Care is important enough to be expensive | Deborah Orr

No party support for the plan of care for seniors Andrew Dilnot, but many worry about how much it will cost

care. Damage

this reputation for quality human benign. During the day not so long ago when women would agree that their primary role in life was to care for free, which often took pity on her, and sometimes despised. Now, in general, women are still concerned, as a job, and often paid a pittance. Yet almost everyone complains about the high cost of care, whether for children, adults or the elderly vulnerable.

political attitudes is the attention that the quality of our democracy worn can be seen more clearly. There is no agreement between the parties to Andrew Dilnot elderly care proposed - of course it is. The Conservatives, in short, consider this: ". We take care of our loved ones ourselves, but also compete in the market, a market that focuses on the low wages of care "in this case, the paradox is impossible to Tory think you can see better. The view of the work is more pragmatic, but it is the same: "We can not take care of our families ourselves, because we have to compete on the market, a market that insists on low wages for the care. "Then the politicians wonder why" cynical "suggest that they are all the same.

is time to wake up completely totally contradictory nature of the neo-liberal economic and political ambitions continue to grow. "Great Society" Cameron is widely recognized as a joke ironically, just because it's feeble attempt to mask a rather serious problem. If everyone is able to be motivated to work hard as they can stay and enjoy the fruits of their success, so there are no people and no money to take care of those who can not.

Work

fudge for decades has been the redistribution of stealth. As everyone knows, the redistribution was so discreet that led to a widening gap between rich and poor that when the party came to power in 1997. I hate to sound old, but the problem is that politics no longer has a moral dimension. The market has a strong grip on it all comes down to money. Despite the small clear that the report is admired by Dilnot, there is deep unease about what it would cost. But how can they care for, probably, in professional terms, however, that recreational tasks of the human will instinctively to protect his family, plus a whole lot more, be something, but it is expensive?

When I listen to some of the voices in anger, attention, sometimes behind in its ugliness. First, there is the idea that those who have gleaned the benefits throughout their lives continue to draw your attention for free, while those who worked hard and saved, you must pay.

• longer life expectancy, in general, is related to wealth. The poor grow faster and die faster, the better off.
• However, if people really believed that the poor are lucky, there would be more events like the idea that a person's home can be sold for pay for your care, rather than be retained for inherited wealth past (and not "punitive" tax that is, if you please).

part of the problem is that the left and right positions considered to be inherently moral when they are not. The conservative position is the most absurd. The law is regarded as the champion of civilized values, when in reality your idea of ??paradise is a kind of medieval feudalism. However, at the same time, the right is actually quite accurate in some aspects of his critique of the left. The problem with the reality that denies the importance of the left "equal opportunity" is that it has become very similar to the U.S. mantra sentimental "Anyone can be president." Unfortunately, these attitudes can lead to "normalization" of convenience, as well as the Conservatives are trying to "normalize" the privilege. In fact, the two approaches reinforce each other, in a horrible way.

A small example. When my son started kindergarten was given books at home with their parents to read with him. They were extremely basic compared to what had been accustomed, and he does not like. I complained to the teacher, a wonderful woman in many ways. He explained that many children had to learn to open a book and school selections were made in that spirit. At that time, I felt guilty for the benefit of my own son.

After some years, during which my son boredom, frustration and lack of academic progress the school has become more and more miserable, which was evaluated by a school psychologist. High IQ, low, and very poor attitude to school and education. We went private, rejecting a system that is required to give priority to the needs of children whose parents do not do things to their children that they should. The traditional left me in that area pretty bad, because I was not ready to leave my child in a system that was failing, and not many others less fortunate than him.
If I seem to have drifted far from the Dilnot report and an apology. But I did not. The little we have to take care of his own son to send to school or he can not handle a book? I'd say you have very little care. Even in its entirety to illiterate parents can browse through the books with their children, make animal noises. These books are freely available in many centers for child development. They are cheap in charity shops. However, the "caregivers" who do this course "effort" are setting the agenda in some primary schools in Britain - which will undoubtedly benefit of attracting more involved parents who value education