The mess that Labour made of the accounts was pretty devastating so the Lib Dems are a little unfortunate in the context in which they wish to prove their economic credibility. I would love to believe as a Tory that prosperity will return in time for the election but there are no guarantees on this and the cuts must still bite deep. To some extent the Lib Dems have been in the way of delivering the necessary painful medecine but they have also made some substantial contributions.
I think I'd have more sympathy with that mantra if there had been more people shouting out along the way. But Labour were there for almost 13 years, and it was only once the global crisis was well underway that people started to cast blame. We were all complicit in the years of plenty, the failure of all parties to form a credible opposition as well as whatever mistakes or misjudgements Labour made contributed to our own version of what hit every country in the world in some way or other. There are a number of failures alongside public spending, failure to regulate and to moderate greed.
mindlight said:
There is nothing wrong with the idealism you shared. Indeed it would be a shame to ever lose sight of what really matters and what will endure. However politics is the art of the possible in most cases. I think in a culture where your job determines the size of your house and your ability to shop people no longer worry about their closeness to the king (or political system) as thats not what buys them their place in society any more. However politics can and should be more than a play with advertising images to a politically ignorant populace.
Thats kind of it in a nutshell and it goes round and round, our governance will not improve unless we as an electorate up our game. But where does the time and energy come from? More and more I think there is something utterly utterly empty about the way we do life and work and even church. Been reading ecclesiastes! Our economy is so much about consumerism and loads of crap we don't really need, houses that are worth far and away more than their constituent parts, money is almost meaningless. But when you look at the breakdown of our time and how much of it goes into work and money compared to how much of it goes into family and leisure and volunteering, what does it say about us? If we work really hard and make tons of cash, we might be able to put a huge wad of cash in the collection plate, we might tell ourselves that society needs taxpayers like us, movers and shakers, and that we are justified in creating an idol out of work and money. But I think the cost is too great. Children are children only once and if you miss it then it is gone. People come through your life and if you don't make time for them they are gone. You die and leave a half million pound house to your kids, but is that really worth all the sacrifices, all the bits of life you didn't live? Even in church. What is the balance between effort spent keeping buildings open, paying heating bills, etc etc and actually serving the communities the churches are in? Victorian follies are beautiful, but is the church really a preservation society for impractical buildings? Whatever was in the hearts of the people who built them, every hard earned £ that goes on a new roof, or a patch on a heating system, or whatever it is, is a £ that is not going serving the commission laid out to us.
mindlight said:
A good political structure is of course essential. The work you do with the poor and disadvantaged is admirable. The child poverty actions and reports that you commended seem to be a highly positive initiative to break the cycle of poverty and to prevent it being passed down the generations- education, social mobility and also physical mobility when failed communities themselves are perpetuating the problem and need to be broken up. I think economics e.g, getting a job and the willingness to move on to new frontiers and away from the wounds of the past maybe essential parts of this also.
Theres not a lot to disagree with here. LIke you go on to say though, it is
how we achieve that that we never seem to see in the same way.
A woman came into my work yesterday. She was really upset. She had spent the last six months in rehab, she is an alcoholic and occasional drug user, and she has a fifteen year old daughter. She was scared because she had only been out of rehab a few months and she was back drinking. She was utterly broken. Years of self abuse has meant she has a number of health and mental problems. I would go as far to say that in her current state she is totally unemployable. She came in because she was lonely, her problems were crushing her and she didn't know what to do with herself. She has been going to a pentecostal church, and has had a few experiences there that have really spoken to her, but recently has felt nothing when she has been prayed for and has decided that she is too rotten on the inside for God to be intersted in her, that she has done too many terrible terrible things.
Now she is not in any way unusual. And we can sit and talk about the decisions she has made and the consequences those have had. The daily mail would have a field day with her. What does not happen, what never happens, is any of us trying to understand why she has made those decisions. We take an easy road of saying well she's just a waster and a drain on society. But she is a precious - if broken - human being. And to get her functioning again in a way where she could work, take care of herself and her daughter, is going to take years, consistent high quality input. Input that is not cut off the first time she relapses. Input that is not about arbitrary goals set around government targets. Input that is not set around someone else deciding what her 'problem' is and making a simple solution that does nothing to address the emotional pain she is in, the mental health problems she has. There are hundreds of people like her, and we used to let them die or rot in workhouses. I would like to see us investing in people like her, not because there is a huge return, but because they are human beings and utterly worth it.
Then there is her daughter, who knows what damage has been done there, and what the future holds.
Early intervention is good and would nip a lot of this stuff in the bud and break a lot of cycles. But there is also a need to catch those who are already falling hard. Not to stigmatise them, not to blame them, not to wash our hands of them because they have made and might continue to make bad choices, but to do our best by them. I have met literally dozens of women like her. it is not a small problem, but what are we really going to do about it?
mindlight said:
I am not sure London or the SE really care if Scotland goes its own way and indeed think that they will probably save some taxes if it does. However independence would be good for neither Scotland or the UK in my view
I agree.
mindlight said:
Now who is bound to what Scots often perceived as the "bitterness" of the Thatcher years on that one?
