How curious it is that a country such as the UK, which has been so staunchly socialist for the past 13 years, should be so obsessed with ‘individual rights’. It is those ‘individual rights’ which lie behind the ‘anger and outrage’ that displayed over two different stories which have consumed the main stream media in the past two days.

The first story was the figures which showed the paltry proportion of young people who now believe that they ‘will ever’ get on the property ladder – that stairway to heaven which is apparently the backbone of the British economy.

In shocked tones, announcer after announcer stated that ‘in future’ young people may have to follow the French model whereby ‘renting is the norm’. Not one commentator pointed out why ‘renting was the norm’ in France. We will come back to that one in a minute.

Today, the ‘anger and outrage’ is directed at City venture capitalists who are apparently about to be personally responsible for 31,000 elderly and vulnerable people dying in their sleep from the shock of being turfed out into the street if Southern Cross Healthcare are not able to meet their ‘exorbitant’ rent demands for their care homes. Not one commentator has pointed out that there is an alternative to either government provided health care for the elderly or the private sector.

In France, a country which has been broadly right wing (French politics are far too convoluted to make a straight left/right distinction!) over the same period, the predominating ‘right’ is that of the community; whether the family or the commune. Individual rights take second place.

Thus it is unthinkable to the French that you should have the ‘individual right’ to leave your wealth to whomever you please – of course it should stay within the family, it should go to your children, it is to your family that your first duty lies.

This has caused many an ulcer and fed a fair few obese lawyers as the ex-patriot community wriggle and squirm in their efforts to disinherit the son they haven’t spoken to for many a year….

Some years ago, the scion of a well known English banking family decided to follow the prevailing fashion and move to the Dordogne. He sold his Georgian pile in Kent and bought a Perigordine farmhouse with dirt floors, an outside toilet, no heating whatsoever, and the obligatory Pigeonniere. He paid cash for the property, and arrived to install his wife and himself, his three children – and the nanny of course – into a series of rented mobile homes in the spectacular grounds whilst the builders turned the place into the approved Farrow and Ball version of the French country retreat. The tennis court was marked out, the swimming pool ordered, and visions of Pimm’s laden summer evenings beckoned. There was just one more task to perform before work could commence.

Thus he took himself off to his nearest (French) branch of Barclays Bank and presented his impressive visiting card. A name which would have created a flutter of flattered admiration in the UK – ‘Really? In my small country branch? (Promotion beckons!) What can I do for you Sir?’ – in France elicited only a Gallic shrug. Followed by: ‘You want to borrow half a million Euros against your children’s inheritance to build a swimming pool….and a tennis court….and install central heating….do you have your children’s permission to load them with this debt? Without their permission it is out of the question!’…certainly three years later he was still marooned in his dirt floored pile of ancient stone work, wondering how to get himself out of his predicament.

The moment you have children here, they have an interest in the family home, an interest which is protected by law. You cannot put it at risk without their permission, or a lengthy process by which a Guardian is appointed to consider the advisability of that which you plan if your children are too young to speak up for themselves.

That is why the French are quite happy to rent when they go off as youngsters to the big cities to work; one day they will return to the family commune and take their share of the family home. Sometimes big homes are divided into two or three to accommodate all the inheritances, sometimes they are sold and the money used to build a smaller home within the commune.

However, the quid pro quo is that since the family home is their inheritance they have a responsibility towards it and those who continue to live in it. A responsibility which is protected by law.

If the roof over your elderly Mother’s head is leaking – it is your job to fix it. If your Mother needs someone to cook for her every day, it is your job to do so, or pay for someone to do so. If you are not able to afford it, or perhaps have vowed never to speak to your Mother again (unusual here, as you will see) then the Mairie will fix her roof, or provide her meals, or a place in the local care home – but they will take a lien on the house whilst she lives in it. Your inheritance will be whatever is left….. your parents cared for you, now it is your turn to care for them. It is only the rarest of cases where there is neither the equity in the inheritance, nor the ability of the children to provide, where the state must step in and shoulder the burden.

