Tactical voting Scotland
http://www.pro-eu-vote-scotland.info/
Showing posts with label Scotland. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Scotland. Show all posts
Monday, 9 December 2019
Tuesday, 27 October 2015
Halloween !! Its Scottish and Irish ! Celtic !
English Heritage today are the latest body to quote again the incorrect fact that Halloween has come from America.
NO NO NO !!! Every year we email and tweet and try to correct this !!!
Now in Glasgow we celebrated Halloween when I was young ! I am 50 ! But reports from my family record halloween happening 80 and 100 years ago.
My uncle remembers blackening their faces and tying the opposite doors on a tenement close together and running away !
This would have been around World War 2 time.
We always carved turnips - so at least English Heritage are mentioning that - now turnips make a great smell when carved and with a candle in them - but boy are they hard to carve ! So pumpkins are perhaps a welcome import there !!
We did not do "Trick or Treating" - we went "Guising" - we were in Disguise - and we had to have a joke or a poem memorised as we went round the houses, before we would get any sweets or money etc.
And the main enjoyment about getting dressed up was the month beforehand when you thought up and created your costume ! I once went as a pantomime horse with my best friend Jane, who is now a respectable doctor !! We did a pantomime horse dance as our entertainment - the old ladies we visited were scared as their china was dancing in their cabinet so they quickly gave us our sweets !! Another year I went as a witch (apparently made my brother be the cat !) and my friend was the Alien from the Smash potato advert ! Other great costumes in my family included a dalek, a washing machine and an uncivil servant !!
We would do "dooking for apples" - dooking as a word comes from across the north sea I believe, and there would be treacle scones hanging from the pulley and toffee apples !
Now the tradition in Scotland has never stopped - its a spooky night and we did have the idea there were spirits out there so maybe best to stay near a light ! Ireland had the same tradition and it wouldnt surprise me if Cornwall, Wales and Brittany had the tradition too.
Now, please in England if you only discovered Halloween recently, yes you personally may have heard of it from America - but the rest of us have always had it, and it only got to America because of Irish emigrants !!
So lets take back our own tradition !! Also traditionally we did not go in for the majorly scary costumes and props etc you see in the Supermarkets - so lets get rid of those.
It is of course the eve of All Saints Day - or All Hallows - hence Halloween. Many of us also visit church for All Saints Day and All Souls Day the next day. And November is a month of Remembrance and on the 11th Nov we have Remembrance Sunday. Personally it also seems to me to be a good idea if the shops did not bring out their Christmas goods until after that. Certainly I have refused to look at them so far.
So there you go - LETS RECLAIM OUR OWN TRADITIONS !!!
Ref : http://www.scotland.org/features/halloween-traditions/
and more (including the blacking faces tradition of guising -- http://www.milngavieherald.co.uk/news/local-headlines/ways-to-celebrate-hallowe-en-in-true-scottish-style-1-3929175)
NO NO NO !!! Every year we email and tweet and try to correct this !!!
Now in Glasgow we celebrated Halloween when I was young ! I am 50 ! But reports from my family record halloween happening 80 and 100 years ago.
My uncle remembers blackening their faces and tying the opposite doors on a tenement close together and running away !
This would have been around World War 2 time.
We always carved turnips - so at least English Heritage are mentioning that - now turnips make a great smell when carved and with a candle in them - but boy are they hard to carve ! So pumpkins are perhaps a welcome import there !!
We did not do "Trick or Treating" - we went "Guising" - we were in Disguise - and we had to have a joke or a poem memorised as we went round the houses, before we would get any sweets or money etc.
And the main enjoyment about getting dressed up was the month beforehand when you thought up and created your costume ! I once went as a pantomime horse with my best friend Jane, who is now a respectable doctor !! We did a pantomime horse dance as our entertainment - the old ladies we visited were scared as their china was dancing in their cabinet so they quickly gave us our sweets !! Another year I went as a witch (apparently made my brother be the cat !) and my friend was the Alien from the Smash potato advert ! Other great costumes in my family included a dalek, a washing machine and an uncivil servant !!
