Off Topic Political Debate

I have already produced evidence of the apparent lack of social mobility in the UK. compared to other western nations

I have already produced evidence of the apparent lack of social mobility in the UK. at least in comparison with other western countries - and you do not need to be an economist to know that something is not working properly in Britain. You say that there is no real poverty in the UK. how many old people will suffer (or perhaps die) because they live alone and cannot pay heating bills etc. ? How many homeless do you have in the UK. - and then balance this against the numbers with second (mostly unoccupied) homes. I do not classify someone who cannot afford a car as being in poverty - but there really are people on the breadline in the UK. and in a country which says it is the 5th or 6th biggest economy in the World that is not how it should be.

 

One problem with this Leo is that money which is injected towards the top of the pyramid has a habit of disappearing and is lost to the economy - how many of the 'super rich' have diverted either their assets or their wealth overseas. Money which is injected lower down the scale does not do this so easily. Regarding injections from the public purse - this is one of many reasons why I would like to see more assets (railways, energy etc.) under public ownership - the 'smaller' the state is the more dependent it becomes on tax revenues. Unfortunately the idea of the smaller, leaner, state is being sold as some kind of attractive idea - it means in the end that the state does not have the resources to carry out the wishes of the electorate - 'smaller state' means 'smaller democracy' because our democracy was built up on the nation state. One last point - were the Chinese starving under Mao ? - I don't think so.

 

Between 1958 and 1962 at least 45 million people were worked, starved or beaten to death in China. It was a period when a third of all homes in China were destroyed to produce fertiliser and when the nation descended into famine and starvation. Are we talking about the same Chairman Mao?

 

It was only a question on my side Frenchie.......don't want to get bogged down here researching Chinese history (and most of it was pretty grim).

 

Most people get there in the end, which is why we have a Tory government!!!

 

(Mao.... was terrible he was a despot.... sent over a million of his own soldiers to certain death. caused the death of millions by shambolic policies... millions starved.

I have read about hum extensively. Jung Chang has written a brilliant book about him.

He was not a socialist though...... he ruled like the North Korean guy......... absolutely terrible regime.)

 

Simple answer then "Yes and in their millions"

 

I admit that it was only an aside right at the end of a text which stemmed from a lack of knowledge of Chinese history - the rest of the text was ok. I hereby give notice that there is no connection between the Colognehornet party and Mao Tse Tung ok. !

 

Having agreed that the man was a despot, it becomes rather more unacceptable to see a leading figure in the Labour party using his quotes as an example for how the UK government should behave.

 

I have to ask "Is it bad or wrong to be poor" and I mean poor here in financial terms. I really do not think so. I look back over recent generations and lets take as an example my two grandfathers 1) A road sweeper, very proud man, strong and dedicated to his wife and son (my father) who lived a humble life within his means and saved for anything he wanted, did loads of overtime and was proud of his work. Could have earned more by more prestigious employment but was happy with his lot and left a great legacy. 2) A factory worker in asbestos factory which eventually killed him but got 60 years on the planet. Long days, hard work, brought up four children and devoted to his wife for life. Had a happy life, no aspiration to "change class". Both families wives did not work and both managed to buy their own homes and bring up families successfully. Grandfather 1 was also union foreman and my father his son went into white collar as his boss, you can imagine the conflict!! Dad also limited income though and I was out earning him by my mid twenties, I was first in family to ever go to University and my cousin was first in family to ever go to Oxbridge and indeed was held up as an example of working class getting to and through Cambridge (ardent Watford supporter). You could say that we demonstrate social mobility as we all have nice houses, Porsches and the like which one wouldn't associate with "working class" but why not? Working class is not a dirty word and indeed many builders sparkies etc. who are definitely "working class" can if they choose not to drink, smoke, party, waste excessively have whatever they like within reason in the UK. I find the denegration of working class rather insulting, my brother in law is definitely working class doing mainly manual work but still has managed to build his family nett worth up to many hundreds of thousands, you can achieve what you want in the UK without having to rely on the government. The key is education and peer support and the reason for most failures to progress are health and peer group related particularly mental health and family issues.

