To begin with I'd like to offer my thoughts on how I believe society has arrived at where it is today.
Given the importance of Changing Britain this is a long page but necessarily so because there is so much to cover - even after removing some content to keep it short!
Although politics is mentioned I am only recalling history and therefore not promoting any one party.
I have also tried to be as objective as I can.
Details of the Changing Britain vision will emerge over the coming months and years following comments left here and elsewhere by others.
Soon, I will reveal what I believe to be the 'central thread' that has the capability to cement all of our aspirations together for decades to come.
Details of the Changing Britain vision will emerge over the coming months and years following comments left here and elsewhere by others.
Soon, I will reveal what I believe to be the 'central thread' that has the capability to cement all of our aspirations together for decades to come.
====================================================
I believe that the problems of today have their roots way back in the 18th century.
As it expanded the industrial revolution generated work opportunities and produced associated earnings for many previously destitute areas.
People now had disposable income – albeit a very small amount. People in some sectors of industry earned more than others, despite significant health and safety risks to the latter.
A division of the nation’s workforce was introduced – ‘Management’ and ‘Shop floor workers’.
Management were encouraged by the wealthy of the day to ensure highest productivity at all costs, irrespective of risk of injury and death to shop floor workers. Management also benefited from additional ‘perks’ such as bonuses and (longer?) holidays. These people and their descendants became ‘middle class’, with shop floor workers described as ‘the working class’.
Attaining middle class status could only be achieved through promotion into a management role, something that was all but impossible for the working class. The lack of education amongst the working class enabled those (or whose parents’ were) fortunate to afford an education easy access to the better paid, and more powerful positions in the workplace.
This division of workforce (and by definition population) resulted in the beginnings of a divided and confrontational society. Shop floor workers combined with each other in order to create better working conditions creating the Union movement, and ‘White Collar’ managers were tasked to prevent costs associated with better working conditions from eating into the bottom line of the company – the profits.
An ‘us and them’ culture rapidly emerged.
The 1960’s saw the ‘free love’ revolution and, in some parts of society the relinquishment of many of the responsibilities normally associated with a strong and cohesive society occurred. Drug use became commonplace amongst both genders.
A division of the nation’s workforce was introduced – ‘Management’ and ‘Shop floor workers’.
Management were encouraged by the wealthy of the day to ensure highest productivity at all costs, irrespective of risk of injury and death to shop floor workers. Management also benefited from additional ‘perks’ such as bonuses and (longer?) holidays. These people and their descendants became ‘middle class’, with shop floor workers described as ‘the working class’.
Attaining middle class status could only be achieved through promotion into a management role, something that was all but impossible for the working class. The lack of education amongst the working class enabled those (or whose parents’ were) fortunate to afford an education easy access to the better paid, and more powerful positions in the workplace.
This division of workforce (and by definition population) resulted in the beginnings of a divided and confrontational society. Shop floor workers combined with each other in order to create better working conditions creating the Union movement, and ‘White Collar’ managers were tasked to prevent costs associated with better working conditions from eating into the bottom line of the company – the profits.
An ‘us and them’ culture rapidly emerged.
The 1960’s saw the ‘free love’ revolution and, in some parts of society the relinquishment of many of the responsibilities normally associated with a strong and cohesive society occurred. Drug use became commonplace amongst both genders.
Women became more and more confident in their ability to participate alongside men across almost all aspects of society, and although historically frowned upon in society the first ‘unmarried mother’ generation began to emerge.
Then came the divisive politics of the 1970's, 80's and 90's.
Following a period of political stagnation in the UK during the 1970's, when parties of all persuasion struggled to maintain popularity sufficient enough to catch the imagination of the wider public the conservative government, led by Margaret Thatcher introduced (supported by the media and press of the day) a social engineering project which held, at its core the materialistic values that set in motion the values through which a large proportion of todays population presents itself.
In order to reinforce her belief that “there is no such thing as society” Mrs. Thatcher adopted a strategy to further weaken and divide the working class and alienating it from the middle class.
Using all the legislative powers at her disposal and by introducing additional anti-union laws Mrs. Thatcher forced confrontation after confrontation with unions that ultimately produced strike action on a national scale.
