On A Day Like Today

It has been forever, it seems, since I deigned to post anything on here and for that I once again apologise. I was realistic in my expectations that posts would eventually become erratic and so it seems to be. Nevertheless, I have a lot to say in this one, as I've been musing for a while and I'm sorry but I must go back 10 days to last week's Budget. My theme will become clear, I promise. Here goes. 

The Budget last week seemed to have once again set the agenda for the year's economic debate. It was a far cry from that awful debacle in 2012 when nothing that came out of the Chancellor's mouth made much sense. Last year was slightly better, although Conference in September was a little subdued. Then came last Wednesday. 

A rip-roaring roller-coaster which gave people more money in their pockets and more freedom to spend it. It was a general win-win, particularly for me and others like me, who will be paying less tax and will be succeeding someone who will have been able to retire comfortably. Annuities took a bit of a pasting in the markets, but that's to be expected when people are given the freedom to spend their money how they wish. John McTernan (former Labour adviser), however, sneered and said that "you cannot trust people to spend their own money sensibly". I'd beg to differ, but that would mean, well, begging. Such sentiments are wholly immoral in my view, how dare anyone suggest that the government ought to control how my money is spent? I am fully in control of my faculties and if I were coming up to retirement and decided to blow my pension pot on some ridiculous whimsy then that is my decision. The only money of mine the government will ever have any input on are the taxes I surrender to it. That and the state pension I will eventually receive of course. 

It seems to be that the Conservatives are once again championing individual liberty in another spectrum of life. This leads me nicely into my next topic. Today, Saturday 29 March 2014, marks the day when people of the same sex can enter into valid legal marriages in England and Wales. The Scots will have something broadly similar come October so I hear. Personally getting married in Edinburgh would be worth the wait. Here again we as a party are championing the right, and it is a basic one, for people to marry whom they choose with all the rights and entitlements which go with it. Coupled to the tax breaks and all that are coming in for married couples in April, this couldn't have come at a better time. I don't care that people have left the party over this, of course it's sad that they cannot bring themselves to be progressive, but it's their loss. I respect those who object for religious reasons and understand their concerns, but from a Christian perspective, Jesus taught us all to love one another and be egalitarian in our outlook. I take large parts of the Old Testament with a pinch of salt, I make the New Testament my focus and in there do I find little to condemn homosexuality; in fact only three verses in three separate books make any concrete reference to it. If, as a party, we did not wish for progress in this and other aspects of society, then surely we would be called the Preservative & Unionist Party. 

I have been cheering all this on a little too quietly, so here I am on the megaphone making more noise. I was inspired to come back to you all today thanks to an article done for ConservativeHome, in the form of an interview with James Delingpole. This interview, for me, affirms why I am a member of the Conservative Party and why we should never let give Labour the slightest chance in 2015 of re-setting the clocks back to April 2010. We are giving people a say on our membership of the EU, something to which Miliband cannot give even his characteristic vague support. We are championing individual liberty, although Ryan Bourne of the Institute of Economic Affairs believes we can (and I think should) do more on that front. We are now a little over a year away from the general election which will make or break the reforms undertaken thus far. It is for the British people to decide whether or not they want rampant socialism in the form of price controls, enforced regulation and possible re-nationalisation, or the opportunity to give themselves more responsibility and the increased ability to make the important decisions in life for themselves. I know what I'll be voting for. 

You Do Surprise Me

Following on from the rows about the NHS and the damning reports which have been published about care provision in the last few months, I thought I too would offer my own opinion on the subject. I was moved by the revelation published by online magazine The Commentator that the Guardian had yesterday permitted the publication of a piece on its much-revered Comment is Free page by a Spectator contributor, namely Melissa Kite. The subject being funding for the NHS and why those who have private health insurance are denigrated. 

Ms Kite's motivation came from the revelation by Sir Bruce Keogh, medical director for the NHS, that the organisation ought to be more like PC World in its delivery process. Like many right-wingers, Ms Kite included, I believe that the NHS should reform and perform better. I do share her scepticism that maybe it wouldn't be entirely wise for the NHS to privatise entirely, given the fluctuating ability for the markets to provide universal services (but that's the price we pay for capitalism, eh?). 

Her article quotes from the original Beveridge report, which was the arguable cornerstone for the founding of the NHS in the first place. Sir William himself said, "The state, in organising security, should not stifle incentive, responsibility, opportunity in establishing a national minimum, it should leave room and encouragement for voluntary action by each individual to provide more than that minimum for himself and his family". In other words, the NHS will happily provide you with all the basic stuff you need, but don't expect it to bear the brunt of your bad lifestyle choices. 

I also agree that those who do pay for much of their healthcare ought to be applauded for not adding to the burden of our already overstretched system. If I were fortunate enough to have the money, then I too would pay for my healthcare (albeit with certain strings. Tax break for one). 

This leads me onto another similar argument made by the Telegraph's excellent Janet Daley last month. Being American-born, she is well placed to comment and indeed makes some excellent points in the article, particularly on the topic of health insurance. She contends that having a co-payments system for non-basic procedures would help benefit the provision of basic healthcare from a financial standpoint. Again, this should come with strings attached, preferably in the form of reduced NI contributions for those who do have some form of basic health insurance. 

Both of these combined could see a resurgence in healthcare provision and ensure real demand from those patients who will be particular about the treatment they receive. To be able to better provide basic healthcare is what the NHS ought to be striving for, that is why it is there. Added to this the Friends and Family test which, although shaky right now (and unwittingly mentioned in an earlier post of mine), should add weight to what patients think of their treatment and enable others to choose where they are treated. All this is designed to continue to help raise the NHS's game and ensure that it continues to deserve the epithet of "best in the world", for I am sure neither we or it can stomach another damning report.