Citizen and the state
A couple of years ago I attended a Downing Street brainstorm on "the role of the citizen and the state" chaired by the then Prime Minister Tony Blair.
"There needs to be a fundamental re-examination of the future relationship between citizen and state", Mr Blair argued, admitting that during his period in office he had too often felt it necessary to control from the centre.
He talked of the need for a smaller and strategic state built upon a new contract which spelt out not only the responsibilities of government but the responsibilities of citizens.
One of the reasons for his philosophical shift lay among the Cabinet Office papers on the table in No 10 that day. "The UK remains among the most unequal societies in the EU", the authors admitted. "The very poorest have not shared in recent growth."
It was a candid assessment of his own failure which got rather ignored amidst the then fevered speculation about his handover to Gordon Brown.
But David Cameron was watching closely and taking notes.
The No 10 analysis fitted with the Tory leader's own concerns about central government's inability to reach and help the very poorest in society.
Labour had made some inroads. Six hundred thousand children lifted out of poverty, no mean achievement.
Overall, the least well off 20% in Britain had narrowed the gap on those above them. But the poorest 5-10% in the UK was actually falling further behind.
Not that Whitehall hadn't tried. Initiatives like Sure Start, working family tax credits and the minimum wage were designed to help just this group. But whatever levers were pulled seemed to have little or no effect.
Money was targeted to help schools in deprived areas and yet, on some measures, the gap between pupils from the poorest backgrounds and others widened.
It was, in part, Tony Blair's sense of powerlessness in reaching what advisors called "the severely disadvantaged" that led him to question the role of the state.
And just as Labour's policy review teams were busy cogitating and brainstorming, so former Tory leader Iain Duncan Smith was doing the same for David Cameron, considering how a Conservative administration might deal with the plight of what he called the "underclass".
Today we get a little more meat on the bones of the Tory thinking. Shadow schools minister Michael Gove ridicules the current government philosophy: "I fear, for Gordon Brown there is no such thing as society", he says, "only the individual and the state."
A neat back-reference to Margaret Thatcher's much-misquoted line on society and the promise of a more complex contract between citizen and government.
On the role of the citizen, Mr Gove says this: "of those to whom much is given, much is expected". Although he doesn't credit him, this is almost an exact lift from John F Kennedy: "of those to whom much is given, much is required". Or to quote another line of JFK's: "ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country".
And on the role of the state: the responsibility of narrowing the gap between the richest and poorest - one of the fractures in what the Conservatives characterise as a broken society.
How would that be achieved? "Our social policy", Mr Gove makes clear, "is explicitly redistributive". In his own area of schools policy, money will flow from rich to poor in the form of pupil premiums - additional funding for children from disadvantaged backgrounds.
More broadly, the Conservatives stress the importance of devolving power away from Whitehall to local government and civic society; of the need for the state to become more active in supporting and encouraging traditional family structures.
What politicians from all parties will concede is that the poorest in Britain seem to losing ground on the rest, and attempts to pull them closer by throwing policy lifelines from the centre hasn't worked. Whether a redrawing of the roles of citizen and state will provide better answers is far from clear.
I'm 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~50~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
"What politicians from all parties will concede is that the poorest in Britain seem to losing ground on the rest, and attempts to pull them closer by throwing policy lifelines from the centre hasn't worked. Whether a redrawing of the roles of citizen and state will provide better answers is far from clear."
The problem is that we don't need a lifeline, we need workable sustainable solutions. We also don't need a government that is incapable of admitting any kind of error and is so obsessed with keeping power that it's scared to show any kind of change in case it's claimed to be weakness.
We don't need to redraw the relationship, we just need to kick out this bunch of parasites who are clearly failing to live up to the role of state that we as citizens have a right to expect and demand.
The government is only interested in redrawing this relationship to make itself less accountable which you illustrate perfectly with your second paragraph.
""There needs to be a fundamental re-examination of the future relationship between citizen and state", Mr Blair argued, admitting that during his period in office he had too often felt it necessary to control from the centre."
TRANSLATION: He repeatedly had to force through his unpopular policies against everyone's wishes.
Do you really want want people like this deciding your relationship with the state?
It's much like their "transformational government" - sounds all modern so surely no-one would have a problem with that. Until, that is, you realise that they intend to transorm the structure of government from one that serves the people (for the most) into one which can serve their own narrow ends.
Complain about this comment
On the role of the citizen, Mr Gove says this: "of those to whom much is given, much is expected". Although he doesn't credit him, this is almost an exact lift from John F Kennedy: "of those to whom much is given, much is required".
John F Kennedy paraphrased Luke 12:48.
"For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall much be required:..."
Let us give the original author of the quote the credit.i.e.
Luke, the Physician.
Complain about this comment
As long as there are haves and have nots, the haves are going to need protection. What is a state? At what stage in history did the state evolve? Therefore, at what stage can we dispense with it?
Complain about this comment
Part of the problem has been the lack of distinction (in law) between human rights and citizens rights.
This has led to the "hang 'em and flog 'em" brigade blaming every ill in society on the EU and their human rights laws.
It also means that we seem "obliged" to keep convicted criminals and terrorists (those who have willingly put themselves outside of society) in a life of "luxury" compared with law abiding poor who seem to get short shrift in this modern age.
Human rights are those guaranteed by the Geneva Convention etc.
Viewing TV and eating Pizza should have no part in this!
Complain about this comment
Hmm, I don't know.
I was unemployed for 4 and a half years, in that time I didn't feel any less empowered than when I was employed - I could (and did) still vote, I could (and did) write to my MP, I could (and did) engage my council about issues and so on...
On the other hand, I had come from a relatively well-placed middle class background, I had a very good education to degree level, and I had always been told what I could expect from society, and what society could expect from me.
I think there is an increasing problem of areas of society becoming more inward looking, instead of asking the council about problems, the go to "friends who can get things fixed" instead of going to the Social Services for loans for a fridge, and being faced with a mountain of paperwork and red-tape, they go to the friendly (sic) shark on the estate who gives money without question, yet the smile will disappear when it's time for payments - but these are people the disadvantaged and disaffected can talk to. Without getting too bogged down in history and sociology, I think that throughout history people have looked to a local, community based person to talk to, and that's what people what now, yet I don't think that decentralisation will ever go down as far as the community.
People see the state as an abstract overlord, ruling from afar - they want friends.
Complain about this comment
You can't solve a problem like this unless you understand why there is this gap and why it is getting wider. What defines someone who is in the bottom 20%? Just money? I have met people who are dirt poor financially but live very happy lives. They still have access to schools and local government resources.
Do we measure the poor on if they have cars or playstations? Is the issue just based on local schools? Why are some schools not able to provide good education? Is it because of bad teachers, lack of funds, mis-management or the local people/kids destroying everything.
This article really does not say much.. also, the poor in most western countries are still 10 times better off then most kids in Asia and Africa etc..
Complain about this comment
The problem we are having now does not need a new contract between citizen and state. The issue is that the current contract is not being fulfilled by the present administration which is leading to all the perceived societal failures which we see on a daily basis.
We elect members of parliament to serve our interests. Since 1997 (and probably in part before but i'm too young!) the presidential style of New Labour have deemed themselves bigger than the mandate they received, sufficently so that reams of unpopular legislation has been brought in to complicate matters so much, that those the legislation has been brough in to serve have found themselves disenfranchised. The 10p tax debacle, VAT on fuel etc.
One particular (slightly left field) example of this is the embryo research bill where several MP's decided to vote with their conscience. Laudable sentiments when viewed under the microscope of the media, however, do the sentiments of the MP's represent their constituents views whom they were chosen to represent? When this is applied to MP's in general, do their views on certain issues (and i'm not just talking about emryology here) reflect those of the electorate? They were elected to vote for us, the way we want.
Democracy is based on promises to act by politicians, thats what the manifesto is for. That is the contract between the government and the populace and the mandate given. If governments go off on a tangent and fail to listen to popular opinion, they are in breach of the very covenant that they are claiming to be protecting, and, in my opinion, should be brought to book. It should be possible to remove governments or force change by popular vote or other legal means at any time, not just when the ruling party wants to call an election.
