In Memoriam

It is no doubt apparent to you all that something momentous happened today. Sometime this morning, the United Kingdom lost one of its great historical and political figures since the Second World War. I speak, of course, of the Rt Hon Baroness Margaret Thatcher KG OM FRS. She died in her hotel suite at The Ritz at the age of 87.

Hers was an undoubtedly controversial legacy, but I firmly believe that she transformed this country for the better. From her time as a humble backbench MP, she rose through the ranks, intending to become Chancellor of the Exchequer, but ended up holding the highest of the Great Offices of State. I shan't recount her story, that's not why I write this blog. I shall instead give my verdict on the longest postwar premiership served and the remarkable person upon whose shoulders that august burden fell.

I was born in the year of her third and final general election win and indeed was but a toddler when she left Downing Street. By the time she left, Britain was a markedly different country and indeed was left in a much better state than when she found it.

In the 1970's, the United Kingdom was the sick man of Europe, crippled by rising international debt and held to ransom by overmighty unions. Things came to a head in 1979 during the Winter of Discontent when a weak Labour government was forced from office by having to go to the IMF for a loan. All that changed significantly.

The 1980's saw our island go through massive upheavals. Yes, there were riots in Liverpool and London and the miners went on strike for almost a whole year in protest at the closing of the pits. Entire communities were decimated, but there were positives. Her tenacity and sheer force of will ensured that we won the Falklands War, still a sore point for Argentina and the question is trotted out each time a president of theirs is in difficulty. Her determination for people to aspire to home ownership led to the relaxing of controls and restrictions on the City of London and for the possibility for those in council housing to have the right to buy. Of course local authorities became greedy and didn't bother replacing much of the stock (quelle surprise), but it was still the right thing to do.

Further to that, people could buy shares in the privatising nationalised industries, such as British Gas and BT. The state was rolled back and people were left to spend their money on what they wanted. With the lines of easy credit stretching far toward a golden horizon, this was of course rather easy.

Unfortunately this came at a price. First, she has been demonised for crushing the unions. The unions needed putting back in their place; they had stalked the land for far too long, creating mayhem and misrule wherever they could, just to show force. We are not to be cowed by such people, nor such people as the IRA. Gerry Adams' comments today were not particularly welcome and he knows he ought to be ashamed of himself. Terrorists are brutes and deserve brutalising. Last, was the poll tax. The riots that caused were unnecessary and marked the beginning of a startling trend, which culminated two years ago in the horrific scenes in our large cities.

Of course, she was also unswervingly patriotic on the world stage. I have mentioned the Falklands, but foreign policy was conducted with a single view in mind; how greatly will Britain benefit? In Europe she won us back a rebate on our contribution (squandered by a so-called admirer of hers who shall remain nameless). Elsewhere she helped win the Cold War, bridging the gap for the Soviet Union and the United States.

It is therefore with a full heart that I say how sorry I am that such a figure has now departed from us. Margaret Thatcher will be as loved by many as she is reviled by others. However there can be no doubt that she was a remarkable person and the world shall never be the same for lack of her in it. I was surprised equally by the positive comments on my social media feed as I was appalled by others. Before I go to press with this, I will add that anyone who comments negatively out of pure spite and malice on Facebook will have their comments deleted. Such people ought to know better; remember a family tonight lost a mother and grandmother.

Once again, ladies and gentleman, Margaret Hilda Thatcher. Such will never be seen again and a chapter in our island story is ended.

It's Not Fair

So at least the headlines will run today as the new NHS reforms and the Health and Social Care Bill come into effect. Goodbye NHS, farewell to the welfare state; the Coalition has sunk us all and just so that the rich can get richer and the vile Tories can once and for all eradicate the poor from our land. Utter tripe.

Let's take a look at how Britain came to this position, shall we? Starting with the creation of the welfare state, under a postwar Labour government, which saw that there were those in Britain who genuinely required a lot more state support than was available. Already there was some old age provision in the form of the state pension created a generation earlier. This was a laudable idea; a safety net would be created in which those who had genuine needs would be caught. Food would be put on the table and the concurrent NHS, brought online in 1948, would help keep household healthcare bills down. Additionally, new social housing would be built, clearing the slums and thereby reducing the burden on the new healthcare service because the diseases contained therein would be reduced significantly. For a while this seemed to work, until the social housing became unliveable and the baby-boomers began to have children, thereby requiring more welfare to be made available.

