BOM's old friend Rockin' Al Johnson has finally made the big-time. He's got his own rock show on the BBC. Even better, you're paying for it.
OK, it's called Alan Johnson: Failed Rock Star, but at least he's up there in the limelight, grooving alongside such all-time greats as the Merseybeats (pic). And as he cheerfully admits, if only he'd made it first time around back in the swingin' 60s, he need never have settled for politics to get the attention he craves.
And he's not the only one - from Bliar down, stacks of NuLab's ministers went into politics only after they'd bombed as rock gods. Even now, given half a chance to join the Merseybeats, most would drop their current has-been minister jobs like a shot.
Tyler was reminded of this on Wednesday afternoon strolling along a sunlit side-street in Westminster. Coming the other way were the Blues Brothers - stylish sunglasses, linen suits, hand clappin, foot stompin, funky-butt ... podgy. Obviously they were jive talkin', but as they passed, Tyler managed to catch a word. It began with eff and ended in ucking. At which point Tyler recognised disgraced Brown spinner Charles Whelan and disgraced Brown enforcer Nick Brown, making their way back from some lunchtime gig in a karaoke bar.
The thing is, rule by failed rock star turned out to be a great gig for those doing the ruling, but not quite so great for rest of us. If only Al had made it in the 60s, he need never have ended up floundering around as Home Secretary, or "at the helm" of the NHS or our social security system.
The man now at the helm of our nightmarish £200bn pa social security system is most assuredly not the rock star type. The one time he tried his hand in showbiz, his performance was devastatingly mocked by one critic as "the Walmington-on-Sea amateur dramatic society does Henry V". There's no way he'll ever be invited to join the Merseys.
Yet, as we saw once again yesterday, this self-styled Quiet Man of British politics is actually the one who looks like finally gripping the crippling inconsistencies and contradictions at the heart of our welfare system.
The most difficult question there, of course, is the one we blogged several times last week (eg here and here), and the one we investigated for the TPA's new paper Welfare reform in tough fiscal times. How do we make sure work pays for the near 6m working-age poor who currently depend entirely on welfare? And even more difficult, how do we do it now that the failed rock stars have blown all the bread?
As IDS spelled out once again in yesterday's consulation paper, after 60 years of our gargantuan welfare state, Britain's workless poor face a welfare trap of life-mangling proportions.
The paper contains the following chart, showing how the trap works for a couple with a single earner on the Minimum Wage, and two children. The family can certainly increase its net income (vertical axis) as the earner works more hours (horizontal axis), but only by a horribly small amount (ignore all the various bands in the chart - they simply show how the various benefits taper away as the family's own earnings increase: focus on the top line which shows how net income increases as hours of work increase):
This means "that someone at the National Minimum Wage would be less than £7 per week better off if they worked [up to]16 extra hours and earned an extra £92 (an effective wage rate of 44p per hour)". It also means that he faces "a Marginal Deduction Rate of 95.5 per cent on earnings between £126 and £218".
As the report puts it, "a system that produces this result cannot be right".
So what's to be done? The report offers three possible approaches:
A Universal Credit - all existing benefits abolished and combined into one simple to understand and administer universal benefit.
A Single Unified Taper - retains the existing range of individual benefits but "withdrawal would be through a taper that would be applied to their overall benefit eligibility, rather than the individual benefits as is currently the case".
Single benefit/negative income tax model - as recommended by the TPA (marking the very first time ever a TPA policy proposal has been explicitly picked up in an official government publication - hurrah!)
We can only welcome IDS's boldness and give him every support.
True, his paper does not mention the other key aspect of the TPA proposal - ie the need to fund these reforms by lowering the poverty line - but we can work on that.
The main thing is that after all the opportunities wasted by those wannabe rock stars, we finally have a government that has the guts not only to think the unthinkable, but also to do it.
We hope.
PS So who is ultimately responsible for the fact that we ended up being ruled by fourth rate rock stars? Fundamentally you've got to blame these guys:
Their intoxicating combination of teen beat and cocking a snook at authority changed the world for people like Rockin' Al. As he says "everything changed and changed forever at the dawn of civilisation - the arrival of The Beatles... I used to try to model myself on Paul McCartney." No wonder he ended up in Bliar's government.
And while we're on the subject, Mrs T has been scouring the darkest recesses of the Tyler attic (filthy dirty, covered in cobwebs... but she's good with the kids). As we've certainly mentioned before, at about the time J Lennon was asking the Queen Mum to rattle her jewelry on live TV, Mrs T was bunking off school to visit the Fab Four in their Surrey mansions. In those days, it was nothing for 13 year old convent girls of a certain disposition to bunk off, hitch a ride, and knock on George Harrison's front door. And Mrs T has the snaps to prove it. Well, that is, she has the snaps somewhere. But unlike the granny who's flogging hers next week, Mrs T hasn't found a single one. Bah!
When I was a little girl, my mum would sign me up for piano, art, dance and many others like any Singaporean parent would. Every parent wants the best for their children; I suppose she was trying to nurture some kind of talent in me.
I couldn’t be cultivated to be a musician. My music teacher kept knocking my head with his knuckles and called me Stupid. He also has cigarette breath and coughed so much, my mum fears he has TB. So I stopped learning, I didn’t even get any grade.
I couldn’t be cultivated to be an artist. Although I like art, I am neither patient nor neat. I’m just OK with art, but not exceptionally good. Still, my mum was proud of me and framed my stick figures.
I couldn’t be cultivated to be a dancer. Dance was not my passion (and I regret it now) either, as my dance teacher would complain to my mum that I’m such a lazy arse. I was enrolled in Chinese dance and I just wasn’t very interested in twirling cloths and fans, with a plastered smile with bright red lipstick.
I suspect my mum was trying to attain her aspirations through me. Things that has passed her age, things she’s always wanted to do but didn’t. Although a parent shouldn’t pressure a child into doing something that she doesn’t enjoy, I do think a parent should be the guide who helps a child realize her talent.
I wasn’t nurtured to be public speaker, I think I was born with a talented mouth (*wink*).
If my mum hadn’t signed me up for so many story-telling competitions….I wouldn’t have got over my stage fright and cultivated a skill where I can host on stage, give speeches and many more.
I never would have imagined I can be a Judo champion if not for my father who believed I should join the BEST extra curriculum activity in school. I still don’t think I have a talent in martial arts. I was simply TOO AFRAID TO BE DISFIGURED. There are parents who are overly enthusiastic on nurturing their child instead of allowing them to discover themselves, and there are parents who are too laid back that their child grows up with no focus and passion.
Mothers also like dolling their daughters up. It’s like a mini-me you see. They take pride when a stranger praises how pretty or how cute their child is. My mum gave up dolling me up because I was such a tom boy. I got into fights with boys instead of playing Barbie and House. Lace socks and lace skirts itches me, and if I had to wear them, I would lift my skirt up before I sit down. Just so the cool bench can touch my humid skin. My mum found that terribly un-ladylike so she resigns to getting me shorts that looked like skirts.
She did not buy me any fancy bags or cute shoes. Only on holidays, then will she buy me the occasional girlie trinklet. I like dolphins a lot when I was younger (because I imagined myself to be The Little Mermaid), so I had dolphin t-shirts, dolphin necklace, dolphin bracelets. I hate anything pink.
So I wasn’t nurtured into being a pageant runner. I found that out myself because I just like doing things different, collecting experiences and let’s face it, I WANT THE CASH PRIZE!!
Some other girls have other reasons....like....have courting Andy Lau (video in Mandarin, translation below.) She looked so emotional after her declaration, i wonder if Andy Lau was moved. The host also very sarcastic lah, so mean..make fun of people in a not-so-obvious way. I like! hahaha.
Host: “We have the next contestant to go up the stage. This contestant also has a story that people do not know yet. Please walk the runway.” Host: “There is a great idol in her heart. That is Andy Lau. She kept herself as pure as jade for him, participating in various beauty contests, she decided that she must let Andy Lau see her in order to achieve her dream.”
Contestant: “Hi everyone…”
Host: “Let me adjust the microphone for you. Ok please introduce yourself.”
Contestant: “Hi everyone, I am … Yanghong from Hubei. Appreciate the host giving me this opportunity. I want to tell everyone, I love you Andy Lau. I am in love with you for 20 years. I kept myself pure, I want you to be my man and lover, never get married till old and death, only you. I waited for you for 20 years. Thank you TVS New Silk Road Model Contest, thank you.”
Judge number 1: “From my experience I think her height is about 1.58 meters. I am only interested in people who are taller than 1.68 meters. I am not even going to look at people who are shorter than 1.68 meters.”
Host: “Is Andy Lau interested in people who are shorter than 1.68 meters?”
Judge number 2: “Everyone has their own idols however the idol also does not want his fans to be so far off from him. Andy Lau generally represents ‘sunshine’ kind of products. Right now you want Andy Lau too much, and in a depressed mood. Even if Andy Lau saw you he would not be happy. I hope you can be happier in your life and keep your dream and your idol at the bottom of your heart to encourage yourself. You are very brave that we all can agree…”
Host: “I think your courage is worth everyone to admire. I know Andy Lau watches TVS. If he ever watches this contest and sees you, maybe there is a slight hope. I think everyone is living for this dream and we all admire this contestant. Everyone please applause for encouragement. Thank you for joining us at the TVS New Silk Road Model Cont, thank you.” Translated by www.chinahush.com
Alamak,i think the above video from Youku don't embed quite properly. Here's the link if you understand mandarin. Here's the screen grab if you're too lazy but want to know how she looks. (all so KPO right!LOL)
My first contest was NOKIA Engage. I can't rememebr what they were looking for. A promotional gimmick for the launch of their gaming phone.
