The demographic doom-mongers are wrong
It's always gratifying when ones work is appreciated. Mary Riddell in yesterday's Observer used a CentreForum pamphlet by Alasdair Murray ('From boom to bust?') as her starting point ('But not everyone can grow old gracefully').
The pamphlet argues that the demographic doom-mongers are wrong. There are great shifts in the UK's demographics, but the nation can adapt and cope (as indeed, it has done so in the past). Riddell accepts this and joins Alasdair in lauding the advances that have made the average 79 year old today as healthy as an average 65 year old in 1936.
However, she remains uneasy. The pamphlet deliberately sets out the parameters that public policy must be aware of over the next 50 years. Riddell picks up our challenge and starts to ask how we need to adapt. In particular, she is concerned about care for frail, elerly people who don't enjoy a good quality of life, concluding bleakly:
[I wonder] why a society that opened up a wonderful new frontier of human existence has contrived to make it such a barren place.
Also in today's news
Ming Campbell has been trying to find a voice over the weekend with limited success:
- His letter to Gordon Brown about reform of the Prime Minister's powers of Royal Prerogative was picked up in today's Independent ('MPs should be awarded Queen's historic powers, says Campbell').
- His interview yesterday with BBC's AM programme sounds rather unenlightening from the write up on the BBC website ('Sir Menzies fends off critisicm') The emphasis on the importance of housing is interesting though. Does this mean that Ming is being told by his pollsters that housing is concerning the voters enough to make it a top priority? And do the Lib Dems have enough of an identity on that issue to make it a key feature of any future election?
Forgot your password?
New user?
Lib Dem housing identity crisis?
Do they introduce land value taxation to capture the unearned wealth that accrues to today’s landowners at the expense of future landowners?
Do they devolve even more decision-making on planning to local or regional authorities? Or do they use the power of Government to defend the general public against the vested interests of local NIMBYs (somehow, the acronym doesn’t work if one spells it with an ‘ies’).
The more liberal wing might allow landowners the freedom to develop their land as they see fit. The more social democratic wing might want to use regulation to force landlords to build houses that meet certain criteria and standards.
Another Lib Dem identity crisis?