The Big Lie

[Earl Aelfheah]

The idea that people 'get what they deserve' is hopelessly naive and ignores the fact that your life chances, if you grow up on an estate in a deprived area of wales say, are hugely limited compared to the kid who goes to a private school in the SE. I have worked with plenty of pretty slow, rather lazy, but successful people. On most objective measures I could consider myself to be reasonably successful, but I don't for one minute think there aren't smarter or harder working people out there who are struggling to get by. This is the problem with the Conservative perspective.

[Green Goose]

rahrahrah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The idea that people 'get what they deserve' is

> hopelessly naive and ignores the fact that your

> life chances, if you grow up on an estate in a

> deprived area of wales say, are hugely limited

> compared to the kid who goes to a private school

> in the SE. I have worked with plenty of pretty

> slow, rather lazy, but successful people. On most

> objective measures I could consider myself to be

> reasonably successful, but I don't for one minute

> think there aren't smarter or harder working

> people out there who are struggling to get by.

> This is the problem with the Conservative

> perspective.

No, I did not mention the word ?deserve?. It?s about what a person makes of it. I do agree that life?s chances can be a factor ? but not an insurmountable barrier. I see lots of people who have emigrated here and to the USA where they have arrived penniless, with a language barrier to other prejudices to overcome. They have overcome life chances and pulled themselves up to become hugely successful. Look at the Ugandan Asians for example.

The deprived from Wales can be just as mobile as those who migrate here. It was only in places such as the USSR where you did not have the right to move to a different part of the country or even emigrate for that matter.

So, I don?t go along with the inherent prejudice that often leads to resentment agaist achievement just because one grows up in a deprived area. I came from a deprived area that is a match for the Welsh valleys any day and I reckon I did OK. I went to a State school and didn?t go to university either. Plus my accent could have been construed as a barrier but my view was, "what the hell", it?s what I put into the job that counts. Resentment towards those who have achieved more than others is a very quaint British characteristic.

The Aussies encapsulated it with their labelling of the Brits as Whinging Poms. They are of the view that those who couldn?t/didn?t make a go of it in the UK and then didn?t make a go of it in Oz that they were rightly labelled as Whinging Poms. Australia (and the particularly the US) don?t have quite such a benevolent security system and that prompts some Poms to bitch about it.

As to your last sentence, what I would say is that perspective is an entirely subjective aspect and I would imagine, you would never be a Conservative. Ipso facto you could never know what the Conservative perspective is. You are just reinforcing your inherent political prejudice. Most people don't change their political orientation and those who do do so in later lfe when they have had the benefit of hindsight. It might even happen to you one day.

[Earl Aelfheah]

It's the Tory narrative of course. If you work hard then you can succeed. If you work hard you might succeed. If your born in a certain time and place and have a few lucky breaks professionally you can succeed with little effort. It's not a level playing field and there is a lot if luck involved in diced. The idea of our living in a meritocracy is nonsense.

[Green Goose]

rahrahrah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> It's the Tory narrative of course. If you work

> hard then you can succeed. If you work hard you

> might succeed. If your born in a certain time and

> place and have a few lucky breaks professionally

> you can succeed with little effort. It's not a

> level playing field and there is a lot if luck

> involved in diced. The idea of our living in a

> meritocracy is nonsense.

It has never been a level playing field and it can never be made into a level field by social engineering and handouts.

The migrants I mentioned ( and myself included) overcame the life chances that were handed out. The harder I studied the easier it got. As American Founding Father Thomas Jefferson said ??..

?I?m a great believer in luck, and I find the harder I work the more I have of it.?

I found that too. Plus, when I started out as a humble apprentice, I was given one real valuable piece of free advice and that was?. ? If you see some task or item of work being done by someone else and you think you can do it better or faster, then go to your boss and say that you?d like to take it on and add it to your job?. It certainly always worked for me. Also if you register an interest in taking on the next level of responsibility up the greasy pole then it sticks in Management?s mind and the next time vacancy comes up or there is a re-organisation, you are already ahead of the game.

Now I fully appreciate that is anathema to union diehards (who believe in demarcation and other such hindrances to progress) and possibly yourself as I imagine you are a vehemently caring and benevolent Socialist ?albeit a rather na?ve one. But it is the way to overcome the perceived vagaries of life?s chances. It?s what you make of it yourself. The meritocracy we live in allows this to happen. Been there and done it.

[Earl Aelfheah]

You suggested we live in a meritocracy (which implies that those who work hard get rewarded .. the single mum working three jobs and still struggling to get by might disagree). I don't believe we live in a meritocracy. I think that the system is very much stacked in favour of certain people and that there needs to be a degree of redistribution to go some way towards remedying that. And actually, On a more fundamental level I just think that we ought to look out for each other. There but for the grace of god etc. Lots of torys think that they've earned everything they have (even those who've inherited their wealth) and and that there's some sort of divine justice at play where everyone gets what they deserve. It's demonstrably nonsense.

[Alan Medic]

Green Goose Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> It has never been a level playing field and it can

> never be made into a level field by social

> engineering and handouts.

> The migrants I mentioned ( and myself included)

> overcame the life chances that were handed out.

> The harder I studied the easier it got. As

> American Founding Father Thomas Jefferson said

> ??..

> ?I?m a great believer in luck, and I find the

> harder I work the more I have of it.?

> I found that too.

This is an excellent example of luck. My father's uncle tossed a coin to decide which direction we would take in 1800's America. He got lucky and a lot of people benefitted from it including my father whose own father died before he was born:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgins_Building

[Alan Medic]

rahrahrah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> You suggested we live in a meritocracy (which

> implies that those who work hard get rewarded ..

> the single mum working three jobs and still

> struggling to get by might disagree). I don't

> believe we live in a meritocracy. I think that the

> system is very much stacked in favour of certain

> people and that there needs to be a degree of

> redistribution to go some way towards remedying

> that. And actually, On a more fundamental level I

> just think that we ought to look out for each

> other. There but for the grace of god etc. Lots of

> torys think that they've earned everything they

> have (even those who've inherited their wealth)

> and and that there's some sort of divine justice

> at play where everyone gets what they deserve.

On the other hand (to my previous post) I now work in a company which is a family run business. The MD has inherited the business from his mother who started it in the 60's, and he has never worked anywhere else. I don't know how wealthy he is, but more than I'm ever likely to be. The point of mentioning him is that in my humble (I hope) opinion he really does not know how to run a company. If he had to make his own way in the world without a path being set out for him, I doubt he would be very successful.

Do we live in a meritocracy? For some it's true, in that their talents are recognised, and for others they happen upon wealth they didn't earn. A single mother working three jobs is most likely going to be at the bottom of the tree. There isn't the time to have a career. Should wealth be redistributed is an interesting question. Those who say it should are probably not wealthy. When I read that footballers will stay at a club only if they are paid ?300k a week for example, I wonder what the world has come to. This discussion could go on and on.......

[tomdhu]

Alan Medic Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>

> On the other hand (to my previous post) I now work

> in a company which is a family run business. The

> MD has inherited the business from his mother who

> started it in the 60's, and he has never worked

> anywhere else. I don't know how wealthy he is, but

> more than I'm ever likely to be. The point of

> mentioning him is that in my humble (I hope)

> opinion he really does not know how to run a

> company. If he had to make his own way in the

> world without a path being set out for him, I

> doubt he would be very successful.

If he cannot operate the business successfully then the businees will fail. It's the survival of the fittest in life and in business.

When it starts to struggle why not arrange some finance and buy him out? He probably does not enjoy the business. This can happen. It usually takes 3 generations.

Even better, if it starts to fail and you don't want to buy it then send me a PM and I will look it over. I can borrow as I have a track record in business. And if you are good at what you do and if I think you can run the business for me then you could be on the way up the ladder.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Alan Medic Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Should wealth be redistributed is an interesting question. Those

> who say it should are probably not wealthy.

This is simply not the case. If it were then the Labour Party would not have any wealthy supporters.

[Green Goose]

rahrahrah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Alan Medic Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Should wealth be redistributed is an interesting

> question. Those

> > who say it should are probably not wealthy.

>

> This is simply not the case. If it were then the

> Labour Party would not have any wealthy

> supporters.

Quite a few, if not most, donors to political parties do not do so for altusitic motives. No, they do so because they want to secure some influence on policy (like a certain mr Ecclestone) or they want to get a knighthood or peerage. Plus of course it is tax deductable.

Altruisma and philanthropy are nor often the prime motivation. Believe me.

