Tax households, forget marriage

There are a lot of thing wrongs with the British tax system, but one of the most obvious has to do with the way household income is ignored versus individual income.

Take two households (of two people) earning £50,000. In one, a single earner earns all the money; in the other, it is divided. The tax paid by the former is far, far higher even though the expenses of living are essentially the same.

This is clearly not fair and is dealt with in other countries, such as the United States, by a combination of allowances and household income tax tables to even it out. Not in Britain.

Something should be done to rectify this. It hits hard a lot of reasonably paid, but still not rich people who for one reason or another live on the earnings of one person.

The Tories say they plan to change the law in this regard, but unfortunately as is the case often with right wingers they have muddied up a fairness issue with a social issue. They claim they are going to adjust it to encourage marriage.

Marriage has nothing to do with this. It is households that we should be looking at -- how many people live on how much money. Partners -- gay or straight -- should count, not some quasi-religious notion of what constitutes a proper couple.

The law needs to be changed -- but out of fairness not because of a social engineering agenda.

UK election will be no coronation

It would be crazy to take today's Observer poll and say that the Tories' chances of being the next government are sliding. But I am not the only one who has been questioning their supposedly unassailable lead. Seems to me that their support is a mile wide and an inch deep. They are still on track to win against a tired Labour government, but it won't take much to make a real fight of it. Some random thoughts:

-- Was it The Sun? Their attack on Gordon Brown over a hand written note to a grieving mother who lost her son in Afghanistan had a remarkable effect. It made Brown look picked on and brought to light his evident emotion about the war dead.

-- Was it Cameron? His last two appearances on The Andrew Marr Show have been horrible. He comes across as peevish and not entirely likable. Add that to the Toff image and you have problems.

-- Was it Europe? The Lisbon Treaty came into force and the sky did not fall in. EU leaders also showed how nonthreatening the whole thing is buy appointing a couple of probably competent nonentities to the top posts (see previous post)

Another poll will likely come along soon, putting the Tories back up again. But this one at least showed that the road is open for surprises and that, thank goodness, next year's election will not be a coronation.

Two good choices for Britain in Europe

While the choice of Herman van Rompuy to be European Union president is hardly bracing, there is plenty in it to please Britons. First, of course, he is not Tony Blair -- so that vomit-inducing prospect can be dismissed (see previous post). But even without that, van Rompuy's ascension can be greeted with polite applause.

The supposedly media-shy Belgian is likely to be just the kind of president Britain really wants. His job is not, of course, EU president. He will be president of the EU council, the group that is made up of member states. He will be president as in preside -- not a swashbuckling leader like they elect in America. Just what the British doctor ordered, someone to do what the council wants it to. Long live the Union of Nation States.

Next, his appointment allowed the second job, foreign policy chief, to go to a Brit, Catherine Ashton. I would fibbing if I said I knew much about her. But I do know that the main reason she got the job is that the EU wants Britain firmly within it foreign policy portfolio. With our links to Washington, the Commonwealth and the UN Security Council, we are to EU foreign affairs what Germany is to its economy and monetary policy. Ashton should combat some of Britain's euro-scepticism by showing that we can be part of the centre.

Both these choices are good for Britain. A president who will be a chairman and one of our own in charge of what we are most interested in. Now if only the Tories don't screw it up.

Three reasons why Blair should not be sent to Brussels

There are three reasons why Tony Blair should not be appointed as president of the European Union's Council of Ministers, a position that is incorrectly but probably irreversibly being dubbed "President of Europe". The most important has to do with Britain's place in Europe.

The other two have to do with Blair himself.

First, his scoffing at international law and cuddling up to George Bush -- clearly a man with no love of internationalism -- should disqualify him for any prestigious position representing a group of countries. Indeed, a case could be made that he should be sent to The Hague to face war crime charges rather than Brussels to be feted. The war in Iraq was unwanted in Europe (including Britain), probably illegal and fought based on lies. He should not be rewarded for this.

Second, Blair the European was always a con. He promised much but delivered next to nothing. We are no closer -- indeed, may be further away -- from joining the euro than we were when he took office. Our role as a "third" power with France and Germany is laughable. Given the chance to lead Britain into Europe, he caved in and promised a referendum on the ill-fated EU constitution, knowing that Britons would have rejected it out of hand.

In short, he is not qualified for the job.

Now comes the main reason. The British people only need a small push to send the country out of the EU, a disastrous prospect for our economy, society and place in the world. It is not their fault -- they have been subject to decades of lies from newspapers and politicians stirring up false notions of nationalism. No one -- least of all supposedly pro-European politicians like Blair -- ever defends it. They tend, rather, to blame their own shortcomings on it.

So here is the prospect of an intensely divisive and in some areas despised man being touted for a leading position that is being created by a treaty that rightly or wrongly most Britons are suspicious of. The disgust is already palpable.

It would do untold damage to Briton's already shaky relationship with Europe and play directly into the hands of eurosceptic politicians ready to drum up the (false) spectre of Brussels undemocratically running British lives.

