When the BBC Radio 4 proclaimed on the news this morning that people who volunteer could be rewarded with credit to their own care-time accounts, I thought I had woken up in a dystopic nightmare.
I completely advocate volunteering, probably spending more of my freed time doing it than paid work, and I am a trustee for the Volunteering Bureau in my home town. But to capitalise on "rewarding" volunteering is a diabolical proposition.
The very proposal negates the responsibility of family, neighbours and the state to protect older and disabled persons.
We are fast approaching a 50/50 divide of retired and employed persons in the UK, and in spite of this, older people and disabled people are getting less and less funding on a local level.
I have applauded the coalition's approach to raising the pension, maintaining free bus passes and universal winter fuel allowance. But this does not mean they can justify removing care systems that are integral to old age and replace it with volunteers.
Regular readers know that Wardens and their demise are a bugbear of mine. There is evidence to show Councils and Housing Associations are not consulting their tenants properly or legally, and yet Older people are still abused by process.
Now we are supposed to accept volunteers to maintain community care?
"Hureai Kippu", the Japanese scheme to support older people, translates into "Caring Relationship Tickets". Tickets for what exactly?
How exactly do we propose to measure this? I am disabled and my husband technically cares for me*. Does this mean he has an enormous account, or does he have to care for strangers to accrue this valueless reward system?
Firstly, how do we define care? From personal experience, care can range from washing my hair for me through to carrying my shopping. However, I know a great deal of non disabled couples where the husband will carry the shopping. Do they all register as carers?
Alternatively, will they declare on 1st January 2011 that all "carers" accrue credit for the hours they give. They must register these hours how exactly? My husband hoovers as I cannot lift the appliance, why does he not gather a backlog of accrued hours?
Are we not, in fact, discriminating against future generations of Older People by introducing this scheme? By stating that Pensioners and Disabled persons of today are entitled to more support than those in 2020 or 2040? [a digressive post on inchoate discriination is well overdue I feel].
Ultimately Volunteers are no substitute for trained care. They are not accountable to employment regulations, nor are they bound by them. To introduce such regulation would negate the very word "volunteer".
Where would the proposed scheme draw the line between trained staff and volunteers?
I could go on.
Now for the Sarcastic Bit
In my understanding of society we have a system of credit for work done, I believe we call it pound sterling.
* I have arthritis, this means I cannot do some things, like peel vegetables or carry more than 2kg. Sometimes I cannot cut up my own food. However, I still work full time and although I am awarded DLA, I do not claim for my husband as my carer, nor does he claim. We see it as part of our relationship.
Showing posts with label BBC. Show all posts
Showing posts with label BBC. Show all posts
29 Mar 2010
A Superb Show That We will Reap Little Benefit from
In spite of what was considered on Twitter, The Guardian and Channel 4 opinion polls as a resounding success for Vince Cable, the BBC has seized control of the agenda once again by almost completely ignoring the Liberal Democrats.
I am watching Newsnight at the moment, and the generally stated that there are only a few occasions during the Ask The Chancellors Debate that the audience came to life, and showed the only clip where the audience came to life over something that Alistair Darling said as opposed to the other four times the audience burst into rounds of applause when Vince Cable spoke.
They are now showing clips of the bickering between Darling and Osborne.
Finally 10 minutes in, the BBC stated that Cable gained the most audience popularity.
An Analysis of the Transcribe
Cable's opening statement was a clear win for the Liberal Democrats, as he correctly identified the Liberal Democrats warned about the financial collapse and introduced the larger audience to the Liberal Democrats plan to increase the basic tax rate to £10,000.
The first question made me think that Cilla Black was about to emerge from behind a screen and start shrilly proclaiming to the audience what a wonderful evening tonight would be.
"What personal qualities do you have that would make you a better chancellor than your counterparts?"
Again Cable came out as the dominating force, identifying that he'd predicted the economic crash and illustrating how his policies have been embraced by the government to try and improve things.
In sharp comparison, Osborne could not provide any practical examples. From a Human Resources point of view, he immediately had lost points on the "interview". As one canny tweeter observed, "His only experience is managing his family Trust Fund".
Question two is a straightforward "what needs to be cut".