Any change in the contract between government and governed MUST return some voice to the people, be it in the form of the right to strike, referendum, consultation (not just those who are politically active, lobbyists or activists with vested interests). It must be fair and it must be representative. The current system is biased towards the top. The problem with anything that is top heavy is that they ALWAYS fall over.
If a government is failing, it should be accountable immediately, not every 5 years. Politicians are paid by us to represent us and to acheive positive measureable change for the benefit of us. If our government (whomever they are or will be) cannot utilise the £500 Billion or so we pay in tax every year for positive good in this country as Priority One, lets remove them and get someone in who CAN!
Us first, everyone else afterwards. If the government could fulfil their part of the electoral contract, they may find that the citizenry of this country would be more willing to do more for the government.
I for one, However, Do not feel obliged to do more for my country at the moment as it is already squeezing me for everything it can in tax. That is my contribution and in my eyes it is too much. I want to see something positive for my hard earned money that I am obliged to hand over to the government.
I am currently sadly dissapointed
Complain about this comment
Yes, and I suspect strongly that Luke the Physician was talking about those in society who, through fair means or foul, earn a thousandfold more than the ordinary and essential manual workers of society. And for sure, we should require much more of the politicians of the last generation or so than we have been receiving.
Complain about this comment
The problem with the everybody-is-equal society where there are no class gaps is that it discourages competition and rewards medicority.
If there is no possibility that I could improve my station in life then I certainly wouldn't be working the ungodly hours that I now do in pursuit of that. I wouldn't aspire to anything because there is nothing to aspire to. Consequently I wouldn't put in the effort that I now do to realise my goals.
Creating a classless society is closer to socialism than some would think and could endanger the very things that made the UK a front-runner in world economics in the first place.
It is not possible to have a hugely successful and hugely equal society at the same time as inevitably you end up pulling down the brightest to achieve this.
It is many times easier to pull down the over-achievers than pull up the under-achievers. Especially if you've already made it quite confortable to be unemployed.
Complain about this comment
Surely the problem is that the 'bottom' ten percent, almost by definition, are the least likely to engage with the state, and thus very unlikely to take advantage of the help that any government might want to give. As Frobnitz said, they are more likely to look for help informally, among people around them, than from official channels.
One answer would be to expand the role (and funding) of social workers, who are experts in bridging this gap between 'officialdom' and the disadvantages. Another might be David Cameron's favourite community/faith-based organisations, which may be able to reach some of those the government itself cannot. Or maybe the BBC has a role to play in making people aware of the help that is available to them ?
Whatever method is chosen, the government cannot escape their responsibility - they will be judged on their success in helping those in greatest need, and fulfilling the potential of everyone in society.
Complain about this comment
"There needs to be a fundamental re-examination of the future relationship between citizen and state"
I thoroughly agree...especially the bits about the state's ability to throw me in jail without charge for 42 days, and the sad fact that the poorest 10% pay more tax than the richest.
We're not only "among the most unequal societies in the EU", but also the country with the worst protection against state interference with our lives. Is our lack of a constitution and a bill of rights the 'elephant in the living room' in the aforementioned re-examination? Without the protection of positively expressed rights as citizens, it seems to me that the basis of the relationship between 'citizen' (actually, we're subjects) and state is fundamentally flawed.
Complain about this comment
You live in other country but sound like from another world. The bottom of society is split between "don't know" and "don't want". You can expect great outcome from educating people who "Don't know". But liberal minds often mistake "Don't want" with "Don't know". "Don't want" is not just about education you have to change culture first.
Complain about this comment
Blair's difficulties arose from the early failure of his policies on public services which he then sought to disguise from the electorate by a continuous process of seemingly perpetual reform in the vain hope of making things better; somehow.
Not only did he fail but he failed spectacularly and as a consequence dragged down the public finances.
Public services can only work properly within a limited area where the taxpaying elector can ensure they operate fairly and efficiently. This has nothing to do with the state whatsoever.
The creation of the centralised state within the UK - and Mrs.Thatcher has to take some of the responsibility for that - has created a political class which is wholly divorced from the everyday life of the people. This is the problem.
It is no longer acceptable or even possible for the politicians to say to the people that they can fix things as they don't even understand what is needed and what has to be fixed.
The simplest thing the state can do is to leave the people alone to provide their own solutions. We might need the state to protect the frontiers and put away the bad people but it should not interfere in the simple and direct ways that society works.
Sure, society is not always equal and fair but, by discussion and example, the ordinary people, who for better and for worse comprise society, can make it fairer and more equal. They should be left alone to do it and allowed to keep more of their money so they can actually do it.
The state is the problem: get it out of our lives!
Complain about this comment
More of the same then.
Vote labour and they take your money and give it to people you don't know. Vote tory and they take your money and give it to people you don't know.
Is there any real purpose in voting?
Complain about this comment
As mentioned already, this new contract should be in the form of a constitution and a bill of rights.
This could be coupled with our transformation into a republic, finally curtailing the almost absolute power afforded by the position as Prime Minister through the Royal Prerogative.
Complain about this comment
Vinchainsaw gave one of the usual misconseptions of left wing ideas. It is more to do with people having equal oportunities. I have no problem with people who have applied themselves getting the rewards. But it should never be considered a crime not to be very skilled at anything, or to have a disability or circumstances that blocks your earning potential.
The problem with the left is that is often perceived as shielding those who willfully refuse to work for their upkeep. In a number of cases this is so, normally amongst the more 'revolutionary' of our comrades, but rarely amongst the people they are supposed to be fighting for. This is where the Right nomally taps in, gaining working class support. The far left need to listen a bit more instead of thowing accusations of 'working class Tories' that we so often heard during the 80's.
The contract is not only between citizens and the state, but between each citizen. We all have a duty to do what we can, and some clearly don't. Some would like to give more yet cannot due to economic circustances, ill health etc, and it is our duty as citizens of a civilised nation to support them.
The trouble with the Tories is that they labelled anybody out of work during their time as workshy, even though there were vitually no jobs in their area. That is outrageous.
The other problem is that those that are workshy, what do you do with their children if they have any. Well, the bitter pill to swallow is that you give their parent(s) enough money to raise them properly and a home. The children of course should not be punished for the attitude of their parents. So the system is beaten. I cannot see what the state can do in those circumstances, I will never support the children being taken away for adoption. It may be down to the attitude within society, certainly that social group in which living off the state is considered normal, How do you put pressure on them without it reverting to mob rule.
Sometimes I feel that some problems can never be solved.
Complain about this comment
mark,
l note your comments particularly with regard to the minimum wage, but has it really helped the low paid.
while "average earnings" have risen at around 4% per year (giving someone on £25,000 per annum a £1,000 increase) the same rise for someone on the minimum wage has resulted in pay below the poverty line.
is it time the bottom stopped subsidising the top.
is it right managers, executives and government servants receive huge bonuses because of targeted incentive packages from agreeing below the poverty line pay levels for the people at the bottom.
Is it time to raise the minimum wage above the poverty level.
how can it be inflationary for poor people to be able to buy food, heat their homes cloth their children.
or are they being spun a line in the hope they wont understand whats happening.
Complain about this comment
Mr Blair argued, admitting that during his period in office he had too often felt it necessary to control from the centre.
This is a neat little euphemism to cover off both Blair’s Messiah complex and his inability to promote anyone of consequence and ability into the Cabinet. The former was born of his conviction that only he could save Britain, as he had personally saved the Labour party, the second resulted from his own insecurities that he was unable to banish.
The reasons why the bottom sector of society is getting so far from the top is that they are the the least solvent in society, and thus the worst affected by Labour’s increasingly bizarre attempts at social engineering.
‘Notting Hill, Nu-Labourites’ will barely notice the impact of an increase in car tax. They will literally not have to think twice about how to pay for it. Two people keeping a 15 year old car going on a miniscule collective income will think of little else. Arguments that reducing part of the 0.4% of World CO2 emissions generated by UK cars will not cut much ice.
The simple fact is that the State isn’t much good at doing things for people. It is not compulsory for State organisations to be inefficient, over-manned, expensive and seemingly welded to archaic practices and behaviours. It is not compulsory, it just happens almost automatically.
Yes, people in the bottom sector turn to their peers for mutual support rather than the State. Has anyone considered that they are right, and their critics are wrong.
The new relationship should consist of The State doing less and less for us, and taking less of our money to do it with. We should be allowed to retain as much of our income as possible, and allowed to make our own decisions as to what to do with it. If we make bad choices, we should be allowed to suffer the consequences of our actions. The state should provide assistance of only the most basic kind to those who have no other options.
16~ Biscuit eater – You are sounding like a Thatcherite! The lady said, “Equality of Opportunity, (But not of result!) Well done.
You ask what should be done about the children of the workshy if they have any! Discouraging them from having any should be a high priority. Not offering to pay for them in advance of their conception would be a good first step.
Complain about this comment
UglyJohn - you are the first person that has called me a Thatcherite. Well done you.
In a kind of twisted way you are right. What the left failed to realise in the 70's and 80's was that the poor do not want to be poor. For the middle classes to 'rough it' a bit, that was an option, for the poorer members of our society it is a trap, a dead end. During a recent by-election, Gwyneth Dunwoody's daugher was beaten, some of the blame going on a ham-fisted poster about the wealth of the Tory candidate. It made me cringe, and I knew the sort of half-wit that had drawn that up. It was anti-asperational. The left should be trying to make the poor wealthier. It should be giving them hope, after all a lot of them don't have much else. Thatcher in some way gave them that hope. But it was all a con. The things they relied on most, health service, schooling, public transport were all smashed. They were bribed with cheap shares and heavily discounted council houses. For some it was indeed a wonderful thing,but for future generation a nightmare in the making. In the end it was seen for what it was.
Witt Labour we have certainly got the services back and I approve of the higher educational policy of fees if it means more access. To me that is the role of the state. Things are not perfect and there have been some major errors for sure, but it is better.
As for you final comment, that is frightening. How do you propose we do that? I fear the answer.
The trouble is by demonising any poor couple that have a child you are removing from them one of life's great experiences. The thing that sometimes makes it all worthwhile. The ones that I was talking about would not care what you, the government or anybody said anyway. What then?
Complain about this comment
The trouble is that the lines between the citizen and the state are being redrawn - and everything is being redrawn in favour of the state.
The trouble is that anything the state tries to do costs twice as much, and is delivered half as efficiently. It is always about what politicians and officials think is good for society rather than based upon what people actually want - and, however well intentioned it may be, the state invariably gets it wrong and makes a mess.
The present Government - and to a lesser extent even the Conservative opposition - seem to have learned nothing from the failed experiments in social engineering in Eastern and Central Europe, and even in the UK, during the post-war years.
State control may seem to provide solutions, but is actually the road to serfdom.
Complain about this comment
Ho-hum.
Since our so-called masters couldn't find enough cash in the kitty to keep and sustain free university education for all, but yet have spent the past six months finding hundreds of billions in their back pockets, to prop up privately run banks, whilst overseeing the biggest shift in wealth from the poor to the rich since the industrial revolution one can only assume Tony's question is ironic.
Our elected officials, drawn from the upper echelons of society represent only (guess who) the upper echelons of society, to the detriment of everyone else.
Surely Tony must know that, after all, I don't remember him turning down that part time job with Goldman Sachs. (reported 5 million a year. Good work if you can get it.)
That's why we have a state, to stop the poor getting their hands on the money of the rich.
After all, we couldn't have politicians working for a living could we?
Complain about this comment
I think what a lot of politicans fail to realise is that many of the bottom 10% would have been employed 20 years ago in jobs such as coal mining.
I live in a small town in North Derbyshire where mining and related inudstries used to dominate. Now, it is a broken town with people hanging outside the dole office and local pub. It is a place of despair. I won't blame anyone for the situation but until any government actually realises what is going on in these communities, they will never be effective in solving the problems.
