Compassionate Conservatism

[JohnM]

http://www.tendringdc.gov.uk/council/news-pr/news-listing/service-help-vulnerable-people-who-fall-home-under-consideration

[Griff9of13]

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/dec/30/oliver-letwin-blocked-help-for-black-youth-after-1985-riots?CMP=twt_gu

With advice like this....

Nothing to see here, he's apologised. 30 years on and only after it's all in the papers, but I'm sure it's completly genuine and heartfelt.

Letwin apologises over 1985 Broadwater Farm riot memo

[ckn]

Nothing to see here, he's apologised. 30 years on and only after it's all in the papers, but I'm sure it's completly genuine and heartfelt.

Letwin apologises over 1985 Broadwater Farm riot memo

That was the tone I heard on the news today.  BBC News discussed it, host said "is Letwin in trouble?", correspondent standing outside a building somewhere said "he would have been if he hadn't apologised but he has". 

[Trojan]

I've been accused on this forum of seeing racism around every corner. Could that be because underlying racism is around every corner?

[ckn]

I've been accused on this forum of seeing racism around every corner. Could that be because underlying racism is around every corner?

It really is nowhere near as bad as it once was.  That's not an excuse though.  The really nasty overt racism has dropped significantly in my opinion but we're still showing lower level racism regularly.  An example, last week in the office I overheard one of the young lads proudly saying how he sat in the last seat on the train next to "one of those muslim women in full ninja gear".  It was as if he wanted public recognition about how tolerant he was.  I see it regularly that people don't want to sit next to openly muslim people.  Do they honestly think that if they move a few seats away that they'll be safe if the person did turn out to be a suicide bomber?  We even have people on this forum who regularly whine that I don't allow them to make jokes about muslim communities near rugby grounds; they think I'm being overly critical yet if someone made a joke about black people using the same crass stereotypes then it'd be so obviously racist that a ban would come almost instantly.

 

Recruitment of ethnic minorities goes up significantly when recruiters aren't allowed to see candidate names or personal details until interviews have been offered.  Repeated studies show that you can take identical CVs, have one with a fully non-English name and one with an English name and there will be varying levels of prejudice against the former from outright and open discrimination through to more subtle unconscious discrimination.

 

It's far wider than just racism though, there's still widespread and accepted homophobia, sexism, ageism and even class discrimination going on that isn't challenged.  Some places are challenging it, I know one top-tier law firm that no longer allows hiring managers to see educational establishment when hiring new lawyers because the senior old-school lawyers would automatically reject anyone who didn't come from a Russell Group university, preferably their old one; if you did your law degree at one of the newer universities then you had no chance.  It's also a taboo subject in interviews with HR sitting in all and it being an automatic disqualification if it comes up.

 

Even in the NHS, there's an unconscious bias against older people because they've typically been in the NHS for so long that if ever we had to make them redundant then they'd cost far too much.  I have six direct senior manager reports, all male and a leftover from what I took over despite just under half of my service being women, I now have half of their deputies as women (all there on earned merit) so that if they move on there's an easier succession plan to long-term address the problem.  There's still an open stigma against non-straight people to the point that it's just not discussed.  I had one senior manager whisper excitedly to me wondering if I knew one of the directors was gay; it'll only be fixed once it's not discussed because people don't care and seen as absurd as saying "did you know he's married... to a woman!"

 

I choose to look at it as a declining trend though, it really is getting better but slowly.  Not perfect but then I can't really see ways to speed it up.  Education.  Education.  Education.

[Trojan]

It really is nowhere near as bad as it once was.  That's not an excuse though.  The really nasty overt racism has dropped significantly in my opinion but we're still showing lower level racism regularly.  An example, last week in the office I overheard one of the young lads proudly saying how he sat in the last seat on the train next to "one of those muslim women in full ninja gear".  It was as if he wanted public recognition about how tolerant he was.  I see it regularly that people don't want to sit next to openly muslim people.  Do they honestly think that if they move a few seats away that they'll be safe if the person did turn out to be a suicide bomber?  We even have people on this forum who regularly whine that I don't allow them to make jokes about muslim communities near rugby grounds; they think I'm being overly critical yet if someone made a joke about black people using the same crass stereotypes then it'd be so obviously racist that a ban would come almost instantly.

 

Recruitment of ethnic minorities goes up significantly when recruiters aren't allowed to see candidate names or personal details until interviews have been offered.  Repeated studies show that you can take identical CVs, have one with a fully non-English name and one with an English name and there will be varying levels of prejudice against the former from outright and open discrimination through to more subtle unconscious discrimination.

 

It's far wider than just racism though, there's still widespread and accepted homophobia, sexism, ageism and even class discrimination going on that isn't challenged.  Some places are challenging it, I know one top-tier law firm that no longer allows hiring managers to see educational establishment when hiring new lawyers because the senior old-school lawyers would automatically reject anyone who didn't come from a Russell Group university, preferably their old one; if you did your law degree at one of the newer universities then you had no chance.  It's also a taboo subject in interviews with HR sitting in all and it being an automatic disqualification if it comes up.

 

Even in the NHS, there's an unconscious bias against older people because they've typically been in the NHS for so long that if ever we had to make them redundant then they'd cost far too much.  I have six direct senior manager reports, all male and a leftover from what I took over despite just under half of my service being women, I now have half of their deputies as women (all there on earned merit) so that if they move on there's an easier succession plan to long-term address the problem.  There's still an open stigma against non-straight people to the point that it's just not discussed.  I had one senior manager whisper excitedly to me wondering if I knew one of the directors was gay; it'll only be fixed once it's not discussed because people don't care and seen as absurd as saying "did you know he's married... to a woman!"

 

I choose to look at it as a declining trend though, it really is getting better but slowly.  Not perfect but then I can't really see ways to speed it up.  Education.  Education.  Education.

I hope you're right.  But I'm sure at the time, Mr Letwin would have denied he was a racist.  Ok he's apologised.  Why didn't he apologise before?  He must have known what he'd said.  He's apologised because he's been found out.  There was a thread about Mandela on here, just after he died I think, saying how he'd been helped by the Thatcher government. It was nonsense, but those who posted it denied it was nonsense.  Surely this document release gives the game away of attitudes to race in the Tory party at the time.  This was (is) a party built on prejudice.  These are the people who introduced the notorious clause 28.  I have absolutely no doubt that there are those in the Tory party today, who see nothing wrong with what Letwin wrote, and moreover would reintroduce Clause 28 tomorrow.

[Derwent]

Of course, nobody on here has ever done, thought or said something 30 years ago that with hindsight and maturity they now realise was wrong. I'm not defending Letwin, in fact I don't like the bloke at all, but are we really going to judge people on issues that are 30 years old ? There are people saying things now that the public approve of that in 30 years time might prove to be totally incorrect or out of step with future attitudes. Much has happened in the last 30 years to address attitudes and perceptions that means things like the Letwin memo can be viewed as relics of a bygone age.

[ckn]

I hope you're right.  But I'm sure at the time, Mr Letwin would have denied he was a racist.  Ok he's apologised.  Why didn't he apologise before?  He must have known what he'd said.  He's apologised because he's been found out.  There was a thread about Mandela on here, just after he died I think, saying how he'd been helped by the Thatcher government. It was nonsense, but those who posted it denied it was nonsense.  Surely this document release gives the game away of attitudes to race in the Tory party at the time.  This was (is) a party built on prejudice.  These are the people who introduced the notorious clause 28.  I have absolutely no doubt that there are those in the Tory party today, who see nothing wrong with what Letwin wrote, and moreover would reintroduce Clause 28 tomorrow.

But people are far more willing to point at them and ridicule them now.  It's no longer an outlier position ridiculing their discriminatory attitudes.

