Doe’s Elitism Have a Stranglehold on Britain?

[Codgin]

Debate on the truth of elitism ruling the UK

Is it right that the richest of our society rule the poorest? Those in government come from the richest side of society (seven per cent of people in the UK), does that put them out of touch with the issues faced by the other ninety three percent of people? Should there be a greater spread in government and a greater mix of people from all walks of life? Should private schools be banned, and if so would that actually even the playing field? Or is the problem state education? Sound off below!

[steven_munn]

While it's true that there should be a mix of people from a variety of backgrounds involved in politics, I think it's dangerous to suggest that there should be an enforced spread of backgrounds in any circumstance or job because you're going to exclude perfectly qualified people - after all, rejecting a candidate because of their background is exactly the situation that you're trying to rectify.

If two identical candidates appear then by all means employ the one you feel can reach out to a part of the community you may have lacked.

As a minority myself (a male in early childcare), I fully reject the implication that I have ever been employed as a 'box-ticker', and would never want to be so. If I get a job, I want to get it because I'm good at my job, not because of an accident of birth, genetics, upbringing or geography.

That said, the issue should be - how can we create the opportunities for those in deprived or under-represented areas so that people don't feel they're a 'box-ticker' if they take their perfectly reasonable desire for a certain job or position? How can we, as a society, create more of a desire for people to want to go into these positions?

Remove the prerequisites of cashflow, of racial / gender / religious / prejudice against people working in certain positions, and we can begin to repopulate areas and careers that need it. "Boys Clubs" can't and won't last forever, but we can't force things in overnight. In my eyes, it's an extremely long and ardous process which can and will in all likelihood be taken up as a political bandwagon by every rights group in christendom who may want the right things, but will go about it in the worst ways possible.

Private schools should not be banned in any circumstances - they do no harm to the system and cannot be blamed for the actions of those who go to them nor to those who don't. I suppose a mild comparison could be drawn with closing down restaurants because people aren't cooking at home anymore. If people want to pay for an extra service then no worries, but it doesn't harm those who don't go there.

It concerns me that there seems to be a feeling in this country that those who are well off haven't done anything to deserve it. I live hand to mouth every month, my money generally runs out halfway through the month after I pay my bills but I hold no grudges to those who've worked hard to get what they have, or even those whose parents and descendants did.

Okay, bankers get huge bonuses - but there's actually a huge number of bankers who went through the state system - I went to school with a guy now a banker who pulled in something stupid like 900k in a single year as a bonus, but I have nothing against him. We grew up on the same estate, we went to the same school, the same college - there's nothing stopping me or anyone else from our school doing the same; he had nothing special about him. Fair play to him. He works with many others who are from similar backgrounds as ours. He also acknowledges that his job and theirs could well be gone within a month of employment - it's not a secure profession in the slightest, and as such he found it impossible to get a mortgage until he got his first ever bonus because he couldn't prove that he had a steady and regular income between being headhunted between banks, fund systems and whatever else money people do.

The problem is not 'there are rich people', it's the wide disparity between the rich and the poor. The narrower that becomes, the happier the community. This is all just my opinion, of course.

[BlueIncaPilot]

Originally Posted by Destrukto

Some people don't seem to know what a debate is so here is a handy guide:

de-bate

To consider something; deliberate.
To engage in argument by discussing opposing points.
To engage in a formal discussion or argument.

To contend for in words or arguments; to strive to maintain by reasoning; to dispute; to contest; to discuss; to argue for and against.

Sorry is there something wrong with your eyes? At which point does it say a silly joke constitutes a debate? Is a silly joke considered, deliberate, engaging, discussion-worthy, a persuasive argument or a point on contention? No and you shouldn't need this spelling out for you. If you have nothing of value to add then don't post in the thread, a very straightforward rule that people used to follow without issue when this room used to be busy. We are not making this thread about you so drop it.

Originally Posted by steven_munn

I went to school with a guy now a banker who pulled in something stupid like 900k in a single year

I think this has a lot to do with many of the problems in our society, where salaries obscenely fail to reflect the amount of work put in, particularly with banking when sometimes it is not their money to hand out in bonuses, hence the crisis of 2008. Also the idle rich, whose family earned the money long ago (or didn't in some cases) but people who have done nothing today can buy all the opportunities they want. Do something about those and I think you will have much less of an elitist class.

