I am very concerned to read, this week in the Times, this article
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article5804200.ece
The Child Support Agency appears to be totally out of control and a law unto itself. Much has been written about its gross inefficiency and I could go on at length about that (from personal experience), but what I want to highlight here is the dubious morality of the whole CSA concept. It is yet another example of the government devising a very rigid system to deal with a problem and then applying it across the board, whether it is appropriate or not. In most other situations there is some means of appeal for inappropriate situations but in the case of the CSA there is no appeal under any circumstances. You may appeal against the assessment if you feel the amount is not appropriate but under no conditions can you appeal against the fact that an assessment has been made in the first place.
The concept of the system is based on the observation that in many cases a man walks out on his partner leaving her with a child or children and no means of support. I don't doubt that this is what usually happens, and I have no problem with the concept that he ought to financially support his family. But consider the reverse scenario which can and does frequently happen. The woman walks out on the man, for no valid reason, and takes the children with her. The man has been seduced into fathering children on the understanding that they would all form a happy family, and then the woman leaves, either because she had no intention of forming a happy family, or because she has found a new man she prefers the look of. The man is left with a destroyed life. He has planned to form a happy family and to be a good father for the rest of his life. Now he is suddenly left with no wife, no children, no family. And to add insult to injury he is expected to pay for the priviledge.
The government, from time to time, blows its own trumpet over how they are supporting strong families and how this is good for the social stability of the country. But letting the CSA loose in the scenario above certainly does not help support those ideals ........ quite the opposite. It encourages women to get pregnant with no intention of making a proper family, or to run off with another man, knowing that they will be financially supported by the poor abandoned spouse.
Now, assuming the woman has gone off with another man and the abandoned spouse manages to find another partner with children we are left with the bizarre situation where the errant wife is being supported twice (once by her new man and once by her ex partner) and the ex partner is having to pay twice (once for his new family and once for his old family). I ask you .... is that just or fair? I understand the CSA is about to be replaced by a new body. Let's just hope that the government learns from its mistakes and puts sufficient flexibility into the system to prevent such miscarriages of justice in the future.
Saturday, 28 February 2009
Local Government Stupidity 3
This week the local press reports a family of seven, currently living in a three bedroomed house, who have been refused a four bedroomed house by the Council on the grounds that it is not big enough for their family. Apparently they have done an assessment of the house and decided that it would be best for the house if it was occupied by a family of six.
Well excuse me, but since when did what is best for the house have anything to do with it. I thought the purpose of a Local Authority was to do what was best for the residents in their area. I accept that this family may still be technically overcrowded if they took this house but, in anyones eyes, four bedrooms is better than three. So, unless the Council have a five bedroomed house to offer this family, their argument is a bit insensitive.
I accept that there are other families on the waiting list who may have a greater claim, but the question to ask should be "which family would benefit most from occupying this house" rather than "which family best fits the house".
Well excuse me, but since when did what is best for the house have anything to do with it. I thought the purpose of a Local Authority was to do what was best for the residents in their area. I accept that this family may still be technically overcrowded if they took this house but, in anyones eyes, four bedrooms is better than three. So, unless the Council have a five bedroomed house to offer this family, their argument is a bit insensitive.
I accept that there are other families on the waiting list who may have a greater claim, but the question to ask should be "which family would benefit most from occupying this house" rather than "which family best fits the house".
Sunday, 8 February 2009
Birds
The cold weather has brought a flock of long-tailed tits to our garden bird-feeder.
According to my bird book, long-tailed tits rarely visit suburban gardens ..... so we are really honoured by their presence.
Local Government - Stupidity 2
This week we hear that Birmingham City Council has made a policy decision to spend their taxpayers' money on going round painting out the apostrophes on the road signs for such places as Acock's Green and King's Heath. In future no road signs will be allowed an apostrophe. At a stroke the Council has decided that it knows better than the rest of the country how the King's English is to be spelt (Kings English!).
