The Johnson Government 2019-2022

KUMB's 24-hour rolling news channel. The Forum in which to discuss non sport-related news and current affairs, including politics.

Moderators: Gnome, last.caress, Wilko1304, Rio, bristolhammerfc, the pink palermo, chalks

Post Reply
User avatar
Danny's Dyer Acting
Posts: 8983
Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2009 1:37 pm
Has liked: 642 likes
Total likes: 1853 likes

Re: The Johnson Government 2019-2022

Post by Danny's Dyer Acting »

I feel like these are not good numbers and are very relevant the next time someone from the government is wheeled out to crow about unemployment and payroll numbers.
Quarterly change in employment:

16-64 yr olds: -14,000

Aged 65+ : +173,000
User avatar
SammyLeeWasOffside
Posts: 21691
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 9:31 am
Has liked: 290 likes
Total likes: 1022 likes

Re: The Johnson Government 2019-2022

Post by SammyLeeWasOffside »

Tenbury wrote: Tue Aug 16, 2022 10:30 am There's a lot of that I agree with, but I'd suggest you add privilege as an additional variable. I've no issue with a meritocracy,
we just don't have one.
Luck would cover that wouldn't it?

How do you judge merit?
User avatar
Tenbury
Posts: 9265
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2016 3:28 pm
Location: Too near Kidderminster
Has liked: 721 likes
Total likes: 1209 likes

Re: The Johnson Government 2019-2022

Post by Tenbury »

Well, yes, provided you consider 'luck' as being born to the right parents!

In a meritocracy people advance (in terms of power/wealth /both) based upon their talent and industry. The situation here is not just unfair to a large number of people, it's a ridiculous loss of talent to society.
User avatar
Turns to Stone
Posts: 15456
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2008 10:21 am
Location: Tony Almeida
Has liked: 229 likes
Total likes: 1455 likes

Re: The Johnson Government 2019-2022

Post by Turns to Stone »

I suppose my view is that a government (and if not the government) then those who have been 'lucky' do what they can to support and encourage those who have been 'unlucky'.

There is the survival implication. Are we given the 'unlucky' enough to survive. But also, are we doing what we can to enable those who are 'unlucky' to have chance to do more. That is the one plus poing that I saw from the Brexit referendum, that it might provide more opportunities for people from high-risk areas who have traditionally struggled to find employment. It was th one thing that made me sway on my vote, but then I also suspected that even if we were to elave the EU - no-one in our government would ever be interested in helping those people do that anyway...so I voted to stay.
User avatar
Denbighammer
Posts: 12871
Joined: Fri Dec 28, 2007 6:53 pm
Location: Dodging, Dipping, Diving, Ducking and Dodging.
Has liked: 697 likes
Total likes: 431 likes

Re: The Johnson Government 2019-2022

Post by Denbighammer »

Tenbury wrote: Tue Aug 16, 2022 10:30 am There's a lot of that I agree with, but I'd suggest you add privilege as an additional variable. I've no issue with a meritocracy,
we just don't have one.
How do you define privilege though? What are parents who have done well for themselves supposed to do with their kids? Obviously teach them good values but if the parents have worked hard from nothing and given their kids a decent inheritance, what are the children supposed to do with it?
User avatar
SammyLeeWasOffside
Posts: 21691
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 9:31 am
Has liked: 290 likes
Total likes: 1022 likes

Re: The Johnson Government 2019-2022

Post by SammyLeeWasOffside »

Tenbury wrote: Tue Aug 16, 2022 12:07 pm Well, yes, provided you consider 'luck' as being born to the right parents!

In a meritocracy people advance (in terms of power/wealth /both) based upon their talent and industry. The situation here is not just unfair to a large number of people, it's a ridiculous loss of talent to society.
Of course that's luck. It's an accident of birth. There is an argument that being born into money is someone else's talent I guess though.

You can't have a meritocracy when merit is based on someone else's judgement though can you? So how else would you fairly judge who got a job, a promotion etc.

We used to have the grammar school system where you progressed on academic talent. People from any background could get in, both my parents and especially my mum got out of a life of poverty and did very well. This was seen as unfair and abolished.
User avatar
EvilC
Posts: 18221
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2004 5:54 pm
Location: In the street as the cold wind blows, in the ghetto...
Has liked: 2627 likes
Total likes: 1178 likes

Re: The Johnson Government 2019-2022

Post by EvilC »

SammyLeeWasOffside wrote: Tue Aug 16, 2022 12:56 pm Of course that's luck. It's an accident of birth. There is an argument that being born into money is someone else's talent I guess though.

You can't have a meritocracy when merit is based on someone else's judgement though can you? So how else would you fairly judge who got a job, a promotion etc.

We used to have the grammar school system where you progressed on academic talent. People from any background could get in, both my parents and especially my mum got out of a life of poverty and did very well. This was seen as unfair and abolished.
We still have it where I live. Those who make it there don't all progress based on academic talent, they at least in part progress based on expensive private tuition for the eleven plus. Hence poorer children tend to make it to grammar schools less than their wealthier peers. And those who go to grammars do better. But everyone else does worse.
User avatar
SammyLeeWasOffside
Posts: 21691
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 9:31 am
Has liked: 290 likes
Total likes: 1022 likes

Re: The Johnson Government 2019-2022

Post by SammyLeeWasOffside »

EvilC wrote: Tue Aug 16, 2022 1:05 pm We still have it where I live. Those who make it there don't all progress based on academic talent, they at least in part progress based on expensive private tuition for the eleven plus. Hence poorer children tend to make it to grammar schools less than their wealthier peers. And those who go to grammars do better. But everyone else does worse.
Thats not how it worked back in the day though, everyone took it. You passed it you got a place.

Isn't the last bit the point of meritocracy? You benefit from your talent.
User avatar
EvilC
Posts: 18221
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2004 5:54 pm
Location: In the street as the cold wind blows, in the ghetto...
Has liked: 2627 likes
Total likes: 1178 likes

Re: The Johnson Government 2019-2022

Post by EvilC »

SammyLeeWasOffside wrote: Tue Aug 16, 2022 2:01 pm Thats not how it worked back in the day though, everyone took it. You passed it you got a place.

Isn't the last bit the point of meritocracy? You benefit from your talent.
The point is that some people are disadvantaged not because of their lack of ability, but because of their circumstances.

In the current system in most places do you not then benefit from your talent? Because I’d argue that if you are that bright and hard working and have the stable family background, with your family being comfortable financially, you are likely to have a relative amount of success anyway.
User avatar
SammyLeeWasOffside
Posts: 21691
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 9:31 am
Has liked: 290 likes
Total likes: 1022 likes

Re: The Johnson Government 2019-2022

Post by SammyLeeWasOffside »

EvilC wrote: Tue Aug 16, 2022 2:26 pm The point is that some people are disadvantaged not because of their lack of ability, but because of their circumstances.

In the current system in most places do you not then benefit from your talent? Because I’d argue that if you are that bright and hard working and have the stable family background, with your family being comfortable financially, you are likely to have a relative amount of success anyway.
And some because of a lack of ability. Which ought to play into the 2nd paragraph. An financial advantage might buy you a way in in a roundabout way but if you don't have talent and work ethic you will get shifted - or made PM. Is that any different to someones dad getting their kid a job where he works?

My point on grammars was it was about one form of merit and gave everyone a chance, we didn't want that when it existed because it was deemed unfair. So what we are after is a system based on merit where no one suffers as a result of anyone elses merits.
User avatar
EvilC
Posts: 18221
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2004 5:54 pm
Location: In the street as the cold wind blows, in the ghetto...
Has liked: 2627 likes
Total likes: 1178 likes

Re: The Johnson Government 2019-2022

Post by EvilC »

SammyLeeWasOffside wrote: Tue Aug 16, 2022 2:45 pm And some because of a lack of ability. Which ought to play into the 2nd paragraph. An financial advantage might buy you a way in in a roundabout way but if you don't have talent and work ethic you will get shifted - or made PM. Is that any different to someones dad getting their kid a job where he works?

My point on grammars was it was about one form of merit and gave everyone a chance, we didn't want that when it existed because it was deemed unfair. So what we are after is a system based on merit where no one suffers as a result of anyone elses merits.
Your point on the PM shows you that you won’t necessarily get shafted. No, it isn’t any different, it is the same thing - those from better backgrounds tend to do better because their parents can offer them things others can not. Poor but smart kid that doesn’t have a dad or whatever doesn’t get that opportunity.

It gives everyone a chance to the detriment of everyone else that for whatever reason doesn’t pass their eleven plus. And you get more of a chance if you come from a better background.
User avatar
dasnutnock3
Posts: 6455
Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2022 12:38 pm
Has liked: 1859 likes
Total likes: 2446 likes

Re: The Johnson Government 2019-2022

Post by dasnutnock3 »

EvilC wrote: Tue Aug 16, 2022 2:51 pmAnd you get more of a chance if you come from a better background.
Then build more Grammars with tight catchment rules to make sure everyone's competing against an even field. Let's face it, abolishing Grammars wasn't about improving anyone's career/life chances, it was about keeping the private schools well-stocked.
User avatar
Tenbury
Posts: 9265
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2016 3:28 pm
Location: Too near Kidderminster
Has liked: 721 likes
Total likes: 1209 likes

Re: The Johnson Government 2019-2022

Post by Tenbury »

SammyLeeWasOffside wrote: Tue Aug 16, 2022 2:45 pm

My point on grammars was it was about one form of merit and gave everyone a chance, we didn't want that when it existed because it was deemed unfair. So what we are after is a system based on merit where no one suffers as a result of anyone elses merits.
I'm old enough to have gone to a grammar school (didn't stay long), they were scrapped largely because it was deemed ridiculous to grade kids as young as 11 (**10 in my case). Plus, of course, when the education budget was dealt out the Sec Mods got sod all, many kids were on the scrapheap before they were even teenagers! It just didn't work. It's amazing the variable rate at which young people develop... ** sadly some go backwards....
User avatar
EvilC
Posts: 18221
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2004 5:54 pm
Location: In the street as the cold wind blows, in the ghetto...
Has liked: 2627 likes
Total likes: 1178 likes

Re: The Johnson Government 2019-2022

Post by EvilC »

dasnutnock3 wrote: Tue Aug 16, 2022 3:36 pm Then build more Grammars with tight catchment rules to make sure everyone's competing against an even field. Let's face it, abolishing Grammars wasn't about improving anyone's career/life chances, it was about keeping the private schools well-stocked.
That'll just lead to a scrimmage for houses around said school, surely?

The situation near us is absurd though, most of the grammar kids from Sevenoaks do a 45 minute commute to the schools in Tonbridge and Tunbridge Wells.
User avatar
SammyLeeWasOffside
Posts: 21691
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 9:31 am
Has liked: 290 likes
Total likes: 1022 likes

Re: The Johnson Government 2019-2022

Post by SammyLeeWasOffside »

Tenbury wrote: Tue Aug 16, 2022 3:50 pm I'm old enough to have gone to a grammar school (didn't stay long), they were scrapped largely because it was deemed ridiculous to grade kids as young as 11 (**10 in my case). Plus, of course, when the education budget was dealt out the Sec Mods got sod all, many kids were on the scrapheap before they were even teenagers! It just didn't work. It's amazing the variable rate at which young people develop... ** sadly some go backwards....
You could enter a grammar up until the start of the 4th year when o levels kicked in (certainly when my dad went, he regularly told me about how Boycott joined his grammar at the end of year 3). Thats only 18 months before they are graded today. Some do go backwards and left grammar school, they could get back in though again before the 4th year. It wasn't the one shot deal its often sold as.

