The alternate view is to see each vote as one for society rather than one for me or one for them etc….

Indeed, but whether left or right I’d argue that all parties are trying to bring up the average (GDP, or whatever metric you chose), just one philosophy does that by gifting money to the lowest percentiles from the highest to bring up the modeal average, the other encourages more to be made in the higher percentiles with the expectation of a trickle down through the demographics and better off for all through a higher mean average, although some will still be better off than others.

I’d argue that all parties are trying to bring up the average

I honestly don’t believe the Tories care about anyone other than themselves and their extremely wealthy friends. In fact, they seem to despise the poor and handicapped with a venom I can’t fathom.

I think one nation Tories actually care but there are very few of them

The rest have no idea what its like to be poor and really could not GAS about them – hence why they can say things like unemployment is a price worth paying
I dont actually believe they think trickle down works but they realise they cannot say they are not trying to help the needy

[img]http://ct.politicomments.com/ol/pc/sw/i49/5/6/12/f_3d6bbb5caf.jpg#and%20we%20told%20them%20that%20it%20would%20trickle%20down%20770×976[/img]

I think you are confusing the national debt with the defecit. The defecit is decreasing, but we still need to borrow dollar to cover the defecit, thus the national debt is rising.

I don’t particularly like to defend the Govt., but they never said that.

Could I suggest that reading a post is sensible before commenting on it? What I said was that the Tories have done a number on convincing people that THE DEBT is coming down, while in fact it is going up. I never mentioned either their stated policies or the National Deficit. So would either of you care to re read what was written and explain rush to “correct” it in light of what you have written in your respective posts?

[still devils advocate, otheriwise this threads degenerating into the Monty Python, three Yorkshiremen sketch]

I honestly don’t believe the Tories care about anyone other than themselves and their extremely wealthy friends. In fact, they seem to despise the poor and handicapped with a venom I can’t fathom.

Turkeys don’t vote for christmas, yet “the poor and handicapped” voted* for the Tories. So it’s either a variation on Stockholm Syndrome, Masochism, or there’s something in the idea that creating wealth is better than redistributing it.

*at the behest of Newscorp via the Sun.

The rest have no idea what its like to be poor and really could not GAS about them

I’d say it’s much worse than that. They really seem to enjoy hurting and demonising the poor in a very vindictive way.

Footflaps, Binners and the Communist Workers Party really seem to enjoy hurting and demonising the rich in a very vindictive way.

FTFY

Personaly I said at the start, I don’t subscribe to either policy and believe Democracy keeps us happily bumping allong in the middle.

I think many of them oblivious to the fact they were borne into a life of privileged and private schools, arrogantly [ naively if i was feeling kind] think they worked to get where they got. therefore anyone who has not risen like they have [ for they did it by damn hard work and not family wealth, th eold school tie and connections] is just not as talented as them or lazy so deserve what they get

Turkeys don’t vote for christmas

Clearly they do – tbh the floating voters who decide elections just seem to vote for change every decade or so. It has , IMHO, F all to do with policies. i dont really see how anyone can float from Tory to Labour tbh [ though I accept the difference is not what it used to be

Footflaps, Binners and the Communist Workers Party really seem to enjoy hurting and demonising the rich in a very vindictive way.

If you can point out to me one single, solitary example of how the rich in this country have been ‘hurt’ in any way, shape or form, then fair enough. Because I can’t think of any.

Oh yeah… Fred Goodwin had to give his Knighthood back, didn’t? I’m sure he wept into his absolutely ****ing massive pension-pot about that

Demonised maybe. And rightfully bloody so! We’re all paying for their **** ups and subsidising their vast fortunes. At the end of the day, we’ve seen 20/30 odd years of the rich getting richer and richer and richer, accumulating vast wealth at an obscene rate, while everyone else’s share stagnates or diminishes. The tax burden on this wealth has been steadily reduced, but still they dodge it, and make zero contribution to society.

And the bankers who caused the huge crash have all walked away scott free and laughing, huge bonuses still firmly trousered, while leaving the poor to be blamed, and to foot the bill. And now its business as usual, no more regulated than it was, and the snouts are well and truly back in the trough

So…. ‘hurt’ how?

Not sure how much credit Gideon deserves for the recovery.