[ckn]

Of course, nobody on here has ever done, thought or said something 30 years ago that with hindsight and maturity they now realise was wrong. I'm not defending Letwin, in fact I don't like the bloke at all, but are we really going to judge people on issues that are 30 years old ? There are people saying things now that the public approve of that in 30 years time might prove to be totally incorrect or out of step with future attitudes. Much has happened in the last 30 years to address attitudes and perceptions that means things like the Letwin memo can be viewed as relics of a bygone age.

But it is relevant.  Read back the Jeremy Corbyn thread and see all the things he said in the 1980s that are being regularly thrown at him and used against him.  If what Letwin said or did in the 80s is no longer relevant then the Tories should stop bringing up what Labour MPs did in the 80s.

[DoubleD]

It's for your own good really that we're cutting your income

 

Surely exactly the same argument could have been used for not cutting Corporation tax revenue by 40% over the last four years.

 

Completely missing the point that Corporation tax is a counter-productive tax and by reducing the rate you attract more businesses into the UK, and improving the general business climate, which has helped create hundreds of thousands of jobs which in turn these people pay tax, compensating for any cut. This then creates a multiplier effect in the economy which leads to greater economic growth and more tax paid. They've also countered the corporation tax cut by implementing costs for hidden businesses by introducing the National Living Wage, the compulsory pension and the apprenticeship levy.

Nothing like a bit of Tory bashing though hey?

 

Their biggest failing is that they haven't cut spending enough, which is why we still have a large deficit. At least they're doing a better job than Gordon 'Giveaway' Brown.

[Trojan]

Of course, nobody on here has ever done, thought or said something 30 years ago that with hindsight and maturity they now realise was wrong. I'm not defending Letwin, in fact I don't like the bloke at all, but are we really going to judge people on issues that are 30 years old ? There are people saying things now that the public approve of that in 30 years time might prove to be totally incorrect or out of step with future attitudes. Much has happened in the last 30 years to address attitudes and perceptions that means things like the Letwin memo can be viewed as relics of a bygone age.

Letwin didn't think, or say something, he wrote it down in a document briefing the Prime Minister of this country.

[DoubleD]

Taxpayers' Alliance: Cut pensioner benefits 'immediately'

 

 

 

Whilst the argument could have been put considerably better, pensioner benefits should be cut. The state pension is going up each year considerably more than the cost of living and pensioners are now the best off demographic group in the country. Not all are, granted and the poorest should be protected, but why should my Dad who is a higher tax rate payer, receiving a free bus pass and winter fuel allowance each year. He doesn't need it, it's a complete waste. The state would be better off spending this money elsewhere, or even better just balancing the books so our future generations aren't overburdened with debt, which is now coming upto 90% of GDP.

 

If any normal person had debt equating to 90% of their earnings, they would be viewed as a basket case................as a country we're becoming the same. Look at how much we spend each year on interest, imagine what we could do with that money if we hadn't racked up all this debt. Imagine what we could do if we still had all those gold reserves that Brown sold off at one of the lowest points in the market?

[Derwent]

Letwin didn't think, or say something, he wrote it down in a document briefing the Prime Minister of this country.

Again, it's not specifically about him. It's more the dodgy principle of judging people on attitudes "of the time" against current ones. History never shows people in a good light. No doubt in another 10-15 years we will see documents released from the Blair government which will reflect badly on people who were in it. It's not party specific. People in all walks of life, of all political persuasions, say and do things everyday that they believe to be right at the time but history shows to be completely wrong or inappropriate. It's always happened, it always will happen, and people who judge them on it are small minded idiots with personal agendas.

If you wish to talk specifically about Letwin, then I doubt a briefing document for the PM would have been written purely on personal opinion. I'd imagine they would have spoken to various interested parties such as the Met Police etc and had various researchers and advisors involved. A document like this would be a consensus of opinions rather than one mans personal view.

[Saintslass]

It really is nowhere near as bad as it once was.  That's not an excuse though.  The really nasty overt racism has dropped significantly in my opinion but we're still showing lower level racism regularly.  An example, last week in the office I overheard one of the young lads proudly saying how he sat in the last seat on the train next to "one of those muslim women in full ninja gear".  It was as if he wanted public recognition about how tolerant he was.  I see it regularly that people don't want to sit next to openly muslim people.  Do they honestly think that if they move a few seats away that they'll be safe if the person did turn out to be a suicide bomber?  We even have people on this forum who regularly whine that I don't allow them to make jokes about muslim communities near rugby grounds; they think I'm being overly critical yet if someone made a joke about black people using the same crass stereotypes then it'd be so obviously racist that a ban would come almost instantly.

You can't be racist about a religion.  

 

If people did make jokes about black people then they would indeed be racist but that is because the joke would be about someone's race and not their religion.

[ckn]

You can't be racist about a religion.  

 

If people did make jokes about black people then they would indeed be racist but that is because the joke would be about someone's race and not their religion.

A pedant's excuse.  It's a generally accepted definition that racism can and does include religion in most contexts, especially when by far the largest proportion of that other religion are different skin colours and ethnic backgrounds.  Court cases have decided that racism can include religious discrimination.  There have been cases decided using racism laws where sectarianism within the same religion is accepted as racist discrimination when there are clear links to ethnic or cultural backgrounds being used as a stereotype.

[Phil]

You can't be racist about a religion.

Yes you can, it's a recognised form of discrimination and the "Islam is a religion not a race so I'm not a racist" claim is made all over social media everyday by, guess who? Yeah racists

[DoubleD]

A pedant's excuse.  It's a generally accepted definition that racism can and does include religion in most contexts, especially when by far the largest proportion of that other religion are different skin colours and ethnic backgrounds.  Court cases have decided that racism can include religious discrimination.  There have been cases decided using racism laws where sectarianism within the same religion is accepted as racist discrimination when there are clear links to ethnic or cultural backgrounds being used as a stereotype.

 

On that basis then being ginger should be considered being a race, I've long (jokingly) argued that...........would've made school life more bearable!

[ckn]

On that basis then being ginger should be considered being a race, I've long (jokingly) argued that...........would've made school life more bearable!

It is a cause for discrimination claims!

[JohnM]

Again, it's not specifically about him. It's more the dodgy principle of judging people on attitudes "of the time" against current ones. History never shows people in a good light. No doubt in another 10-15 years we will see documents released from the Blair government which will reflect badly on people who were in it. It's not party specific. People in all walks of life, of all political persuasions, say and do things everyday that they believe to be right at the time but history shows to be completely wrong or inappropriate. It's always happened, it always will happen, and people who judge them on it are small minded idiots with personal agendas.

If you wish to talk specifically about Letwin, then I doubt a briefing document for the PM would have been written purely on personal opinion. I'd imagine they would have spoken to various interested parties such as the Met Police etc and had various researchers and advisors involved. A document like this would be a consensus of opinions rather than one mans personal view.

 

 

I think it is more complex that it looks.

 

The state pension is going up each year considerably more than the cost of living

Don't think so:

 

Pensioners are now the best off demographic group in the country.

Is there a source for this?

 

Why should my Dad who is a higher tax rate payer, receiving a free bus pass and winter fuel allowance each year

As a higher rate taxpayer over 65, he must have an income of over £42.3K PA.

If he is just in the 40% band, he will paying about £6, 300  a year in income tax  (20% of £42.3 K - £10.5K personal allowance)

The winter fuel payment is between £100 and £300 per person  see https://www.gov.uk/winter-fuel-payment/overview . Not much really if you are paying £6K or more in income tax

 

Does he use his bus pass?

If he doesn’t. what does it cost the taxpayer?  Nothing, at a guess.

If he does use it, what does it cost the taxpayer? Well, as he is a taxpayer…..

 

Basic state pension for those who have paid the required number of NI contributions is £115 per week, increasing  to £119 in April

Using a mean average, some £7,800 a year is being paid in a public sector pension compared with £7,467 for a private sector salary-linked pension.  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15925017

 

 

 debt, which is now coming upto 90% of GDP.

A tad more complex than that, possibly.

 

Is that personal?  Is it secured ( I.e does it include mortgages, car loans and car leases, other loans?)

Does it include the debt incurred by credit card holders but paid off in full at the end of the account period so not incurring interest?

[Martyn Sadler]

I've been accused on this forum of seeing racism around every corner. Could that be because underlying racism is around every corner?

 

I very much doubt it.

 

But there are some people who wish it were so.

 

As the black American economist Thomas Sowell writes: "Racism is not dead. But it is on life-support, kept alive mainly by the people who use it for an excuse or to keep minority communities fearful or resentful enough to turn out as a voting bloc on election day."

 

And he's talking about America, which has much greater racial problems than the UK.

I would say that there are few countries in the world, if any, in which racism is less pronounced than this country.

 

But the trouble with talking about racism is that it depends on how you define it.

 

And yet if you are going to define someone jumping on a bus and not sitting next to someone who is obviously a Muslim as racism, then I suppose you can claim that racism is alive and well, although I'm not sure that Muslims themselves would feel too happy about being stalked on public transport by people anxious to prove their non-racist credentials by consistently sitting next to them.

 

I suspect they would prefer to retain some private space.

[ckn]

I think it is more complex that it looks.

 

The state pension is going up each year considerably more than the cost of living

Don't think so:

 

Pensioners are now the best off demographic group in the country.

Is there a source for this?

 

Why should my Dad who is a higher tax rate payer, receiving a free bus pass and winter fuel allowance each year

As a higher rate taxpayer over 65, he must have an income of over £42.3K PA.

If he is just in the 40% band, he will paying about £6, 300  a year in income tax  (20% of £42.3 K - £10.5K personal allowance)

The winter fuel payment is between £100 and £300 per person  see https://www.gov.uk/winter-fuel-payment/overview . Not much really if you are paying £6K or more in income tax

 

Does he use his bus pass?

If he doesn’t. what does it cost the taxpayer?  Nothing, at a guess.

If he does use it, what does it cost the taxpayer? Well, as he is a taxpayer…..

 

Basic state pension for those who have paid the required number of NI contributions is £115 per week, increasing  to £119 in April

Using a mean average, some £7,800 a year is being paid in a public sector pension compared with £7,467 for a private sector salary-linked pension.  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15925017

 

 

 debt, which is now coming upto 90% of GDP.

A tad more complex than that, possibly.

 

Is that personal?  Is it secured ( I.e does it include mortgages, car loans and car leases, other loans?)

Does it include the debt incurred by credit card holders but paid off in full at the end of the account period so not incurring interest?

I agree with the sentiment of your post.  Pensioners who have earned a pension should be entitled to it so they can live in comfort in their retirement.  They should never be the subject of jealous claims of "well, we've been hit so why shouldn't they?"

 

Oh, and on the 90% income thing, that only works if you don't have a mortgage.  I'm currently at 140% (ish) debt to income ratio and all because of my mortgage, I have no other debts.  Perfectly manageable having high debt as long as it's achievable and planned.

[DoubleD]

I think it is more complex that it looks.

 

The state pension is going up each year considerably more than the cost of living

Don't think so:

 

Pensioners are now the best off demographic group in the country.

Is there a source for this?

 

Why should my Dad who is a higher tax rate payer, receiving a free bus pass and winter fuel allowance each year

As a higher rate taxpayer over 65, he must have an income of over £42.3K PA.

If he is just in the 40% band, he will paying about £6, 300  a year in income tax  (20% of £42.3 K - £10.5K personal allowance)

The winter fuel payment is between £100 and £300 per person  see https://www.gov.uk/winter-fuel-payment/overview . Not much really if you are paying £6K or more in income tax

 

Does he use his bus pass?

If he doesn’t. what does it cost the taxpayer?  Nothing, at a guess.

If he does use it, what does it cost the taxpayer? Well, as he is a taxpayer…..

