Kan noen hjelpe meg? (Engelsk)

[Gjest *Puhhh*]

Heisann, vi har to vanskelige vanskelige engelsk oppgaver til i morgen. Jeg klarer liksom ikke å få fram det jeg mener igjennom engelsk språket. Så jeg lurte på om noen gadd å lese igjennom oppgavene og si hva de syntest. Er det mye skrivefeil, setningsfeil? I såfall hvilke? Er det mange kommunikasjons brudd? Forstår dere hva jeg mener? Eller er det noen andre pungt jeg burde ha hatt med?

På forhånd takk!

B Considering Further:

1. In what ways have our attitudes to social problems changed? Are there any strong disagreemnets about issues like social security? Discuss these questions with regard to Britain, and if you like, with regard to Norway as well.

Today Britain is called a welfare state, mainly because the state maintan good standards of living for everyone in the country. At least they are trying. The state has a responsibility for ensuring its citizens a reasonable economic living from cradle to grave. Going 150 years back in time, the conditions were at a much lower level. Due to the industrial revolution a large number of people desperately needed help. The state did not see this problem as their concern before in the nineteenth century, so the poverty continued to increase.

Well, at some points the parliament actually tried to deal with the problem of poverty, but the attempt was probably interduced with the intention of provide the state cheap labour more than they tried to cultivate a welfare state. The Poor Law Amendment Act of 1834 was a settlement by parliament that sent poor people to workhouses, where the conditions were very hard. The idea was that theese workhouses schould be so unpleasant and terrible that people would do almost anything to avoid going into them. Thereby they would also avoid poverty.

As far as I am concerned, the people was being punished if they were poor back then (as they were punsihed in workhouses). They did not get benefits or help to develope into a higher level in society from the state as they do today. This is probably a key in what makes a welfare state, and what does not make a welfare state. The first welfare reforms in Britain was the reforms of 1906 –1914 interduced by the Liberal government, this was the beginning of a more rigtheous society.

But still the problems in society are large, and if the government does not find the rigth sullotion, the problems probably will enlarge as well. The main problem is the costs of the welfare state, which is increasing as more and more people needs benefits from the state. Benefits that the state distribute to people in need, is called the social security system, and is a necessity for maintaing a welfare state. All parties in Britain are agree that something radikal must be done to remit the costs, the disagreements is about how it schould be done. One sullotion is to continue present benefits levels, at the cost of higher taxation. Secondly, they simply can cut benefits level considerably. Or thirdly, make it more efficient and selective by using means – testing ( an analysis of a persons financial position to see how much benefit this person really needs).

2. The conservative governments of the 1980s and 1990s made a lot of changes in education. Do you think these changes re typiccal of “New right” thinking? Please explain your answer. How do you think the New Right would answer the analysis of British society made by Will Hutton?

The New right is a critism on the welfare state, given by a number of Conservatice MPs. Based on the dramatic rising of unemployment in the 1970s that proved impossible to control. It is usual to see their critism as having three main points. First, they want a less activ state regarding giving people security. Instead the New Right prefers a culture in which people are less dependent on state help, in such as a society where workers are more likely to find a job themselves. Secondly, they want deregulation and privatisation in a much higher lever than in the contemporary society, more competitions between suppliers of services, and more choice for people (forexample; patiens and parents can choose between several schools and hospitals) are their wishes. As a third point, the New Right supported a stricted “monetarist” economic policy. As a following; cuts in public spending that often means cuts in welfare services.

As an attempt to chip away class barries and educate working class students into potensial university students, the government interduced a school were pupils from different classes were “mixed” together. But in the late 1900s the Conservative government encouraged schools to “apt out” of this state system, as well as encouring parents to pick and choose between schools. Many teachers feared this “competion and choice” development because the schools were likely to develope in two different directions; the good and the popular schools, and the run – down and unpopular ones.

From my point of view the Conservatives encouraged the parents following the New Right literaly. The fact that they wanted a society with competitions between schools and students reflects their first two main points. A more self – dependent attitude among job seekers, as well as an increasing competitions between services.

However, in such a competition society wont the working class students only face more difficulties when trying to develope into a higher class in society? A bad sullotion when it comes to eradicate the poverty. Actually, the poorest ten per cent of the population got poorer during the 1980`s, while the upper middle class had a positive developement.

This answers Will Huttons winner and loosers theory perfectly well. Once he wrote a book called “The Guardian” where he suggest that Britain has become a 30:30:40 society. 40 % of the population belongs to the upperclass ( those well – off and materially secured people), and the middleclass (hoping to go up and afraid of falling down and feels insecure about today`s economic climate) and the underclass (without paid employment or disantvantaged in other ways). The New Right wanted to give the population less benefits and more competition, is this the result? Maybe the Coservatives is guildy of running Britain into a more class imprinted society? I am afraid I have to let these questions abide open.

[leenie]

Først av alt: alt for få avsnitt!!!

[Åsemor]

Hei!

Orket ikke å lese så veldig langt, er ikke glad i å lese engelsk.. Men du har skrevet disagreemnets, jeg går ut fra det bare er en bitteliten tastefeil og at du veit det skal være disagreements. Lett å ikke se sånne feil selv.

[morsan]

gadd ikke å lese igjennom hele teksten for å se på velskrevethet etc, men kjørte den inn i Word og tok spell check.

De ordene som var feilskrevet der har jeg markert ved å bruke store bokstaver. Har også satt noen ting i der jeg stusser over noe

----

B Considering Further:

1. In what ways have our attitudes to social problems changed? Are there any strong disagreemnets about issues like social security? Discuss these questions with regard to Britain, and if you like, with regard to Norway as well.

Today Britain is called a welfare state, mainly because the state MAINTAIN good standards of living for everyone in the country. At least they are trying. The state has a responsibility for ensuring its citizens a reasonable economic living from cradle to grave. Going 150 years back in time, the conditions were at a much lower level. Due to the industrial revolution a large number of people desperately needed help. The state did not see this problem as their concern before in the nineteenth century, so the poverty continued to increase.

Well, at some points the parliament actually tried to deal with the problem of poverty, but the attempt was probably INTRODUCED with the intention of provide the state cheap labour more than they tried to cultivate a welfare state. The Poor Law Amendment Act of 1834 was a settlement by parliament that sent poor people to workhouses, where the conditions were very hard. The idea was that THESE workhouses SHOULD be so unpleasant and terrible that people would do almost anything to avoid going into them. Thereby they would also avoid poverty. As far as I am concerned, the PEOPLE WERE being punished if they were poor back then (as they were PUNISHED in workhouses). They did not get benefits or help to DEVELOP into a higher level in society from the state as they do today. This is probably a key in what makes a welfare state, and what does not make a welfare state. The first welfare reforms in Britain was the reforms of 1906 –1914 INTRODUCED by the Liberal government, this was the beginning of a more RIGHTEOUS society.

But still the problems in society are large, and if the government does not find the RIGTH SOLLUTION, the problems probably will enlarge as well. The main problem is the costs of the welfare state, which is increasing as more and more people needs benefits from the state. Benefits that the state DISTRIBUTES to people in need, is called the social security system, and is a necessity for MAINTAINING a welfare state. All parties in Britain > agree that something RADICAL must be done to remit the costs, the disagreements is about how it SHOULD be done. One SOLLUTION is to continue present benefits levels, at the cost of higher taxation. Secondly, they simply can cut benefits level considerably. Or thirdly, make it more efficient and selective by using means – testing ( an analysis of a persons financial position to see how much benefit this person really needs).

---

The New right is a CRITISISM on the welfare state, given by a number of CONSERVATIVE MPs. Based on the dramatic rising of unemployment in the 1970s that proved impossible to control. It is usual to see their CRITISISM as having three main points. First, they want a less ACTIVE state regarding giving people security. Instead the New Right prefers a culture in which people are less dependent on state help, in such as a society where workers are more likely to find a job themselves. Secondly, they want deregulation and PRIVATIZATION in a much higher lever than in the contemporary society, more competitions between suppliers of services, and more choice for people (FOR EXAMPLE; PATIENTS and parents can choose between several schools and hospitals) are their wishes. As a third point, the New Right supported a STRICT “monetarist” economic policy. As a following; cuts in public spending that often means cuts in welfare services.

As an attempt to chip away class BARRIERS and educate working class students into POTENTIAL university students, the government INTRODUCED a school were pupils from different classes were “mixed” together. But in the late 1900s the Conservative government encouraged schools to “apt out” of this state system, as well as ENCOURAGEING parents to pick and choose between schools. Many teachers feared this “COMPETITIONS and choice” development because the schools were likely to DEVELOP in two different directions; the good and the popular schools, and the run – down and unpopular ones. From my point of view the Conservatives encouraged the parents following the New Right LITTERALLY. The fact that they wanted a society with competitions between schools and students reflects their first two main points. A more self – dependent attitude among job seekers, as well as an increasing COMPETITION between services.

However, in such a competition society wont the working class students only face more difficulties when trying to DEVELOP into a higher class in society? A bad SOLLUTION when it comes to eradicate the poverty. Actually, the poorest ten per cent of the population got poorer during the 1980`s, while the upper middle class had a positive DEVELOPMENT. This answers Will Huttons winner and looserS theory perfectly well. >Once he wrote a book called “The Guardian” where he SUGGESTS that Britain has become a 30:30:40 society. 40 % of the population belongs to the UPPER CLASS ( those well – off and materially secured people), and the middleclass (hoping to go up and afraid of falling down and feels insecure about today`s economic climate) and the underclass (without paid employment or DISADVANTAGED in other ways). The New Right wanted to give the population less benefits and more competition, is this the result? Maybe the CONSERVATIVES is GUILTY of running Britain into a more class imprinted society? I am afraid I have to let these questions abide open.