Paranoid! What me? NB

P

Peppermint

Well-Known Member
Joined
11 Oct 2002
Messages
2,919
Location
Home in Chilterns, Boat in Southampton, Another bo
Visit site
This is long and boring and nothing to do with boats.

G Brown is going to make a statement today that will layout certain financial policies regarding family life. It looks like the intention is to make child rearing a state task so that mums can go to work. HMMM.

If we look back to when Britain was a strong, responsible and confident place. The family unit was a strong and individual part of the social fabric. Now it's not valued in the same way. Stay at home mums can't be fulfilled we're told. Families with one earner can't possibly reach their aspirations or keep up with the Jones's

At that same time community feeling, based on village/town/county/region/country were very strong. Now population mobility, house pricing and the draw of the cities
dilutes community spirit into a pastiche of accent, football teams, in jokes and NIMBY'ism.

We're told that this change is driven by influences outside our control. We're told that HMG is determined to protect societies values. But who profits from these changes. In a population where the traditional structures are broken who can individuals and families turn to to ease their troubled minds (don't ask who stirred up the stuff that worries them) . Church or State? The Church is fragmenting into fundamentalism or trendy ineffectualism so that leaves the state then.

It's generally accepted that the EU would like to see the rise of regionalism and the decline of nationalism so that boundaries can blur. That's the reason so much of their aid is targeted at regions rather than countries.

It's generally accepted that we now have the most control freakish government we've ever had. To reach their apogee, I'd suggest, that having the majority dependant on and addicted to state supports of all kinds could be part of a plan.

That George Orwell might have got the date wrong but he was a clever bloke. You might have read it as an entertainment or a excercise. Someone else might have seen it as a starting point.



<hr width=100% size=1>
 
You are not alone! NB

Both myself and SWMBO feel exactly the same!

She has NEVER worked outside the home since our two girls were born, as we both feel that that is where she should be!

And before the feminists start ranting on, it was our CHOICE. We both feel that the most important "Career", if I can use that term, is to be there for the Girls.

She is also dead against all these minorities spouting off about "rights". She has nothing whatsoever against gays, lesbians (insert whatever), but as she points out, she ALSO has rights - The right to live her life the way she wants to, without all this "rights" stuff being thrust in her face.

She often says that she wishes she had the skills to put forward her point of view. Perhaps, Peppermint, you two should start a new political movement ! ! !

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
The problem is that the government has comparatively little influence over social trends. Their policies can influence things one way or another but on the whole the social and economic forces at work are too strong for the government to fight.

The fact that for many families two salaries are "necessary" to live comfortably can't really be put down to the policies of this or any other government but rather to the way society has evolved. That being the case I think that government support in this area is a positive thing.

We now have a toddler, and we have chosen that the First Mate will not return to work at the moment. What is very noticeable now, compared to when we were young, is the almost total lack of the social scene associated with pre-school children. The vast majority of other professional couples put their sprong into full time child care as soon as it can be ripped from the breast - this means that the informal social life that used to exist is no longer there and if you do choose to stay at home to look after your child during the first couple of years you end up getting very isolated.

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Re: The money thing

fine for anyone to stay at home. But darn sarth, that simply isn't an option if people want to buy a house, even a quite ordinary house. I see a 2up 2down house here is £190k.



<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Re: Me too

I think you need to look back a way

In the 1930s the Soviet Union was able to gain a considerable degree of support throughout Western Europe. perhaps understandably following the depression starting in 1929.

This was not only amongst the "working class" but also amongst the higher stratas of society. One manifestation of this was the Burgess, McLean, Philby groups who covertly worked to the Soviets advantage. But these were not the only ones, there were many more who sought to spread Soviet influence through the Labour Party and the Trades Unions. I quote the British example but this was repeated across Europe, most effectively in France and Italy. Attempts in Germany ran into Hitler and his mates and were rather overwhelmed by the experience.

WW2 created a deal of support for the USSR largely based on sympathy for their suffering during the war. This was used most cynically by the hard core communists to increase the support for the party or for the party's ideas.

The Labout governments of the 1960s & 70s brought many of these communists and communist sympathisers to power and they set about fulfilling the requirements of their Soviet mentors. The British aircraft industry, then world leaders (Concorde, TSR2 Harrier etc) was systematically destroyed. The other defences of the country were run down to the point of being almost ineffective. The militant trade unions grew in power and brought the British economy to the point where the country was effectively bankrupt. Healy, then Chancellor, had to go to the World Bank to be baled out.

We then come to the 1980s - Thatcher!

Never mind the economic policies but consider the stance with Reagan against the Soviets. CND were able to mobilise hundreds of coach loads of "supports" against cruise and Pershing missiles. To a man the Labour party supported CND. All the present government were complete supports of abandoning nuclear weapons. Blinket created his nuclear free zone in Sheffield and received the cordial thanks of Moscow - who had nuclear tipped missiles targetted on Sheffield at the time.

And so it went on across Europe large numbers of leftish politicians covertly supporting the ideals of the Soviet Union whilst presenting a face of social democracy.

Until it all fell down 1989. So what were they to do. The model demonstrably didn't work. But could their long held beliefs be wrong. No of course not, it had to be rationalised some other way and the way they chose was to re-create the ideals of the Soviet Union through the mechanism of the EEC.

Look at the parallels

Single currency not the Rouble but the Euro

Command Economy from Brussels rather than Moscow

Single "justice" system

Federal state with obedient satellites

Rule by appointed party appartchiks

No opportunity for individuals to have access to the political agenda

Increasingly harsh laws to deter divergence from the "party line"

Assaults on personal wealth

Increasing control of means of production and distribution

And so on and on and on

It is already a "Union"

Its slant and higher echelons are distinctly "Socialist"

Regionalisation will model the supposed "Soviets"

All thats left to do is make them "Republics" and they've won.

Paranoid - perhaps But I recently had the opportunity to look around a former KGB prison and I didn't like it. Straight Jackets, Execution Yard, Torture Cells and all.

Not dating back to the Stalin days - it was last operational in 1988. I do not want to see its like in this country.

The more I see of the way Europe is moving and particularly the way this government is moving the more I worry about it.



<hr width=100% size=1>
 
He may have got the date wrong, but what if they were in power in 1974, with this majority then, by 1984, you would have had this scenario. This lot are not to be trusted, I'd scarper! Infact I have!

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Re: The money thing

"fine for anyone to stay at home. But darn sarth, that simply isn't an option if people want to buy a house, even a quite ordinary house. I see a 2up 2down house here is £190k. "

Come the next depression the house prices will drop when no one has the money.

The house is priced at 190k because the agent knows some DINK will come along and pay it.

<hr width=100% size=1>
hammer.thumb.gif
 
there is one error, i think, in your 3rd para. the uk is arguably stronger and more confident than i can remember but ... such will only continue if the working population does not continue to fall. Like most european countries, falling birth rates and a growing economically inactive group will reduce future and current rates of economic growth. A solution is to encourage mothers back to work ...

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
"It looks like the intention is to make child rearing a state task"

Isn't that what David Plunkett has just tried to do?

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Re: Me too

Interesting view - the UESR (Union of European Socialist Republics) on the cards perhaps?

John



<hr width=100% size=1>I am the cat but I am only 6.
 
Re: Me too

Sorry Puss, it's already here! Think and look again. I agree with waht is being said by the way. Anybody with any sense can.

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
that applies to us, too

You are absolutely right.

We have two boys, 9 and 2 and their mother is at home. The financial pressure is immense, and, as you say, we are now seen as unusual, although, to us, this is the "normal" and right thing to do.

Have you noticed the steady groundswell of propaganda to the effect that it is BETTER for the pre-school child to be in full time child care? We certainly have.

Governments used to be concerned to make it possible for mothers to look after their children.

No more.

<hr width=100% size=1>Que scais-je?
 
Blunkett and George Orwell

There is something odd about the saga of Luz Casalme's indefinite leave to remain.

In fact there are a couple of things.

We are told that she was wanted to accompany her employer and child for a trip abroad - she could not do this whilst her passport was lodged with the Home Office for 12 months in support of her application...

Her employer asked Mr Blunkett to check that the form was filled in correctly. The form is very easy to complete (I have done so myself) and you can download very clear notes from the Home Office website. Yet the publisher of a very well known political weekly, a lady of presumably above average literacy, needed help with it...

The indefinite leave to remain was seemingly granted before the four year term was completed.

All coincidence, of course.

Never mind 1984, think of the scene in Animal Farm where the pigs can no longer be distinguished from the humans.



<hr width=100% size=1>Que scais-je?
 
Re: The money thing

There is some truth in that but not completely so. When I was first married house prices where I worked in Hertfordshire in the London commuter belt were 10 x my salary, mortgages were given as a maximum of 3 x salary. We moved 35mls north up the A1 (a long way then pre motorways) in order to buy our first home and even then I worked another part time evening/weekend job to help out. We could not afford to start a family until several years and several promotions later as this meant dropping to a single income, but nowadays people do not want to wait and staying at home to raise the family is not seen by many as an option. It is the same with boats, an ancient little 20 footer isn't good enough any more as a starter boat, after all the neighbours have something bigger.

<hr width=100% size=1><font size=1>Sermons from my pulpit are with tongue firmly in cheek and come with no warranty!</font size=1>
 
bedouin,

You should move to Stewkley. We now have 2 kids under 4 and appear to be best friends with the entire village. Before we knew virtually nobody. Mind you I'm known as Libby's Dad.

My wife works 3 days a week in London, I work full time. I reckon the kids get the best of both worlds - our childminder is local so the kids they meet will be the ones they will go to school with. The village school is within walking distance.

Rob.

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Re: that applies to us, too

Yes - an excellent example just last week where the headlines were that there was evidence that children who had been in nursery performed better at school. Hence proving that women who put their babies in full time childcare from 3 months are acting in the best interest of the child.

What actually the report says is that children who have been to part-time pre-school the year before starting in primary school did show a small performance benefit for the first couple of years, but there is no evidence of it continuing benefit a couple of years later.

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Thank you very much for that!

That will put my wife's mind at rest. I just saw the headline and so did she, but we had trouble believing it.

<hr width=100% size=1>Que scais-je?
 
Re: Empty Vessels

UK plc. might indeed sound more confident but it's people are more uncertain about a wide range of things. From diet to bringing up your kids, from health issues to the law, from immigration to the war. The advice from HMG or media is spun into meaninglessness. Technical bodies contradict each other and trust has gone out of the window.

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Women who wish to have children should be allowed to have time off work. However that should be at their expense and their risk of finding work again when they so choose. Why should taxpayers support maternity leave. I have heard at least one person interviewed on radio say that they waited for his wife to get a job before getting pregnant so that she could get maternity leave and pay, and had absolutely no intention of returning to work afterwards.

If women want children and the government wants to look after the interest of the child then they should encourage women to give up work altogther to raise families.

House prices have risen because of supply and demand and the fact that it is commonplace for couples to have two incomes and therefore more money. If a single income was the norm then house prices would have to fall in line as no-one would be able to afford the inflated prices.

Women in the workplace have been a major cause in driving up house prices. Similarly they have been a major contributor over the past few decades for unemployment figures, as their numbers have grown in the workplace. This has also led to a lowering of wages across the board because there is greater competition for jobs, woman have traditionally been prepared to work for less, and the financial needs of the workforce have lowered as they have two incomes.

If the traditional family consisted of one breadwinner and one homemaker then houseprices would have to fall to meet demand. Unemployment would be virtually non-existent, and due to the lower number of people available to work, wages would have to rise in order to be competitive. A proper balance would then be restored.

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top