Passion with Compassion

Over lunch with my fellow mature students recently conversation turned inevitably to politics, the Tories taking their usual lead with a provocative comment about all the ?Scroungers? Hard working tax payers have to support. Clearly not everyone needing support is a scrounger and not all tax payers are honest and hard working. In fact there are many who will avoid paying tax if at all possible ? ?How much for cash?? Etc.

It is a sad fact that where compassion is shown time obscures initial ideals while some simply take advantage of the system. Now I have no desire to become embroiled in the abortion debate but I was shocked yesterday by the passion shown in some of the comments in response to Cranmer?S Blog (see left) under the heading ?I?Ve never voted Labour before?. Abortion replacing contraception is abhorrent to most people but back street abortion was not something to be proud of, neither was the cynical exploitation of unmarried mothers by some religious organisations ?Caring? For them in squalid conditions and profiting from the ?Disposal? Of their children.

Moved by compassion yet revolted particularly by late terminations the choice must be agonising for anyone having to make it but to do so surrounded by hysteria is bad enough without turning it into a political football.

It?S a pity these people can?T agree to disagree like my mature fellow students.

Read More

“Political Stunt” v. Tory Stunt

The conference arranged by the Secretary of State for Health to help build a consensus on plans to pay for care of the elderly has been branded a “political stunt” by his Tory counterpart. Their preferred option was for a stunt involving a 'R.I.P. Off ' poster campaign to frighten people into believing that a no vote for them would result in a £20,000 “death tax”.

So we have another political football match being played out while the vulnerable have to watch from the side lines. As one old boy in a care home remarked on the BBC ‘News’ last night, we’ve worked all our lives paying taxes and insurance so the Government must provide care for us in our old age. True, but the problem of funding has to be addressed to achieve a consensus of all parties.

In that spirit reports suggest that the conference drew wide praise from charities, local authorities and experts who attended. The preferred option appears to be a progressive estate levy which takes account of people’s ability to contribute rather than the scare mongering £20,000 compulsory tax referred to in the poster campaign. But the Tory stunt had the desired effect. When asked, two-thirds of people favoured everybody contributing to the cost of those needing social care but when asked if there should be a “death tax” to pay for it two-thirds responded negatively.

That is no surprise but if they had been asked if they would rather pay a progressive estate levy than risk selling their homes to pay for nursing care no doubt there would have been a different response. But to be fair the Tories have offered an alternative, a voluntary insurance scheme! Fine for the super rich who can easily afford the insurance cover and get away without paying tax while the poorest are likely to lose out.

“Political Stunt” 1 – Tory Stunt 0. Time for a real consensus please.

Read More

"We are all in this together." (20)

Source: realsociology

By his own admission Danny Alexander has confirmed that Government attacks on tax-paying public servants (average pension £5,600 compared with his £26,403 if he leaves at the next election before picking up lucrative directorships in the financial sector) has been all about saving billions of pounds for the exchequer rather than affordable pensions. That should help pay for the tax dodging activities of companies who get fat on the rest of us.

Read More

Cameron's trumpet

Maria Miller leaves the Houses of Parliament after apologising to MPs. Photo Warren Allott/Telegraph

“The bedrock of our society” - Women and Equalities Minister, Maria Miller!!

"Marriage is the bedrock of our society and now irrespective of sexuality everyone in British society can make that commitment. It is a wonderful achievement and whilst this legislation may be about marriage, its impact is so much wider. Making marriage available to all couples demonstrates our society’s respect for all individuals regardless of their sexuality. It demonstrates the importance we attach to being able to live freely. It says so much about the society that we are and the society that we want to live in."

In my mind's eye I can still see her at the dispatch box, brazenly lecturing the Britain people on how we should order our lives when in reality she was pressing the case of an unrepresentative minority for political purposes, creating a law which required numerous subsequent amendments to avoid, for example, a gay King’s ‘husband’ from becoming Queen!

It is now clear why Mrs Miller was so positive about "being able to live freely" in "the society that we want to live in." She had experience of living freely at the expense of the tax-payer.

The Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards found that the Culture Minister had over-claimed by ?45,000 for expenses towards mortgage interest payments and council tax but the Commons Standards Committee ruled that Mrs Miller should repay only ?5,800 and apologise to parliament for her "attitudedanquot;.

The Prime Minister regards that as reasonable for an 'honest mistake'. He said, "It was found she had made mistakes, she accepted that, repaid the money, she apologised unreservedly to the House of Commons, so I think we should leave it there." His comments will make 'the hard working people of this country' wonder why there is one law for the privileged and another for the rest of us. As one MP remarked, "If one of my constituents had claimed £6,000 of taxpayers' money for, say, housing benefit and then tried to claim that it was an oversight, that she hadn't realised that she wasn't entitled to this money, the book would be thrown at my constituent, rightly."

Having made a terse, inadequate 'apology' to the House, Mrs Miller keeps her job despite being regarded as amediocre minister who is "out of her depth".  Perhaps she feels secure as one of the few women in Team Cameron happy to act as his trumpet. A successful grammar school girl keen to make good she has been used by a privileged elite to undermine the institution of marriage in a squalid vote chasing exercise.

The Telegraph suggests that the 'apology' was used as an occasion to bury bad news but that is no surprise these days when everything seems designed to gain votes at any expense. That is evidenced by Dave looking to the Muslim vote by claiming that "halal meat will be protected as long as he Prime Minister". Perhaps that is why he prefers to shop at Waitrose with customers who are "more engaged than those who shop elsewhere". Somewhere he can rely on getting halal meats.

Nothing it seems is too difficult for us to swallow!

Read More