoverish more than it will enrich.
Help the planet? Don’t worry about the planet, it will be fine. It is us that’ll be fecked. We’re not destroying the planet, only making it inhospitable for humans.
I admire your motivation to embark on such a campaign but I really can’t understand the target.
I for one can not wait for you to publish your results.
No really.
Monday, 15 September 2008
Gravy Train Driver
Following on from the debate on the mighty SNP Tactical Voter blog, I have been searching deep in my mind for a reason why I feel ‘pride’ in my homeland and when fellow countrymen do well.
Mr Voter asked why we should derive any pride from Scottish achievements and suggested that to be proud of your country is ‘fairly bizarre’. Whilst I am not criticising this position, I do not agree. And here be why…
I think that pride in the achievements of those from your country stems from an awareness of the perception of others. I will explain (as it works in my head).
If an unknown tennis player achieves a remarkable victory in an event the first question asked is, ‘what is his/her name?’. This question is invariably followed by, ‘What country are they from?’.
The name is sought for reference and the country for context. We allow ourselves to apply characteristics to nations in any way that is open to us with one being against those we know are from there. In the case where we don’t personally know anyone from said country, we refer to the closest option– those from that country who are known to us through a variety of media.
This is why we derive pride, and indeed shame, from those who make the news and represent an image (albeit a potentially flawed one) of the country we are from.
I feel pride in big Eck Hammy Bell, wee Boab Burns and Ass Smith because I realise that when I meet people from far off lands who don’t know me, they refer to these people in an attempt to understand my culture and, most importantly, me. I am viewed against them and, due to their impressive influence on the world, I gain from that comparison and am therefore proud with the association.
The logical continuation of this is pride in the performance of current Scots in the public eye. I feel pride in Andy Murray’s achievements as he is seen to represent an aspect of the Scottish psyche that shows dedication and a ‘fuck you’ attitude. I relate to this personality trait and enjoy this comparison (even though it may be a million miles from the truth).
Pride in those from your own country does not show a blinkered love of all from that country; it shows an affiliation with perceptions of that person. It is not jumping on a gravy train so much as being the train driver and selecting the gravy that you will allow to be loaded in the carriages.
Mr Voter asked why we should derive any pride from Scottish achievements and suggested that to be proud of your country is ‘fairly bizarre’. Whilst I am not criticising this position, I do not agree. And here be why…
I think that pride in the achievements of those from your country stems from an awareness of the perception of others. I will explain (as it works in my head).
If an unknown tennis player achieves a remarkable victory in an event the first question asked is, ‘what is his/her name?’. This question is invariably followed by, ‘What country are they from?’.
The name is sought for reference and the country for context. We allow ourselves to apply characteristics to nations in any way that is open to us with one being against those we know are from there. In the case where we don’t personally know anyone from said country, we refer to the closest option– those from that country who are known to us through a variety of media.
This is why we derive pride, and indeed shame, from those who make the news and represent an image (albeit a potentially flawed one) of the country we are from.
I feel pride in big Eck Hammy Bell, wee Boab Burns and Ass Smith because I realise that when I meet people from far off lands who don’t know me, they refer to these people in an attempt to understand my culture and, most importantly, me. I am viewed against them and, due to their impressive influence on the world, I gain from that comparison and am therefore proud with the association.
The logical continuation of this is pride in the performance of current Scots in the public eye. I feel pride in Andy Murray’s achievements as he is seen to represent an aspect of the Scottish psyche that shows dedication and a ‘fuck you’ attitude. I relate to this personality trait and enjoy this comparison (even though it may be a million miles from the truth).
Pride in those from your own country does not show a blinkered love of all from that country; it shows an affiliation with perceptions of that person. It is not jumping on a gravy train so much as being the train driver and selecting the gravy that you will allow to be loaded in the carriages.
Big Botherer
I should start by declaring an interest. I am a smoker who derives great pleasure from my habit and who has no intention to cease at any time in the near future (much to the disgust at those trying to help me train for my impending participation in the Great North Run). The below is, as I like to say, a subject close to my black heart.
I have for the last few weeks been involved in a major tobacco firm’s submission to the Department of Health’s consultation: The Future of Tobacco Control. I do a fair amount of work for this client.
Not a week goes by where some diatribe is not expressed by the anti-smoking lobby. The one that is particularly irritating me at the moment are attempts to remove the depiction of smoking in films. Not only do I fundamentally disagree with any form of censorship (if you don’t want your kid to see smokers on film, stop them going to the cinema) why are we so concerned with the portrayal of tobacco products yet seem not to have any issue with the plethora of weaponry and violence that is common? There are even those who support the retrospective removal of smokers from past films. Reminds me of the old Jorge phrase, he who controls the past, controls the future…
The proposals from DoH include banishing tobacco products below the counter (similar to moves currently being made in Scotland), selling tobacco products in plain packaging and banning 10 packs (or ‘kiddy packs’ as they are described in the consultation – you couldn’t make that up). The aim of these proposals is to stem youth smoking initiation. These measures will not be effective in their aim, meaning that by the government’s own standards this is legislatively impotent (see the Better Regulation Executive, House of Lords’ Economic Affairs Select Committee, the House of Commons Science & Technology Committee, Better Regulation Commission – the list goes on…). Indeed, the majority of research into this suggests that these policies will be counterintuitive with more young people taking up smoking as it is an even more obvious means of rebellion. On top of this, where similar laws have been introduced (see several provinces in Canada, Iceland etc) the effects have been consistent with the research.
