A FAMILY CHRISTMAS 1956

The story below is a copy of my December 2014 ~ January 2015 Pensioners Platform column in the Torbay Times newspaper:-

Happy Christmas One and All

DESPITE the troubles in Europe and the Middle East during the last few weeks of 1956, life in austere, post-World War II Britain carried-on regardless. I had just turned ten years old in early October 1956 when an insurrection in Budapest, Hungary suddenly became a global flash point. Less than one week later, Israeli forces invaded Egypt and, after five days’ fighting, Israel controlled the Sinai Peninsula.

In the days that followed, the public unrest in Budapest spread across the rest of the Communist nation but, on November 4, Soviet forces stepped-in and brutally crushed the uprising with tanks and air raids. At exactly the same time: in a poorly thought-through, politically stage-managed attempt to stop the fighting between Israeli and Egyptian forces, British and French troops landed in Port Said, Egypt. That was the opening act of what was to become known as The Suez Crisis.

Not since the end of World War II just eleven years earlier, and the uneasy Korean armistice of July 1953, had armed conflict between nation states brought us so close to the brink of a third World War. But that’s how it was as Christmas 1956 approach.

Nevertheless, by mid-December, the indomitable British spirit seemed to be gaining the upper hand, and this was made clear to both my nine year old cousin Geoff and yours truly, by our extended family’s determination to hold the usual Christmas knees-up.

At that time, I was living with my parents and older brother Barry on a pre-fab estate near Mottingham in south-east London. We’d moved there in 1951 from my birth place of New Addington near Croydon, because my Mum wanted to live closer to her parents and three younger sisters, all of whom lived in the nearby Grove Park area. In fact, Mum’s next eldest sister Ivy lived on the same pre-fab estate, just around the corner from us, with her husband Harry and cousin Geoff.

It was invariably Auntie Ivy’s prefab that served as the family’s gathering-place over bank holidays, and Christmas 1956 was to be no exception. However, December 24, 1956 was a Monday so all of the men-folk were at work. Indeed, most of them would be back at work the day after Boxing Day, so that year’s Christmas knees-up would be a one night affair only, on December 25.

Cousin Geoff & Yours Truly Outside Auntie Ivy's Pre-Fab Mid-1950s

As usual, Mum, Dad, Barry and I spent most of Christmas Day at home so, by mid-afternoon, our gift exchanges, Christmas dinner and the washing-up that followed had been completed for another year. But there was much more to come later in the day. At around 5 o’clock, we all wrapped-up warm against the chill, because there had been a light dusting of snow a few hours earlier. The four of us then walked the two hundred yards to Auntie Ivy’s pre-fab.

By the time we arrived, all three of Mum’s sisters Ivy, Vera and Tess, and their respective husbands were busy with their allotted chores. While the aunts prepared supper and snacks, Harry and Bert were setting-up the bar in the crowded kitchen. Uncle Arthur, meanwhile, sat on the living room floor with Geoff playing with a couple of Geoff’s new Dinky toys, watched-over by my maternal grandparents.

No sooner had we stepped into the warmth of Ivy’s prefab, my Dad was handed a pint of beer and escorted by Vera to the piano in the corner of the living room. Nan and “Nandad” applauded and chorused, “Good old Les,” as he placed the beer on the top of the piano and made himself comfortable. Moments later, he tickled the ivories in a brief warm-up, before settling into his opening medley of standards and popular melodies.

And that set the tone for the rest of the evening. A good old-fashioned sing-along echoed around that little prefab into the early hours, and when Dad wasn’t providing the music with his piano-playing, Bert’s new record player supplied the entertainment. Some of the oft-played recordings I recall from that Christmas night knees-up were Ronnie Hilton’s version of “No Other Love”; Perry Como’s “More” and “Glendora”; Frankie Vaughan’s “Green Door”, plus “True Love” by Bing Crosby and Grace Kelly. But the undisputed hit that Christmas as far as my family was concerned was “Woman in Love” by Frankie Laine.

All in all, and in spite of the troubled world in which we lived, it was a thoroughly enjoyable, cosy, Yuletide family gathering. Fifty-eight years later, the world is still a troubled place, but that’s no reason to deny ourselves a little bit of warmth, joy and good cheer during this Festive Season. So, here’s wishing you a very Happy Christmas and a trouble-free 2015.

DON'T FEEL COLD

IF you live outside South Devon, you won't have seen my November-December 2014 "Pensioners Platform" column in the Torbay Times. With the weather forecast predicting chillier times in the coming days, you may find the following information of help...

DON’T FEEL COLD

ANOTHER silly season is upon us! No, I’m not talking about all the dressing-up and antics associated with Halloween and Children in Need, or the excesses of the pre-Christmas and Yuletide holidays season. On the contrary, I’m referring to yet another badly thought-through and ill-timed government-backed announcement.

Winter 2014-15 hadn’t even started in October, yet somebody in the corridors of power had the bright idea of trying to encourage UK pensioners to turn our heating down during the daytime this winter to save money and help combat climate change.

Government scientists have apparently claimed that last year’s guidance to heat living rooms to 70F (21C) during daytime hours and 64.5F (18C) at night was based on thirty-year-old evidence. However, their analysis of more recent studies showed the minimum room temperature for households this winter should be 64.5F (18C), both day and night.

According to Public Health England, households could adjust their thermostats to stop spending money unnecessarily, as well as lowering carbon emissions, and thereby help to ease climate change problems. Dr Angie Bone, the head of extreme events and health protection said, “We know cold weather is bad for health, so knowing the threshold* at which coldness becomes a danger is very valuable. Our previous guidance was based on international research published in the Eighties, so we carried out a reassessment. Everything points to 64.5F (18C). There is very little evidence to support a higher level.” (* the “threshold” is 64.5F (18C) as mentioned above).

However, Dr Bone then added one of those catch-all afterthoughts so favoured by public servants. She said, “We are not saying don’t heat your house at 70F (21C) if that suits you, as this is only a guideline. People who are very active or who can easily adjust clothing, for example, might want to have the thermostat at slightly lower levels.”

So, for the umpteenth time this year, we’re bombarded with official statistics and Nanny State advice. And all this, despite the fact the vast majority of us are quite capable of knowing when we’re feeling cold indoors in the winter, and adjusting our heating and/or clothing accordingly. When, I wonder, will those in power accept the fact we’re ALL different? You simply cannot standardise the human species because we come in a multitude of shapes and sizes. Moreover, our bodies react differently to the conditions around us.  It’s not rocket science.

So, if you feel cold indoors this winter, don’t rely on the reassessment mentioned above, because 64.5F (18C) is … as that same reassessment stated … the very point at which coldness becomes a danger!

Instead, adjust your heating and/or clothing accordingly, and within your budget of course. And if that isn’t sufficient to keep you warm, then wrap yourself in a duvet or blanket, or do as many UK pensioners do during cold spells … tuck yourself up in bed with a hot drink. You are not a statistic, you’re a unique human being, and you have every right to keep yourself warm in a way that suits you.

BRING CHARITY HOME AGAIN

For those of you who weren't able to read my Pensioners Platform column article in the October-November 2014 edition of the Torbay Times, here it is in full:-

FROM 14 to 30 September I was on holiday near Chiclana in southern Spain and during my stay I came into contact with a number of British ex-patriots, all of whom retired to Spain some years ago. Without exception, they all agreed that life in Spain for them is very agreeable indeed, and they were unanimous in their praise for the Spanish healthcare system. In fact, several of them remarked on the overall superiority of Spain’s healthcare services when compared to our own NHS.

The Beach near Chiclana, Spain

That got me thinking, so I started to do some research, and this is what I found. Spain’s General Health Law of 1986 was formulated on two principles: 1) it carries out a mandate of the Spanish Constitution whose Articles 43 and 49 establish the right of all citizens to protection of their health, and 2) the Law recognises a right to health services for all citizens and for foreigners resident in Spain.

In many respects, these principles appear to mirror the spirit of our own National Health Service which – judging from near-daily news reports in the British media – seems to be struggling in comparison with Spain’s National Health System. But why should that be? After all, it is well documented that Spain currently has one of the weakest economies in Europe, but here in the United Kingdom we’re constantly being told that our economy is the strongest in the European Union.

Very soon after my return home, I came across a News item which, I believe, goes some way to explaining why our NHS and many of the UK’s other public services are in such a sorry state when compared to some of our European neighbours.

Let me explain: as recently as October 2, Westminster MPs claimed that the government’s decision to cut direct aid to Liberia and Sierra Leone, “May have contributed to the Ebola epidemic” that has claimed more than 3000 lives. In fact, the chair of parliament’s International Development Committee, Sir Malcolm Bruce, is reported to have said the scale of the outbreak, “May well be connected to declining levels of international support for health system improvements” in those two West African nations. Note the word “may” appears twice in the above quotes. That means both comments are based on assumption rather than undisputed fact.

More telling, perhaps, is what else emerged from that same committee’s deliberations. The MPs went-on to criticise the Department for International Development and the EU for failing to address the fact that aid intended for Liberia’s health sector was misappropriated! The committee found that only $3.9 million (£2.4 million) of the $60 million (£37 million) donated was transferred from Liberia’s Finance Ministry to the Health Ministry.

So what happened to the remaining £34.6 million, a substantial amount of which came straight from the UK tax-payers pockets? Regrettably, instead of pursuing that very important question, the committee of MPs decided to make a couple of party political statements. Firstly they said, “In the midst of this devastating epidemic … it is wrong for the UK to cut its support to these two countries by nearly a fifth.” Sir Malcom Bruce then added, “The planned termination of further UK funding to the Liberian health sector is especially unwise.”

While the Ebola outbreak in Africa is both tragic and alarming, shouldn’t our MPs be more concerned with the shortcomings in the UK’s own health care system? For example, they could be asking how many UK pensioners (and others) are going to go cold and hungry this coming winter? And how many will die from the effects of hypothermia and/or malnutrition? Whatever the number, we’re unlikely to be told because it wouldn’t be politically expedient for such statistics to be made public.

But let’s forget political expediency. Surely it’s time to stop acting like a global benefactor and, instead, start putting our own house in order? Up to now, our politicians have been profligate with the taxes we pay, by throwing billions into a black hole in the name of overseas aid. Ominously, some of the recipients of that overseas aid are corrupt and the cash disappears, only to reappear in the form of flashy motor cars and ostentatious mansions.

While all that is going-on, our treasured National Health Service and other vital UK public services creak at the seams and lurch alarmingly towards Third World standards. So, isn’t it about time charity really did begin at home again?

IS BARNETT FAIR?

Pensioner or not: this article will be of interest to every man, woman and child living in England. It is a slightly amended copy of my Pensioners Platform column published in the August-September 2014 edition of the Torbay Times, and it proves UK politicians of all parties since the 1970s have been trying to hide a serious injustice from the people of England...

 

FIRST things first, that’s not a printing error you see in the title of this article. Nor is it intended as a tongue-in-cheek play on the Cockney Londoner rhyming slang for “hair”. On the contrary, the title is spelt correctly, and it raises a very serious question that affects all of us here in England.

Let me explain: way back in 1978, Prime Minister James Callaghan and his Cabinet were so troubled by the rise of Scottish and Welsh nationalism, they invited the then Chief Secretary to the Treasury Joel Barnett to devise a formula that distributed the funding for UK public services in a way that favoured the people of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

By his own admission, the now Lord Barnett drew-up his formula “almost on the back of an envelope” and it was quickly enshrined into law. Nearly forty years on, the Barnett Formula is still in force, and it continues to benefit every person in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, at the expense of the people of England. Even Lord Barnett himself has admitted that his Barnett Formula was only intended as a short-term measure. In fact, at a public enquiry in 2009 he said, “I do not consider it is successful. I do not think it is fair. I thought it might last a year or two before the government would decide to change it. It never occurred to me for one moment that it would last this long.”

Nevertheless, successive governments have not only kept the Barnett Formula in-place, but they have also gone out of their way to conceal its skewed and deeply discriminatory – some might say racist – mechanism from the English people.

Consequently, for some thirty-seven years, the people of England have lost-out to the people of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and here’s the proof:-

The latest Treasury public expenditure figures (2012-13) detailing the Barnett Formula sums allocated for public services across the nations of the United Kingdom show that Northern Ireland was granted £10,876 per head of population; Scotland £10,152; Wales £9,709 and England £8,529 per head of population. That means every person in Scotland (when looking at the UK average) is being allocated £1,364 more than everyone else. And that translates to a whopping £1,623 advantage every Scot has over every person in England.

In fact, it gets worse because, when broken down further into England’s nine regions, we here in the South West are in a rather lowly sixth place behind London, the North East; the North West; Yorkshire & Humber and the West Midlands, with an allocation of £8,219 per head of population.

Adding even more weight to the unfairness of the above allocations, earlier this year, the Local Government Association (LGA), which represents councils south of the Border, revealed that the Barnett Formula system means England’s communities are being “short-changed” by £4.1 billion a year.

Is it any wonder, then, that Scotland has been able to offer free prescriptions for all, while the NHS in England struggles to meet some of the basic demands placed upon it? Then there’s the Scotland government’s funding of education that guarantees free university tuition, while England’s universities are forced to charge up to £9000. Both of these advantages – and quite a few others – come about because Scotland’s devolved parliament can spend its Barnett Formula annual windfall as it sees fit.

Now, I ask you, is that fair in a so-called equality conscious United Kingdom? Come to that, is it right to deliberately disadvantage the majority English population by forcing us, as tax payers, to contribute to Scotland’s disproportionate Barnett Formula hand-outs? After all, when all the facts and figures are laid on the table, England and its tax-paying workforce still represent the power house of the UK’s economy.

So, whatever the result of Scotland’s Referendum on September 18, surely it’ll be time to scrap the thoroughly discredited Barnett Formula, and give back to the people of England their rightful – and equal – share of public service funding?

In the meantime, we’re left to ponder one simple question: is the Barnett Formula fair on the people of England? Given the statistics and quotes mentioned above, the answer appears to be a resounding … NO IT ISN’T!