Fighting for the future of their families, communities and towns, many union members withdrew their labour and as a result the rest of the population (and businesses) across the country suffered major power cuts and significant disruption to vital public services such as waste collection, funeral and rail services etc.
This action widened the division between the working and middle classes, and this division continues to adversely affect the attitudes of that section of today’s population that experienced those very dark days, whether they are working class or middle class.
Inner city areas were ignored, and as unemployment continued to rise tensions mounted. Riots began to break out across the country and the police were used as a tool to quell the uprisings. This distanced the police from residents of the areas affected by the rioting and led to poor relations between the police and communities for many years after.
In addition to creating further poverty amongst the working class the actions taken by the conservative government also destroyed previously vibrant, proud and hard-working mining communities.
Consequently, the results of policies put in place by at that time are still being felt in many parts of the country.
Mining communities devastated by the conservative pit-closure programme remain areas of high unemployment, deprivation, crime and poverty today.
Entire industries such as British Gas, the National Grid and the Railway infrastructure (to name a few) were sold off to the private sector at bargain prices.
In the race to make ever-higher profits for the shareholder jobs were then slashed from these newly-privatised companies. This vicious circle of greed and divisiveness continued through the 90's and has played a huge part in creating today’s fragmented society.
The three terms in Government for the conservatives ended quite predictably; many conservative politicians became mired in the society they had created, with the majority of the population believing that all conservatives were embroiled in ‘sleaze’.
Some were, and a huge swell of discontentment emerged amongst the population. Even after Mrs. Thatcher had been removed from the role as Prime Minister by her own political allies, and despite his efforts to introduce a 'back to basics' philosophy John Major continued with the ‘divide and rule’’ programme. This generated increasing unemployment – especially in areas that had previously benefited from the emergence of manufacturing industries.
Throughout the process of eroding the UK’s manufacturing base the conservative government began introducing what they referred to as ‘service industries’, most of which were based in the south east of England – the traditional heartlands of the conservatives.
Throughout this period the conservatives restricted investment across a number of key elements of society (all of which centred around the use of Public Sector workforce); schools, hospitals, prisons and the NHS.
Wages were kept to an absolute minimum and buildings housing schoolchildren, patients, offenders and public sector workers received little or no maintenance.
Thus, an ethos of profiteering and anti-public sector sentiment prevailed in the minds of many voters. The diminished strength of unions instilled greater levels of insecurity amongst the working population which led to an increasingly self-centred society.
People feared for their jobs and government policies continued to fuel these fears. In the absence of union-based ‘strength in numbers’ workers were isolated and vulnerable.
Pay levels were cut and working conditions remained poor.
Remaining in employment was THE priority – even if it meant betraying your friends.
It truly was a ‘dog-eat-dog’ society. Those who bought into the conservative strategies at the time did quite well.
For the most part these were people who had previously been financially secure. Management, company owners and other well informed people pounced upon the moneymaking opportunities created.
Members of the working class got involved. For example when British Gas was sold off many bought shares in the company in the hope of making a small profit. This followed a widespread, long running and effective TV and press marketing campaign.
Today, some 20 years later it would be interesting to see just how many British Gas shares remain in the possession of the working class.
Another long term impact of conservative and labour policies meted out throughout the 1980’s, 1990's and into the new millenium has been the level of distrust towards politicians in general.
The sleaze episode sent the conservative government into freefall and it suffered heavily when, in 1997 Labour won a landslide victory in the General Election.
However, many systems that were put in place by the conservative governments were not repealed by Tony Blair's ‘New Labour' administration.
Anti-union laws remained. The financial sector was given priority and New Labour party leaders maintained an uncomfortable ‘working relationship’ with the press and the media. So much so that the dominant belief amongst politicians was that they relied heavily on the press – to the extent of fearing what the press could do to their political careers should it turn against them.
Inevitably, as with the conservatives before them, the Laabour government was eventually consumed by sleaze. Whilst the expenses scandal involved most MP's from either side of the House the Labour government was seen as the main culprt and people used their vote to register their frustration, anger and disappointment.
