Let's look at why we do what we do as political activists.

[Papaumau]

Having been a Socialist since childhood when I watched my Labour Secretary grandad following his conscience I have tried very hard to understand what drives certain political demographics.

Maybe I am wrong here - and I am sure that there will be people queueing up to tell me so - but anyway.....here goes.

Most of my life I have been aware of two major political parties vying for ground against each-other, ( the rest matter less as they are unsure themselves about what they stand for. The Liberal Democrats I mean ).

These political sections are usually described as coming from the "left" or the "right" and while I am sure that most people would agree with me that there are many degrees built into this general description I think that the generalities of the two factions stand like this:

The Left:

This political demographic seems to me to be based around the needs of the people at large and this group do not give much credence to those that are revolving around the top end of our society. ( Many have said in the past that the left-wing are driven by jealously of the people that have more than they have and that they want to bring this top level of society down to their own level ). This might be so to some.

The Right:

This political demographic seems to me to be based around looking after ones own kind and not caring much for the ones that they deem to be inferior to them, and this means that this section of society is not worthy of much effort on the part of this rather selfish drive to care only for themselves.

Of course, over the years we have seen hard-line versions of the left and right in our society and when the left went hard-line they became Communistic and when the right went hard-line they became Fascist.

I think that even in the most middle-ground of these factions we see examples of the hard-line views that are built into the extreme parts of their political directions.

Then, viewing the two sides of this way of life I am forced to ask myself.....What side is it better for me to come from and support ? and I have to say that it has to be better to be left-wing rather than right-wing as even in their extreme versions the left has to be less damaging to general society than the right is.

I think that my loving and greatly-loved English grandfather who took the place of my deceased father when I was four was right about his choice of political direction.

Anybody ?    

[Sheila]

I do not have a high opinion of most politicians regardless of party but it was the policies of Blair and Brown that brought this country to its knees.  It would be better if the politicians could get together to improve the country instead of just trying to score points off each other like a lot of clowns.
Human rights have gone too far.   Rights should be earned.  I worked and paid taxes until I was 64 and I object to my hard earned money going to wasters who have no intention of working. 

[Rita Postlethwaite]

Sorry Papa but I am with Sheila on this one. There is not one party I would belive in or support because, regardless of who they are, once in a position of power there are VERY FEW of them who do not put themselves first and do what they can to make the out of the situation.

[Carolyn]

  It has always been the same, we follow the same course no mwtter which party is in power.

[Maisie]

I believe in the greatest good for the greatest number and vote for whichever political party I think can achieve this when it's time to put my cross in the box.

Historically, the Labour movement and the trade unions were needed to improve the very poor living standards endured by the vast majority of people in this country. But it seems to me that because trade union members were on the whole apathetic this allowed political extremists to reach positions of power within their unions These extremists (not to put too fine a point on it, communists) ultimately damaged the credibility of the unions, did not serve the interests of the members, and jeopardised the national economy.

The poor are always with us, to paraphrase Mark 14:7, and I believe that we are morally and ethically bound to provide for them. Are we to return to Victorian times, when the streets were littered with homeless, starving people in rags? If the answer is 'no' then we need a stronger economy to create jobs, and high levels of taxes to support the welfare state provisions made for those who cannot work. If jobs aren't available it's illogical to allocate blame to people who are not working.

Sadly, for socialists, a strong economy seems to be as dependent upon private sector investment and the stock market as it is upon public sector investment. Since the public coffers are empty then we have to hope that wealthy individuals and corporations have enough faith in this country to pump some money in. Sometime. Soon. Please.

[Sheila]

I see what you mean about jobs not being available Maisie.

I may be asking to be shot down in flames here but how about making able-bodied people earn their benefits?  For example, old people in hospitals need help in eating, many need help with their gardens.  I am sure that someone cleverer than I (and with a huge amount of common sense) could come up with a plan that would benefit society.  Just don't let a politician do it!

[Maisie]

That's a good idea, in theory, Sheila. There are certainly a lot of people, especially pensioners, who could do with some help. But I suppose that if people were made to earn their benefits then they would technically become employed by the State and would therefore be entitled to minimum wage. As we know, public sector jobs are being cut drastically at the moment so, sadly, I don't think that your idea is feasible. I may be wrong. What do others think?

[Sheila]

Change the law.  Minimum wage need not apply to people who are earning their benefits.  There is no money in the pot so let us think laterally.  Too many people do not have the work ethic and many would benefit from accepting a bit of responsibility. 

[Dottie1943]

Sheila,

Well said!  Why think about minimum wages as you say think about changing the laws to make them earn benefits!

We don't shoot people down in flames by the way,not here not this week anyway

[Maisie]

I don't think it would be possible to do what has been suggested. I have worked in the public sector,  and the policy is that if a job becomes redundant, as is now happening in many instances, then, to comply with the Employment Protection Acts  the person whose job is redundant must be offered the opportunity to apply for any alternative suitable position that is available. So if people were to be deployed to help the elderly, as was suggested in earlier posts on this thread, then those redundant workers would be given first opportunity.

Even if enough money made available to public sector budgets to both redeploy redundant workers and to occupy recipients of benefits,  I think the position is that if a person was to 'earn' benefits then they would no longer be unemployed - they would, in effect, have a job and have the same rights regarding minimum wage as anyone else does.

I refuse to believe that the  2.62  million workless people in the UK are work shy shirkers. Almost 1 million of them are school leavers. I suspect that the vast majority of them would prefer to earn a decent wage if that were possible. My evidence to support this statement comes from working for 12 years in urban regeneration. For six and a half years I worked as an economic development officer in the North Notts coalfield, a rural area, trying to create employment opportunities for redundant coalminers and the workers in ancillary industries that collapsed. I saw at first hand how dispirited and demoralised these people became when the social fabric of their society disintegrated, following the sudden closure of a large number of pits by a Conservative government. There were simply no jobs for these people to do and it was virtually impossible to attract investment into the area. It's a vicious circle - if people are not earning they are not spending and so the retail , holiday companies etc start to collapse.

The technological revolution has contributed to the problems of unemployment. My very first job was at a large insurance company, drafting policies etc. The floor that I worked on had approximately 40 clerical workers. The systems were later computerised, during the 70's, and work done by those 40 people is now no doubt done on a computer by one person. The replacement of people by computerised equipment also spread to manufacturing and light engineering. Add to this the fact that traditional industries such as clothing manufacture have gone to the Far East and it becomes evident that there is simply not enough low skilled and semi-skilled opportunities available.

The attitude that the workless should somehow be punished originates in the Victorian age, when people were sent to the punitive conditions of the work house and in effect punished for a situation that was not within their control.

[Dottie1943]

OMG Maisie !!!

This response from Shiela and myself has quiet obviously hit a sore point with you. I don't think for one minute either of us meant to upset anybody with our. Responses and I for one did not say that everybody on benefits were work shy because I. Know they are not, however there are some that are and Victorian or not I still think its those who should be encouraged to earn their benefits.

I have worked in both the public and private sector and the one thing I discovered was if I wanted to change something in the private sector once I proved it made sense, my bosses wanted to know how much it was going to cost.

In the public sector the question is always is it appears to me why should we change it's ok the way it is.

No offence meant and I hope none taken

[Maisie]

None taken at all! I just like to defend the under dog.

[Sheila]

Maisie
I have the greatest respect for your posts and certainly did not mean to offend you or suggest that the genuinely unemployed should be punished.  I was talking yesterday to an ex-colleague who is unemployed because of the present economic situation and she is bored.

However, if we do not make some changes, our grandchildren will suffer more.  As I said previously there are too many of the population who do not have the work ethic.  Perhaps we were lucky when I was younger.  We had much less in the way of possessions but, if anyone had no intention of seeking work, I was unaware of it.
 
 A very close relation of mine worked for local government and had contact with people who had never worked but were well aware of their rights.  He left last year because he couldn't stand it any more.  If he did not give in to their demands he was sworn at.

[Maisie]

I'm not at all offended Sheila, and I'm sorry if the tone of my response gave that impression.We should all be able to express our views in a debate without giving or taking offence because somebody doesn't agree with them.   Britain remains the cradle of democracy and the home of freedom of speech. As Caroline Aherne used to say on her Mrs. Merton comedy show 'Let's have an interesting debate'.

The original post by Papa was regarding political activism.By and large, I think that our political system works reasonably well. Though I agree with Papa that there are still huge inequalities in our society.

Parental influence on attitudes to education possibly has as much influence on society as political activism, Papa. It seems to me that this is why India, where 2.5 million graduates are produced every year, has a burgeoning middle class.

As I've said in other posts, there is a view amongst many leading economists that the Indian and Chinese markets are where the success of our economic future lies.Perhaps if governments looked seriously at this advice, and then invested in appropriate education and training, and supported the engineering industry, the unemployment figures would start to fall.

[Sheila]

Sorry if I am going off the subject but you mention education in India Maisie.  I fet very humbled when I had a conversation with an indian lady whilst on holiday there.  She could not read or write but was very enterprising and was selling spices to tourists.  She was filled with pride that she was able to send enough money home for her children to be well educated.  I definitely did not get the impression that she was trying to get money from me although I did buy spices of course.

There was another time when our waiter told us he could not write but could remember a dozen orders accurately.  Unfortunately the chef did not appreciate being told all the orders verbally and there was trouble in the kitchen!