What is happening to the Labour Party?

[DaveO]

You're missing the point. No-one is saying there would be equal achievement. That's the point there never will be nor should there ever be. Where is the incentive if there is?

There never will be equal opportunity. How can there be? For example how do you ensure that a childs parents confer the same "benefit" onto each and every child? You cannot.

However, there are things that we can do to increase equal opportunity. Classic case is the Grammar school system (which the Socialists in the North decimated).

Under this system bright children were able to competete with publically educated children.

What exactly is wrong with competing for the good jobs? I don't understand why you think this is in any way bad? The key thing is that we should all have the opportunity (as far as this is possible).

I think it is you who is missing the point. You should read what Tristram Hunt says about what Labour should be about and it is all equal opportunity but nothing about the reality of that. Like I said it is a con.

I don't think you understand that basic economics means if there was 100% equal opportunity and 100% achievement by everyone we'd still end up with a small percentage able to earn high wages, some in the middle and lots of people on zero hours contracts with no job security and a similar number of unemployed. The fact we don't have equal opportunity doesn't change that and all it does is hide the myth that if you give people equal opportunity it's job done and we can all be happy.

When bankers are paid millions in bonuses it is not money magic'ed up out of thin air. If they have millions, you have less. That is economics. The more distorted the distribution of wealth becomes the more people will find it simply impossible to rise up regardless of opportunity.

As to incentive there is nothing in socialism that says you can't earn a decent salary or aspire to a good job but they key difference between socialism and "opportunism" is a recognition that not everyone can do that but crucially if they can't and yet add value to society then people are not left in a pit of poverty.

You'd soon moan if the bin men went on strike or the cleaners at the hospital. These people do valuable jobs so just because they can't (for whatever reason) be teachers or lawyers should not mean they have to suffer poor wages and conditions.

It's also not about not competing for good jobs. You can do that but you have to recognise it is impossible for all to have good jobs not because they aren't capable of competing but there simply are not enough good jobs. The economy will not support 25 million software engineers being paid £50K and up!

So you can go one of two ways. You can pay the elite (and I don't just mean CEO's but people in the better jobs) an ever increasing amount of money or you can distribute the money in the economy more evenly by paying those at the bottom a decent wage such as the real living wage (for starters) not Osborne's sham of one.

If you do the former then you must pay those at the bottom less. That is where we have been heading for quite a while and it leads to unrest and the rise of extremism.

As to Grammar schools don't get me started, the last thing they did was create opportunity. I know I went through that system.

All they did was concentrate the better teachers in the Grammar schools and meant an arbitrary number of kids got picked to go each year. If one year 200 kids passed the 11 plus but there were 100 places, then 100 missed out. If the year after only 50 passed , 100 still went!

Selection at 11 was stupid. Far better if you want equal opportunity to give everyone the same chance, not split off an arbitrary number based on a test some kids will be mature enough academically to handle at 11 while others won't be.

The reality of that system was Grammar schools went down an academic path teaching things like Latin and Chemistry where Secondary Modern's didn't even offer some subjects and you were herded toward a vocational path whether you were that way inclined or not. Future decided at age 11! Not a bright idea.

[cpwigan]

Oh damn, the Labour party is screwed. I only once hoped a politician died, maybe two now.

[cpwigan]

Dave you old communist

[Wintergreen]

You're missing the point. No-one is saying there would be equal achievement. That's the point there never will be nor should there ever be. Where is the incentive if there is?

There never will be equal opportunity. How can there be? For example how do you ensure that a childs parents confer the same "benefit" onto each and every child? You cannot.

However, there are things that we can do to increase equal opportunity. Classic case is the Grammar school system (which the Socialists in the North decimated).

Under this system bright children were able to competete with publically educated children.

What exactly is wrong with competing for the good jobs? I don't understand why you think this is in any way bad? The key thing is that we should all have the opportunity (as far as this is possible).

I think it is you who is missing the point. You should read what Tristram Hunt says about what Labour should be about and it is all equal opportunity but nothing about the reality of that. Like I said it is a con.

I don't think you understand that basic economics means if there was 100% equal opportunity and 100% achievement by everyone we'd still end up with a small percentage able to earn high wages, some in the middle and lots of people on zero hours contracts with no job security and a similar number of unemployed. The fact we don't have equal opportunity doesn't change that and all it does is hide the myth that if you give people equal opportunity it's job done and we can all be happy.

When bankers are paid millions in bonuses it is not money magic'ed up out of thin air. If they have millions, you have less. That is economics. The more distorted the distribution of wealth becomes the more people will find it simply impossible to rise up regardless of opportunity.

As to incentive there is nothing in socialism that says you can't earn a decent salary or aspire to a good job but they key difference between socialism and "opportunism" is a recognition that not everyone can do that but crucially if they can't and yet add value to society then people are not left in a pit of poverty.

You'd soon moan if the bin men went on strike or the cleaners at the hospital. These people do valuable jobs so just because they can't (for whatever reason) be teachers or lawyers should not mean they have to suffer poor wages and conditions.

It's also not about not competing for good jobs. You can do that but you have to recognise it is impossible for all to have good jobs not because they aren't capable of competing but there simply are not enough good jobs. The economy will not support 25 million software engineers being paid £50K and up!

So you can go one of two ways. You can pay the elite (and I don't just mean CEO's but people in the better jobs) an ever increasing amount of money or you can distribute the money in the economy more evenly by paying those at the bottom a decent wage such as the real living wage (for starters) not Osborne's sham of one.

If you do the former then you must pay those at the bottom less. That is where we have been heading for quite a while and it leads to unrest and the rise of extremism.

As to Grammar schools don't get me started, the last thing they did was create opportunity. I know I went through that system.

All they did was concentrate the better teachers in the Grammar schools and meant an arbitrary number of kids got picked to go each year. If one year 200 kids passed the 11 plus but there were 100 places, then 100 missed out. If the year after only 50 passed , 100 still went!

Selection at 11 was stupid. Far better if you want equal opportunity to give everyone the same chance, not split off an arbitrary number based on a test some kids will be mature enough academically to handle at 11 while others won't be.

The reality of that system was Grammar schools went down an academic path teaching things like Latin and Chemistry where Secondary Modern's didn't even offer some subjects and you were herded toward a vocational path whether you were that way inclined or not. Future decided at age 11! Not a bright idea.

Tbh in my experience most people's academic ability can be determined at 11.

You miss the point again I fear, on the economic argument. I favour a system where people can achieve more than others through a combination of hard work, luck and intelligence. Imo the constant striving for the above will result in progress and increased living standards for all. Sure those at the top gain most but that is their reward. Those at the bottom gain too.

If you need a case study, I would suggest Western Civilisation in the last 200 years.

Those at the bottom of society now sit on their obese arses, eating pizza and watching Jeremy Kyle.

Those at the bottom of society 200 years ago starved to death.

Go figure.

[Owd Codger]

You're missing the point. No-one is saying there would be equal achievement. That's the point there never will be nor should there ever be. Where is the incentive if there is?

There never will be equal opportunity. How can there be? For example how do you ensure that a childs parents confer the same "benefit" onto each and every child? You cannot.

However, there are things that we can do to increase equal opportunity. Classic case is the Grammar school system (which the Socialists in the North decimated).

Under this system bright children were able to competete with publically educated children.

What exactly is wrong with competing for the good jobs? I don't understand why you think this is in any way bad? The key thing is that we should all have the opportunity (as far as this is possible).

I think it is you who is missing the point. You should read what Tristram Hunt says about what Labour should be about and it is all equal opportunity but nothing about the reality of that. Like I said it is a con.

I don't think you understand that basic economics means if there was 100% equal opportunity and 100% achievement by everyone we'd still end up with a small percentage able to earn high wages, some in the middle and lots of people on zero hours contracts with no job security and a similar number of unemployed. The fact we don't have equal opportunity doesn't change that and all it does is hide the myth that if you give people equal opportunity it's job done and we can all be happy.

When bankers are paid millions in bonuses it is not money magic'ed up out of thin air. If they have millions, you have less. That is economics. The more distorted the distribution of wealth becomes the more people will find it simply impossible to rise up regardless of opportunity.

As to incentive there is nothing in socialism that says you can't earn a decent salary or aspire to a good job but they key difference between socialism and "opportunism" is a recognition that not everyone can do that but crucially if they can't and yet add value to society then people are not left in a pit of poverty.

