I wonder if Nanny is beginning to lose her marbles?Blairy Poppins has laid out plans for social intervention, reminiscent of those Victorian quacks who thought that you could judge a man's character by reading the bumps on his head.
In a nutshell (that is a most appropriate word for this plan) Nanny (Blairy) has said that it is possible to identify problem children who could grow up to be a potential "menace to society" even before they are born.
Visions of genetic monitoring and selection spring to mind here.
Anyhoo, in Nanny's mind it is possible for the state to prevent babies born into "high risk families" becoming problem teenagers of the future.
Quite who decides what a "high risk" family is I have no idea. Seemingly, in Nanny's "new order", people will not be given a choice about "accepting" state aid; state aid will be compulsory. Bliar said that teenage mothers could be forced to accept state help before giving birth, as part of a clampdown on antisocial behaviour.
Blair went on to say that action could even be taken "pre-birth".
Blairy Poppins said:
"If we are not prepared to predict and intervene far more early
then there are children that are going to grow up in families that we know perfectly well are completely dysfunctional,
and the kids a few years down the line are going to be a menace to society
and actually a threat to themselves."
Sanctions will be imposed on parents who refused to take advice. I assume if the sanctions don't work, then these "refuseniks" will be carpet bombed into submission, just like Bliar does with all his other enemies?
Nanny's plan has been put together with the help of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and Turning Point; it covers ideas on children in care, teenage mothers and mentally ill people on benefit (defined as those who have been "difficult to reach" in previous government programmes).
Nanny says that there was no point "pussy-footing", she wants compulsory 12 week programmes for vulnerable young parents to improve their skills bringing up children.
Ah, Nanny's favourite word..."COMPULSORY".
The trouble with Nanny's approach to "dysfunctional", let us call it what it really is, scum behaviour is that she does not see that it is her own interventions that are causing it.
Society as a whole has managed throughout the centuries to "manage" and "keep a lid" on scum; simple techniques employed by local communities worked:
- Scum would be "saucepan banged" out of town (local residents would gather outside of a scum house, and bang saucepans lids etc until the scum left).
- Those who behaved so abominably and so out of control that they did not find work, did not eat properly and as a consequence had little energy to breed like rabbits, or indeed to live; ie they died.
- Peer pressure in local communities ensured that anti social behaviour was soon brought to task, as the appropriate punishments were meted out to those who crossed the line.
- State benefits and state housing means that the worst and most objectionable people can live and function, without the need to raise a finger.
- Tower blocks and government housing policy have ripped away the fabric of local communities.
- The no smacking ban imposed by the state on teachers and parents have removed an effective means of control over offspring.
- The state has infused some of the population with a "victim" mentality. Believe that your are the victim of injustice, and you most assuredly will be the victim.
I would also make this point, the path proposed by the Prime Minister (if followed) will lead us to genetic monitoring and enforced sterilisations/birth control. This is not the path for a civilised society to follow.
The "solution" to this problem is to lessen state intervention and to cut off the benefits of those who behave badly.
Ken said:
ReplyDelete"appropriate punishments were meeted out to those who crossed the line"
I think that should be "meted out".
It would also be nice to think that certain classifications of social units, based on their preferred food intake, could be meated out. Probably a wish too far ...
Also:
".... lead us to genetic monitoring and enforced sterilisations/birth control. [b]This is not the path for a civilised society to follow.[/b]"
Hmm, are you totally sure about that? It is, after all, pretty much the effect the early methods achieved, though perhap not overtly sought and, and you rightly observe how beneficial they seemed to have been.
Of course there were also the press gangs (Cue a few wars to provide judtification, as per Eric Blair's ideas.) and, later, things like transportation to far flung places. In general these things seemed ot have worked well in society's favour AND for those, or at least the descendents of those transported.
Of course I do apreacitate that I could follow that up by praising slavery, not so much as a policy for social progress but based on the benefits it had on those given free passage to other safer places.
True many suffered unpleasantly during the journey and for some time afterwards. But that is also true to some extent for those who elected to cross the Atlantic, for example, and paid for the privilege.
My point being that the laws of unintended consequences - in this case the good intentions of the social re-engineering of recently passed decades or more recently the ill thought through changes to or creation of 3000 new laws - often create both positive and negative changes where they are not anticipated.
Strangely they rarely seem to achieve their originally specified purpose. Perhaps that purpose was never the one that was intended?
Ken,
ReplyDeleteIt's too bad you don't run for Prime Minister. The Brits have had brain dead mediocraties as PM's since Thatcher.
Britian needs a PM with some good, old fashioned common horse sense.
Ken, please do me a favour: Stop using leftist nanny quackspeak words like behaviours, interventions, garbages, demeanours, informations.
Those words I hear used by leftie idiots all the time. They are trying to abort the English Language.
Thanks. You really should run for PM.
@Grant:
ReplyDeleteMy admittedly limited understanding is that 'social democracy' came out of marxist thought, that humans were 'evolving socially'. Personally, I regard that as not true.
@Anonymous:
I really get the feeling that someone read 1984 as a book of good suggestions, rather than a book of warnings
Given the problems that have occured for young master Blair, and other children of Cabiinet and even Royal families, it seems to me that they're aiming all this at the wrong end of the spectrum!
ReplyDeleteThose in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.