I have had one of those talks today at work where an
external consultant comes in to remind us of our duties as directors, Approved
Persons (a financial services thing) etc. It’s quite amusing to see some of the
newer members of the team blanch a little if they are getting the spiel for the
first time. They now realise they are in a place where it’s not the “company”
that takes the blame if something goes wrong, it’s them. But you run the business;
you help decide its strategy and you take the key operational decisions.
Responsibility comes with the territory. Doesn't it?
Most UK governments have been keen to stress personal
responsibility for as long as I can remember. I don’t think I have lived
through a truly socialist government – I am not sure what the Wilson/Callaghan 1974
/ 79 administrations would have been like had they not been so horribly in debt. But everything I recall has been the State as (at best) a limited safety-net; not
really seen as something that would look after people of my generation.
The impression we are given is that the current government has been at the more extreme end of this spectrum. It has looked for the individual to look
after him or herself, says Mr Osborne, on the grounds that the government cannot afford it. And,
although this grates with me, because I have always felt that looking after the
disadvantaged is the most important
thing a government should do, I see their point as arguable - we are in a financial mess.
And then I heard yesterday’s announcement from Mr Cameron that
“money is no object” when dealing with the floods. I am very grateful that I am
not in a flood-prone area, and have a lot of sympathy with those who are, but doesn't
this astonishing comment strip away the facade of affordability?
Home-owning
middle-class people (more likely to vote Tory I guess) who are probably insured
anyway, get the blank cheque, whilst the screw is tightened on lower income
disadvantaged individuals (who probably won’t vote, but won’t vote Tory
anyway).
This says everything about the ideological background to much of what
is being done. It does seem that there is an underlying “deserving v
undeserving” logic to what we are now seeing. And I can say no more than it
makes me ashamed to be British.
Oh, and the Daily Mail should refer to the reply given in Arkell v Pressdram as well.
No comments:
Post a Comment