Married Tax break - looking backwards?

Firstly I'd like to thank Dave and the Conservatives for bringing in this policy. With the cost of living
(and commuting) rising, my wages at a 1% rise well under inflation and my job looking fairly uncertain after next April any extra pennies are greatly received.

However - it is still bollocks.

I'm not sure what the Conservative high command were thinking about when this idea was floated. Is it a return of traditional values? Is it to try and build up marriage as the stable relationship for bringing up kids? Is it an attempt to return to the golden era of MacMillan? Eden? Or even Baldwin and Bonar-Law?

Society has moved on. With the decline in religious belief and people being more secular and with a lot of people unable to pay for weddings now they cost so many thousands of pounds people are just staying in committed relationships and what really is the difference?

Does the tax break cease if you have a divorce?

My Dad left us when I was Eight years old and my Mum had to bring myself and Gemma up on her own yet would have needed a tax break! Further to that both my Sister and I understand commitment and both of us have families of our own and are married - Not to each other obviously, I grew up in Kent not Alabama!

Many children from "broken" homes grow up to fine by society's standards, in fact no worse than children who grow up with both their parents.

The foundation of family life is not marriage it is commitment between people and that doesn't have to be ratified by a church or the state - after all you can get married and the relationship can break down in a year or two, you can stay a couple and be together until the day you die. In deed I never wanted to get married. As far as I was concerned it was just a piece of paper that sealed what my family and friends already knew - that I loved Sam and wanted to be with her. In deed we were together for five years before we tied the knot and we've been married almost five years and my feelings have not changed for her at all in that time, indeed I would have brought my children up in the same way had we not been married. This thin strip of white gold on my left hand would not stop me from being a bad parent or from being a bad husband or even cheating (was I that way inclined).

But I should be clear to say once again, I love my wife now as much as the day I married her and the day we got together.

But that should not entitle me to a tax break.

It is fairly discriminatory (despite Jeremy Hunt's protestations here). Why should one set of people get it and not any one else in similar situations not? It really does ascribe a certain weight to an ideal too. What of those struggling single parents whose partners have walked out? Or been abusive and they have taken a stand and left them now found themselves cut off?

Relief from Taxation should be based on financial situation not on family setup. Should we hand out tax relief to those who are confirmed in their religious faith as religion traditionally set people up with values for life and let the atheists suffer?

Jeremy Hunt says this is not a judgement... he says Love is love yet unless you get the piece of paper in what the State is now dictating is the only way they accept that you are committed and in it for the long haul - you won't receive the benefit.

Clearly this is not a well thought out policy and the cynic in me says that this is an attempt of the Conservative party to recapture votes from traditionalists and their original core of voters who may have been turned off by the Equal marriage bill.

Oh and Jeremy, if you are reading this, rather than Love is love (which I think I read on a fortune cookie once) I'd like to offer up the German writer and philosopher Johann von Goethe's definition:

True love is love that stays constant for ever, whatever its fortune:
Whether requited or scorned, filled or sent empty away

Or:

Without a doubt, the only thing that makes Man's life on earth essential and necessary is love

Governments have failed the NHS & Residents of Medway

NHS is in trouble but Politicians haven't been listening

Yesterday was a sad day for our Democracy and the House of Commons.

The Secretary for Health Jeremy Hunt made announcements relating to the Keogh commission report and on going problems with the Nation's hospitals, especially dealing with unnecessary deaths.

Twitter exploded with comments about what was being said in Parliament and most party members and supporters that I follow were horrified by the level of partisan tweets and comments in Parliament. Tories going after Andy Burnham, Labour blaming the Coalition for deep cuts and mismanagements. Both sides of the house sat sneering at each other and shouting like the crowd at a Roma vs. Lazio game - Not the seat of power of a First World country and people who should know a lot better.

Even on a Local level the various Party politicos have started winding up the noise about the incompetence of the others - Andy Burnham this and Tory cuts that. The Labour PPC for Chatham & Aylesford has released a press statement on the subject and their various Twitter feeds have been releasing stats showing what has come into being since 2010. The Tories and some Libdems have been passing around a petition to get Andy Burnham to accept responsibility and resign... It needs to stop.