Everything about the system is geared up to this result. Employers must provide you with a train ticket to your family commune once a year so that you can perform your duties – tidying the garden, cutting the hedges, painting a broken shutter. Virtually every bureaucratic action is accompanied by a request for your carte de famille – the all important document that details who you were born to, what children you have, where your responsibilities lie.

There are care homes here, I shall probably end up in one myself one day, no children to spoon gruel down my throat; my beneficiaries will be asked whether they wish to pay for it themselves, to care for me themselves, or lose that portion of their inheritance that it ultimately costs. Their choice.

What doesn’t happen here is that the elderly end up in a care home because their youngsters are too busy paying off a mortgage on an expensive ‘home-as-investment’, whilst simultaneously investing in Jimmy Choo shoes – ‘because you’re worth it’ – and whining because the NHS ‘promised cradle to grave care’ and ‘how dare the government expect any contribution from their inheritance’ simply because Mum’s roof leaked and she couldn’t manage at home any longer.

None of the outraged commentators on the Southern Cross Healthcare story have even suggested that perhaps those children might have passed by the opportunity to earn the price of yet another pair of shoes – and looked after Mum themselves.

Yes, it probably does take two salaries to buy a house in St Albans, and hire a Nanny so you can both work, and if you are in IT in the city you probably do need to invest in Austin Reed suits three times a year – but there is no law that says you have to live that lifestyle.

You could follow the French example – rent a modest flat, travel home at regular intervals, look after the family home, and maybe even move back to your home village to a lower paid job and look after the old folks yourself.

I cringe at some of the comments in the Daily Mail article:

‘If they move her she will die. I would rather put her to sleep than put her through this. That sounds awful, but I love my mum.’

‘What are they going to do with all these old people – build a pyre like they did when mad cow disease happened, and pile them all on it? What is going to happen to us when we get old if these homes close?

‘Time our elderly were given the care and respect they deserve at a realistic price or do they loose their human rights when they stop being useful’?

Yes, it’s definitely someone else’s responsibility to care for the people who cared for you and brought you into the world……you can’t trust the venture capitalists, so it must be the government’s responsibility.

It couldn’t possibly be yours, could it?

Tonyb June 4, 2011 at 14:48

After living in France for 10 years, setting up and running a business
which was systematically raped and pillaged by the French Government, losing
my health and being abused by French Surgeons who too need money to pay their
taxes and whose eys light up at the thought of getting their scalpel out we
returned having lost everything.

The NHS which is the butt of many a joke is doing a wonderful job at trying
to put me back together again and I have much to be thankful for beacause of
it although too much damage was done for 100% recovery.

I just pray that this country wakes up and fights to regain its sovereignty
from the EU and the bankers and we can regain our individual rights.

andy5759 June 3, 2011 at 18:29

It seems duty is indeed a four letter word.

aaaaargh June 2,
2011 at 22:38

Even if we did want to be more like the French system, we would only be
able to change over many years.

What we could do pretty quickly would be to remove the need for profit from
Care by legislating that homes could only be run by Not-For-Profit
organisations.

Cascadian June 3, 2011 at 06:06

“What we could do pretty quickly would be to remove the need for profit
from Care “…………So how would you propose to run a system without nurses,
doctors, drugs, equipment suppliers, cleaners, electricity, gas, etc. etc.
etc. All of whom profit from the NHS in varying degrees. Or would you decree
that they all provide their services gratis?

The NH is already a soviet-style bureaucracy do you honestly want it to
deteriorate?

aaaaargh June
3, 2011 at 09:02

Maybe I phrased that badly.

I mean profit shouldn’t be the key factor – Care should.

Any profit should be put back into running the business, not paying
shareholders. And I’d like to see it run on a local basis rather than from
a central NHS.

davidb June 2, 2011 at 21:41

Im so glad I bunged granny a pony on the way home before reading this.

I worry what will happen when we are old. Childless like a quarter of
Britons by ( selfish? ) choice I pay taxes to educate the children of other
members of society. And to provide them with child benefit. I should by rights
expect to get back something for all my contribution. But I am old enough to
have realised what a bunch of conmen our political class is, so I figured I
would save up as a back up. I didn’t speculate in property like so many of my
peers – mostly because I did not believe a British government would possibly
maintain interest rates as low for as long ( I paid 16% on my first home ).
But I did realise long long ago that Brown was a fucking idiot and often asked
how we could be borrowing money if the economy was doing so well.