The finals was at Junction 8, ddin't get anything out of it except for a free set of clothes (which we wear on stage) by Bods Bodynits.I'm the one croching in the middle, with black tank top.
The winner was the girl standing beside the girl showing off her armpit.
I styled myself leh! Since it's a gaming phone, i wanted to represent Lara Croft. Guess that wasn't enough to win me the title.
Then it was Ralph Lauren Cool Girl. ANOTHER marketing gimmick by the brand in search for an ambassador. Wannabes joined. I wasn't born tall, so i'm afraid this is the kind of contest standards i can get myself into.
There is a dance item where we practiced for. We got this outfit for free too, from cheapo This Fashion.
I wasn't the prettiest, i wasn't the most enthusiastic nor the most hardworking memorizing dance steps and Q&A answers. Many other girls wanted the crown alot more. I just went for....*shrug* i really don't know. It's not true that pageant girls are bitchy or selfish. Most are nice, regular girls but in every contest, consciously or not, ontestants will have their own strategies (be very friendly, and get everyone to like you and therefore it becomes your advantage) in winning.
I just went...and be myself. Which won me the crown! Which was really amazing. My moment of glory. Never thought i'd win anything.
But hor, the company very smart. The prizes i got in the end just turns back into publicity for them. I got a $2000 fragrance hamper (how i wish it was cash!), a 8 Days magazine shoot (which turned out very ugly in my opinion. Got a free bikini (from Isetan, $69 but really looked like This Fashion bikini), a Miss Sixty wrap skirt (but NOT my size!Keep already also no use, can't wear out. Only wear for shoot), and a cardboard (if only that surfboard was real).
Oh, and i also went on 98.7FM.
While you're a student, you should join these contests if it's your thing. They all need some level of commitment, so having that flexi schedule is handy.
My first pageant was Miss Singapore International. It's not as widely publicized as Miss Universe or Miss World, but it still has the name Singapore in it! Then, i was still a student and I love travelling. I wanted to go somewhere based on my own capability and not of my parents'. So i thought if i win, i can represent Singapore and at the same time go on a FREE holiday!
We all had the same UGLY SQ bun except for the last girl, who happens to be the Queen too (she had her hair down). I'm not sure if that's favouritism, but i'll give the benefit of the doubt that by the time it reached her turn, the hair stylist had NO TIME! But the Queen deserves her spot. She has the looks and brains. Also the most poised, AND TALLEST too. At this point, a giraffe comes into mind.
Don't remember much freebies, except a pair of Nu Balance shoes, and this PE attire (which is REALLY funny for us to be dancing in).
Oh, and this Arena swimsuit and a pair of sunglasses which my brother said made his head swim because of the fish bowl effect. AND a pair of glitzy heels, Charles and Keith i think.
I thought that would be my last, i was getting tired of the airy-fairy business. Until i saw Brands Beauty Star and my eyes lit up. This, by far WAS THE BEST PAGEANT I ever joined! Everyone was already a winner, seriously. We had weekends filled with LUXURIOUS activities leading up to the grand finals in BALI! The product was Brand's Bird Nest and it was just another promotional tool. I wasn't quite sure if they met their marketing objectives (because it was really just the 7 of us benefitting from it, and there wasn't media publicity), but it sure met mine!!
The first weekend, we went on a catered yatch with food from Ill Lido and attended a workshop on deportment and imaging. The next weekend, we went to Changi Village hotel for buffet lunch, yoga workshop AND a 90 minutes SPA!!
The final weekend, we went on our all-expenses paid trip to Bali!
We were taken sight-seeing in Bali, and pampered in the 6 stars Intercontinental hotel. We each had our own spacious suite, it was an awesome virgin trip!
The winner was the lady in purple. A 38 year old mother. This was a more mature contest that had girls of all ages, it was alot more fun hanging out with these girls who weren't focused on winning. They were alot more sincere and real. It was as if we were living out of the SATC movie! Girlfriends, free holidays, glitzy fashion...
I didn't win the cash prize and a year supply of bird's nest, but like i said..already a winner with all the freebies!