We would do "dooking for apples" - dooking as a word comes from across the north sea I believe, and there would be treacle scones hanging from the pulley and toffee apples !
Now the tradition in Scotland has never stopped - its a spooky night and we did have the idea there were spirits out there so maybe best to stay near a light ! Ireland had the same tradition and it wouldnt surprise me if Cornwall, Wales and Brittany had the tradition too.
Now, please in England if you only discovered Halloween recently, yes you personally may have heard of it from America - but the rest of us have always had it, and it only got to America because of Irish emigrants !!
So lets take back our own tradition !! Also traditionally we did not go in for the majorly scary costumes and props etc you see in the Supermarkets - so lets get rid of those.
It is of course the eve of All Saints Day - or All Hallows - hence Halloween. Many of us also visit church for All Saints Day and All Souls Day the next day. And November is a month of Remembrance and on the 11th Nov we have Remembrance Sunday. Personally it also seems to me to be a good idea if the shops did not bring out their Christmas goods until after that. Certainly I have refused to look at them so far.
So there you go - LETS RECLAIM OUR OWN TRADITIONS !!!
Ref : http://www.scotland.org/features/halloween-traditions/
and more (including the blacking faces tradition of guising -- http://www.milngavieherald.co.uk/news/local-headlines/ways-to-celebrate-hallowe-en-in-true-scottish-style-1-3929175)
Tuesday, 23 June 2015
Higher Maths
There has been controversy this year over the SQA Higher Maths exam in Scotland.
However .... many people I have spoken to, including some in my family, did not have a particular problem with the exam. Although others were reporting some pupils to be quite distressed by the exam.
Some of the questions were designed in a way that had been experienced by those doing the new Higher. So that would have been a disadvantage to those sitting the old Higher.
There has also been some discussion over the wording of questions, where the question was not entirely clear.
Now the problem is that if they were to remove these questions and base the exam results on the other questions then this could actually disadvantage someone who had originally done better in the exam and could lead to people who originally had a lower mark coming out on top ...
Some pupils just did not even attempt certain questions...and it is possible that these pupils therefore had more time to check their other questions ... whereas those who struggled with the difficult questions may have had no time to go back and check their answers.
On a simple level lets take an example of a eight question exam for a total of 20 marks, with questions increasing in difficulty as the paper progresses.
If achieving full marks, the marks per question would be ... 1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 4, 4
Now lets assume Pupil 1 finds maths quite hard so they achieve the following marks :
1, 1, 2, 2, 1, 3, 0, 0 (total = 10 / 20)
Pupil 2 is better at maths and achieves :
1, 0, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 2 (they have attempted the last few questions but had no time to go back and check the earlier questions)
(total = 16 / 20)
Now, if the last two questions were removed as deemed too difficult, the marks for both pupils would then be Pupil 1 = 10/12 and Pupil 2 = 11 / 12
Now,... these pupils now appear to be much closer in results than the actual marks illustrate.
So ... how can these pupils be differentiated ? Should they both now get an A ?
Well perhaps that would be OK .... BUT there must never be a case where a pupil ends up with a lesser mark having originally had more marks.
For example lets say there was a Pupil 3 who achieved 1, 1, 0, 1, 3, 3, 4, 3
This pupil originally achieved 16 / 20 (equal to pupil 2 and much more than Pupil 1)
but if the last two questions are removed Pupil 3 would only score 9 / 12 and may well be allocated a B .... which is LESS !! than Pupil 1. This is patently unfair ...
No pupil should ever achieve a mark less than they originally achieved. So if they were heading for an A or a B on their original score then that should not be reduced.
Fine, there may need to be some adjustment for pupils who have taken the wrong meaning from a question if there is agreement that the question was badly worded.
But these decisions must not be taken lightly as people's futures depend on these results.
