Off Topic Political Debate

I think you are asking a question that probably has no answer, because at the end of the day what is right for someone is wrong for someone else.
An example. My nephew has a wife who developed MS about 15 years ago. She was given some Monday-Friday help to get up, shower etc. After a few months her case was reviewed and it was recommended that she go to a course designed to improve her mobility. She stopped going to that after two sessions, saying it was too hard for her. The next attempt to improve life for her was a monthly trip to the hairdresser and a facial paid for by social services.
My daughters were very critical, asking why they who couldn't afford hairdressing and facials every month should pay through their taxes for her to receive them. Clearly she enjoyed the benefits of the system and felt better for it, but you have to ask is that what tax payers money is intended for. Money can be taken from tax payers to help those who need it, but then some body has to choose how to use it in the best way. Most households have to make do with what they have, and would clearly always like more, but unless they borrow more they will have to make the decision how to make what they have go round.

 

I guess one issue is the monetary value you put to individual need. The sort of quandary the NHS faces through allocating funds to medicines and treatments.

 

Thats the nail on the head.

Unfortunately there will never be a choice that will suit everyone. There will always be someone out there hard done by whatever decision is taken.

I was more than happy for IDS to have capped off benefits as i thought it was ludicrous how people would get more money being unemployed/sitting around all day than someone working hard in a tescos or a factory. When you have people making life decisions to not be frivolous with their money you then have people who are spending other peoples money on luxuries.

Now i don't expect people to be not enjoy themselves every once in a while but there needs to be a limit. I cannot fault for example the people in the north who get a far worse hand then people down south at there probably aren't any jobs up there and theres hardly any investment up there. Then again i will not feel sympathy for the family of 10 who think its there god given right to have kids and spend quality time with them rather than have to work. If they have to live 5 to a room and not have sky tv then that is their problem.

Obviously there is a happy medium and i don't agree with these additional benefit cuts. Unfortunately, where there is help, there will be people taking advantage of that and its a case of knowing you will help some who deserve it and some who don't deserve it.

 

A recent report from the 'Commission on Social mobility and child poverty commission`analysed the background of 4,000 leaders in politics, the media and in other aspects of public life in Britain. Amongst their findings they found that 71% of senior judges went to private schools - the figures amongst senior armed forces officers was 62%, permanent secretaries 55%, senior diplomats 53%, the house of lords 50%, newspaper columnists 43%, the Cabinet 36% and 33% of all MPs. Amongst the population as a whole it was 7%. When it comes to Oxbridge the picture becomes even worse - 75% of senior judges went there, 59% of the cabinet, 38% of the house of lords, 24% of all MPs compared to 1% of the public. Their conclusions were that the leading institutions of Britain were dangerously unrepresentative of the population at large and were problematic on 3 counts. Firstly a lack of diversity in the people who run the country leads to what they call ''group think'' ie. a lack of understanding for others from different social backgrounds. Secondly it suggests serious limits on social mobility (other studies have shown that Britain's social mobility is one of the lowest in the western World, and is getting worse). Thirdly the sheer scale of the dominance of certain backgrounds raises questions as to whether the composition of the elite really represents merit. The institute actually pictured this as a form of social engineering. Is this really the type of elitist system which we want in a democratic country ?

 

There will always be those who abuse the system... as well as many more who have genuine need and dont...... IMO we need to care for those with genuine need....

 

Perhaps we should ask Diane Abbott about subject of the unfairness of private schools, I'm sure she rallied against them for a time.....

 

Unfortunately, as much as it shows the lack of diversity the point of someone going to oxbridge is that they are the smartest and brightest and only those who are more "intellectual" end up there else what would be the point of the way we have our university system. Likewise most of the bankers probably are part of the LSE cliche (although its probably a far more diverse as there are far more bankers).

In addition to that i don't know any people i know (i work in the energy industry) who has ever got promoted because they know people from going to the same university. It's more that they have networked better and either know there stuff or know how to play the game to impress their bosses.

 

SH. I did not mention one political party in my text, I was talking about the system as a whole.....why do you have to bring party politics into everything ? I am well aware that many Labour politicians also come from the same background, so what, exactly, is your point ?

 

I am not reading SH's messages... but can we rise above party politics just a bit please

 

The point is, are those who go to Oxbridge brighter or better than the others ? There seems to also be a rather strong parallel between those going to private schools and then to Oxbridge - or are you saying that people at those elite schools are naturally brighter than others ? Britain has a very slow rate of social mobility which has stagnated even more since the 80s - which should be a worry for all of us because it is worse than that found in most other western countries.

 

Unfortunately that is the way of the world and it is repeated in other countries, although maybe the numbers are lower. But the real question is how do you address these imbalances? Positive discrimination? proscribed lists?

 

I certainly wouldn't say every student there is brighter than all the other students. I would say this though:

on a spectrum of who is more "intelligent" and when i say intelligent i mean being able to pass exams as that is our only measure of intelligence at education level without going into further specifics of each and every individual, you can bet my life that those are private school out do state schools. Obviously there are variables that give them that advantage, whether that be genetics, smaller class sizes, better teaching, not having to go to school hungry etc etc.

Now in terms of admittance into oxbridge, you need to attain certain grades of which many people from around the world / country will have. I'm not denying that there is no natural bias to maybe pupils from a certain background but there is no other barometer out there that differentiates who is the brightest except their educational background until you start working with people personally. This might not be ideal but until there is a different benchmark then i can understand why those statistics exist

 

I am not convinced that a university education necessarily equips one to be a MP.. or is the best measure of all societal needs.

 

Is it repeated in other countries W_Y ? I can only answer for Germany here, but all the 8 chancellors since 1949 have gone to different universities - they also all went to state schools.

 

My point is that you say don't address things from a party political perspective but you only choose subjects that actually damage the right of the political spectrum.

Can we discuss the warmonger Tony Blair being the 'Middle East Peace Envoy' or Diane Abbott lecturing about the unfairness of private education until she chose a private school for her child?

 

It is perfectly proper and correct for parents to pay for their children's education if they so wish. I and many other parents I know struggled financially to pay for their offsprings education, many choosing to spend their cash on schooling rather than expensive cars or holidays that others take for granted.

 

I think that you only read in other people's texts what you want to read SH. I am not criticizing the right here but rather the whole political apparatus of Britain. There are of course many Labour politicians who send their children to private schools including Diane Abbott (though Corbyn is different on this one). My point here would be - can we expect politicians to legislate for a school system which they do not trust sufficiently to send their own children to ? I also do not feel the necessity of defending Tony Blair as I was not a supporter of his - but, whilst calling him a war monger you may like to remember that Cameron and most of the others you admire voted for the war whereas Corbyn didn't.

 

Ok, have a wild guess at what % of the benefits paid out each year goes to 'people with Sky TV'?

The media have cleverly portrayed the poor as living the dream on benefits, as it suits their blame agenda. There will always be a few freak cases where people get more than they should (I personally blame the Tories and the Blair government for not replenishing the council housing stock, whilst actively trying to sell it all off asap).

Trust me, I tried living on benefits for a while after I finished my degree, you get peanuts and it's SO demeaning, I've not done it since, even with prolonged periods of unemployment.

 

If the benefits are so low you must be a supporter of capping households to £26k per annum.

 

Go talk to someone that cares