They certainly worked in places like this It changed the lives of thousands of kids up here, in my mums case it almost certainly saved her from an early grave. But yes the problem with merit is some people miss out on some things. For instance I wanted to be a judge but I didn't have the latin.
User avatar
SammyLeeWasOffside
Posts: 21691
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 9:31 am
Has liked: 290 likes
Total likes: 1022 likes

Re: The Johnson Government 2019-2022

Post by SammyLeeWasOffside »

EvilC wrote: Tue Aug 16, 2022 2:51 pm Poor but smart kid that doesn’t have a dad or whatever doesn’t get that opportunity.

It gives everyone a chance to the detriment of everyone else that for whatever reason doesn’t pass their eleven plus. And you get more of a chance if you come from a better background.
But they did is the point. My mum was raised in abject poverty, Dad came from a small pit village. Nobody they knew had any money - bar 1 my dad knew and he failed the 11 plus.

Any meritocracy gives people the chance at the detriment of everyone else thats my point. Nobody moans that football academies are unfair because they don't give a chance to the kids who trip over their own feet.
User avatar
EvilC
Posts: 18221
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2004 5:54 pm
Location: In the street as the cold wind blows, in the ghetto...
Has liked: 2627 likes
Total likes: 1178 likes

Re: The Johnson Government 2019-2022

Post by EvilC »

SammyLeeWasOffside wrote: Tue Aug 16, 2022 4:16 pm But they did is the point. My mum was raised in abject poverty, Dad came from a small pit village. Nobody they knew had any money - bar 1 my dad knew and he failed the 11 plus.

Any meritocracy gives people the chance at the detriment of everyone else thats my point. Nobody moans that football academies are unfair because they don't give a chance to the kids who trip over their own feet.
Your mum isn't everyone, and then isn't now.

I'd suggest you are focusing on the wrong things. Those that are exceptionally bright or talented are likely to do alright anyway. You probably want to focus on the others. Sticking them all in schools together with the others in grammars has led to negative outcomes for them.
User avatar
prophet:marginal
Posts: 43564
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 8:54 pm
Location: Engels l;vin, necessary pence
Has liked: 836 likes
Total likes: 1980 likes

Re: The Johnson Government 2019-2022

Post by prophet:marginal »

dasnutnock3 wrote: Tue Aug 16, 2022 3:36 pm Then build more Grammars with tight catchment rules to make sure everyone's competing against an even field. Let's face it, abolishing Grammars wasn't about improving anyone's career/life chances, it was about keeping the private schools well-stocked.
Build more schools? Lol, as if.
User avatar
SammyLeeWasOffside
Posts: 21691
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 9:31 am
Has liked: 290 likes
Total likes: 1022 likes

Re: The Johnson Government 2019-2022

Post by SammyLeeWasOffside »

EvilC wrote: Tue Aug 16, 2022 4:20 pm Your mum isn't everyone, and then isn't now.

I'd suggest you are focusing on the wrong things. Those that are exceptionally bright or talented are likely to do alright anyway. You probably want to focus on the others. Sticking them all in schools together with the others in grammars has led to negative outcomes for them.
She is t and it isn't but it did work as a system in lots of cases. It was meritocratic and people thought that was unfair.

Well that's not at all what I was getting at but also sticking bright kids in comprehensives hasn't always done them any favours.

People were calling for a meritocracy, I was pointing out that people don't actually always like meritocracy when they have it.
User avatar
DaveWHU1964
Posts: 14873
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2012 10:14 am
Has liked: 1302 likes
Total likes: 679 likes

Re: The Johnson Government 2019-2022

Post by DaveWHU1964 »

Anyone can make it from any background. That’s indisputable. It’s the chances of it happening that are markedly different from one group of people to another. That’s the problem.

Unless people think that those on free school meals are less intelligent than others then this is not so much about luck as about opportunity or lack of it. Opportunity can be bought, is not affordable to all and is consequently the inequalities that flow from that are baked in. This out today …

https://amp.theguardian.com/education/2 ... eport-says
Last edited by DaveWHU1964 on Tue Aug 16, 2022 6:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Post Reply