A return to Victorian values?

There is often talk amongst politicians, Christians, and other conservatives of a desire to return to the values of an earlier time. This has come up especially in the discussion about Same Sex Marriage, with calls for no "redefinition of marriage", with an assumption - tacit or explicit - that the concept of marriage as one man and one woman is something sacrosanct, divinely mandated, or similarly a perfect ideal that would make everything better.

This is, of course, utter drivel.

There seems to be a call for a return to a society where women and children have no rights at all. Where marriage is close to ownership of a wife by the husband. Where, for the vast majority of people, life expectancy is significantly lower, especially for the working classes. And child mortality is even higher. The only people who benefit are the few wealthy, white, males. The majority of people across the world were substantially worse off in this mythical time in the past.

So yes, hark back to these times if you are one of the wealthy, white, men for whom the society was supporting. But if you are not in this elite, life was difficult.

Ah, people say, but they did have a higher standard of morality then, didn't they?

Well, they proclaimed a different - maybe higher - morality, yes. Those who were educated mainly, who normally proclaimed a higher morality for others. On the whole, the morality proclaimed was not for the privileged, educated people declaring it, but for others. They did not always believe this moral standard should apply to them. Yes, there were exceptions, but the moral code they often taught was a moral standard that others needed to follow, for their betterment.

However, there is another reason why this call for a return to an earlier society is deeply flawed. The problem is, we are not "there", we are "here". It is all too easy to say that in another society, things were better, but we do not live in another society, we live in today. We need to apply our ideas and principles to the society that we live in now, otherwise, they are meaningless.

So the same sex marriage debate should not be conducted by saying that some other society was or is better. We live in the society we are in, where homosexuality is a significant part of our society, and we need to work with that, seek to help and support all the people in our society, whatever their sexual orientation, gender, race or whatever. We are where we are, and we need to deal with that, handle that, apply our theology/philosophy/morality to the world we live in, not a world we might wish we were living in (a world, that, usually, never actually existed).

Austerity is a lie

The new year is here, and more above-inflation rail fare rises are here, along with more cuts to the benefits system. The cost of living in the UK for the poorest has increased significantly, although the cost for the wealthier has not so much.

The explanation from the government is, of course, that these are austerity measures, because of the global recession, meaning that there is less government money to fund the railways, the benefits system, and local facilities.

The problem is that this is a lie.

This is a lie, because the government could fill the budget gap is a range of other ways. One example here indicates the level of benefit fraud - something the government has emphasised as being a major problem - is not as high as has been suggested. In fact this link (and others are available with similar levels, even if different figures) suggests that fraud levels are around 2.2% of total benefits, some £3.4bn.

It also shows that the there may be some £16bn a year in unclaimed benefit, meaning that if the entire system was cleaned up, and everyone claimed no more or less than they should, the benefits bill would increase by over £10bn.

Of course the government is now starting to attack even legitimate benefit claimants. The most prominent are the increasing demands on the unemployed, as well as the recent suggestions to insist that the retired should contribute to society.

The problem is that most jobseekers are actually looking for work. Not all, I would accept, but most, and so if they do not take a job on offer, there is probably a good reason for it. Forcing them into accepting jobs that are unsuitable is liable to mean they will have to claim more benefits for childcare coverage, or that they will have to give up the job. It is wrong to assume that even unskilled jobs are suitable for just anyone - and it is dehumanising to assume that they are. People are not just units of production, and should not be treated as such, in any situation. Ignoring this is not only wrong morally, but it is liable to throw up more problems in time, not least medical ones, putting more pressure on the NHS.

Pensioners have already made significant contributions to society, and should be able to retire without any further requirements. In many cases, they will make contributions to society.

The other significant information on that link above is the other side of the equation - tax fraud and evasion. This would indicate that this costs over £100bn a year - something like 60% of the total benefit bill for a year (depending on which figures you take, it might be up to nearly 100% of the bill). What is more, this figure is 20 times the benefit fraud figures, so achieving even 10% success in addressing this would make more of a difference, and allow the benefits cuts to be stopped.

This, of course, shows up the real reasons for the "austerity" measures, because there have been plenty of well publicised examples of companies who are not paying their full tax responsibilities, so it is not a problem of finding the money. The real problem is that these companies are the financiers and supporters of the Tory party.

The real reason for most of the government policies - in particular, the financial ones, implemented under the guise of "austerity" - are just extreme versions of standard Tory politics, reducing the tax burden on the rich, and increasing it on the poorer. This is why the government will not raise revenue from the richer, the city and business, despite the fact that the banks are substantially responsible for the economic crisis.

Just for clarification, I don't doubt that some people on benefits are cheating, or that there are some savings to be made in the NHS. I don't deny that we are globally in an economic recession. I have no question whatsoever that we are in tough economic times. But the reason that I say that austerity is a lie is that this is not the reason for the economic changes. The real reason for these is that David Cameron wants to help his friends in this difficult time: the city, the business community (including the train companies) and the wealthy.
Personally, I would call it cronyism instead. "All in this together" it certainly isn't.

This is not a political rant from a lefty against the right wing. It is not about  political positions, as, in all honesty, I don't see any of the main political leaders as being any different in essence. The problem for me is that this is abuse, abuse of those who are not rich, abuse of those who are not influential. This is abuse by those in power of those without power. Forget austerity, this is power games instead.

Train fare rises

As I write this, there are reports of the planned train fare rises, which are to be once again, a few percent above inflation. We are told that these above inflation fare rises are necessary to fund much needed investment in the system, as we are told every year.

But this is crap.

The problem is that if you put fares up by 3% above inflation one year, you only then need inflationary rises in future years to provide this same level of extra money each year. So, for example, if the fare rises 5 years ago were a few percent above inflation, providing an extra, say, £10M that year for investment, then every year from then on, if inflationary rises are allowed, this extra £10M will be provided. The value of this money will reduce, but it will still be there.

If the following year another higher-than-inflation rise is agreed, that raises an extra £11M, that means that the train companies are then taking an extra £21M that year. And onwards. If higher-than-inflation rises are allowed EVERY year, as seems to be the case, then the EXTRA money raised by the train companies will rise each year. If the same extra percentage is allowed each year, then the train companies are getting double the extra each year. that is substantial.

The problem is that this is claimed to be for investment in the system. However the truth is, as most people will agree, we do not see this investment in the system. We do not see substantial improvements in the performance of our train services - in fact, for my local service, we see ever poorer service. What is more, the real investment we have seen, in extending the platforms and buying newer rolling stock, are not paid for from the fare money. These are paid for from public money. The extra fare money seems to go towards paying the train companies profits.

The real reason for these fare increases is that the government wants to have no financial involvement with the train companies.They want to make them completely self supporting, which is a ridiculous idea, because the result of this will not be better public services. The results will be that people will resort to private transport - cars. Or not be able to get around, or get to work. Transport will become, if we are not careful, the privilege of the wealthy.

Any yet our society is being driven around people being mobile. If our society requires people to be mobile - the decimation of the high streets and the "centralisation" of services - then to also remove peoples ability to travel is wrong and dehumanising. I get particularly annoyed when people are dehumanised - one of my high horses. That is why this is an issue for Christians, for people of faith, for people who care about human rights and human dignity.

Transport is not a "basic human right", unless your society is built around transport. The "basic human right" at issue here is the ability to engage and interact with the society. Reducing that, which is what is being done, is unjust, unfair and inhuman. It should stop.