Public confidence and perception of politics & politicians hit a new low.
This came to a head during the spring of 2011 when the public also became aware of the power of the press through revelations contained within the ‘Hacking Scandal’.
It is now apparent that the role of the press in shaping public opinion has also had a longstanding and detrimental effect on society in this country. Too many editors reported irresponsibly and a lot of the time untruthfully.
Meanwhile large elements of the readership subconsciously processed this version of ‘the truth’, fully accepting the information reported within the press as accurate and factual.
Repetition followed as readers bought the same newspaper day in, day out and the ‘truth’ that was conveyed to them by the editors and reporters of their preferred newspaper became the opinion of the readers.
Back in the 1970’s, 1980’s and 1990’s newspapers and TV newscasts were the only real source of information, and what information that did become available could not really be challenged by the general population. The press and TV really did lead and alter public opinion.
Today is far different than then. We now have rolling news from around the world containing live reports of events as they happen. Claims made by politicians and others can be investigated and cross referenced using the Internet.
Access to unbelievable amounts of information via the Internet now enables anyone interested in a particular issue to get much, much closer to the ‘truth’, without the need to rely on the handed-down opinion of editors.
After so long in the dark the work of one individual sitting at his or her computer can, and has resulted in the reversal of decades of misinformed opinion. For example, what was once the central, trusted point of information dissemination - the press - is now a profession that is frowned upon and mistrusted by many. People now question the validity of the contents of news articles.
The hacking scandal revealed the depths that the press will go to in order to sell newspapers, which included the printing of lies and misinformation.
Once unearthed, this information spread across the Internet at astonishing speed making it impossible for the press to control this particular version of the truth, and perceptions of the press changed forever with the voting public becoming, almost overnight Internet empowered detectives that could seek out the truth for themselves.
Notwithstanding the recent empowerment of the voter, the increasing prevalence of apathy amongst the voting population throughout the past forty years has, in the eyes of voters also enabled politicians to avoid, to a large extent true accountability for their actions (or lack of action for that matter).
It has become too easy to get re-elected off the back of a very small turnout.
Another key contributor to the way in which today’s society presents itself is the inability of successive governments to appreciate the level of revulsion felt toward the banking industry.
Despite assertions from the recent Labour administration and the present conservative-led coalition that this industry is undergoing an overhaul, the general consensus of opinion out across Britain is that the bankers have 'got off scot-free' whilst the taxpayer and others suffer the consequences of their actions.
It is true that, while taxpayers have many years of financial hardship ahead of them in order to balance the nations books, bankers have already been awarded grotesque bonuses.
This example of government failing - e.g. an unwillingness to confront the banking industry - has significantly increased levels of public mistrust toward politicians.
Since the late 1980’s attention from successive governments toward the youth of the country has also been completely inadequate. Throughout that time standards have also fallen significantly in terms of socially responsible parenting.
So, during the summer of 2011 out they came.
Frustrated, angry and (it must be said) imitating the seemingly widespread disregard for rules by the politicians, the press and some elements of the Police.
We have to be honest with ourselves and ask ‘Why?’
Why was it that so many of the rioters were male?
And why is it that today’s society - a society that we have all created - contains such a high proportion of single parents?
Why is it that even though we are aware of the importance of the male role model in a child’s life and in the future development of that child we have done little to encourage stable, long-term relationships?
Where could we have done better in the past to address the problem?
As an average person without the apparent knowledge-base required to recognise such a societal failing even I recognised many years ago that young people – especially young males were crying out for the guidance and encouragement that only a responsible, caring and positive role model can provide.
This is in no way a criticism of the role of the female in society, just as much as it isn’t rocket science.
Have you ever been mildly annoyed when a youngster in your life asks for ‘more’? How many of us have experienced a child who, whilst playing with the latest technology available asks for the ‘next big thing’? Not content with the iPod, iPad, laptop and PC games children always seem to want ‘more’.
And how many of us have muttered something along the lines of “...you kids don’t know what it was like when I was young. We didn’t have anything close to the stuff you have. Your spoilt!”
Yet isn’t that exactly the way it should be? When we were young, how many times did our parents inform us that we were “spoilt”?
It is not the youngsters to blame – nor should any blame be apportioned to them. We were the same. Our parents were the same.
What we are experiencing is the next generation having – in a material sense – a better quality of life than we did as children, which is the key responsibility for us as parents.
Hopefully, it will transpire that their children will be informed that they are ‘spoilt’ when their turn comes around.
However it is here where I believe we, as a society have made our largest error over almost half a century.
The successive policies of British governments’ spurned a generation of materialistic and often selfish individuals.
It was (and remains) an “I’m in this for myself” society.
Evidence of this has been the emergence of programmes that encourage youngsters of a very early age to believe that fame and so-called stardom is the easy way to fortune and happiness.
Of course what invariably happens is that many thousands of youngsters have their dreams shattered as a precious few attain fame ...and even then it is for just a few months, or a year or so if they are lucky.
In the meantime, a heck of a lot of people make a heck of a lot of money in the process – none of whom were the kids that didn’t ‘make it’.
So here we are. A society that teaches kids that it is easy to make it big, and that the reason they are trying to do so is the misinformed belief that materialistic possession is paramount.
When, over the past 25 years have we focussed – TRULY focussed on ensuring our children grow up to become well rounded, caring, unselfish and responsible young adults?
I don’t think we have done so sufficiently. The framework to do so simply hasn’t been in place.
In fact we have inadvertently done the opposite.
Outside of the family environment we eroded the ability of those we entrust to provide our children with guidance consistent with what we were doing at home.
With our complete support they should have been reinforcing our message concerning the acceptable behaviour standards and values that make an open, caring society. These people should also have been given the resources and power that they needed in order for them to complete their partnership with parents effectively.
Instead, we undermined their roles significantly.
Instead of enabling them to build on the foundation we were trying to build at home, we participated in allowing the rights of an individual child to supersede that of the majority of children.
Using all the legislative powers at her disposal and by introducing additional anti-union laws Mrs. Thatcher forced confrontation after confrontation with unions that ultimately produced strike action on a national scale.
Fighting for the future of their families, communities and towns, many union members withdrew their labour and as a result the rest of the population (and businesses) across the country suffered major power cuts and significant disruption to vital public services such as waste collection, funeral and rail services etc.
This action widened the division between the working and middle classes, and this division continues to adversely affect the attitudes of that section of today’s population that experienced those very dark days, whether they are working class or middle class.
Inner city areas were ignored, and as unemployment continued to rise tensions mounted. Riots began to break out across the country and the police were used as a tool to quell the uprisings. This distanced the police from residents of the areas affected by the rioting and led to poor relations between the police and communities for many years after.
In addition to creating further poverty amongst the working class the actions taken by the conservative government also destroyed previously vibrant, proud and hard-working mining communities.
Consequently, the results of policies put in place by at that time are still being felt in many parts of the country.
Mining communities devastated by the conservative pit-closure programme remain areas of high unemployment, deprivation, crime and poverty today.
Entire industries such as British Gas, the National Grid and the Railway infrastructure (to name a few) were sold off to the private sector at bargain prices.
In the race to make ever-higher profits for the shareholder jobs were then slashed from these newly-privatised companies. This vicious circle of greed and divisiveness continued through the 90's and has played a huge part in creating today’s fragmented society.
The three terms in Government for the conservatives ended quite predictably; many conservative politicians became mired in the society they had created, with the majority of the population believing that all conservatives were embroiled in ‘sleaze’.
Some were, and a huge swell of discontentment emerged amongst the population. Even after Mrs. Thatcher had been removed from the role as Prime Minister by her own political allies, and despite his efforts to introduce a 'back to basics' philosophy John Major continued with the ‘divide and rule’’ programme. This generated increasing unemployment – especially in areas that had previously benefited from the emergence of manufacturing industries.
Throughout the process of eroding the UK’s manufacturing base the conservative government began introducing what they referred to as ‘service industries’, most of which were based in the south east of England – the traditional heartlands of the conservatives.
Throughout this period the conservatives restricted investment across a number of key elements of society (all of which centred around the use of Public Sector workforce); schools, hospitals, prisons and the NHS.
Wages were kept to an absolute minimum and buildings housing schoolchildren, patients, offenders and public sector workers received little or no maintenance.
Thus, an ethos of profiteering and anti-public sector sentiment prevailed in the minds of many voters. The diminished strength of unions instilled greater levels of insecurity amongst the working population which led to an increasingly self-centred society.
People feared for their jobs and government policies continued to fuel these fears. In the absence of union-based ‘strength in numbers’ workers were isolated and vulnerable.
Pay levels were cut and working conditions remained poor.
Remaining in employment was THE priority – even if it meant betraying your friends.
It truly was a ‘dog-eat-dog’ society. Those who bought into the conservative strategies at the time did quite well.
For the most part these were people who had previously been financially secure. Management, company owners and other well informed people pounced upon the moneymaking opportunities created.
Members of the working class got involved. For example when British Gas was sold off many bought shares in the company in the hope of making a small profit. This followed a widespread, long running and effective TV and press marketing campaign.
Today, some 20 years later it would be interesting to see just how many British Gas shares remain in the possession of the working class.
Another long term impact of conservative and labour policies meted out throughout the 1980’s, 1990's and into the new millenium has been the level of distrust towards politicians in general.
The sleaze episode sent the conservative government into freefall and it suffered heavily when, in 1997 Labour won a landslide victory in the General Election.
However, many systems that were put in place by the conservative governments were not repealed by Tony Blair's ‘New Labour' administration.
Anti-union laws remained. The financial sector was given priority and New Labour party leaders maintained an uncomfortable ‘working relationship’ with the press and the media. So much so that the dominant belief amongst politicians was that they relied heavily on the press – to the extent of fearing what the press could do to their political careers should it turn against them.
Inevitably, as with the conservatives before them, the Laabour government was eventually consumed by sleaze. Whilst the expenses scandal involved most MP's from either side of the House the Labour government was seen as the main culprt and people used their vote to register their frustration, anger and disappointment.
Public confidence and perception of politics & politicians hit a new low.
This came to a head during the spring of 2011 when the public also became aware of the power of the press through revelations contained within the ‘Hacking Scandal’.
It is now apparent that the role of the press in shaping public opinion has also had a longstanding and detrimental effect on society in this country. Too many editors reported irresponsibly and a lot of the time untruthfully.
Meanwhile large elements of the readership subconsciously processed this version of ‘the truth’, fully accepting the information reported within the press as accurate and factual.
Repetition followed as readers bought the same newspaper day in, day out and the ‘truth’ that was conveyed to them by the editors and reporters of their preferred newspaper became the opinion of the readers.
Back in the 1970’s, 1980’s and 1990’s newspapers and TV newscasts were the only real source of information, and what information that did become available could not really be challenged by the general population. The press and TV really did lead and alter public opinion.
Today is far different than then. We now have rolling news from around the world containing live reports of events as they happen. Claims made by politicians and others can be investigated and cross referenced using the Internet.
Access to unbelievable amounts of information via the Internet now enables anyone interested in a particular issue to get much, much closer to the ‘truth’, without the need to rely on the handed-down opinion of editors.
After so long in the dark the work of one individual sitting at his or her computer can, and has resulted in the reversal of decades of misinformed opinion. For example, what was once the central, trusted point of information dissemination - the press - is now a profession that is frowned upon and mistrusted by many. People now question the validity of the contents of news articles.
The hacking scandal revealed the depths that the press will go to in order to sell newspapers, which included the printing of lies and misinformation.
Once unearthed, this information spread across the Internet at astonishing speed making it impossible for the press to control this particular version of the truth, and perceptions of the press changed forever with the voting public becoming, almost overnight Internet empowered detectives that could seek out the truth for themselves.
Notwithstanding the recent empowerment of the voter, the increasing prevalence of apathy amongst the voting population throughout the past forty years has, in the eyes of voters also enabled politicians to avoid, to a large extent true accountability for their actions (or lack of action for that matter).
It has become too easy to get re-elected off the back of a very small turnout.
Another key contributor to the way in which today’s society presents itself is the inability of successive governments to appreciate the level of revulsion felt toward the banking industry.
Despite assertions from the recent Labour administration and the present conservative-led coalition that this industry is undergoing an overhaul, the general consensus of opinion out across Britain is that the bankers have 'got off scot-free' whilst the taxpayer and others suffer the consequences of their actions.
It is true that, while taxpayers have many years of financial hardship ahead of them in order to balance the nations books, bankers have already been awarded grotesque bonuses.
This example of government failing - e.g. an unwillingness to confront the banking industry - has significantly increased levels of public mistrust toward politicians.
Since the late 1980’s attention from successive governments toward the youth of the country has also been completely inadequate. Throughout that time standards have also fallen significantly in terms of socially responsible parenting.
So, during the summer of 2011 out they came.
Frustrated, angry and (it must be said) imitating the seemingly widespread disregard for rules by the politicians, the press and some elements of the Police.
We have to be honest with ourselves and ask ‘Why?’
Why was it that so many of the rioters were male?
And why is it that today’s society - a society that we have all created - contains such a high proportion of single parents?
Why is it that even though we are aware of the importance of the male role model in a child’s life and in the future development of that child we have done little to encourage stable, long-term relationships?
Where could we have done better in the past to address the problem?
As an average person without the apparent knowledge-base required to recognise such a societal failing even I recognised many years ago that young people – especially young males were crying out for the guidance and encouragement that only a responsible, caring and positive role model can provide.
This is in no way a criticism of the role of the female in society, just as much as it isn’t rocket science.
Have you ever been mildly annoyed when a youngster in your life asks for ‘more’? How many of us have experienced a child who, whilst playing with the latest technology available asks for the ‘next big thing’? Not content with the iPod, iPad, laptop and PC games children always seem to want ‘more’.
And how many of us have muttered something along the lines of “...you kids don’t know what it was like when I was young. We didn’t have anything close to the stuff you have. Your spoilt!”
Yet isn’t that exactly the way it should be? When we were young, how many times did our parents inform us that we were “spoilt”?
It is not the youngsters to blame – nor should any blame be apportioned to them. We were the same. Our parents were the same.
What we are experiencing is the next generation having – in a material sense – a better quality of life than we did as children, which is the key responsibility for us as parents.
Hopefully, it will transpire that their children will be informed that they are ‘spoilt’ when their turn comes around.
However it is here where I believe we, as a society have made our largest error over almost half a century.
The successive policies of British governments’ spurned a generation of materialistic and often selfish individuals.
It was (and remains) an “I’m in this for myself” society.
Evidence of this has been the emergence of programmes that encourage youngsters of a very early age to believe that fame and so-called stardom is the easy way to fortune and happiness.
Of course what invariably happens is that many thousands of youngsters have their dreams shattered as a precious few attain fame ...and even then it is for just a few months, or a year or so if they are lucky.
In the meantime, a heck of a lot of people make a heck of a lot of money in the process – none of whom were the kids that didn’t ‘make it’.
So here we are. A society that teaches kids that it is easy to make it big, and that the reason they are trying to do so is the misinformed belief that materialistic possession is paramount.
When, over the past 25 years have we focussed – TRULY focussed on ensuring our children grow up to become well rounded, caring, unselfish and responsible young adults?
I don’t think we have done so sufficiently. The framework to do so simply hasn’t been in place.
In fact we have inadvertently done the opposite.
Outside of the family environment we eroded the ability of those we entrust to provide our children with guidance consistent with what we were doing at home.
With our complete support they should have been reinforcing our message concerning the acceptable behaviour standards and values that make an open, caring society. These people should also have been given the resources and power that they needed in order for them to complete their partnership with parents effectively.
Instead, we undermined their roles significantly.
Instead of enabling them to build on the foundation we were trying to build at home, we participated in allowing the rights of an individual child to supersede that of the majority of children.
Those involved in - for example - Teaching, Policing and Child Care Services were left increasingly impotent when it came to addressing unruly and sometimes anti-social behaviour taking place in the classroom or on the streets.
