Tag Archives: Society

Social Care – who is to blame?

Like all journalists Hinscliff can be a tad ‘Gaby’, especially about things the history of which she may be a tad too young to know. Writing in the Guardian she has an article headlined: Do-it-yourself social care only works for the very rich.

We all must be aware that the original idea of the creator of the health service in this country, Aneurin Bevan, had the vision of a health service which cared for you ‘from cradle to grave’. Initially it was believed by him  that demand would decline as illnesses were cured. Unfortunately the opposite happened with an ageing population and expensive new technology and drugs creating new financial pressures (something which has continued to the present day); coupled with the perception that the service was ‘free’ no doubt exacerbated demand still further.

Politicians have known for decades that there is an ageing population and have done what, exactly, to tackle the problem than raise taxation in one form or another, in their attempts to ‘cure’ the problem of cost?

Ms. HIncliff maintains that do-it-yourself social care only works for the rich. Let me tell this know-all journalist that her statement is not true. In the 1950s my grandmother approached the end of her life and her elder daughter and her husband made the decision that they would care for her in her last days. With the small equity my grandparents had in their house, my Aunt and her husband (not by any means ‘rich’ – he ran the apprentice school for a firm of shipwrights in King George V Docks and she was a stay-at-home housewife – bought a larger property  – the small equity covering the difference twixt the sale of their house and the price of the new – and the ensuring care that my grandmother required, they funded  aided by my Aunt’s two sisters; one of whom was my mother  (together with my father) ‘chipping in’.

Unfortunately it is now a fact that we still believe in an NHS that cares for us from ‘cradle to grave’ – and whose fault is this but that of politicians who still believe in an outmoded idea? That outmoded idea was not helped by our politicians ceding their responsibilities to a supranational body and then, subsequently, opening our nation’s borders to ‘all and sundry’ (without our agreement and it is alleged for political gain), which in turn brought an even an greater burden on an already over-stretched ‘service’ – not forgetting the increased burden on the services of housing and schooling.

 I would suggest the current problem with social care can be laid squarely at the door of our politicians. Is it not a fact they have have shut their eyes to an obvious growing problem; is it not a fact they have maintained the image that the state will take care of us, regardless of cost to themselves, thus maintaining that the NHS is a ‘sacred cow’; is it not a fact that not one of them has dared to question Bevan’s original idea because they believe it might cost them votes (and thus the continuation of their ‘career’)?

Is it not a fact that we are governed by spineless, unthinking, self-centred politicians, aided and abetted by journalists of similar intellectual inability, who can generate hundreds, if not hundreds of  thousands, of words to cover up their own personal deficiencies?  Is it not a fact that, due to the foregoing, the people have forgotten their personal – nay family – responsibilities? Is it not a fact that we have been misled by those who are supposed to care for us due to personal career aspirations – both in the political and media worlds? Is it not a fact that the people of our nation appear unable to see beyond the ends of their noses? The reasons for which can only be laid at the door of the door of the system of democratised dictatorship that passes as representative democracy.

Since moving to the North East it has become apparent that there is a strong belief in ‘family’ and ‘family responsibilities’;  so perhaps, from a region that justifiably feels it has been ignored, lessons could be learned?

What have we, the people, allowed to happen

It would appear from this article that the supermarket Sainsbury is now  involved in a gender-shaming row as the supermarket investigates allegations that a cashier asked a boy why he had chosen a chocolate snack in pink wrapping rather than blue.

What we have here is either:

  • someone seeking their ’15 minutes of fame’; or,
  • someone seeking ‘compo’ for an alleged slight; or,
  • someone who has no idea of how to be a parent; or,
  • someone with no brain whatsoever.

We now have the producer of the chocolate snack, together with the supermarket, ‘covering their backs’ with a view to ensuring they do not become embroiled in a lengthy court case which may involve mega sums of money in legal fees and costs.

Just what sort of society have we allowed politicians to create; aided and abetted by fake charities and pressure groups all of whom are attempting to get a ‘slice of the action’, be that formulating law, formulating society for their own ends, or whatever other reasons.

When I were a lad such a comment would have been ‘laughed off’ by my parents, maybe encapsulating a tad of repartee. No-one would have considered they had been embarrassed or slighted; the entire incident would have been considered no more than ‘conversational banter’.

It amazes me that ‘industries’ have evolved to involve themselves in what are perceived, by them, to be defects in society that need correction; thus increasing the drain on the public purse. Another example of what is perceived to be a societal defect is that of ‘bullying’.

When I was at boarding school in the 50s I was ‘bullied’, also I was expected to ‘run around’ doing errands for older boys, cleaning shoes for example – then currently known as ‘fagging’ (the modern connotation had not then been invented).  Invariably, in the ensuing encounter following my refusal to comply,  I ‘came off worse’, but the bullying soon ceased as both the bully and the ‘fagger’ discovered the first thing they got was a ‘bloody nose’.

When ‘society’ negates the basic principle of ‘standing up for oneself’ then society is doomed to become no more than robotic fodder of those over whom they have no control. Do not politicians ‘bully’ the people by passing laws that dictate we must comply or suffer penalties? How about we inform them that they change their ways or none of them get our votes? What political party would dare attempt to form a government on a turnout of 20% of the electorate? That would, indeed, be a ‘bloody nose’!

The fact we are in the parlous societal state we are can be laid at the door of our educational system over the ages,  the ‘fake charities’ and ‘do-gooders’ who have secured the ears of our politicians – and our own apathy as to what has been happening ‘under our noses’. In respect of the last point, is it any wonder our society and nation have both sunk to the nadir they have?

To our politicians, fake charities and do-gooders I can but repeat what I believe is a Swedish proverb: sweep first before your own door, before you sweep the doorsteps of your neighbours – in other words, put your own house in order first, before you try and reorganize ours.

Just saying…………