The NHS has had problems for a long time. Medway Hospital has had issues for at least a decade. Back in March I wrote about my family's problems with Medway hospital back in 2007.I also referenced problems that Rehman Chishti highlighted in 2008. It is irresponsible for the Labour Party to say this has all been since May 2010. However the Coalition needs to take ownership of the cuts and recognise that they have also had a massive impact and they need to be reexamined.

However lets look at the NHS Chief Executive at Medway Hospital who administers the cuts. Instead of keeping care and staff levels up efficiency savings were made and then a stupid amount of money was spent on a motivational speaker for the staff!

Then there is the merger with Darant Valley which has been beset with problems for Medway. Who was given a voice for this concerns? Only NHS trust members - not the staff or the residents who use the service. Even the elected representitve of Gillingham South ward, Lib dem Geoff Juby, was ignored by the Chief executive.

Of course there is also the Local NHS hospitals. Medway is the only local hospital with a 24 hour A&E where as the others can close at a certain time or redirect cases up to Medway. This obviously throws the already stretched triage and Emergency staff to unacceptable levels with priorities being thrown all over the place. When I took my infant son up with a suspected case of Meningitis we had to be hurriedly discharged (after thankfully pronouncing him all clear!) as they had an emergency case literally outside the curtain that desperately needed the space.

It also means that Medway has a catchment area of One Million people in North Kent covering Sheppey to Dartford and can include Maidstone and Canterbury on a rough day. This is a horrendous amount of space and people for one A&E and hospital to cover.

A culture of target meeting and figures started to develop in the 90s and now hospitals are stuck trying to meet Government targets and not treating the sick as human beings rather than Statistics. Party Politics has been using the lives and deaths of the sick and elderly for years as a way of measuring the success of policy and to beat the other party over the head at PMQs.

This HAS to stop.

Many politicos sit and wonder why the public are fed up with Politics and don't vote and it is because of incidents like this that push people too far. If Politicians, and I use this as a broad stroke - I know there are exceptions, could stop acting like Children and trying to constantly get votes and score points and actually sort this problem out. People's lives genuinely depend on it and too many have been lost already.

What needs to happen is for the three main parties to get together and work out what is the best for everyone and stop acting like children. Medway Council need to look at things, the Department for Health need to look at Medway Maritime management, priorities and staffing. Most importantly of all Politicians of all ilks and creeds need to listen to the residents, of the horror stories that will hit the Press this Friday and of people's general disgruntlement and actually do something about it rather than play the blame game which is a game that frankly, we all lose at.

Rehman Chishti on Leveson

At the beginning of the month I signed one of those E-petitions that lobby your local MP. The one I signed was to encourage my local MP, Rehman Chishti to vote for the Leveson proposals.

I dutifully filled in the address and email etc and sent it off.

Much to my surprise (but not my wife's!) I recieved a letter from Rehman on 14th of December and thought I would share the contents:

Dear Chris,

Thank you for contacting me about the LEveson Report.

The Leveson Report blows apart the conspiracy theories that have been thrown at the Government over its relationship with News Internationa. It established that no deal was struck between the Conservative party and News International, that no deal was done to give Jeremy Hunt responsibility for handling the BSkyB bid in order to fix the outcome, and dismisses the idea that Jeremy Hunt rigged the BSkyB process.

The principle of the Leveson Report is independent self-regulation of the press. I support this priniciple.

The Government has been clear all along that the status quo is not an option and I, personally, am determined to see Lord Justice Leveson's priniciples implemented. Ministers will be engaging in cross-party talks to work out how to deliver this.
I do hope that this information helps, and thank you again for contacting me about this important issue.

Yours sincerely

Rehman Chishti

Fairly generic but welcome.

Tory Right are back; lowering abortion limit

So abortion is back in the limelight again with Maria Miller's comments in the Telegraph on lowering the limit from 24weeks to 20. Cue outrage!

Then in wades that paragon of ministerial etiquette Jeremy Hunt who commented he'd drop it to 12 weeks!!!!

Maria Miller MP, minister for women's health

Now, abortion is a sticky subject and everyone has an opinion. I believe it is the Woman's choice and she should not be pressured into either direction. I do however feel that they should be used as a last ditch form of contraception. My wife on the other hand agrees for the most part with me but would never have one herself.

Traditionally the Conservative right is against it or for lowering the limit. We had all of this last year with Nadine Dorries who, surprise surprise supports this. With a hasty retraction from Mr Hunt's comments it was stated that the Coalition has no plans to look at the limit and that Mr Hunt was voicing a personal opinion. Could it be that Jeremy should get back in his box? Or could this be show boating to their traditional voters to show they're still on the right and different from those filthy mud blood Liberal Democrats?

All supposition.

Let's look at the facts though. Most abortions occur around the 14 week mark and only 2% occur after 20 weeks. I agree with this article from the Guardian which points out the personal torment behind the latter's decision to abort the foetus.

On the flip side is the argument that states "define when life starts." It is a very grey area that on the one hand life is terminated and another baby born prematurely at the same point can be saved. Maybe it is a debate worth having but as long as the rights of the woman are kept solidly in mind. Though would it be fair that a group comprised of mostly middle aged + men are telling women everywhere what they can and can't do with their bodies?

Jeremy Hunt's 12 week limit seems ludicrous. It forces women to make a hastier decision with out the full facts available as tests for Down's syndrome may not have been completed by that point. Although he stated it was not down to any religious conviction there are many who believe that that is a factor. Personally I think that religious belief can be a good thing and as someone who does not have any I'm some what envious at times of their faith but I also do not want someone else's beliefs enforced upon me. What I do with my body is my business and I'm afraid that should be the bottom line with abortion.

There cannot be any impingement on Women's personal rights.

Jeremy Hunt; rewarding failure.

Deep in the ruins of GHQ in fortress Stalingrad General Paulus mused over the situation. His army was dead, dying, captured or starving. He held in his hand a memo from Berlin that effectively promoted him to Generalfeldmarschall, no German army had ever been defeated in the field, nor had a GFM surrendered nor were they expected to. The implication for failure was clear.

After the failure of July plot General von Treskow walked out into a minefield.

Generals Clinton and Burgoyne never held a significant command after failing in the Americas.

Asquith and Chamberlain slipped into obscurity after their respective administrations failed to cope with war in Europe.

My meandering point is that failure should not be rewarded and in many cases punished. Yet somehow this reshuffle has failed to address this.

I take the point that George Osborne being kept could be a good thing as the policies do receive mixed reviews - though personally I think Cable, Lawes and Alexander would be a dream team in the treasury.

My big issue is Jeremy Hunt's promotion to Health minister. Ok Lanesly had to go, that's very understandable. In fact many commentators have been expecting it for sometime.

What I don't understand is that Hunt failed in an epic way - truly it was the proverbial cock-up. His appointment to oversee the BSKYB bid was predicted, on the twitter-sphere, to give Murdoch the bid before he'd got the job.

The Leveson enquiry has shown a lot of discrepancies in the process including many questionable actions by Mr Hunt. Whether guilty or not, the public consider it a dirty deal.

Further to that questions were asked in parliament about the conduct of Mr Hunt, questions that were not satisfactorily answered.

I can understand David Cameron standing by his minister at the time, it's the right thing to do after all you're a team but he should, like Lanesly, been sidelined at this reshuffle.

Fair enough his work on the Olympics and Jubilee are worthy of praise but he was a cog in a monstrously large machine and cannot take all of the credit. Indeed his failure and the accusations of corruption far over over shadow anything else.

To promote him to the Health portfolio is just sheer madness. The Conservatives are always open to attack over the NHS and it is easy for the opposition to frighten the populous with talk of privatisation whenever there is any well meaning reform and with Jeremy Hunt's track record there will be a lot more worried people and serious scrutiny of his offices.

I'm sure David Cameron has his reasons but they had better be good ones. May be I'm being judgemental. After all Churchill failed on many occasions before his premiership resulting in the General strike and Galllipoli massacre. Yet he went on to win the Second World War. Some how though I don't think Jeremy Hunt is in the same category as Churchill.

Nick and Dave's partnership has taken the next step?

On Monday evening my wife and I had an argument…

Not a major one but one of those annoying ones where I was being told off for something I felt was unfair and brought up countless counter arguments that could have lead to an escalation had I not played the age old Male line of Yes Dear through gritted teeth.

Shifting relationship between Nick and Dave?

We’ve been together for eight years and married fro three and are well past the loved up, everything’s rosy stage. We’ve settled into a more comfortable pattern of being good together and focused on our joint goals (Sophie and the future child due in a few weeks) as well as having our individual interests and activities. Now we can go out individually and see our separate friends. It isn’t a bad thing, its just the next phase of any relationship, they can’t stay fresh forever.