Over the years Human Rights legislation has unwittingly produced a kind of 'straightjacket' that effectively prevents these professions from carrying out their duties in an effective manner.
It is interesting to me that up to this point I have not discussed the so-called ‘upper class’. Although I detest separating the citizens of our great country into ‘classes’ I am compelled to use these distinctions because most people seem to have accepted them.
It is to these people, the ‘upper class’ that I now turn my attention.
For too long, and across too many sections of society, we the British public have allowed a tiny minority to reap huge financial rewards off the back of the hard work and commitment of the vast majority of the working population.
This is (as is now evident) unsustainable.
A society that is generally hard working and committed to the concept of ‘fair taxation’ in order for the country to function at all levels should not – indeed I propose MUST NOT allow approximately 25 - 40%, or more of its effort to be redirected as profit into the personal bank accounts of that tiny minority.
The profiteering experiment has gone on long enough.
It has had its day.
Thatcher was wrong, as was Reagan over in the USA, yet conservatives on both sides of the Atlantic and elsewhere are allowed to continue irrespective of the damage it does to hardworking families whether working or middle class.
The population of our country should not allow itself to become divided any longer. Confrontation ruined society back in the 1980’s and 1990’s and we must never again let it be used as a divisive tool by politicians.
Yes, the unions did get too strong, too confrontational and yes, they were sometimes forced into doing so.
Today, membership of a union should reflect the experiences of the past by uniting employers and employees in an effort to get the best out of the company for everyone, from the newest recruit to the chief executive officer.
Everyone should be part of that union – and not divided with individual self interest top of the agenda throughout the company.
This is how it could be and this is how it should be ...at work, at home and in communities across the UK.
I am certain that there IS such a thing as society, and that it exists all around us.
More importantly, I believe that it exists most of all in the thoughts of all working and middle class people across the length and breadth of Britain.
I believe that it just needs bringing back out from behind those (previously open) front doors that were closed and locked shut many, many years ago.
The Changing Britain vision will create the environment for individuals, communities, businesses and Government to thrive once again.
Over the years Human Rights legislation has unwittingly produced a kind of 'straightjacket' that effectively prevents these professions from carrying out their duties in an effective manner.
It is interesting to me that up to this point I have not discussed the so-called ‘upper class’. Although I detest separating the citizens of our great country into ‘classes’ I am compelled to use these distinctions because most people seem to have accepted them.
It is to these people, the ‘upper class’ that I now turn my attention.
For too long, and across too many sections of society, we the British public have allowed a tiny minority to reap huge financial rewards off the back of the hard work and commitment of the vast majority of the working population.
This is (as is now evident) unsustainable.
A society that is generally hard working and committed to the concept of ‘fair taxation’ in order for the country to function at all levels should not – indeed I propose MUST NOT allow approximately 25 - 40%, or more of its effort to be redirected as profit into the personal bank accounts of that tiny minority.
The profiteering experiment has gone on long enough.
It has had its day.
Thatcher was wrong, as was Reagan over in the USA, yet conservatives on both sides of the Atlantic and elsewhere are allowed to continue irrespective of the damage it does to hardworking families whether working or middle class.
The population of our country should not allow itself to become divided any longer. Confrontation ruined society back in the 1980’s and 1990’s and we must never again let it be used as a divisive tool by politicians.
Yes, the unions did get too strong, too confrontational and yes, they were sometimes forced into doing so.
Today, membership of a union should reflect the experiences of the past by uniting employers and employees in an effort to get the best out of the company for everyone, from the newest recruit to the chief executive officer.
Everyone should be part of that union – and not divided with individual self interest top of the agenda throughout the company.
This is how it could be and this is how it should be ...at work, at home and in communities across the UK.
I am certain that there IS such a thing as society, and that it exists all around us.
More importantly, I believe that it exists most of all in the thoughts of all working and middle class people across the length and breadth of Britain.
I believe that it just needs bringing back out from behind those (previously open) front doors that were closed and locked shut many, many years ago.
The Changing Britain vision will create the environment for individuals, communities, businesses and Government to thrive once again.
Join Us!