 

One thing that strikes me as very counter productive in politics is nepotism and this affects socialist and capitalist but always with a negative impact. In companies it is often forbidden for families to work in the same department, any thoughts? I'm particularly thinking about the Clintons in the US and the il family in N Korea along with Maduro/Chavez in Venezuela. It's something that our system in the UK seems to have avoided to a large extent much to its benefit.

 

I don't think it's only in the form of family dynasties in politics Aberdeen. Any form of advancement or promotion based on anything other than ability can be detremental - in the UK. I think we do not have the same tightly knit family structures as in some other countries and so the theme may not arise so often here. However, maybe the old boys' network (all old Etonians or something similar) may be similar in some sectors in the UK. When you think of how many of both houses in Westminster went to the same Oxford and Cambridge Colleges (and probably around the same time) then maybe it has similar dimensions. Also, mutual membership of groups like Masonic Lodges can have the same effects. I was absolutely amazed once on signing a works contract in Germany that I had to sign that I had never been a Scientologist, had never been to one of their meetings and had no known connection to them (the Germans have a paranoia about sects). I often wonder if Brian Clough had son Nigel's name as always first on the team sheet - I doubt it somehow.

 

Has it occurred to anyone that maybe people who go to Oxbridge are slightly more intelligent than average so is it so surprising that they go on to take top jobs if they want them?

 

Sorry but when did social mobility become a key objective? Another example for me of green (envy not Green) politics. If your standard of living improves - say doubles and so does everyone else's then you are better off but will not have social mobility - who cares. Who sits down and thinks "I wonder where I am on the percentiles of richness in this country - or which class I am now in" If one person is mobile upwards someone else obviously has to move down - what makes that better? Daft statistic - akin to model of poverty which relies on relativity. What matters - and there are some good examples amongst people even on this board - is whether it is possible for an individual to improve himself. I know you don't like real examples Cologne but they are better than made up ones from newspapers or theoretical ones. Many people work hard and achieve economic success - andare happy to do so - I doubt if they care what class they belong to.
Those who advocate social mobility are usually the ones who want to level society. They cannot see rich people without their jealousy and envy showing. For me I could not care less that someone is either born rich or achieves wealth through sport, entertainment, industry banking or whatever. I care about what I can do for myself - and those I care about.

I am in favour of a reasonable degree of progressive taxation but it ends there. The queen and her barons can keep their castles

 

I would certainly say that people who go to Oxbridge tend to come from a wealthier family background than the rest of us - but at least that can be measured whereas I have yet to come across a completely accurate test for intelligence. However that is not what I was on about, rather asking whether being an 'old boy' of certain colleges etc. could be used for professional advantage in the same way as membership of the same family could be.....which I thought was obvious.

 

Two of my daughters went to Oxford - straight from the local state secondary (Rickmansworth School) so talent and intelligence do count. Yet of course people who receive a better education are likely to benefit from it (otherwise why pay for private school?) If you do not think that a better education can make you more intelligent then fair enough. Yes - I am sure that being in a club, old school tie, masonic lodge etc are all used to give people a leg up. As you say - that is obvious. Does anyone not help their child?

 

I like real examples Leo.....but nothing written on here can be proved as such, and I do not like telling things about my own life in order to 'win' political debates - I prefer to let my arguments stand or fall on their own merits. I have no interest how many examples there may be on here of so called 'self improvement' for that reason. We have both agreed that social mobility has always been relatively low in the UK. this is probably why there are 6 million Britons living abroad. The lack of it is also probably one of the main reasons why industrial relations were so bad in the UK. Because without social mobility society remains static.....the social classes develop antagonistic relationships to each other based only on misconceptions and stereotypes.

 

The intelligence debate

IQ tests virtually discredited by some researchers

Like 11 plus exams kids can be taught how to get a high score....

I wouldn't go there in these discussions

 

It's quite natural. Is it strange that most petroleum engineers are from Imperial or Heriott Watt, shouldn't really be surprised if certain colleges produce certain specialists who dominate their industries.

 

To be fair he was trying to make a joke about the Govt and Maoism and it completely backfired on him and the media then jumped on it. He never meant it like they portrayed it.

Mind you I heard him interviewed on Radio 4 the next day...... He should have admitted it was a bad mistake....

The joys of our political system....