Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: The Murder of Social Mobility

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    England
    Posts
    41
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
    Blog Entries
    5

    The Murder of Social Mobility

    Hello all,

    There has been a grievous crime committed in the last 30 years. A brutal murder of an ideal so close to the foundation of our society, that those responsible should be forever antagonised for what they have done.

    The murderers in question are Thatcher (inspired by Reagan) and Blair (inspired by Clinton). They have held the dagger into the back of the most vulnerable while being in the pockets of the rich.

    This all begins with a simplified model of humans:

    1. That humans are rational and logical beings.
    2. That humans only ever act to serve their own interests.

    Research has shown that the only people in society that match this description perfectly are economists and psychopaths.

    The political influence of this political model was spread to this country by Reagan and the Iron Lady fell in love with the theory. And with that she began her enormous attack on public services under her honest misconceptions.

    Instead of being endlessly bureaucratic, public services were fitted with incentives to encourage self-serving individuals to do well in public service. This created an environment where liars and frauds could manipulate their targets and provide less for their communities.

    This hit education the hardest. The publication of the School League Tables destroyed everything. The best schools in the country were advertised to every citizen.

    And so it began. The rich people moved house to get closer to better schools causing a rise in house prices which in turn prevented more low-income families from getting their children into good schools.

    The end result being the poor children when to awful schools and could never get enough money to escape the perpetual chain of low income-bad schools leading to a misery and rapid decline in social mobility.

    Blair's crime: Doing absolutely nothing to improve the situation and reinforcing the targets-based civil service.

    The legacy is that the poor are almost doubly as likely to die poor and the rich are 40% more likely to stay rich since the 1970's. It is truly appalling.

    That's my view anyways.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    South UK
    Posts
    228
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: The Murder of Social Mobility

    Quote Originally Posted by Syph View Post
    This hit education the hardest. The publication of the School League Tables destroyed everything. The best schools in the country were advertised to every citizen.

    And so it began. The rich people moved house to get closer to better schools causing a rise in house prices which in turn prevented more low-income families from getting their children into good schools.

    The end result being the poor children when to awful schools and could never get enough money to escape the perpetual chain of low income-bad schools leading to a misery and rapid decline in social mobility.
    I think that the real crime here was that when the "not so good" schools were pointed out, that nothing was done to improve them (or if it was it wasn't sufficient). That is the usual point of competition and ratings in this scenario. I don't see any crime in showing bad schools for what they are.
    The richest man is not he who has the most but he who needs the least.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Rural South Midlands
    Posts
    5,493
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts
    Blog Entries
    18

    Re: The Murder of Social Mobility

    Quote Originally Posted by Syph View Post
    The legacy is that the poor are almost doubly as likely to die poor and the rich are 40% more likely to stay rich since the 1970's. It is truly appalling.
    Where did you get those figures from Syph, and what actual evidence, as opposed to anecdotal tales, do you have to support them?

    As I've pointed out elsewhere, whilst the rich have certainly got richer and the gap between the rich and poor has widened, it's untrue that the poor have got poorer or even stayed in the same position. The standard of living of everyone has increased substantially over the last few decades, and it's grossly unfair to point any fingers at the better off in society and blame them in any way for using their initiative and making the most of what opportunities presented themselves. Rather you'd be better off looking at those in the lower sectors of society and asking why they haven't made the most of what's been on offer.

    I'd also disagree with the title you've given this thread; depending on what you term 'social mobility', more people than ever are now able to improve their standing and position in society. You only need look though the lists compiled in many media publications to see the increasing percentage of people from working class backgrounds who've 'made it' in one way or another. It all comes down to personal drive, initiative and responsibility; with few exceptions we're all born with the same faculties and, much as they need improving, there are enough educational and other facilities for everyone to take advantage of. Wouldn't it be more constructive to find out why 'the poor' don't take advantage of them whilst 'the rich', or perhaps more accurately 'the potentially rich', do?
    Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant only an intellectual could ignore it - Thomas Sowell

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    England
    Posts
    41
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
    Blog Entries
    5

    Re: The Murder of Social Mobility

    Quote Originally Posted by Midas View Post
    Where did you get those figures from Syph, and what actual evidence, as opposed to anecdotal tales, do you have to support them?
    I got it from the Torygraph here.

    Quote Originally Posted by Midas View Post
    The standard of living of everyone has increased substantially over the last few decades, and it's grossly unfair to point any fingers at the better off in society and blame them in any way for using their initiative and making the most of what opportunities presented themselves.
    You are putting words in my mouth. I hold Thatcher and Blair responsible. My point is that the policy of inadequate education is better exploited by the rich at the expense of the poor. The death of scholarships and associated help has destroyed the mobility of those cerca 1979.

    Quote Originally Posted by Midas View Post
    I'd also disagree with the title you've given this thread; depending on what you term 'social mobility', more people than ever are now able to improve their standing and position in society.
    The Tory statistics say otherwise. The middle class are improving, the poorest classes are being abandoned.

    Quote Originally Posted by Midas View Post
    You only need look though the lists compiled in many media publications to see the increasing percentage of people from working class backgrounds who've 'made it' in one way or another.
    No, this isn't about the 50-something CEO's and entrepreneurs. Where are the 30-somethings in powerful well paid positions? There are significantly fewer.

    Quote Originally Posted by Midas View Post
    Wouldn't it be more constructive to find out why 'the poor' don't take advantage of them whilst 'the rich', or perhaps more accurately 'the potentially rich', do?
    Midas, you miss the point entirely. It is naive to make this statement. The whole problem is the 'slums' where the schooling is poor and the teenagers turn to gangs and crime.

    The whole advantage of the middle class/rich, is that they have enough capital to move house closer to good schools. With the rush of parents comes a hike in house prices restricting lower middle class and poor families from entering the catchment areas for good schools.

    Children from poor families simply cannot get good schooling, Midas. They are an alienated underclass, the "unwanted children of God" to quote Tyler Durden from Fight Club.

    It's this "I'm alright, Jack" attitude forced by Thatcher that creates this scepticism and the lack of drive to do anything because the people in power don't give a sh*t.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Rural South Midlands
    Posts
    5,493
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts
    Blog Entries
    18

    Re: The Murder of Social Mobility

    Quote Originally Posted by Syph View Post
    You are putting words in my mouth. I hold Thatcher and Blair responsible. My point is that the policy of inadequate education is better exploited by the rich at the expense of the poor. The death of scholarships and associated help has destroyed the mobility of those cerca 1979.
    You’re preaching to the converted on this one – I’ve said consistently that education should be the #1 priority for government expenditure in this country. However, from the same article you’ve quoted from: “The Department of Innovation, Universities and Skills spent 2.3 billion last year on bursaries for poorer students and "outreach" projects to encourage those from deprived areas to apply to university." And that was last year alone. There's no shortage of intelligence in people, even the poorest of them.

    The Tory statistics say otherwise. The middle class are improving, the poorest classes are being abandoned.
    Some years ago I was peripherally involved in preparing a report on intelligence and deprived communities for Mensa. Included in that report was a section which dealt with the aspirational aspects of ambition and success, and although I can’t now quote you any figures or point you to the report itself as it was an internal one, there was significant evidence that the attitude engendered in the poorer sector of society was as much, if not more to blame than lack of available facilities. This of course doesn’t excuse government in any way, however it does indicate that there’s far more to this than the view that poor = being abandoned indicates. It was the vicious circle of negativity generated within many poor communities which stop a significant number of people from even attempting to escape the trap they find themselves in, even when opportunities such as the 2.3 billion in funds I mentioned above are pointed towards them. Yes, you can argue that government should do more, however how do you deal with a situation where those people who are worst affected can’t even be bothered to avail themselves of the help that’s available?

    The middle and upper classes are improving not just because of better schooling but because their frame of mind is different and both the children and their parents want success, and where if it’s not immediately available will go out of their way to seek out the advice and information they need, much of it free or at very little cost. There’s absolutely nothing other than frame of mind to stop anyone, rich or poor, from doing the same! The saying that you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink springs to mind here.

    No, this isn't about the 50-something CEO's and entrepreneurs. Where are the 30-somethings in powerful well paid positions? There are significantly fewer.
    There are plenty of them about if you care to look, but in the main you tend to get a greater concentration of 50+ CEOs etc., simply because they’ve had significantly more experience in running companies. It’s got very little to do with lack of ability in the lower age groups, at least in those who aspire to make something of themselves.

    Midas, you miss the point entirely. It is naive to make this statement. The whole problem is the 'slums' where the schooling is poor and the teenagers turn to gangs and crime.

    The whole advantage of the middle class/rich, is that they have enough capital to move house closer to good schools. With the rush of parents comes a hike in house prices restricting lower middle class and poor families from entering the catchment areas for good schools.

    Children from poor families simply cannot get good schooling, Midas. They are an alienated underclass, the "unwanted children of God" to quote Tyler Durden from Fight Club.

    It's this "I'm alright, Jack" attitude forced by Thatcher that creates this scepticism and the lack of drive to do anything because the people in power don't give a sh*t.
    Of course it’s far more complex an issue than my plain one line comment implies, but the whole question of attitude is a very significant one and is at the heart of other problems which are to a large degree to be found more at the poorer end of the social spectrum. It’s all very well saying "A child's social class background at birth is still the best predictor of how well he or she will do at school and later on in life" as Gordon Brown did, but no matter how much money you throw at many social problems, especially those arising at the poorer end of society, unless you have an understanding that it’s not just politics or possessions which really matter, but what the people themselves want, you won't get far, yet that's all governments seem to do! Another saying springs to mind here; “you can take the man out of the gutter but not the gutter out of the man”. To do that needs far more than simply playing the political blame game of he/she did or didn’t do X, Y or Z which many are so prone to do.
    Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant only an intellectual could ignore it - Thomas Sowell

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •