Risking the use of a cliche, I would say that I am a teenager who is inclined to think up radical ideas and propositions for the enhancement/refomation of the economic situation in this country and others. My only previous node (social status and its contribution to the demise of British culture) reflects this and perhaps I should have introduced it with a few words on the above characteristic. Learning from this mistake, I would like to invite people not to take offence (although I am always willing to accept constructive criticism) at some of the views expressed in this article. It should only be taken as an illustration of the ideas I formulate while lying in my snug and cosy dormitory bed, staring out into the night. Included are merely some suggestions, from the typical adolescent mind, for the improvement of the political and economic aspects of national government.

Firstly, I disapprove almost entirely of what is called 'national benefit', AKA 'the dole'. I think that it was, as with most political schemes, invented for the improvement of the lives of the more under-privileged people, who cannot, like, for example, the inner areas of large cities. However, it has, to almost everyone's admittance, been abused by people who do not want to work. Many spend this money on things like alchohol and cigarettes, which are often threaten other peoples' safety as well as not being benficial to his/her own health.

Perhaps we could take this wasted money (although it would probably be infeasibly to abolish the benefit system completely: in would have to be sustained on the condition that those who can work, do, and those that can't, get benefit) and use it for some of the vital, but yet badly staffed institutions, like the police force. One only has to read the Sunday 'glossy magazines' in broadsheets once a month to discover more cases of youth offences and street crime in places where the force is hugely under-staffed. There have also been many discussions about possible improvements to the education system, especially in primary and state-run secondary schools, including higher wages for teachers. These two cases could potentially both be solved by an increase in wages, making the respective professions more lucrative and appealing to some job-finders who would have otherwise neglected them as career choices.

The problem still remains, however, with the government benefit system: there remains the possibility of 'cheating' on the part of people who are not technically entitled to the money. I propose a system of approval and rejection whereby the potential benefit-seekers are assessed for entitlement and approved or rejected accordingly. This is the same as the present system in principal, but there is one strictly enforced guide-line for the assessers: there is to be no unnecessarily lenient approvals. That is to say: if a person is unable, menally or physically, to work in a manner which will benefit the state and economy as a whole, they will be approved for benefit, but if work is possible for them, they must acquire a profession. That way, with the money saved from granting unnecessary approval and its use for the police force and education, we will live in a much more natural and efficient society.