Over 1 million workers are employed as agency staff in the UK. As the party of the people - I would have thought that the government would have felt at least obliged, if not compelled, to support equal employment rights for agency staff (such as sick pay, holiday leave etc.). However, we find ourselves in the very worrying, troubling and frankly bizarre situation that our labour government OPPOSES Andrew Miller’s bill for employment equalisation. The government have, prima facie, appeared to side with the CBI over it own MP’s and, I would surmise, the majority of its own members. Even although the bill has the backing of 130 labour MP’s, it seems certain to fail for the government is not backing it. The government has offered a “commission” to look at this issue. This is just the latest development that has made me question the fundamental premise of this party. Government objection to the charter of fundamental rights also seemed bizarre to me.

This cannot stand. The Labour party needs comprehensive internal party reform. The party will LOSE the next elections without the grass roots. As much as it would pain me to see labour removed from power - it pains me even more that the government, on the face of it, is choosing business over the worker; changing the fundamental core of the labour party itself. Whilst I appreciate how integral business is to an economy, I believe that workers are far more integral to both the economy and business and I would never have thought I’d see the day where the CBI trumped the working person. It is in part our own fault, we have allowed the grass roots to be so marginalised in say and have given our government near unchecked executive authority that even our own backbenchers cant force their hand. We have also allowed the coronation of two labour leaders when we should have a constitution that values democracy regardless of support.

The grass roots should be able to have the power of recall, after all - it is US who are the party. Even the threat of recall or a vote of no confidence of the leader would be enough to establish the due influence the party members should have in important philosophical issues such as equal rights for ALL workers. The government should also be obliged to carry motions forward into legislation when they are agreed by majority at conference. If the labour party has changed beyond recognition and has indeed become a party where business interests and fear for job losses are put over the fundamental premise of being the party of the working people of all background’s - then I have to ask, what is the point of it any more?

Brown should know better.

To afford the luxuries of life in this country, it is now required that BOTH parents have to work full time to afford to live. Whilst it can be argued that the lack of a father figure is of importance in regards to the emergence of delinquency - I believe a lack of maternity in younger years and beyond is just as fundamental. Of course however, such a distinction goes hand in hand with the lapse of parental discipline and discipline in general.

Look at the 20’s - were the fathers word was law, where the mother’s occupation was the family and the house and children were to only speak when spoken to. Whilst such a draconian system has no place in modern society - it seems relevant to mention that in those days, teens were disciplined and provided for their own entertainment; the belt was also used in the education setting - discipline was engrained in the psyche of children from the very beginning and as a consequence - society was far more decent and at ease with itself and children were far more ready to accept authority than they would be nowadays. Teens would have never even considered attacking fire fighters in that era.

But alas, we are in 2008. Yobs drink on the street, old people frightened to go outside, youths kill people and, ultimately, judicial repercussion is a joke - an ASBO is now a badge of honour and worn with pride, the government needs a complete rethink in this aspect of our society and needs some hard options that restore the fear in the law. If a lack of discipline is a major factor in the emergence of delinquency - then it should fall to the state to implement discipline, if the parents do not. There are two approaches available to address this situation.

The first is to address the problem of home. I believe that if a mother (or father) had the option to stay at home for perhaps the first 5 years of a child’s life, that time spent nurturing the morality of the child at a young age - and the attention that child would receive would go a fair way in creating a decent member of society. Also, having a parent quite visibly in the child’s life constantly, perhaps, would decrease the apparent indifference some youths have for the authority of their parents. How this would be paid for is of course a fundamental logistic - and the fact that having such a large part of the workforce not working would be of severe consequence to the economy. However, would it be as severe as the consequence of allowing this societal collapse to continue? An entire generation of drunk, rude, indifferent and ill educated youths - of no use to man or beast, and certainly no use in a business environment.

The second is punishment. Youth’s know that the state is a soft touch and if parents don’t instil discipline and the youths lack the mental prowess to decide for themselves what’s right and wrong - the state needs to educate them and punish their actions. Perhaps a return of the belt would go some way in the instilling of discipline from the beginnings of education, creating a culture of recognised authority in a figure worthy of it - a teacher, and that if you in any way subvert that authority or create occasion for need of punishment - school has the tools necessary to show you right from wrong; and that wrongs will always be punished. Of course, you get the campaigners shouting “abuse!” and that it is not the place for school to punish, and that if parents don’t smack - why should school have the right to hit out? And then you have the moral argument that using physical violence to show when you have committed a wrong is not a very progressive or welcome development. However, there is nothing more fundamental to the understanding of right from wrong than knowing, if you commit a wrong - you will face repercussion. Children who receive a smack on the wrists for bad behaviour will be less likely to do that action again, or be prompted to tempt the limits of their parents resolve, rather than if they were just sternly shouted at. But yet, the campaigners believe that smacking is abuse and that the state should interfere. If a parent wishes to smack their child to teach them right from wrong, the state has no place to legislate in its regard. Obviously, assault has no place in a family setting - and abusive parents should be held to account and punished severely.

The second part of the solution of punishment requires a remedy via the courts. The judiciary needs a wide ranging sentence that it can call upon for constant re-offenders. That sentence should be some form of military education and training - a boot camp if you will. The disciple of being forced to get up at 4 in the morning everyday, keeping your bunk immaculate and hard physical graft by way of 20 mile runs every day for 6 months or more would, in my opinion, be far more effective than an ASBO or prison. Of course, the offenders would not be part of the army, rather just subject to its methods without commitment and the sentence should be operated on a “strike” based system (i.e. 3 strikes and you get sent to a centralised military boot camp for 6 months) - moreover, military education by way of punishment and an instilling of traits such as team work, leadership and a pride in oneself would be of huge benefit to youths who have lost their way. It may also help the army in increasing recruitment if youths see that they do have a decent employment opportunity and chance to fight for queen and country.