All employed people (and the Self Employed) in Britain have deducted from their income National Insurance Premiums. These deductions were supposedly, at the inception of the wellfair state, to be insurance premiums guaranteeing Health Care (at the point and time needed) and a liveable pension upon retirement.

What happened to all those subscriptions over the years? The treasury misappropriated them, and then squandered them on general expenditure, so the insurance fund that should have been collectively built up over peoples' life span was effectively stolen. Consequently, people are now being required to pay a second time for things they had previously insured themselves against or they are being means tested in order to get what they have already insured for.

If a private insurance company behaved like that the present government would charge them at least with miss-selling or even a serious fraud. Furthermore Gordon Brown raided the pension funds of so many hard working, hard saving citizens trying desperately to secure their future, and not be a burden on the state. This was double jeopardy, as the savers had already paid tax on their earned income (savings). In fact this was tantamount to theft. If Robert Maxwell senior had done that, the present government or the press or the City would have hounded him to his death.

The FDP would immediately abolish the Gordon Brown tax theft, and institute a properly funded National Insurance Scheme, with all Nat Ins. contributions being "Ring Fenced" and not allowed to be diverted for any other purposes.

Ageism would be abolished, and people permitted to retire on a pension at any time from the age of 60 and upwards, with no upper limit. The basic Datum pension could be still drawn at age 65, but if one elected to work on, then the pension receivable upon retirement would be graduated upwards to reflect the increased contributions paid. Conversely, if one retired earlier than 65 they would receive a prorata abated pension.

Further, the FDP would index link the basic pension to a new pensioner's Retail Price Index; not the present RPI which is a generalised PI taking into account eg. the fall in digital plasma screen TV prices and video games and the like. But, if a pensioner is on the bread line (and most are) and the price of bread goes up 5% that's a massive impact on that person's budget, whereas a person on average wages and above is hardly affected in percentage terms. Accordingly, the new PRPI would be calculated on the change in price of that package of goods and services the average pensioner, surviving on only the state pension, normally buys; including Rents/Rates and Poll Tax, be that 5%, 8 or 9% then so be it. And why not? Pensioners don't cause inflation.

Just consider the arithmetic. If the weekly pension was judged/set at say £150 at a Datum Date as that income necessary to sustain an acceptable minimum standard of living, then that minimum standard could only be maintained IF the £150 was escalated in step with the actual inflation of that representative average package of £150 worth of goods (and services eg. the Poll Tax). And, to repeat, the datum £150 package inflation was not caused by pensioners; so the government should/must maintain the £150 purchasing value in step with the actual "package" inflation. Otherwise pensioners will become ever poorer.

Further, the obscene practice of forcing seriously ill people suffering from debilitating diseases like Alzheimer's or Dementia to sell their homes to pay for care they are morally and legally entitled to under the NHS insurance policy they have paid for throughout their lives will be abolished.

Now, date line March/April 2010: The present three big parties are now all squabbling about how to fund long term care: and none of their postulated schemes are in any way equitable; in deed they all look like being burdensome on the less well off.

There is of course, an FDP solution to this non dilemma. The Labour party has decreed that a 1% levy will be imposed on national insurance premiums next year. Fine, just ring fence this Tax and utilise it to fund needed long term care; and not steal it like all previous governments have done, misappropriating it as general taxation, as Gordon Brown admitted, saying it would help fund the deficit; schools; and the police.

Further, only impose this on the employee, not on the employer as this would make it a tax on employment which it must not be. This would also make it complementary to the following chapter on Sustainable Employment wherein it is shown that reducing employment tax costs per employee enables employers to employ more people.

Additionally, Do Not impose it on those persons surviving only on the minimum wage (£5:80 per hour); as a general principle, it cannot be morally acceptable to burden such low paid persons with increased tax if it has been previously decread that a minimum sum is necessary for minimum susistence.    

Also, Long Term Care is not an employer responsibility, whereas general health is often influenced by conditions of employment, hence the original NHS concept of shared costs.     

All NHS targets would be abolished, and Doctors allowed to treat patients purely on the basis of medical need. And, proper budgets Agreed with hospitals on the basis of their past demonstrable need, and not on arbitrary treasury allocations of funds which bear no relation to past experience.

Immediate savings would ensue, there being no need for vast armies of civil servants tallying up targets, and the mountains of paper work necessary to achieve nothing productive.

Appropriate resources will be allocated to train all levels of medical and necessary auxiliary staff but every effort will be made to reduce non value added expenditure. Further, recognising that virtually all hands on Doctor, Dentist and Nursing training, in Britain, is undertaken by the NHS, and not private clinics/hospitals; therefore, any private clinic/hospital first employing an NHS trained doctor dentist or nurse shall be required to reimburse the NHS 50 % of the NHS training costs.

Conversely, if Britain (the NHS) poaches foreign clinicians trained by a foreign country then the NHS would be required to pay the foreign health service 100 % of their training costs.

Fundamentally, government does not have the expertise to run the NHS, despite the huge army of civil servants (trained in whoever knows what) so they employ another army of management consultants and appoint multiple quangos. All to be abolished by the FDP, and replaced with hospital (or Group) Boards of Governors, with patient (past and present) representation. Their terms of reference to provide as needed treatment and after care of those people and patients presented to them. And, of course managing a True budget, Not an Arbitrary cash Allocation.

Maximum utilisation of all facilities would be mandatory, including 24/7 working for all disciplines. Having operating theatres, surgeons and consultants not working week ends is ludicrous. This will not require excess spending for overtime working. All staff would be allowed to choose their standard work week, ie. Jewish staff could elect to work Sunday to Thursday; Sikhs, Monday to Friday, (deletion) Buddhists; Muslims; etc. etc. all as their custom dictates or agnostics at their choice.

This would not only facilitate assured 24/7 (365 day) working, it also respects all ethnic and religious practices.

a) Recognising that some hospitals, particularly A & E departments, have problems with aggressive and disruptive patients (drunks and thugs) all such hospitals would be "serviced" by a Sub-police station; on site, manned 24/7, with police cells to detain miscreant drunks and thugs until they cool down and/or sober-up: only then would they be "treated". But, of course, they would be concurrently charged with being drunk and disorderly; or worse.

Said police stations and officers would serve their usual general policing functions but the hospital to which they were attached would simply be one of their normal regular patrol beats.

This sub-station approach would also be adopted for Fire stations with a history of confrontation with troublemakers when on call-outs. On duty police officers would routinely accompany Fire/Rescue vehicles and arrest said thugs on the spot and take them back to the Police/Fire station and lock them up for summary disposal by the courts at the next convenient court session. Penalties would be severe. It is hardly possible to think of a more obscene crime than to attack people dedicated to saving other peoples lives.

To download the full FDP constitution document please click here

You can also contact us here

Last Updated (Monday, 28 June 2010 11:28)

Document Downloads

parliamentry  lordsupdate  constitution

You will require a PDF reader to read these documents which can be downloaded here

User Login