As per the dominating headlines, Darling talks about cutting the debt while Osborne informs us that he's told us what they going to come (even though they haven't). Again, in sharp comparison, Vince Cable is able to identify £50 million worth cuts including Triton and ID cards.
The show begins to get going here, with a little of the bickering going on between Darling and Osborne, then Cable interjects with a cutting remark that the Tory cuts announced today are entirely fictional.
Questioned three is with regards to the NHS, which many activists will know is the number one topic when campaigning.
Osborne immediately launches into a political farce of not answering the question, instead buffering himself with "David Cameron's pledge" to protect the NHS.
Darling then seems to follow Osborne's cue, failing to answer the question and stating that the Labour Party have also pledged to protect NHS funding.
Cable then makes them both appear to be completely amateur, stating "it would be "totally irresponsible" for any of them to give cast-iron guarantees about the NHS".
Public sector pensions, a bit of a "Daily Fail" topic, forms the fourth question.
The Tory proposal of a £50,000 a year pension the senior public sector employees is hilarious when you consider the pension and "golden handshake" payoffs given to members of parliament not to mention peerages!
Darling commits an equivalent faux pas by, as Osborne points out, discussing the future as though his party had not held office for 13 years.
As the two major parties descend into secondary school bickering, Cable makes sensible remarks, commenting on the need to reform, the scandalous current situation and the need for cross-party consensus.
Discussing projected rises on income tax and national insurance, the petty bickering continues while Cable states the Lib Dems would cut income tax for many people.
Question six seemed so cleverly interwoven, that one cannot imagine that these questions were selected at random, and targets the the risks of people leaving the country if taxes change.
While the Tory and Labour parties quote their usual rhetoric, Cable received a round of applause for stating;
"Britain is being "held to ransom" by bankers threatenign to flee to Switzerland. In the 1970s Britain was held to ransom by Arthur Scargill. Now we have got these "pin-striped Scargills"."
Leading smoothly into question seven about bankers' bonuses, Cable states that the Liberal Democrats had always supported a bank tax, where is the two other parties had originally ruled this out. Why?
The final question, about students being unable to find jobs and buy houses turned into a fairly heated debate between Osborne and Darling and there is no opportunity for Cable to identify so many of the key policies that the Liberal Democrats hold in this field.
The Tragic Overreaching Conclusions
I know that I'm going to be slightly biased towards Vince Cable, I openly admit to being a liberal. But I cannot comprehend how anyone could watch the same programme that I watched and see anything good in what George Osborne presented, and although Alistair Darling projected a fairly comprehensive argument, it seemed very evident that Vince Cable was the overall winner.
And yet as I type this (or, yes, dictate this, if you want to be picky), there is a furore on Twitter about Michael Crick MP fervently insisting that George Osborne was a clear-cut winner within the Ask The Chancellors Debate.
And all of a sudden all of those united liberal dreams of the Party Leader Debates to come in May doing the Liberal Democrat party fantastic good, come crashing down around my ears.
The ultimate cause of all this appears to be the media. With the BBC Radio 4 Today Program establishing an agenda from which the majority of political software tools draw from on a daily basis and Newsnight deliberating whatever it chooses to hear, the battle to get the Liberal Democrat voice heard in the public domain seems a futile.
But on a positive note, we can continue to do what we do best. Which is making the most of volunteers and loyal supporters, continuously spreading the word on the anyways we can find, from leaflet drops to tweeting and blogging, and hope that one day message gets through.
I am watching Newsnight at the moment, and the generally stated that there are only a few occasions during the Ask The Chancellors Debate that the audience came to life, and showed the only clip where the audience came to life over something that Alistair Darling said as opposed to the other four times the audience burst into rounds of applause when Vince Cable spoke.
They are now showing clips of the bickering between Darling and Osborne.
Finally 10 minutes in, the BBC stated that Cable gained the most audience popularity.
An Analysis of the Transcribe
Cable's opening statement was a clear win for the Liberal Democrats, as he correctly identified the Liberal Democrats warned about the financial collapse and introduced the larger audience to the Liberal Democrats plan to increase the basic tax rate to £10,000.
The first question made me think that Cilla Black was about to emerge from behind a screen and start shrilly proclaiming to the audience what a wonderful evening tonight would be.
"What personal qualities do you have that would make you a better chancellor than your counterparts?"
Again Cable came out as the dominating force, identifying that he'd predicted the economic crash and illustrating how his policies have been embraced by the government to try and improve things.
In sharp comparison, Osborne could not provide any practical examples. From a Human Resources point of view, he immediately had lost points on the "interview". As one canny tweeter observed, "His only experience is managing his family Trust Fund".
Question two is a straightforward "what needs to be cut".
As per the dominating headlines, Darling talks about cutting the debt while Osborne informs us that he's told us what they going to come (even though they haven't). Again, in sharp comparison, Vince Cable is able to identify £50 million worth cuts including Triton and ID cards.
The show begins to get going here, with a little of the bickering going on between Darling and Osborne, then Cable interjects with a cutting remark that the Tory cuts announced today are entirely fictional.
Questioned three is with regards to the NHS, which many activists will know is the number one topic when campaigning.
Osborne immediately launches into a political farce of not answering the question, instead buffering himself with "David Cameron's pledge" to protect the NHS.
Darling then seems to follow Osborne's cue, failing to answer the question and stating that the Labour Party have also pledged to protect NHS funding.
Cable then makes them both appear to be completely amateur, stating "it would be "totally irresponsible" for any of them to give cast-iron guarantees about the NHS".
Public sector pensions, a bit of a "Daily Fail" topic, forms the fourth question.
The Tory proposal of a £50,000 a year pension the senior public sector employees is hilarious when you consider the pension and "golden handshake" payoffs given to members of parliament not to mention peerages!
Darling commits an equivalent faux pas by, as Osborne points out, discussing the future as though his party had not held office for 13 years.
As the two major parties descend into secondary school bickering, Cable makes sensible remarks, commenting on the need to reform, the scandalous current situation and the need for cross-party consensus.
Discussing projected rises on income tax and national insurance, the petty bickering continues while Cable states the Lib Dems would cut income tax for many people.
Question six seemed so cleverly interwoven, that one cannot imagine that these questions were selected at random, and targets the the risks of people leaving the country if taxes change.
While the Tory and Labour parties quote their usual rhetoric, Cable received a round of applause for stating;
"Britain is being "held to ransom" by bankers threatenign to flee to Switzerland. In the 1970s Britain was held to ransom by Arthur Scargill. Now we have got these "pin-striped Scargills"."
Leading smoothly into question seven about bankers' bonuses, Cable states that the Liberal Democrats had always supported a bank tax, where is the two other parties had originally ruled this out. Why?
The final question, about students being unable to find jobs and buy houses turned into a fairly heated debate between Osborne and Darling and there is no opportunity for Cable to identify so many of the key policies that the Liberal Democrats hold in this field.
The Tragic Overreaching Conclusions
I know that I'm going to be slightly biased towards Vince Cable, I openly admit to being a liberal. But I cannot comprehend how anyone could watch the same programme that I watched and see anything good in what George Osborne presented, and although Alistair Darling projected a fairly comprehensive argument, it seemed very evident that Vince Cable was the overall winner.
And yet as I type this (or, yes, dictate this, if you want to be picky), there is a furore on Twitter about Michael Crick MP fervently insisting that George Osborne was a clear-cut winner within the Ask The Chancellors Debate.
And all of a sudden all of those united liberal dreams of the Party Leader Debates to come in May doing the Liberal Democrat party fantastic good, come crashing down around my ears.
The ultimate cause of all this appears to be the media. With the BBC Radio 4 Today Program establishing an agenda from which the majority of political software tools draw from on a daily basis and Newsnight deliberating whatever it chooses to hear, the battle to get the Liberal Democrat voice heard in the public domain seems a futile.
But on a positive note, we can continue to do what we do best. Which is making the most of volunteers and loyal supporters, continuously spreading the word on the anyways we can find, from leaflet drops to tweeting and blogging, and hope that one day message gets through.
8 Feb 2010
Paliamentary Priveledge is Incomprehensible and Reduced to Satire.
It may be because I spend too much time reading satirical takes on the news, but this BBC article on the Parliamentary Priveledge Affair reads just like something by the Daily Mash.
A few choice quotes include:
Mr Johnson told the BBC people wanted to see MPs treated like everyone else.
Implicitely interwoven in this is the presumption MPs are not, of course, like everyone else.
"They are entitled to a fair trial and the public... would be aghast if they thought there was some special get out of jail card for Parliamentarians."
