Liberal Vision

Why the Government can’t help “Real Women”

Now that I’ve found a spare minute I’ve had time to go through Jo Swinson’s practical but unfortunately titled “Real Women” website. To be honest I like it a lot.  There’s practical advice helping women get the information they need in the work place, in law courts, to raise a family, for single parent support and all sorts. The blurb reads:

Women face pressure from all directions these days. Hit hard by the recession, trying to juggle family commitments with work and home life, it’s easy to feel like you’re running just to stand still.  The media screams out an endless list of things still to do: get a bikini body in 20 days, plan the perfect children’s party, how to look 10 years younger. Despite great strides forward in equality, women still get paid less than men, and generally still end up taking more responsibility for childcare and looking after elderly relatives.  This can be hugely rewarding, but combining this with a job can seem almost impossible.

There’s a lot the Government could do to give a helping hand.  Making employers check for pay discrimination would help women get the money they deserve.  Providing 20 hours per week free childcare would allow parents to make real choices about returning to work.  Enabling everyone to ask for flexible working would help to change the rigid work culture, and make it easier to juggle different commitments.  And it would be nice to inject some realism into the media’s portrayal of women, instead of the suggestion that nothing less than perfection will do.

What ruins this policy paper is the completely illiberal spiel about banning airbrushed photos. Is it not slightly patronising to suggest that modern women can’t cope with modern media? Tom Papworth thinks so as stated on this blog earlier in the year.

Everyone with half a brain knows that the images you see in magazines are just that; images, illusions, fantasy and behind those images are mortal women. They’re no more or less “real” than your next door neighbour. A lot of them are mothers and hard working business women.

I actually think it’s great that the women we celebrate are thin. We act as though all female stars are about to keel over and die from anorexia – they’re just not. Most of them are healthy and achieve desirable figures through disciplined diet and exercise. Moreover not all young women who look at airbrushed pictures have low self-esteem. Alternatively if our celebrities were morbidly obese and teenagers ate excessively to be like their favourite movie stars they would be aspiring to a significantly less healthy image.

Despite the proclamation that “There’s a lot the Government could do to give a helping hand…” what I noticed most about the Real Women website was that most of outgoing links do not go to government or quango websites – they go to charities and practical advice websites. The help is not coming from the government it’s coming from wider civil society. Whilst as an MP I think it’s right that Jo Swinson is guiding people in the direction of the help they need I think it’s wrong for her to be assuming responsibility for anyone’s self esteem.

Hat Tip: Ollie Cromwell over at Red Rag for the Image!!

Evening Quickie: Why I’ll miss Widdie!!

If you’re not a regular reader of Total Politics magazine, then make sure you grab a copy of the September issue. The main feature is Iain Dale’s interview with Ann Widdecombe MP which is superb.

Those of you who know me will certainly agree if I say that Ann and I are not exactly cut from the same cloth… She has been an MP for longer than I’ve been alive and I admire her as a woman and as a politician. What strikes me about her in this interview is her courage and her integrity.

She describes her plans for retirement and reminisces on her days in parliament. She also bemoans the fact that she entered the House of Commons as a Member of Parliament and leaves it “as an employee of the House of Commons” – casting a disparaging critiques on the state of Parliament she states “I think we’re going to have a thoroughly third-rate parliament.” I fully  agree completely with the fact that an increase in “professional politicians” is a worrying development.

No matter how different an individual’s politics are from your own – when it comes to MPs quality is still important. Although I don’t agree with her politics – you have to admit the reason she’s been around for so long is because she’s been bloody good at her job.

Edit: You can read the full interview here!!

Dave’s Tories to impose minimum price on booze?

The Telegraph today outlines a predictably tedious announcement from Dave’s Nu-Lite Conservatives regarding a

“late night drinking crackdown”

Jolly good, can’t have anyone drinking late at night now, can we?

Apparently Dave is considering a minimum price on alcohol:

“Mr Cameron said that a Tory government would look at the ‘unbelievably low prices of some alcohol’.”

Yes, unbelievable. Amazing the efficiencies a market can produce, eh?

The announcement happily provides even more evidence of the ever-closing gap between the three main parties, as we all bundle pointlessly towards the centre of the bell curve.

