At first glance, especially if you read The Sun, The Mirror (insert any other "dogs with teeth should be banned" newspaper here), you might think that this is a good idea. After all, it's only fair that those who are attacked by dogs get fair compensation, isn't it?
However, the more you look into it the more cynical and ill-thought-out this policy seems:
- Labour are fighting not to lose voters from their core "Sun-reader" demographic. Coincidentally, this is the demographic that shouts the loudest whenever the papers run a story on a dog attacking a child.
- Coincidentally enough (especially for a Party who have introduced over 150 "stealth taxes") Insurance Premium Tax would apply to any and all such insurance policies, ensuring a nice little payday for HMRC.
- The trade union for Postmen have been wetting themselves with excitement (see my previous post on Labour's main sources of funding).
- Take 87-year-old Ethel, who still lives in her own home on her meagre pension with her faithful dog for protection and company. How is she to be expected to find the money to pay the premiums?
- How will it be enforced? Unlike car insurance, where you need it to get tax and an MOT, nothing else will be dependent on owning dog insurance.
Quite simply, this appears to be a last-ditch plan to win over floating voters and raise money whilst implementing a tax on dog-ownership and turning it into a preserve of the wealthy.
A quick check with two major insurance companies reveals that Ethel would have to pay somewhere in the region of £200 a year to insure her 8-year-old Terrier...
Posts
I have been having very interesting discussions about this over on another forum, and to be honest, not only is this un-workable, un-policeable but it will hit 'good' dog owners hard and not actually touch the type of owner the Sun gets it's knickers in twist over. Most of the stories about dog attacks that the Sun run are to do with a family dog attacking and severely injuring/killing a small child in the same family... plus, it will only come to light that a dog is not insured after the fact, and the dog has actually bitten someone, which will not help the victim, and criminalise an ordinary person. Unless the government are planning to re-invent the dog catcher job that used to exist when I was a child, the police are not going to have the time or the resources to interrogate every single dog owner they see walking down the road.
ReplyDeleteStupid bloody idea if you ask me :@
Exactly, Leanne.
ReplyDeleteTaking your observation about most attacks being on family members; if you look at 99.999% of such policies, they won't cover family attacks!