Who Says Class Does Count?

[Mr Mosquito]

As you know Red Goblin........ I have nothing but the highest regard for you and your thoughts on this and many other subjects....... but is the truth that despite all the rhetoric...... many of the so called lower classes find it easier to condemn the so called upper classes just because they seem to be the haves as opposed to being the have nots and this plays a major part in the perspective of what you are.......... is the grass always being greener on the other side?

I just get frustrated that many of us have not got a hope in hell of even changing the slightest aspect of Government policy like, for example, being allowed to stand and sing on football terracing once again. Here's how this country is currently governed.........

The British State is supposed to be controlled by the politicians and the politicians elected by us. This, we are told, allows us through the ballot box to change things. So why does the State act in the interests of the ruling class toffs and snobs regardless of whoever is in power - Labour, Tory or Liberal? It's because to function and succeed politicians and their parties are ultimately controlled by the royalist upper classes and their Capitalist bed fellows and the British State's own permanent unelected officials.

Groups that speak for the Capitalist and royalist interests, like the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) and the City of London (also increasingly international finance) put forward their requirements to the politicians and their parties and watch closely for their response. If they are ignored then the offending politicians and political parties are ridiculed and attacked, through the Capitalist propaganda media machine of the newspapers, TV, radio, advertising etc. Many of the political parties rely for their funding from rich backers which can be used to exert pressure.

[Nibor]

I just get frustrated that many of us have not got a hope in hell of even changing the slightest aspect of Government policy

So do I.

I just don't put it all down to some conspiracy by royalist toff snobs etc...

I think "the state" is far too big and unwieldy. The politicians individually don't affect anything themselves either. It's all decided by whichever party is in power, behind closed doors. Each political party has moved more and more to the "centre", there are still some differences between them but not many, and although you can vote you get to choose between three broadly similar positions on most issues once every five years.

I do wonder if I'm a technocrat. I'd like to see us able to vote in our own homes, electronically, on many more issues, so we have a finer degree of control over the government. I'd like us to be able to vote on the budget for example, or on things like whether to spend £40bn propping up a bank or £10bn on the Olympics but not pocket change on an arena. I think that would make individual politicians more accountable, and it would make smaller parties with more diverse ideas possible.

[Dorset_Cider]

I just get frustrated that many of us have not got a hope in hell of even changing the slightest aspect of Government policy like, for example, being allowed to stand and sing on football terracing once again. Here's how this country is currently governed.........

The British State is supposed to be controlled by the politicians and the politicians elected by us. This, we are told, allows us through the ballot box to change things. So why does the State act in the interests of the ruling class toffs and snobs regardless of whoever is in power - Labour, Tory or Liberal? It's because to function and succeed politicians and their parties are ultimately controlled by the royalist upper classes and their Capitalist bed fellows and the British State's own permanent unelected officials.

Groups that speak for the Capitalist and royalist interests, like the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) and the City of London (also increasingly international finance) put forward their requirements to the politicians and their parties and watch closely for their response. If they are ignored then the offending politicians and political parties are ridiculed and attacked, through the Capitalist propaganda media machine of the newspapers, TV, radio, advertising etc. Many of the political parties rely for their funding from rich backers which can be used to exert pressure.

I understand your/the frustration but we have to unite ......at the end of the day there are only good people and bad

That said it is down to all of us to challenge those in power regardless of any perception of class?

We should consider all opinions or challenge regardless of whether we agree

Anarchy for the uk ............ but we have to accept that everyone thinks they are right rich,poor makes no difference...... I think you would agree .....it's very difficult whatever your original pint of alignment?

[Mr Mosquito]

The politicians individually don't affect anything themselves either. It's all decided by whichever party is in power, behind closed doors. Each political party has moved more and more to the "centre", there are still some differences between them but not many, and although you can vote you get to choose between three broadly similar positions on most issues once every five years.

When my Grandfathers' generation returned from the various theatres of World War II in 1945 they - almost en masse - voted in a Labour Government. The Tories under Winston Churchill were clear favourites to win but were heavily defeated at the ballot box - why? - because Labour offered something new and completely different including a National Health Service - a world first that has benefited you and I ever since. I really can't imagine one of our mainstream political parties offering something as new and revolutionary as the National Health Service was in 1945.

[Nibor]

When my Grandfathers' generation returned from the various theatres of World War II in 1945 they - almost en masse - voted in a Labour Government. The Tories under Winston Churchill were clear favourites to win but were heavily defeated at the ballot box - why? - because Labour offered something new and completely different including a National Health Service - a world first that has benefited you and I ever since. I really can't imagine one of our mainstream political parties offering something as new and revolutionary as the National Health Service was in 1945.

Exactly. Uk politics is devoid of any new ideas or original thinking. It's the same tired old crap wheeled out, brushed off and given a new lick of paint. All they do is react to problems and when they do the solution is always the same - reviews, commissions, targets and chuck money at it. You never see them anticipate problems and work around them, or undertake any truly long term thinking.

[Mr Mosquito]

Exactly. Uk politics is devoid of any new ideas or original thinking. It's the same tired old crap wheeled out, brushed off and given a new lick of paint. All they do is react to problems and when they do the solution is always the same - reviews, commissions, targets and chuck money at it. You never see them anticipate problems and work around them, or undertake any truly long term thinking.

The inability for the ordinary family to afford basic health care in the 1930's led to the lads that put their lives on the line in World War II to demand a National Health Service and they got it. Nowadays it doesn't matter how many lobby the Government for change because the Government take no notice. I'm not even sure who really is running the country. The Queen is the unelected ruler but it must be faceless bureaucrats that actually run the country as policies have not changed much for 35 odd years. E.g. Tory and Labour Governments come and go but we're still members of the European Union with our sovereignty being whittled away.

The politicians and the State officials have the same values and objectives, most of the time. In the UK most of these people will have gone to similar top schools and top universities. Together they constitute the bulk of the ruling class and keep in close touch with each other through official and unofficial means. Factions within this class come into conflict in pursuing their own objectives but for the most part this is handled internally through their own social networks and organisations - the secretive Free Masonary organisations for instance - only occasionally do the differences surface in court or the newspapers. As it exists, democracy is most definitely an illusion for us. It fools us into thinking we can change things through the vote. It also give us figure heads to blame for our difficulties such as this or that Party or politician. The purpose is to make us identify with the State and its values and channel our discontent into safe, legal activities that will absorb all our energy.

[zookeeper]

Of course it a barrier, the poorest standard teachers, facilities and social environment obviously count.

I'd like to know what evidence you have that teachers in the state system are of the poorest standard?

Also why shouldn't people spend their money as they see fit and if that is on their childrens education then so be it. They believe that they are buying into an opportunity for their child to have a more rounded education.

[Mr Mosquito]

I'd like to know what evidence you have that teachers in the state system are of the poorest standard?

Also why shouldn't people spend their money as they see fit and if that is on their childrens education then so be it. They believe that they are buying into an opportunity for their child to have a more rounded education.

If you wanted to ensure that your child had the very best possible chance of a top job in law or Civil Service or Government in this country then you'd have to send him to Eton or Harrow and then on to Oxbridge. Sending a child to Eton or Harrow public school then onto Oxford or Cambridge University is way beyond the means of an ordinary family. This class barrier is at the fundamental heart of what is badly wrong with the schooling system in this country. We thus don't get the best people running our criminal justice system, civil service or Government but we do often get inbred toffs and snobs running our land simply because their parents had the money to pay for them to have the very best education.

TOFFS OUT !!!!!

[zookeeper]

If you wanted to ensure that your child had the very best possible chance of a top job in law or Civil Service or Government in this country then you'd have to send him to Eton or Harrow and then on to Oxbridge. Sending a child to Eton or Harrow public school then onto Oxford or Cambridge University is way beyond the means of an ordinary family. This class barrier is at the fundamental heart of what is badly wrong with the schooling system in this country. We thus don't get the best people running our criminal justice system, civil service or Government but we do often get inbred toffs and snobs running our land simply because their parents had the money to pay for them to have the very best education.

TOFFS OUT !!!!!

I still don't really see the issue in them spending their own money!

Society is at the heart of the problems of the schooling system rather than one group of it. As Nibor says if people want to suceed there is the opportunity for them to do so.

It's also not just "TOFFS" who attend these schools!

[fka dagest]

I still don't really see the issue in them spending their own money!

Society is at the heart of the problems of the schooling system rather than one group of it. As Nibor says if people want to suceed there is the opportunity for them to do so.

It's also not just "TOFFS" who attend these schools!