These things a cyclical so regression to mean is inevitable at some point. The recovery is still very slow and there is a genuine risk of another property bubble – which Gideon could claim the credit for.

The Bedroom Tax though is an absolute disgrace. Its – at best – badly though out and unworkable, but at worst its just another cruel attack on the poor.

What’s more its deeply calculating and cynical. Poor people don’t vote Tory so nothing is lost in continually kicking them and their “base” are happy that the people responsible for the crisis are punished.

Because we all know the recent financial crisis was due to under-occupancy of council houses so its only fair they suffer a bit.

After all we are all in this together.

Wow, binners be careful which examples you choose. Don’t forget who ultimately agreed to Fred’s final pension and feted him with obvious relish. Dodgy ground that one!

Plus rising income inequality is a global phenomenum that transcends politics. In the UK it has risen under different parties (Thatcher obviously, Blair as well) and the most rapid growth currently is (according to the OECD) found in economies that have traditionally been associated with low levels of inequality and stronger senses of community that the UK or US (eg Scandinavia).

Financial sector regulation is significantly tighter than previously (take amount and type of capital as a simply example) and as such is directly in contradiction with the needs of companies to finance working capital etc. So far from business as usual and especially odd when the Tory policy mix is so reliant on an ultra-loose monetary policy that “demonises” the financial prudent!

The financial sector, like the public sector, has also seen sharp falls in employment levels. So the two sectors that benefitted under Labour are now finding things very different under the Tories.

But if footflaps is correct, there is nothing to worry about. Given the % of the voting population that is accounted for by Tory members and the “extremely wealthy” (the only people they care about), 2015 must be a Labour shoe-in surely? Why would any of those ignored by the Tories vote for them. That would be crazy.

Could I suggest that reading a post is sensible before commenting on it? What I said was that the Tories have done a number on convincing people that THE DEBT is coming down

This is a “number” I’m unaware of and certainly no-one I know thinks it is currently coming down. They’ve referred to addressing the debt, which is not the same as reducing it. I can’t find any reference to bringing it down yet.
Official tory words

This seems pretty clear that the deficit removal is (4 years) in the future, meaning debt carries on rising until that date.

I care little for politics, but I’m pretty interested in the maths being talked about properly.

I wouldn’t defend nu labours economic record on economics and banking THM. Its a disgrace in its fawning deference to the City. But, lest we forget, all the time the Tories were constantly bleating that the city was over-regulated! Can you imagine where we’d be if they’d had their way? 😯

and some things never change in the city

For sure, binners, it would have been little different under the Tories. They were (all) v wrong on financial sector regulation. But the irony is now that the reforms required for LT stability are in direct opposition to the ST economic needs and to the Tory’s current policy mix. That is very odd. And Vickers was calling for a further doubling of capital for UK banks only this week.

Out of interest, in response to footflaps comments earlier, I was intrigued to see how the Tories, Labour and the LibDems define themselves on their websites (pretty poorly as it turns out.) The Labour Party has an interesting summary of its history (with a very odd couple of opening lines, but that is another story). I had missed how many times that Labour had to govern with minority governments during the 20C. I only mention that as you seem to believe that governments without a mandate have little legitimacy. But they still have to govern as the Labour Party did and the ConDems are doing now.

Sat in the local Costa this morning, forced to read the Mail because it was the only paper they had left, and came across an article saying that according to ONS the fastest growing employment sectors are now estate agents and property development…. 😆 Over half a million of us are now estate agents, apparently.

I think many of them oblivious to the fact they were borne into a life of privileged and private schools, arrogantly [ naively if i was feeling kind] think they worked to get where they got. therefore anyone who has not risen like they have [ for they did it by damn hard work and not family wealth, th eold school tie and connections] is just not as talented as them or lazy so deserve what they get

I think you’re not so much seeing the wrold in black and white, but certainly greyscale. You don’t need to be thick to be poor, or rich to be happy with your lot. You’ve just selected a subset of ‘the rich’ who aren’t happy with their lot so will try and increace it, and a subset of ‘the poor’ likewise.

There’s plenty of ‘rich’ who did work their way up, and plenty of ‘poor’ who are quite happy.

There’s plenty of ‘rich’ who did work their way up

All the stats on social mobility in this country prove that, actually, there aren’t. And the mob that are presently gleefully punishing the poor, certainly didn’t work for theirs. They all had it handed to them!

Witness Ian Duncan Smith’s evangelical zeal. To justify his assault on the unemployed, he sites his own experience of being unemployed, after coming out of the army. Though I’m sure the experience was eased by having a £2 million mansion to live in at the time. That his in-laws had kindly given to him and his wife. I don’t think he’s commented on how the bedroom tax would have effected him, had it been introduced at the time

Binners I think your arguments would be more persuasive if you toned the language down a bit!

Anyway, it’s clear that massive reforms are needed in politics and government.

There’s plenty of ‘rich’ who did work their way up

What % is your plenty ?
I bet it is less than 0.5% of the rich were not borne rich

of course there is some limited movement between rich and poor but it is minimal

Binners I think your arguments would be more persuasive if you toned the language down a bit!

I think Binners’ language is fine.

Its not like his is calling the tories a bunch of inbred halfwit born to rule **** is it?

So the Tories aren’t a shining beacon for social mobility, therefore everyone to the right of the bell curve is born there and a Tory?

You’ve just answered your own question

Binners – what stats are you using. You may be correct that difference between rich and poor have increased/stayed the same or whatever. But who are the new rich? Is it the same segments of society or new ones? Where did football players and teachers stand 50 years ago? Or doctors versus manufactured pop stars? How do the landed gentry now stack up – asset rich, cash poor perhaps? Hedge fund managers have only existed relatively recently.

It seems to me that there have been considerable changes in the distribution of UK wealth (some deserved, some not 😉 ) at least by segment. One interesting example is student breakdown at public schools. As the HM of Eton lamented a year or so ago, pretty soon the only people able to afford my school will be hedge fund managers!!! He would not have said the same thing 50 years ago. Does any of this count as social mobility?

Footballers are among the new rich. They make their money from the tickets, the shirts etc that we all buy , topped up by the sky subs that some of us choose to pay. We are not coerced into doing any of this, it is our free will. The players themselves have benefitted in the random distribution of athletic skills at birth in much the same way as others have been born with silver spoons in their mouths(and unlike others I am happy to credit them (wendys) with hard work as well, ok to an extent). Is it fair that they now earn far more than the rest of us could ever hope for?

(edit for x post. JY is that a bet you would put money on? Any odds or just plain 50:50?)

You’ve just answered your own question

Not sure, I think it was rhetorical.

I bet it is less than 0.5% of the rich were not borne rich

Depends how you define ‘rich’, left or right of the bell curve, or moving in/out of the top percentiles?

As the HM of Eton lamented a year or so ago, pretty soon the only people able to afford my school will be hedge fund managers!!! He would not have said the same thing 50 years ago. Does any of this count as social mobility?

Well 50 years ago hedge fund managers were unknown, or at least uncategorised as such. But in that statement you insinuate that “hedge fund managers” have all risen from the wrong side of the tracks. I would like to bet that by far the majority of them have followed the private education – ivy league college path that most “masters of the universe” have followed over many generations.

I care little for politics, but I’m pretty interested in the maths being talked about properly.

So we agree that the debt is increasing, we agree that there has been substantial debate on here about the difference between deficit and debt, thus indicating that many people are unaware of the difference or the technicality of the language, but we don’t agree that the Tories are “doing a number” by the use of semantics such as “addressing the debt”, which where I come from does not mean deliberately making it bigger….. fair enough, we must agree to differ.

Depends how you define ‘rich’, left or right of the bell curve, or moving in/out of the top percentiles?

There was a More or Less program which discussed this a few months back. The top 1% (as often referred to by the media) does have a lot of churn – you need to earn £120k/annum in the UK to be in it. I suspect the top 0.1% has a lot less churn, but have no stats to back that up at the moment.

thisisnotaspoon – Member

Footflaps, Binners and the Communist Workers Party really seem to enjoy hurting and demonising the rich in a very vindictive way.

FTFY

Personaly I said at the start, I don’t subscribe to either policy and believe Democracy keeps us happily bumping allong in the middle.

You are confusing two things here. You can have a democracy which considers equality to be important and tries to maintain this using redistribution of wealth through taxation. Sweden is a good example.

Or you can have a Democracy which sees redistribution of wealth to the rich as being of key importance eg the USA.

Not (intentionally) insinuating anything about HF managers – from my experience a pretty eclectic bunch and dangerous to generalise. I was merely referring to a quote from the HM of Eton which I thought was interesting,

Sweden interestingly has among the most rapid growth rates in income inequality (albeit from a lower base) than many other developed economies according to the OECD study.

There was a More or Less program which discussed this a few months back. The top 1% (as often referred to by the media) does have a lot of churn – you need to earn £120k/annum in the UK to be in it. I suspect the top 0.1% has a lot less churn, but have no stats to back that up at the moment.

And I suspect the turnover between say the bottom 50% and the top 50% is even higher. That’s social mobility.

That there’s a 0.1% at the top no one can ever break into is a sideshow.

I would like to bet that by far the majority of them have followed the private education – ivy league college path that most “masters of the universe” have followed over many generations.

This I have a chip on my shoulder about.

I came from an (economicaly) ‘underprivelaged’ background, although as we were budled together for the interviews I’d say it was more parents had done interesting jobs rather than being outright poor. And I got an offer, then everyone derried it telling me it was just the quota system working in my favour. Then everyone who doesn’t get an offer compplains it’s because they (the university’s) elitist. They/I/anyone can’t win in that ill-informed argument!

The fact that Oxford/Cambridge takes a higher proportion of private school kids is simply because private schools churn out cleverer than average pupils through a combination of everything that makes kids perform better, teachers, pushy/suppourtive parents, diets, tutoring, you name it, they probably have an advantage over the average pupil in state school.

You could make all the arguments you like about potential, but it’s a meritocracy. Ultimately I got 3 A’s and a B and didn’t get in.

And I suspect the turnover between say the bottom 50% and the top 50% is even higher. That’s social mobility.

Based on what? We have fairly poor social mobility in this country compared to every other developed nation, and I believe it’s getting worse not better.

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2010/mar/10/oecd-uk-worst-social-mobility

The fact that Oxford/Cambridge takes a higher proportion of private school kids is simply because private schools churn out cleverer than average pupils through a combination of everything that makes kids perform better, teachers, pushy/suppourtive parents, diets, tutoring, you name it, they probably have an advantage over the average pupil in state school.

I believe a recent study shows that’s not the case – pupils with identical grades and similar extra-curriculur activities etc are significantly more likely to get in if they went to one of the top private schools.

Found it:

Students from ethnic minorities are less likely to gain places at top universities than white pupils with the same A-level grades, a new study has claimed.

Researchers from Durham University examined application data from 49,000 students applying to Russell Group universities from 1996 to 2006 to compare the success rates of different groups of applicants.

The study, which was presented to a Higher Education Academy conference in Manchester on 26 March, also found that state school pupils were less likely to get places than pupils from independent schools.

“The headline conclusion of the analysis is that access to Russell Group universities is far from ‘fair’,” said the study’s lead author Vikki Boliver, from Durham University’s School of Applied Social Sciences.

State school pupils “need to be better qualified than their private school counterparts on average by as much as two A-level grades before they are as likely to apply to Russell Group universities”, the study argued.

“And when those from state schools do apply to Russell Group universities they seem to need to be better qualified than their private school counterparts on average by as much as one grade at A level before they are as likely to receive offers of admission,” it adds.

http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/news/ethnic-minorities-less-likely-to-gain-russell-group-places/2002812.article

Grum, how do you think access has changed since 2006? Thirteen years seems like a lifetime in secondary education – sorry for the bad pun.

Not suggesting that The Guardian would put a spin on OECD stuff but are these the same reports that conclude:

It shows that the relationship between parental or socio-economic background and offspring educational and wage outcomes is positive and significant {no surprise] in practically all countries for which evidence is available. Intergenerational social mobility is measured by several different indicators, since no single indicator provides a complete picture. However, one pattern that emerges is of a group of countries, southern European countries and Luxembourg, which appears to rank as relatively immobile on most indicators, while another group, the Nordic countries, is found to be more mobile. Furthermore, public policies such as education and early childcare play a role in explaining observed differences in intergenerational social mobility across countries.

Slightly different conclusion from the horse’s mouth?