This is unfair to that pupil but also negative to society in general if we don't get those who are best at maths into for example engineering etc.
However .... many people I have spoken to, including some in my family, did not have a particular problem with the exam. Although others were reporting some pupils to be quite distressed by the exam.
Some of the questions were designed in a way that had been experienced by those doing the new Higher. So that would have been a disadvantage to those sitting the old Higher.
There has also been some discussion over the wording of questions, where the question was not entirely clear.
Now the problem is that if they were to remove these questions and base the exam results on the other questions then this could actually disadvantage someone who had originally done better in the exam and could lead to people who originally had a lower mark coming out on top ...
Some pupils just did not even attempt certain questions...and it is possible that these pupils therefore had more time to check their other questions ... whereas those who struggled with the difficult questions may have had no time to go back and check their answers.
On a simple level lets take an example of a eight question exam for a total of 20 marks, with questions increasing in difficulty as the paper progresses.
If achieving full marks, the marks per question would be ... 1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 4, 4
Now lets assume Pupil 1 finds maths quite hard so they achieve the following marks :
1, 1, 2, 2, 1, 3, 0, 0 (total = 10 / 20)
Pupil 2 is better at maths and achieves :
1, 0, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 2 (they have attempted the last few questions but had no time to go back and check the earlier questions)
(total = 16 / 20)
Now, if the last two questions were removed as deemed too difficult, the marks for both pupils would then be Pupil 1 = 10/12 and Pupil 2 = 11 / 12
Now,... these pupils now appear to be much closer in results than the actual marks illustrate.
So ... how can these pupils be differentiated ? Should they both now get an A ?
Well perhaps that would be OK .... BUT there must never be a case where a pupil ends up with a lesser mark having originally had more marks.
For example lets say there was a Pupil 3 who achieved 1, 1, 0, 1, 3, 3, 4, 3
This pupil originally achieved 16 / 20 (equal to pupil 2 and much more than Pupil 1)
but if the last two questions are removed Pupil 3 would only score 9 / 12 and may well be allocated a B .... which is LESS !! than Pupil 1. This is patently unfair ...
No pupil should ever achieve a mark less than they originally achieved. So if they were heading for an A or a B on their original score then that should not be reduced.
Fine, there may need to be some adjustment for pupils who have taken the wrong meaning from a question if there is agreement that the question was badly worded.
But these decisions must not be taken lightly as people's futures depend on these results.
This is unfair to that pupil but also negative to society in general if we don't get those who are best at maths into for example engineering etc.
Friday, 8 May 2015
History of Scotland Independence Voting - Lukewarm to say the least!
I can remember the Scottish Assembly referendum in 1979 under James Callaghan's Labour government. I was still at school but I can remember we had an SNP sticker on our car !
To win the vote for a Scottish Assembly :
SNP MPs then put down a motion of no confidence. And then with Leader of the Opposition, Margaret Thatcher and LibDems supporting, an Opposition motion was put down and the debate was scheduled for Wednesday, 28 March 1979. The motion moved by Margaret Thatcher MP was :
There was then the following vote, on September 11th 1997 and I was living in Perth and can remember voting at the local school. I remember voting for the Parliament but against the tax varying powers. (from the results it looks like about 200,000 agreed with me (astute people !!) :
The result was as follows :
I agree that there should be a Scottish Parliament. 1,775,045 74.3%
I do not agree that there should be a Scottish Parliament. 614,400 25.7%
I agree that a Scottish Parliament should have tax-varying powers. ,512,889 63.5%
I do not agree that a Scottish Parliament should have tax-varying powers. 870,263 36.5%
So a more resounding result but again it was only based on a 60.43 % turnout so not great for such an important issue.
In 1999 the Scottish Parliament was formed and Donald Dewar http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/345189.stm). (The new Scottish Parliament building finally opened in 2004)
of the Labour party was our first First Minster. It was a proud moment for Scotland as they marched up the Royal Mile from the Palace of Holyroodhouse to the Court of Session building. (Ref:
And then in 2014 we had the important Scottish Independence Referendum, agreed to by David Cameron.