What happened next? Well social security payments continued to be made, the state pension went through some increases and universal benefits were made available. This, too, seemed to work, until the advent of child benefit. For struggling people this was again something of a boon, the kids would be clothed and shod and middle-class people had more disposable income to dispose of. This system was largely unchanged, even during the Thatcher and Major years, although social housing was largely sold off and councils never thought to rebuild in order to maintain supply. Then came the real bombshell.

There were already a small but growing number of families who were growing up on welfare; grandparents retiring and parents who were finding it easier simply to claim, claim, claim. After May 1997, this became exacerbated by New Labour. New Labour, which claimed that it would provide for families, which would reform and improve education and the NHS so that the British people would have world-class services began the systematic wholesale growth of those who were rendered totally dependent on the state. Then the stories of the abuse of the system began to become more apparent and more abhorrent. Families who were spending their welfare on luxury items, such as holidays, massive TV screens and top-brand clothes. Stop me if this sounds familiar, but it has now culminated in some being offered custom-built houses by their local authority, with right of refusal if it doesn't match specifications. Is it any wonder the taxpayers are irate? is it any wonder there must be reform? Yet where is the taxpayers' righteous indignation? Where are our protests at these vile parasites, who leech from us?

In summary on this point, I say this. Those of you who are angry about the so-called "Bedroom Tax" (it isn't, it's a benefit reduction to stop under-occupancy of social housing (you know, the ones Labour never really seemed keen to build), direct your anger at Frank Dobson and Bob Crowe, both of whom are paid handsomely and have never moved from their council houses. Council housing was designed to help those who could not find housing in the private sector and thereby meant to be a temporary solution until an individual's circumstances improved. Benefits are being cut because more jobs are being created, so the work is there for those who want it I take with a pinch of salt the figure of the nearly 900,000 who will not undertake a medical in order to prove unfitness for work. I believe this is two-fold; firstly because there will be people who are genuinely in need and are scared the stringency of the tests will be too great for them. There will also be those idlers who have been continually signed off by a lazy GP for years and who may be in danger of finding their so-far "cushy" lifestyle somewhat impugned.

Now to the NHS reforms. I was at first sceptical when the plans were announced, particularly on the commissioning front. One cannot simply allow GP's to take control lock, stock and barrel of NHS service commissioning without the proper controls. Commissioning boards ought to have membership widened to include other healthcare professionals and ensure that there are GPwSI's (GP with Special Interest) sitting on them.

What is clear, particularly from the Francis Report, is that the NHS is in dire need of an overhaul. Management is too complex; certain wards in hospitals are managed differently to others and thereby the messages coming through seem to be incoherent. The problem with the NHS, of course, is that it is now treated as a sacred cow and should not be given to the private sector to run at all. However, the reforms are intended to help give professionals clear guidance on the best treatment and patients better information on each hospital. After all, this is how society operates; word of mouth. People are more likely to listen to their friends and neighbours when it comes to experience of the medical profession. Which would you trust; an impersonal leaflet, or a friend or relative who will have an anecdote to attach about a particular hospital and how it is run?

There is also hype that the NHS will not survive much longer under the Coalition and it will simply be yanked away. In the case of Mid-Staffs, that's surely a good thing. No, don't misunderstand me, I'm not in favour of privatising the NHS entirely; just the bits that don't work. They did it with the Hinchingbrooke in Cambridgeshire and it posts regularly about good patient satisfaction levels. There are now more private healthcare companies advertising their services publicly, so the system is beginning to work. Once you subject the state to market forces, it becomes less bloated and idle and will begin to shape up with the view to keeping its pole position. That is what the reforms are designed to do; provide the taxpayer with a top-quality, value-for-money service. Get them charging for missed clinical appointments and then we'll really see the difference. I'm still going to use the NHS, because it isn't going anywhere.

To summarise in full; I make no apologies for the views herein expressed, I've decided that if people are going to be offended, then good. This is a democracy after all, I'm entitled to say these things without fear of a lawsuit. I believe in the state and I believe in the Conservative Party, the two are not mutually exclusive. The reforms coming into force today are good, they will make Britain fairer. Nobody has the right to live off the state when they've no need or good reason to do so. We must continue to support our most vulnerable and make example of those who shirk responsibility. Do not get caught up in the hype today; make your own judgements with a cool and clear head. Britain is changing and it will be for the better.