Tories Waffle to Prevent Bill against Privatisation of the NHS in Parliament


Beastrabban\'s Weblog

Mike over at Vox Political has put up another important piece reporting a filibuster in parliament to ‘talk out’ a bill by the former leader of the Green party, Caroline Lucas. The four Tories, who waffled and blustered in order to prevent the bill being discussed or passed, were David Nuttall, Phillip Davies, Phillip Hollobone, and Sir Edward Leigh.

Mike writes:

It’s hard to think of Philip Davies without imagining that the people of Shipley were so disillusioned with Parliament that they sent a motion of the bowels to Westminster as a sign of their low esteem.

The sh*t from Shipley was one of four Tory MPs who waffled their way through the time allotted for Caroline Lucas’s Bill to stop the creeping privatisation of the National Health Service.

By their actions it is therefore easy to conclude that Davies, Philip Hollobone, David Nuttall and Sir Edward Leigh want to…

View original post 774 more words

The Immense Popularity of the Beveridge Report, and its Reception by Labour and the Tories


Beastrabban\'s Weblog

A week or so ago I had a debate on here with a critic, who objected to my crediting Aneurin Bevan with the creation of the NHS. He asserted that the Beveridge Report, on which the NHS is based, was a policy of the wartime National Government, and also had Conservative support.

This is true. However, the Beveridge Report was based on the work of Sidney and Beatrice Webb and the Socialist Medical Association, who had been demanding a free medical service for decades. Indeed, a free health service had been Labour party policy since the 1930s. And while the Tories in the Coalition government also supported Beveridge’s outline of the welfare state, it had particularly strong support in the Labour party.

Pauline Gregg in her book, The Welfare State, describes the massive popularity the Beveridge Report enjoyed with just about all parts of the British population on pages…

View original post 1,031 more words

The War and Socialist Demands for a National Health Service before the Beveridge Report


Beastrabban\'s Weblog

This is following a debate I’ve recently had with a critic, who stated that the National Health Service had its origins in the Beveridge Report of 1942, and was endorsed by Winston Churchill and the Conservatives. This is true, up to a point, though Churchill was initially very cautious about the foundation of a National Health Service. After the War he made a radio speech denouncing the Labour party’s plans for a complete reconstruction of Britain as ‘a Gestapo for England’. However, Michael Sullivan in his book, The Development of the British Welfare State (Hemel Hempstead: Prentice Hall/Harvester Wheatsheaf 1996) also points out that before the publication of the Beveridge, there had been a long process of negotiation and demand for some kind of comprehensive, free healthcare for working people, and that this had become official Labour party policy in the 1934. He writes

Discussions about the reform of British…

View original post 1,938 more words

Nye Bevan and Nostalgia for the Era Before the NHS: My Response to a Critic


Beastrabban\'s Weblog

Last week I received a comment from Billellson criticising me for stating that Aneurin Bevan was the architect of the NHS. He also stated that we did not have a private healthcare system before the NHS, and although some charges were made, they were in his words, not so much that people would lose their house.

Here’s what he wrote.

“Nye Bevan, the architect of the NHS, was also acutely aware of the way ordinary women suffered under the private health care system that put medicine out of the reach of the poor.”
Aneurin Bevan was not the architect of the National Health Service. The NHS was a wartime coalition policy, for the end of hostilities, agreed across parties. The concept was set out in the Beveridge Report published in December 1942, endorsed by Winston Churchill in a national broadcast in 1943 and practical proposals, including those the things the…

View original post 1,552 more words

Utopia


Jewellery Tax

On seeing the DM headline I double checked the date to see if it was 1 April, as only a fool would now vote Lib Dem. They wrongly assume that only the rich have such assets. What about the people who have worked all their life on a modest income and instead of spending any surplus income on frivolities, spent it on items to enhance their home and themselves, such as, good quality furniture and fittings and good quality fashion accessories. Then in retirement they have all they need for a comfortable life together with a reasonable pension and their home is now mortgage free.

Then comes the Lib Dems and brings these retired persons into a wealth tax bracket, they forget,  that they will not just be taxing the rich, but those who have invested for their retirement.

Why not go to full on Utopia, or would it be Dystopia, but is that a matter of opinion.

Now how could this be achieved, a welfare state could be created.  In the UK this started in 1906-1914, with the Liberal Welfare Reforms, which introduced:

  1.   Old-Age Pensions Act in 1908,
  2. the introduction of free school meals in 1909,
  3. the 1909 Labour Exchanges Act,
  4. the Development Act 1909, which heralded greater Government intervention in economic development
  5. the National Insurance Act 1911 setting up a national insurance contribution for unemployment and health benefits from work.
  6. then in 1942 came the Beveridge Report       

The Beveridge Report was the means by which the Labour government endeavoured to expand the welfare state.

Beveridge was opposed to “means-tested” benefits. His proposal was for a flat rate contribution rate for everyone and a flat rate benefit for everyone. Means-testing was intended to play a tiny part because it created high marginal tax rates for the poor (the “poverty trap“).

One of the main sections of the Beveridge Report was the National Health Service Act of 1946, which created the NHS, a free at point of provision for health care for all UK residents,which was implemented in 1948.

Another was the expanding of National Insurance to provide for the costs related to the various benefits created by the enacting of the Beveridge Report.

The idea being that those persons in employment would pay contributions to the state, in the form of National Insurance contributions and Income Tax, by way of PAYE for employed persons and payments paid direct to HMRC for self employed persons.

When there is a high ratio of persons employed or self employed persons to persons unemployed, the money collected to pay for the benefits to all persons will be more than likely sufficient to meet all costs required.  Where there is a high rate of unemployment, or the ratio of persons who would not normally be employed (children and retired) is considerably higher than those in employment, the costs may not be covered. Any shortfall in the costs would need to be either covered by government borrowing, the criteria for benefits be adjusted accordingly or taxation introduced into new areas.

This brings me back to the start of this article and the Lib Dems thought of introducing a Jewellery Tax.

But is there another option?

Instead of a percentage of any income paid to the government, in the form of National Insurance contributions and the various forms of taxation, why not all income be paid to the government. Then, in the form of an allowance, a proportion of this is then paid out to every legal resident of the country.

This would mean no one would need to apply for benefits, because everyone would be given their appropriate allowance. This means there would be no one who could be claiming any benefits to which they were not deemed to be entitled and so this would ensure there were no longer any, so called, ‘benefit scroungers’.  It would also solve the situation regarding illegal immigrants, as no one would receive an allowance until they were legally registered as a UK resident. It would solve benefit fraud.

To administer this system every person, as soon as they are born would need to be registered, as would anyone coming to the UK to legally reside, they could then be issued with an Allowance Card, similar to the various plastic cards already around today, for use as credit, debit or other cards.

All persons deemed to be eligible for work would be allocated a job, in line with their abilities, so therefore no one would be without a form of employment, so the benefit ‘Job Seekers Allowance‘ would no longer be required. There would be some people who are deemed unable to work, due to them having some form of disability, here people with disabilities would be assessed, using health based criteria  and be given a dispensation from the requirement to work. this would require their allowance to be increased accordingly to ensure their additional needs , due to their disability, could be met, so the various disability benefits would no longer be required.

A reason to live, yes or no?

Child Benefit, is it a right?


Proposed changes to Child Benefit

Child Benefit was originally Family Allowance introduced in 1946 from the Act of 1945 and was first mentioned in the Beveridge Report 1942. This report also lead to the expansion of National Insurance contributions and the creation of the NHS. In 1946 you would not receive any benefit for your first child, only for your second and subsequent children. I believe this was a means of encouraging people to have more than one child, so to build up the UK population after the 2 world wars of World War I and World War II. I can not, however find anything to confirm this, except

“15. The plan is based on a diagnosis of want. It starts from facts, from
the condition of the people as revealed by social surveys between the two
wars. It takes account of two other facts about the British community,
arising out of past movements of the birth rate and the death rate, which
should dominate planning for its future ; the main eUects of these movements
in determining the present and future of the British people are shown by
Table XI in para. 234. The first of the two facts is the age constitution of
the population, making-it certain that persons past the age that is now
regarded as the end of working life will be a much larger proportion of the
whole community than at any time in the past. The second fact is the low
reproduction rate of the British community today : unless this rate is raised
very materially in the near future, a rapid and continuous decline of the
population cannot be prevented. The first 7act makes it necessary to seek
ways of postponing the age of retirement from work rather than of hastening
it. The second fact makes it imperative to give first place in social expenditure
to the care of childhood and to the safeguarding of maternity.”

This is an extract from Cabinet Papers 20 November 1942, the papers relate to the Social Insurance and Allied Services , the specific section being Part 1 section 15.

On viewing these papers the problems relating to the amount of people approaching retirement or in retirement to those approaching to commence work or working was a major concern.  A problem which is still of concern today and I am sure many other of today’s problems could have been of concern then as they are now.

It was not until 1977 that the benefit was paid for the first child.

It is evident that the intension was for this benefit to be only paid to UK citizens, as it was well before the formation of the Common Market, now the European Union and the Human Rights Act.

These days nobody needs encouragement to have children and therefore the time is right to amend the criteria of entitlement. No one should be expecting the state to be responsible for their own actions.