Don't think they did it a second time round, too expensive! LOL. From a marketing point of view, i don't think it justifies the returns except that if the 7 of us were to ever buy bird's nest, we'll buy Brands? :P
Last year, i was nominated as FHM GND Top 100 which later i was offered Top 10 but i declined. I was the ONLY one on stage with my tummy covered. Like I said, be yourself. Last year, the competition didn't have the $10,000 bounty nor a car. So i decided it's not worth to strip.
My parents didn’t know that I entered some of these contests. I certainly did not want to give people the impression that I was a vain pot or a desperate wannabe which many people might judge pageant runners to be. Some of these perceptions are right, but you can’t say everyone is the same. Having my fair share of pageant experiences, I wouldn’t discourage my daughter from participating. On one condition, she has to be over 18.
I’ve seen mothers who dye their baby girl’s hair, style their baby boy with a Mohawk and even paint their nails. I wouldn’t want to expose them to chemicals at such a young age. At a young age, they’re easily influenced and impressionable that they might not know or truly understand the right values and morals.
I would have my child in such make-over pictures. Although it borderlines on being adult...
See the similarities? But i won't have my child in such make-over pictures...
Nor take Toddler's Pageant so seriously and as a full-time job.
This is a better documentary but embedding is disabled.
I'm not judging and i'd say each to her own, but the first thing that came to my mind was these overweight American mums want their daughters to live out their aspirations!
Quote worthy by one of the toddler's dads "THEY LOOK LIKE MIDGET PROSTITUTES!"
Tyler recently attended another Westminster seminar on localism. You know, that's everyone's great idea for extracting more value from public services by running them locally rather than from Whitehall.
Like most such seminars, it was attended by a mix of civil servants, quangocrats, local government people, think tankers, private contractors, consultants, and various hangers-on like Tyler. In other words, it overwhelmingly comprised people who in one way or another are paid from the public purse (not, it should be stressed, Tyler).
All - well, pretty well all - were agreed that we must have more localism. After all, we currently have the most centralised system of government in any of the major developed economies, and that can't be right (see many previous posts eg here). Localism rocks.
But alas, the attendees could see problems. Very serious problems.
First, there's the issue of the locals themselves. I mean, have you ever actually met the locals? My dear! How can you possibly have localism when the locals are a bunch of fascists and/or idiots? How can they be trusted to do The Right Thing - ie the thing the people around the seminar table want done? There will clearly need be national guidelines and service standards, and locals certainly couldn't be trusted with say, setting their own welfare standards. Why, they might not take proper account of the European Decency Threshold. They might even revert to workhouses!
Second, there's the issue of capacity. Even if they were given more power over things like welfare, local councils just don't have the capacity to take on the job. Frankly, sweeping the streets and emptying the bins already stretches their meagre abilities to breaking point, and we need hardly dwell on the Baby P area.
Third, there's the closely related issue of infantalisation. Local councils themselves are fully aware of their own lack of capacity, and frankly they like it that way. They simply don't have the confidence and maturity to take on more challenging tasks. Mummy's apron strings offer a far safer and easier life.
Fourth, we could end up with a postcode lottery. A postcode lottery! Some councils might decide to provide different services to others, and then where would we be? Although it must be said that argument did take a bit of a hit when one speaker pointed out we already have a postcode lottery in much service provision - one often caused by administrative accident rather than deliberate policy.
Fifth, it would be expensive. No economies of scale, you see. All those little councils running their own separate little services, rather than relying on the super-efficient national services we currently enjoy. Er, yes... that argument also took a bit of a hit in subsequent discussion.
Sixth, few people out there among the locals actually seems to want it. The natives are not revolting. They are not manning the barricades demanding to be free. And stuffing localism down the unwilling throats of the apathetic locals sounds like a surefire recipe for disaster.
And you know, we've got some sympathy with many of those points - especially the last one.
We have long been strongly in favour of more localism, but it must be admitted that most people round our way don't actually want the council to have more power. True, the rubbish collection seems to work tolerably well, but that's long since been contracted out. Beyond that, people generally have very little confidence in the ability and judgement of the local council. There is no clamour whatsoever to give it more power, and precious little interest in who gets elected as councillors.
And Tyler himself has a pretty hypocritical attitude on this. He may be a big supporter of localism, but when he's actually been approached to stand for the council (there's a local recruitment drive going on right now), he's declined. He believes it would be a pretty thankless task, with no end of brickbats but precious little actual power. Responsibility without power - the classic meat in the sandwich between Whitehall and the angry citizens.
You see, at root, what we have here are our old friends Mr Chicken and Mr Egg.
Councils have lost confidence and capacity because over the last half century they've been gradually stripped of their traditional power and responsibility. They've come to rely on Whitehall for the vast bulk of their cash, and they therefore have to take instructions direct from Whitehall, rather than deciding things for themselves. Is it any wonder it's difficult to persuade people to stand for the council?
