No he doesn't.

Thatcher presided over a period of burgeoning meritocracy. That's the last thing the Old Etonian brigade want. Even she went the beginning of our meritocracy have been swept away - mainly, it has to be said, as a result of Labour's crass ideology.

Quote ="Cibaman"No one will win that debate until they reach equilibrium, a state of steady growth with the budget deficit under control. Both the UK and the US are a very long way off that. Obama may be in the lead now but he's nowhere near the winning post. The French economy isnt the same as the UK's but it is more similar to the UK than is the US. And Hollande's policies are much closer to Labour than are Obama's. But even allowing for the differences, if the French economy significantly outperforms the UK's in the next 2 years, Labour will inevitably cite that at the next election as a vindication of their views on how the economy should have been managed. And ditto for the Tories if the French economy does worse. The state of the French economy will be a big deal at the next election.'" Creently the French econonomy is way underperforming the British one. It has slipped down the competitiveness rankings significantly, whereas the UK one has improved its competitiveness. The UK economy is about to overtake France's GDP too. That said, the UK is in a mess, a very big mess. I think this article sets things out nicely and shows what a way we have to go to reverse long-term decline: www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comm ... loons.html

Quote ="Cibaman"No one will win that debate until they reach equilibrium, a state of steady growth with the budget deficit under control. Both the UK and the US are a very long way off that. Obama may be in the lead now but he's nowhere near the winning post. The French economy isnt the same as the UK's but it is more similar to the UK than is the US. And Hollande's policies are much closer to Labour than are Obama's. But even allowing for the differences, if the French economy significantly outperforms the UK's in the next 2 years, Labour will inevitably cite that at the next election as a vindication of their views on how the economy should have been managed. And ditto for the Tories if the French economy does worse. The state of the French economy will be a big deal at the next election.'" Creently the French econonomy is way underperforming the British one. It has slipped down the competitiveness rankings significantly, whereas the UK one has improved its competitiveness. The UK economy is about to overtake France's GDP too. That said, the UK is in a mess, a very big mess. I think this article sets things out nicely and shows what a way we have to go to reverse long-term decline: www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comm ... loons.html

Post war, the UK had built a meritocracy, where anyone, from any background, could aspire to pretty much any heights.

But from 1979 on, that started to change. One of the ways in which it started to change was that vocational tertiary education started to become removed from the grant system.

So, for example, from the 1950s on, this country produced an extraordinary array of acting and writing talent, with a vibrant theatre and film industry to go with it, covering everything from serious drama to farce, to musical to ... well, just about anything you can think of. And many of those involved were from working-class backgrounds.

But from the very early 1980s on, you could only – for instance – get into an acting course if you had private funds. Indeed, not just that – there were drama departments in good universities closing because of the attack.

This applied in other vocational areas, whether music or even the clergy. The start of the attack on tertiary educational grants was the start of an attack on meritocracy itself.

The demise of grammar schools also played a part. They had been a way for working class children to get a break – for instance, consider both the UK's top architects, Norman Foster and Richard Rodgers both northern, working-class boys from council estates who went to grammar school.

The problem with the grammar schools was not so much with those schools, but with the arbitrary nature of the 11 plus and, indeed, the attitude that accompanied it – ie that you 'passed' or 'failed', rather than it being a way of working out what form of education/training might work best for you; and also that in far too many cases, the subsequent secondary education was of a lower quality than that at a grammar school.

I post that on the basis of my own experience at grammar school and my sister's experience at secondary schools.

But to go back to the beginning: the Thatcher era was most certainly not about creating or extending meritocracy. It was the beginning of the reining back of that.

Mintball has that absolutely right.

I post that on the basis of my own experience at grammar school and some very good friends' experiences at secondary schools.

The 11 plus was not arbitrary. Certainly far less less arbitrary than football or rugby trials (which rely more on human judgement / misjudgement). Should they be banned?

Thatcher attacked many vested interests. During her premiership the percentage of non-public school educated people running top listed companies increased (and since has declined).

Members of the Labour party cynically kicked away the grammar school ladder that had allowed many of them opportunity. To pretend that is not the major cause of the decline in meritocratic advances is disengenous. It is the prinicipal reason.

Of course it was. Why 11? Why not 10? Why not 12? The age was purely a bureaucratic matter.



I haven't. Read my post. Properly.

And by your own logic, if "Thatcher presided over a period of burgeoning meritocracy", then earlier attacks by Labour on the grammar school system, which you now say were "the major cause of the decline in meritocratic advances", and which started rather earlier, are rendered pretty much irrelevant.

How is it, and WHY is it, that the millionaires are going to end up 2-3k better off per month from April?

Have a guess



Heres mine

Most of the cabinet are multi millionaires, most of there mates are, Tory governments are renowned for looking after the rich and kicking the poor. I could go on.

Of course, the Cameron version is that it was so expensive to collect millions off millionaires it was not worth it, much better to let them keep it and let them 'offer' to pay up.

Because this is a government of the millionaires, by the millionaires, for the millionaires.

No - because mature people had come up through that system. As the tap was turned off the later supply weaned - there is a big lead time between destroying the system and people reaching their 40's or whatever.

Well i was actually curious, are they just going to be paying less % per £1? That sorta deal?

And therefore, by your own logic, if "Thatcher presided over a period of burgeoning meritocracy", we'd have seen the results. Whereas, in fact, we have seen the continuation of a decline in numbers of those people brought up on council estates etc making it into public life at the highest levels.

I thought this from a gentleman called Tony Bury's blog might help you:

I found this very easy to understand analysis of the taxation, explained through a group buying beer!
Enjoy the reading… !

THE TAX SYSTEM EXPLAINED IN BEER…

Suppose that once a week, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to £100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:-

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing. 

The fifth would pay £1…
The sixth would pay £3…
The seventh would pay £7…
The eighth would pay £12…
The ninth would pay £18…
And the tenth man (the richest) would pay £59…
So, that’s what they decided to do…

The ten men drank in the bar every week and seemed quite happy with the arrangement until, one day, the owner caused them a little problem. “Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your weekly beer by £20.” Drinks for the ten men would now cost just £80. 
 


The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free but what about the other six men? The paying customers? How could they divide the £20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share? They realized that £20 divided by six is £3.33 but if they subtracted that from everybody’s share then not only would the first four men still be drinking for free but the fifth and sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fairer to reduce each man’s bill by a higher percentage. They decided to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay. 
 


And so, the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (a 100% saving). 

The sixth man now paid £2 instead of £3 (a 33% saving). 

The seventh man now paid £5 instead of £7 (a 28% saving). 

The eighth man now paid £9 instead of £12 (a 25% saving). 

The ninth man now paid £14 instead of £18 (a 22% saving). 

And the tenth man now paid £49 instead of £59 (a 16% saving). 


Each of the last six was better off than before with the first four continuing to drink for free.

But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings. “I only got £1 out of the £20 saving,” declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, “but he got £10″ 
”Yes, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved £1 too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me” “That’s true” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get £10 back, when I only got £2? The wealthy get all the breaks” 
”Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison, “we didn’t get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor” The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next week the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important – they didn’t have enough money between all of them to pay for even half of the bill. 
 
 
 
 
 


And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works. The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy and they just might not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier. 
 


David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D. 
Professor of Economics. 

For those who understand, no explanation is needed…
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible….

You'll have to wait for someone better informed than me to answer that question that specifically. But I do know that everyone else – other than the already-best-off are being hit with increased tax/loss of benefits.

Just received this by email:

In church I heard a lady in the pew next to me saying a prayer.
It was so sweet and sincere that I just had to share with you:-

Dear Lord,

This has been a tough two or three years.

You have taken my favourite actor, Patrick Swayze.

My favourite male singer, Michael Jackson.

My favourite Blues Singer, Amy Winehouse.

My favourite actress, Elizabeth Taylor.

And now my favourite singer, Whitney Houston.

I just wanted you to know that my favourite politicians are:
Ed Miliband, Tony Blair, Nick Clegg, Ed Balls, David Cameron, Gordon Brown and John Bercow

I think you are having trouble in understanding the simple concept of the effluxion of time.

Yes it was - the pass level was changed from one year to the next.

Think it through - there was a limited number of grammar school places available, in my school its was an influx of 120 boys per year, every year we got 120 boys, four forms of 30, exactly the same number every year, the rest (like my brother, chortle) were cast adrift into the secondary school system, his first year at secondary school was overcrowded and he ended up in a class of around 38 boys, put simply they creamed off the top 120 in our catchment area and put the rest into the lower division and to do that you have to move the bar every year.

I'd add that I later found out that my pass mark in the 11 plus was just one mark above what was the bar that year - and I continued in that mode for the next five years, always just did enough, never did too much

That's how exams were in the past. Take the top x %. It's the same with football clubs, etc. Take the top X take a closer look at them and then reduce that number (going into the adult squad / university). Trouble is Labour destroyed the system so its the other way round - with lot's getting to university and now they pay the price (literally) by paying themselves to stay off the unemployment register for 3 years.

Who'd have believed it - British politicians messing up something.

Call yourself an oracle?



I was aware of the cutting/capping of benefits, i thought the stopping of benefits of anyone on 60k+ was sort of an attack on the better-off, but the fact that millionaires get a big reduction just stinks, AND makes no sense, practically speaking.

i know full well it wasn't your idea, that would involve you actually having the nous to be able to come up with something.


an example? you've got it all mapped out. why are you distancing yourself from it now? surely it's right that we as taxpayers train up people to go and work for the energy companies and save them the job of doing it?

sounds pretty clear to me. paying people to behave. as i said, it's up there with 'hug a hoodie'.

nothing positive? what you want is cheerleaders, sycophants to nod in approval at the great essays of nothing you produce.

ffs. and i'm meant to be the stupid one.

Based on what measure? Since the Tories came to power in may 2010 the French economic growth has been more than double that of the UK.

I genuinely fail to see how this can possibly be the case. So our GDP is smaller, and growing more slowly, yet we will soon overtake them!?


They're going to be more than 2-3k better off if they earn a decent amount. For income over £150,000 the rate of tax has been cut from 50% to 45%. Yes they will lose out on child benefit, but because this isn't proportional to their very large incomes (in the same way their tax cut is) it doesn't nearly make up for it.

This was despite figures from the OBR showing that cutting the rate below 47% would decrease government revenue, so the ONLY justification for the move was to give some extra cash to their rich mates (and themselves).


In that analogy the amount they pay for their beer represents taxes, so beer represents what they get out of society. In your story it is implied that they all drink the same amount of beer, thus all get the same out of society. I would argue that is'nt the case at all - Rich people benefit far more from the fact that our society facilitates people to be prosperous*. The richest 10% own 53% of the UK's wealth, whereas the bottom 50% own 7%, so the analogy would've made more sense if 10 men go to a bar, the first 5 men share half a pint,... and the last man gets 5 and a bit pints all to himself - then shock horror people expect him to pay significantly more.

*before you claim that the rich are self-made men, and they don't owe it to the state for providing a country which made it possible to become rich, please answer me this: how many of them would've become rich if they'd being born in Somalia?

Nah. Never have, mate. Wouldn't want to be, either.

Christ samwire, you're a thick and unpleasant little f*ck, aren't you? Is that what your mummy taught you?

Was she as nasty a piece as you patently are? And as thick?

Obviously the two do often come together – and in you, we see them in perfect harmony. So it seems fair to ask if that's genetic.

Strivers not Skivers

Kirkstaller will be after you now