Inequality in Britain

[Brendan]

After 8 years experience (at the coalface of how things work so to speak) I can tell you categorically that morality does not come into how our government and society are managed.

Many people don?t see a problem with this or even see it as a good thing, citing reason like pragmatism, when in truth they just don?t like being taken to task on difficult questions about themselves or have an innate inability to empathise.

[mockney piers]

As a side point "comprehensives" were intended to be just that, comprehensive education, looking at all aspects of growth (pracical, social, even spiritual), not just academic.

Of course in practice this was rarely achieved especially as they were under-resourced from the start.

I went to just such an institution as described above, a decent stab at comprehensive education with streaming in maths, science and language, but not in humanities and practical subjects, and it seemed to work pretty well (though having shut two of the schools in the town and turned the remainding two into underfunded super-shools I gather things are significantly worse)

Now they just tick boxes to egt through ofsted inspections and to watch their place on national leagues. Rubbish.

If we're serious about education (especially in the wider sense) then we really to have to prioritise the funding for it.

Education to produced a better, more competitive, more entrprenurial and more engaged populace, ultimately is the only way to move towards a fairer and more equitable society.

It really is 'education, education, education'. If only he'd meant it.

[Ladymuck]

Brendan Wrote:

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

> morality does not come into how

> our government and society are managed.

Alas...

>

> Many people don?t see a problem with this or even

> see it as a good thing...or have an innate inability to

> empathise.

Yes, it's frustrating...and the irony is, if more people did empathise and work towards achieving a common good we would actually all be a lot better off - on many levels. However, the fact that the latest British Social Attitudes Survey reveals that we believe that the poor and the unemployed have only themselves to blame for their situation sums it up though. Sometimes I wish I were a frog.

[Brendan]

It?s not that there aren?t people in politics and government (from all the various ideological backgrounds) who do empathise, see themselves as part of a whole greater than themselves, have a genuine will to make a different etc.

You come across them quite often but these kind of people never make it past junior levels in either of the 2 major parties.

But that's going off topic a bit.

[Ladymuck]

Here is an excerpt from the latest British Social Attitudes Survey.

It shows the public as being much less interested in reducing inequality than previously.

[????]

It's an aside, and nothing to do with the merits, but makes me laugh a bit how the report thinks that New Labour has shifted views to the 'right'...it is just as likely in fact more probable that New Labour followed opinion. People working in social science/policy and politics still have a rather endearing, statist and centralised view of how the state etc is the driver of opinion.

[Ladymuck]

mockney piers Wrote:

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

> Education to produced a better, more competitive,

> more entrprenurial and more engaged populace,

> ultimately is the only way to move towards a

> fairer and more equitable society.

> It really is 'education, education, education'. If

> only he'd meant it.

MP I couldn't agree more. A quality education is crucial for a more equal and thus fairer society. The massive role which education plays in determining an individual?s position in the employment market means that it is probably one of the most important factors in achieving equality.

[????]

yup and didn't we once have an educational stystem that gave the brightest kids from any backgrounds a decent education and also channeled many non-academic kids into more technical skills rather than say 'Media Studies' and was seriously undermining private education until those that preach 'equality' without thinking got hold of it?....or is that the other thread?

[Ladymuck]

???? Wrote:

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

> ...until those that

> preach 'equality' without thinking got hold of

> it?....

Eh?

You've lost me ????. What exactly are you saying here? (Seriously, I don't understand). Are you saying that we had a perfectly good system of education until some busybodies decided to make it comprehensive in the name of equality?

[????]

"Perfectly good" would be over the top but I believe the old system was helping 'mobility' and therefore equality of opportunity more than the one that replaced it. Of course it was based more on mobility than equality which seems to annoy those who would advocate equality. Inspite of the more equal=happier mantra, the most equal societies have also been among the most murderous and sapping of human dignity and spirit of any produced in history....happy places?

*sits back and awaits "but look at Sweden"*

[SeanMacGabhann]

a big statement indeed (followed by a cheap jibe)

[????]