Sadly I can see Dave using this not just as a pre-election vote-winner, but actually implementing it once in power.  Chocolate Orange Dave’s paternalism is forever evident, and in spite of alleged “gaffes” from Andrew Lansley he is still on course to become Cameron’s “Minister for Public Health.”  I’ve personally seen Andrew Lansley at policy events surrounded by and milling with lobbyist from alcoholics’ groups, anti-obesity groups (et cetera, et cetera) and wouldn’t be at all surprised if this is the kind of “progressive conservatism” we all have to look forward to.

Joy.

But worry not, everyone. For as you can see from the link – getting pissed is fine. So long as you can afford it and behave obnoxiously in the right places, old chap.

Americans without health insurance: young, rich and foreign

Everybody is shocked by the fact that over 15% of Americans do not have health insurance.  In a system that supposedly relies on private insurance as the only door to healthcare, that more than one in seven is uninsured is a disgrace.  Right?

But who are these uninsured? The poor? The old? American citizens? Don’t you believe it.

Hat-tip to Steve Bettison over at the Adam Smith Institute blog for analysing the US Census Bureau’s Income, Poverty and Health Insurance statistics.

Of the 45,667,000 people in the United States of America that do not have private health insurance:

• 9,737,000 are not US citizens. In addition,
• 32,118,000 live in households with an annual income of over $25,000, of whom
• 17,503,000 live in households with an annual income of over $50,000, of whom
• 9,115,000 live in households with an annual income of over $75,000.
• Only 686,000 are over the age of 65.
• 18,320,000 are aged between 18 and 35.

It is important to note that those six groups are not exclusive, of course.  It is possible to fall into five of the six categories.  But that still means that the number of poor old Americans who lack healthcare is significantly less than is often suggested.

Now I am not suggesting that foreigners do not deserve healthcare, but it does slightly cloud the picture of poor Americans being denied healthcare.  Neither am I suggesting that it is easy to find the money for health insurance from a household income of $25,000 a year, though it is not easy for taxpayers on low incomes in the UK to afford healthcare either.  It is the case that young people are notoriously bad at choosing to insure themselves and prepare for their futures.

The point is that the oft-cited raw figures about the uninsured in America mask a very heterogeneous group, many of whom are well able to afford insurance, and many more of whom are making rational choices not to.  Whatever the arguments for and against various healthcare systems in the US, it is worth bearing these facts in mind.

Mrs Clinton 1 – Lord Mandelson 0

Brits love conspiracy theories. UFO’s, ABCs (alien big cats), the Prince of Darkness is behind all-things governernmental.
Well this time it would seem that this is NOT a conspiracy. Lord Mandelson, who stuck two fingers up to the country when he returned to Corfu to hobnob with rich and famous for his summer sojourn, did have his mitts all over the the move to release the convicted Libyan bomber.

Last year it was dodgy Russians on yachts. This year it has been revealed that the Lord, between sunbathing and posh dinners at chez Rothschilds, did indeed meet with the son of the Libyan leader Colnel Gaddafi, (Saif al-Islam Gaddafi). Just days later meeting, hey presto, reports appear that the Libyan bomber may be released.

A link ? Noooo! Lord Mandelson’s spokesman said that whilst a meeting did take place subsequent reports of Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi’s possible release from jail were “entirely coincidental“.

Just HOW stupid do they thing we are (er well pretty stupid now you ask! he’s shown that time and again).

But wait. Lord Mandelson may have met his match. Following the announcement of Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi’s possible release, I have been told, and indeed it has been reported that, Hilary Clinton waded in. I do not know what precisely was said unfortnunately, but “over” and “our dead body” was almost certainly the sentiment, if not the actual words used.

So whilst Mr Mandelson may indeed be a highly effective dick-swinger,  it would appear that Mrs Clinton has an even larger and more influential one – and with considerable longer reach. Who would have thought that anyone would have ever written a post about MRS Clintons dick-swinging?

On a serious note, calls have been made for the Scottish parliament to be recalled to discuss this highly-charged matter. Time will tell if the Scots Lib Dem calls will be answered.

UPDATE: Following this post,  a friend (and respected journalist) contacted me to say  that he had been told by a trusted source that Mandelson actually came up with the idea of “moving fast” on this issue. Not, mind you,due to the ill-health of the Libyan – but because it might be possible to get a deal sorted whilst most MSP’s were away. Surely that is too Machiavellian? A conspiracy too-far – I hope!