In the 1950s to the 1960s, the Conservative government of Britain had a strong compulsion to adopt a neoliberal stance on economic policies. Certain industries which were nationalized by the Labour Party after the Second World War were privatized. State spending on health, education, and welfare were cut; this was so since too much spending would necessarily result in low economic performance of the whole country (although variation was possible). Military spending were doubled to contribute to the overall economic output of the country. This was continued during the leadership of Lady Margaret Thatcher (1979-1990) and her successors. Nevertheless, although allowing a significant reduction of government spending in the welfare sector, the Conservative government instituted some reforms to upgrade government programs on health and the bureaucracy itself. The Local Government Act of 1993, Health Care Complaints Act of 1993, the Parliamentary Commissioner Act of 1994, the Local Government Act of 1974, were some of the examples of the readiness of the Conservative government to put efficiency and cost effectiveness the emblem of a government in service (to the people). These acts passed by the Conservative government were meant to streamline the bureaucracy, increase the powers of the local governments (establishment of new boroughs and counties), extend the powers of the parliamentary Commissioner in investigating cases involving local authorities, improve the health care service by allowing the private sector to invest in government health programs, and put a mechanism to effectively negotiate grievances in the government and its related entities (like government owned corporations). These programs and policies were meant to create a bureaucracy with the intense participation of the private sector. They were programs economic in character. Programs were directed to the service of the public but with the capital from foreign and private individuals playing as the motor of development. The image of these programs seemed to be a positive one; intense partnership between the government and the private sector in the service of the public. With the coming of the Labour party in power, some changes were presented in the halls of the parliament. There was a step to extend the jurisdiction of the Parliamentary Commissioner in matters allowed by parliament (the three Ombudsmen â€“ the Parliamentary Ombudsman, Local Government Ombudsmen, and the Health Service Ombudsman). An act was established also established to increase public sector employment; a move almost totally ignored by the Conservative government in the 1960s. It is expected that due to the changes hitherto described above public sector employment would increase by 360, 000 in the next three years, and almost a million in the following decade. The number of teachers, doctors, nurses, physical therapists, and policemen increase by more than 100, 000. An increase would be expected in other professions (which is around 200, 000). Although a general cut was implemented by the Labour government in the civil service programs, they were compensated by an additional increase of public sector employees. In sum, the reduction was implemented to increase public sector employment since public sector employment is one of the most effective ways of boosting economic performance (due to its manageability). Needless to say, however, these changes proposed or implemented by both the Conservative and Labour governments of Britain have had certain effects or impacts on employee relations. The Health Service Act implemented by the Conservative government proposed a two-valorem system of negotiation between complaints presented by the two parties involved. This action proved to be not very effective as a conflict resolution mechanism for employees. The present Labour government established a so-called conciliator with the aim of: a) to bring the parties involved together for the general purpose of negotiation and settlement of complaint, b) to create activities deemed possible for the attainment of a settlement, and c) to assist the parties involved to reach for a fair agreement. This three-party system of negotiation (which were imitated by other countries) became an effective force in resolving conflicts in the public sector (the employees). The number of resolved cases or agreements had increased since the coming of the Labour Party in power, a huge debacle for the opposition. The creation of metropolitan boroughs and counties made by the Conservative government (acts enumerated above) had also some impact on employee. It fairly promoted intense economic activity in these new districts. Public sector employment had a slight increase. Herein, therefore, it became the duty of the government to institute a law which will protect the interests of the public sector employees. The creation of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act of 1967 and an amended bill in 1974 defined the limits of the Ombudsmen in reviewing cases or complaints presented to them by government employees (against local authorities or other employees). The effect was good for the public sector employees since the number of complaints and perceived problems in the government bureaucracy was reduced. This was not really a good measurement of performance since the number of public sector employees at that time was small; the civil service jobs share in the total number of jobs was about 