Tuesday 12 February 2013

Andrew Dilnot and the cost of social control

Dilnot v., one mood only, imperative (imprecation) Don't! (esp. of hopeless Whitehall policy). Overtones of irrationality/stupidity/ignorance (q.v.), e.g. logically inconsistent arguments in support of hopeless Whitehall policy. Overtones of deceitfulness (q.v.), e.g. proponent of hopeless Whitehall policy is too intelligent not to realise that the supporting arguments are inconsistent. Normal usage – the attempt to promote/preserve honest political debate (q.v.) by a speaker who knows full well that the attempt is just as hopeless as the Whitehall policy. Example: "if you think the solution to excessive borrowing is to borrow more, Dilnot!".
Last seen around these parts Andrew Dilnot, chairman of the UK Statistics Authority, told the BBC that his plan to cap social care costs at £35,000 was "not about protecting people's inheritances" but giving people "control over their lives at a time when they're vulnerable and need that control". Predictably enough, the legislation proposed to implement the cap does no such thing. It couldn't. If the state is paying the balance of your care costs over £35,000 then it's the state which is in control. Not you.

Needless to say, it is HM Treasury which will gain control. Them, and local Councils.

According to the Telegraph, Mr Dilnot has maintained his divorce from the natural use of English. Following the announcement of the new social care cost proposals ...
... he described the current system as a “complete disaster” and said the new measures would mean that “for the first time you don’t have to be terrified of the consequences of needing care”.
Readers are advised to carry on being terrified.

No comments:

Post a Comment