What A Disgrace

An elderly couple were found dead in the above house in a suburb of Nottingham last Thursday. They were last seen on 2 January. A concerned neighbour looked through the letter box, after she couldn't get a response to ringing the bell and found 76 year-old Derek Randall lying dead in the hallway.

His disabled wife of 79 was found dead in her bed. The house was 'freezing cold'. The couple may have been dead for five days.

Mr Randall first approached a neighbour for help on 30 November. The first calls to different agencies started on 1 December and at least 15 calls were made by neighbours. On 21 December neighbour Heather Footit feared there was a danger that the couple could die and told local labour MP Sally Keeble. She demanded action but nothing was done.

Mrs Keeble said the couple's plight would have come to the attention of the authorities two years ago when Mrs Randall went into hospital for a hip replacement. After that, she added, arrangements for providing assistance, such as adapting their private-owned home or providing carers, should have been straightforward. No improvement were made.

Mrs Footit, 73, who regularly delivered hot meals to the pair, said she had noticed Mr Randall's health had deteriorated rapidly. She said she had warned the county council, health officials and Age Concern who told her the case was none of her business because she was not a relative of the Randalls.

This is the result of a labour Britain. They boast about the services they provide for all of us but when we try to access these services they pass the buck. Let's not forget here caring neighbours continually tried to get help for this couple for two months.

As well as the behaviour of the quango Age Concern, what more did the MP do other than make a telephone call or two? Did she follow it up to ensure that Mr and Mrs Randall did receive help? Possibly not. After all she was on her holidays.

Let's not forget most of Northamptonshire County Council would have been on their holidays too from 23 December until 4 January. Age Concern's chief executive's response was, "It seems there was not enough information in that referral so the staff involved went back to the county council for more details." What more detail do these people need other than to know many people contacted them to express their deep concern about an elderly couple, one unable to look after herself, needing help?

The neighbours who attempted to get help must be feeling dreadful and guilty perhaps too that they didn't 'do enough'. They did.

The people who should be feeling the guilt are the County Council, the local MP and Age Concern. I can hear the verdict of the council's inquiry already. "Lessons will be learned." It's long past time these agencies and quangos were forced to interact with each other and treat cases such as this with urgency. Sadly it's too late for the Randalls.

Source

Tweet

Make A Living Will Now

It's some months now since a friend mentioned the Court of Protection to me and it took this article to bring our conversation back to mind.

These people can indeed take control of a family member's affairs should they suffer from Alzheimers or some other mental impairment.

The first Court of Protection was set up by labour's 2005 Mental Incapacity Act, which for the first time formalised the arrangement for dealing with the assets and care of people suffering from dementia and other similar illnesses.

The worrying factor is that, unless the person has already made a living Will before any sign of their disability, the state can now walk in and take over plus charge exorbitant fees for doing so. All court hearings are completely private.

The government are now back-pedaling after an extraordinary 3,000 complaints in the systems first 18 months of operation and state the following:

The Government now says everyone should establish a lasting power of attorney to state who should look after their affairs should they become incapacitated - although most people will be utterly unaware of this advice.

Only 60,000 people in Britain have registered these 'living wills' with the authorities, and the problems begin when someone is suddenly, unexpectedly mentally impaired.

Without this document, relatives must apply to the courts and the anonymous OPG, part of the Ministry of Justice based in an office block in Birmingham, is required to look into the background of carers to decide if they are fit to run the ill or elderly person's affairs.

I know what my priority is this week and if you haven't guessed, then it's to nominate a lasting power of attorney. Whether this applies in Scotland or not isn't stated in the article, but I'd rather ensure my family are on the safe side and are not involved with this Court of Protection in any way. Do remember, it's not only the elderly who can suffer from mental impairment.

Tweet

1997 Labour Promises Pledge Card

Remember this?

1997 Labour Promises

Pledge Card

1. We will cut class sizes to 30 or under for 5, 6 and 7 year olds by using money saved from the assisted places scheme.

2. We will introduce a fast track punishment scheme for persistent young offenders by halving the time from arrest to sentencing.

3. We will cut NHS waiting lists by treating an extra 100,000 patients as a first step by releasing £100m saved from NHS red tape

.

4. We will get 250,000 under-25 years-olds off benefit and into work by using money from a windfall levy on the privatised utilities.

5. We will set tough rules for government spending and borrowing and ensure low inflation and strengthen the economy so that interest rates are as low as possible to make all families better off.

2001

1. Mortgages as low as possible, low inflation and sound public finances

2. 10,000 extra teachers and higher standards in secondary schools

3. 20,000 extra nurses and 10,000 extra doctors in a reformed NHS

4. 6,000 extra recruits to raise police numbers to their highest ever level

5. Pensioners' winter fuel payment retained, minimum wage rising to £4.20

By 2005, with lots of failures on display in Health care, Policing, Teaching, Public spending and taxation, the most bland, innocuous, unquantifiable pledges, released only because they had been done before and to escape the charge of abandonment appeared without fanfare.