However, what most riles me about the consultation was the brazen inclusion of the wish to ‘denormalise’ smoking and smokers. “Denormalisation” is not in itself a conceptual objective that is compatible with the principles of good regulation of a legal product. It is unclear in its definition and has no clear, measurable objective. Neither is it possible to further define and validate the concept through clear and concrete evidence. It is, at best, a speculative supposition.
Government either regulates or it does not regulate. In turn, a product is legal or it is not legal. To attempt to create a grey area as an objective of public policy represents a deliberate and illegitimate attempt to demonise and discriminate against a chosen, legal activity freely enjoyed by a significant proportion of the adult population. This is contrary to the respect for core democratic values that is linked both to freedom of expression and to personal liberty.
It is illegal for a farmer to smoke on his own in a single seated tractor in the middle of a field in the middle of the countryside. It legal for a parent to smoke in their car with the windows up and three children in the back.
I could go on further but, to be honest, I think folk will have struggled to have read to here. If any one comments I may rant on (through my gasps for air…)
I have for the last few weeks been involved in a major tobacco firm’s submission to the Department of Health’s consultation: The Future of Tobacco Control. I do a fair amount of work for this client.
Not a week goes by where some diatribe is not expressed by the anti-smoking lobby. The one that is particularly irritating me at the moment are attempts to remove the depiction of smoking in films. Not only do I fundamentally disagree with any form of censorship (if you don’t want your kid to see smokers on film, stop them going to the cinema) why are we so concerned with the portrayal of tobacco products yet seem not to have any issue with the plethora of weaponry and violence that is common? There are even those who support the retrospective removal of smokers from past films. Reminds me of the old Jorge phrase, he who controls the past, controls the future…
The proposals from DoH include banishing tobacco products below the counter (similar to moves currently being made in Scotland), selling tobacco products in plain packaging and banning 10 packs (or ‘kiddy packs’ as they are described in the consultation – you couldn’t make that up). The aim of these proposals is to stem youth smoking initiation. These measures will not be effective in their aim, meaning that by the government’s own standards this is legislatively impotent (see the Better Regulation Executive, House of Lords’ Economic Affairs Select Committee, the House of Commons Science & Technology Committee, Better Regulation Commission – the list goes on…). Indeed, the majority of research into this suggests that these policies will be counterintuitive with more young people taking up smoking as it is an even more obvious means of rebellion. On top of this, where similar laws have been introduced (see several provinces in Canada, Iceland etc) the effects have been consistent with the research.
However, what most riles me about the consultation was the brazen inclusion of the wish to ‘denormalise’ smoking and smokers. “Denormalisation” is not in itself a conceptual objective that is compatible with the principles of good regulation of a legal product. It is unclear in its definition and has no clear, measurable objective. Neither is it possible to further define and validate the concept through clear and concrete evidence. It is, at best, a speculative supposition.
Government either regulates or it does not regulate. In turn, a product is legal or it is not legal. To attempt to create a grey area as an objective of public policy represents a deliberate and illegitimate attempt to demonise and discriminate against a chosen, legal activity freely enjoyed by a significant proportion of the adult population. This is contrary to the respect for core democratic values that is linked both to freedom of expression and to personal liberty.
It is illegal for a farmer to smoke on his own in a single seated tractor in the middle of a field in the middle of the countryside. It legal for a parent to smoke in their car with the windows up and three children in the back.
I could go on further but, to be honest, I think folk will have struggled to have read to here. If any one comments I may rant on (through my gasps for air…)
Thursday, 11 September 2008
To keep Malc happy...
Further to below, and in case you haven’t seen, Brown has finally got a new chief speech-writer. Tim Kiddell previously led the cross-government delivery unit for the Health Work and Wellbeing Strategy supporting Dame Carol Black's review of the health of Britain's workforce.
A senior civil service source informs me – in all seriousness – that one of the interview questions was: “Are you prepared to regularly be phoned by the Prime Minister at 3am?”.
Apparently Kiddell was the only one who said yes.
A senior civil service source informs me – in all seriousness – that one of the interview questions was: “Are you prepared to regularly be phoned by the Prime Minister at 3am?”.
Apparently Kiddell was the only one who said yes.
Truffle shuffle...
I understand that Wilf Stevenson started at Number 10 on Monday. It has not been officially announced yet but it would appear that he has taken over Stephen Carter's role. Wilf is not involved in policy but strategy.
This is the first step in what is likely to be a major overhaul at Number 10 combined with a substantial reshuffle after the Labour Party conference. Perhaps we will finally have a Brownite government after all ....
This is the first step in what is likely to be a major overhaul at Number 10 combined with a substantial reshuffle after the Labour Party conference. Perhaps we will finally have a Brownite government after all ....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