This was a large turnout of 84.6 % and a very close result.
So....what I want to know is why do we now seem to heading towards Independence ? There has never been a vote in favour. The first vote was 32.9% of the electorate in 1979 and in 2014 we had 45% of the electorate.
Yet now in the 2015 General Election, David Cameron has used scaremongering tactics and politics of fear tactics to frame the SNP as something to fear. And this tactic has led to him being elected to "protect" the English electorate in some way. And we could well see a beginning of very extremist/ divisive politics that is not wanted by at least 50% of those in Scotland. At this 2015 election it was again 50/50.
So where do we go from here. Half the electorate in Scotland are consumed by a feverish evangelical vision of the future while the other half do not necessarily share this vision - perhaps having analysed the figures and maybe raising some questions e.g. why are college places cutback etc. But these people dare not admit their view as they will be "shouted down" by family members/work colleagues/friends. Some retain a quiet British-ness. Not the triumphalist flag waving or flag-wearing type. But the quiet type where you might not even admit it to yourself but just accept that this is how we have lived together and shared a history for the last 200 years - and its not been too bad really......
To win the vote for a Scottish Assembly :
- 50% of votes cast had to vote in favour AND at least 40% of the electorate had to vote in favour.
SNP MPs then put down a motion of no confidence. And then with Leader of the Opposition, Margaret Thatcher and LibDems supporting, an Opposition motion was put down and the debate was scheduled for Wednesday, 28 March 1979. The motion moved by Margaret Thatcher MP was :
- "That this House has no confidence in Her Majesty's Government".
"We can truly say that once the Leader of the Opposition discovered what the Liberals and the SNP would do, she found the courage of their convictions. So, tonight, the Conservative Party, which wants the Act repealed and opposes even devolution, will march through the Lobby with the SNP, which wants independence for Scotland, and with the Liberals, who want to keep the Act. What a massive display of unsullied principle! The minority parties have walked into a trap. If they win, there will be a general election. I am told that the current joke going around the House is that it is the first time in recorded history that turkeys have been known to vote for an early Christmas."The Campaign for a Scottish Assembly was formed afterwards to continue the campaign.
There was then the following vote, on September 11th 1997 and I was living in Perth and can remember voting at the local school. I remember voting for the Parliament but against the tax varying powers. (from the results it looks like about 200,000 agreed with me (astute people !!) :
The result was as follows :
I agree that there should be a Scottish Parliament. 1,775,045 74.3%
I do not agree that there should be a Scottish Parliament. 614,400 25.7%
I agree that a Scottish Parliament should have tax-varying powers. ,512,889 63.5%
I do not agree that a Scottish Parliament should have tax-varying powers. 870,263 36.5%
So a more resounding result but again it was only based on a 60.43 % turnout so not great for such an important issue.
In 1999 the Scottish Parliament was formed and Donald Dewar http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/345189.stm). (The new Scottish Parliament building finally opened in 2004)
of the Labour party was our first First Minster. It was a proud moment for Scotland as they marched up the Royal Mile from the Palace of Holyroodhouse to the Court of Session building. (Ref:
And then in 2014 we had the important Scottish Independence Referendum, agreed to by David Cameron.
This was a large turnout of 84.6 % and a very close result.
- Yes 1,617,989 No 2,001,926
So....what I want to know is why do we now seem to heading towards Independence ? There has never been a vote in favour. The first vote was 32.9% of the electorate in 1979 and in 2014 we had 45% of the electorate.
Yet now in the 2015 General Election, David Cameron has used scaremongering tactics and politics of fear tactics to frame the SNP as something to fear. And this tactic has led to him being elected to "protect" the English electorate in some way. And we could well see a beginning of very extremist/ divisive politics that is not wanted by at least 50% of those in Scotland. At this 2015 election it was again 50/50.
So where do we go from here. Half the electorate in Scotland are consumed by a feverish evangelical vision of the future while the other half do not necessarily share this vision - perhaps having analysed the figures and maybe raising some questions e.g. why are college places cutback etc. But these people dare not admit their view as they will be "shouted down" by family members/work colleagues/friends. Some retain a quiet British-ness. Not the triumphalist flag waving or flag-wearing type. But the quiet type where you might not even admit it to yourself but just accept that this is how we have lived together and shared a history for the last 200 years - and its not been too bad really......
Wednesday, 15 January 2014
Alex Salmond, Childcare and the SNP - Independent Scotland ? And a bit about David Cameron and his friends too !
I have been trying to think how best to reply to Alex Salmond's latest idea to have free universal Childcare in the new Independent Scotland.
He wants to emulate Sweden but before reading what I have to say below, read this cry for help from Sweden - http://www.barnensratt.se/index-en.htm?news-en.htm
My thoughts, as I tried to compose my letter to a newspaper are too many to include in one letter, so here are the various angles from which I view this whole issue of childcare, benefits, families etc.
1 Many people believe that it is by no means ideal for children to be placed in full time care in a nursery from the age of 1. Many parents and psychologists believe that up until the age of 3, a child should have one primary carer. Usually up until now this care has been done by the mother but many fathers now also take on this role. Interestingly it's often full time fathers who get the interviews on radio and the media publicity ! But as a full time mother myself for a few years, I did meet some full time fathers and I also met some parents who shared care by having two part time jobs or two jobs on different shift patterns.
However, leaving aside the pros and cons of nursery care vs stay at home parent, it should be recognised that families should be free to choose either option and in both cases a financial sacrifices have been made. If nursery care is chosen, up to now that has involved some financial sacrifice although it is subsidised through some benefits, but, if one parent gives up a job or goes part time to care for their own child this also involves a massive financial sacrifice and yet the latter option is not supported in the benefits system at all for either low income parents or middle income families.
And we are being encouraged to take on the Swedish system (a high tax country by the way !), but in Sweden, stay at home parents of young children receive 1/6 of the average pay to support their valid choice to stay at home. And Australia is also looking to adopt this model, partly to filll the gap in a lack of recruits to the childcare "industry".
Which takes me to another thought....it does not seem to be seen as a valid choice to look after your own children yet we expect young women (usually) to take on this role as childcare workers !
And again, this also brings to mind the annoying statement from was it George Osbourne in 2013, who stated that being a full time mother was a "lifestyle choice " - how insulting. I would invite him to watch videos of my children having a fantastic childhood - full of laughter etc and they also spent every day at toddler groups, swimming, playgroup at age 3 - tell me to my face that I made a "lifestyle choice" George !
2 The second part of this issue is that the SNP seem to see this policy's main benefit as being to generate income ! I have heard that stated a few times. However this is based on the idea that all the mothers will return to the workforce.
But....as one childcare worker is needed for every 3 or 4 children aged under 3 (see ref 1) then what I would say is why not free up that childcare worker to take a full time job and instead use the subsidised childcare money to divide between the parents of those 3 or 4 children, giving them 1/3 of a wage to stay at home. = SORTED !! And .... it would leave two extra jobs to be taken by two other people. So if you pay the subsidy to the stay at home parents, it still leaves 3 people in the workplace and 3 happy people paid to stay at home. If the nursery option is taken then you have only 4 people working and two unemployed people needing a job and needing unemployment benefit.
In Summary :
Using Nursery :
--- 3 parents return to work ----- 1 childcare worker ----- 2 unemployed people in society
Subsidising the parents instead to care for own children :
--- 3 happy parents ----------- 3 workers taking the vacated jobs from the parents
So I hate to tell you Alex Salmond and Co. - it would pay to have people look after their own children - and they would be more economically active out taking their children to swimming pools etc than sitting in an office or stuck in a nursery !
3 With Regards to Independence Debate for Scotland
With regards to the Independence debate, I am sorry that this issue has become part of the debate at all. I was all for voting for Independence. I would like Scotland to be a thriving, modern European country, fully integrated and trading in Europe. I have seen many of our modern IT and engineering/design companies which tend to be invisible generally but are tucked away in numerous business parks etc.
However the concern for many parents is actually where are our teenagers and graduates going to get work? Currently many graduates have to work abroad. And not through choice in many cases. And graduates and students are taking all the jobs in supermarkets etc and it is now almost impossible for those aged 16-18 to actually get a part time job, certainly in the Glasgow area.
4 And finally the benefits system must be changed so that family benefits come directly to families and are not tied to childcare use. The current childcare tax credits, child tax credits etc provide subsidies of up to £23,000 for nurseries for a 2 child family. Both parents must do at least 6 hours of work to get these benefits. So there is a huge pressure and a huge amount of money involved in pressuring low income mothers back to work.
But similarly at middle incomes, families where one parent earns £60,000 have now lost their one last benefit and no longer receive child benefit. The partner may either not work or may be working part time on a low income but the overall family income is not taken into account. So that anomaly is that a family on 2 x £49,000 income (ie joint income of £98,000) will keep ALL their child benefit, which amounts to about £2,000 for two children. In addition those parents have not been hit by the 40% tax rate so much AND, they receive two personal allowances. So, society has decided to reward those families. But...often the two parents on the £49,000 income are in maybe state employed secure jobs. No worries - they can get a mortgage and know they have a job for life. They can make plans !! Lucky them !!
But contrast this with the family with one parent on £60,000 - often this salary has been achieved by them working overtime, working abroad or away from home or unusual hours. You don't get a salary for that for nothing in most parts of the UK ! Maybe in certain better off areas you do but not in Scotland !! However the other side of this story is that often this entails the other partner having to reduce their hourse, take a less responsible job etc or becoming self employed and working from home. This is why there are many families with one main earner and one lesser earner. But....has David Cameron, Nick Clegg and the government taken this into account in their policies ? You got it - NO! A big fat NO.
Come on guys you must do better - did they not teach you to look at the whole picture at Eton ?!?!??
Come to think of it....what did they teach you ?
Ref 1 - https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/219660/More_20Great_20Childcare_20v2.pdf
He wants to emulate Sweden but before reading what I have to say below, read this cry for help from Sweden - http://www.barnensratt.se/index-en.htm?news-en.htm
My thoughts, as I tried to compose my letter to a newspaper are too many to include in one letter, so here are the various angles from which I view this whole issue of childcare, benefits, families etc.
1 Many people believe that it is by no means ideal for children to be placed in full time care in a nursery from the age of 1. Many parents and psychologists believe that up until the age of 3, a child should have one primary carer. Usually up until now this care has been done by the mother but many fathers now also take on this role. Interestingly it's often full time fathers who get the interviews on radio and the media publicity ! But as a full time mother myself for a few years, I did meet some full time fathers and I also met some parents who shared care by having two part time jobs or two jobs on different shift patterns.
However, leaving aside the pros and cons of nursery care vs stay at home parent, it should be recognised that families should be free to choose either option and in both cases a financial sacrifices have been made. If nursery care is chosen, up to now that has involved some financial sacrifice although it is subsidised through some benefits, but, if one parent gives up a job or goes part time to care for their own child this also involves a massive financial sacrifice and yet the latter option is not supported in the benefits system at all for either low income parents or middle income families.
And we are being encouraged to take on the Swedish system (a high tax country by the way !), but in Sweden, stay at home parents of young children receive 1/6 of the average pay to support their valid choice to stay at home. And Australia is also looking to adopt this model, partly to filll the gap in a lack of recruits to the childcare "industry".
Which takes me to another thought....it does not seem to be seen as a valid choice to look after your own children yet we expect young women (usually) to take on this role as childcare workers !
And again, this also brings to mind the annoying statement from was it George Osbourne in 2013, who stated that being a full time mother was a "lifestyle choice " - how insulting. I would invite him to watch videos of my children having a fantastic childhood - full of laughter etc and they also spent every day at toddler groups, swimming, playgroup at age 3 - tell me to my face that I made a "lifestyle choice" George !
2 The second part of this issue is that the SNP seem to see this policy's main benefit as being to generate income ! I have heard that stated a few times. However this is based on the idea that all the mothers will return to the workforce.
But....as one childcare worker is needed for every 3 or 4 children aged under 3 (see ref 1) then what I would say is why not free up that childcare worker to take a full time job and instead use the subsidised childcare money to divide between the parents of those 3 or 4 children, giving them 1/3 of a wage to stay at home. = SORTED !! And .... it would leave two extra jobs to be taken by two other people. So if you pay the subsidy to the stay at home parents, it still leaves 3 people in the workplace and 3 happy people paid to stay at home. If the nursery option is taken then you have only 4 people working and two unemployed people needing a job and needing unemployment benefit.
In Summary :
Using Nursery :
--- 3 parents return to work ----- 1 childcare worker ----- 2 unemployed people in society
Subsidising the parents instead to care for own children :
--- 3 happy parents ----------- 3 workers taking the vacated jobs from the parents
So I hate to tell you Alex Salmond and Co. - it would pay to have people look after their own children - and they would be more economically active out taking their children to swimming pools etc than sitting in an office or stuck in a nursery !
3 With Regards to Independence Debate for Scotland
With regards to the Independence debate, I am sorry that this issue has become part of the debate at all. I was all for voting for Independence. I would like Scotland to be a thriving, modern European country, fully integrated and trading in Europe. I have seen many of our modern IT and engineering/design companies which tend to be invisible generally but are tucked away in numerous business parks etc.
However the concern for many parents is actually where are our teenagers and graduates going to get work? Currently many graduates have to work abroad. And not through choice in many cases. And graduates and students are taking all the jobs in supermarkets etc and it is now almost impossible for those aged 16-18 to actually get a part time job, certainly in the Glasgow area.
4 And finally the benefits system must be changed so that family benefits come directly to families and are not tied to childcare use. The current childcare tax credits, child tax credits etc provide subsidies of up to £23,000 for nurseries for a 2 child family. Both parents must do at least 6 hours of work to get these benefits. So there is a huge pressure and a huge amount of money involved in pressuring low income mothers back to work.
But similarly at middle incomes, families where one parent earns £60,000 have now lost their one last benefit and no longer receive child benefit. The partner may either not work or may be working part time on a low income but the overall family income is not taken into account. So that anomaly is that a family on 2 x £49,000 income (ie joint income of £98,000) will keep ALL their child benefit, which amounts to about £2,000 for two children. In addition those parents have not been hit by the 40% tax rate so much AND, they receive two personal allowances. So, society has decided to reward those families. But...often the two parents on the £49,000 income are in maybe state employed secure jobs. No worries - they can get a mortgage and know they have a job for life. They can make plans !! Lucky them !!
But contrast this with the family with one parent on £60,000 - often this salary has been achieved by them working overtime, working abroad or away from home or unusual hours. You don't get a salary for that for nothing in most parts of the UK ! Maybe in certain better off areas you do but not in Scotland !! However the other side of this story is that often this entails the other partner having to reduce their hourse, take a less responsible job etc or becoming self employed and working from home. This is why there are many families with one main earner and one lesser earner. But....has David Cameron, Nick Clegg and the government taken this into account in their policies ? You got it - NO! A big fat NO.
Come on guys you must do better - did they not teach you to look at the whole picture at Eton ?!?!??
Come to think of it....what did they teach you ?
Ref 1 - https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/219660/More_20Great_20Childcare_20v2.pdf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)