But, it is not the same opportunity is it? It's an advantaged or disadvantaged opportunity. I believe every child in this country should have the same (or as near as) opportunity to develop their education and interests to become a fully rounded individual, which can offer back something to the race as a whole. I can't see how this can be the case in the current system.

Perhaps, I ought to add that the ruling class particularly irritate me because when all is said and done they are the people who keep society as it is. It's organized for their benefit and any attendant problems with society ultimately lies at their feet. The mass of "dross" at the bottom, whom most hate may be parasitic in nature, but ultimately this society isn't their creation.

Anyway, we seem to being going round and round in circles now, so I'm calling it a day now.

All in all, a good debate! Gobbo was right in the end.

Anyone want to start a "who's got the best boobs thread"?

[Mr Mosquito]

All in all, a good debate! Gobbo was right in the end.

All I've done is state the facts with regard to what is an education system that is heavily orientated to keep the same ruling class families in power via elitist public schools that most of us can't afford to send our own children to. This fact is what is stunting social mobility.

fka dagest, don't forget to have this thread printed off for future reference - this debate was your idea.

[bucksred]

My point is that a Hartcliffe education isn't a barrier, unless you spend your life worrying about people who were lucky enough to be born with money instead of working to improve your own lot.

Well said Nibor.

An advantage does not logically imply a disadvantage at all because there is no reason whatsoever that two people with different educations can't be exactly as successful as they want to be.

No, it's English.

It's sloppy thinking like this that leads to people idly whining about the general unfairness of life/the system/everyone else instead of sorting their shit out.

Again, spot on Nibor. Get on and make the most of what you have

How do poor people in the US or Oz get to the top of their trees? Examples general colin Powell, ex chief of staff US armed forces, and erstwhile secretary of State. Eisenhower, was a sharecroppers son, Murdoch came from humble beginnings. Arnie, was a poor kid from Austria, and he is now the third most powerful man in the USA.

I just get frustrated that many of us have not got a hope in hell of even changing the slightest aspect of Government policy like, for example, being allowed to stand and sing on football terracing once again. Here's how this country is currently governed.........

The British State is supposed to be controlled by the politicians and the politicians elected by us. This, we are told, allows us through the ballot box to change things. So why does the State act in the interests of the ruling class toffs and snobs regardless of whoever is in power - Labour, Tory or Liberal? It's because to function and succeed politicians and their parties are ultimately controlled by the royalist upper classes and their Capitalist bed fellows and the British State's own permanent unelected officials.

Groups that speak for the Capitalist and royalist interests, like the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) and the City of London (also increasingly international finance) put forward their requirements to the politicians and their parties and watch closely for their response. If they are ignored then the offending politicians and political parties are ridiculed and attacked, through the Capitalist propaganda media machine of the newspapers, TV, radio, advertising etc. Many of the political parties rely for their funding from rich backers which can be used to exert pressure.

To be honest Gobbers, the multi national corporations are quite capable of running countries (they do all over Africa, S America, and Asia anyway) with out resorting to using as you put it the CBI, and the City of London. The Royal Family and its hangers on, although very powerful in a financial manner do not have any pull. The only hold they have is the fact they are the head of state and his/her representives. an anchor if you like to seperate State from politicians. People like the Armed forces, Police, civil Service owe allegiance to her, rather than the "elected" representive, which is where Hitler and Stalin in particular twisted their countries "establishment"

The guys at the top regardless of political, religious, ethnic, royalist, republican, communist, fascist, one with a bit of shite on it, are more and more powerful every year. In truth they always have been, ask anyone who lived under Nazi, Fascist, Communist, religious fundamentalist, or plain brutal dictatorship about the feeling of powerlessness. Only in recent times have we as citizens had access to the workings of state, thanks to a free press. In days gone by our forefathers had little such access.

As soon as you get your neck in the trough, you join them. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutley. and the politicians today are mainly careerists, with no loyalty to the constuency who voted them in, but to the party they belong to. after all they could become ministers, and have all the trappings if they keep schtum. and theyre much younger, with fk all experience of life, none of hardship, none of what happens when they glibly pass dumbass policy.

I HATE EVERY ONE OF THE GUTLESS BASTARDS.

[Mr Mosquito]

How do poor people in the US or Oz get to the top of their trees? Examples general colin Powell, ex chief of staff US armed forces, and erstwhile secretary of State. Eisenhower, was a sharecroppers son, Murdoch came from humble beginnings. Arnie, was a poor kid from Austria, and he is now the third most powerful man in the USA.

The USA and Australia do not discriminate against those from poor backgrounds. The United States was founded by the descendents of Englishmen that broke free from the ties of the British Monarchy and the class system that goes with it. The current state of Australia was also founded by Englishmen, Scotsmen, Welshmen and Irishmen and they too will soon be free as an independent Republic. There's no class system to stop the gifted and the brave rising to the very top in those afore mentioned countries. The only barrier to Arny in the USA in getting the job of President is the fact that he wasn't born in the USA.

[bucksred]

The USA and Australia do not discriminate against those from poor backgrounds. The United States was founded by the descendents of Englishmen that broke free from the ties of the British Monarchy and the class system that goes with it. The current state of Australia was also founded by Englishmen, Scotsmen, Welshmen and Irishmen and they too will soon be free as an independent Republic. There's no class system to stop the gifted and the brave rising to the very top in those afore mentioned countries. The only barrier to Arny in the USA in getting the job of President is the fact that he wasn't born in the USA.

The Ivy League universities are every bit as snobbish as our top universities though, and they have their versions of the English toffs too. The biggest difference between the US and here, is if you have money, and can pay for it, then yer in any university you pass the standards for. I was amazed when I first came to live in England, how education was free to everyone. back in Africa, we paid for every single thing, from books, and extra classes like music, to university education. Its amazing how paying for education focusses your attention to get it right

I think schools in the UK are much poorer than they should be due to constant pissing around with them from MPs, governments of all persuasions and social backgrounds. you'll notice few if any mps offspring go to state schools. If they did, I reckon standards would rocket upwards. don't hold yer breath though...

all our schools in southern Africa were/are set up on the Scottish system, which is far better than England's. I cant beleive that you haven't even got a basic standard all schools must meet, wether private, or state, and they don't even teach the same sylabus from county to county.

That is the biggest shame this country has, letting millions of kids down with shite schooling. very very poor.

[Mr Mosquito]

[zookeeper]

I think schools in the UK are much poorer than they should be due to constant pissing around with them from MPs, governments of all persuasions and social backgrounds. you'll notice few if any mps offspring go to state schools. If they did, I reckon standards would rocket upwards. don't hold yer breath though...

all our schools in southern Africa were/are set up on the Scottish system, which is far better than England's. I cant beleive that you haven't even got a basic standard all schools must meet, wether private, or state, and they don't even teach the same sylabus from county to county.

I'm not sure about whether the children of mp's go to state schools or not. I do however know that it's quite an easy tactic for a newspaper to pick up on this and make it their headline story.

I think schools have been affected by the mp imput and the demoralising effect that it has had but also because of people's belief that society will suport them and that it is unfashionable to be seen as trying to achieve! Schools in Bristol seem to be in a rut where they are so poor that spend a large chunk of their income to give them any boost that they can.

[Mr Mosquito]

I'm not sure about whether the children of mp's go to state schools or not. I do however know that it's quite an easy tactic for a newspaper to pick up on this and make it their headline story.

I think schools have been affected by the mp imput and the demoralising effect that it has had but also because of people's belief that society will suport them and that it is unfashionable to be seen as trying to achieve! Schools in Bristol seem to be in a rut where they are so poor that spend a large chunk of their income to give them any boost that they can.

Mr Gordon Brown said he wanted funding per state school pupil to rise from £5,000 to £8,000, as in independent schools.

Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/6084956.stm

...this is an admission by a Labour Government that after 11 years of Labour Government state schools are underfunded compared to private schools.

New Labour = Old Tory

[zookeeper]

Mr Gordon Brown said he wanted funding per state school pupil to rise from £5,000 to £8,000, as in independent schools.

Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/6084956.stm

...this is an admission by a Labour Government that after 11 years of Labour Government state schools are underfunded compared to private schools.

New Labour = Old Tory

I'm not too sure if throwing money at it will help that much! We need to change peoples opinions and values as much as we need to have newer text books. The whole point of these new builds at schools seems to be to change the image of the school rather than update the facilities.

I think Tony Blair said something like the old political parties and values didn't exist anymore.

[Mr Mosquito]

I think Tony Blair said something like the old political parties and values didn't exist anymore.

That's why Tony Blair is popularly known as Tory B.liar

[bucksred]