 

Basic state pension for those who have paid the required number of NI contributions is £115 per week, increasing  to £119 in April

Using a mean average, some £7,800 a year is being paid in a public sector pension compared with £7,467 for a private sector salary-linked pension.  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15925017

 

 

 debt, which is now coming upto 90% of GDP.

A tad more complex than that, possibly.

 

Is that personal?  Is it secured ( I.e does it include mortgages, car loans and car leases, other loans?)

Does it include the debt incurred by credit card holders but paid off in full at the end of the account period so not incurring interest?

 

The state pension is going up each year considerably more than the cost of living

Since the Tories came in and introduced the triple lock on the pensions then they go up greater than the cost of living every year

 

Pensioners are now the best off demographic group in the country.

Is there a source for this?

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jun/14/pensioners-better-off-young-people-suffering

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/11231796/If-youre-under-30-bad-luck.-Youre-screwed.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/pensions/11944141/Pensioners-are-9-a-week-better-off-than-those-in-work.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3282053/Pensioners-earning-work-Two-five-people-retiring-today-better-off.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2966649/Rise-rich-pensioner-65s-better-population-young-people-incomes-tumble.html

http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/8026

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/539237/Pensioners-better-off-as-the-young-struggle

 

Why should my Dad who is a higher tax rate payer, receiving a free bus pass and winter fuel allowance each year

If you multiply it by all the higher tax rate payers, it's still significant and is not required, he does not need it. When we're paying £80 billion a year more than we're earning as a country, we can ill afford these giveaways.

 

Does he use his bus pass?

Yes because he's tight, but does he need it? No, he's got 2 cars

 

debt, which is now coming upto 90% of GDP.

I was talking about national debt of the country! Which people conveniently forget about, particularly those on the left wing, no doubt believing it will somehow vanish away

[DoubleD]

I agree with the sentiment of your post.  Pensioners who have earned a pension should be entitled to it so they can live in comfort in their retirement.  They should never be the subject of jealous claims of "well, we've been hit so why shouldn't they?"

 

Oh, and on the 90% income thing, that only works if you don't have a mortgage.  I'm currently at 140% (ish) debt to income ratio and all because of my mortgage, I have no other debts.  Perfectly manageable having high debt as long as it's achievable and planned.

 

Yes but with your mortgage, you are purchasing an asset, which holds value and will be yours thereafter. This is national debt, a completely different matter and people seem oblivious to the fact that we will be burdening our children and our children's children to come. Some very selfish attitudes in today's world, it saddens me. As long as we're alright Jack hey.....

[Martyn Sadler]

Yes but with your mortgage, you are purchasing an asset, which holds value and will be yours thereafter. This is national debt, a completely different matter and people seem oblivious to the fact that we will be burdening our children and our children's children to come. Some very selfish attitudes in today's world, it saddens me. As long as we're alright Jack hey.....

 

If and when interest rates start to rise again, the cost of servicing the national debt will be an incredible burden.

 

Future generations won't have much to thank us for.

[Saintslass]

A pedant's excuse.  It's a generally accepted definition that racism can and does include religion in most contexts, especially when by far the largest proportion of that other religion are different skin colours and ethnic backgrounds.  Court cases have decided that racism can include religious discrimination.  There have been cases decided using racism laws where sectarianism within the same religion is accepted as racist discrimination when there are clear links to ethnic or cultural backgrounds being used as a stereotype.

Ok then.  Whenever anyone makes a joke about Christianity on here I will cry racism.  Let's see how far I get!

 

It is not only linguistically impossible to be racist about a religion - since a religion is neither a race nor a nationality (only the Jews could claim the latter) - it is silly to do so and undermines serious challenges to racism.

 

Prejudice about all sorts of things exists.  Prejudice towards Muslims exists and that isn't really surprising given how Muslims have featured in recent years in bombings, beheadings, stabbings and heaven knows what else.  However, while racism is prejudice, not all prejudice is racism and prejudice against Muslims isn't racism because Muslim isn't a race.  Nothing to do with pedantics; just fact.