The General Election Thread

[JoceAndChris]

I don't know - my daughter went to a a 'council house slobby school' and received a superb education; good enough to enable her to get a First at Cambridge

There are some good ones, of course - I ran away from my girls' boarding school without A-levels and lived in a van and got into Oxford via a state school. It was interesting to have that comparison. The state school was hideously ugly and full of children who terrified me, there was no theatre for performance, and I was abused by a teacher, but you couldn't fault their Oxbridge entrance system.

The attitude that writes off swathes of society and seeks to pull up the drawbridge by buying its way out of the problem rather than attempting to engage and fix

How can engaging and fixing ever happen? It never has.

As for salaries, I don't see how any young couple can manage on less than 80-100k per year (depending on region), and yes, some of the higher figures you quoted seem ludicrous.

 

[Gervase]

How can engaging and fixing ever happen? It never has.

By actually using the 'sink schools' so that they are comprehensive, rather than turning one's back on them and going private, by becoming active in the PTA and taking remedial reading classes, by offering work experience placements and giving careers talks - all things that give the youngsters there a sense of worth. It worked in my experience. My daughter was the first pupil at that school ever to go to Oxbridge; since then at least one a year has made it, and plenty of others who would otherwise never have dreamed of university have now gone. Most of the credit goes to excellent, motivated teaching staff, but some of it undoubtedly came about because a number of parents took a vote of confidence in the place rather than running away to a middle-class enclave.

As for salaries, I don't see how any young couple can manage on less than 80-100k per year...

I really don't know what to say to that. :shock:

 

[Feltwell]

As for salaries, I don't see how any young couple can manage on less than 80-100k per year (depending on region), and yes, some of the higher figures you quoted seem ludicrous.

Joce, was that said tongue in cheek? As the vast majority, including myself, manage on considerably less than that! To put it in context - a warehouse picker will earn typically £13-£15k per annum. A supervisor will be on £16k. We have couples working here where they both earn that kind of salary, pay a mortage and have kids to care for.

 

[Nigel Watts]

I know it is not fair that I can afford private education and others can't but I put my children's welfare first.

Sendind one's child to a rough inner city comprehensive to toughen them up or for some other reason than what you believe to be in their best interest would be quite wrong.

It was this kind of thinking that led middle class parents in years gone by to send their kids to brutal boarding schools.

 

[JoceAndChris]

I so agree with you Nigel. Watching what happens to delicate, clever, intellectual children in brutal environments - I'm thinking of my brother's being bullied - it's horrible. That left a scar that took about 15 years to go away.

Joce, was that said tongue in cheek?

It wasn't really tongue in cheek, no. I mean maybe you could manage on a bit less, especially if you were lucky enough to get a helping hand to buy your first house, or to inherit. Many of my friends are in the situation that the inner-city houses they'd like to buy (and need for schooling and work), are 5, 6, or £700,000. Unless you inherit, how can those sorts of house prices be afforded without two fairly high wage-earners? Then what happens when the wife stops working to look after children? You can argue "move away", but that's not always very practical. Most of my friends live in tiny shoe-boxes in the city, it's not really what I would call a good standard of living. I know a child whose bedroom was the tiny cupboard under the stairs until he was 7.

By actually using the 'sink schools' so that they are comprehensive, rather than turning one's back on them and going private, by becoming active in the PTA and taking remedial reading classes, by offering work experience placements and giving careers talks - all things that give the youngsters there a sense of worth. It worked in my experience. My daughter was the first pupil at that school ever to go to Oxbridge; since then at least one a year has made it, and plenty of others who would otherwise never have dreamed of university have now gone. Most of the credit goes to excellent, motivated teaching staff, but some of it undoubtedly came about because a number of parents took a vote of confidence in the place rather than running away to a middle-class enclave.

It's so commendable - but I could never be so saintly.

 

[biffvernon]

It's instructive to look at the John Lewis partnership, where the chief executive, Andy Street, has a salary which can be no more than 75 times that of the lowest-paid partner in the business. As a result his pay is derisory by comparison with the rest of the retail sector. Compare it, for example, with Mark Bolland's £14.8 million package as the new MD of Marks and Spencer. And yesterday we learned that the average salary for a Goldman Sachs employee for just the first three months of this year was over £100,000, while the average bonus across the company this year will be over £400,000.
I'm sorry, but something has become seriously skewed in a society which does that. Other countries seem to manage to stave off bankruptcy and barbarism with a far more equitable system - in Sweden, for example, a doctor earns between two and three times what a nurse earns.

+1

In Small is Beautiful, Fritz Schumacher's seminal work, there is a chapter about Bader, a company in which the highest paid employee could only earn seven times as much as the lowest. When I first read that, I though seven was a rather large factor.

Some argue that the boss earns more for the company than the woman (and it usually is a woman) who cleans his loo, so deserves more money. I would say both are equally important as the boss cannot do his job in a dirty loo.
Ghandi cleaned his own loo.

 

[johnandrew]

Some argue that the boss earns more for the company than the woman (and it usually is a woman) who cleans his loo, so deserves more money. I would say both are equally important as the boss cannot do his job in a dirty loo.
Ghandi cleaned his own loo.

he-he :lol:

 

[Moo]

Many of my friends are in the situation that the inner-city houses they'd like to buy (and need for schooling and work), are 5, 6, or £700,000.

Most of my friends live in tiny shoe-boxes in the city, it's not really what I would call a good standard of living. I know a child whose bedroom was the tiny cupboard under the stairs until he was 7.

I felt exactly the same when it became apparent that our son was likely to spend his working life in London, until I killed an hour browsing through the Evening Standard property supplement. I was amazed to discover that he could get on the housing ladder for very little more than it would have cost him in Norwich, and he now owns a substantial three-bedroomed terrace house, with a huge kitchen/breakfast room, a shower room, a bathroom, and a decent garden.
It's not an up-market postcode by any means, but the area is delightfully mixed, socially, racially and economically, with a growing number of artists and musicians who give it a real buzz. The trains are full of City workers and schoolchildren** who seem to take the daily commute in their stride.


** It's a much quicker journey than I experienced when I travelled from home in Walton-on-Thames to school in Wimbledon - or than children in rural counties take as a matter of course.

 

[Flyfisher]

Some argue that the boss earns more for the company than the woman (and it usually is a woman) who cleans his loo, so deserves more money. I would say both are equally important as the boss cannot do his job in a dirty loo.

Isn't the real point that the boss could clean the loo but the cleaner couldn't do the boss's job?

Anyone can leave school with no qualifications to become a cleaner, but fewer people have the commitment to spend ten more years to become, say, a doctor or an architect or [insert own professional example here]. Isn't that extra commitment and responsibility worth more money? None of which is an argument against the importance of clean loos or [insert own unskilled job example here].

 

[Nigel Watts]

Few would argue I think that an good intensive care nurse was not more valuable than a premiere league footballer, Jonathan Ross or a bond trader at Goldman's. But in a market economy what one is paid depends not on a subjective measurement of worth but supply and demand. Market economies are not perfect systems, but in their modern democratic and regulated form they are the best so far devised for furthering human prosperity, health and wellbeing.

Try to build a poitical system which forces remuneration to correlate with "worth" - presumably as measured by the political elite - and it will fail. Groups of like minded individuals submitting themselves voluntarily to such a system, such as in a cooperative, is highly laudable but to force a whole country down that road would be disasterous.

Tories, more than any other political party, recognise human nature for what its is and seek pragmatically to harness it for the greater good, with excesses tempered and controlled as necessary. That means allowing people who are ambitious and go-getting to advance themselves and prosper, taxing them moderately and reaping the benefits of the jobs and technological advances they bring about. Bring in too much idealism and moralising, as socialists and prone to do, and you will kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.

 

[Pford75]

In fact if you look back through history, just about every human achievement of of real merit has been done for reasons other than monetary gain

The electric lightbulb?? For economic gain
The computer?? For economic gain
The internet?? For economic gain
The steam combustion engine?? For economic gain
First moon landing?? For economic gain

I don't dispute that many (if not all) great works of art were not the result of a 'business plan'...but do you really believe that the above are not achievements of real merit?

 

[Pford75]

And as for Pford75's comments about council house tenanted slobs, words fail me. You disgust me.

Let's refresh our memories...what did I actually say??

If I knew that whatever my efforts, whatever my results the outcome would be the same as the council-house tenanted slob, why would I have spent large chunks of my career working 70 hour weeks, slogging away when I could just do the bare minimum?

I didn't say that all slobs live in council houses, or that all council house tenants are slobs. I was using a stereotype (which I think many recognise) of the 'professional scrounger' who refuses to get a job and can would rather live off state benefits. Are you suggesting that this stereotype doesn't exist? It is easy to get a job - there, i've said it. The question is whether it is a job that someone wants to do and will generate enough income over and above benefits to persuade some to work. I know plenty of people who can work, but turned down the opportunity because it would only earn them 70-80 week more than they currently receive in benefits..."not worth my time" was the quote.

And before you ask if I would be prepared to do those jobs, I have. As a student, I worked in McDonalds, I cleaned offices, I sold double-glazing and delivered 000's leaflets in the pouring rain. Why?? Because I was brought up to believe that noone owed me a living...that I would succeed or fail based upon my own efforts - I hated all of these jobs, but I did them anyway. And having slogged my way through uni, supporting myself with multiple crappy jobs, I now have a job which I enjoy and for which I am well compensated. But as FF points out, I not only pay more tax than someone earning less....I pay proportionally more tax as well. But you seem to believe that it is "disgusting" for me to suggest that some people aren't prepared to work hard for their living, or that perhaps there are some people who are prepared to sponge off the state.

As is normal for this forum, some people seem incapable of expressing their thoughts/opinions without resorting to personal insults. Such a shame.

 

[Pford75]

Not completely, apparently. Just polite,constructive words.

Poor Pford! You don't disgust me at all.

Thanks. :wink:

 

[Pford75]

That divide cannot be laid directly at the feet of Gordon Brown or Tony Blair; the poorest in society are materially better off than they were before 1997

Sorry Gervase, but I can't let this one go unchallenged. Frankly it's rubbish.

'Poverty gap' widens under Labour" - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3017042.stm
Poverty gap has not narrowed under Labour - http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/apr/03/socialexclusion.labour


"British society is becoming increasingly divided. The gap between rich and poor is at its widest for 40 years, research from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation has revealed.

The wealthy have become disproportionately more well-off while an increasing number of families find themselves below the bread line. The disparity is leading to a schism as rich, poor and average households are now less likely to live next door to one another than they were in the 1970s."


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/consumer_affairs/article2090632.ece

 

[Gervase]

Rubbish? Er, using your links, I read:

...This is despite the fact that the actual number of poor children has fallen...led to a fall in the number of poor children and improved living standards of the "vast majority of children" since 1997.

The report quoted accepts that some of those at the very bottom of society are not claiming the benefits to which they are entitled, so they are still poor.

...the income gap between high- and low-earners was not affected by the measures introduced while Gordon Brown was chancellor to raise the living standards of the poor...when Margaret Thatcher came to power in 1979 the most prosperous 10% of households earned three times the income of the least prosperous 10%. By the time Thatcher resigned in 1990 the top group was earning four times more. The gap did not change during John Major's administration and remained the same under Blair.

If anything, that reinforces what I wrote, so thank you. A pity, really, that you didn't choose to go into politics; you could have been a great help to Labour or the Lib-Dems.

 

[Pford75]

By actually using the 'sink schools' so that they are comprehensive, rather than turning one's back on them and going private, by becoming active in the PTA and taking remedial reading classes, by offering work experience placements and giving careers talks - all things that give the youngsters there a sense of worth. It worked in my experience. My daughter was the first pupil at that school ever to go to Oxbridge; since then at least one a year has made it, and plenty of others who would otherwise never have dreamed of university have now gone. Most of the credit goes to excellent, motivated teaching staff, but some of it undoubtedly came about because a number of parents took a vote of confidence in the place rather than running away to a middle-class enclave.

I do understand where you are coming from Gervase. I was not privately educated myself and none of my children are privately educated. But that said, there are 2 key provisos:

1. Some children warrant special attention which is difficult to provide for in the comprehensive system. I went to a Grammar School under the old 11+ system. My parents weren't wealthy and had it not been for this system, then I probably wouldn't have acheived some of the things I have. However, many LEA's no longer provide for Grammar Schools or selective education. This is not about wealth/status, this is about giving bright children of all backgrounds some specialist attention and stretching them. One of my children is on the 'Gifted and Talented' list at his comprehensive, but this seems only to mark them out for bullying by those who see academic acheivement as somehow 'uncool'.

2. The second point is that there have to be minimum standards of behaviour in a school. 'Middle class' parents cannot magically transform a school or children who have no wish to learn. There were some very disruptive children in our local comprehensive and this was damaging the education of those who wanted to learn. The parents of these children didn't seem to care. Eventually the disruptive children were excluded. The concern that Joce and other have is that too often, schools do not seem willing to deal with those who disrupt the education of others. I have no desire to 'run away' as you put it, but I am also not prepared to sacrifice my children's education if some parents are unwilling/unable to impose some discipline on their children.

 

[Pford75]

If anything, that reinforces what I wrote, so thank you. A pity, really, that you didn't choose to go into politics; you could have been a great help to Labour or the Lib-Dems.

You claimed 'materially better off'.

I see no evidence for this whatsoever. The Guardian article was pretty clear that the gap between rich and poor is the same now as when Thatcher was in power (you quoted it yourself). Only the deluded left can convince themselves that 'same' = 'materially better off'

Try this most recent report in the Guardian (not exactly a right wing rag)...using data from the independant national equality panel. The gap has widened signficantly since 1980....who has been in power for the last 13 years??

Difference between top 10% and bottom 10% wages
COUNTRY (Years) 1980 (or early 1980s) 2008 (or mid-2000s)
SOURCE: OECD

United States (80/08) 3.83 4.89
United Kingdom (80/08) 2.99 3.62
Australia (80/08) 2.83 3.34
Germany (84/05) 2.88 3.26
Japan (80/08) 3 3.02
New Zealand (84/08) 2.17 2.91
Netherlands (80/05) 2.54 2.91
France (80/05) 3.25 2.91
Finland (80/07) 2.47 2.55
Sweden (80/04) 2.03 2.31

 

[Gervase]

But what are you prepared to do? Hand-wringing and posting jeremiads on internet forums is pretty pointless. I know from my own experience that if parents become actively involved, the ethos of a school can change. To sit back and say, "Oh, it's going to hell in a hand-cart, I blame ZaNuLiebore - vote Conservative," will change nothing.
I do suspect that many dyed-in-the-wool Tories are secretly aghast at Dave's 'Big Society' schtick: one can even picture the think bubbles - "Mix with all those common oiks? Over my dead body!"; "I'm happy to be on the golf club committee, but I'd rather stick pins in my eyes than get involved in a scummy, council-house school."
Certainly I can't say I met many Tory activists getting involved with my daughter's school.

As for the gap between rich and poor - I don't think you quite get it. Yes, the gap has widened significantly. That's my whole point! The poor are better off, but the rich are substantially better off. Imagine two cars setting off. One travels at 20mph, the other at 80mph. After half an hour neither car is still at the start. One is 10 miles farther down the road, but the other has travelled for 40 miles.
Thank you for also highlighting the point that only the USA has a greater disparity between rich and poor. Heck, we've even outstripped Japan and France in our inequity.

 

[johnandrew]

I vote for Gervase!

And can we please have some action on the tax injustices highlighted by Action Aid whereby multinationals don't report on a country by country basis and thereby are able to deprive poor nations of their much needed tax revenue (aided by secrecy jurisdictions aka tax havens).

 

[biffvernon]

In fact if you look back through history, just about every human achievement of of real merit has been done for reasons other than monetary gain

The electric lightbulb?? For economic gain
The computer?? For economic gain
The internet?? For economic gain
The steam combustion engine?? For economic gain
First moon landing?? For economic gain

I don't dispute that many (if not all) great works of art were not the result of a 'business plan'...but do you really believe that the above are not achievements of real merit?

That's an interesting list. None of them (not sure about the steam engine - we'd have to study the motivations of the engineers involved) were primarily done for the money. Obviously there has been subsequent economic gain - but usually by others.