62 %. Due to the increasing number of public sector employees, the Labour government refined the laws mentioned above. The Ombudsmen were granted right by the parliament to investigated cases independently, with more flexibility and rigour. A general program of action was also presented by the Home Secretary to reform the Parliamentary Commissioner, giving the latter some air of independence when reviewing not only cases involving possible crime committed by members of parliament) to the general public but also to the increasingly significant public sector employees. It was recognized that delays would be averted if this plan of action was implemented, and therefore a possible amiable relationship between employees result. Nevertheless, a revised attached code of ethics was also created to define the limits, behavior, and general attitude of government and public sector employees to lessen if not avoid conflict or mismanagement of delegated or defined duties. The Labour Party in the present can boast of its success both in streamlining the bureaucracy (same policy of the Conservative Party in the 1950s to the 1960s) and providing a ground base of cordial public sector employment system (employment and conflict resolution). One public sector employee noted that the propensity or possibility of having conflict with her peers appears to be zero. This is one indication of the success that the Labour Party can present to the general public. However, such conclusion is not totally accurate. The Conservative Party was able to create brilliant programs that were responsible for the increase in the public sector employment. The program of devolution gave the local governments the right to shape the economic policy of the districts involved. The air of supra liberalism during the Conservative years promoted intense migration from Third world countries. The public sector itself became a hotspot for foreign nationals, of which the British public can depend for their special services. It seemed from the start that conflicts will generally increase because of the heterogeneous character of the public sector employees, but the speculators proved wrong. The code of ethics prepared by the British MPâ€™s became a great piece of political scourge to the Labour Party. Not only that conflicts decreased in the government and the public sector decreased, the ruling government experienced a high trust rating from the two sectors, and of course a high applause from the business sector. The consecutive electoral victories of the Conservative Party (during the leadership of Margaret Thatcher) proved the case. Nevertheless, certain variables have to be considered when reviewing electoral victories for it is itself a locus of different circumstances of advantages. There is one great difference, however, when we talk of the Conservative and Labour policies on public sector employees. It is generally accepted that impersonality should be the hallmark of a bureaucracy and of course the whole economic activity of the country. In the Conservative years, impersonality was always implemented in the government, with strict penalties for noncompliance. However, government officials were not aware that the policies they implemented (as enumerated above) had certain effect on the public sector employees. Employees became resonant of public policy. They became more politically involved in public discussions. And as such, became more impersonal in their dealings with the government and their clients. Economic activity, according to one economist, may well be possible under the environment of impersonality and laxity of economic requirements. This became a starting step for Britain to increase its migration rate. The increasing number of public sector employees heralded a change or revision in the policies of the Labour Party in terms of public sector employment. As mentioned above, the proposed and implemented policies on negotiation and extension of powers of the types of Ombudsmen were generally meant to increase the efficiency of the government to solve disputes arising between employee and employee, employee and employer, and between employee and government officials. Remember that the public sector had increased because of migration. The current composition of the public sector employees deserve a more efficient and complex system of work arrangements. This was generally only an adaptation made by the ruling government, since the composition of the public sector employees during the 1950s to the 1970s is generally different from today. Nonetheless, only two factors in the public sector employees that became the point of reference of a government in power: its size and composition. Although this may be a narrow generalization, the circumstances that followed afterwards prove such assertion.
Athen vs Rome Essay
â€œHuman behavior flows from three main sources: desire, emotion, and knowledgeâ€ (Plato). Such a great philosopher like Plato, he strives to educate the people of Athens on behalf of Socrates. With the passion of various ideas on philosophy and political science, Plato pushes through his learning to teach our people. The former philosopher Socrates, Plato had gained the knowledge of the various meanings and the strive after Socrates was sentenced to death which the Athenian Council had given him for what he believed in.
Platoâ€™s ideas of teaching werenâ€™t so complicated for us to bestow our knowledge to further extent.
Later the teaching will not stop at the cost of false individual in the democracy. Aristotle will continue to prevail in the teaching of philosophy and other subjects that will lead to be a better person with great judgment in the political system in Athens. The â€œAcademyâ€ was a gift from Plato to expand our knowledge of learning philosophy, mathematics, and theoretical astronomy. It will show that written dialogues are far easy to comprehend because they are in play style form instead of textbooks. The challenges in learning are tend to be hurdles yet they are not to be giving up on.
Towards the Athenian council, I truly demand that politics should be controlled by well educated individuals. Our former Athenian, Socrates, had to pay the consequences on his belief because he believe that people should devote themselves to individual excellence and justice for achievements above any other concern meant that they should abandon commitment towards the moral code. Socrates had his own principle to stand by on what he believed and to speak to us Athenians to examine our unexamined assumption about individual virtue.
With this in mind he was labeled as a traitor and a false philosopher to corrupt the young minds of Athenians. Is this the way we have to go with ourselves in believing that there are gods out there who help us in fights, fights in which we have fought with our own sweat, blood, and tear to acknowledge that we are getting assistant from the gods. I truly state within the teaching of the Academy it shows people to make understandable judgment before the execution on one of our own. The Athenian Council before you, even confessed they had made a terrible mistake in giving Socrates a death sentence.
We as a great nation made a huge mistake and informed this tragic situation with creating this horrific democracy. Plato, a great philosopher that was once under Socrates first created this Academy for the teaching of philosophy, mathematics, and theoretical astronomy to us Athens. Creating this Academy Plato shows us that he wanted to make readers reflect thoughtfully on difficult philosophical questions. It was a challenge for us to inherit the aspect of learning and understanding the key elements towards metaphysics. As all teachers their views are critically changed over time where Plato presents a consistent set of doctrines.
Plato maintained one essential idea â€œMoral virtues are universal and absolute, not relative. â€ Our people of Athens need to believe the proper goal for humans is to seek order and purity in our own souls by using reason to control their irrational desires. We have far yet to prove that we live for ourselves we donâ€™t live under someone, not until the soul is taken away after death from our bodies. With the system of democracy justice wont prevail it will need hierarchy. Leading back to Socrates death the citizens of Athens are incapable of rising above ignorant self-interest.
With the ideal society that Plato showed that high ranked men and women should live together and create healthy babies. This might not lead to become true, but the sought of teaching the people into thinking this way it leads to live justly. Within this Academy that was created by Plato it wonâ€™t stop for the future philosopher and more Academies to assemble. The prodigy of a young gifted soul that was under the famous Plato came to be recognized as Aristotle. His teaching was soon to be more advance and hence for us as Athenians. He showed much more morals to ourselves then we could imagine.
Aristotle achievement towards the system showed that logic argument and scientific investigation of the natural world we stand by. Unlike Plato, Aristotle insisted on explanations based on common sense rather than metaphysics. Aristotle showed us that observing an object or a human being is best to acknowledge on how they tend to act. With patience we tend to realize slowly that we develop behaviors and not just good intentions. â€œSelf-control did not mean denying human desires and appetites; rather, it meant striking a balance between suppressing and heedlessly indulging physical yearnings, of finding the meanâ€ (Aristotle).
The Council of Athens, we tend to realize some of our moral code is sacred, but do tend to open your horizons on us as individuals for achieving goals and valuing self-control. As we come to an end, I hope you have the same output as I have explained the teachings and most importantly the Academy that was first formed by our own, Plato. The aspect of growing is not to just have beliefs, but to believe in ourselves as Athenians that we can strive to pursue anything whether it is war, learning, teaching, or creating.
The future of our children needs to be well educated to know the difference between right or wrong with some aspect towards our moral code. Our people deserves better, for which they are messengers to expand the knowledge, power, and desire for Athens. They will not have any of those values what so ever if they are not well educated through the Academy that Plato and further more Aristotle has provided. May we have hope for the future as you, the Athenian Council to accept and recognize the great Academy was a best gift that the gods have given to Athens.
Write something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview.