Writing for PoliticsHome, Tory MP Penny Mordaunt sets out a case for the creation of a Minister for Older People – or so she thinks.
What Ms. Mordaunt does not acknowledge is the bureaucratic cost involved with the creation of another Office of State. Neither does she mention that if this country did not spend so much in foreign aid and housing illegal immigrants instead of deporting them, it could thus care for its own elderly, vulnerable population in a more appropriate and beneficial manner.
It is suggested that the last thing the elderly and vulnerable of our society need is government arranging anything on their behalf – especially when it involves yet more ‘government’. In any event why would we need yet more government when those in government do not appear interested when they are contacted? On 12th April 2011, in response to an article in Total Politics by Mordaunt, I emailed her, beginning:
“Regarding your ‘article’ on Total Politics: “http://www.totalpolitics.com/
opinion/155607/how-should-we-” -: care-for-our-ageing- population.thtml
Whilst not a constituent of yours, but that of your Leader, it is to be hoped you may read this email and respond.
I have a meeting agreed and scheduled for next month – accompanied by my solicitor – with Grant Shapps, representatives from the Ministry of Justice and the Legal Services Commission to discuss:
1. Actions by Landlords that override Contract Law;
2. Oversight of Housing Associations and method of operation, and inadequacy of redress under the current system, specifically in regard to point 1 above; & points 3, 4 & 5 below;
3. Contravention of Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 and Mental Capacity Act 2005;
4. Contravention of Housing Act 1988 (section 13(2)); coupled with contravention of the Landlord & Tenants Act 1987;
5. Contravention of guidance issued by Andrew Hamilton, Deputy Secretary Department of Health Social Services & Public Safety – issued September 2006;
6 Disallowance by Legal Services Commission of 117 cases for legal aid, a decision in respect of which David Cameron said – in a meeting with me – he thought ‘arbitrary’.and ‘wrong’.”
“Your article for Total Politics makes important points however, with respect, I feel that possibly the most important aspects have been missed. Yes, individuality is important, likewise quality of life etc etc; but whilst contravention by governments, bureaucrats and local authorities of the Acts mentioned above continue, nothing will change – and yes, I am in possession of documentation of that.
As you will hopefully understand – and appreciate – there is too much to include in an email and should you be interested in pursuing this further – and have the time to spare – perhaps a telephone conversation might be to your advantage in respect of that which you seem to wish to achieve?
I write – not as one who is ‘anti-Conservative’ (does the Conservative Party still exist – maybe the subject of a different conversation), nor a Labour/LibDem supporter – but one who is ‘elderly’ and still, thankfully, in possession of the ‘power of thought and reason’ and just wishes to see ‘justice’ for our own done, prior to looking after ‘others’.
My contact details are:……………..”
Needless to say not even an acknowledgement was received from Ms. Mordaunt. Neither is it unusual to be ignored even when a politician does agree to speak/meet with you, as this post illustrates.
To paraphrase M. Mordaunt, just think how much easier it would be to make the reforms in social care we need if politicians actually talked to those affected, instead of those in civil society who invariably ‘have their own axes to grind’.
But then we might be forgiven for thinking that, like most politicians, all Ms. Mordaunt is seeking is attention.