However, what has not helped is the end of free University education and also reduction in training programs. Unfortuantly, for a lot of people who live in these situations, they believe their entire life will be collecting benefits and not much else. Simply because all aspirations have been taken away from them.
Complain about this comment
God, that is rich, Blair fretting about the relationship between the individual and the state. You'd think he and his party were somehow just innocent bystanders in this supposed 'breakdown' in the relationship. They were responsible for the whole mess they were supposedly concerned about. Anyway, for me, the 'breakdown' is not between the individual and the state it is a breakdown of trust between the government and the public. New Labour represent the state in all it's gory details and the way they behave and the policies they pursue affect the way we perceive the state.
Complain about this comment
Quote lionHeretic
I live in a small town in North Derbyshire where mining and related inudstries used to dominate. Now, it is a broken town with people hanging outside the dole office and local pub. It is a place of despair. I won't blame anyone for the situation but until any government actually realises what is going on in these communities, they will never be effective in solving the problems.
Until people realised that they are responsible for themselves the situation will never change. The problem is that we are too reliant on Government to find solutions for our problems.
Society has broken down because every Generation since WWII has refused to take responsibility for there own communities. This has lead to Government beening more Centralised and less able to deal with local issues.
Whos to blame?
Everyone over 30 who hasn't taken an active role in there community. They've created a country that has lost its soul thats so in love with having THING's. That they've fogotten that the most important thing is free Community. It just takes a little work and an open mind
Complain about this comment
The British people are not citizens but subjects.
The British people have no bill of rights. (I know, the Magna Carta but it is a bit outdated.)
It seems to me that unless and until these wrongs against the British people are righted, there never will be a role for them to play in the state.
Complain about this comment
They are tiresome - those who blame the poor for being unable to raise themselves because of their situation in life .!!! A lot of these unfortunates are in their position because of the effects of government - something Blair has finally admitted . Blair presided over the most authoritarian and draconian of recent administrations - look at his record ; innocent people have DNA and fingerprints held on record - 42 days without trial ; lying to promote an illegal war; handing out contracts to cronies running IT companies etc. Following policies which ensured the success of the financial sector - whilst repressing the poorest in society , vilifying them at the same time he has ensured that the poor stay poor .
The paranoia he felt is represented by the banning of any form of protest against the government unless allowed by the police and in certain places - and he let this guide his policies at home.
Yet he wasn't above making sure he and his came out of it very well off - the lower orders had to make do with what ever they could .
They really are crocodile tears .
Complain about this comment
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzz Poor poor people blah blah blah
If they weren't so lazy at school got a job rather than liffing off the stste they wouldn't be so poor.
Complain about this comment
Re. 27.
Well done that man. You certainly manage to make yourself sound well-educated with that witty, well thought out and incisive remark, which adds so much to the debate.
Did you work hard in school to get a good job, only to let the standards drop afterwards?
I guess I’d rather die poor than ignorant.
Complain about this comment
28. The point of debate is not to try and make yourself sound well-educated with that witty.
Its to listen to different points of view and accept them as valid whether you agree with them or not.
28. Did you work hard in school to get a good job, only to let the standards drop afterwards?
Honestly, not as hard as i should have and no i didn't get a good job to start with. I just worked hard, for long hours to pay my way.
21. That's why we have a state, to stop the poor getting their hands on the money of the rich.
What do you propose having no state anr't you worried where you benifits would come from.
Why do people who call themselves dissadvantaged not realise that we all have the same oppertunities.
Getting back to the point, Citizens need to realise that they have responsibitilies to the state and each other. The problem is theres a who class of people who expect everything to be given to them.
Complain about this comment
28.
Although someone decides to stick up for the poor, why do you have to assume they are on benefits? Too much tabloid reading perhaps.
As an educated working man, in an above minimum wage, full time job, who collects no benefits or income support of any kind, I find it almost impossible to live from day to day in London, the city in which I was born. I certainly live below the poverty line.
Contrary to perceived media stereotypes of someone who is poor, I do not waste my money on cigarettes, binge drinking, trainers, or subscriptions to Sky TV, which I loathe. Yet I have to hold down two jobs just to pay the rent and eat.
Whilst at the other end of the spectrum, bankers and city-boys and others, are routinely given multi million pound bonuses for speculating, gambling (with other people's money), and distorting out of all recognition, (and with the oncoming recession), destroying our economy.
Do you notice the disparity?
This situation, the rapidly growing division between rich and poor, this return to serfdom, in the past ten years, has grown to proportions not seen since the industrial revolution. All this has happened with the knowing acquiescence of the state.
Education at university level is not free anymore, most graduates leave with a minimum of £20, 000 debt. Which is why the number of poor students is dropping.
You say that there's a class of people who expect everything to be given to them, I say there is a class of people who are slowly giving up trying to attain what is fast becoming impossible anyway.
This is happening because the state wants it to happen. It is what the state is for. That is why one of the richest women in the country, the Queen, is the representational head of it.
(that's why we're actually subjects-I'd love to be a citizen)
"Why do people who call themselves dissadvantaged not realise that we all have the same oppertunities."
If you say so. I disagree. Some people are born with vast amounts of money, access to private education, to old boy networks and jobs for the boys. most of us aren't.
You don't expect everyone to be happy about that do you?
Complain about this comment
No i don't expect everyone to be happy. There is no way to please everyone.
Capitalism doesn't recognise Equality.
30.That is why one of the richest women in the country, the Queen, is the representational head of it.
So just out of interest would you have a 100% inheritance tax
That way everyone would at least after a gereration or two be equally poor.
Complain about this comment
"Capitalism doesn't recognize Equality."
It certainly doesn't represent anything other than making shareholders rich and everyone else poor. Equality, would be nice, Liberty better, maybe some Fraternity thrown in for good measure. Now where have I heard that before?
Ah yes, in a country with a constitution, something we haven't got.
Funny, they haven't got a monarchy either.
Wonder what happened to them?
Complain about this comment
I'm not sure a constitution would help. It would be too easy to change if it was just passed into statute. If you want a Constitution that worked we would need to start comletely from scratch.
Complain about this comment
Start completely from scratch? Heavens no, you couldn't do that within the tight framework of our current parliamentary system.
I mean, you couldn't put a bill through parliament that would say, abolish the monarchy, or redistribute the land, when it’s the Queen's solemn duty to open each new session of Parliament. That would be like asking her Majesty to put herself out of work, and give up all her nice big houses. Something I’m sure she wouldn’t take too kindly to doing.
Unless you meant a fresh start that involved some kind of. . . revolution?
Hold that thought.
Complain about this comment
It's not surprising Blair felt he had to control British politics from the centre, as since the 70s local government has become less and less effective.
This in turn has been the result of Thatcher and Blair deliberately running down it's independence, it's remit and it's budget in order to control it. Blair complaining about centralisation is a bit rich as he couldn't even trust most of his own cabinet...
Once politicians are in power the urge to micro-manage seems to be inevitable. Labour have attempted to fix society's problems with a vast amount of legislation from Westminster. Perhaps if they were prepared to devolve some responsibility away from London the results would be more relevant to the rest of us...
Complain about this comment
interest rate for savings of £1 -£500 1%,interest rate for £50,000+ 4.5%,
the Rich get Richer the poorer stay that way,another day older and DEEPER in DEBT.
Complain about this comment
29. At 1:48pm on 07 Aug 2008, WhiteEnglishProud wrote:
"The point of debate is not to try and make yourself sound well-educated with that witty.
Its to listen to different points of view and accept them as valid whether you agree with them or not."
That is most certainly not the point of debate.
The point is to present your position and your argument for that position. Your opponent then presents a counter argument to illustrate why you are wrong. Thus, through the presentation of a series of logical statements we aim to prove that one idea is more valid than another.
This touchy-feely nonsense about every opinion being valid is for children and people who wish to stifle real debate. If you are going to publish your opinion in a public forum then you cannot demand that everyone must accept it as valid.
Besides aren't you pretty much ignoring your own rules by accusing someone who disagrees with you of being a freeloader? And as for this strawman..