And here I am, getting way below the pretend official inflation rate in
interest. The house speculators are getting low rates and the banksters are
still getting their bonuses. And you think I should do the “right” thing?

My country has been wrecked. The economy is heading down the swannee and
nobody knows what to do about it. If you ask me the whole discussion is
pointless. There will be no pensions when we get old. There probably will be
euthanasia , and a lot of us will gladly take the pill. The future is bright?
My arse. We are destined to live in a virtual workhouse. The lucky ones will
die before they reach pension age.

Cascadian June 2, 2011 at 22:24

I fear your summation is correct, but there is still time to abscond from
the asylum.

kitler June 2, 2011 at 18:42

F**k em. The rubes already waiting to die in OAP warehouses and the baby
boomer generation who are waiting to be put in storage alongside them are
entirely to blame. They were the ones who drilled the ‘career is all, home
ownership is everything’ ethos into their young. Well this is where it leads.
Enjoy

Engineer June 2, 2011 at 19:36

Are not the “State will do all” brigade slightly to blame as well?

Engineer June 2, 2011 at 18:29

Whenever you use the phrase “family values”, you get howled down by the
massed ranks of the Grauniadistas and the BBC. Personally, I think there’s a
lot to be said for them. Responsibilities and all.

Cascadian June 2, 2011 at 18:22

An excellent article, and one where I have some personal experience.

The major point is being missed if I may so, though JuliaM pointed to it.

The NHS is a PONZI scheme they will take your money but the reason there
are so many non-medical managers is to ENSURE THAT YOU DO NOT RECEIVE HEALTH
SERVICES (I make no apology for shouting). When the NH (please lets dispense
with the S part we have established there is very little of that) was setup by
well-meaning labourites they had very confused ideas about how it could be
paid for, as time went by this problem has grown. A solution for burgeoning
high-cost geriatric care was needed. Enter nuliebour who appear to have
applied a PPP solution, not a bad one it seems, the homes look pleasant enough
from the exterior, but as is usual they negotiated a very poor contract with
the service provider. Essentially it would seem that the provider could
pass-through cost increases and did so as property values increased and the
properties were re-mortgaged at higher valuations. Eventually the services
become unaffordable-who could have guessed that? certainly not the financial
genius, Ed Bollocks?

Is it fair that inflated property costs can be passed through?-I don’t
think so, but the fault lies with nu-liebour incompetence.

But to get back to the major discussion, quit making excuses and look after
your parents or make the necessary provisions for their care. You cannot trust
the government to do so, they are liars and will restrict the SERVICE part of
the NHS, as well as diminish pensions if you dare to live abroad. And
remember, you will soon be old, do not rely on the government to provide your
pension and health services because they have NO money to pay for them.

Livewire June 2, 2011 at 18:20

Bit fractious this thread.

Froggy did a wooing go
He went to gaol when maid said “no”
He tried
to claim that “non” means “oui”
His cellmate took him literally…

SadButMadLad June
2, 2011 at 17:09

Another reason why renting is a good thing – it means that labour is a lot
more mobile and can move to where the work is rather than stuck with falling
property prices and negative equity. In other words its better for the economy
to have a lot of people renting.

ivan June 2, 2011 at 17:21

SBML stop using logic, you know the masses don’t understand it and only
follow that which the MSM and BBC dictate.

Roue le Jour
June 5, 2011 at 02:32

You’re quite right, SMBL, but unfortunately government stuffs that up as
well by controlling rents, making it impossible to evict non-payers that
trash the place, etc. so once you have got a place you’re as stuck there as
if you owned it. Council tenants can’t move, for example, as they have to
get on the housing list in the new district and start again.

Demetrius June 2,
2011 at 15:10

Interesting. When old age pensions were first introduced into the UK the
level was pitched at about a typical household rent at that time. In short a
direct incentive for one of the family to take in an old person unable to
manage on their own. One reason was that many Workhouses could not cope with
the numbers of elderly seeking admission. Quite why families no longer take in
their old in the UK these days is a puzzle given the financial element.
Perhaps it is simply a matter of lifestyle.

gladiolys June 2, 2011 at 16:56

Or maybe it is that most people are expected to work until they drop, and
between trying to maintain their own sanity, trying to maintain a
relationship with a partner and trying to bring up children, caring for the
elderly comes lower on a list of priorities. I’m not saying that’s how it
should be but someone has to come last.

Add to that the issue of broken families and children who don’t
particularly care about their parents… and you get a right mess.

PT June 2, 2011 at 15:01

“Today, the ‘anger and outrage’ is directed at City venture capitalists who
are apparently about to be personally responsible for 31,000 elderly and
vulnerable people dying in their sleep from the shock of being turfed out into
the street if Southern Cross Healthcare are not able to meet their
‘exorbitant’ rent demands for their care homes. ”

I saw only the briefest of broadcasts about this ‘crisis,’ but the
impression I got was that the Directors and shareholders of Southern Cross
sold their care homes, pocketed the cash, and then rented the care homes back
and continued their operation. In other words, they looted the business, took
the money, and now, because in the social care field they are too big to fail,
they want someone else (the ever-willing taxpayer perhaps?) to bale out their
sinking ship so they can carry on trading at a much better profit. Those who
are being held to ransom and who will suffer, of course, are not their
problem. As a business model, it seems to be about par for the course these
days.

Joe June 4, 2011 at 23:23

Yes you’re correct. The report I read said the venture capitalists sold
all of their homes at the height of the bubble and used the money to give
themselves wages of up to a million pounds a day (sic). Having trousered all
of the money they then struggled to pay rent on care homes using the income
from service users. Shocking but common.

Michael
Fowke June 2, 2011 at 14:36

Christ. It sounds like hell in France.

electro-kevin
June 2, 2011 at 14:15

I agree with your sentiments on where the burden of care should be.

I notice (of the French people we visit and email) that they are not
fixated with property. Their parents’ place was in disrepair (as with all
properties in the area) and the kids did not fix the shutters. When they
inherited (quite a rare thing among their peer group) there was no fuss about
it and the place has not had so much as a lick of paint. This rustic look is
all part of the regional charm and has Gallic chic about it. It only seems to
be incoming Brits that bother to put floorboards down and refit bathrooms.

Your post seems to be that every Frenchman who is renting is satisfied
because he is a property owner waiting to hatch. I’m pretty sure that most of
them aren’t.

They really don’t seem that bothered about ownership. Their rents are
reasonable, they get to eat out a lot, dress better and they work fewer hours
than we do. They seem to be more family orientated and their kids better
behaved.

I wonder how much of this is due to their using the EU to their advantage
in preserving old fashioned rural lifestyles.

Rex June 2, 2011 at 14:09

“AND WOT ABOUT THEIR UUMAN RIGHTS ???????”

This is the UK where everything is determined by judges misinterpreting the
law and greedy lawyers cashing in. Where financial wizards “buy up” nursing
homes sell the assets and then turn the shite hole they have created over to
the state. Banks who don’t give a toss about a recovery so long as their
“squillions” in bonus is guaranteed. Don’t dare to even try to reform the NHS
where there are more pigs with their noses in the trough than on a pig farm.
The welfare state is there so that we can say “Piss Off granny we don’t need
you for babysitting anymore ” and why should we have to sell her house ‘cos
when she’s dead ‘n buried we can really enjoy ourselves and go on a few
cruises and maybe get a new car when WE sell it.

Welcome to the UK!!!

And one other thing my friends who have move to France to retire tell me
that their state pensions has been frozen… no more increases and yet it seems
that any peasant from the EU can come over here, get an NI number and after a
year go back home and carry on drawing their benefits…….. SURELY THIS CANNOT
BE TRUE???

And how many more wars are we gonna fight….. JESUS CHRIST WHAT A SHIT HOLE
ITS BECOME!!!

