Balanced Question Time panel tonight - of course not! VOL 2
Discussion
Huge sums are gifted to charity by the wealthy, money and property, in lifetime and by testament. If the system were re-balanced to favour the less well off there would presumably be fewer such returns and the needy would be worse off. Unless, of course, the high achievers recovered their previous mainly deserved exalted position.
crankedup said:
This conveniently overlooks the fact that inequality still exists in life chances. These are apparent from school choice for children. the ability to pay which carries through to Uni. Private education is great, if persons are in the financial position to afford that education.
Inequality exists everywhere though. Some people are smart, good looking, athletic, healthy, others are not. Some have parents that care, some do not. 'Equality' as the left see it, is impossible. That doesnt mean we cant improve things of course. But when everybody gets free healthcare and a free education I think the system is overwhelmingly fair and equal. Otherwise, how do kids from poor areas ever do well?
AstonZagato said:
Agreed. But I would also include in those tweaks, an imprecation to those that discuss inequalities of opportunity to make it clearer that inequality of opportunity does not lead to inequality of outcome, any more than equality of opportunity will lead to equality of outcome. They should emphasise that you can make it today. You can make, to a certain extent, your own luck and cut a path for yourself to some measure of success.The system is NOT totally rigged against you by some faceless elite.
The defining characteristics of success include: hard work, intellect, willingness to make difficult choices, blind luck, academic achievement, risk appetite, support/mentoring. You probably only need three of those. The last three are easier to attain, if you are from a wealthy background. The first three are nothing to do with wealth.
If you tell people they haven't succeeded because the system is rigged against them, then no-one takes personal responsibility for bettering themselves intellectually or financially. If you want to condemn people to poor outcomes, engendering a sense of hopelessness and oppression is the surest way to ensure they fail.
Those that are most passionate about equality of opportunity often view it as a route to equality of outcome (which it never will be). Also, it is easier to believe that one hasn't become rich due to "the system" than that one hasn't succeeded because they have made poor choices or lack the ability.
People unfortunately then can make political careers out of this misery (though equally, one can make political careers out of keeping the structural imbalances that cosset the children of the middle classes).
If I understood what you meant by imprecation I may have been able to answer properly.The defining characteristics of success include: hard work, intellect, willingness to make difficult choices, blind luck, academic achievement, risk appetite, support/mentoring. You probably only need three of those. The last three are easier to attain, if you are from a wealthy background. The first three are nothing to do with wealth.
If you tell people they haven't succeeded because the system is rigged against them, then no-one takes personal responsibility for bettering themselves intellectually or financially. If you want to condemn people to poor outcomes, engendering a sense of hopelessness and oppression is the surest way to ensure they fail.
Those that are most passionate about equality of opportunity often view it as a route to equality of outcome (which it never will be). Also, it is easier to believe that one hasn't become rich due to "the system" than that one hasn't succeeded because they have made poor choices or lack the ability.
People unfortunately then can make political careers out of this misery (though equally, one can make political careers out of keeping the structural imbalances that cosset the children of the middle classes).
As it is I would agree that it's important to give a balanced argument.
skahigh said:
I've been wondering for a while about the leave/remain split of panelists on QT as it almost always seems to be 3/2 in favour of remain.
Looks like someone's actually done the maths on this.
Click
That deserves its own thread or at least adding to the BBC bias thread. You can't argue with the facts, is it part of a considered and corrosive process in place, or just indicative of the BBC bias...Looks like someone's actually done the maths on this.
Click
covmutley said:
crankedup said:
This conveniently overlooks the fact that inequality still exists in life chances. These are apparent from school choice for children. the ability to pay which carries through to Uni. Private education is great, if persons are in the financial position to afford that education.
Inequality exists everywhere though. Some people are smart, good looking, athletic, healthy, others are not. Some have parents that care, some do not. 'Equality' as the left see it, is impossible. That doesnt mean we cant improve things of course. But when everybody gets free healthcare and a free education I think the system is overwhelmingly fair and equal. Otherwise, how do kids from poor areas ever do well?
crankedup said:
covmutley said:
crankedup said:
This conveniently overlooks the fact that inequality still exists in life chances. These are apparent from school choice for children. the ability to pay which carries through to Uni. Private education is great, if persons are in the financial position to afford that education.
Inequality exists everywhere though. Some people are smart, good looking, athletic, healthy, others are not. Some have parents that care, some do not. 'Equality' as the left see it, is impossible. That doesnt mean we cant improve things of course. But when everybody gets free healthcare and a free education I think the system is overwhelmingly fair and equal. Otherwise, how do kids from poor areas ever do well?
The easy way to "solve" it is to have a lowest common denominator approach and trash the best schools to make them the same as the bad schools. Bus the teachers and some of the pupils for miles. But that is a cut-off-nose-to-spite-face solution. It probably achieves little for the lower performing pupils and harms the best performing (who have done nothing to deserve being brought down in life).
The old system of Grammar and Secondary Modern schools (and assisted places to private schools) seemed to achieve a great deal more social mobility than the current system (though from an educational point of view, it is regarded as a poor solution). However, it creates an even more stark divide in opportunity and outcome (though not so much on the lines of wealth).
AstonZagato said:
IThe old system of Grammar and Secondary Modern schools (and assisted places to private schools) seemed to achieve a great deal more social mobility than the current system (though from an educational point of view, it is regarded as a poor solution). However, it creates an even more stark divide in opportunity and outcome (though not so much on the lines of wealth).
So the obvious solution is to make every school a grammar school.Dr Jekyll said:
AstonZagato said:
IThe old system of Grammar and Secondary Modern schools (and assisted places to private schools) seemed to achieve a great deal more social mobility than the current system (though from an educational point of view, it is regarded as a poor solution). However, it creates an even more stark divide in opportunity and outcome (though not so much on the lines of wealth).
So the obvious solution is to make every school a grammar school.
barrel and scraping.
BlackLabel said:
But if you put solar panels on your roof, or have a wind turbine - you can actually sell back to the electricity companies....
I want to charge Auntie for a hoofing big amount of my licence fee back to watch this tosh.
Jesus wept.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff