A Brave New World

unrecordings

PipneyJane wrote: »

Hmmm.... I hadn’t considered welfare-to-work. It wasn’t part of my thought process - I was thinking that they could work on a farm, earn some money and some self-respect, without putting their benefits in peril. (Too many people who do seasonal work - say at the seaside during the summer season - report going through hell with the benefit system when their summer job finishes.)

- Pip

Work for welfare is definitely a bit of a dark cloud but, as you've pointed out, the worse problem seems to be the barrier to picking up casual work - it's like a government enforced zero hours contract

unrecordings

Wednesday2000 wrote: »

This is the problem though, people want all these nice socialist ideas in principle but they don't want to pay the taxes that come along with them!:rotfl:

Yep - this why we're very much still pie in the sky on this thread. Maybe because we've been pretty much taught by TPTB that we deserve a tax break, and like the venal rabble we are, we come to expect this.

The Swedes are clearly made of sterner stuff

PipneyJane

pollypenny wrote: »

A standard curriculum, ie The National Curriculum, was introduced by the conservative government in 1991/2.

A “standard curriculum” which doesn’t have to be followed by state funded academy schools or state funded church schools so, guess what? They don’t follow it!

I have a separate issue with the number of exam boards for GCSE’s and A-levels. Why, in a country this size - i.e. not physically huge - is there more than one exam board? It’s not necessary. If you want the highest level of education for all, then the national Department of Education needs to impose the highest standards centrally.

- Pip

unrecordings

PipneyJane wrote: »

I have a separate issue with the number of exam boards for GCSE’s and A-levels. Why, in a country this size - i.e. not physically huge - is there more than one exam board? It’s not necessary. If you want the highest level of education for all, then the national Department of Education needs to impose the highest standards centrally.

Good one, I forgot about this. I wonder if it's a legacy of education being almost entirely a local council thing, and why no one has bothered to change it

dreaming

unrecordings wrote: »

Did they cite budgetary concerns, that seems to be the usual, then they get entrenched in their own dogma, then the courts end up getting involved. Politics ? Nope: Amateur Hour
(huge slice of irony available if you can get it through customs)

Anyway, good luck with your own library fight

Yes, budgetary concerns - mainly as our county council has the dubious honour of the first one to go (virtually) bankrupt and have government auditors brought in the oversee things. Funnily enough I have just had a "doorstep" with my local MP (you'd think there was an election coming or something!) who wanted to leave me a survey of how I felt about "local issues". So I told him (politely as that is how I am).:rotfl:

Anyway, I think I shall stay in your pie in the sky world for a while if I may. I have to say that a lot of the suggestions so far are very good. I feel that many of them would have a knock on effect. i.e. if education was improved across the country then people whould (hopefully) make better informed choices about health etc. and be able to earn a decent living wage, and some of the socail problems which are undoubtedly brought about partly through poverty and lack of opportunity would be alleviated.

unrecordings

pollypenny wrote: »

An interesting thread. I'm amused that OP suggested keeping politics out, especially since most of the ideas are socialist policies, anyway.

I was thinking about this last night an realised I might have made a mistake in not distinguishing politics vs philosophy - so the merits of Thatcherism vs the merits of a free market economy for example. I'm wondering of the stuff brought up so far, how much could flourish when framed in a free market economy, or indeed its ancestor, the age of Victorian philanthropy. And did the age of philanthropy die in favour of something more brutal resulting in the 'need' for systems like socialism to pick up the slack ?

hmm...

unrecordings

unrecordings wrote: »

Force retailers to accept products back for recycling including batteries

I didn't know this, either because they're keeping it quiet, or because I'm not paying attention, but Curry's claim to accept stuff back for recycling. This from the email I received when my toaster was ready for collection

"Let’s recycle for free. Want to skip that trip to the dump? Then bring your old electricals to store and let our expert service partner, Team Knowhow, recycle them for free. They accept everything from computers to toasters, and floor cleaners to TVs." (My bold)

monnagran

I would like to see the craze for centralisation reversed.
Where we used to have small local hospitals where basic operations were performed, a&e functioned efficiently and without hours of queuing, babies were born, old people received visits from family and friends who lived locally and small car parks were free, we now have hospitals the size of small towns. Everyone has to drive to them, making a good profit for the car park companies, adding to the pollution, traffic problems and stress. Visitors can only visit if they can make the long and tortuous journey there and the thousands of patients are seldom individuals but bodies being processed.

The same could be said of schools. Small village schools being closed and young children are being bussed considerable miles away. The 'tick-box' culture is alive and well and teaching has become a dangerous occupation.

Our NHS and our education system used to be the envy of the world and we were leaders in the field.

Likewise our Police Service. Now Police stations are like hens teeth and Bobbies on the beat are almost extinct. For most people the nearest Police Station is miles away in the nearest big town and the thin blue line grows thinner by the day. It's a bonanza for the criminal.

I accept that nothing is black and white and there are pros and cons in every case, but when individuals no longer feel valued or important, morals and ethics cease to be important too.

This surely cannot be a healthy state of affairs.

pollypenny

unrecordings wrote: »

I was thinking about this last night an realised I might have made a mistake in not distinguishing politics vs philosophy - so the merits of Thatcherism vs the merits of a free market economy for example. I'm wondering of the stuff brought up so far, how much could flourish when framed in a free market economy, or indeed its ancestor, the age of Victorian philanthropy. And did the age of philanthropy die in favour of something more brutal resulting in the 'need' for systems like socialism to pick up the slack ?

hmm...

Are we likely to have benevolent employers like Robert Owen, the Cadbury and Rowntree families, the Levers?

Too much of our free market economy is focused on the fast buck, with hedge fund gamblers and fine-upstanding people like Sir Philip Green.

unrecordings

pollypenny wrote: »

Are we likely to have benevolent employers like Robert Owen, the Cadbury and Rowntree families, the Levers?

In a word no, maybe in a generation or so, but as we're firmly in the age of the narcissist I don't see this happening anytime soon without some kind of palpable incentive