[rendelharris]

It never fails to amuse that those on the right refuse to believe that there is such a thing as philanthropy which is undertaken for no ulterior motive. Judging everyone by their own "what's mine is mine and I shouldn't have to share and I don't think I should even have to pay a reasonable amount of tax" standard I guess. One would have thought that rich philanthropists would be a justification of their worldview rather than otherwise, but it seems not.

[Green Goose]

rendelharris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> It never fails to amuse that those on the right

> refuse to believe that there is such a thing as

> philanthropy which is undertaken for no ulterior

> motive. Judging everyone by their own "what's

> mine is mine and I shouldn't have to share and I

> don't think I should even have to pay a reasonable

> amount of tax" standard I guess. One would have

> thought that rich philanthropists would be a

> justification of their worldview rather than

> otherwise, but it seems not.

We were discussing donations to political parties. So a bit of a knee jerk there by you.

Philanthropy has no link whatsoever with donations to political parties.

There are not too many genuine philanthropists in comparison with other donors. On the other hand the vast majority of philanthropic donors have been committed capitalists with a right wing bent. And I can't think of one who objected to paying tax. It was Al Capone who didn't pay his taxes.

Your last sentence seems a bit muddled.

[JoeLeg]

But do most decent philanthropists (of which America, for example, has a few) give to political parties? My understanding is that they tend to endow universities, dig wells in Africa, pay for hospital wings and the arts etc.

It's almost as if they don't trust politicians to use the money properly...

[rendelharris]

Green Goose Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>

> Your last sentence seems a bit muddled.

This from a chap who gave us the sentence "Altruisma and philanthropy are nor often the prime motivation." OK. Happy to explain: I meant I would assume that those of you on the right would see rich philanthropists as justifying a position that the wealthy can be relied on to do their bit for humanity. Clear now?

Was Al Capone a leftie then? Your choice of him as an example is particularly ignorant as he supported the Republican party not only with cash but with a campaign of violence and murder against those who didn't support his choice.

It's true, the rich tend to be rightwing as that political side tend to favour them, and so proportionately one would expect those in a position to be philanthropists on a notable scale to be more of the right. Amongst current "mega-philanthropists" Bill Gates is notable for his Democratic party leanings, as is the vehemently anti-Trump Warren Buffet.

[Green Goose]

rendelharris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Green Goose Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> >

> > Your last sentence seems a bit muddled.

>

> This from a chap who gave us the sentence

> "Altruisma and philanthropy are nor often the

> prime motivation."

Sorry teacher but my old arthritic fingers are not so good at touch typing as they used to be. For "nor" read "not" and for "altruisma and" read altruism and". Kindly don't be too intolerant of age-related considerations.

Please Teacher, but didn't you promise not to respond to any of my posts just two days ago. Never mind, many politicos break promises, so welcome back.

> I meant I would assume that those of you on the

> right would see rich philanthropists as justifying

> a position that the wealthy can be relied on to do

> their bit for humanity. Clear now?

You assume incorrectly. Philanthropists don't have to justify their actions or give reasons. But the Left see that wealth (however it is achieved) should be heavily taxed, as the solution to all society's ills and to assuage their own ingrained resentments. That is until they get on the gravy train as MPs or whatever then they insist on having all the trimmings like private education for their kids

> Was Al Capone a leftie then?

No, Capone was only chosen as an example of what happens if you don't pay your taxes - even though you've been untouchable in all other respects.

> It's true, the rich tend to be rightwing as that

> political side tend to favour them, and so

> proportionately one would expect those in a

> position to be philanthropists on a notable scale

> to be more of the right.

There are contradictions everywhere as you prove when you went on to counter your own assertion, as follows..

> Amongst current

> "mega-philanthropists" Bill Gates is notable for

> his Democratic party leanings, as is the

> vehemently anti-Trump Warren Buffet.

[JoeLeg]

Wow. Pot, kettle, black etc...

[Earl Aelfheah]

Green Goose Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> rahrahrah Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Alan Medic Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > -----

> > > Should wealth be redistributed is an

> interesting

> > question. Those

> > > who say it should are probably not wealthy.

> >

> > This is simply not the case. If it were then

> the

> > Labour Party would not have any wealthy

> > supporters.