When, of course, there is.
"The Bill of Rights was intended to secure freedom of speech, the freedom of speech of members of parliament to speak freely rather than be at threat from an over-powerful monarch at the time."
Perhaps this reporter has a sense of humour?
There is, of course, an additional irony in Cameron lambasting Brown over the row
He is quick to jump on the bandwagon of public outrage over expenses when it suits him, yet he woulld not consider the grave issues within his own party on non domiciles or donations.
One has to wonder if he would be on the band wagon so quick if it had been a majority of his own MPs that were charged with fraud.
Aggressive and robust enquiries continue into Lord Ashcroft's donations and yet we are still without a complete answer.
The Russians have an idiom for corruption;
"The fish rots from the head down"
This is a wonderful way to describe it, and sadly, it does not only apply to the Conservative Party but to a vast amount of business and public holdings accross the country. But that's another story.
A few choice quotes include:
Mr Johnson told the BBC people wanted to see MPs treated like everyone else.
Implicitely interwoven in this is the presumption MPs are not, of course, like everyone else.
"They are entitled to a fair trial and the public... would be aghast if they thought there was some special get out of jail card for Parliamentarians."
When, of course, there is.
"The Bill of Rights was intended to secure freedom of speech, the freedom of speech of members of parliament to speak freely rather than be at threat from an over-powerful monarch at the time."
Perhaps this reporter has a sense of humour?
There is, of course, an additional irony in Cameron lambasting Brown over the row
He is quick to jump on the bandwagon of public outrage over expenses when it suits him, yet he woulld not consider the grave issues within his own party on non domiciles or donations.
One has to wonder if he would be on the band wagon so quick if it had been a majority of his own MPs that were charged with fraud.
Aggressive and robust enquiries continue into Lord Ashcroft's donations and yet we are still without a complete answer.
The Russians have an idiom for corruption;
"The fish rots from the head down"
This is a wonderful way to describe it, and sadly, it does not only apply to the Conservative Party but to a vast amount of business and public holdings accross the country. But that's another story.
1 Feb 2010
Establishing Assited Suicide Arguments
I have listened to the discussions on assisted suicide on the radio today in earnest.
When the discussions began many years ago, I think I would have immediately answered that Assisted Suicide should be at the very least decriminalised.
However, the recent court cases have made me think about the proposals in a more detailed way.
Panorama this evening is covering the case of Bridget Gilderdale and the judgement clearing her of attempted murder of her daughter Lynn after Lynn asked her to help her commit suicide as Lynn no longer wished to live with ME.
With the high profile discussion by author Terry Prachet on Radio 4's Today Programme on legislating on Assisted Suicide, the usual floodgates of discussion have opened once again.
However, the soundbite the BBC have announced on their news programme has been publicised as a proposal on legislating for Assisted Suicide for those with incurable diseases.
And my immediate response is there is a significant difference between "incurable" and "terminal".
Diabetes is an incurable disease. Ecsma is an incurable condition. But I consider someone's inability to live with such conditions indicative of failings in our health service, not a reason to commit suicide.
To suffer from a terminal disease means you will eventually succumb to the disease within a period of time. This could be Multiple Sclerosis, aggressive cancer or another debilitating illness.
The ultimate issue here is that a terminal disease has a term or length. An incurable disease can be maintained, managed, and will not result in death in spite of medical attention.
As the House of Lords have stated, the potential danger of opening up legislation to allow Assisted Suicide will result in abuse of the system. The current recommendations are to observe the level of public interest in prosecuting those who assist suicide.
When you start examining cases of mental health, the situation becomes even more contentious. Once the issue of depression or related disorders enter the mainframe, it is impossible to determine whether the patient with an "incurable" disease is acting as a result of the suffering from the pain or through the suffering of the depression.
Principally, ME sufferers generally suffer from depression. Therefore, to assist them in Suicide may be infact to assist in a mental health suicide and have little or nothing to do with ME.
This creates such a moral dilemma, I feel I must disagree with legislating on Assisted Suicide.
I cannot justify suicide for sufferers from mental health, especially as studies indicate the correct amount of psychological and medicine therapies can help the condition become manageable.
I am quite open to discussion on this, feel free to convince me otherwise. I think the current guidelines are satisfactory as they review public interest in prosecution, something we use far too little in the UK. But that's another discursive.
When the discussions began many years ago, I think I would have immediately answered that Assisted Suicide should be at the very least decriminalised.
However, the recent court cases have made me think about the proposals in a more detailed way.
Panorama this evening is covering the case of Bridget Gilderdale and the judgement clearing her of attempted murder of her daughter Lynn after Lynn asked her to help her commit suicide as Lynn no longer wished to live with ME.
With the high profile discussion by author Terry Prachet on Radio 4's Today Programme on legislating on Assisted Suicide, the usual floodgates of discussion have opened once again.
However, the soundbite the BBC have announced on their news programme has been publicised as a proposal on legislating for Assisted Suicide for those with incurable diseases.
And my immediate response is there is a significant difference between "incurable" and "terminal".
Diabetes is an incurable disease. Ecsma is an incurable condition. But I consider someone's inability to live with such conditions indicative of failings in our health service, not a reason to commit suicide.
To suffer from a terminal disease means you will eventually succumb to the disease within a period of time. This could be Multiple Sclerosis, aggressive cancer or another debilitating illness.
The ultimate issue here is that a terminal disease has a term or length. An incurable disease can be maintained, managed, and will not result in death in spite of medical attention.
As the House of Lords have stated, the potential danger of opening up legislation to allow Assisted Suicide will result in abuse of the system. The current recommendations are to observe the level of public interest in prosecuting those who assist suicide.
When you start examining cases of mental health, the situation becomes even more contentious. Once the issue of depression or related disorders enter the mainframe, it is impossible to determine whether the patient with an "incurable" disease is acting as a result of the suffering from the pain or through the suffering of the depression.
Principally, ME sufferers generally suffer from depression. Therefore, to assist them in Suicide may be infact to assist in a mental health suicide and have little or nothing to do with ME.
This creates such a moral dilemma, I feel I must disagree with legislating on Assisted Suicide.
I cannot justify suicide for sufferers from mental health, especially as studies indicate the correct amount of psychological and medicine therapies can help the condition become manageable.
I am quite open to discussion on this, feel free to convince me otherwise. I think the current guidelines are satisfactory as they review public interest in prosecution, something we use far too little in the UK. But that's another discursive.
7 Jan 2010
A Few Thoughts
The continuous political bickering and devastating snowstorms make for very little opinion when blogging.
The BBC is currently running as their top story Cameron's opinion on the alleged leadership coup.
Cameron must be delighted that something is taking the attention off his appalling display within Prime Minister's questions yesterday.
The BBC must be delighted that they can put something in a headline slot other than their most highly paid and infamous presenter resigning.
And Now for Something Completely Different
It is a delight to see that the United States of America are finally entertaining fair and just policies in relation to gender discrimination and employment legislation.
However, they should learn from the current legislation in Britain that you have to catch someone first.
In spite of legislation in the UK to combat discrimination in the last 10 years, gender discrimination in employment is still rife. I could launch into a diatribe about people that are persuaded to "have a sense of humour" all representations of gender stereotyping by the media and the damage it does to people's perceptions of how they should behave and how they should be treated, but I'm sure if you've read this far you know all this.
And, it appears that Murdoch may have to revise his ideas on charging people to view news content on the Internet followinga suggestion that the Independent may also become free newspaper
The BBC is currently running as their top story Cameron's opinion on the alleged leadership coup.
Cameron must be delighted that something is taking the attention off his appalling display within Prime Minister's questions yesterday.
The BBC must be delighted that they can put something in a headline slot other than their most highly paid and infamous presenter resigning.
And Now for Something Completely Different
It is a delight to see that the United States of America are finally entertaining fair and just policies in relation to gender discrimination and employment legislation.
However, they should learn from the current legislation in Britain that you have to catch someone first.
In spite of legislation in the UK to combat discrimination in the last 10 years, gender discrimination in employment is still rife. I could launch into a diatribe about people that are persuaded to "have a sense of humour" all representations of gender stereotyping by the media and the damage it does to people's perceptions of how they should behave and how they should be treated, but I'm sure if you've read this far you know all this.
And, it appears that Murdoch may have to revise his ideas on charging people to view news content on the Internet followinga suggestion that the Independent may also become free newspaper
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
