Subject: The nasty party.
The scandal of under funding in social care for the aged has its roots in the Cameron Osborn era when there was a mechanistic desire to bring financial borrowing down as soon as possible regardless of the social consequences. Osborn as Chancellor cut the budgets of most of the government departments, other than defence and overseas aid.
The scandal of under funding in social care for the aged has its roots in the Cameron Osborn era when there was a mechanistic desire to bring financial borrowing down as soon as possible regardless of the social consequences. Osborn as Chancellor cut the budgets of most of the government departments, other than defence and overseas aid.
It highlighted a division in thinking between the the maintenance of the very structure of our social responsibilities and the need to balance the books. It brought in an era of chucking out support services by cutting back on the money allocated to municipal government who are tasked with the day to day running of the services.
The library's, the youth centres, the community police, old age homes the list goes on. They were ruthless in their pruning but as a gardener will tell you, too much pruning causes the plant to die. We are now at that stage, the health of the nation is dying, people are dying unnecessarily, the youth in our cities are dying of knife wounds, the roads are becoming dangerous through lack of maintenance, the contact points for citizens to go and seek help, the mental institutions, the doctors and the national health service are all under strain, people on disability assistance aren't receiving their benefit on time and the police force now admit they do not investigate a quarter of the crimes reported because of staffing levels.
Osborn and Cameron ushered in this age of austerity because of an ideological assumption that 'everyone' was on the take and like headmasters in a school they were going to introduce a leaner, more financially efficient structure so that the board of governors in there case parliament would see how clever we have been in balancing the books.
The under laying destruction was for them a price worth paying, both were very wealth people in their own right. They lived in na an land, Westminster where privilege insulated them from what went on outside the walls. Their schools were privately funded (with a little help from being granted charity status) and so the funding cuts to education, just at a time when pupil numbers were increasing due to immigration, have set back pupil to teacher ratios to those prior the 1950s at over 30 pupils per class, virtually impossible for a teacher to give a properly structured lesson because their energy is absorbed keeping the kids in line. Contrast this with classes in the private education sector with class sizes between 12 and 15, no wonder they secure most of the places to Oxbridge.
Food banks and general deprivation. Homelessness coupled with a housing market designed for the middle class. Rental accommodation now released from the constraints of regulation are, in many cases appalling with little protection from the whim of the landlord.
The Tory myth, a party of inclusion. Mrs May had it right, "we are seen as the nasty Party". How right she was.
The library's, the youth centres, the community police, old age homes the list goes on. They were ruthless in their pruning but as a gardener will tell you, too much pruning causes the plant to die. We are now at that stage, the health of the nation is dying, people are dying unnecessarily, the youth in our cities are dying of knife wounds, the roads are becoming dangerous through lack of maintenance, the contact points for citizens to go and seek help, the mental institutions, the doctors and the national health service are all under strain, people on disability assistance aren't receiving their benefit on time and the police force now admit they do not investigate a quarter of the crimes reported because of staffing levels.
Osborn and Cameron ushered in this age of austerity because of an ideological assumption that 'everyone' was on the take and like headmasters in a school they were going to introduce a leaner, more financially efficient structure so that the board of governors in there case parliament would see how clever we have been in balancing the books.
The under laying destruction was for them a price worth paying, both were very wealth people in their own right. They lived in na an land, Westminster where privilege insulated them from what went on outside the walls. Their schools were privately funded (with a little help from being granted charity status) and so the funding cuts to education, just at a time when pupil numbers were increasing due to immigration, have set back pupil to teacher ratios to those prior the 1950s at over 30 pupils per class, virtually impossible for a teacher to give a properly structured lesson because their energy is absorbed keeping the kids in line. Contrast this with classes in the private education sector with class sizes between 12 and 15, no wonder they secure most of the places to Oxbridge.
Food banks and general deprivation. Homelessness coupled with a housing market designed for the middle class. Rental accommodation now released from the constraints of regulation are, in many cases appalling with little protection from the whim of the landlord.
The Tory myth, a party of inclusion. Mrs May had it right, "we are seen as the nasty Party". How right she was.
No comments:
Post a Comment