Anna
Raccoon June 2, 2011 at 14:25

Yes, British pensions are now frozen, (non EU pensions were frozen many
years ago) and we don’t get things like the winter fuel allowance, on the
grounds that we live in a ‘hot country’ – cue pictures on the BBC of Spanish
beaches…..they forget that minus 10 degrees is a perfectly normal winter
night time temperature that we don’t even comment on!
I still wouldn’t
move back to the UK, the medical system is second to none, clean, quiet
hospitals full of expertise, no waiting lists, and apologies if you have to
wait four or five days for an operation……and if you saw our local ‘care
home’, you’d be queuing to get in there now!
The downside is the
bureaucracy, positively demented…

Blue
Eyes June 2, 2011 at 13:43

You think it’s AOK for the state to direct what you may or may not do with
your own “property”? How very libertarian.

Anna
Raccoon June 2, 2011 at 13:57

– and presumably you think it is AOK for the state to direct that
everyone else share the burden of caring for the people who cared for you,
whilst you collect your inheritance unencumbered? Look after your own…..

Blue
Eyes June 2, 2011 at 14:17

No, actually I don’t. I don’t think there should be a state pension nor
“social care” paid for by the taxpayer. I think people should save up for
themselves or act as families. I just don’t think they should be forced to
be “good” by the state. Britain has too little freedom already, and I find
it very odd for a “libertarian” to be arguing for a French-style
totalitarianism.

Anna
Raccoon June 2, 2011 at 14:26

A perfect Libertarian world would be a wondrous thing – in the
meantime, I would advocate the French system in preference to the UK
system.

Blue
Eyes June 2, 2011 at 14:41

The freedom to dispose of one’s possessions as and when one likes
is a pretty basic freedom. France is lovely, but a free country it
ain’t.

You seem to be saying that while it would be good to be free, in
the meantime it is nice to have those nice people from the government
to make sure you do the right thing. Instead of advocating more
freedom you seem to be advocating less! Forget LPUK, you would fit
right in with Nick Clegg’s lot.

JuliaM June 2, 2011 at 15:24

A perfect Libertarian world would be a wonderful Darwinian
thing…for the strong and capable. In fact, I suspect it’d be a lot
like Sparta!

Saul June 2, 2011 at 14:48

If you pay into a Christmas club then you should at least expect a
piece of the pie on Xmas Day.

Off Topic advice…don’t eat ze german Cucumberz! I’m sticking to
Sausage (sorry AR) and Bacon sandwiches!

Livewire
June 2, 2011 at 18:47

The Germans claim ‘it started in Spain’

Buy all your veg in Espagna
Then cook in a tasty
lasagna
Serve those you most hate
Then sit back and wait
For
the stench with a punka to fan ‘yer

Single Acts of Tyranny June 2, 2011 at 18:48

@ Julia M Hmmm, read up on Sparta before calling it Libertarian
please. I do not recall Rothbard advocating mandatory national service
or aggressive wars of conquest much less submission of oneself to the
state

Saul June 2, 2011 at 15:12

I like to think of the UK as one big happy family, yes, there are a few
eccentric Aunt’s and Uncle’s and a fair few Black Sheep, but on the whole
they are a pretty good bunch.

dennis June 2, 2011 at 16:38

“….that everyone else share the burden of caring for the people who
cared for you, whilst you collect your inheritance unencumbered?”

I don’t think it works like that. If, for example, my income is
insufficient to pay for my residential care in old age, then the state
will intervene to sell my real assets to fund that care. If my
understanding is correct, perhaps it goes some way to explain why the care
company is struggling with occupancy rates.

I wondered when reading your article if any adjustment to inheritance
entitlement is allowed if, say, one of three children takes on the bulk of
the quid?

2Mac June 2, 2011 at 22:52

The current system of funding care., If you have more than £8000 in
assets the government will take the whole lot in fee’s at about £30,000
per year until you reach the threshold of £8000.

There is no time bar on how far back they can check your status.

If you have spent your whole life pissing your money down the toilet of
your local pub, while injecting smack and gambling do not worry the
Government will pay for it all. No Problem.

I just detailed all the ways I could think of to hide this money but
realised most of them maybe considered fraud. All I will say is plan ahead
at least 7 years to ensure you parents have no capital left.

A state that can afford Nukes at 100 Billion can afford to look after
the men and women who fought in world war 2. A state that pays the wanker
Mandelson £200k per year can afford to look after the elderly.

Daz Pearce June 2, 2011 at 12:55

Fake – your comment hits the nail on the head. People have been conditioned
to expect ‘the mythical they’ to provide from cradle to grave while the cash
squeezed from decent people is squandered on a bloated public sector stuffed
with non-jobs and PC apparatchiks.
The slice of the cake taken by the cake
would probably be enough to pay for a lot more than it does were it anything
resembling efficient. It’s fair to point out how many people are having to
work themselves into the floor to make ends meet – it’s not always about
taking another holiday in Tuscany.
More on this issue at:-
http://outspokenrabbit.blogspot.com/2011/05/failure-of-nationalised-compassion.html

The
Justice of the Peace June 2, 2011 at
12:13

This is one of the most informative posts I`ve read in a while. If I wore a
beret I`d take it off in salutation ma cherie.

Innocent
Bystander June 2, 2011 at 12:27

you mean: “chapeau!”

fake June 2, 2011 at 11:38

***We were socialist for the past 13 years? I thought we were just another
shade of Tory…***

Socialist levels of tax, tory levels of service

electro-kevin
June 2, 2011 at 11:19

As is so often the case it’s the parents who do the moving away in
retirement. Mine to the remotest part of Lincolnshire which is a nightmare to
get to by rail or road and where there is no work and no other family; hers to
Cyprus where they’ve blown all of their money, made disasterous property deals
and are soon to find themselves destitute.

What am I to do ?

Well my priority has to be raising my kids. I can’t help the fact that the
previous generation has been a bunch of wankers. That’s their fault.

Gloria Smudd
June 2, 2011 at 20:28

Ah-ha! My parents did just the same thing 20 years ago – moved off 200
miles up the road and at the time laughed that this was time for them to be
together without a wastrel brood of 30-somethings forever returning home
after traumatic divorces or nervous breakdowns. Good for them!

Snaptophobic June
2, 2011 at 11:02

We were socialist for the past 13 years? I thought we were just another
shade of Tory…

Michael
Fowke June 2, 2011 at 14:38

Personally, I thought we were socialist since the end of World War
Two.

Single Acts of
Tyranny June 2, 2011 at 18:45

Setting aside personal prejudice, is there honestly substantive
difference between them considering:

– pointless foreign wars
– nationalised health
– nationalised
education
– fiat currency
– permanent state borrowing
– enforced
state TV payments
– mandatory property taxes
– mandatory income
taxes
– Pro EU
– Endless lecturing and banning stuff they don’t
like
– Prosecution of victimless crimes etc

The difference is in degree not substance, they are dancing on the head
of a pin

Michael
Fowke June 2, 2011 at 21:03

Exactly. The Tories are socialists.

2Mac June 2, 2011 at 22:39

Socialism! Almost as corrupt as religion.

Both of them are numpty fuckwitts, do gooder, know better, moralising
politically correct pricks, who spend their whole life regulating the
life of others at great expense.

Full of Promises never delivered.

How much regulation do people really need to be civilised? I look
after my Mum because she loves me and I love her. A society does not
need a department for “making sure you love your parents”

Andrew Duffin
June 2, 2011 at 10:50

Well fair enough, the French do things differently, and it doesn’t sound a
bad system.

But to defend the whingers very slightly, one must accept that our
government takes away half our money and makes certain promises in return;
when it turns out that the promises are unrealistic, it shrugs its shoulders
and says “tough, you have to pay now”, but it doesn’t give the money back.

And rather than safeguarding your inheritance, it helps itself to that too,
unless you take careful steps to avoid that happening. But not too careful,
because that would be illegal.

And so on.

JuliaM June 2,
2011 at 15:21

Spot on!

Can’t complain that people are upset when the system they paid into all
their lives under the assumption that it would indeed look after pere et
maman for that money turns around and says ‘Ah, sorry, we spent it all. Have
you heard of the term ‘Ponzi scheme’? No? Whew!’…

Bill d’Sarse
June 2, 2011 at 10:29

A fantastic piece which reiterates the all too common British mindset of
‘all the rights but none of the responsibilities’.