No Hope for Snowflakes

No Hope for Snowflakes

For the past two and half years this country has been taken over by the terrible escapades of the political establishment, aided and a-bettered by earnest dissatisfaction, complicit ignorance and arrogant narcissism of elements of that same establishment matching together with the proletariat fodder, prosperous ones or all the “left behinds”; all of whom seem to eschewed any realism of the state of the nation that has nurtured them to a position which is now to be overshadowed by a leap of blind judgement that offers no measurable foundation on which to formulate an obtainable aspiration for society; one considerably better or at the very least harmonising with what has gone before. As of yet there is no one capable of elucidation a clear future for the betterment of social order, civil structures or overall living standards that can respond to the secreted call for action that was probably implicit in the act that has caused the still unfolding tragedy of political incompetence.

Where is the vision, a revelation, the path to a better future that is to be constructed for all?

No one of searing intellect, humanity or empathetic constructive presence stands out in the public arena; nor is there any indication of a cogent buildable plan which anyone would assess as a new bold direction that encompasses a spirit uplifting vision, a dream or if you like a mirage utopian future, something to aim for in which everyone has a stake, a enhanced lifestyle, a valued place. No one since MLK has the power to stand and say “I have a dream”, a vacant platform still, yet needed for the enhancement of all.

Sadly one has been chewing on this, one might call, a deficit of holistic direction and can see that to use those now infamous Cameron bastard words “we are all in this together”, ‘we the people’ are certainly not all together and are infected with hypocrisy, self delusion, selfishness, vacuous well meaning verbose intent and creeping fear. To this one must also add now, the Maybots “Brexit means Brexit” and the psychosis of “The will of the people”. This is not the basis of any foundation leading to golden days but to give an indication of what one means by this deficit and how lacking the current destabilising epoch is, one might consider the benefits society has gained or the implications of past broad sweeping strategies, when there may have been someone with a humane society enriching vision.

The NHS.

This was established out of the Liberal party idea of a health insurance - National Insurance, introduced in 1911 by Liberal Chancellor of the Exchequer David Lloyd George and expanded throughout the 1920s and 1930s. This was a compulsory insurance scheme for workers in certain industries, though it generally did not cover family members. The insurance granted access to a doctor from the local panel when needed, but usually didn’t stretch as far as hospital treatment.

Another scheme was membership of one of the various community-owned mutual aid funds and medical clubs, into which working people could pay while they could afford to do so, (no work no cover). They would receive access to a doctor, medicines and sometimes hospital treatment, without having to see an almoner who decides whether the individual was a worthy person to receive limited charitable basic medical assistance, many did not, or if they had means of paying in advance. For most people, however, the doctor’s fee of around sixpence (let alone the cost of any medicines prescribed) would have been outside available resources. As a result, these two schemes were all that was available and only for working-class / wealthier paying patients.

That good healthcare should be available to all, regardless of wealth was not a consideration until it was launched by the then minister of health, Labour, Aneurin Bevan, on July 5 1948. It was based on 3 core principles: that it meet the needs of everyone: that it is free at the point of delivery: that it be based on clinical need: not ability to pay. These 3 principles have guided the development of the NHS for the past 70 years and remain at its core. With the exception of some charges, such as prescriptions, optical services and dental services, the NHS in England remains free for all UK residents. This currently stands at more than 65 million people in the UK and 55 million people in England alone. When the NHS started, it had a budget of £437 million (roughly £15 billion at today’s value). The overall NHS budget today is around £117 billion.

It is to date the most beneficial far-sighted highly regarded function of a humane social civilisation and it brought onto state control the majority of the medical profession which up to that time was run as private individual businesses. Although funded by tax revenue, the entry into medical assistance is via state funded medical practitioner (local surgery doctors) who remain ‘private business’ and there are still entirely private medical business facilities which the NHS pay to buy in services for NHS patients. 

The cost annually for the NHS has increased as a result of enlarged population, better and more expensive medical treatments, the ability to treat more illnesses and there is an expectation that the NHS will keep a body alive with treatment beyond a previous terminal disease aged and often against patients self harm life style.

Due to the importance of the NHS within the social structure of the UK, over the years it has become the play thing of government policy machination. (1)

On the one hand a desire to make it more efficient and a better provider to match the best in the world (which on a cost basis it is) against a drive to control expanding cost and divest the NHS to a private business model with a direct linkage to the patient paying, with some far right protagonist willing to have installed a pre 1948 style health provision. The still simmering opposition to the NHS which is an undercurrent theme in the political extremist right, is not new; considering that when it was first proposed in a Tory coalition white paper in 1944 “A National Health Service” and they then voted against the Beven NHS package twice with additional fierce opposition from the BMA and rich business health service interest; indicates the attitude of the deserving rich against the undeserving poor. Health services provision had been starved of investment and coverage prior 1948 and it has been since 2009, again slowly restricted of proper funding rather than have a dedicated tax revenue stream. It is only its electoral popularity that saves it.

Pension / State Pension

The idea of a pension, an income of some form to aid to a person after their use as a labouring servant has ended and no longer able to perform a duty, goes back, in the UK to about late 17th century, first arranged for serving Royal Navy Officers. Up to that time the idea of retirement did not exist anywhere and it was work, exist, die with a similar script being noted by Otto von Bismarck in 1881, of Prussia who suggested to the Reichstag that the state should give financial support for older members of society, ‘those who are disabled from work by age and invalidity’; this idea was adopted later but set at a 70 age limit if a recipient was lucky to live that long.

Also in the US around 1850 some state employees of big cities began gaining public funded pensions and the early 20th century saw a few large private companies beginning offering pensions. None of these schemes where designed to be generous, merely offering a modicum of assistance and retirees might have to continue to do some paid work to survive.

In The UK the first transformation to a fixed pensionable age income came in with the Old Age Pensions Act of Parliament in 1908 by the Liberal Government (1906-1914) enacted in 1909 and seen as the foundation of the current welfare system. At its inception individuals over 70 were given 5 shillings a week or if married 7shilling and 6 pence (in old money). The Act provided for a non-contributory old age pension for some 500k people, with the cost being borne by younger generations. The payment was set low and workers had to be earning £31.10 shilling per year, they would be encourage to make effort to establish their own ‘additional’ provision. To receive a pension they had to pass a 'character test'; only those with a 'good character' could receive the pensions. One also had to have been a UK resident for at least 20 years to be eligible and people who hadn't worked their whole life were not eligible; also excluded were those in receipt of poor relief, people being held in what were then called 'lunatics asylums', persons sentenced to prison were barred for ten years after their release, persons convicted of drunkenness (at the discretion of the court), and any person who was guilty of ‘habitual failure to work’ according to one’s ability. As one can see there was the beneficial idea to make a move towards improving the social conditions of ‘deserving people’ being better but only for those fitting to the morality work strictures of the time.

Since 1908 there have been many changes to the idea of a pension provision with the major enhancement of that early foresight occurring in the 1942 report of Sir William Beveridge of "Social Insurance and Allied Services” state welfare proposal and led to the 1946 National Insurance Act-introducing contributory State Pension for all, starting in 1948. Initially pensions were £1.30 a week for a single person and £2.10 for a married couple, paid from the age of 65 for men and 60 for women. The thrust of provision of pensions by the state was seen as a fundamental fitting development (after two wars) to provide aid for those no longer able to work and reduce social poverty afflicting families and alleviate starvation, something that was unjustly common prior to the 18th century.

From the early1950s many companies started to offer their own non or contributory pension schemes, these were generally seen as a way of attracting workers during a time of labour shortage and as wages were low, contribution were sold as “deferred” wages on the assumption that employment would be a ‘lifetime’ job. Since then however much has also change in the demographic, economic working environment and the attitude and belief in pension provision. This change is driven primary by the desire to place responsibility of a pension into the ownership of the recipient, reduce the cost of the pension “burden” on companies, the insolvent gigs / zero hours labourers and reduce working population retirement expectations, and trim down the state tax take paying for it.

As an idea of the changes taken place see (2).

The idea of some sort of finance support to be available at the end of a working life has to be seen as another of the visionary improvements to the social fabric of any civil society. There is no doubt that such a scheme would not have been devised or expanded without the weight of a state pressure; how it is paid for, how much, when, who pays and who gets it have become more contentious in the past 4 decades and one can see how the scheme has become corrupted by business and neglected by the state as they lose sight of the driving forces that gave birth to its inception even though the state pension has hardly ever been over generous. In some cases funds supposedly set up for a pension provision have been seen as unused pots of gold and raided by corporate interest to load into corporate activates or simply stolen; allowed by deliberate neglect of governments to monitor and regulate how private pension schemes have been run and operated at the same as trying to whither down the universal state pension scheme. It is clear that due to the changes in age demographics and the nature of ‘work’ pension schemes are under pressure. Private sectors are attempting to limit or divest out of company pension schemes or deliberately off load them to the Pension Protection Scheme.

Governments have had less inclination to tax, there are less worker contribution to the tax take or signing into pension schemes and too many people are living much longer than 65, this has resulted in the need to increase the pensionable age up to, soon, 70, in the hope that as in the 18/19th century many more individual die off before becoming a “drain” on the public / corporate purses. Since its inception there have been many modifications to the pension provision not all in keeping with the spirit of improving the foundations of a shared civil society and it is under attack by persons of extremist insularity on the basis of being unwillingness to fund and help the undeserving aspirations recalcitrant workers.

That there is still a need for a ring fenced state controlled compulsory scheme, should not be in doubt. That it can be financed suitably is possible with constructive determination against avoidances. That it has problems of moral dilemmas: of who gets it, if at all, when or how much; has to be accepted but it is open to mitigation however it will be a battle to keep the Liberal and Labour vision alive.

Holidays.

Unlike the above two ‘visionary’ developments to aid social improvement which were purposely construed, the concept of holidays as enjoyed today was built over a period of time but as a coincidental aspect of the industrial revolution. Up to the early 19th century having a holiday, a period free of any obligated task was the sole advantage of those of wealth who could afford to travel and had the power to dictate the use of their own time as in the “doing the grand tour”. Most of the population worked or scrabbled to earn a living / survive every day; the closest they got to a holiday was relaxing from a task on a ‘holy day’, to obey a religious date or the Sabbath. In 1871, the first legislation relating to bank holidays was passed when Liberal politician and banker Sir John Lubbock introduced the Bank Holidays Act settling with 4 bank holidays excluding Good Friday and Christmas day which had been established religious set days. It was possible in some work activities to take agreed limited time off, it was not common and hardly anyone got paid to do so.

As a matter of convenience Mill owners in 1870 allowed a shutdown period for factory maintenance to release workers, this became known as ‘Wakes Week’, still unpaid and although as an enforced break was welcomed it required the loss of income to be somehow allocated for if workers were to have an ‘enjoyable’ holiday period.

Right up to the early twentieth century there was no legal right to any form of holiday or payment until in 1938/9 The Holidays with Pay Act gave workers, whose minimum rates of wages were fixed by trade boards, the right to one week’s holiday per year. This did not apply to all, only some in specified trade covered in the act in an income bracket. This was gradually taken up by most employers and over time increased to two then four weeks leave (again not everyone gained the same leave period) and establish the set bank holidays as paid entitlement.

Although since 1800 there has been a fast and dramatic shift in the application of mechanical and electronic technology which up to and in at the beginning of the 21st, century it has been suggested that this would lead to much greater leisure time for a larger portion of a working population, it has not happened. There had been no general official movement to seriously increase paid holiday time with evidence suggesting that cumulative working time has increased and is overall for some less financial rewarding.

The only notable 20th centaury changes to holiday entitlement came from the persistence of organised labour via trade unions and in 1971The Banking and Financial Dealings Act in which the main bulk of bank holidays were specified. In 1974 the Conservative Democratic Unionist Party made new years day as a bank holiday largely in recognition that it was in effect being used by industry as a loss work day anyway. This was followed in 1978 by the Michael Foot of the labour Party establishing a workers day – ‘May Day’, being the first day of May but set to the first Monday in May as a Holiday. This was much derided by the Conservative DUP at the time and ever since, with later the CDUP and Liberal coalition of 2010, they have at various times attempted to have the day expunge or moved to a later part of the year and renamed.

One interesting but unrelated to the development of holidays was in 1968, as a result of pressure on the pound the Labour Prime Minister Harold Wilson assembled a meeting on the 14 March to declare 15 March a non-statutory bank holiday. This authorised the government to close the London gold market to staunch the losses being suffered by the traded currency.

For some 30 years after 1968 there has been no real movement to provide more leisure time for hard pressed full time, part time or zero hours / non contract workers and their right to paid holidays has had some ongoing resistance from businesses and elements of right wing political cohorts.

This tension was brought some conclusion when in 1998 The Working Time Regulations (1998) implement the European Working Time Directive into GB law; the Regulations were amended / extended in 2003 to incorporate other class of workers by the Labour Party. The Regulations specifically states “A worker is entitled to be paid in respect of any period of annual leave to which he is entitled under regulation 13, at the rate of a week’s pay in respect of each week of leave” in effect a minimum 4 weeks paid leave but in practice is 5.6 weeks’ (28 days) paid leave a year and one day off per week and in this employers may include bank holidays as part of overall annual leave; which some do. There have been calls for additional Bank Holidays but this is unlikely to meet with any success.

