A recent poll for a national Pro-Tory Sunday newspaper (Mail on Sunday, May 21) asked the question: ‘Is Mrs May Right to ditch Thatcherism?’ 46% of respondents answered in the affirmative against 16% who disagreed.
The truth is that May has no more “ditched Thatcherism” than David Cameron who once proclaimed “I am a Thatcherite” – which was the most honest thing he ever said.
It was Margaret Thatcher who first made elderly dementia sufferers sell their homes to pay huge fees for residential care in private nursing establishments.
Theresa May’s recently-announced plans to make people use the “equity” in their overvalued homes to pay for social care is a clear continuation of this Thatcherite policy, which is certainly intended to be extended into other chronic care areas like renal dialysis and ultimately all medical treatment.
Another lie doing the rounds in the neo-liberal media is that Jeremy Corbyn has “abandoned the centre ground” of politics in attempting to drag the Labour party away from Blairism, which was Thatcherism by another name. When exactly did Thatcherism become “centre ground?”
New Labour’s fervent continuation of Thatcherite financial deregulation,some of us will remember, ended in the banking crisis of 2008 for which everybody except those actually responsible are being made to pay on an ongoing and indefinite basis.
It is no surprise, therefore, that a former Blairite Labour MP, Tom Harris, can be found in the pages of the aforementioned pro-Tory rag absurdly praising as “socialist” Theresa May’s stated, utterly Thatcherite, intention to abolish the universal heating allowance and “triple lock” on state pensions, which he describes, respectively as a “New Labour bribe [to] older,wealthier voters” and a “scam”, though they are very much “old-Labour”-style policies.
Theresa May claims she wishes to “target resources” on the “most needy”.
Given her party’s record for driving severely disabled people deprived of their benefits to suicide this must be seriously doubted.
What will happen in the event is that millions of struggling elderly people who have worked and paid taxes all their lives will, on losing these benefits (as well as the universal pensioner bus pass which is also in the Tories’ sights), be encouraged by the Tory media to resent those still receiving them and demand that they should also lose them.
Another ploy being used by May and her supporters to justify her attack on the elderly is the concept of “intergenerational equity”, the idea that the old, with their free bus passes etc, are parasitically “living it up” on the backs of the young even though most pensioners still pay income and other taxes.
This nasty propaganda,designed by the REAL parasites to turn younger citizens against each other’s parents and grandparents, is beyond contemptible.
R Griffiths, Earley
Sour grapes and innuendo
I read with interest last week’s letter headed “Promises, Promises” which was full of inaccuracies, sour grapes and innuendo (The Wokingham Paper, May 25).
Firstly I should point out that the Liberal Democrat Group has consistently voted against any development on Elms Field. Only last week I went even further to indicate that if we had an opportunity to run the Council we would immediately set up a Moratorium on the whole of the Wokingham Town Centre Regeneration project of all areas not yet started, or contracted including Elms Field.
Secondly, the main issue relating to the Independent Remuneration Panel (IRP) last autumn was not the basic allowance, but the number of Special Responsibility Allowances (payments) that an individual Councillor should receive.
The IRP panel recommended that this should be restricted to one (which the Lib Dem Group supported). However this was overturned when the majority of the Conservative Group voted to remove this restriction.
At present, therefore, certain Councillors will be able to receive multiple payments (running into several thousands of pounds) over and above their basic allowance. This is what the Lib Dem group opposed and was the reason the IRP panel resigned en block shortly afterwards.
Also please note, last autumn I advised Wokigham Borough Council (WBC) and through a letter in this paper, that the Lib Dem Group have agreed not to receive any additional SRA payment over and above the one payment recommended by the then IRP panel.
The pay rise referred to in last week’s letter covered a 1% rise in Councillor Basic Allowance which equates to £1.27 per week (before tax).
This element is supported by the vast majority of Councillors on WBC.
Thirdly I am Leader of the Lib Dems on WBC, not Cllr Clive Jones and what is more he did not make any complaint about another Councillor, so that section of the letter is pure fiction.
The main thrust of last week’s letter was about trust and integrity.
These are issues I as leader of the Liberal Democrat Group on Wokingham considers to be of the greatest importance.
We as a Group have worked tirelessly all year round for the residents of Wokingham Borough and will continue to do so.
Cllr Lindsay Ferris
Leader of the Liberal Democrats on Wokingham Borough Council and Member for Twyford
We need our health card
Brits going to Europe, and all EU residents visiting us, will no longer be able to use their EHIC cards for emergency treatment. This is according to two UK Parliamentary Select Committees. This was confirmed by the Brexit Minister, David Davis, when cross-examined by the Brexit Select Committee recently.
He’s also quoted, officially, as having told the Committee that he “hadn’t thought of that one!”
The UK Parliamentary Health Select Committee made the same point, and an independent health expert stated the likely travel insurance cost, without the EHIC card, for a Brit visiting France for a week, with diabetes and mild depression. He was quoted “between £800 and £2,500”!
So unless you risk travelling uninsured, that’s what you’ll likely have to pay after Brexit for insurance! Did anyone vote for this?
As far as I know, only the Lib Dems want to keep the EHIC card, as part of ensuring citizens’ rights.
G Paterson, Earley
Tan Hill level crossing & lack of communication
We should like to comment on Cllr Bowring’s letter on this topic (The Wokingham Paper, May 27).
We have to repeat that neither of us was made aware of the recent proposals surrounding Tan Hill crossing.
We are concerned about the inadequate notification given particularly when a Ward Councillor was not notified of the proposed action and more importantly local residents.
Imogen was not elected to represent the area until late February and certainly nothing has been said about this in the last three months.
We had mentioned to the press that we felt that a communication from Wokingham Borough Council (WBC) to all impacted members should have been sent out, however this was not. Unfortunately the communications from WBC on various issues, but especially highway matters is rather inconsistent and patchy to say the least.
Regarding secrecy, Cllr Bowring failed to mention that the now ex-leader of the Council removed the Liberal Democrat representation from two important Highways/Local Planning Working Groups in a fit of pique last October.
Therefore the Lib Dem group has been kept in the dark about many important issues, including issues in their own Wards, since that date.
We hope that the new Leadership will put an end to this unnecessary and un-democratic action.
Cllr Imogen Shepherd-Dubey Member for Emmbrook
Cllr Lindsay Ferris Leader of the Opposition
Mental health costs
These are my views on three hot topics – relating to mental health and its costs.
First, tuition fees. We currently have on placement with us a German psychology student.
He is very bright, speaks perfect English, and is one of the few top students who is shortly to move on to a PAID psychology placement. But she failed to get into university in Germany – where higher education is free. Capitalist societies will only invest money where there is a clear return – in the very brightest, and in skills that they can’t do without – such as medicine, teaching, and engineering.
So this student came to study in England where we now have the American system. Access is easier, but you have to pay fees. Abolish fees, and only an elite would get into higher education.
Second, dementia care and its costs. Is all the money that the NHS spends on health education ultimately beneficial? In recent years, two of our members died – both in their 80s.
One drank like a fish, smoked like a chimney, was hugely overweight, and merrily tucked into chocolate cake – despite being diabetic! He was up and about, and enjoying life – to the day that he died of a massive heart attack – aged 83!
The second neither drank nor smoked. He was very careful with his diet. He spent his latter years in a nursing home – at huge expense to his family. He could not stand up, and so was lifted with a hoist. He was doubly incontinent, had to be washed, dressed, and fed.
By the time of his death, aged 89, he barely recognised his relatives.
We are agreed to a man, that we would rather be the former member, than the latter!
Third. The death of Moors murderer, Ian Brady. Would it not have been best for all concerned, and saved millions of pounds in precious mental health money, if he had been given a lethal injection half a century ago?
Successive governments have failed to hold a referendum on capital punishment – because they fear that a majority would vote for its restoration.
Pam Jenkinson, The Wokingham Crisis House
The borough’s’architectural features’
Travelling the highways, byways and footpaths throughout the borough, one cannot but notice and be somewhat underwhelmed by the ever-increasing number and assortment of “architectural features” appearing across the area.
A cornucopia of trenches, barriers, traffic signals, unhelpful road signs and, of course, the ubiquitous hoards of traffic cones, effectively adding to the chaos, confusion and misery of motorists and pedestrians alike.
While borough councillors are happy to spend millions of pounds on regeneration, they also appear to be willing to allow existing infrastructure to fall into disrepair befitting some third world country-pot holed roads, crumbling speed humps, fading road markings disfigured pavements and uneven and littered footpaths … the list goes on and on.
New housing developments continue to spread like some malignant rash across fast vanishing green spaces,with each new home bringing even greater congestion to already overcrowded roads.
The newly appointed, rather splendidly titled executive member for strategic highways and planning tells us that “no definitive programme has been submitted by the developer to date for the build of the North Wokingham Distributor Road”– what sort of answer or solution is that?
There does appear that in spite of council protestations a complete lack of urgency or structured planning on the part of WBC and developers alike to find a solution to the problem which, unless addressed, can only get worse.
J W Blaney, Wokingham