China

USSR

Cambodia

[SeanMacGabhann]

I don't recall may people ever holding those countries up as models of "equality"

human-rights abuses yes, and a completely different political system, but equality? We aren't even talking about the same game, much less the same ball-park here

Sticking with democratically elected governments, I hear your (unspoken) point about Sweden, Canada being boring examples of what we are talking about. But that is our perspective - people who ACTUALLY live there seem to be pretty keen

It's hard to imagine something like what happened (is happening) in New Orleans happening in those places. And that is to do with equality

[david_carnell]

If you think the USSR was an equal society with a small gap between have and have-nots then you need to stop thinking up cheap-shots and go back to your text books.

Ditto China.

Ditto Cambodia.

But it's ok though, because you know, Sean, Lady M and myself are all big advocates of the Khmer Rouge. Have you not read our maniefesto outlining our desire to rid East Dulwich of all intellectuals due to the threat they pose to our great socialist republic? We thought about inviting Piers to join us but he wears glasses and therefore must be re-educated in our labour camp on Peckham Rye.

???? - wtf? Really? I mean this was progressing as a decent debate and you chuck that in as if it's even close to a valid point?!

[Brendan]

???? Wrote:

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

> China

> USSR

> Cambodia

India

Brazil

South Africa

Hugely unequal societies. Equally if not more murderous and sapping of human dignity and spirit only it?s a less formalized day-to-day drudgery of indignity and murder therefore less quantifiable and it doesn?t make simple to understand sensationalist news stories for people in Britain to digest.

[SeanMacGabhann]

of course, we should remember that sometimes quids likes nothing better than to take his rainproofs and head down to the riverbank with a can o' worms...

[Brendan]

???? Wrote:

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

> Of course it was based more

> on mobility than equality which seems to annoy

> those who would advocate equality.

How do you separate the two though?

To my mind it is easier to get from point A to point B if point B is 10 miles away from point A over a couple of hills and across a river than if point B is on the other side of an ocean and all you?ve got is a paper boat.

[????]

I'll go away then from your coy consesus...you should learn some stats about averages and outliers btw teacherman Carnell...in those societies the huge vast majority of people had equal opportunity and equal resources ie practically none. The fact that a few didn't is statitically worth zilch.

Those examples were in response to Sean's fairly unconsructive post. The point is that philisophical acceptance and unquestioning of equality=good whatever can lead to some unattended consequences that in some cases can be detrimental to good intentions (Eg Comprehensives) and in other cases murderous - eg most 'Socialist' countries.

Plenty of abuse I get on this thread from you especially this time I'm really f*cked off with it .Same old left reactions not in with the consensus get a load of abuse and then discuss 'debate'.

You are out of order David and I'm well f*cked off with your abuse Mr sanctomonious. I'm finished with the drawing room just a cosy room for middleclass liberals who soon start abusing anyone who disagrees.

Drawing room a place for civility...my arse, same old sh1te.

[Brendan]

You can't type "shite" without it being censored you know.

This isn't China.

[SeanMacGabhann]

No need to throw toys out of the pram quids - you have a thing generally about liberal consensus but you aren't really making any useful points

You called my post unconstructive - but your previous one to that was nothing but a jaundiced sneer with not much desire to progress a debate. I don't see YOU getting any abuse, certainly not to compare with the lazy stereotypes you ascribe to me and others

[????]

Bollox sean, I answered the question that LM asked and then yours......post not poster? Never works in here. Seriously I'm out - wasn't sure in the first place and actually far less civilised than the Lounge. You lot all stay and agree with each other.

[david_carnell]

Oh please. You want to have a debate about Russian/Soviet history then fine.

You want to talk about the agrarian pre-revolution society ruled by a tyrannical monarchy who watched millions starve due to famine?

You want to talk about the rapid industrialisation that took place under the Communist (not socialist) regime that further widened the gap between rural and urban dwellers as well as introducing a new bureaucratic politburo class.

Or do you want to talk about how "mobile" Russian society has become since the collapse of Communism and the great work of philanthropy all those oligarchs perform?

