Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now

In which we try to change an aspect of the country Watch

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kibalchich)
    Teaching is very stressful. I've a few mates who are teachers, they do 12 hour days every day, plus work at weekends.
    Do people regularly die in-front of them? If they fail to do there job correctly is someone likely to lose a loved one? (i know it could happen but failing to do day to day tasks don't often end up with dead kids...)

    Do they regularly have to console people who've lost or are losing loved ones?

    My point isn't that teaching doesn't have it's stresses it's simply that they aren't as stressful as nurses.

    Teachers are on what? 20 + grand a year?

    Teachers shouldn't got more than nurses or indeed front line soldiers. There job is no where near that stressful.

    I remember during my time in primary school a teach having time of because of stress. My dad an ex-miner found this hilarious as he quite often came home from his job only to be called back to find a friend he'd just said bye to crushed to death... That's stress.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Hmm... I'd repeal all laws regarding elections &c., so I maintain permanent control of the country. You said I could do whatever I want!

    Srsly, though, I have no idea.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dave_123)
    Do people regularly die in-front of them? If they fail to do there job correctly is someone likely to lose a loved one? (i know it could happen but failing to do day to day tasks don't often end up with dead kids...)

    Do they regularly have to console people who've lost or are losing loved ones?

    My point isn't that teaching doesn't have it's stresses it's simply that they aren't as stressful as nurses.

    Teachers are on what? 20 + grand a year?

    Teachers shouldn't got more than nurses or indeed front line soldiers. There job is no where near that stressful.

    I remember during my time in primary school a teach having time of because of stress. My dad an ex-miner found this hilarious as he quite often came home from his job only to be called back to find a friend he'd just said bye to crushed to death... That's stress.
    Do you know any teachers? If you do, go talk to them.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kibalchich)
    What do you mean "accounted for"?
    If a group is felt to be left out from the discussions, they can seek out an input from that group.




    You're arguing for a classless society then? Like communism?
    No, I'm talking about if we were to draw up a bill of rights for the purpose of allowing individuals to make their own personal choices in life except where those choices would harm others, it would need to happen in the full public eye so everyone could weigh in on it and make sure the main people leading the discussions (presumably academics and elected figures) don't end up pushing through illiberal rules.

    Effectively what I'm arguing for is an end to state paternalism when it comes to civil liberties.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Redolent)
    If a group is felt to be left out from the discussions, they can seek out an input from that group.

    "an input"? What if that "input" was directly opposed to the experts?



    (Original post by Redolent)
    No, I'm talking about if we were to draw up a bill of rights for the purpose of allowing individuals to make their own personal choices in life except where those choices would harm others, it would need to happen in the full public eye so everyone could weigh in on it and make sure the main people leading the discussions (presumably academics and elected figures) don't end up pushing through illiberal rules.
    So you think that what is seen as harmful would not be influenced by social or economic interests/position?

    (Original post by Redolent)
    Effectively what I'm arguing for is an end to state paternalism when it comes to civil liberties.
    Sounds like you're actually arguing very strongly for state paternalism.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kibalchich)
    "an input"? What if that "input" was directly opposed to the experts?
    I guess generally favour the position that suggests fewer restrictions.


    So you think that what is seen as harmful would not be influenced by social or economic interests/position?
    No more than every political position made today is influenced by social/economic interests. At least this process would be fully transparent allowing any biases to picked up on by the media/public/independent observers.


    Sounds like you're actually arguing very strongly for state paternalism.
    Not at all. If the golden rule is "you may do whatever you please, as long as you do not harm a third party," it's going to take some extremely clever arguing from pro-paternalists to have us end up in a position where we end up more restricted. I don't see how it could happen, especially if all the best minds in the country were looking on and thinking critically on it.

    It means an educated adult would no longer be a criminal for smoking a joint in his garden. He would no longer be blocked from choosing to watch/release a film the government has decided is too much in "poor taste" for the public.

    There aren't many examples I can use because fortunately our state is quite socially liberal at the moment.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kibalchich)
    What's the point of work incentives when there's no work?
    Well, yeah, we need to fix our short-term demand-side problems as well - primarily through better monetary policy. But that's another story and I was thinking more long term, when the amount of work is limited only by the number of willing workers able to do something useful.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by myusername.)
    I would try and sort out this, because it is disgusting in my opinion:

    Attachment 202602
    They weren't given those houses for being Muslim, Somali or Afghan and whilst it might not be fair (there is usually more to it that the headline) mentioning their background and contrasting it with soldiers only incites the worst feelings in people and makes them get targeted, potentially violently.

    Get rid of the Queen.

    Society tries to counter unearned privilege, but somehow these people are adored.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kibalchich)
    Do you know any teachers? If you do, go talk to them.
    Yes and i'm fairly sure not a one of them would honestly stake a claim that there job was more stressful than someone working on the front line of the NHS or armed forces.

    They may want more pay but lets face it who doesn't?

    Teachers do marking on weekend, Nurses clean up vomit, blood, administer life saving treatment, bring baby's safely into this world, combat troops get shot at, mates blown up and spend day hauling vast amounts of weight around war zones.

    Please don't try to tell me Mrs Jones having to deal with marking or a snotty nosed kid is anywhere near as stressful.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    OP, another policy i would enact would be to increase the amount of social housing but impose much more severe restrictions in how many social houses can be allocated per mile. Having lived on council estates myself i think that grouping the poor/unemployed together in mass numbers creating ghettos was one of the most idiotic policies ever devised and actively works against aspiration for the children growing up in these places who could easily become involved in crime and only ever see relative failure around them.

    This is based on my personal experience of living on council estates and then moving to a largely private area with just a dozen or so council houses scattered around.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Redolent)
    I guess generally favour the position that suggests fewer restrictions.
    You're gonna run into the same problem. Who defines what is restrictive? Restrictive to who?

    (Original post by Redolent)
    No more than every political position made today is influenced by social/economic interests. At least this process would be fully transparent allowing any biases to picked up on by the media/public/independent observers.
    So, for example, I might argue that the current trade union laws are actively harmful. You might argue that they are not. Who is right? Well it depends on your class position.

    (Original post by Redolent)
    Not at all. If the golden rule is "you may do whatever you please, as long as you do not harm a third party," it's going to take some extremely clever arguing from pro-paternalists to have us end up in a position where we end up more restricted. I don't see how it could happen, especially if all the best minds in the country were looking on and thinking critically on it.

    It means an educated adult would no longer be a criminal for smoking a joint in his garden. He would no longer be blocked from choosing to watch/release a film the government has decided is too much in "poor taste" for the public.

    There aren't many examples I can use because fortunately our state is quite socially liberal at the moment.
    You're arguing for "experts" to decide what is right and wrong and its not paternalism? Come on ffs.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dapperatchik)
    Well, yeah, we need to fix our short-term demand-side problems as well - primarily through better monetary policy. But that's another story and I was thinking more long term, when the amount of work is limited only by the number of willing workers able to do something useful.
    So nothing else limits what work might be available? Only how many people want jobs?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dave_123)
    Yes and i'm fairly sure not a one of them would honestly stake a claim that there job was more stressful than someone working on the front line of the NHS or armed forces.

    They may want more pay but lets face it who doesn't?

    Teachers do marking on weekend, Nurses clean up vomit, blood, administer life saving treatment, bring baby's safely into this world, combat troops get shot at, mates blown up and spend day hauling vast amounts of weight around war zones.

    Please don't try to tell me Mrs Jones having to deal with marking or a snotty nosed kid is anywhere near as stressful.
    Yes, I know what nurses do, thanks. I'm training to be one.

    I suggest you go and talk to some teachers. You'll be surprised.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    OP, another policy i would enact would be to increase the amount of social housing but impose much more severe restrictions in how many social houses can be allocated per mile. Having lived on council estates myself i think that grouping the poor/unemployed together in mass numbers creating ghettos was one of the most idiotic policies ever devised and actively works against aspiration for the children growing up in these places who could easily become involved in crime and only ever see relative failure around them.

    This is based on my personal experience of living on council estates and then moving to a largely private area with just a dozen or so council houses scattered around.
    I'd agree with this. The reason this happens is down to a Tory housing act (I forget which one) restricting council housing to priority need only. This in turn was as a result of the right to buy policy and restrictions on building more social housing.

    Although it should be noted that many council tenants do work.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kibalchich)
    I'd agree with this. The reason this happens is down to a Tory housing act (I forget which one) restricting council housing to priority need only. This in turn was as a result of the right to buy policy and restrictions on building more social housing.

    Although it should be noted that many council tenants do work.
    The "priority need" (basically meaning unemployed only) actually came in from a 1977 act, there were just minor amendments to it when the right to buy came in.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kibalchich)
    You're gonna run into the same problem. Who defines what is restrictive? Restrictive to who?

    So, for example, I might argue that the current trade union laws are actively harmful. You might argue that they are not. Who is right? Well it depends on your class position.
    This is about social/civil liberties, not economic liberties. What individuals choose to do with their own time and bodies in their own private lives.


    You're arguing for "experts" to decide what is right and wrong and its not paternalism? Come on ffs.
    Somebody's got to make a decision, if you wanted to stop people being able to determine rules for these things altogether you would have to resort to full scale anarchism. The problems you are raising apply to the political system we already have, it's no worse than that. Somebody decided our current laws for us, all this is about is re-evaluating them from a socially liberal perspective
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    The "priority need" (basically meaning unemployed only) actually came in from a 1977 act, there were just minor amendments to it when the right to buy came in.
    fairynuff, I stand corrected
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    It can be very difficult in practice, to get councils to accept homelessness applications (despite them having a statutory duty to do this), and often they class people as not priority need when they are. I've had to get solicitors involved a couple of times to get a housing department (yes, Westminster, I'm looking at you) to fulfil their statutory duty
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Redolent)
    This is about social/civil liberties, not economic liberties. What individuals choose to do with their own time and bodies in their own private lives.
    There's a difference between social/civil liberties and economic liberties is there? A clear cut difference? So being poor or rich makes no difference to what one's social or civil freedom?


    (Original post by Redolent)
    Somebody's got to make a decision, if you wanted to stop people being able to determine rules for these things altogether you would have to resort to full scale anarchism. The problems you are raising apply to the political system we already have, it's no worse than that. Somebody decided our current laws for us, all this is about is re-evaluating them from a socially liberal perspective
    The point I'm making is that there are opposing interests in society. The people at the top who make the decisions often have opposing interests to the people at the bottom.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Abolish my own position.
 
 
 
Poll
Which Fantasy Franchise is the best?
General election 2017 on TSR
Register to vote

Registering to vote?

Check out our guide for everything you need to know

Manifesto snapshots

Manifesto Snapshots

All you need to know about the 2017 party manifestos

Party Leader questions

Party Leader Q&A

Ask political party leaders your questions

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.