1. Your family better off

2. Your family treated better and faster

3. Your child achieving more

4. Your country's borders protected

5. Your community safer

Post content kindly supplied by my reader Faux Cul

Tweet

Teenage Pregnancy

Both Charlotte Gore and Caron have posted about Gordon Brown's declaration that his government will provide a network of supervised homes for 16-17 year old mothers.

The comments on both blogs are interesting with many denying it is our very generous benefit system which encourages girls to take unnecessary risks with their sex life. Devil's Kitchen states in Charlotte's comment section: 'Britain and Ireland were found to be the two with the highest benefits for lone parents in a survey of 14 European countries. They were also the countries with the highest proportions of lone mothers.'

What I cannot understand is why, after a generation of mandatory sex education in schools, is the birth rate still increasing?

Why has the abortion rate risen so much since 1968? (See graph). My apologies, I could not find a graph for Scotland.

Caron says education, contraception, assertiveness and self-esteem are the answers. Millions of pounds have been ploughed into the teaching of sex education and contraception with little or no results. In my experience young girls have good levels of assertiveness in comparison with my own teenage days. Self-esteem is something which is not so easily measured, but no matter how hard schools try to build confidence and self-esteem, these characteristics develop over a lifetime.

I can't remember many of my own peer group having much confidence or self-esteem at the age of 15 or 16, or having any sex education, but none decided having unprotected sex was a good idea. In fact I doubt if many of us had experienced sex at that age. Why? Because we knew the shame and disgrace having a baby so young would cause our families. In the 60s, when babies were no longer removed for adoption, there was no taxpayers' money to provide for you or your child and the responsibility fell on the girl's family - the boy and his family usually contributed too. We respected our families enough not to cause them such distress. The decision, if a girl did become pregnant by accident, was usually abortion followed by a strict lecture on contraception.

We've gone too far with our liberal attitudes and we now have a few generations with too many having no concept of shame or right and wrong. We have youngsters drinking themselves senseless and lying in gutters - they think that's 'normal' behaviour because society appears to condone it. Any dissenters are told they have unpleasant prejudices.

How do we return to a society with a sense of morals which will help our children through the complex maze of life?

The benefit system has to change. Teenagers who become pregnant and there's no father visible should not be given priority with housing. Give them child benefits but let them find their own living expenses. Of course the welfare of the child is paramount, but should we be paying for homes to be redecorated, washing machines or microwaves? These are seen to be 'essentials' in today's world. By taking this action they may begin to use some of the education they have been given, make decisions more appropriate to their futures and gain some confidence. They may also gain a sense of pride in their achievements and this would be transferred to their child over time. Therein lies the answer to assertiveness and self-esteem.

Radical? Yes. Necessary? If we want a caring society, yes. A caring society is one which is interested in their young people and wants to help them have an even better life than older generations. Putting them in homes to learn parenting skills is not an answer and will only compound their inadequacies. A caring society does not leave the upbringing of children completely in the hands of government, as we have done in recent years.

Young lone mothers are not really so different to the rest of their peers because many in later life regret being a parent so young. So often I've heard 'if only I had really understood what having a child was all about I wouldn't have been so impulsive'. They see their behaviour as impulsive and not irresponsible.

Today I was talking to a retired educationalist who said teachers were not permitted to mention the words 'shame' or 'disgrace' because they are negative terms. Sex education has to be taught using positive expressions such as 'choice' and 'stable relationships'. Then she said it was so sad because many children in today's society don't know the meaning of a stable relationship.

Governments have produced a benefits culture into our society - it's time politicians took serious action to replace it. Wouldn't it be refreshing to become a society known for teaching their children the meaning of ambition?

Tweet

A Statistic Which Shames Labour

A boy plays in a run-down street in Govan, Glasgow

Two million children now live in homes where there is no working adult. The Office for National Statistics said the number of children in workless households rose by an annual 170,000 to 1.9 million in April-June of this year, as fathers were among the hardest hit by swingeing job cuts.

One in six children now live in homes where no adult works. The number of children in homes where at least one adult of working age does not have a job also rose up 50,000 to 3.6 million.

While lone-parent households continue to make up the largest proportion of workless households at 40.4%, the figures suggest the latest increase is largely driven by fathers losing their jobs.

Wasn't the eradication of child poverty one of Labour's manifesto pledges since 1999? Yes it was.

Mr Brown, when Chancellor, set targets in 1998 to halve the 3.4 million children at that time living in poverty to 1.7 million by 2010 and eradicate it by 2020. (Source The Times)

In the past 12 years we’ve heard much about how labour are lifting children out of poverty but these figures show there has been little movement. Why? Labour and previous governments over the past 30+ years have slowly eroded the quality of education we offer our children. The introduction of comprehensive schools, with the loss of the academies and secondary moderns, squeezed children of all abilities under one roof. This deprived all children the chance to develop fully because teachers were unable to cope (through no fault of their own) with the variety of abilities presented to them. The children who were interested in learning vocational skills suffered most as facilities were far more limited than those offered in the ‘old’ secondary moderns.

Then we had the Labour policy which insisted schools stop any form of competition. They said this destroyed confidence in our children. Another mad idea which has been detrimental to our children’s development over recent years.

The answer to child poverty is to give our children a first class education and ensure each and every one of them can read and write. We now have two generations who may not have done a day’s work in their lives and their children see the hopelessness within the home. Surely it’s not beyond our politicians to ensure these children receive a schooling worthy of one of the richest countries in the world.

Throwing money at the problem, is not enough, it has to be thrown in the right direction. Continually upping benefits is a short-term, short-sighted solution which does little to help children from poorer homes achieve their potential.

Tweet

Why Labour is Still Losing

Six Problems, No Solutions

Bob Thomson explains why Labour is still losing.

I made a couple of visits recently which brought home the problems for Scottish Labour. Last December I was in the Palace of Westminster for first time in three years. It reminded me exactly why I have stayed away and reinforced my intention not to go back any time soon. Westminster is an unreal world which is out of touch with reality (the expenses debacle shows just how badly). It contrasts starkly with the accessibility of Holyrood. In London, even soft left Scottish Labour MPs are in complete denial over loss of power in Scotland and seem to think the best solution is to be more vicious against the SNP than they are against the Tories. Probably because they know that in Scotland there is an alternative to voting Tory.

Then I was at the Scottish Labour Party Conference in Dundee in March. There were few MPs (perhaps not so surprising) but there were also few MSPs and indeed few ordinary party members present. If it hadn't been for Trade Union delegates the conference could have been held in a side hall. In debate after debate I was struck by the hypocrisy of front bench speakers attacking the SNP for not implementing policies Labour failed to implement over eight years in power such as teacher and police numbers and student debt. And since the party isn't exactly bursting with front-bench talent they don't even do it well. There was no serious analysis of why Labour lost the Scottish Parliament election and why we were failing to make an impact in opposition. Most trade unions act and think as Labour loyalists when in fact they were being New Labour apologists. On PFI/PPP the platform, except the trade unionist Chairman, continued to support this disastrous policy while rubbishing the SNP's only sl ightly better Scottish Futures Trust alternative. The three UK Cabinet Ministers who spoke did not address the Scottish dimension or provide any Scottish solutions.

 We lost because of the neo liberal economic and war policies of UK Labour government. Scottish Labour failed - unlike the Welsh Labour Party - to put 'clear red water' between them and New Labour. The people who inhabit the Labour Party bureaucracy either don't know about devolution or more probably arrogantly ignore it. I am constantly getting emails about policy initiatives which only apply in England but fail to say this. When I point this out, I receive no reply.

 So much has been said and written on this subject that it is not worth running over it all in depth. So let me simply give you what I see as the six big problems Labour faces in Scotland if it is going to do anything to make the country fairer and more left-wing:

 There are no leaders. Scottish Labour in Parliament is filled with competent people and padded out with some incompetent people. But any really good people have either been forced out (by Rosemary McKenna's hit squad before the 1999 election) or have just walked away. Realistically, there isn't a single serious leadership candidate from either the left, centre or right of the party who it is possible to imagine actually making an impact on Scotland. Only followers are left.

 There is no party. The membership has at least halved in recent years. Labout used to be a grassroots organization but now party meetings - on the occasions where they are quorate - are filled with only two kinds of people; those who have jobs and those who want jobs. There are no activists and there are almost no enthusiasts. It is an organisation without a party and nothing good can come from that. There is no independence. In my view Labour has actually been saved in Scotland by being forced to go into coalition with the Lib Dems. In my view, if they had been able to, they would have been even more cautious and New Labour. If you look at how Labour in Scotland talks about things it mainly seems to be about how little they could get away with doing before anyone would start to complain. And while I was no fan of Wendy Alexander, at least her high opinion of herself made her more likely to do something different and independent. Iain Gray has lived of Westminster patronage since he lost his seat in 2003 and the signs are he is paying it back with New Labour nonentities like Rhona Brankin and Richard Baker trotting out a London-friendly line wherever they go. It has no friends. The unions ought to have been helping Labour to realise its situation and find a way out of the hole. They haven't. In fact, the main thing the unions have done is to cover the party's backs while it just kept on digging. And in ten years Labour has had almost nothing to do with all the other political movements in Scotland (such as the anti-war movement) and so have just been written off by most. The Party has no friends to have a quiet word in its ear. There are no big ideas. All Labour in Scotland talks about is the same set of non-policies that get trotted out in London. There is nothing new or different about what they are saying. You can probably guess a Scottish Labour speech before you hear it - for any half-good idea there will be five times as much effort spent attacking other people's ideas. Labour needs to have some kind of purpose if it wants to achieve anything. Getting power back is not itself a purpose. It doesn't know how bad things are. Perhaps the biggest problem the party has is that it doesn't even seem to realise how bad things have got. Scottish Labour MPs seem almost to be in an alternative universe in which they didn't lose in 2007. Glenrothes sorted that out so now its back to getting MSPs to do what London tells them and things will be fine. But they won't. MSPs, meanwhile, are only a bit better. They think they are working as an effective opposition and, in any case, surely everyone hates Salmond so just keeping up the attacks will do the trick. They keep believing they can win by throwing mud at others, but they don't know it isn't working and they won't admit they are a poor opposition for it.

 Scottish Labour's structure and bureaucracy requires real devolution from London. It is ridiculous that Ian Gray is Leader of Labour MSPs not Leader of the Scottish Labour Party. And at least I got a vote in his leadership election which I didn't get for Gordon Brown; indeed we have not had a say in our UK Leader since 1994. More importantly Scottish Labour must fairly quickly devise a new, radical policy agenda. Real powers for the Scottish Parliament such as tax raising and borrowing, re-nationalising Scotrail, encourage co-operatives and community enterprises, more social housing, regenerate rural areas, act against poverty, promote income fairness and last but not least oppose Trident renewal. Only then will Scottish Labour revitalise/regain members and reconnect with Scottish voters.

 Bob Thomson has been a member of the Labour Party for 45 years and is a former chairman and treasurer of the Scottish Labour Party. 

http://www.scottishleftreview.org/li/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=236&Itemid=1

(On my Mac I'm getting the message this site is corrupted so please be aware. This whole post was sent to me by email and is from a most reliable source)

Tweet

Why not?

The MP expenses 'system' has been uppermost in the news and of course the main topic of the blogosphere and for that I'm grateful, because I missed some of the detail and now I'm better informed.

Here's a thought.  MPs are elected for a period up to 5 years and we're told to acquire 'quality' people then we must pay the current rate of £63,000+.  Into what other job does someone, without even one qualification necessary,  just jump to the maximum salary?  There's no other 'profession' which would accept this lax attitude.

Not so many people in the UK or Scotland have the assurance that they will be in the same job for 5 years and they don't have the safety net of unbelievable pensions.  I've yet to find out what the pension schedule is for MPs as it's not immediately available online.

Why shouldn't Westminster introduce a sliding scale of salaries for MPs similar to what is used in other public services?  The military have had their salary scales online for some time now and you can read officers pay scales here.  I do hope some of  you are surprised by the salaries of our top military in comparison with our MPs who whine they're doing the most responsible job in Britain and don't forget the military get very few 'perks' or expenses unless they are signed off by at least several more senior personnel.

Perhaps if a 'new' MP started on say £35,000 then moved up in annual increments of £7,000 to the present salary then we may see a more publicly acceptable system.  By the time their 5 years were up they would be on the present salary but only if they had been classed worthy by their constituents.  Let's call it an incentive for them to do their best for their electorate.

Plus of course they should all only be able to claim second class travel.  According to the MOD and Westminster rules all military have to travel second class regardless if they're flying to serious international conferences or just between, for example, Ireland and London.

This is just a thought of course, who am I to say we'd get a better type of politician?

Tweet

Moridura - Say No to Nuclear Power

SAY NO TO NUCLEAR

Peter Curran of Moridura has made two videos giving his reasons as to why Scotland should say no to nuclear.  You can link to them here and here.

I did have both on this post but I've been told my blog is crashing Firefox 3.0.9 and the only reason I can think of is the videos overloaded it.

Do hope this solves the problem.

Tweet

EMA - A Policy Too Far

Yesterday I spent a couple of hours in the company of a few secondary school pupils. The conversation turned to money (as it always seems to do with teenagers) and EMA was mentioned a few times.

When I asked what EMA was, I was informed, "It's money from the government for going to school."  Eh?  School pupils get paid to go to school?  "Not everyone gets it," I was told, "depends on how much parents earn."  A well-informed teenager proceeded to explain the intricacies of applying for EMA.

EMA is available to older school children throughout the UK and costs the taxpayer well in excess of £500 million.  With today's financial problems this is one of these policies which should be binned. The handout is £30 a week for up to 42 weeks a year.  

If a child doesn't want to go to school they won't go. Any youngster of 16+ will receive far more than £30 a week from unemployment benefit.  Paying children to attend school (because this is an attendance payment, not a performance one), is teaching our young nothing about the value of money except it could well grow on trees.

I do want a socially responsible society and government but this is a step too far. 

Tweet