Like Anne Boleyn maybe a commoner might rise to be the Queen of England – oh, wait a minute. Let’s hope that Kate avoids a similar fate!!

What’s your point?

Point 1: a lot has changed since 2006 in terms of University entrance

Point 2: TG is spinning a story. The OECD is far more complex and less categorical than TG would suggest and as my highlight suggests does not include the UK in its own conclusion

Point 3: which we will agree on I hope – education is the key!

I believe a recent study shows that’s not the case – pupils with identical grades and similar extra-curriculur activities etc are significantly more likely to get in if they went to one of the top private schools.

It even goes further than that, those that make it to Russell Group universities and particularly oxbridge seem to come from a small cluster of state schools, usually schools that have a staff member who themselves is oxbridge educated, and knows how to coach them through the system.

Oddly enough the same phenomenon seems to work in football, where a disproportionate number of top players come from the same schools or youth teams that have the contacts to get the players trials or scouted.

On the face of it, it appears to be a meritocracy, but in reality the same access to opportunity isn’t universal at all.

ps, Of course though it is positive that at least some graduates of the top universities are then going to teach in state schools.

Point 1: a lot has changed since 2006 in terms of University entrance

I await your statistics and it is clear what the pattern is and was and will always be. They dont pay those immense fees to not give their kids an advantage in life do they? Little has changed

The disproportionate rate from private schools, even when the grades are the same, shows it about who you know and not what you know.

On the face of it, it appears to be a meritocracy, but in reality the same access to opportunity isn’t universal at all.

That’s the kicker isn’t it. I might be a world class golfist if I’d started when I was 5, but now we’ll never know…

I’m being facetious but I often wonder how many people simply never find something they have a real talent for just through a lack of opportunity.

Point 1: a lot has changed since 2006 in terms of University entrance

Yes, now when the Universities are under pressure to stop their discrimination towards private school pupils, the private schools throw a strop and claim this is somehow unfair.

I’ve seen it claimed that there is now positive discrimination towards state schools – I’m yet to see any evidence though. And if it is true then good – it might help end some of the ridiculously entrenched privilege we have in this country.

Dr Seldon claimed there are 62 pupils at Wellington bright enough to get an Oxbridge interview this year, but said he only expects 20 offers of places to come in.
He said: “From our perspective it looks as if some public school students are being discriminated against at the final hurdle. It’s painful because we are seeing some excellent candidates who would go on to get firsts who are not getting offers, about 10 this year.

“Was that different to when I was at Oxford 35 years ago? Yes. I don’t think anyone gave a toss back then where you came from, only that you were good enough to go.”

A number of public figures have also complained that their private education has closed doors to them in later life.
…….

“There is a lot of jealousy and hostility towards independent schools,” Dr Seldon said. “Positive discrimination in favour of state school people has become the hatred that dare not speak its name.

Yes that’s right – some of the most privileged people in our society (and thus the world) are whining because no longer does every single thing go their way all the time, just most things most of the time.

Well there are lots of different perspectives on this aren’t there:

1. For the past two years, Cambridge has reduced the percentage of privately educated students. Although accepted, the fact that 47% of entrants are from private schools shows that more still come from private schools

2. Headmasters are seeing falls in sixth form numbers due to (perceived or otherwise) bias against private school pupils

3. Headmaster of Wellington College noted that % of similarly able students applying for Oxbridge has fallen in the past few years (ie after 2006)

4. Unis are now expected to have “access agreements” giving targets on how they will increase currently under-represented groups

5. In 2012, more than half of Russell Group uni’s had specific targets for increasing state school entries

6. HMs at their last conference discussed boycotting Unis that were discriminating against their pupils

7. Unis themselves claim two other factors that make it hard for them (1) drop out rates and (2) students taking the wrong A levels to get access

…enough…so a lot has changed since 2006. Not enough, granted. But as the Unis themselves and Allan Millburn stated before the real problem lies in the schools not the Unis. Interesting when you hear what the Unis say themselves!

All good steps but still nowhere near enough.

…enough…so a lot has changed since 2006. Not enough, granted. But as the Unis themselves and Allan Millburn stated before the real problem lies in the schools not the Unis.

Agreed. Which is why private schools (and faith schools) should be abolished.