Skip to main content

That was the week

I started the week by considering how the wrong message had been taken from the Olympics and Paralympics. In 'If we invest in people we can win' I argued that medals had been won because support was given to the particular sports and to the individuals. If you invest in people you can produce winners. Hard work alone wasn't the key to success.

Contrary to the portrayal by Mr Cameron and his colleagues, the majority of those receiving welfare benefits are hard working and dedicated, day in and day out. But, for the poorest of them, he is cutting their support. They are winners and yet he is taking away from them the support they need to go on being winners; bread winners for their families. It really is a very cynical move by the government. They are making the poor pay the most for the mess the bankers got us into. I suspect  from their divisive rhetoric, Mr Duncan Smith offers a disingenuous and divisive comparison,  the assumption is that protecting middle income groups will win votes. They probably gave up long ago on attracting votes from the poorest. 

Privatisation in the National Health Service is gathering pace with fears of increasing fragmentation of service provision. More than 100 private firms will be commissioned by the NHS to provide basic services including physiotherapy, dermatology, hearing aids, MRI scanning, and psychological therapy. In 'Ideologically driven reform will undermine the NHS' I argued that this would make it easier to scale down provision by the NHS itself and would open the way for charging for these key services.

As with winter fuel allowances and bus passes for the elderly it will be argued that providing these services free for everyone regardless of wealth would be unfair, thus paving the way for the breech of the fundamental principle of the NHS that health care should be free at the point of delivery. A wedge will be driven deep into the heart of the NHS and the service will be cracked open. Consumer choice will become the principle guiding commissioning and delivery. It will all seem fair to those who can afford it. Once broken the NHS will be difficult to rebuild. It took decades of public funding and commitment to create; it might take just a few years to destroy. 

The impact of £20bn of cuts from the NHS budget was considered in two further articles challenging the assumption that cuts could be made without affecting front line services. In 'Don't believe it when they say front line services won't be cut' and 'NHS sleepwalking to a disaster' I questioned the assumption that the NHS and other services such as the police and social work had too many managers. All are affected by big cuts, and in all cases it is affecting the front line service. 


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba

Keir Starmer has a lot to offer

The Labour Party is in the process of making a decision that will decide whether it can recover from the defeat in 2019 General Election.  All the candidates have much to offer and are making their case well. No doubt for some the decision will be difficult.  Others may well have made up their minds on the simple binary of Left-wing-Right-wing. The choice should be whoever is best placed to pull the party together.  Someone who can form a front bench of all talents and across the spectrum in the party. That is what Harold Wilson did in the 1960s.  His government included Roy Jenkins on the right and Barbar Castle on the left; it included Crossman and Crossland, and Tony Benn with Jim Callaghan.  It presented a formidable team. Keir Starmer brings to the top table a formidable career outside politics, having been a human rights lawyer and then Director of Public Prosecutions.   He is a man of integrity and commitment who believes in a fairer society where opportunities are more

The lion and the wildebeest

Birds flock, fish school, bees swarm, but social being is more than simply sticking together.  Social groups enable specialisation and a sharing of abilities, and enhances ability, learning and creating new tricks. The more a group works together, the more effective they become as a team.  Chimpanzees learn from each other how to use stones to crack nuts, or sticks to get termites.  All around us we see cooperation and learning in nature.  Nature is inherently creative.  Pulling together becomes a rallying cry during a crisis.  We have heard it throughout the coronavirus pandemic.  "We are all in this together", a mantra that encourages people to adopt a common strategy. In an era of 'self-interest' and 'survival of the fittest,'  and 'selfish gene', we lose sight of the obvious conclusion from the evidence all around us.   Sticking together is more often the better approach.  This is valid for the lion as it is also for the wildebeest.   We don't