Similarly, I believe that the Coalition leadership, mainly in the form of Nick and Dave’s “marriage” is undergoing the same change.

Lets be honest, the metaphor of “Marriage” between the two leaders is fairly apt, not in a humorous “ha-ha they’re at it” way, we’ve heard it all before, but in a very real way.

Marriage is the meeting of two individual people with different ideas with common ground and aims and this is what this brief joining of the Liberal democrats and the Conservative parties. We have got a similar aim in the form of tackling the deficit left by Labour and providing Social and Political changes including the cleaning up of Parliament.

We all remember the Rose garden, though at the time I was welcoming my daughter into the world so have only seen highlights and images but I remember the ethos. The first year was a tough one but Nick and Dave held together in public and showed the world a combined front that was still very much together and focused on the aims. So the Libdems had to swallow the bitter pill of tuition fees but at the same time the Conservatives had to put forward and agree to the worry of Electoral reform – Imagine how annoyed hard-line Conservatives would have been had AV gone through?

This period has ended though, partly because of necessity and because they are individuals representing very different parties with very different ideals.

There is now under three years until the next General Election and both party leaders need to start thinking about life after the Coalition and Winning the election and surviving. Already the Conservatives are flexing their muscles and talking about changing housing benefit rules and serious pushing for an In/out referendum for Europe. Now is the time that the Libdems should start pushing their own individuality, and this is indeed happening. Look at our public decree of nothing to do with Murdoch’s empire at Leveson or pushing for the removal of Bob Diamond or being the driving force for breaking up the banks?

There have also been some very PUBLIC falling outs.

Remember Nick’s public comments about Dave’s actions during the European meetings last Autumn on the Marr show?

How about the documented heated arguments over the position of Jeremy Hunt?  It was through somewhat gritted teeth that the order to abstain was passed to the whips and a somewhat flimsy but justifiable excuse of Labour’s similar guilt was trotted out just to please their Coalition partners.

Nick and Dave are only human, but their differing ideologies and individuality was always going to come out after time and I believe this time has passed and a new phase has been entered.

When, and I know I’m being pessimistic here, the Conservatives and Labour vote down the Lords reform that Nick is putting to the house tomorrow I think the final die will have been cast and these hairline fractures will become proper cracks and the new phase of the Coalition and indeed Nick and Dave will definitely be visible.

Yet some Tories are being Childish about abstention

As an unexpected Take II from yesterday's post. According to the I report (Lib Dems 'traitors' for not backing Hunt 14-6 p.7) there has been a bit of a furious outburst from the Conservative benches regarding the Liberal Democrat abstention yesterday.

Although the Government "won" by 290 votes to 252 last night there was a slash of majority from 80 to 38 and with some MPs being called back from honeymoon, from a funeral and even Conor Burns MP being pulled in from hospital (he stated that so our Coalition partners can polish their consciences)to make sure the Government would win.

This has, understandably, ruffled some feathers and there have been some minor ruptions within the Coalition but such was likely to happen when two parties come together, there will be things, like Europe, that we are diametrically opposed on. It is the nature of working together.

However some Conservatives have taken it more seriously than others.

It is hard to say how badly the Clegg-Cameron relationship has been damaged due to their heated and lengthy debates on the subject, only the two of them would be able to say that for certain. Lets be honest if there was a strain between them, they wouldn't show it as critics of the Coalition would flood the gap and tear it asunder.

However according to Andrew Grice's report "Rebel" Tory MPs will be voting against the Libdem's Lords reform proposals.
The Lords vote will be payback time apparently.

Nadine Dorries also commented that the Libdems were indeed Traitors and not proper members of the Government.

She also tweeted:

Lib Dems future involves falling off the edge of a political cliff. Today's cowardly behaviour will equate to a 'shove' by their own hands

It is hard to say how many disaffected Conservative members will attack the reform but senior Libdems aren't worried (though I am) and think that those that are sounding off are ones who would have voted against it anyway.

It is fair to say that Ms Dorries has been a strong critic of the Liberal Democrats in the Coalition and for her to state that the party aren't proper members of Government is just farcical considering the work that Libdem ministers have put in and the amount of times they have kept quiet over certain issues in the same way that the Tories have on others. It is, after all a marriage of ideas and how many marriages run with both parties agreeing on everything?