Hint - only one of these topics is satirical.

But my guess is you'll just put your fingers in your ears and shout "equality=socialism=USSR=gulags" over and over.

Because really, the truth is, it was a piss poor argument that you tried to crow-bar into a debate that had legs and three different people all called you on it. But if you want to flounce off then be my guest.....

[????]

yup, Russia was a far better place in the 1980s............

... this debate had stopped long ago, I bought it back and have contributed and was answering questions put to me You should take off your ideological and slightly angry hat and stop basing your responses on a whole load of pre-conceived ideas you have on my politics.... they're largely wrong by the way.

[david_carnell]

You see....that was my point.....introducing Russian/Cambodian/whatever history into an argument about 21st century Britain is a bit like Tribune - interesting, but faintly pointless. It was a crude point scoring exercise that you started. Not me.

And if I'm angry it's only because you take great delight in making points you know full well will get this particular fish to bite. A couple of pages earlier it was public sector workers....it's not big and it's not clever.

You seem to see social mobility as a cure all. I don't. Unless the equality-gap narrows, I don't think that mobility can happen very often or very easily. And along with others I've suggested means of doing so.

Now, whilst I have a rough idea of what your politics are (although I acknowledge they're different to the assumptions I first made) don't patronise me as if I'm still in 6th form debating society. I appreciate that it must be tiring when your the lone voice on the other side of this particular barricade but there is nothing I can do about that.

If you want to leave the Drawing Room for good then I'm not going to beg you to stay, but it'll be a poorer place in your absence. I'm not so closed minded as to blindly follow any old dogma so any valid points you make are not in vain.

[mockney piers]

It was poor though quids, even by the standards of the wind ups from when you first came on here.

The fact is we'll never know whether Communism was viable as the countries it was intended for and who met the preconditions for a successful introduction (Germany, France, Britain) never went for it, and it became seen as a panacea for the oppressed in countries that simply were not in a position to apply it correctly, ie backward, largely agrarian economies with enormous landowners crushing the vast majority of effectively indentured labour.

We'll actually never really know whether the Soviets could have been more successful as their attempts at social engineering were by and large scuppered by the ploughing of resources into the Red Army, Navy a space race and a stupid missile gap.

However you view the rise of modern Russia as an oligarchal energy superpower, the gloss of the beautiful people swanning around in designer clothes and maseratis in St Petersburg (and lets face it, they just use to swan around in better boiler suits and zils) can't detract from the fact that the vast majority of Russians in rotting cities like Gorky and Valdivostok are worse off and reminisce about the old USSR, and you can be damn sure that those in our new best buddies the central Asian republics are faring much worse.

Yes it was inefficient, yes it may have been unworkable/unsustainable in the long term, but everyone was educated, everyone was fed. Having been to Cuba, it is a listless society, and one where people are often tempted for that dangerous crossing to Florida in search of those streets paved with gold, but it's a society with genuine cohesion, mutual support and respect, utterly devoid of real poverty and racism, where ingenuity is poured into projects like the market garden project, making do uot of very limited resources*, and where people are genuinely afraid for the consequences that rampant commercialisation will have in terms of inequality and exploitation.

I think to dismiss this by bringing up Mao and Pot and Stalin is a bit ruibbish. I assume you refer to these, as post destalinisation USSR wasn't as bad as our pals Chile or Brazil and leagues ahead of staunch allies Shaist Iran or Indonesia in terms of political oppression and murder. I suppose you could bring up Hungary, but I'd counter Suez, you could mention Prague, I may be tempetd to cite Vietnam and even Cambodia where Pot was able to come to power as a direct result of western policy in Indochina.

Anyway, a terrible strawman cannot detract from the qualities of social democracy like Holland, Denamrk and yes Sweden, no matter how dismissive you choose to be about it.

*and believe you me post peak oil we'll all be learning a thing or two from them when the lack of opportunity to make it richj will be the last of our worries (hopefully not literally), though you can be suer people will make it rich exploiting the terrible problems we face from climate change and the drying up of natural resources.