The official reason for this stupidity and monstrous arrogance is, apparently, that the Acock family no longer own the green and the king no longer owns the heath. So what? You can't just change the national language because ownership changes. It is part of the area's heritage that the king once owned the heath and the Acock family once owned the green. Are they suggesting that any road names that don't reflect current reality should be changed? I can think of many examples of a "Cambridge Road" which doesn't lead to Cambridge or a "High Street" which is no longer the main street in a town.
I suspect the real reason for this decision was that the councillors thought so little of the intellectual capabilities of their residents that they assumed most of them wouldn't know what an apostrophe was. How arrogant can you get?
Many local government staff, myself included, have been on quality assurance courses to try and improve the quality of local government and the services it offers to its residents. One of the definitions that sticks in my mind is that "Quality assurance is about getting it right first time" rather than trying to correct mistakes once they are made. A council that deliberately formulates a policy to ensure that they get it wrong first time and flatly refuse to correct it thereafter is completely outside the fraternity of other councils who are doing their best to improve things. I can only pity the residents of Birmingham if this is the quality of councillors they elect.
The official reason for this stupidity and monstrous arrogance is, apparently, that the Acock family no longer own the green and the king no longer owns the heath. So what? You can't just change the national language because ownership changes. It is part of the area's heritage that the king once owned the heath and the Acock family once owned the green. Are they suggesting that any road names that don't reflect current reality should be changed? I can think of many examples of a "Cambridge Road" which doesn't lead to Cambridge or a "High Street" which is no longer the main street in a town.
I suspect the real reason for this decision was that the councillors thought so little of the intellectual capabilities of their residents that they assumed most of them wouldn't know what an apostrophe was. How arrogant can you get?
Many local government staff, myself included, have been on quality assurance courses to try and improve the quality of local government and the services it offers to its residents. One of the definitions that sticks in my mind is that "Quality assurance is about getting it right first time" rather than trying to correct mistakes once they are made. A council that deliberately formulates a policy to ensure that they get it wrong first time and flatly refuse to correct it thereafter is completely outside the fraternity of other councils who are doing their best to improve things. I can only pity the residents of Birmingham if this is the quality of councillors they elect.
Monday, 2 February 2009
Atheists again
More bad news for Richard Dawkins and his cronies. Latest figures just released show that church-going in Britain is up by 5%. Small beer, I know, but its a step in the right direction.
Local Government - Stupidity 1
Part of the brief for this blog is to comment on "the stupidity of large organisations". We haven't had much of that yet, so let's make a start with Essex County Council.
Their latest plan is to re-organise the secondary schools in Colchester by closing two of them and sending the children to the other secondary schools in the town which will be enlarged appropriately. On a purely numbers game I have no doubt that the plan will provide sufficient school spaces but, as is usual with Local Government, one department does it's own thing with blinkers on in complete isolation to the others. The members of the Education Committee have obviously never visited Colchester in the school rush hour. With most of the secondary schools located to the west of the town and another two to the north, these areas get completely clogged up for half an hour or more in the morning and again in the afternoon while an endless procession of cars and buses fight for occupation of the same small stretches of road to drop off or pick up children. Anyone who wants to drive straight through just doesn't stand a chance. A five minute trip along Lexden Road, for example, can take at least 35 minutes if undertaken at the wrong time of day.
The two schools Essex County Council want to close are the only two secondary schools to the south of the town. This will mean the entire school population of the south of the town and all the villages to the south of the town having to be shipped somehow to the far side of town adding to the already chaotic traffic situation. This is in direct conflict with the Council's own sustainability policy which states:
"Sustainability is about managing and enhancing the environment and improving the quality of life for existing and future generations. The Council is committed through its policies and decision making to protecting and improving the environment and to ensure its decisions are sustainable in environmental, social and economic terms."
This stupid idea is not sustainable in environmental terms (far more vehicle journeys into already busy areas), social terms (it will destroy the social fabric of the communities to the south of the town) or economic terms (the ongoing costs to these families of having to transport their children to the far side of town and then return on five days a week doesn't bear thinking about). In addition it is not long ago that the Council was trying to encourage more children to walk to school to (a) help the environment and (b) help the fight against obesity. This will be impossible under the new scheme as the distances involved will just be too great. Children would spend half the day walking, assuming they were willing to undertake the feat.
One consultation on various schemes has already been held. If the local press is to be relied on, the vast majority of people in Colchester are strongly against this particular proposal, yet it seems it has emerged as the front-runner and a second consultation is being held on just this scheme. Whatever happened to local democracy (or common sense for that matter)? The people deciding this matter obviously come from Basildon or Harlow or Epping and have probably never been to Colchester in their lives.
This scheme must not be allowed to come to fruition. It will make a laughing stock of the County Council and will make life a misery for a large part of the population of Colchester (and not just the school-going families either!).
Local Authorities in general get a lot of bad press for appointing people to strange posts which most others can't see the need for. What they all seem to have failed to do is appoint a "Director of Common Sense". Such a person would sit independantly of all the other departments and committees and would review the schemes and proposals put forward by the main departments and committees to ensure that they were sensible and in compliance with overall council policies and strategies. In short .... to take the holistic view rather than just the financial view. I am available for such a role should Essex County Council care to get in touch.
Their latest plan is to re-organise the secondary schools in Colchester by closing two of them and sending the children to the other secondary schools in the town which will be enlarged appropriately. On a purely numbers game I have no doubt that the plan will provide sufficient school spaces but, as is usual with Local Government, one department does it's own thing with blinkers on in complete isolation to the others. The members of the Education Committee have obviously never visited Colchester in the school rush hour. With most of the secondary schools located to the west of the town and another two to the north, these areas get completely clogged up for half an hour or more in the morning and again in the afternoon while an endless procession of cars and buses fight for occupation of the same small stretches of road to drop off or pick up children. Anyone who wants to drive straight through just doesn't stand a chance. A five minute trip along Lexden Road, for example, can take at least 35 minutes if undertaken at the wrong time of day.
The two schools Essex County Council want to close are the only two secondary schools to the south of the town. This will mean the entire school population of the south of the town and all the villages to the south of the town having to be shipped somehow to the far side of town adding to the already chaotic traffic situation. This is in direct conflict with the Council's own sustainability policy which states:
"Sustainability is about managing and enhancing the environment and improving the quality of life for existing and future generations. The Council is committed through its policies and decision making to protecting and improving the environment and to ensure its decisions are sustainable in environmental, social and economic terms."
This stupid idea is not sustainable in environmental terms (far more vehicle journeys into already busy areas), social terms (it will destroy the social fabric of the communities to the south of the town) or economic terms (the ongoing costs to these families of having to transport their children to the far side of town and then return on five days a week doesn't bear thinking about). In addition it is not long ago that the Council was trying to encourage more children to walk to school to (a) help the environment and (b) help the fight against obesity. This will be impossible under the new scheme as the distances involved will just be too great. Children would spend half the day walking, assuming they were willing to undertake the feat.
One consultation on various schemes has already been held. If the local press is to be relied on, the vast majority of people in Colchester are strongly against this particular proposal, yet it seems it has emerged as the front-runner and a second consultation is being held on just this scheme. Whatever happened to local democracy (or common sense for that matter)? The people deciding this matter obviously come from Basildon or Harlow or Epping and have probably never been to Colchester in their lives.
This scheme must not be allowed to come to fruition. It will make a laughing stock of the County Council and will make life a misery for a large part of the population of Colchester (and not just the school-going families either!).
Local Authorities in general get a lot of bad press for appointing people to strange posts which most others can't see the need for. What they all seem to have failed to do is appoint a "Director of Common Sense". Such a person would sit independantly of all the other departments and committees and would review the schemes and proposals put forward by the main departments and committees to ensure that they were sensible and in compliance with overall council policies and strategies. In short .... to take the holistic view rather than just the financial view. I am available for such a role should Essex County Council care to get in touch.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)