 |
 |
> As a Hegelian synthesizer, may I say: both Martin (McKee) and Adam are right. We thought we were richer than we are (the financial services bubble...the belief handed down by all macro-economists save a few that we can be rich without producing real things), but we are not so poor that we can't afford a more generous welfare state than the Cameron-Clegg cod-neo-liberal clique are offering. And of course, re the distribution of benefits, Martin and Tom are right: they could have rephrased one of their points - the reason why the US does not have a socialist tradition - as that it has its own brand of socialism - socialism for the rich (what used to be socialism for the middle-classes, before they became the working-classes), including feather-bedding and tax exemptions...from which England has been learning fast since the 1980s (and to which the Permanent Secretary at HMRC, the UK chief tax-collector, clearly subscribes - writing off billions of interest due on tax from big corporations and banks.......while insisting I pay my 23 quid interest due, late because HMRC was late in advising me despite my requests....!) Oh and by the way, it's not just an Anglo-American phenomenon: when the Russians ditched 'communism', they found a surrogate in 'socialism for the rich' too - Yeltsin selling off state assets for c. one-hundredth of their worth in return for political support.....which allowed (eg) Abramovich to buy Chelsea FC (it's called 'the global economy')... Yes, have a grumpy old Christmas, everybody, and don't forget - a cynic is a thwarted idealist...! Ho-ho...ahem....ho Calum Hi All > Happy holidays to all. > It is so pleasant to feel all of society speed up just to glide into a few > days of less frenetic activity. In a way very different than I experienced > it as a child- I can't wait. > > I am writing now, about to finish my shopping, thinking about Adams claim > that we have overspent ourselves. Is this true? Or have we been spending > badly? Or have we not been maximizing our income? > > Ken > > Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry > > -----Original Message----- > From: Adam Oliver <[log in to unmask]> > Sender: Anglo-American Health Policy Network <[log in to unmask]> > Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2011 10:50:02 > To: <[log in to unmask]> > Reply-to: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: UK welfare state > > Humbug. > > Actually, I think Martin and David have a point (although it's a bit too > much 'standing on a soapbox in Hyde Park Corner'). If you attack > universalism, you risk undermining middle class support for anything - I > wrote about this a few years ago re. the NHS. I think I was pretty much > ignored though, even by me, eventually. > > But...as we know, many people (and governments) in the West spent far > more than they (we) can afford over the last ten years. Now we're having > to cut back, everything seems like a loss, and losses hurt (101 > behavioural economics). If we hadn't have spent so much, we may have > smaller welfare states today, but losses wouldn't be necessary now. i.e. > we would have been happier with less. I think there's an economic > paradox in there, and lessons that will never be learned. > > Anyway, ho, ho ho. Merry Christmas, everyone. > > Adam > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Anglo-American Health Policy Network [mailto:[log in to unmask]] > On Behalf Of Tom Foubister > Sent: 23 December 2011 09:15 > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: UK welfare state > > Dear all, > > In today's BMJ Martin McKee and David Stuckler have a short article > giving a succinct outline of how the welfare state in England is > currently being eroded. The article misses the devastation underway > within local government welfare services, especially in terms of care > received at home, where the picture is most depressing of all. But if > you're interested in a good snapshot view, which also provides a take on > the US (have they got it right on the US?), here's the link. > > http://www.bmj.com/content/343/bmj.d7973 > > Happy Christmas, > > Tom > > Please access the attached hyperlink for an important electronic > communications disclaimer: http://lse.ac.uk/emailDisclaimer > > Please access the attached hyperlink for an important electronic > communications disclaimer: http://lse.ac.uk/emailDisclaimer >