For the sake of Britain in Europe if nothing else, this should not be allowed to happen.

Poor Britannia

Voters often complain that they like none of the candidates presented to them. It is a luxury enjoyed by those of us who live in democracies. At least we get to whinge about it.

Having said that, Britain has a major problem at the moment as a general election next year gets closer. We have three choices outside regional or fringe parties - tired authoritarians, untrustworthy anti-Europeans or ineffective outsiders. Here is the problem:

Labour: First, This is the party that blew its chances for greatness when Tony Blair sacrificed it to George Bush's wars. Second, Gordon Brown has proven incapable of transferring years of wanting to be the leader into actually being one. Probably a decent man -- and certainly not given enough credit for encouraging a global response to the financial crisis -- he has become intensely unpopular and probably reached the point of no return.

More importantly, Labour is arrogantly authoritarian. It is often assumed that left-of-centre parties are liberal, but this is not the case. Old socialist tendencies along with years of being in power have created a party of control freaks. All they can talk about is cracking down on this or that, or forcing society to move in one direction or another that it may not want to go.

Time they were gone.

Tories: Anyone watching David Cameron on today's Andrew Marr show can see the problem. They want to be new and improved but they don't have it in their DNA. Cameron couldn't answer the simplest questions for fear of stirring up either rage within his own party (Europe) or among voters (public service cuts).

Europe is their poisoned chalice. They have already begun swaggering around telling other EU leaders how things should be done and the scepticism within their ranks is dangerously close to separatism from the EU. Even Cameron knows what a disaster that would be for Britain's role in the world and its economy. He just can't say it.

A key element of their Europe policy is to get Britain out of some of the EU's social agenda. These are things such as retirement age, maternity leave, health and safety, job security -- in short the best things that Europe has to offer its citizens. All the Tories want is a free trade zone.

If the Tories get in -- and it does seem likely -- we have years ahead of us of clashing with our EU partners, laws aimed at making life easier for the richer among us, and a nod and a wink to business to keep doing what it has been doing.

They don't deserve a chance.

Liberal Democrats: Almost not worth mentioning because they cannot and will not win. Too many things are stacked against them, mainly in terms of the voting system, but also in their choice of leader. Nick Clegg is decent enough, but essentially a poor man's Cameron.

The LibDem policies appeal to me. They are pro-Europe, green, not averse to a modest bit of wealth distribution, anti-war, and good on compassion. But so was Gandhi and he has as much of a chance of being next prime minister as Clegg, even if he is dead.

Worth supporting, but its like kissing your grandmother.

So, poor Britannia. But at least we are allowed to whinge.

Should the BNP be invited to speak on the BBC?

The BBC has invited the British National Party, a far-right, racist group, to have a panellist on the public affairs programme Question Time. The rationale is that the BNP had two members elected to the European Parliament at the last election. Here is your chance to vote on the situation:

Should the BBC invite the BNP on Question Time?

• Yes
• Yes, but I won't watch
• No

Created on Sep 6, 2009

View Results

poll by twiigs.com

American healthcare is not medical Nirvana

You can tell a lot about a country's aspirations and view of itself from soap television. Consider the working class struggle and booze-fest depicted in Britain's Eastenders against the middle-class consumerist angst in something like America's Bold and the Beautiful.

So when it comes to healthcare, a noisy American debate that has suddenly dragged Britain's poor old National Health Service into the transatlantic limelight, you can compare the underfunded, scruffiness of Britain's Holby City with the pristine efficiency of America's Private Practice. (Is no one ugly in American healthcare?).

Unfortunately, it doesn't work. Private Practice is what America thinks its healthcare is all about. But it isn't. Most Americans who are lucky enough to have health insurance do not generally get anything like the top-notch treatment as touted by the medical profession, free-market right and drug companies.

They may be like my family was, limited to HMOs who tell you who you can see and for what, yelling at you for taking a sick child to the "wrong" hospital. Or they may be like a dear, now-departed old man I knew who was bounced from one expensive specialist to another for years being misdiagnosed while Medicare picked up his bills.

If they live in a small, poor town in rural America, they will be lucky if they get more than a local pill-pusher and county hospital with limited facilities. But that can even happen in cities too.

So don't buy the argument that a new America healthcare system will somehow destroy medical Nirvana. It is already a mess for most people.

Now none of this is to say that Britain's NHS is perfect. It is just as scruffy, overworked and understaffed as Holby City portrays. It also makes plenty of mistakes and can be an incompetent bureaucratic nightmare.

But it has one thing going for it that American healthcare does not. It is there and anyone can use it. There are no fears in Britain of growing old and not having medical coverage. Health insurance is not even an afterthought if you get laid off or your business goes under.

Like publicly funded schools it is there to serve you. Like the publicly funded military it is there to protect you.

Give me Holby City over Private Practice any time -- although I wouldn't mind the odd Addison Montgomery wondering around NHS the wards.