"So just out of interest would you have a 100% inheritance tax
That way everyone would at least after a gereration or two be equally poor."
That's just lazy.
Complain about this comment
There has been a general failure to review the National history since 1979. The nation at that time was quite correctly fed up with the failure to address unconstrained union power. It sought a remedy by voting in Mrs T's administration. This administration then set to, to roll back excesses of Union Power.
At the same time we started to hear about the move away from manufacturing and the export of jobs abroad.
Large areas of the UK were subject to "restructuring" and service industries replaced manufacturing.
Those in unskilled labour appeared to be left in the wake as the services moved to centre stage.
Then services began to be outsourced so even those opportunities shrank.
Now we can see the result in some cases of 2 or 3 generations without a breadwinner.
Government allowed the loss of control of manufacturing, services banks and city institutions, more and more have fallen under foreign ownership.
What opportunities existed moved increasingly to the SE, making it difficult for those outside that region to partake of the benefits.
To feed the SE economic boom more liberal immigration was justified and permitted.
The result we voted Labour and nothing changed excesses grew.
So many now say I am forgotten and leave or adopt a more anti social position.
Now Labour has failed what do we do to prerve our perceived rights, Vote in extremists?
As to Obligations do we have any if we perceive ourselves to be forgotten in favour of others? The state is of London and for London.
Complain about this comment
Ref Comment 25:
"The British people have no bill of rights. (I know, the Magna Carta but it is a bit outdated.)"
Yep. Unfortunately however all those fundamental rights laid down in law have been eroded by every piece of legislation passed since, not least by messers Blair and Brown over the last 11 years.
Take for instance (relating to the very good related blog on the celebration of the knife and knife crime) the fundamental right in the UK - as laid down in Magna Carta - the right to carry weapons in self defence.
I will say that again for anyone who may have missed the significance of this. You have the fundamental right enshrined in UK law, to carry any weapon not prohibited in law for use in self defence (if you happen to be a Protestant). In the modern context this means that according to Magna Carta you can carry a Pistol, baton, stun gun incapacitating spray etc. in self defence.
Except of course you can't.
Unfortunately these weapons and indeed any other item, bunch of keys, hair spray, metal comb etc. have all been made illegal in law if they are being carried for self defence.
Brilliant.
In fact you can only now legitimately defend yourselves with your bare hands unless you can demonstrate that the hair spray which you sprayed into the mugger's eyes, or the metal comb which you raked across his face, happened to be in your pocket and came to hand when you were assaulted, and was not carried for the purpose of fending off muggers.
Frankly all of this makes the two US bumper stickers spring to mind "Gun control is not about guns; it's about control" and "An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject".
In any case - the relationship between citizen and state - The US constitution effectively permits the right to bear arms as part of a militia to specifically to oppose an authoritarian government. In our current situation... Amen to that.
Complain about this comment
It seems the Tory message is 'Confuse and win'. Cameron starts of by complaining about the effects of the wealth gap. Without offering any solution he then points out that people's problems are of their own making and nothing to do with Government. Gove then promises to improve the educational and job prospects oof the under-privileged. At the Tory Conference will Dave be hugging hoodies or handing out sharp sticks for Tories to poke obese working class oiks?
Complain about this comment
This is an issue that has been raging for quite a long time in the Labour camp, well before the resignation of Tony Blair. Remember the proposed policy of citizenship lessons for all children in schools. The instincts behind the Tory thinking are sound tough I am yet to be convinced whether they will have an effect. Whatever is siad by people in politics and society generally about opportunity, the opportunity for families and individuals in the UK to rise through social classes is there. One only has to look at immigrant communities such as the Jews and now Indians which initially were some of the poorest members of society yet managed in just a couple of generations to climb the social ladder.
It all boils down to social aspirations not opportunity. If somebody wants something in this country and if they are talented and intelligent enough and are prepared to work for it they stand a good chance of getting it. What future policy makers should be doing if figuring out how to change people’s aspirations and to inspire them to achieve and better themselves. If they manage to achieve this the social gap will be massively bridged and more importantly society will be more productive and generally wealthier socially, culturally and indeed economically.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS