” Losers make promises they often break. Winners make commitments they always keep.”Denis Waitley
Monday, 28 January 2008
Quote of the day
Is the UK’s Welfare State actually still functional?
What is the point of the National Health Service (NHS) and social care under the ‘Welfare State’ if many of us will apparently be effectively barred from making use of it - whilst still being required to pay through the nose for it, under ever increasing levels of taxation?
If New Labour intend to exclude large numbers of the public from enjoying the dubious benefits of the ‘welfare’ state - and it seems it is in a ‘state’ ;-) for ideological, or moralistic, reasons. Then those affected should be allowed get their money back and opt out, to allow them to be able to make other arrangements.
It is expected that a report to be published tomorrow (Tuesday), will confirm that drastic tightening of rules over which elderly people qualify for state-funded care in their own homes is leaving hundreds of thousands bereft of help and in dire straits.
Lack of funding is being blamed for many councils only supporting the seriously ill or incapacitated. In some cases, pensioners are having to sell their homes to help pay for private care, or beg their families for money.
The Commission for Social Care Inspection (CSCI) thinks the problems are likely get worse.
The Audit Commission hasbeen instructed to produce produced a report ‘backed’ by New Labour Ministers. It demands councils should "make better use of charging" for services, including home care, rubbish collection and parking. This includes removing caps on charges for home helps and other services for the elderly who have managed to save for their old age.
The intention is to force people who have paid their share of local tax and National Insurance over the years, but can manage to find the money themselves somehow, to switch over to private care companies.
The Commission say: "In making council home care services less competitive by removing the weekly maximum charge, some councils have sought to encourage their most affluent service users to purchase services from other providers, freeing up council resources."
Strangely, this is the exact reverse of the argument deployed by New Labour against Grammar schools and Independent schools.
Now, according to a survey conducted by Doctor magazine, Doctors want to withhold NHS treatment from patients they judge are too old, or who lead unhealthy lives.
They want to bar; Smokers, drinkers, the obese, elderly and those seeking "social" abortions from receiving some treatments/operations.
They say the NHS can’t afford to provide free care to everyone. About one in 10 hospitals already deny some surgery to obese patients and smokers, with restrictions more often found at hospitals unable to manage their debt.
Advocates of refusing treatment argue that £1.7 billion a year is spent treating diseases caused by smoking, such as lung cancer and emphysema and this drains money away from treatment from the more deserving.
They conveniently fail to mention that non-smokers, who have never recklessly exposed themselves to so-called passive smoking, can also suffer from these illnesses.
There is something else they don’t mention when attempting to justify their views. It applies equally well to alcohol as tobacco.
In 2005-06 the excise duty raised on tobacco was £8 billion, The VAT charged on, the cost of Tobacco, plus the excise duty paid on it, was £1.9 billion. So that year the State milked the British Smoker to the tune of around £10 billion pound. Tax on tobacco products has risen since then.
This leaves aside their actual contribution to the NHS.
If New Labour are only spending £1.7 billion on smokers alone then that leaves them £8.1 billion in pocket – New Labour are making a tidy profit out of smokers.
There may be some extra temporary costs associated with sickness/disability payments but this is more than compensated for by smokers reduction in life span and the reduced pension payouts that follow. According to the Dr’s logic Smokers are paying the State for pensions they may never get to collect in full.
The Economic argument for with holding treatment does not hold water. Economically it would almost certainly actually pay the State to encourage smoking, so the underlying moralistic health fascism is exposed.
This is more evident still in the evident desire to punish women who fall pregnant by accident and produce another generation of state clients. Again the economics are clear. The cost of an early abortion is as nothing to that of child benefit and a single mother on benefits.
Finally where is the line in all this? What are the limits to what our self appointed masters and moral guardians will impose upon us? What other forms of behaviour they disapprove of? Who else will they refuse to treat? There is something deeply disturbing about this attitude.
It seems we are all in danger of having services we have paid for and rightly expected to benefit from randomly and arbitrarily withdrawn when we are most in need of them. Especially if we have committed the crime of being prudent, or enjoy a glass or two of wine – and whatever happened to the health benefits of wine we were told about?
If we can no longer expect to receive the services we are entitled to, because we have paid through the nose for them, then surely it is unreasonable for the State to expect us to continue to pay for them, effectively having to pay for them twice - and unwise of us to continue to do so?
If they can’t deliver they should get out of the business and leave it to those who will honour a contract and actually can deliver.
If New Labour intend to exclude large numbers of the public from enjoying the dubious benefits of the ‘welfare’ state - and it seems it is in a ‘state’ ;-) for ideological, or moralistic, reasons. Then those affected should be allowed get their money back and opt out, to allow them to be able to make other arrangements.
It is expected that a report to be published tomorrow (Tuesday), will confirm that drastic tightening of rules over which elderly people qualify for state-funded care in their own homes is leaving hundreds of thousands bereft of help and in dire straits.
Lack of funding is being blamed for many councils only supporting the seriously ill or incapacitated. In some cases, pensioners are having to sell their homes to help pay for private care, or beg their families for money.
The Commission for Social Care Inspection (CSCI) thinks the problems are likely get worse.
The Audit Commission has
The intention is to force people who have paid their share of local tax and National Insurance over the years, but can manage to find the money themselves somehow, to switch over to private care companies.
The Commission say: "In making council home care services less competitive by removing the weekly maximum charge, some councils have sought to encourage their most affluent service users to purchase services from other providers, freeing up council resources."
Strangely, this is the exact reverse of the argument deployed by New Labour against Grammar schools and Independent schools.
Now, according to a survey conducted by Doctor magazine, Doctors want to withhold NHS treatment from patients they judge are too old, or who lead unhealthy lives.
They want to bar; Smokers, drinkers, the obese, elderly and those seeking "social" abortions from receiving some treatments/operations.
They say the NHS can’t afford to provide free care to everyone. About one in 10 hospitals already deny some surgery to obese patients and smokers, with restrictions more often found at hospitals unable to manage their debt.
Advocates of refusing treatment argue that £1.7 billion a year is spent treating diseases caused by smoking, such as lung cancer and emphysema and this drains money away from treatment from the more deserving.
They conveniently fail to mention that non-smokers, who have never recklessly exposed themselves to so-called passive smoking, can also suffer from these illnesses.
There is something else they don’t mention when attempting to justify their views. It applies equally well to alcohol as tobacco.
In 2005-06 the excise duty raised on tobacco was £8 billion, The VAT charged on, the cost of Tobacco, plus the excise duty paid on it, was £1.9 billion. So that year the State milked the British Smoker to the tune of around £10 billion pound. Tax on tobacco products has risen since then.
This leaves aside their actual contribution to the NHS.
If New Labour are only spending £1.7 billion on smokers alone then that leaves them £8.1 billion in pocket – New Labour are making a tidy profit out of smokers.
There may be some extra temporary costs associated with sickness/disability payments but this is more than compensated for by smokers reduction in life span and the reduced pension payouts that follow. According to the Dr’s logic Smokers are paying the State for pensions they may never get to collect in full.
The Economic argument for with holding treatment does not hold water. Economically it would almost certainly actually pay the State to encourage smoking, so the underlying moralistic health fascism is exposed.
This is more evident still in the evident desire to punish women who fall pregnant by accident and produce another generation of state clients. Again the economics are clear. The cost of an early abortion is as nothing to that of child benefit and a single mother on benefits.
Finally where is the line in all this? What are the limits to what our self appointed masters and moral guardians will impose upon us? What other forms of behaviour they disapprove of? Who else will they refuse to treat? There is something deeply disturbing about this attitude.
It seems we are all in danger of having services we have paid for and rightly expected to benefit from randomly and arbitrarily withdrawn when we are most in need of them. Especially if we have committed the crime of being prudent, or enjoy a glass or two of wine – and whatever happened to the health benefits of wine we were told about?
If we can no longer expect to receive the services we are entitled to, because we have paid through the nose for them, then surely it is unreasonable for the State to expect us to continue to pay for them, effectively having to pay for them twice - and unwise of us to continue to do so?
If they can’t deliver they should get out of the business and leave it to those who will honour a contract and actually can deliver.
Friday, 25 January 2008
Quote of the day
” When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken, or cease to be honest.”Unknown
Hain finally resigns
Well Hain has finally resigned. It might even have redeemed him somewhat - if he hadn’t been desperately hanging on so far past what was reasonable, or honourable.What has really done for him is this business of ‘anonymising’ donations through a so-called ‘think tank’. Moreover some of the original donors might well be regarded as foreign businessmen.
Gordon Brown cannot have helped to have been, at least as aware of the details of the matter as anyone else, (he only had to read the Guardian) who cared to check the facts for themselves - surely he has well paid researchers to do that for him, even if he is apparently as incompetent at that as well.
His minions seem to be trying to talk this up as loyalty on his part. Frome here it looks more like another instance of distinct lack of bottle, this time in the ‘do the right thing’ or even ‘do the necessary thing’ department.
If he had acted with more alacrity when the moment required it he would have come out of this looking better. As it is there can be no doubt he must have known the situation was dodgy but would not address the matter.
Thursday, 24 January 2008
Quote of the Day
” The art of taxation consists in so plucking the goose as to obtain the largest possible amount of feathers with the smallest possible amount of hissing .”Jean Baptiste Colbert
” Taxation is just a sophisticated way of demanding money with menaces .”Terry Pratchett
UK Local Tax Hiked above inflation yet again
Council Tax bills have been on the rise, consistently and generally above inflation for years.
This year they are expected to rise by around 4% with some nearly as high as 5%.
There is always much acrimony between local politicians claiming that central government are; reducing the contribution they make to local funds fro taxpayer’s money and in many cases drafting, or rubberstamping, EU legislation that increases their costs.
The State meanwhile always mutters darkly of capping local expenditure and complains there is no excuse for ‘excessive’ Council tax Hikes.
Personally I have noticed absolutely zero improvement in the services I receive. In fact it is arguable they have actually deteriorated, especially rubbish collection.
Whatever – They are all politicians. I noticed when the poll tax was introduced quite a few local authorities took the opportunity to hit local residents in the pocket with a big hike they would have taken stick in local elections for otherwise and blamed Central Government and Margaret Thatcher.
Well they can’t conveniently blame Maggie now.
The fact is that we are paying more and more tax and it is rising by well above inflation. It may be that Central Government’s the inflation figures are effectively lies, the ‘basket’ being carefully tweaked by New Labour.
Never the less - someone is responsible… Where is the money going?
This year they are expected to rise by around 4% with some nearly as high as 5%.
There is always much acrimony between local politicians claiming that central government are; reducing the contribution they make to local funds fro taxpayer’s money and in many cases drafting, or rubberstamping, EU legislation that increases their costs.
The State meanwhile always mutters darkly of capping local expenditure and complains there is no excuse for ‘excessive’ Council tax Hikes.
Personally I have noticed absolutely zero improvement in the services I receive. In fact it is arguable they have actually deteriorated, especially rubbish collection.
Whatever – They are all politicians. I noticed when the poll tax was introduced quite a few local authorities took the opportunity to hit local residents in the pocket with a big hike they would have taken stick in local elections for otherwise and blamed Central Government and Margaret Thatcher.
Well they can’t conveniently blame Maggie now.
The fact is that we are paying more and more tax and it is rising by well above inflation. It may be that Central Government’s the inflation figures are effectively lies, the ‘basket’ being carefully tweaked by New Labour.
Never the less - someone is responsible… Where is the money going?
Wednesday, 23 January 2008
Schedule introducing UK ID cards delayed
It is interesting to note that New Labour are planning to introduce the National ID card incrementally.
This seems to be one of their favourite ‘stealth’ methods. Apparently they are putting back the date where larger numbers of us will be forced to get them from 2010, until 2012 now.
They know it is un popular, and there is some resistance, so they are buying themselves an extra two years, in the hope attention fatigue will set in.
The technique, one they are fond of, is to introduce unpopular measures in small relatively imperceptible doses. First they Identify a relatively small group to apply whatever they are planning to. A group that does not include the majority of citizens and who preferably will not have the majority of the public’s particular sympathy.
In the case of HIPs it was houses with four bedrooms or over. “The Wealthy”, “Rich Toffs” – a classic hate group and target.
They are careful to avoid stirring people up by ensuring that even of the groups targeted only relatively small percentage are actually directly affected at any time. In this case those actually considering selling their homes.
Then they wait a while and take in another chunk of the population (say owners of three bedroom properties), repeating as necessary until they have everyone.
They are always careful to avoid stirring too much of the population up at once, in case it allows resistance to build to the point where the lethargic UK population will actually protest in significant numbers.
In the case of ID cards it will apparently be “Foreigners”, “Bogus Asylum Seekers”, “Economic Migrants”. They have chosen to target first. Currently they are to be targeted this year.
See if you can spot this technique being used elsewhere....
This seems to be one of their favourite ‘stealth’ methods. Apparently they are putting back the date where larger numbers of us will be forced to get them from 2010, until 2012 now.
They know it is un popular, and there is some resistance, so they are buying themselves an extra two years, in the hope attention fatigue will set in.
The technique, one they are fond of, is to introduce unpopular measures in small relatively imperceptible doses. First they Identify a relatively small group to apply whatever they are planning to. A group that does not include the majority of citizens and who preferably will not have the majority of the public’s particular sympathy.
In the case of HIPs it was houses with four bedrooms or over. “The Wealthy”, “Rich Toffs” – a classic hate group and target.
They are careful to avoid stirring people up by ensuring that even of the groups targeted only relatively small percentage are actually directly affected at any time. In this case those actually considering selling their homes.
Then they wait a while and take in another chunk of the population (say owners of three bedroom properties), repeating as necessary until they have everyone.
They are always careful to avoid stirring too much of the population up at once, in case it allows resistance to build to the point where the lethargic UK population will actually protest in significant numbers.
In the case of ID cards it will apparently be “Foreigners”, “Bogus Asylum Seekers”, “Economic Migrants”. They have chosen to target first. Currently they are to be targeted this year.
See if you can spot this technique being used elsewhere....
Tuesday, 22 January 2008
EU Constitution/’Lisbon Treaty’ passes first UK Parliamentary hurdle
It seems that some 362 MPs are willing to betray both Parliament and the British Public.
It is now beyond any doubt and widely acknowledged, that the so called ‘Lisbon Treaty’ is effectively identical to the rejected European Constitution, there being ”no material difference” between the two..
In fact if the similarity of the ‘treaty’, to the constitution, were the climate debate then Gordon Brown and David Milliband would be the only ‘deniers’ left in a sea of consensus. Of course no one actually imagines they seriously imagine that it is not identical, that they are really deniers – but it does rhyme with deniers.
European Union (Amendment) Bill, New Labour’s cynical rubber stamping of theConstitution Lisbon Treaty has cleared it’s first hurdle and 362 MPs supported Mr Brown’s disingenuous line necessary to provide him and New Labour with the pathetic fig leaf to cover their reneging on the promise of a referendum that new labour were elected on.
A few New labour MPs have the decency, even honour, to resist, but one fears - far too few.
It is now beyond any doubt and widely acknowledged, that the so called ‘Lisbon Treaty’ is effectively identical to the rejected European Constitution, there being ”no material difference” between the two..
In fact if the similarity of the ‘treaty’, to the constitution, were the climate debate then Gordon Brown and David Milliband would be the only ‘deniers’ left in a sea of consensus. Of course no one actually imagines they seriously imagine that it is not identical, that they are really deniers – but it does rhyme with deniers.
European Union (Amendment) Bill, New Labour’s cynical rubber stamping of the
A few New labour MPs have the decency, even honour, to resist, but one fears - far too few.
Monday, 21 January 2008
Sharia Law comes to the UK
Delhi born Dr/Shaikh Suhaib Hasan has set himself up in his own little Sharia court in a converted corner shop in Leyton, North East London.At the moment this has all the legality of a TV show ‘court’ where participants are technically only bound in as far as they agree to be bound. Though it is perhaps much more than just that to a Moslem, embedded in largely exclusively Moslem community, who has no English.
Dr Hassan is the General Secretary of the Islamic Sharia Council and bills himself as a spokesman for the Muslim Council of Britain.
He is keen to share the benefits of Sharia Law, on an official and legal basis, with the rest of us. He is convinced it can turn the HK into a “haven of peace”.
In fact he, in a documentary, currently scheduled to be screened on Channel 4 next month, entitled ‘Divorce: Sharia Style’, Dr Hasan reveals ‘just where he is coming from’, as they say. He revealingly comments:
"Once, just only once, if an adulterer is stoned nobody is going to commit this crime at all.”
"We want to offer it [Sharia Law] to the British society. If they accept it, it is for their good and if they don't accept it they'll need more and more prisons."
I think the good Dr’s Freudian slip is showing here - As far as I am aware adultery is not a crime in the UK, there is certainly no penalty, apart from the possibility of divorce, for it.
I am sure he is correct in that the realistic prospect of being stoned to death would discourage it, against the law or not, that’ll do it for you most every time.
One wonders what else that the good Dr disproves of, that is not against the law we can consider stoning people to death for?
How the man can seriously suggest such a thing without realising it brands him as a fascist is beyond me.
The Muslim Council of Britain is usually held up by the ‘great and the good’, as an exemplar of ‘moderate’ Islamic opinion. This man is their Sharia spokesman.
If this is moderate it can only be so by comparison to something incomparably worse. If this is moderate maybe we need to redefine the meaning of ‘moderate’.
Oh! - Looks like we did already…
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)