You'd soon moan if the bin men went on strike or the cleaners at the hospital. These people do valuable jobs so just because they can't (for whatever reason) be teachers or lawyers should not mean they have to suffer poor wages and conditions.

It's also not about not competing for good jobs. You can do that but you have to recognise it is impossible for all to have good jobs not because they aren't capable of competing but there simply are not enough good jobs. The economy will not support 25 million software engineers being paid £50K and up!

So you can go one of two ways. You can pay the elite (and I don't just mean CEO's but people in the better jobs) an ever increasing amount of money or you can distribute the money in the economy more evenly by paying those at the bottom a decent wage such as the real living wage (for starters) not Osborne's sham of one.

If you do the former then you must pay those at the bottom less. That is where we have been heading for quite a while and it leads to unrest and the rise of extremism.

As to Grammar schools don't get me started, the last thing they did was create opportunity. I know I went through that system.

All they did was concentrate the better teachers in the Grammar schools and meant an arbitrary number of kids got picked to go each year. If one year 200 kids passed the 11 plus but there were 100 places, then 100 missed out. If the year after only 50 passed , 100 still went!

Selection at 11 was stupid. Far better if you want equal opportunity to give everyone the same chance, not split off an arbitrary number based on a test some kids will be mature enough academically to handle at 11 while others won't be.

The reality of that system was Grammar schools went down an academic path teaching things like Latin and Chemistry where Secondary Modern's didn't even offer some subjects and you were herded toward a vocational path whether you were that way inclined or not. Future decided at age 11! Not a bright idea.

Correct Dave O, many kids when I was at school, never matured in academic subjects until after eleven while others never got the chance to sit the eleven plus because their parents never put their name forward for it. Most lads at my school prior to eleven were only interested in playing sport like Cricket, Football, Rugby etc.

My local Grammar School also taught Biology and I think some of them decided to practice the lessons about the birth process judging by the number of the girls that got pregnant.

And unless you any inkling of being a Doctor, Dentist or Chemist, what use was Latin and the works of Virgil?

The Labour Government of the time did right by scrapping the eleven plus and giving all kids a equal chance in Education.

If people want their kids to have a private education, they can still do so by sending them to a fee paying school. Why should the tax payer pay for a selective system designed for a minority?

[cpwigan]

Not really WG. I have seen many young people in the last decade reach maturity post 16 (Quite worrying really) and becme excellent students thereafter.

[Owd Codger]

Not really WG. I have seen many young people in the last decade reach maturity post 16 (Quite worrying really) and becme excellent students thereafter.

Correct cpwigan, but the same time many have gained degrees and other qualifications only to find themselves stacking shelves in a Supermarket due to having to many people applying for less jobs where decent pay and conditions are involved.

And it will go worse as more people have children and jobs go less as a result of automation and technology designed to cut out the use of human employment.

Unless Government take punitive action on the control of immigration, what will be the use of a good education for many in the future?

[Caboosegg]

Tbh in my experience most people's academic ability can be determined at 11.

Wow, what a completely Arrogant and condescending statement to make.

lets ignore pupil maturity, what the current curriculum is
and how grades/ability are determined shall we? all factors that can effect a Students perceived Academic Ability!

[Wintergreen]

Tbh in my experience most people's academic ability can be determined at 11.

Wow, what a completely Arrogant and condescending statement to make.

lets ignore pupil maturity, what the current curriculum is
and how grades/ability are determined shall we? all factors that can effect a Students perceived Academic Ability!

Don't think it's either of them. In my experience the kids in the class that were bright at 11 were also those who were bright at 18. *shrugs*

[Wintergreen]

You're missing the point. No-one is saying there would be equal achievement. That's the point there never will be nor should there ever be. Where is the incentive if there is?

There never will be equal opportunity. How can there be? For example how do you ensure that a childs parents confer the same "benefit" onto each and every child? You cannot.

However, there are things that we can do to increase equal opportunity. Classic case is the Grammar school system (which the Socialists in the North decimated).

Under this system bright children were able to competete with publically educated children.

What exactly is wrong with competing for the good jobs? I don't understand why you think this is in any way bad? The key thing is that we should all have the opportunity (as far as this is possible).

I think it is you who is missing the point. You should read what Tristram Hunt says about what Labour should be about and it is all equal opportunity but nothing about the reality of that. Like I said it is a con.

I don't think you understand that basic economics means if there was 100% equal opportunity and 100% achievement by everyone we'd still end up with a small percentage able to earn high wages, some in the middle and lots of people on zero hours contracts with no job security and a similar number of unemployed. The fact we don't have equal opportunity doesn't change that and all it does is hide the myth that if you give people equal opportunity it's job done and we can all be happy.

When bankers are paid millions in bonuses it is not money magic'ed up out of thin air. If they have millions, you have less. That is economics. The more distorted the distribution of wealth becomes the more people will find it simply impossible to rise up regardless of opportunity.

As to incentive there is nothing in socialism that says you can't earn a decent salary or aspire to a good job but they key difference between socialism and "opportunism" is a recognition that not everyone can do that but crucially if they can't and yet add value to society then people are not left in a pit of poverty.

You'd soon moan if the bin men went on strike or the cleaners at the hospital. These people do valuable jobs so just because they can't (for whatever reason) be teachers or lawyers should not mean they have to suffer poor wages and conditions.

It's also not about not competing for good jobs. You can do that but you have to recognise it is impossible for all to have good jobs not because they aren't capable of competing but there simply are not enough good jobs. The economy will not support 25 million software engineers being paid £50K and up!

So you can go one of two ways. You can pay the elite (and I don't just mean CEO's but people in the better jobs) an ever increasing amount of money or you can distribute the money in the economy more evenly by paying those at the bottom a decent wage such as the real living wage (for starters) not Osborne's sham of one.

If you do the former then you must pay those at the bottom less. That is where we have been heading for quite a while and it leads to unrest and the rise of extremism.

As to Grammar schools don't get me started, the last thing they did was create opportunity. I know I went through that system.

All they did was concentrate the better teachers in the Grammar schools and meant an arbitrary number of kids got picked to go each year. If one year 200 kids passed the 11 plus but there were 100 places, then 100 missed out. If the year after only 50 passed , 100 still went!

Selection at 11 was stupid. Far better if you want equal opportunity to give everyone the same chance, not split off an arbitrary number based on a test some kids will be mature enough academically to handle at 11 while others won't be.

The reality of that system was Grammar schools went down an academic path teaching things like Latin and Chemistry where Secondary Modern's didn't even offer some subjects and you were herded toward a vocational path whether you were that way inclined or not. Future decided at age 11! Not a bright idea.

Firstly I am genuinely interested in someone who defends Socialism. For me it doesn't make any sense so I am especially interested in hearing the argument that it does.

However.........

Your argument still doesn't stack up DaveO.

I agree with your point re binmen. Absolutely essential job but surely it's the market that determines wages?

If the market means that lawyers get paid X and binmen Y then surely that is that. Demand and supply.

In terms of wealth, I think you need to re-learn Economics (and I don't mean that in an insulting way). Economics is NOT a zero sum gain as you suggest. Absolutely there are issues with the Capitalist system, but that is not one of them. Are you honestly trying to suggest that the standards of living in 2016 are the same as those in 1960?
On any measure that you care to use the answer surely must be no?

So putting that to one side, your idea of "Socialism" is what? A restriction on pay to close the "gap". Presumably this would extend to Footballers, Cricketers, dare I say RL players? Of course it would have to also cover endorsements, sponsorship or any other "payment in kind".

Or is it a minimum wage to close the gap? Oh hang on we already have one of those. So what? degree? So Socialism vs Capitalism is all about degree is it?

Socialism has failed in the past for many reasons. Jeez half of Eastern Europe couldn't wait to get into the EU to condemn it to the past! You are presumably old enough to remember the power cuts in the 1970's? Imagine that today?!!!

"Good old" British Rail (well it was Old at least I suppose).

Leyland striking at will (whilst those "silly people in Japan" were working hard to develop their industry....now how did that work out for the 2 countries..?

Or would you prefer the country being held to randsom by the miners? Sensible deals offered being turned down by some idiot TU representative (who was doing very nicely out of his lot thank you very much), while the real people who suffered were those he was supposed to represent?


There are a lot of things wrong with Capitalism. I am no fan of the 7 figure salaries being banded around in the city but equally I have not seen a sensible argument for the alternative. Happy to be convinced otherwise.