It seems to be a matter of great debate at the highest and popular levels whether or not Britain is broken. This threatens to be a dividing line in our politics. The shadow cabinet allegedly could not agree.
But as ever, of course, we
must distinguish. In what sense is Britain broken or not? For whom? In what
ways?
For us, in leafy Sussex,
life is mostly pretty good. Of course funds are limited. Retirement housing is
a worry for this Vicar. And there are pot holes. There are all sorts of
challenges and frustrations. Many things we would like, we do not have. And yet
we are all in good health. The children’s state secondary school is officially
good. It is certainly more than adequate most of the time, even if its not
optimal.
But if you get ill with
certain conditions and you can’t go private, you can probably expect to wait a
year or more in some degree of pain and disability. For some issues (children’s
mental health?) you could perhaps forget ever getting effective timely help.
I suspect in some parts of
Britain for many people everything does pretty much feel broken. Nothing works.
The state is unresponsive or unhelpful. The police and the GP aren’t on hand
when actually needed.
Does it really matter
whether or not we label Britain as broken?
Certainly some aspects of
Britain are somewhat broken for some people.
Surely we must hope that Britain
is not broken beyond repair.
So we can all agree there
are things which need fixing.
A more sensible conversation
is how we can go about the job, rather than debating how big the job is. Yes,
we know it’s a big job and it’s going to cost us, but the sooner we have a plan
and get started, the better.
2 comments:
We should also ask who broke Britain and how they did it
Indeed.
Post a Comment