The 2015 Popularity Contest (aka UK General Election )

[roydo]

May 2015 possibilities - what do you think?

It is already pretty much guarenteed that no party can win a majority so we will either have a coalition government consisting of one of the 2 largest parties and a lesser party, however, at the moment it only looks as though, again, Lib Dems will have enough seats to do that.

Labour + Lib Dems = Labour lose lots more grass roots voters who despise the Lib Dems which will cripple them in 5 years time. If this does happen, however, it would be potentially the first time the second and fourth parties with most amount of votes would form a government. Very unrepresentative.

Tory + Lib Dems = More of the same - but will Clegg still be the leader, or will a new leader go against this?

According to polls, UKIP could win anywhere between 20-40 seats which won't put them into a position to bargain for a coalition, however, they have already ruled out forming a coalition with the Tories (perhaps because they know they won't win enough seats) and UKIP/Labour is, of course, a no go.

Possibility number 2 is that we see a minority government. Both Labour and Tories could win enough votes to see them form a minority government in which all decisions have to voted through the house (invcluding through the opposition) which would see A) quite an unproductive party and B) probably a very quick vote of no confidence from the house forcing another general election.

In conclusion, I would argue that 'winning' this election, ie. being in government in one form or another could be damaging for both Labour and Tories. If either decide to coalition, you could see a large number of votes lost in 2020. If either decide to form a minority government, they could be voted out of power within a year. Now of course, Cameron and Miliband want to win the election as their jobs depend on it. However, I think many of the back-benchers within the parties would rather stay in opposition to rebuild for the election after.

It could end up with in effect, two governments. One being a coalition on UK/International issues, (Lab & SNP), and the Tories being the biggest "English" party, with the SNP abstaining on "English" votes.

 

[Seanjd]

It could end up with in effect, two governments. One being a coalition on UK/International issues, (Lab & SNP), and the Tories being the biggest "English" party, with the SNP abstaining on "English" votes.

Do you mean with Tories being the minority government?

 

[roydo]

Do you mean with Tories being the minority government?

Not exactly. It is a distinct possibility that the SNP could hold the balance of power in the overall parliament, and then form a coalition with Labour. But they might refuse to vote on issues that only effect England/Wales, (as they currently do). In that situation, it is a possibility that the largest English only party could be the Tories. So they would be the majority party on some issues, but not in some others!

 

[toffee matt]

Do you mean with Tories being the minority government?

The Tories will win England at the next election as they've done every recent election bar "97 and "01

The Snp has a long standing policy on abstaining on Non Scottish issues and if Cameron gets his English votes proposal through we'd have a scenario where the governing party would be outnumbered on English issues. Essentially giving the Conservatives a veto on English only Legislation.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Kind of suggests that social mobility is a goal that's unobtainable, which is a bit depressing.

 

[Clint Planet]

I keep saying, it is an enormously deep-rooted problem and the class system is a massive part that problem - and yes, public schools underpin all of it. The hierarchical nature of the British class system is so out of step with egalitarianism, meritocracy and modernity and yet it is routinely tolerated.

I asked you on another thread last week where you stood on inequality and you said this:

"It isn't something I know a great deal about to be honest. I'm not sure it will ever be eradicated for the simple matter that people aren't equal."

Which was a genuinely thought-provoking answer because it made me think all sorts of things:

It made me think I was surprised that someone in your line of work would claim not to know much about it, as though it was quantum theory or Sub-Saharan dialectic nuance. You don't know much about this massive issue which is "inequality"? Okay, fair enough - I take you on your word but it did surprise me. It made me realise, too, that you think the aim of "addressing inequality" is the eradication of inequality and, since it "can't be eradicated" there's no point in worrying about it, much less trying, as if "inequality" was just one of those things. I'd say that even if one cannot achieve an ideal, the act of striving for it will make the situation better. But most of all it made me realise that all this time I've been talking about equality/inequality/whatever, you've viewed it all as some mad leftie wanting everyone to be the same - to have the same amount of money, the same car, the same housing, the same clothing and food and whatever.

But that isn't what I'm saying at all. I don't want everyone to be equal - I want them to have, as much as is possible, an equal chance in life. Very different.

Which takes us back to our perennial bone of contention - private schooling (and the class system, and lack of social mobility...). You see it as a matter of parental choice (as though their children are not actually human beings so need not be even considered in all of this) where as I see it as a matter of equal opportunites for the children.

Really, should children be held back by their parents' circumstances? Can we really, in all conscience, stand by and watch some kids get a knee-up just because, well, what..? That can't be right, surely.

There are invisible barriers at work in this country and not ones which we can easily rid ourselves of. To solve it requires radical solutions. I'm daring you now to call for the abolition of private schooling in the name of Britain and all that is good about her.

 

[tsubaki]

Kind of suggests that social mobility is a goal that's unobtainable, which is a bit depressing.

Perhaps - though one should point out that for large parts of the 20th century there was quite a bit of social mobility.

The problem that modern politics has is, of course, that the social mobility that was experienced during the 20th century had very little to do with the welfare state or direct government interaction, and rather more to do with opening up elite education to nearly everyone that had the ability (first via the grammar school system, and later by the university grant) without either encumbering them with debt or devaluing what they had obtained by having hundreds of thousands of other people of the same age get similar qualifications.

So if you want to get more social mobility, rather than ban private schooling it would make a lot more sense to just pay the best and brightest of "the poor" to go to Eton, Harrow etc and then on to Oxford and Cambridge.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

I keep saying, it is an enormously deep-rooted problem and the class system is a massive part that problem - and yes, public schools underpin all of it. The hierarchical nature of the British class system is so out of step with egalitarianism, meritocracy and modernity and yet it is routinely tolerated.

That's why I thought the RSA talk was interesting (even if sadly so), as social mobility seems very difficult to achieve around the world, even in egalitarian places like Sweden and supposedly equal places like China.

I asked you on another thread last week where you stood on inequality and you said this:

"It isn't something I know a great deal about to be honest. I'm not sure it will ever be eradicated for the simple matter that people aren't equal."

Which was a genuinely thought-provoking answer because it made me think all sorts of things:

It made me think I was surprised that someone in your line of work would claim not to know much about it, as though it was quantum theory or Sub-Saharan dialectic nuance. You don't know much about this massive issue which is "inequality"? Okay, fair enough - I take you on your word but it did surprise me. It made me realise, too, that you think the aim of "addressing inequality" is the eradication of inequality and, since it "can't be eradicated" there's no point in worrying about it, much less trying, as if "inequality" was just one of those things. I'd say that even if one cannot achieve an ideal, the act of striving for it will make the situation better. But most of all it made me realise that all this time I've been talking about equality/inequality/whatever, you've viewed it all as some mad leftie wanting everyone to be the same - to have the same amount of money, the same car, the same housing, the same clothing and food and whatever.

To coin Darwin, it's not the strongest but the most adaptable, and so I try and encourage organisations to have a lot of diverse thoughts at their disposal to make them adaptable. The records of success in this field are pretty awful, so it's probably reasonable to suggest that most organisations down the years have been pretty homogenous, first in identity terms, and latterly in idea terms.

Regarding inequality, I quite agree that having huge gaps is probably anything but beneficial, I'm just not sure that current (or even previous) steps to tackle this have worked at all. I mean the extended period of 0% interest rates has largely favoured owners of capital rather than working people. Globalisation, and to a large extent technology, has tended to favour owners of businesses rather than employees.

There are various arguments on either side of this (optimist vs pessimist), but I'm not sure there is anything approaching a consensus yet.

But that isn't what I'm saying at all. I don't want everyone to be equal - I want them to have, as much as is possible, an equal chance in life. Very different.

And I think, in terms of education at least, this has been achieved. Every smart phone owner has the worlds information at their finger tips, sitting there in their pockets. It really has never been a better time to learn things if you are so inclined. I mentioned a bit earlier in the thread about the positive deviance work of Richard Pascale and that would seem a good approach to take here, as there are clearly those from poor backgrounds who do succeed in school and subsequently in life. It is possible, so maybe we should be finding out from them what they do, how they manage this, and looking to spread those kind of behaviours and habits?

Which takes us back to our perennial bone of contention - private schooling (and the class system, and lack of social mobility...). You see it as a matter of parental choice (as though their children are not actually human beings so need not be even considered in all of this) where as I see it as a matter of equal opportunites for the children.

Really, should children be held back by their parents' circumstances? Can we really, in all conscience, stand by and watch some kids get a knee-up just because, well, what..? That can't be right, surely.

There are invisible barriers at work in this country and not ones which we can easily rid ourselves of. To solve it requires radical solutions. I'm daring you now to call for the abolition of private schooling in the name of Britain and all that is good about her.

I'm just not sure that's ever going to change. I mean if you eradicate private schools, I'm sure parents with means will look to compensate in other ways (private tutoring or something). That's inevitable I should think, and I don't think it's sensible to be trying to hamstring the wealthy as they're not really the issue here and will probably always find ways of using their wealth, their connections and their habits to help their children. I mean that's not exactly a bad thing really, is it?

Much better imo to focus instead on the kids from poor backgrounds that do achieve great things in life. Figure out what their secret sauce was and look to spread that far and wide.

The RSA talk seems to suggest that even that probably won't do much to boost social mobility. I was reading a recent paper looking at so called herd behaviour. I suspect this is something pretty intuitive, but it basically confirmed that most of us get our thoughts, ideas and behaviours from copying our neighbours rather than working out for ourselves the best way to be.

For what it's worth, when trying to change behaviour in organisations, the same tends to apply, with many firmly supporting the status quo. That's why positive deviants are so attractive because they've done some good things despite the system and environment they're in, so using them to try and influence the others is much less likely to raise the shackles.

 

[Clint Planet]

So if you want to get more social mobility, rather than ban private schooling it would make a lot more sense to just pay the best and brightest of "the poor" to go to Eton, Harrow etc and then on to Oxford and Cambridge.

The British class system, a huge obstacle to equality and social mobility, is bolstered and reinforced by the public school system, the monarchy, the nobility and the House of Lords. There is no place in a modern, forward-looking society for these archaic institutions. Chucking a few poor people into Eton won't solve a thing.

 

[The Cowboy]

I went to a comp. I went to Carmel College in St Helens. I got the grades I needed, and got into LJMU on a BA Business 4-year sandwich course (spent at an investment bank in London - booooo). That sandwich year opened the door to me returning to London after my degree, and it has developed into the career I have today. Had I chosen to (rather than going travelling in my mid-twenties) I could've done a CIMA/CFA and be earning serious bucks by now.

I come from Wigan and am the first of my family to go to uni. Background and privilege are not the only way you get to be successful in this country.

However, for that to become more commonplace, schools and employers need to be more intrinsically linked, get scholarships and YTS schemes going again, focus on the talents of the kids to encourage them to shine.

 

[tsubaki]

The British class system, a huge obstacle to equality and social mobility, is bolstered and reinforced by the public school system, the monarchy, the nobility and the House of Lords. There is no place in a modern, forward-looking society for these archaic institutions. Chucking a few poor people into Eton won't solve a thing.

It should perhaps be pointed out that the monarchy (or at least the Queen) has been better, less divisive and cheaper than any elected head of state could have been over the past 30 years, the unelected Lords has made better decisions than the elected Commons over the same time period, and the old nobility gave far more to the state than our current political ruling class does. Getting rid of the class system would be great, except for the fact that its hard to see how what replaced it would be any better.

Finally chucking a few people into Eton (though that was only a small part of what I was proposing) would do more to help social mobility than anything being done to help social mobility now.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

It should perhaps be pointed out that the monarchy (or at least the Queen) has been better, less divisive and cheaper than any elected head of state could have been over the past 30 years, the unelected Lords has made better decisions than the elected Commons over the same time period, and the old nobility gave far more to the state than our current political ruling class does. Getting rid of the class system would be great, except for the fact that its hard to see how what replaced it would be any better.

Finally chucking a few people into Eton (though that was only a small part of what I was proposing) would do more to help social mobility than anything being done to help social mobility now.

As was mentioned in the video, the various revolutions to that effect in China and Russia have actually done very little to change social mobility in either country.

 

[Seanjd]

It should perhaps be pointed out that the monarchy (or at least the Queen) has been better, less divisive and cheaper than any elected head of state could have been over the past 30 years, the unelected Lords has made better decisions than the elected Commons over the same time period, and the old nobility gave far more to the state than our current political ruling class does. Getting rid of the class system would be great, except for the fact that its hard to see how what replaced it would be any better.

Finally chucking a few people into Eton (though that was only a small part of what I was proposing) would do more to help social mobility than anything being done to help social mobility now.

Firstly, private schools such as Eton and Harrow are required to take a certain percentage of disadvantaged children, because as we know, that's what keeps their charity status

I would argue that it is incredibly offensive to suggest that we should simply hand pick the 'brightest' of the poor and put them into private schools. How on earth will that help the millions of children in comprehensive schools who will never get this opportunity? You will still see the front and back benches, top jobs and even British Olympians all coming predominantly from private schools.

 

[tsubaki]

I would argue that it is incredibly offensive to suggest that we should simply hand pick the 'brightest' of the poor and put them into private schools. How on earth will that help the millions of children in comprehensive schools who will never get this opportunity? You will still see the front and back benches, top jobs and even British Olympians all coming predominantly from private schools.

It is offensive, but of course it is less offensive than doing what we are doing now - which is of course leading to front and back benches being increasingly composed of those who went to private school, whilst everyone else gets left behind.

Also I would point out that putting smart poor kids in private school was just a small bit of what I was proposing, though even just that would have a considerable positive effect beyond those children selected if the selection system was based on academic achievement.

 

[Clint Planet]

It should perhaps be pointed out that the monarchy (or at least the Queen) has been better, less divisive and cheaper than any elected head of state could have been over the past 30 years, the unelected Lords has made better decisions than the elected Commons over the same time period, and the old nobility gave far more to the state than our current political ruling class does.

All of which would be highly debatable if it weren't irrelevant to my point.