This was something we could not agree to nor could we agree with Labour on this issue. If anything, though, I'm sure others would want to vote with Labour on this, it was for the Coalition that we stayed silent and abstained. Sacrificing our beliefs but maintaining conscience. This is what Grown up politics is about.

Now, there is the threat of voting against greater democracy and legislation out of spite? I'm forced to ask, is this the sort of grown up behaviour and politics that adults indulge in or is this the playground?

There will be times where the parties don't agree and just because we have different opinions on things there and don't agree you shouldn't just throw your toys out the pram.

I would urge any Conservative MPs reading this to please look at the merits of the proposals and reform itself, what it will mean and then make your decision on this factors. Please do not turn this into a tit-for-tat party politics as its the electorate that will suffer for the game playing.

Libdems being grown up over Hunt abstention

Abstaining from a vote in Politics is usually a wasted vote and something I do not usually support as you should vote one way or the other on issues or you might as well have not shown up.

The only time it is acceptable is when it is a matter of conscience.

However I do support the Libdem abstention today on the issue of Jeremy Hunt, although it took a quiet afternoon and the distraction of playing with my daughter in the park to allow me to come to terms with the issue.

Originally I couldn't believe it, after all there are serious questions to be asked about the conduct of Jeremy Hunt before and during the BSkyB bid and the vested interests of the Murdoch Empire and their infiltration into politics was something that I and the rest of the party feel very strongly about. The Murdoch Empire is a tumour on British parliamentarian procedure and it needs to be lanced and removed. Letting Jeremy Hunt pass without a proper investigation into what had happened by our abstention was tantamount to letting it go on. How could we be so bloody useless and pull our punches now?

There has been much fury (according to the Guardian reports) between Nick and Dave since Jeremy Hunt's appearance at the Leveson inquiry. Although it was clear that Leveson found that there was no wrong doing during the take over Nick felt that Dave was too quick to clear him of any breach of the ministerial code or by misrepresenting the truth before Parliament - the whole case should be referred to Sir Alex Allan the adviser on the Ministerial code.

As the Labour party pushed a motion to force the Prime Minister's hand a large question mark fell over the party. Would we break ranks with our Coalition partners and agree with the opposition and stand up for our beliefs or would we silently just nod again dumbly.

I was mortified to see we would abstain.

We were seemingly sacrificing our beliefs for Coalition harmony - but on reflection we're doing more than that, we're being grown up.

Despite many in the Labour party saying they are doing the right thing including the odious Harriet Harman who stated:

This is an important opportunity for the House of Commons to make clear the importance it places on secretaries of state being transparent and truthful to parliament.

I think members from all sides of the house will want to be sure that this issue is not simply swept under the carpet. Misleading parliament is not just some outdated constitutional issue – it matters

There is also the fact that they are simply trying to score party political points.

After all the Murdoch Empire was also exceptionally cosy with the last Government and there are accusations as to the Pyjama parties, Christenings, social occasions and law changes that show that the tumorous relationship between Government and Murdoch Media runs deep. Their move, though seemingly righteous does also reek of people in glass houses manning trebuchets!

There is also the question of Labour's Special advisers from the last Government, such as Damian McBride, and their advice all of which was never dealt with. More fittingly is the fact that Prime Minister Tony Blair allegedly misled the entire House over WMDs in Iraq taking the nation to war.

The point is, though their motion is valid, they are as guilty of collusion with the Murdoch's as the Culture Secretary and are now out of the firing line. We as a party would be damned for voting with the Government and voting with Labour - We're the only party to be clean of this taint and abstention is the only way to keep that clean record.

On top of that is the letter from Sir Allan that David Cameron read out in Parliament today at PMQs:

I note your decision in relation to Jeremy Hunt's adherence to the ministerial code which is of course a matter for you. The fact that there is an ongoing judicial inquiry probing and taking evidence under oath means that I do not believe I could usefully add to the facts in this case, though I remain available should circumstances change or new evidence emerge.
Basically the Leveson inquiry has laid all of the facts bear and the Prime Minister, as the leader of the Government and the Party has enough evidence before him to make the decision on whether or not to Jeremy Hunt has done wrong. The ball is in the Prime Minister's court.