>

> Quite a few, if not most, donors to political

> parties do not do so for altusitic motives. No,

> they do so because they want to secure some

> influence on policy (like a certain mr

> Ecclestone) or they want to get a knighthood or

> peerage. Plus of course it is tax deductable.

>

> Altruisma and philanthropy are nor often the prime

> motivation. Believe me.

I didnt say 'donors', I said 'supporters'. There are plenty of Labour supporters (including myself) who are not poor. Believe it or not, not everyone is just out for what they can get.

That said, there are plenty of people who do donate to Labour (as well as other parties), who aren't just looking for 'influence'. Honestly, you really are proving my points for me.

[rendelharris]

Green Goose Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Please Teacher, but didn't you promise not to

> respond to any of my posts just two days ago.

> Never mind, many politicos break promises, so

> welcome back.

Not at all, I said I'd decided to ignore you when you went in for trolling and personal attacks, I said when you wanted to actually debate properly - in public, rather than by personal message - I'd be happy to engage. As indeed you are now doing, so...but I've slaughtered myself riding into headwinds down in Sussex today so you'll excuse me if I leave it for tonight.

Just one thing before I say goodnight: "But the Left see that wealth (however it is achieved) should be heavily taxed, as the solution to all society's ills and to assuage their own ingrained resentments." Without giving away too much about myself (as I'm already slightly creeped out that, from your previous posts, you seem to know more about me and my profession than I'd like - the perils of trying to be honest by using my real name and only maintaining one account on the EDF, I suppose), I had a reasonably privileged upbringing, lead what I regard as a very comfortable and lucky life, yet I'd be happy to pay more tax than I currently do if (a big if with governments of any hue) it were to be spent wisely. So what are my ingrained resentments? I'd definitely be personally better off under a Tory government. As per the above about philanthropy, it does seem difficult for the right to imagine that anyone can be prepared willingly to give up a little of what they have for the benefit of society as a whole.

Just to aid your reply, here's a "sanctimonious" and a "holier-than-thou" - you can cut and paste them!

[Earl Aelfheah]

This thread is so revealing of the mindset of many Conservative supporters. It speaks volumes.

[uncleglen]

I should have been more specific- there are people out there who deliberately work for say, 3 days a week and make up their money in tax credits. Employers complain that they cannot get full-time staff because of this skiving attitude.

I had a terribly poor upbringing which was why I was attracted to the extreme lefties when I was young and their re-distribution of wealth thing...well, I grew up and as I'd had a very good education (which has been denied to most poor working class kids these days) I could see that the lefties have to keep the poor in their place and uneducated- or who else would vote for them- except people working in the public sector...?

[Blah Blah]

rahrahrah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> This thread is so revealing of the mindset of many

> Conservative supporters. It speaks volumes.

You also have to factor in the London experience. Go to he North East for example, and you won't see much meritocracy there. So much of this debate is shaped by the London factor. Yes there is opportunity here, and that one kid who grew up on an estate and did well at state school, in site of the general standard of the school, and got himself into a top university, again against the odds, and came to London etc, is just that one kid in thousands. Look around in any profession and ask how many of those at the top went to public school. Right there is the answer. We live in a plutocracy.

[karen s]

Ignorance is bliss lol.

"America is a classless society", not to mention your other quotes lol. .. You obviously have not heard of the Ghettos then you must be living with blinkers on lol.

Instead of watching the football try watching something a bit more educational.

[Green Goose]

karen s Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Ignorance is bliss lol.

> "America is a classless society", not to mention

> your other quotes lol. .. You obviously have not

> heard of the Ghettos then you must be living with

> blinkers on lol.

> Instead of watching the football try watching

> something a bit more educational.

You are getting confused between class and wealth.

There's plenty wealthy people out there with very little class. And seeing as you have mentioned football that is a sector where there's a lot of wealthy players who got where they are by dedication to training and honing their skills.

[Blah Blah]

Class is defined by background, culture and upbringing, which is linked to a self preserving establishment and heirarchy. And wealth is one measure amongst many others. That heirarchy exists in America as it does in any society. If you grow up in the Hamptons, you are going to have a whole range of opportunities that you will not have if you grow up in the Bronx. Ivy league universities are full of the kids of top lawyers, doctors, politicians and business CEOs. There is an establishment in America just as much as there is here. The origins may be different, but it exists all the same.