Originally Posted by Codgin

Should private schools be banned, and if so would that actually even the playing field?

Do you mean just private or 'public' as well? If it's public included, I'm not sure how much difference it would make since there are plenty of public schools that are less good than comprehensives. I couldn't say for private because I don't know. A lot of it is about your connections anyway and private school is certainly where people make those. That doesn't mean they should be banned though, if people want to roll the dice and pay for something that may be a total waste of money then that is up to them.

[Captain Canuck]

The distinction between public and private 'schools' throws me off in every discussion in which it arises, due to different usage.

As best as I can figure out the North American definition of 'private' doesn't even match the level of your 'public' in terms of class and exclusivity.

Public schools here are the 100%-government/taxpayer-funded vast majority that the rabidly right-wing want to replace entirely with "Charter Schools" to inherently undermine equal access to education for purely market-driven literally elitist rationale. That being" "if you can't afford it, you don't deserve it".

It's also the fundamental point of the neoconservative argument for strengthening the private tier in our already-dangerously-imbalanced two-tier healthcare insurance system (or maintaining the status quo, as it were, south of the border) - a circular bit of logic that says the very reason why creeating inequal access to healthcare is fair is that those who get the short end of the stick deserve it for not being productive enough members of society.

I can't really speak to elitism having a stranglehold on the UK, but there's certainly a streak in Canadian (and to greater degree American) politics which defies explanation: it uses fear of the term to mobilize people against those who represent the best defense against policies which actually create creeping elitism embodied and not just in-name-only.

[Timmeh]

Thread cleaned, necessary infractions given. On with the debate!

[albie_123]

Originally Posted by BlueIncaPilot

Also the idle rich, whose family earned the money long ago (or didn't in some cases) but people who have done nothing today can buy all the opportunities they want. Do something about those and I think you will have much less of an elitist class.

So, what, tax inheritance more than it is already? Is it so evil to want to leave your wealth to your children? God forbid you should provide as much as you can for your family.

There's a reason people are rich: They provide a service that others desire, or have had money given to them by those who have done so already. I cannot believe BANKERS, of all people, who provide an absolutely necessary service and provide capital to those who are much lesser off, are the first mentioned, when bloody football players make millions.

An elitist class will always exist, no matter what you do. I would much prefer that the elitist class is made of the wealthy than of the government, as is the case in any society who has sought to equalize.

[BlueIncaPilot]

I have spent over half an hour of precious dissertation time responding to each of your above points, but I've decided there is no point me fully engaging with you on this, for three reasons. The first of these is obvious, it will just take up more of my dissertation time. Why have I written my opinion in the first place then if I don't want to debate? Very straightforward answer to that. I avoid debate 98% of the time, I haven't here because I wrote two posts of moderation as you can see above, and I was obliged to say something regarding the debate per forum rules, which I had just outlined to another forumite.

The second reason is because my opinion stems from something which you have not mentioned explicitly in your post but I don't think you agree with. If we were to debate this fully, then end product would be me telling you that I wrote what I said above, because I believe that people should be as wealthy as their hardwork and enterprise have enabled them to be, not because of how hard their forefathers worked. I know the world doesn't work like this, I know all jobs aren't ranked on a sliding scale of hard work, how much stress you have to put up with, how much the world benefits as a result of your job etc, but the point I was making is that while the same resources are held onto by the same families, regardless of the above, you maintain your elitist class. That does not mean I want those people to be destitute though either. You think an elite class will always exist anyway, I'm not so sure, only time will tell.

Originally Posted by albie_123

I cannot believe BANKERS, of all people, who provide an absolutely necessary service and provide capital to those who are much lesser off, are the first mentioned, when bloody football players make millions.

Thirdly, I don't understand your outrage and disbelief here, the reason I mentioned bankers first was because I was directly quoting Steven Munn who was discussing a banker he knows, that is surely apparent? Footballers come into the same category of people, no disagreement there, but the tone that you use to make this point I find a bit too aggressive for a debate and it does not make me want to continue the discussion, in addition to the above two reasons. I'm not saying you are being aggressive, some people would be happy to engage with you in a similar tone, I'm saying I personally would not like to move from debate into 'heated' debate.

I've said my bit on elitism, the torch has been carried a while further, but that's me out.