The elected depends on the 'Generosity of the Public Mind'. As having a disability that has been not only questionable to myself but also to others in what can be legitimately classed as mental illness and the question as to whether society should care for those less fortunate is answered by my treatment under the Labour Government of the last decade. After ten years battling with the illness and therefore striving for a measure of well-being only now have I found a suitable treatment that affords me a quality of life and means I can begin to contribute to society. The Generosity of the Public Mind has allowed me this grace and has only been made possible under the Labour Government. The day I realised that I was going to vote labour in the May elections this year was when I spoke to a young homeless woman who revealed that she would be allowed to claim housing benefit from the temporary address of a hostel in order to find her feet. The most destitute may never be able to contribute to society in a way that is economically profitable but the fact that they are part of a society means that it is that society's responsibility to care for them. Those who are subject to illness, poverty, or are by circumstance completely destitute should not be regarded as taking advantage of the Generosity of the Public Mind, for it is in the interest of such a social concept to give with no thought of return to those who are unable to pay it back. The expenses scandal, however, I fear is reproachable by the Public Mind whose generosity may be scaled back in the interests of social darwinism under a potential Conservative government. For all the hyperbole of the election campaigning we should remember the golden rule for rightly dividing a politicians word of truth: is what is being promised based on what is morally true, or is it factually true? We need to be certain that what we are being told can be credibly backed up and followed through. The Generosity of the Public Mind belongs to the conscientious while the apathetic and uninformed shall allow the few to rule the many and known. But when the many and the known consitute a body marginalised, do we really need a government who will marginalise them further?
back to Media Law & Policy revision!