I'm going to appeal to your compassion on this one mindlight. Yes the unions needed dealt with, yes the state industries needed reformed. But the human cost of what Thatcher did is horrendous, and that in turn has created a financial cost. Binning people, removing their purpose, their self respect, their ability to provide has left a lasting legacy. It is not bitterness, it is poorly contained fury. I deal every day with her mess, I have spent the last 10 years living in and confronted by the direct consequences of her few years of victory. Over 15% unemployment in Scotland - as much as 20% in Northern Ireland. And no real plan for how to get those people new jobs, no real concern for them or their families or their wellbeing. This is not a woman I could ever ever admire. She made a choice - she had a big problem to deal with. Her choice was wrong, and the legacy of it is several generations of people who are broken.
mindlight said:
The NHS budget has not fallen, as promised, but the days of plenty are over for now and this is vital if we are ever to balance the budget. I really believe small government and lower taxes and focusing government on what it does best is important. But there is also the simple fact that we still have a large deficit and the money has to come from somewhere.
If the Tories had the support of the colleges I might grudingly agree with you.But the last Tory attempt at efficiencies in the NHS got rid of sister and gave us dirty hospitals and super bugs. It does not look like the tories do not have the support of the health profession. Forgive me if I am thinking fool me once...
Privatisation of contracts does not always equal savings or efficiency. It means that the money that was spent before has to go further, because as well as providing a service, it has to turn a profit.
We do need to tighten our belts. I do not follow the news the way I used to and have not read up in detail on the bill so cannot pretend to understand the ins and outs of what is being proposed. But I am struck by the way that doctors who were initially on board are now jumping ship. If the budget is not going down, perhaps you can explain what the benefit of the bill is and why we need it when it seems to have so many healthcare professionals so upset and concerned for the future of our healthcare?
mindlight said:
The 50% income tax was a mistake and needs to be removed. I agree that riches and social responsibility should walk hand in hand . It is the degree of compulsion to the latter that we probably disagree on.
I don't particularly wish for there to be compulsion. But the fact is that leaving it up to the concience of the individual did not work. Which is the very reason the wellfare state was invented. If people did their bit voluntarily, then there would never have been any reason for the wellfare state in the first place. However people are greedy and selfish and if there is no compulsion then for every philanthropist like Gates there are a dozen who don't care a hoot about their fellow man, and who will pocket whatever they can, pay as little tax as they can. When Reagan cut taxes in the 80s there was a much lauded rise in charitable giving, but when you look at the actual figures, the the increase in charitable giving is miniscule compared to the money which stayed in the pockets of the rich. So while services are cut, the equivalent charities are not sprinign up to provide what government no longer can.
mindlight said:
The UK grew its empire to its widest extent after it lost America and then lost it fighting wars it won but which bankrupted it. I think it is a little early to write off the USA - China is more likely to stumble in the coming decades.
It is just the nature of things, the crown passes on, no empire lasts for ever. If it is not now it will be later, but I think America has some really significant problems to overcome if it wants to retain its place at the top. And I don't see much progress in that direction.
mindlight said:
Something very important was lost with the loss of our greatness that was far more essential than imperial power. It was a moral identity and sense of civilising mission and I believe this is a product of a crisis of faith. I think this young passion and zeal for the future is something every nation has the potential to recover. It walks hand in hand with the revival of its churches.
I think identity and mission and purpose are important. But also complex. You and I will never agree on the colonial period. You have your own personal ties to that period of time and I have my perspective which is quite different. You have to accept that you are in a very small minority of people who think that colonialism was on the whole good. And I don't know how real a grasp of the actual history of colonialism you have, there were christian men involved in colonialism, but the prime motivation and factor was money. We never annexed or invaded anywhere to protect mission stations - it was always about trade. There was so much moral flexibility, institutional racism and just downright brutality involved in building the empire. And so many current conflicts can be traced back to issues cemented in the colonial period. I honestly don't know how to understand your enthusiasm for it. Not that I don't want to - I just don't know how.
mindlight said:
However the moral rot runs deep in the UK and all parties have bought heavily into it in the last years. There is no party that perfectly captures the Christian agenda for the UK but I still believe that reducing the power of a deceived, parasitic and debilitating state has to be a part of opening up the possibility of the revival of the people of our once great nation. Yes there are things that the state does well and indeed I would not want an American health service,with all its costs, to replace the NHS, however it is also doing too much badly and having lost its moral anchor in recent years it taints much that it touches.
Never mind the parties - theres not even a church which perfectly captures the christian agenda - you and I are both christians but would come from quite different perspectives.
When we start talking about moral rot, it is back to that same place of seeing the actions and classifying them as good or bad, but not understanding the motivations. Having said that, we probably couldn't even agree on which fitted into the good category and which fitted into the bad.
It is easy to point out fault, ajnd it exists in every section of society and in every person. Some are very public and easily condemned. Some are socially acceptable - like greed for instance. Some are private and rot away under the surface. I think if we as christians can step away from judgement and pointing out fault and seeking to provoke feelings of guilt or shame, and instead journey beside people then we might do a bit more good, and Christianity wouldn't have the poor reputation that it currently enjoys in the UK. People responded to Jesus with joy and spontinaety. Not out of guilt or having been shamed into it. If I had turned round and said to that woman yesterday - of course you are miserable look at all the stupid stuff you are doing, I would have been correct, but utterly lacking in compassion, Adopting a position that ignored my own faults which might or might not be more socially acceptable or hidden, and I would have lost the chance to be anything useful to her. But again and again that is how we treat people, and we are reaping the withered and paltry harvest of having been pretty rubbish for a long time.
