Forum menu
BD; I went to a Public School, and graduated from a decent Uni. Half my family is Middle Class. What's your point?
Let me ask you a few questions...
How many judges and magistrates hail from a poor working class background?
How many managing directors did too? Senior police officers, health consultants, etc. I'm not saying class divisions are insurmountable, but they are there. You waffle on a bit, but mainly your arguments centre around money. I'm not talking just about money. I'm talking about how individuals are valued in our society, in all areas. Culturally, socially and racially, as well as economically. I think you will agree, there are some pretty big divisions still present. Ones which could be eroded much further, with some changes in the way our society is structured and organised.
Don't worry, I'm not on about taking away your hard-earned lifestyle; I just think more people are entitled to a better deal. You've chosen a career which is financially rewarding, Others choose to care for people, look after the sick, work in clearing up other people's mess. they are too often undervalued and unrewarded in a system that puts money before people. That must change, imo.
And you're only 30? Blimey. Must be all that hard work you do...
Amen to that. Parental responsibilty would be a far more achievable starting point in helping the nation than anything in that Citizen Smith stuff up there.
Care to tell us how we can instill the idea of 'parental responsibility', in people then? Or is it easier to just sit on yer arse and blame others?
BD; I went to a Public School, and graduated from a decent Uni. Half my family is Middle ClassHow many judges and magistrates hail from a poor working class background?
I'm talking about how individuals are valued in our society, in all areas. Culturally, socially
Of course portraying us as a section of society that couldn't possibly succeed without massive intervention is valueing us hugely.
Care to tell us how we can instill the idea of 'parental responsibility', in people then? Or is it easier to just sit on yer arse and blame others?
If people can't work out for themselves how to love their children and seek the best for them, then they need educating.
On the subject of sitting on yer arse and blaming others, what are you doing that's any different ?
Of course portraying us as a section of society that couldn't possibly succeed without massive intervention is valueing us hugely.
Then:
If people can't work out for themselves how to love their children and seek the best for them, then they need educating.
[b]If you could see what I could see, when I'm cleanin' windows![/b]
Wilst we're on the subject of 'parental responsibility'; just one name: Mark Thatcher.
what are you doing that's any different ?
Been working for/involved in numerous local youth and community projects most of my adult life. Including drugs, AIDS/HIV and sexual health education, outreach youth work, arts projects, anti-racism education and campaigns, and more recently, adult education. Not a lot, I'll grant you, and I do berate myself often, for not doing more.
Posh Spice does a hell of a lot more than me, I'm sure. As does Princess Anne.
Wilst we're on the subject of 'parental responsibility'; just one name: Mark Thatcher
Excellent example of ****less parenting. Illustrates my point handsomely. Ta.
An answer I can give for that is written in the Bible, Gospel of John, Chapter 11, Verse 35
Erm:
"Don't chuck bricks at cows when on a unicycle."
EH? Sheesh, Or did you mean Space Corps Directive #68250 or even Space Corps Directive #34124?
"Don't chuck bricks at cows when on a unicycle."
I think that would be a tad unfair, if used in response to my Rudifesto!
I think 'Christ on a bike' wooduv been fair enough, though.
Part of the problem with our current socio-economic 'system' is that it encourages people to think only of themselves rather than each other.
Have to say I agree with many points of the 'Rudifesto' (but would draw the line at getting rid of the Queen - Gawd Bless Er).
[i]I'm talking about how individuals are valued in our society, in all areas. Culturally, socially and racially, as well as economically. I think you will agree, there are some pretty big divisions still present. Ones which could be eroded much further, with some changes in the way our society is structured and organised.[/i]
I have, quite literally, no idea what this means. But I am suspicious of the concepts of racial and cultural valuing.
Until you have made at least some effort to translate this out of Rudeboy and into something resembling English I shall not take kindly to being accused of waffling. 😉
I have, quite literally, no idea what this means.
You do talk some bollocks. Course you do.
Our society is geared around the idea of the principle social actor being White, male and more often than not, middle class. Hence, if you do not fit into this extremely narrow bandwidth, then you may find that there are obstacles, in terms of your own social progression and development. Now I'm not saying that being anything other than White, male and Middle Class precludes you from achieving your goals, but it can, and often will, mean that you will face further obstacles. IE, if you're a woman, you may find it harder to penetrate the upper echelons of business; if you are Black or Asian, you may find it harder to climb the ranks within the military or police. To say that there are no such barriers and obstacles is simply not true. Prejudice and fear are just two.
Yorkshire cricket club used to operate a policy of not allowing anyone who was not born in Yorkshire, to play for the county. Eventually, they had to relent, because they were shite, and just needed a bit of talent.
Some argue there are 'too many foreigners' in English football. I say that football, like Capitalism, favours the strongest and best.
Why aren't there more female, Black or Asian Judges, etc? Is this because women, Black and Asian people aren't good enough to hold such high office? Course not. Is it because they don't work hard enough, and therefore don't deserve such lofty positions of power and authority? Course not. Is it because White, Middle Class men are somehow better suited to these roles? Course not.
Starting to make sense now?
Point I'm making, is that a system geared around such a narrow concept of which type of people are best to run the country, is too insular and exclusive. The 'system' favours the White, Middle Class Male, chiefly because it has been engineered by White, Middle Class males. Such a narrow social group cannot possibly have an all round understanding of all other groups within society. Which is why we need to mix things up, a lot more.
So how do we go about doing so?
By breaking down barriers, that's how. And these aren't just economic; people don't believe they can step out of their social class, racial/cultural group, very easily. Do young black men believe they can attain the top office in Law and Order? Do young women from a sink estate believe they can become the head of a Multinational? And by the same token, do White Middle Class men think they can find happiness and fulfillment being a street-sweeper, bricklayer or truck-driver?
I know I'm over-simplifying things. But my point is, it's almost as though the die has been cast, for many people. The notion that you can be and do whatever you want, is nowt more than a myth, to most.
We are seeing some exceptions to the 'rule'. Which is great. And it's testimony to this nation's ability to absorb and integrate other cultures, that being 'British' is far more than a racial, cultural or class thing.
We still have a long way to go. There are still too many hurdles, for too many people. It's not as simple as saying 'everyone has an equal chance', because, let's be honest, they don't.
We have to value people as people, not on their economic worth, or financial status. As long as we live within an archaic, pseudo-feudal system of rule, with all the baggage that goes with it, we will struggle to make progress. Time to cast off the shackles of Class, and value everyone as people.
Vote Rude. You know there's no real alternative...
BTW; I've got nowt against no-one. Some of my best friends are White, Middle Class men....
Right person for the job. Be they Male, Female, Gay, Straight, Black, White, Brown, or a combination of all of the above.
I really deep down hate to admit this, but I can't help myself in agreeing with some of what Rude Boy says.
My overall point is that our system of government is clearly not representative and clearly does discriminate in many ways.
There was an extremely interesting statistic quoted at the end of the 1066 Middle Earth, last night which said :- Post the Battle of Hastings William the Conquerer took 50% of the country for himself, gave 25% to the Church and gave the remainder to 190 of his nobles. Today 20% of the country is still owned by their descendants.
In essence our political system is still based on outdated premises and needs to be given a thorough shake.
In respect of the Oxbridge thing, my point there is I am very happy to have the best brains being funneled into the best academic institutions, and the best brains to be running the country. However the reality is that that this is patently not the case, and rank and privilige have an excessive say in outcomes. A great example is in fact John Prescott, who, love him or hate him had relatively humble beginnings, but was spotted by an egalitarian system and pushed into the Oxbridge system and rose to the postion that he attained as a result. He is the exception that proves the rule IMHO. Juxtapose this with Baronet Cameron, and his side kick who are a product of the old system, and then think through the chances of real change.
Right now there is a huge opportunity for change for the good, but I wouldn't mind betting you that the "establishment" will be in there doing its level best to stifle it.
PS All of the above is as best I can manage sans party politics
PPS I also find it difficult to understand folks who are disadvanataged by the current system arguing against change here and elsewhere, (in that I am presuming that few if any of the contributers above ever had any realsitic chance of aspiring to Eton, Harrow, Oxford, Cambridge etc etc.,). Obviously I may very well be wrong.
That is a good post, and added a lot of clarity to your thinking. Thankyou.
I spent a happy evening building bikes, listening to the radio and talking to myself, as I often do, and would like to float an idea with you, in the spirit of the Rude programme. It is this:
The key barrier of which you speak is actually the existence of educational qualifications.
More and more people are gaining recognised educational qualifications and spending longer and longer in formal education, and yet social mobility on normal measures shows some signs of going into reverse after several decades of dramatic increases.
An important reason for that is that ever greater numbers of professions, white-collar jobs and indeed further education institutions are selecting, not really on white male-ness but on the basis of qualifications rather than other measures of ability. Meanwhile access to those qualifications is unequal (principally because parental education and affluence are very helpful in getting those qualifications) and once children have lost the opportunity getting qualified in future is disproportionnately hard. We have a system which looks very much as if it is based on ability (no-one knows they're marking a black childs A-level paper) but produces outcomes which perpetuate the inequality, because someone who has got to be a manager as a result of having 5 A-levels will assume that he is promoting on merit if he promotes other people with 5 A-levels.
(This is not necessarily a "class" argument in classical terms or a race one - indian and chinese parents play this game extremely well on average, ****stanis and afro-carrbians play it very badly, the white english are close to but not at the top), although I accept that if you drew diagrams they would have quite a lot of similar features.)
You are never going to get rid of this disparity while leaving the system of educational qualification standing. The state action required to compensate for, say, unsupportive parents who speak little english or a disrupted home environment as against someone with 2 highly literate parents paying for additional tuition is simply too massive, and while it may make good revolutionary politics, crushing Eton doesn't really assist in the big scheme of things.
What you can do is to abolish compulsory education after age 10, allow people of any age to attend schools, abolish the national curriculum completely, and make all examinations optional. You then abolish all educational qualification criteria for all state jobs, replacing them with whatever tests of natural aptitude you think best. Next, you use government's purchasing power and influence to favour suppliers who adopt such policies themselves with a view to shifting the whole thing towards promotion on a form of mwerit which is not qualification-based.
Meanwhile, you use a sufficiency of resources to ensure that anyone who opts to come to a state school (which they should pay a small fee for, incidentally, subject to means testing) is taught to read and write good english, is taught decent numeracy skills, and a grasp of basic computer literacy. No-one should ever be leaving a state school barely literate. After that, the purpose of schooling is not to force people through a series of exams designed to test the school and to sift out the most exam-suited children, but to instil in everyone the importance of knowledge, learning and understanding and to give them the head-tools to go away and do it for themselves. The state probably doesn't even need to provide the mechanisms for them to carry on, although it might usefully do so perhaps. (Hazel Blears' constituency office in Salford is based in a rather splendid pre-war building called the "Library of the Working Class" which was built and stocked by trades union subscription I believe).
Your national service plan probably fits rather well into this framework, incidentally. I regard it as the best piece of actual policy you have proposed.
I don't know. That may be worth putting in your opipe and smoking when you have the time.
(I'm not going to get into an interminable argument over your vision of how society currently is. In the case of judges, for example, I don't think there is racism in judical appointments as such, but they are recruiting from a very small pool of brilliant lawyers, which as yet contains few black people. The time-lag is a long one, given that judges are appointed in their 50s or 60s. Increasing the number of black people in the pool from which you're drawing judges makes sense, demanding quotas of black judges on the basis that they deserve extra credit for being black and whiteness and high levels of education in judges is a bad thing does not, as far as I can see. We could have that sort of argument at every stage, but I am not sure it would add anything very much).
Cheers
Jon
Going back to the beginning of the argument in the current system the majority of people live in constituencies where one party has historically had a huge majority meaning that anyone with differing opinions votes seem to count for nothing (our local MP has made not differing from the current party line and keeping his head down an art form). Until some form of PR can be found that combines a degree of local representation with a House of Commons that reflects more accurately the overall spread of votes cast there isn't any incentive for people in 'safe seats' to cast their votes.
The Oxford and Cambridge issue is more a symptom of people seeing politics as a career going into the system with little if any life experience outside politics. People chose Universities for different reasons, some of them even related to the courses they undertake (I chose mine because it was five miles from Stanage Edge). Choosing Oxford or Cambridge can to be seen to a certain degree as a badge that I'm very serious about my future career & am considerably cleverer than you (it can also be seen as a lack of imagination or interest outside the academic if your of a cynical disposition).
Hopefully the present crisis will give a boost to the parties like the green party who are full of principled people who all have their own opinions but struggle to come to a consensus (you never know after the major parties clear out the current crop of yes men (and women) they may have the courage to select candidates on their abilities rather than just their ability to follow a party line).
We need to get rid of the girly-men in power.
I see where you are going with the education thing BD. Not far behind you on that one. Personally I would do away with years and go for a grade system, whereby you have to pass Grade 1 to go to Grade 2 etc. That I think falls in with your general point.
I also tend to favour the old Grammer and Secondary Modern system, where people were funneled into their approrpriate level. Albeit I would like to see more freedom of movement between levels and for longer, and I would like to see it extended so that there were direct equivalencies and crossovers from academic to technical and vice versa.
Basically all through to recognise that a plum in the mouth accent or wearing a hoody and eating chips too much, does not automatically equate to an indication of latent potential.
That apart I really would ride rough shod through the whole tradition in Government thing and shake the cobwebs out.
Simply put, a reasonable definition of insanity is to do something that doesn't work, and then to constantly repeat it expecting a different outcome. I suspect most of todays burning issues would be covered by that statement.
...... and now I must work.
Bye
Richie_B - couldn't agree more. Hopefully we'll se and end to the production line of career politicians. A lad who i went school with is now a (particularly smug, self-satisfied) government minister.
He was clearly being groomed for it from day one. His 'career' path went
Cambridge > Labour Press Office under Alastair Campbell > Private Secretary to Tessa Jowell then David Bluncket > parachuted into second safest labour seat in the country > Junior Minister > Minister
So thats the grand total of **** all life experience outside Westminster then
He was voted Top Toady in the Guardian for towing the party line on every single occassion since being elected. And... yes.... he was caught with his snout well and truly in the trof in the expenses scandal.
If we see an end to these careerist yes men, who troop through the lobbies like sheep, doing exactly what they're told, then that has to be a good thing.
Right on Binners couldn't agree more.
Another good plan IMHO, is to pass legislation to the effect that to represent a constiuency you should, except in exceptional circumstances be resident in it and have been so for a minimum period of say 5 years or 5 out of the last ten or something of that ilk.
Not unresonable that we have a local parliament for local people so to speak IMHO, and I think that satisfactorily bypasses the 2nd homes issue.
Now I really am going to do some work, honest!
Of course, in the great era of parliamentary independence, living in your constituency was entirely optional. Churchill, one of the greatest parliamentary men of the last century, who crossed the floor repeatedly on principle, simply shopped around for constituencies in which he would be allowed to stand and could win.
The idea of MPs having much to do with their constituency is a very modern one, and is the result of [i]local[/i] government having so little autonomy.
Labour seriously messed up reform of the House of Lords. I believe that the House of Lords should be fully elected (perhaps on a rolling basis of say 20% of the seats each year to hopefully avoid one party or interest group being swept to a huge majority by on a populist wave generated at election time). Rather than having region constituencies it may be possible for each voter to nominate their own constituency loosely based on personal interests (sports hobbies, ecological, professional, religion etc) The main problem with this is that the SE would be in serious danger of being represented by the Man U party. I know none of this approaching thought through but some way needs to be found to engage people with the process.
The key problem you're going to crash into there Richie is racial and religious identity politics isn't it? (Not saying you can't create a workable model, but that's the main challenge to it).
Lords reform annoys me hugely too. It was utterly unjustifiable before they started messing around, but it was not particularly corrupt, worked OK in its way (if you accept that ownership of much of the country gives you an interest in governing it properly, which is a sane idea in some ways) and had a certain legitimacy coming from that which allowed it to function within the conventional post-war contraints placed on it.
What Labour appear to have done is to demolish its historic legitimacy without replacing it with any other claim to be legitimate, thus largely destroying its ability to act.
This is why I dislike peace-time constitutional reform. It is either revolutionary, or a terrible fudge which favours those doing the reforming.
Our system of Government has steadily evolved over the years and I think we've just reached a point where we need to speed up that pace of evolution.
The whole system is rotten, awkward and full of quirks that are great for tradition but serve no useful purpose.
Personally I'd like to see fewer MP's in the Commons, greater devolution of power to a local level and an elected Upper House with teeth to slap down the lower house.
The concept of parties needs a big shake up, because no one party should be the official Opposition and I definitely agree about a cap on the term of a Government.
A lot of the system works, it just needs to be modernised and no one working in the system probably wants that modernisation because it might cost them their job.
Ultimately though, if anything does happen it'll happen slowly because so many people can't be bothered to vote and many that do give no thought to it and just vote for the same old Party, time and time again.....
I like the idea of a senior house, and I like the honours system. Personally I see no reason whatsoever, why someone awarded a kighthood or whatever shouldn't qualify to stand for the senior house.
The democratic process from there is harder to suss out though.
but it was not particularly corrupt, worked OK in its way (if you accept that ownership of much of the country gives you an interest in governing it properly, which is a sane idea in some ways)
That was the whole problem they had an interest in preserving the status quo and blocking reform or change not in their own favour
Racial, religious and class identity has always been a major element in politics (just look at the current and historic names of the current main political parties (thats without getting into Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish parties). With any system that incorporates an element of PR you are always going to get a limited number of extremists/nutters elected in most systems this tends to expose the limitations of people who campaign on single issues (OK the disproportionate influence some of Israel's more out there parties have is a bad example but to a lesser extent the DUP have often played the game in a similar way in our system). I would hope that a rolling system of elections would limit the chances of an extremist or fundamentalist party of what ever be swept to power (Relying heavily on the 'We are British' factor and the reasonable behaviour of the press 🙄 ).
To go back to the original question, I'd hope (though I'm not sure it'll happen) that an eventual upshot of all of this will be a stronger house of commons and a weaker executive. The system recently has got to the point where Downing St has too much power - often people say we've become something like a presidential system rather than cabinet government, but this is wrong, presidents have nowhere near as much power as British Prime Ministers have, they are more like elected Kings with everyone in the court desperate to please because of the power of patronage.
PR would be a big improvement also.
PR would be a big improvement also.
What? Consensus rather than adversarial, whatever next..... you'll be giving women the vote next! 😉
even david simon knows whos fault it is.....
[i]If a policy failed this unequivocally in any other part of US life you would cashier the generals. But the drug problem oppresses the poor. If rich kids were wandering the streets stealing car radios we would not be so complacent. But it is easier to brutalise the poor and discard them. We are not a manufacturing economy any more and we don't need our least educated people, so we marginalise them. The cynicism of Reagan and Thatcher still applies.[/i]
[url] http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2009/may/20/wire-creator-allegorical-hurricane-katrina [/url]
Hmmmmm,
Is there a rule that we can introduce that refers to the incessant attempts by Thatcherite's to head off what she is blatantly responsible for, when they illicit the rather repetative mantra which generally goes along the lines of "someone'll be along in a minute to blame Thatcher", or "spose it'll all be Thatchers fault". In the forlorn hope that this eradite use of language will ensure that every other thinking person will ignore the ample evidence and simply agree that she did nothing but good, and skipped through the meadows picking buttercups and making daisy chains throughout her premiership. That nothing whatsoever in her remarkable period in office had any impact beyone her resignation, and that no party ever has deliberately or otherwise left a time bomb for their successors and so on and so forth.
Whaderyerreckon Huh huh??? Plan or what????
(No offence Kimbers, yours was actually better than most and could be interpreted either way. I chose the realistic option myself.)
PS found this definition of conservative that kind of sums them up :
a person who is reluctant to accept changes and new ideas
fatcha gets it in the neck coz she embraced the globalisation/ computer-telecoms revolution that was sweeping the 1st world at the time
like the agricultural and industrial revolutions it was a profound change for the way people live their lives
but have things really changed??
did anyone see 1066 last night... by 1067 all landowners in england were of Norman descent
today the direct descendants of those nobles still own 20% of all land in the country!!!
Yep, I saw that too. Bloody foreigners.
Good programme though.
did anyone see 1066 last night... by 1067 all landowners in england were of Norman descenttoday the direct descendants of those nobles still own 20% of all land in the country!!!
I think it's even worse than that. As I understood it. William took most of the country, then divided the rest between the church and 167(?) Norman nobles. The 20% mentioned was the land owned by the nobles excluding William. Assuming that William's land has been passed through to our current Royals, I'd assume that far more than 20% of our land is owned as a result of the Norman invasion.
Great programme BTW.
The Crown owns [u]all[/u] land in Britain. If you own land "freehold" that simply means that you hold it from the Crown, free of any obligation to provide troops. 🙂
was excellent, especially as one of the team leaders at my work was a stunt double
he volunteers at the village used in the show and as he can ride a horse and joust he played soldiers on both sides
was very brutal though especially the bit where they captured the women and boys
[url= http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8062205.stm ]mp claims we are just jealous[/url]
its surely time to sort out the entire system, some good ideas on this week and question time
proportional representation- would it end the dominance of the party line the whips, the soundbites trotted out to avoid awkward questions
do we have too many mps
the lords has to be completely changed
[url= http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8060896.stm ]here are some ideas, personally i doubt any will come to pass[/url]
That Steen interview is astonishing. Wonderful stuff. 😀
i know the guy is a legend
more idiots like him and we might just get to see some real change in the way things are done
and i dont just mean a change to the torries!