So now we face the prospect of localising control into the hands of our weak councils - quite a scary prospect. Yet if we don't do that, we will never start to rebuild all those capacities we've lost. We won't get the chicken unless we take a chance on the egg.
And what is the key step we need to take? As regular readers will know, we have long argued for fiscal decentralisation. Indeed we've even written research notes on the subject (eg see here).
What it means is that we need to go much further than simply have Whitehall hand over an even bigger pot of cash to our councils. What it means more than anything is making councils responsible for raising a much larger slice of their own cash for themselves from local taxpayers. We need to reverse the pattern of finance at least back to what it was before the terrible Wislon started the destruction of our local authorities in the 60s:
If once again, local councils were responsible for raising half their funding direct from local taxpayers, that would concentrate local minds wonderfully. Suddenly it would matter a whole lot who was running the town hall. People like Tyler would have a real incentive to get involved, and what's more, election to the council would never be a shoo-in.
If we are genuinely serious about localism, step one is the decentralise the tax system. Taxes always have been and always will be the key to local engagement.
Can anyone be any more obvious?? While we were on shoot, a green saloon car drove past and then REVERSED back to check us out. Male driver, nonetheless.
As you will know, the man now in charge of Britain's energy supplies is one of our most notorious eco-hippies. But since we can't improve on Christopher Booker's brilliant Huhne demolition we needn't go on about that.
What we'd really like to know is when can we stop digging the huge black eco hole our grandstanding politicos have dumped us into?
We all surely understand the score by now. Our political class have presented us with a cataclysmic energy gap in the shape of closing coal-fired power stations with no practical replacement available. Common sense says we'd better delay the closures as long as technically possible, crack on with the new nukes for the long-term, and build a few Chinese style coal-fired stations for the short-term. Either that, or watch the few remaining bits of British industry leave for places that can still supply power... like China.
Some of us had somehow hoped that the new government would return us to sanity, despite Cam's personal wind turbine. But no such luck. Huhne is quite happy to continue digging just where the last lot left off, boasting yesterday:
"Britain is the first country in the world to set legally binding ‘carbon budgets’, aiming to cut UK emissions by 34% by 2020 and at least 80% by 2050 through investment in energy efficiency and clean energy technologies such as renewables, nuclear and carbon capture and storage."
Look, out here, we don't want to be the first (ie the only) country in the world to dig our own economic grave, thank you very much.
But at least the costs of this madness are now becoming apparent to everyone. Even Huhne's department admits that everyone's domestic fuel bills are set to rack up substantially. Over the next decade, they expect
"The impact of climate change and energy policies on energy prices [will be to increase them by] 18% and 33% on gas and electricity prices respectively for domestic consumers and 24% and 43% respectively, for medium-sized nondomestic consumers."
Which for an average UK household translates into an annual increase of around £300. And for a typical small manufacturing firm will likely be the straw that breaks them.
According to the department of course, it won't be like that. That's because we'll all cut our energy consumption to offset the increase in prices. So we'll all be just as well off, but the planet will be that much greener (reality check - a 25% cut in our total energy consumption would reduce global greenhouse gas emissions by at the very most 0.5%... and that's assuming we don't simply export our remaining CO2 generating industries to China, which is what actually happens in the real world).
So the question is when will our anger at rising energy prices mount sufficiently to force a halt to the digging?
Step one is to make sure everyone understands just what it's costing us all. Step two will doubtless take care of itself when the lights start going out later this decade.
PS Hilarious contrast between the BBC/C4 coverage of the current US defence leak and the Climategate leak. Whereas the leaker/hacker responsible for the Climategate leak was branded a sneaky criminal - or possibly Russian black ops - the leakers of the defence material have been presented as courageous heroes. Yesterday's Newsnight featured Kirstie positively drooling over the Wikileaks man, even asking if he was Jason Bourne.
I got the tickets from Omy.sg for the preview of Aftershock. Saw a lot of Mediacorp celebrities and they’re just as cheapskate as I am, going for free movies. Or maybe it’s an educational screening. They get to observe and learn how to cry convincingly, mucus and all.
There’re a few genres that Asian movie making is better than Hollywood.
1) Kung Fu (for obvious reasons) 2) Horror (asian ghost are just A LOT scarier than the ang moh ones) 3) Disaster (although their CGI cannot be compared to the Westerners technology)
Aftershock is NOT another disaster flick (2012 was an utter disappointment), it is about what comes after. The drama between a mother and her daughter. Based on the tragic true story of 1976 Tangshan earthquake. This was the largest earthquake of the 20th century, killing 240,000 people and injuring 164,000.
The first drop of tear rolled when I felt SO GRATEFUL that I am born in Singapore. A place free from natural disasters, how lucky I am to be born here. Singaporeans should stop complaining about Singapore being boring, so-and-so is not doing a good job etc etc. Look, we can walk on the streets safely after 10pm, we remain ignorant as to what to do in emergencies, we have a well-connected transport system, there’s so many other reasons I love Singapore for!
It took decades for Tangshan to rebuilt itself after the disaster. Till today, locals who have loved ones lost in the earthquake still mourns for them at the memorial. A friend from China revealed that there were TOO MANYdead bodies to excavate in the recent Sze Chuan earthquake that the government now build OVER these dead bodies. If you were to stand afar on a hill top, you can see the uneven grounds, a chill washes over you.
The second tear rolled when I felt ASHAMED that I haven’t done enough to help the less fortunate. Many years ago, I remembering writing here on this blog that I vow to put in at least $2 every time I pass by a student asking for donation. I did that for a while, and then I became a miser and started waving them off, avoiding their path, dodging them even. Especially when I am eyeing for another new dress or pair of shoes. I am fortunate to be blessed with my limbs intact, my senses working. I am blessed to have a job, a happy family and money to indulge in occasional luxuries. What is $2 every once in awhile I encountered those tin cans on the street? So many people walk pass them, dodging like I did. Imagine when an earthquake happens with no warning, you could be bathing, or you could be sleeping naked. What is a new dress (when i have plenty) compared to someone else who has none? Some people second guess the funds end point of how it will be utilized. But does it really matter? What if it DOES go to the beneficiary in question? I’m not suggesting that you be fool hardy, there are conmen out there who makes use of a human’s good nature. But that shouldn’t deter you from making any donation.
The third tear rolled when the mother in Aftershock was informed by the rescue team that, as her 7-year old twins are buried under the debris close to each other, digging one out would result in further collapse of the wreckage on the other, she is forced to make the most difficult decision of her life. As the clock ticked away, she finally ended her struggle and chose to save the boy. The mother shamefully whispered to save the boy, but still, the girl overheard. Sons are valued in the Chinese culture. The boy carries the family name, whilst the daughter is seen to be given away when she marries.
Being Chinese myself, it has created much pain and hurt during my childhood. My parents weren’t staunch in following their Chinese culture and provided me with the best they could. However, many times I felt my mum favoured my brothers more than me in our childhood. They had chicken drumsticks, while I had none. They had their school shoes washed for them, yet I washed my own. They did no household chores, while I did all. They got what they want, while I had to work for what I want. My mum often said when I protest the unfairness, “You ARE THE GIRL. That’s why.”
Now that I’ve grown up, I am thankful for the discipline. It has made me stronger, independent and capable. I can cook, clean and do a whole lot more. Besides, being a girl has its advantages. Don't have to pay for the man on dates!My mother has realised her mistake in inequality and it creates hurt whenever I remind her in anger of my childhood. So my tears rolled when the mother in Aftershock chose the son over the daughter. Although it doesn’t mean she loved the daughter ANY LESS.
The flood gates finally opened towards the end of the movie. When the daughter reunites with her family after holding the grudge for 32 years. I believe it’s something that I have to seek as well.
Strength, courage and forgiveness.
P.S Wear waterproof mascara or risk coming out like a Panda. P.P.S Not only will there be waterworks, there'll be water of another sort too. So do empty your bladder as it's a rather long film.
Something must be done, and it was... the trouble is it's since been overdone
Once upon a time, long long ago, welfare was paid to the poor. And only to the poor.
But these days, welfare is paid to pretty well everybody. Even Jonathan Ross and those plutocrats on the Wharf get welfare. It doesn't matter how rich you are, there'll usually be some way of getting your snout into the welfare trough. From Child Benefit, to free bus passes, to the winter fuel allowance, the opportunities are there. If you want some, you can get some.
We've been reminded of this by reaction to last week's TPA report on welfare reform (see below). It's been pointed out that the TPA's proposal to redefine the poverty line - lowering it from 60% of median income to 50% - would remove welfare support from families who, while not poor, would lose a substantial chunk of their current welfare income.
Let's leave pensioner households out of it (as we did in the TPA report), and focus on non-retired households. The ONS figures show that households on around median incomes (gross incomes of £32-35k pa) on average get well over £3,000 pa in cash benefits. A 10% top-up to their own not insubstantial incomes from welfare benefits, including Child Benefit and Brown's various tax credits.
And here's how it looks across the entire income distribution (non-retired households only - excluding pensioner households):
So as we can see, under our current welfare system, even the richest 10% of households, with average gross incomes in excess of £100 grand pa, still get welfare - in their case averaging £1300 pa.
On what possible basis can that make sense?
The alarming and unpalatable truth is that after 60 years of the welfare state, pretty well all of us have ended up on welfare.
It's no way to run a 21st century economy, already burdened with a massive fiscal crisis, and facing a competitive onslaught from the East.
Picking up from the TPA report on welfare reform, we argued that the official definition of the poverty line should be cut from 60% of median income to 50%. We calculate that would save £20-30bn pa in welfare costs currently spent on the able-bodied working age poor, money that could be better spent making work pay (ie reducing the scandalously high effective marginal tax rates faced by the working poor). As far as we can see, that is the only realistic and affordable option for reforming the current iniquitous system that traps so many millions on welfare.
"If you’re the Taxpayers’ Alliance, the way to cut the gordian knot of Welfare reform without spending any money seems to be to redfine poverty to a much lower level, reduce support for those a little above that level, and abandon pretty much all support for those on medium-low incomes.
In other words, if you’re near the current definition of poverty, struggling to get by, and find tax credits and child benefit and income support useful- Watch out. They’re coming to get you."
We've posted a full response to Sen on the TPA site, including the fact that he and the left offer no affordable alternative for reforming our current shambolic and dysfunctional system. But there's one point that it's worth amplifying here.
As things stand, the official poverty line is benchmarked off a median income figure that includes existing welfare benefits. And Sen reckons it ought to stay that way.
We reckon that's wrong. The reason is that it's a circular calculation. It means that both median income and the poverty line are artificially inflated by the welfare system itself. The system ends up chasing its own tail towards ever higher costs and an ever worse welfare trap.
This highlights a key difference between us and the left on welfare. Whereas the left see welfare as a tool for compressing income relativities throughout the income range, we believe that for able-bodied adults of working age, welfare payments should, in principle, be confined to a safety net, designed to relieve absolute poverty among those towards the bottom.
Paying income support to those who are at or around median incomes means paying them with one hand and taxing it back with the other. Which is not only administratively expensive and wasteful (we have previously estimated the cost of this so-called fiscal churn at at £5-6bn pa), but it is also certain to distort the way people choose to work, and to spend their own earnings.
The dispute over the definition of poverty goes back half a century. That's when the left dreamed up their definition of poverty as a relative concept. They have since argued that welfare should focus on relative income distribution, and they have prevailed, which is how we ended up with the current official definition of the poverty line at 60% of median income.
But that's not what most of us actually think of as poverty, which tends to focus on not having enough food, or a roof over your head, etc. That is the traditional definition of poverty, known as absolute poverty, and in principle, it is the approach we favour. Which is why in Appendix C of our paper we recommend that the Department for Work and Pensions conduct some proper analysis in this area and publish a measure of absolute poverty, comparable to the one produced by the US Census Bureau.
Meanwhile, Labour have left us with a gigantic unaffordable mess, in which welfare is paid not just to the genuinely poor, but also middle income earners, and in some cases all the way up the income distribution - as noted above.
*****
What exactly is a negative income tax?
As you will recall, the TPA welfare reform calls for the scrapping of a slew of existing benefits and their replacement with a single negative income tax (NIT). But no less a person than the Devil himself has since asked us to explain exactly what the devil a NIT actually is. So here goes.
The NIT is an idea atrributed by many to the late great Milt. It's easiest to think of it as a particular kind of means tested welfare benefit. All households are guaranteed a certain minimum income paid to them by the government, whether or not they have any income of their own. But instead of being paid through a separate benefits agency, this one is paid by the tax authority. So it ought to be a lot cheaper to administer. And it ought to make it easy for poor households to increase their own earnings without constantly worrying about how that might impact their benefit entitlements and their net incomes.
Each household is assessed for eligibility on its gross income, much as current income taxes are assessed. Households with no other income get paid the maximum possible amount for their type and size of household (eg more children generally means more cash). And that is paid by the tax authority as a negative income tax - ie instead of money being deducted from their pay packet, a payment is made directly to the family.
Households with some income of their own get scaled back from the maximum, according to an agreed and explicit "taper rate". And depending on the taper rate, at some level of own income, households lose all entitlement to a negative income tax payment.
Now, Milt's original proposal envisaged that the taper rate would be the same as the standard rate of income tax. So as a household's own income increased, their negative income tax receipt would run smoothly into an income tax payment - they'd hardly notice the join, and the whole scheme would be very cheap to administer. In fact, in its simplest form, the NIT idea has often been combined with a flat tax - ie a single rate of income tax no matter how high your income. As in this neat chart:
Unfortunately, given the existing level of welfare benefits a NIT will have to replace, such simplicity is not currently an affordable option. Which is why the TPA proposal envisages a taper rate for the NIT at 55%, rather than the 31% standard rate of income tax plus National Insurance.
Shannon the Secretary has lost her cat and has asked David the Graphic Designer to help with a ‘lost cat’ poster. This is their email correspondence…
From: Shannon Walkley
Date: Monday 21 June 2010 9.15am
To: David Thorne
Subject: Poster
Hi
I opened the screen door yesterday and my cat got out and has been missing since then so I was wondering if you are not to busy you could make a poster for me. It has to be A4 and I will photocopy it and put it around my suburb this afternoon.
This is the only photo of her I have she answers to the name Missy and is black and white and about 8 months old. missing on Harper street and my phone number. Thanks Shan.
From: Shannon Walkley
Date: Monday 21 June 2010 9.37am
To: David Thorne
Subject: Re: Re: Poster
yeah ok thanks. I know you dont like cats but I am really worried about mine. I have to leave at 1pm today.
From: David Thorne
Date: Monday 21 June 2010 10.17am
To: Shannon Walkley
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Poster
Dear Shannon,
I never said I don’t like cats. Attached poster as requested.
Regards, David.
From: Shannon Walkley
Date: Monday 21 June 2010 10.24am
To: David Thorne
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Poster
yeah thats not what I was looking for at all. it looks like a movie and how come the photo of Missy is so small?
From: David Thorne
Date: Monday 21 June 2010 10.28am
To: Shannon Walkley
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Poster
Dear Shannon,
It’s a design thing. The cat is lost in the negative space.
Regards, David.
From: Shannon Walkley
Date: Monday 21 June 2010 10.33am To: David Thorne
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Poster
That’s just stupid. Can you do it properly please? I am extremely emotional over this and was up all night in tears. you seem to think it is funny. Can you make the photo bigger please and fix the text and do it in colour please. Thanks.
From: David Thorne Date: Monday 21 June 2010 10.46am
To: Shannon Walkley
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Poster
Dear Shannon,
Having worked with designers for a few years now, I would have assumed you understood, despite our vague suggestions otherwise, we do not welcome constructive criticism. I don’t come downstairs and tell you how to send text messages, log onto Facebook and look out of the window. I have amended and attached the poster as per your instructions.
Regards, David.
From: Shannon Walkley
Date: Monday 21 June 2010 10.59am
To: David Thorne
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Poster
This is worse than the other one. can you make it so it shows the whole photo of Missy and delete the stupid text that says missing missy off it? I just want it to say Lost.
From: David Thorne Date: Monday 21 June 2010 11.14am
To: Shannon Walkley
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Poster
From: Shannon Walkley Date: Mon! day 21 June 2010 11.21am
yeah can you do the poster or not? I just want a photo and the word lost and the telephone number and when and where she was lost and her name. Not like a movie poster or anything stupid. I have to leave early today. If it was your cat I would help you. Thanks.
From: David Thorne Date: Monday 21 June 2010 11.32am To: Shannon Walkley
Subject: Awww
Dear Shannon,
I don’t have a cat. I once agreed to look after a friend’s cat for a week but only after he dropped it off at my apartment and explained the concept of kitty litter. I have att ached the amended version of your poster as per your detailed instructions.
Regards, David.
From: Shannon Walkley
Date: Monday 21 June 2010 11.47am
To: David Thorne
Subject: Re: Awww
Thats not my cat. where did you get that picture from? That cat is orange. I gave you a photo of my cat.
From: David Thorne
Date: Monday 21 June 2010 11.58am
To: Shannon Walkley
Subject: Re! : Re: Awww
I know, but that one is cute. As Missy has quite possibly met any one of several violent ends, it is possible you might get a better cat out of this. If anybody calls and says “I haven’t seen your orange cat but I did find a black and white one with its hind legs run over by a car, do you want it?” you can politely decline and save yourself a costly veterinarian bill.
Regards, David.
From: Shannon Walkley
Date: Monday 21 June 2010 12.07pm
To: David Thorne
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Awww
Please just use the photo I gave you.
From: David Thorne
Date: Monday 21 June 2010 12.22pm To: Shannon Walkley
Sub! ject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Awww
From: Shannon Walkley Date: Monday 21 June 2010 12.34pm
To: David Thorne
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Awww
I didnt say there was a reward. I dont have $2000 dollars. What did you even put that there for? Apart from that it is perfect can you please remove the reward bit. Thanks Shan.
From: David Thorne Date: Monday 21 June 2010 12.42pm
To: Shannon Walkley
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Awww
From: Shannon Walkley
Date: Monday 21 June 2010 12.51pm
To: David Thorne
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Awww
Can you just please take the reward bit off altogether? I have to leave in ten minutes and I still have to make photocopies of it.