Politics shouldn't be about one Party's superiority over another and we, as a party are refusing to get involved in the "point scoring" exercise. Abstaining was the hard path but in this occasion

Nick has made our position clear over what we think but ultimately it is up to David Cameron to make the right decision.

The Coalition, UKIP and Jeremy Hunt

Jeremy Hunt MP

As the true depth of Jeremy Hunt's involvement with the Murdoch scandal is uncovered more than a few Liberal Democrat commentators have suggested that we should be rethinking the future of the party within the Coalition and whether we should even continue.

Martin Shapland tweeted this on 24th April;

Here's an idea. This would be an excellent time to walk out on the sleazy, Incompetent, onnishambolic Tories

I'm sure he speaks for a good many. After all we have taken A LOT of flak for the policies of the Coalition and a lot of Local politicians are upset by the way the National party has acted. There are others who point out that a lot of our members who resigned once we joined the Coalition would return.

Would it not be better to beat a fighting retreat and distance ourselves from these "Sleaze" allegations as well as the Pasty tax and pension changes, tuition fees, rising fuel etc etc... If we were to the head from the party and forge off standing up for our principles would we not be doing the party a great service?

UKIP have overtaken us as the third party of the nation in the polls too. How did this happen? A right-wing euro sceptic party who up until recently had no real policies short of withdrawal from Europe but now they're close on our tail. Is this the final death knell for the British Liberal Party?

I personally don't think it is time to call time on the Coalition. Yeah its tough but we've done a lot of good things and kept a lot more manifesto points than we've traded. If anything there is a lot of antipathy against us by some sections of the Conservatives because we have had such a disproportional sway over the Government. 2015 will be a tough time trying to get voters to recognise that but if we walk away with so much left undone would we not look like we couldn't stand the pressure? Our opponents would claim we choked and baled rather than stood up for what we believed. What ever happens there will have to be a leadership contest around an election as I know that many Libdems do not feel that Nick can lead us into a successful campaign. I still have faith in the Coalition, yeah I have moments of despair and horror but there is a lot to still be said for it.

So what about UKIP? What about them? Lets be honest when parties are in Government they lose popularity, the opposition always look better. However, even though Labour have recovered a lot of ground there is still a level of distrust because of the last administration and, I'm sorry guys, Ed Milliband has hardly won the hearts and minds of the populous as the face of capable opposition.
Indeed when I first asked Twitter whether we should bail out or not my friend Simon said;

would we get any difference in govt? Swap posh incompetents for Labour incompetents? Whoopie...

We're tied to the Conservatives and have made some glaring faux pas so we've lost support and the Conservatives likewise so who will people have to turn elsewhere...
There is a dislike for Europe which is exacerbated by the collapse of the Euro and the Greek economy and there was quite a few angry voices at the lack of referendum on Britain's role in the EU and people are looking at UKIP and wondering. They're no longer a party of crazies with Kilroy leading them, they're developing into a real party that may well hit the big stage in Parliament 2015 but I think they will gain places in Conservative seats rather than from us as they tend to attract right wing voters anyway and it would have to be a big swing of centralist to right. After all as the Conservatives and Labour's obsession of capturing the "Middle ground" and former Liberal territory, they begin to lose those on the Right/left of their respective parties, the ones they used to appeal to exclusively, now UKIP are absorbing those disenchanted. We'll have to wait and see what the future holds for them though.

Jeremy Hunt has to resign. Its that simple.
His position is untenable. The level of communication and collusion between him, his office and the Murdochs even before the removal of Dr Vince was far too close. It looks bad, even if it was all innocent, and it looks like grubby back room deals have been made - Not what fair and open Government should be about. Jeremy Hunt and his office should not have communicated with Murdoch's office whilst Dr Vince was dealing with the affair full stop. It reeks of favouritism and done deals. If David Cameron doesn't act now then we need to distance ourselves over this affair.
This is one incident that we should not get tarred over, after all we're not implicated and should refuse to take the flak for this.

This whole thing has been mishandled and it makes all of us look bad. The Leveson enquiry only has to mention a name and you are immediately tarred and discredited. The party Leadership would do well to distance itself from this immediately in the media, after all it wasn't our idea at all and something we opposed. Sounds harsh but a good dose of "I told you so" may be in order.