The Working Time Regulations  / Directive was an importance piece of legislation, it has provided legal force to entitlement of holidays and also laid out how long workers can undertake a working week task and having to take a formal break. Sadly again, this piece of legislation was fortunately unsuccessfully resisted by the Conservative DU Party and with the advent of Brexit there are some elements now of the current political establishment that would like to have the whole regulations abolished, as it is seen an hindrance to a range of existing and ‘potential future’ business interest. (3)

Accession to the EEC 1972/5

The European Communities Act 1972 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom which made legal provision for the accession of the United Kingdom to the the EEC (or "Common Market") In 1972 the Conservative DU Party under E. Heath concluded negotiation to join the EEC .This was purely a political move by the government pressed forward by the Prime Minister, Heath, whether by being a keen advocate of Europe or in taking a superior view of the direction the country had to move too, he seemed determined to move away from the hindering baggage of recent British history stuck in the diminishing war glow of post victory and imperialist past. Latching onto Europe with the French and Germans was felt, by some as a betrayal, a surrendering of Great Britons independence. There was no great public demand or input to take such action prior to the ratification of the act, no electoral manifesto promise, no pre-emptive referendum and no consistent vicious media histrionics. There had been by government on successive occasion’s attempts to join. All approaches were vetoed De Gaulle until his death in 1969. The parliamentary debate leading up to the final submission and acceptance was contentious and opposed by some fractions in all parties with some 300 hours of earnest controversial debate fought out.

On the 1st Jan 1973 the UK officially joined the Common Market and for the following two years there were ongoing arguments by ‘die hard’ dissenters to the act, to force a political rethink, this time pressing on the Labour Party’s Prime Minister, H. Wilson and attempting force him to revoke the act. Like Heath to his credit his view may have been not so much as being wholeheartedly overwhelmingly taken in by the thought of being subsumed into Europe but from a pragmatic stance knowing the state of the economy and that America was a supporter of a stronger Europe with the UK in it. He managed at the last moment to get parliament to agree to a referendum; not to leave as some wanted but to have confirm the terms / continued membership under which the UK joined.     

In 1975 the electorate voted by the referendum 'Yes' by 67.2% to 32.8% to stay in Europe.

One only included this as an indication of the substantial shift that government can do that has an impact on the whole of society. It was not implemented as a means of making the social structure and the lives of individuals in it any better (unlike NHS, pensions or holidays) one could say it did not come about due to any desire to consider improving or spreading the common wealth of the nation but it did demonstrate statesmanship foresight. Although the joining of the EEC was and still is an epoch shaping event, it is now lost in the mind set of most people just what a difficult period the late sixties/seventies were.

There was a great deal wrong with the economy, it was struggling from a lack of investment, deficient productivity, new foreign competitiveness challenge, political dogma ossification, labour disenchantment and more importantly business trends were shifting to be more international; a coalescing into power blocks of which Europe was identified as a serious contender. Since then there is ample evidence that the UK has done well by having associated with European countries. Perhaps lamentably with assistance of destructive media and disparaging political and business vested interest, the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 for repealing the European Communities Act 1972, gained Parliamentary approval for the withdrawal agreement being negotiated between HM Government and the European Union. In this and in viewing the current tortuous often vindictive background demands, one may conclude that there has been no comprehensive vision to be candid with what has been really gained by being in the European Union and what is realistically obtainable or beneficial for the nation in the eventual abandonment of the EU. Whatever are the causes leading to a possible spectacular change of economic direction, it is unlikely to be one that cements the social or political fabric together after being chain-sawed apart due to an effect of deceitful forgetfulness, lies and a deplorable lack of any statesmanship (stateswoman).

An interesting adjunct to this, is to note that during Thatcher’s reign (1997-1990) although there were slight murmurings from element of her back bencher MPs over Europe “meddling”; as she had complete control of parliament – a practical dictatorship, no one attempted to instigate an unseating putsch against her over differences relating to the EU, she only became deposable towards her end for different reasons. These back benchers MPs are the same PM John Major “bastards” back benches who later were to give John Major premiership (1990-1997) a destabilising time and later rolled over the PM David Cameron (2110-2016). They have more successfully gained directive control over PM Teresa May (Maybot) 2016 - ? As is still being fought over now, it may be a case of eventually, “Don’t know what one is losing until it is lost”? (4)

National Minimum Wage 1999.

Up to the early 80’s the wages of trade employees and some white collar workers were controlled or governed by union negotiations, confidential agreements, custom and practices, wages councils or government incomes policies. The forced union reforms of the early 1980s with the breaking of union ‘closed shops’ and organised bargaining capability taken out by the Conservative DU Party with the Thatcher governments, who had created a period of very high unemployment, ensured that there was a transfer of the perceived “balance of negotiating power” towards employers. By the 1990s, when  the last wages councils were abolished, remuneration for many employees in a number of trades sectors fell below what was considered to be a” living wage”. In the Labour Party’s time out of government opposing Thatcher’s monetarist policies and her attack on the unions, Labour became committed to arguing for a minimum wage as a means of reducing poverty, observed as a reduction in living standards however the Conservative DU Party (funded as ever by businesses and with their backing) absolutely rebuffed any consideration of a minimum wage.

The Labour Party’s 1997 election manifesto undertook to bring in a minimum wage, in July that year the government set up the Low Pay Commission (LPC), with a remit to advise on the rate of the National Minimum Wage, and in November, the national minimum wage bill was introduced to parliament. The LPC first report in 1998, to the government was accepted with a rate £3.60 per hour. A youth rate was eventually set at £3. The Act received royal assent in July 1998 and after wide consultations on the detail regulations to the scheme it was finally accepted and on the 1st April 1999 the NMW came into existence.

Success in establishing the NMW was a hard won achievement of the Labour Party for it was a very controversial step as it was strongly argued that such a forced rise in pay would lead to a reduction, by employers of jobs and be uncompetitive, a threat to business successes and certainly a rise in unemployment. Proof of this was offered by some economist from a number of sources however later assessment indicated that the basis of the opposition was false and that the NMW had no negative effect on employment or businesses productivity. Up to today the NMW is generally accepted and in 2003 LPC stated "It has ceased to be a source of controversy and become an accepted part of our working life." Eventually also leading the Conservative DU Party abandoning their long term policy to eliminate it and in 2015 George Osborne in his first Conservative Budget raised and renamed the NMW to the National Living Wage but also reduced benefits for low-paid workers. (5)

The thing to note with this, is again it could be said to be a piece of visionary importance, not from the drive of one person but a collective encompassing reality of what was happening to the livelihood of  millions of people. It was aimed at providing a betterment of the working classes and perhaps because of it has since raised the living standards and economy of the UK. But as has been noted before, when such worthwhile beneficial ideas come up against vested interest, the position such powers seek, is to immediately denounce and deride the idea. Whenever a creative idea is aimed at in lifting the civil structure – creating an enhanced life style for the populace, it requires the realignment of some financial wealth; wealth holders and influential powers do not do so willingly.

Poll Tax 1989/90.

Up to the introduction of this tax, a property rating system was used to fund local government expenditure however in 1974 Margret Thatcher, Shadow Environment Secretary, laid out a plan to replace this with what was called ‘The Community Charge’, ever-after known as the poll tax. In the 1979 elections the Conservative DU Party manifesto said that lowering income tax took priority over any other changes as a means of getting businesses to invest. She continued to aim at changing the property rating system which although simple to operate, collect and understood, she thought a change to individual tax payment for local services by household adults would generate a move to more “engagement” in the local political arena, make a more direct link with constituents voters in the services provided by local councils and control “high spending labour council”. In 1986 the green paper Paying for Local Government, it planned the poll tax, a tax per adult living in a property; it was eventually included in the Conservative DU Party manifesto for the 1987 General Election with the legislation passed in 1987/8 and the new tax replaced the rates in Scotland from the start of the 1989/90 financial year and England and Wales followed from the start of the 1990/91 financial year. At the same time this step change of raising local revenue would get around the problem of property rate revaluations which should have occurred every 5/10 years to keep pace with property value increases but were cancelled since then, for the resulting tax rise on property showed a dramatic shift in valuation between the rapidly rising buoyant affluent areas of the economy and linking this divergence to the less prosperous north and the richer south of strong conservative supporters.

The Poll tax was extremely unpopular and once in operation seen as unwarranted and inequitable. It did not take into account the financial dynamics that operate within a family’s household income and expenditure, for although it was an individual tax it was the named household person who was responsible for paying for all adults whether earning or not and took no account of a occupied mansion or hovel residences. It gave rise to tremendous opposition, riots, street protest, and running battles with the police. As the pace of opposition grew, the government attempted to overlook the resentment and examples of iniquitous situation, it became obviously a political and electoral danger with some of her MPs calling for a rethink (as the cabinet papers of 89/92 show). It was becoming a disaster for her government especially as it was hitting conservative supporter local authorities but as it was her key ‘flagstaff policy’, ministers knew, as on other things, they could not change her mind. It was not until she was ingloriously chuckled out of office by resigning on 22 November 1990, that a change could take place.

The charge was replaced by Council Tax in 1993, by John Major, of Conservative DU Party, two years (1991) after its abolition was announced. (6)

There is, in using this sample, little doubt that this was the most contentious policy issue of the Thatcher time in her period of office (there were others, long term, more damaging: Deindustrialisation, Monetarism). And although one might suggested it also indicated a period of ‘statesmanship’ (stateswoman) applicable to one person it most certainly was one that did change the shape, strength and depth of the UK economy and fractured the working class structures; she created long term problems that linger today and did nothing, one suggest, to enhance the general working population living standards with her myopic dreams.

Universal Credit 2010/12+

Universal credit was a proposed transformation of the UK benefits system, to combine six so-called, (by the new Conservative DU Party) “legacy” benefits. This to replace the following benefits:

Child Tax Credit, Housing Benefit, Income Support, income-based Jobseeker’s Allowance (JSA)

Income-related Employment and Support Allowance (ESA), Working Tax Credit

All combined into one single benefit payment, paid monthly, to claimants. After a number of years tinkling with the various benefits systems all political parties largely supported the idea of “simplifying” and making the new scheme more efficient, easier, less subjected to fraudulent application and aimed to offer some incentive for people to seek some form of employment rather than be “locked/ trapped” into state provision of benefits. It would help their quality of life.

The work and pensions secretary Iain Duncan Smith and the welfare reform minster David Freud on announcing the reform emphasised the scale of their plan, saying it was a "once in many generations" reform with a key feature of the benefit that was, unemployment payments would taper off as the recipient moved into work, not suddenly stop, thus avoiding a sudden cut off from benefit that was holding people back from seeking employment for a fear of having no money to carry them forward  after starting work. In 2013 the new unified benefit was implemented slowly in selective job centres aimed at new claimants with the least difficult personal situations. The policy called for it to be gradually applied across the UK by 2017 but a number of serous operational failures meant that the scheme is some years behind and not likely to be fully serviceable perhaps for five years.

The initial  instigators of the scheme and with the backing of many MPs, it was postulated that the scheme would be a major step in assisting willing people to improve their life opportunities but as was made clear at the time the first few years would required additional finances to smooth a transition period for all claimants. But although not specifically publically expressed, the treasury under G. Osborne were not keen on the scheme as it was seen as an increase in financial outlay being a ‘burden’ on resources. It was clear and understood that the scheme would need to have ‘start up’ investment and mitigating gap funding however by the time Universal Credit started the treasury actually cut the overall funding to the “legacy” benefit system and saw the new scheme as a way of making substantial savings. I. D. Smith MP, as the lead proposer of the scheme resigned in protest. The reason why the G. Osborne in the treasury practically asphyxiated the scheme was because of his disastrous pet “Austerity” drives to ‘balance the books’.       

While it began life intending to be more generous to most claimants, it is now less munificent, with many claimants becoming worse off. Within the 3 years of the scheme running, the evidence was accumulating that indicated that there was much wrong with it, some claimants were suffering a risk of hunger, debt and rent arrears, ill-health and homelessness with many more being sent to food banks. The government refused to acknowledge that there was a problem until numerous Conservative backbench MPs were stunned by the privation and penury faced by many claimants leading eventually to some changes that were made but not enough to satisfy critics.

The problem one suggest with this scheme, was that it was an ambitious but possibly rational realignment of  the six state benefits to meet the needs of people and help those that wanted to work (if it could be found at a price) to become as self sufficient as possible. It fell foul though of two things, the treasury opportunist dead hand and the perception of the affluent bubble of those who were behind the introduction of  UC. They assumed that those on benefit had the financial managing ability to have or create spare cash resources to fill a funding gap during transition from the six benefits to UC or to working and could mange on a monthly basis income and expenditure i.e. budget. They completely failed to understand that those on benefits were just living from week to week with no spare cash capacity and had no aptitude to move from a weekly spending paten to a monthly one or to have the dependability to pay landlords rent themselves unlike the previous direct benefit payment. Claimants also complained that UC is inexplicably complex, unreliable and hard to manage, particularly being without internet access, which many did not have and that UC staff are frequently inexperienced with all the technicalities in the running of it.

All of the above is probably true.  Could it be said though that this scheme was imaginative aimed at a sector of society that had been “left behind” but needed the best help a civilised country could offer; undoubtedly and it does hold out the promise of delivering but only if resources are applied to make it work. However one thinks that with the existing mind set of certain parts of the Conservative DU Party and the fanciful austerity drive, the captivating preoccupation with delivering ‘the peoples vote’  re exiting the EU and all that will follow, does not give one any optimism.  (7)

Brexit 2016 + Ongoing?

With reference to ‘Accession to the EEC 1972/5’ above and what one has stated before in polemics of no repute, there is little value in outlining again the ramification leading up to and the proceedings in performance today. However it is worth while stating here for the sake of laying out the purpose of this article, that of all the actions of government and the part individuals have participate, in the formulation and directing of government policies, this piece of exploitative deed shows more clearly than anything else one could point too that demonstrates with absolute clarity (well ones clarity) that there was no application of comprehensive foresight in the pursuance of this path rather there was a huge measure of deceit, hubris, self denial, dereliction of duty and cowardice. There was no encompassing vision which one could identify with to show this act could, would or will lead to the betterment of the social civil structures. The evidence of the incompetence of perception, vitriolic mind numbing defensive diversionary attacks in promulgating with spurious arguments the assumed benefits of this action, has little to commend it as a sign of national or governance reality.

The tortuous unrealistic demands that underscore negotiations seem capable of “running the clock down” to the  leave date 29th March 2019 which had been set by parliament with some undue hast. With such an epoch sapping event, to be afflicted on future generations would seem unconscionable but it little matters what the outcome is to be, for the damage has been done. The EU (quite rightly one thinks) cannot trust that any agreement made with the UK government on either a leave deal or future trade terms will be honoured beyond a likely change of future government, more so without clarity on any trading terms that will not be settled, as it stands now, for two years. Businesses will, as they are doing now, decide that the best and least troublesome market administrative requirements will be within the EU members. One despairs for “out means out”!          

Snowflakes et al to a parlous state

I really don’t know why one bothers with all this, things are as they are until there not, then they are something else; but one does have concerns for the immediate generation and those that may follow. Although One has used a derogatory term, ‘Snowflakes’ to place the generation that is defined by its easy ability to be offended and upset at opinion / views that conflicts with their cosseted experiences, preferring the tack of “no platforming” to show their support against controversially expressed attitudes of notable individuals; it does at least show that they have began to take a stand to preserve their sensitivity to consider those less able to defend themselves. One could though castigate some others of all generations, from post baby boomer onwards, for their own insular flaky stance, prepared to forget the foundations of the social civil structures they benefit from to now ridicule snowflakes. So it is not meant to be derogatory to the snowflake generation but to make a point that they themselves are, one thinks, more at risk from the instability of events made worse with the insularity of political mismanagement and this is of a magnitude to be of more importance to them! They do need to take some control of their future with political engagement, as soon as (age permitting) they can. As one has tried to demonstrate above, most of those of the political area, have no great knowledge or experience of the great unwashed, once they join the ranks of privilege affluence ‘bubble’ they can be engaged in appalling miss-applications of power often to serve their own ambitions or political party dogma. Even less is there anyone to hold out for them an aspiring vision, a dream; these snowflakes like generation (X), Millennials (Y) or (Z) are regretfully most likely to experience the contagion of the horsemen. 

In a number of ways there are some considerable lessons to be learnt even in this day when the saying "lessons will be learnt" is often heard but are not acted upon if it is going to cost money or seriously conflict with established political ideology. Once Politian’s gain power they are always looking to mark an impression of control and direction often different than that pursued by the ousted party. In doing so they are urgently moved to drive through a policy to override any smouldering opposition and the policy becomes more important than examining sound supporting or contra principles. Civil servant will often attest that they are there just to advise ministers with their own best expertise and knowledge but it is up to minister to decide, which they do, sometimes against a lack of full detail information or cautionary guidance on eventual implementation and in a rush to be seen to be in charge pressing forward the government agenda, will ignore contraindications as evidence of policy failure inconsistencies mounts. Just now, from the past three years one can judge that there is ample evidence of the unhealthy collision between policy, dogma, political expediency, party tribalism and reality to confront the likely impairment to civil social structures, let alone the economy; this is a treacherous period for the younger generations.

As one may agree, pet dogma policies are difficult to abort....

O, if only there were a dream one could have for snowflakes.

© Renot

72191936

(1)

1951. The new Chancellor of the Exchequer, Hugh Gaitskell, proposes a one shilling (5p) prescription charge and new charges for dental treatments (chiefly dentures) and spectacles.

1954. A wide-ranging review of the role of general practice encourages the formation of independent GP group practices.

1956. The report of the Guillebaud Committee’s inquiry into the cost of the NHS is published. The report lays to rest many fears that the service is extravagant or cannot be afforded.

1959. The Mental Health Act replaces much of the existing legislation on the provision of mental health services in England, bringing the provision of mental health services within the general administrative machinery of the NHS for the first time.

1966. With falling GP morale, the negotiations on the Charter for General Practice provide financial incentives for practice development, plus substantial rewards.

1968. In response to the growing chasm between the NHS and social care provision, the Ministry of Health is merged with the Ministry of Social Security to form the Department of Health and Social Security.

1971. The Conservatives revise Crossman’s plan for NHS reform following their election in 1970, with major management consultant involvement.

1973. NHS reorganisation: after years of debate, structural changes are made in the NHS Reorganisation Act.

1982. The area tier of NHS management is abolished, resulting in 192 district health authorities (DHAs) that are responsible to the regional health authorities. The aim is to simplify the structure. However, this was to be the start of many future reorganisations of health authorities over the next three decades.

1990. NHS reorganisation: Creation of an internal market is facilitated through the National Health Service and Community Care Act .

1994. NHS reorganisation: The number of regional health authorities is reduced to eight.

1998. The consultation document, ‘A first class service’, leads to the creation of NICE and the Commission for Health Improvement. The two new organisations aim to provide guidance on the use of technology and how to strengthen quality.

1998. NHS Direct, a national health line providing expert health advice and information, is established.

1999. NHS reorganisation: GP fund- holding is abolished; new primary care groups (PCGs) are established.

2000. The NHS Plan – a Labour Party 10-year modernisation programme of investment and reform.

2002. The White Paper, Shifting the balance of power, sees the abolition of 95 health authorities, which are partly replaced by primary care groups (PCGs) and trusts and by 28 strategic health authorities (SHAs), to provide regional management for the NHS and oversee the work of primary care trusts (PCTs). 303 PCTs are established and given responsibility for approximately 80 per cent of the NHS budget. Mergers soon halve the number.

2004. The first 10 foundation trusts (FTs) are established, with more control over their budgets and services.

2006. The organisation of the NHS is continually changing and PCTs frequently merge to reduce overhead costs, reducing their ties to specific individual communities in the interests of efficiency.

2009. NHS Chief Executive Sir David Nicholson, warns the NHS to prepare for the need to release unprecedented efficiency savings of between £15 billion and £20 billion between 2011 and 2014.

2010. George Osborne austerity budget launched.

2010/11. NHS reorganisation: Andrew Lansley Secretary of State for Health The Health and Social Care Bill 2010/11 proposes significant        reforms to increase the influence of GPs on commissioning, increase competition and abolish strategic health authorities (SHAs) and primary care trusts (PCTs).

2012. Following nearly 18 months and thousands of amendments, the Health and Social Care Bill is passed based on the Lansley bill, (eventual accepted as a disaster and unnecessary financial waste).

2012. As set out in the Health and Social Care Act 2012, the Government publishes objectives and expectations for the health service in its first Mandate to the NHS Commissioning Board.

2013. The 'new' NHS comes into being as responsibilities shift to bodies created by the 2012.

2015. The Spending Review presented by Chancellor George Osborne announced a £3.8bn above inflation increase in funding for the NHS in England next year, as well as two new measures to ease the pressures on local authorities with responsibilities for delivering social care.

2016. UK votes to leave the European Union

2017. NHS England publishes Next steps on the Five Year Forward View

2018. Funding settlement announced for the NHS ahead of 70th anniversary

Source NHS & Nuffield Trust

(2)

1959. National Insurance Act - introduced a top-up state pension’s scheme, based on earnings and known as the graduated pension placed on earnings between £9 and £15 a week.

1975. Social Security Pensions Act - set up the State Earnings related Pension Scheme (Serps). Introduced in 1978, the scheme replaced graduated pensions. Rules for contracting out were also introduced, whereby workers with adequate private provision can give up all or part of the benefits of Serps. In return they pay lower National Insurance contributions.

1980. Social Security Act - Link between state pension increases and average earnings broken by Margaret Thatcher's Conservative government which meant state pension began to shrink in actual cash terms. Other reforms allowed companies to take pension holidays i.e. not fund into a company pension on the basis that with inflation and market doing well most funds were healthily ’oversubscribed’. This was the beginning of breaking the pension funds.

1991/2.The Maxwell scandal of Mirror newspaper proprietor Robert Maxwell had used about £460m from his group's pension funds to finance business dealings.

1993. Unscrupulous financial advisers had been miss-selling personal pensions to earn commissions. This triggered payments of more than £11bn to six million people caught up in a miss-selling scandal.

1995. Pensions Act - response to Maxwell, which set up regulatory and compensation schemes.

1997 Removed tax credits for pension funds on company dividends, companies complained it made pension provision less profitable!

2001. Introduction of stakeholder pensions, a low-cost pension’s scheme aimed at people on low to average earnings and helping women save for old age.

2002. Switch from Serps to the State Second Pension scheme.

2003. Introduction of the Pension Credit, which will bring half a million pensioners into means-testing.

2004. The Pension Protection Fund was established to bail out collapsing funds

2012+. State pension cost pressure. The government first increased the female pension age to 65 and to 66 for anyone currently in their late fifties, rising to 67 for those in their mid-fifties and indicated a move to 70.

2016. Basic "level" pension of around £7,500 annually. At the same time, quasi-compulsory workplace contributions have been introduced through the auto-enrolment system.

Based on information from the National Association of Pension Funds (NAPF).

(3) Ref: Various + TUC+WTD Act 1998

(4) www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1972/68/contents

      voxeu.org/article/britain-s-eu-membership-new-insight-economic-history

      www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/transformingsociety/tradeindustry/importexport/overview/europe/

 (5) www.politics.co.uk/reference/national-minimum-wage

      www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/39

(6) www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/41/contents

(7) revenuebenefits.org.uk/pdf/welfare_reform_act_2012.pdf

     www.g ov.uk/universal-credit

     www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2013/9780111531938/contents

     www.gov.uk/government/publications/2010-to-2015-government-policy-welfare-reform

     www.gov.uk/universal-credit/how-youre-paid