Is there anything wrong with having a private GP? If so, why?
You would have to ask Rishi that, since he is the one who seems ashamed of it.
He had three routes with integrity. One was to use the NHS while he was a high profile politician. One was to come up with a solid explanation, as OGH has done above. The third was to not enter politics. Not choosing any of those does make him look like a worse person.
And if he had to go down this path, he should have said "personal matter" not "private matter".
I disagree - it's a trap and there is no answer that won't draw bile from those who want to be bilious.
(a) Yes, I go private - Oh, NHS not good enough for you? How the hell can you be in charge of something you don't even trust to use?
(b) Lie - get found out (as has been shown) - Why did you lie?
What's wrong with Stuartinromford's first option, not going private whilst a prominent politician? It's not as if the PM's going to struggle to get an NHS appointment if he needed one.
Because its performative nonsense, thats why. Should a politician only sit in rubbish seats at football (come on Keir, get out of that box)? Of only drive rubbish cars? And as for schooling - no more private schools for the kids. That would upset quite a few labour folk.
I don't have a problem with rich people having nicer stuff. I'm richer than most people, I live in a nice big house, drive a decent sized car, had a nice long haul holiday over Christmas etc. I'm very grateful and I pay my taxes and I don't feel bad about it. But for me things like education and health are in a different class, because these are rights and everyone should have the best quality service that the country can afford. I don't think it's right that rich people can jump the queue to get operations before other people, and I don't think that rich people's kids should get better schools than other children. And I don't trust politicians who tell us they are going to deliver the best service possible and fund it appropriately, but refuse to use it themselves. To me the two just seem contradictory and I can't trust a politician like that. Of course other people feel differently about these things, as is their right.
How on earth do you think you would implement that?
Even if you outlawed them in this country, would you try to stop people from travelling abroad for medical treatment, or sending their children to private schools in other countries? Would you override devolution and enforce your policy across the whole UK?
Er, I already commented down thread that I'm not talking about banning things! Perhaps you are an instinctive authoritarian who wants to ban everything that you disapprove of, but I'm a liberal. People are free to do whatever the hell they like. But if you use private healthcare and schools then I will need a lot of persuading that you have the interests of their state equivalents close to your heart, and I probably won't vote for you, because I want the NHS and our schools to get the best possible funding and to deliver the best possible service for all of us.
Crops up a lot, this, and I have a standing order sentence which you can use if you like.
"I assess private schools as net harmful to society but it's only an opinion and I'm not saying they should be illegal."
Mind you, if I was Prez with a landslide and a 10 year term ...
But it's completely hypocritical. Would you or @OnlyLivingBoy refrain from taking/sending your children on a culturally enriching holiday because some people can't afford it?
There isn't a shred of hypocrisy. You're doing that reductive exaggeration strawman thing. It's like me saying to you - if you're cool with people buying educational privilege for their kids would you be in favour of an open market in body parts?
Yes. Why should there not be an open market in body parts?
Donations are important, and I'm on the organ donor list, but if someone wants to sell a kidney that should be their choice. Their body, their choice.
Ah it's you. This is what happens when you enshrine a principle and force yourself to agree with every single one of its implications. You end up arguing for an open market in body parts.
I don't force myself to agree with every one of its implications. I'm willing to break my principles and support something that goes against my principles, where it suits. EG I supported the smoking ban and still do. My principles say that anyone who wants to have a building where people smoke inside, that should be their choice and anyone who disagrees can go elsewhere - but for purely selfish reasons I'm willing to set aside my principles and say that I prefer no smoking indoors and let the smokers go elsewhere instead. There's no principle behind my view there, I know that I'm going against my liberal principles in supporting a smoking ban but I don't care.
I'm OK with an open market in body parts, because I see no harm in it. If someone is willing to sell a kidney, that should be their choice.
No harm in poor people selling their arms and legs in order to pay the leccy? C'mon. Let's park this since you can't be serious.
More taken by your other point - on the smoking ban. You're saying you support it even though you feel it's wrong. That's interesting. People don't usually admit to this but it does happen a lot imo. That sort of doublethink is essential to get by in this world.
Who says its only poor people who'd sell body parts, if it were an option? It could be wealthy or middle income people too. Frankly why people choose to do something, is up to them.
I don't believe in victimless crimes. If someone wants to sell something of theirs, and does so knowingly, then who is the victim? And if there's no victim, why should it be illegal?
I'm not aware of people donating arms and legs already today, so your position is one of reductio ad absurdum anyway, but if I wanted to donate a kidney to save my brother's life, that would be perfectly legal. But if someone wanted to sell theirs to eg fund a holiday, or a deposit on a home, or quite frankly anything else that's up to them, and someone wanted to pay in order to save their or their relative's life, then that is illegal. Why? Why should directed donations be legal, but paid for ones not be?
We're not having an open market in body parts and that's the end of it.
Ah, I see we're in for another day of anti-trans hate. Situation normal.
I’m surprised you, of all people, are illustrating the point. It’s not just women’s rights Trans activists are harming. They are hurting trans peoples rights too by their “no debate” and sometimes violent shutting down of any attempt to discuss it.
I'm not illustrating your point - at least, as I read your point. Do you really think 'trans activists' have caused the deluge of anti-trans stuff in the media and online? As an example. when did you last post something supporting trans people, instead of a litany of negativity towards them?
I don't see myself as an 'activist' - I'm just someone who has known a few trans people, a couple of whom were very good friends. I'd argue *you* are an activist - as it seems you feel the need to post negative sh*t about them all the time. It's just that you're a negative activist.
If there is a deluge of anti trans stuff in the media please link to some examples, so we can see if it really anti trans or not.
The number of trans people in your life seems to make you a statistical outlier.
"The number of trans people in your life seems to make you a statistical outlier."
Perhaps. Perhaps not. You'd be surprising how hard it can be to tell an individual is trans. And IME, the longer they are trans, and the older they get, the harder it is to tell. And despite what some may say, women cannot automagically 'tell' when someone is male or trans. At least the ones I've asked cannot.
As for the articles: I might suggest you look at the following as an example of a constant stream of negativity. Can you point to an article there that says: "Hey look, this trans person has done something cool!" ?
Are you expecting the Daily Mail to be posting positive articles about anything at all? I think I may have found your problem.
The issue with the trans debate that puts me off is that people on both sides can be a bit all or nothing about it. For me the position I have settled upon is that people who are trans should be treated with respect and care, and so long as it doesn't cause any safeguarding issues should be treated as the gender they identify as - and by any names or pronouns they prefer. Where safeguarding is a concern, then sex should trump gender identity.
I'd have gone with the Telegraph, except I don't have a subscription to link to articles. I do get some of my dad's cast-offs, though.
The tragedy of this 'debate' is that often people are closer together than it seems. As an example, I think it's right for sports to exclude trans men - but only on safety grounds, and the default should be for inclusion. The Caster Semenya case, although not about trans, shows the problems that can occur with exclusions. (*)
In addition, my view is that it is right that someone wanting to transition should live their lives in their new identity for a period, and am wary of making it easier (though could be convinced by evidence). It is a major change that can have lifelong effects, so it is important that they are sure what they are doing. Then again, there are many other things people do that have lifelong consequences that get done without any questions.
In this, I'm probably not too far away from the position of some on here who see themselves on the other side of the debate.
But it should not be made harder to transition, either. And that's where this ridiculous stuff about public toilets is important, as if some have their way, it would be next to impossible to transition. Which I think is actually what some people want.
The thing that really gets me though, is the 'othering' of trans people. The continuous insinuations that they are somehow a 'threat', or a minority and therefore do not matter. We've all seen that road travelled before, and it often ends poorly.
As ever, terminology is a big issue in this. 'Trans' can mean many things, from a transvestite to transsexual. It can be the woman in her sixties who was born Larry, but has been Mary for forty years. Or Eddie Izzard.
(*) Anyway, top athletes are all freaks of nature anyway, people who have won the genetic lottery.
I don't see much of an insinuation that trans people are a threat.
What I do see is people objecting that violating safeguarding can be a threat. Which it can be, that is why safeguarding existed in the first place.
Which is why I have my line drawn as treat trans people with respect, but don't violate safeguarding, where the safeguarding exists for good reasons. That should be the reasonable proposal that keeps everyone safe, even if it doesn't make any extremist 100% happy.
People have been bludgeoned to death with hammers. Let us treat everyone who uses a hammer as a criminal and do not try telling me that only a tiny percentage of hammer users are murderers!
We need to stamp this out!!!! Public safety demands it.
Sorry but hammers suits my point not yours.
If you want to go to B&Q and buy a hammer and take it home, then you are free to do so.
If you want to get a hammer and take it in your bag with you to Manchester Airport or the MEN Arena then security may stop you and say that its not allowed, as carrying that violates their safeguarding procedures.
Nobody sane is saying to stamp out hammers/trans people. What should happen is sensible safeguarding - have a hammer in your toolbox, that's not an issue, but don't expect to be able to board a plane or enter an arena with it. Have a penis and call yourself her/Jane, that's not an issue for me, but if you want to enter a female-only rape crisis centre then it might be an issue.
Safeguarding should be taken seriously, but sensitively.
It should be, but it is fast becoming another weapon in the crossfire war between opposing sides. Something that is becoming more and more common these days.
The internet has allowed some really good things to happen, but the social media side of it is, all too often, an open pipeline into the sewers that some people have for minds.
Yes the all or nothing nature of the internet and Twitter especially is a problem, hence why I dislike that and said that from the start we should ideally IMHO reject that and go with sensible policies instead. Give as much flexibility and care as we can, but don't violate safeguarding where it matters.
If someone wants to be called "they" that is not a safeguarding concern. Anyone who objects to that is being silly, and anyone who objects on the grounds that its a plural word only is both categorically wrong and silly.
If someone wants to go into protected grounds, then that needs to be treated sensitively and sensibly, not a blanket policy.
Agree, but public toilets are not protected grounds.
And when it comes to other things, such as refuges, then there needs to be suitable accommodation for trans people as well. Trans people (and men) can need refuge as well.
I said earlier, I don't especially care about public toilets. Though refuges/prisons/sports etc can be protected and that can be where safeguarding matters far more.
Yes there should be suitable accommodation for trans people in refuges, there should be suitable accommodation for men, and there should be suitable accommodation for women. These might not all be in the same place though. A women's-only refuge that only offers support for women, which excludes both men and trans individuals, is not a problem so long as suitable support exists for male and trans individuals elsewhere.
We have existed a long time with both female-only refuges, and male victims, and the male victims can't go to the female refuges. Its not ideal, but its messy and fits the safeguarding issues, the support needs to be offered elsewhere for males and there's no reason that can't apply to trans too.
The main problem with public toilets is that most of them have been shut and the ones that haven't are filthy. That's a far bigger problem than anything trans related and a small example of how these hysterical culture war shouting matches crowd out discussion of more substantive issues.
I now take raising the issue of public toilets as a warning sign of possible bad faith in these sorts of discussions. It's a complete red herring compared to more serious issues surrounding prisons, hospitals, school trips, good manners, respect, privacy, etc.
I'm not sure the same can be said for the US, but in this country the issue of toilets seems to be brought up more by supporters of the trans orthodoxy than its opponents.
Sky reporting all US flights grounded due to computer outage
Time to go back to pen and paper.
Sounds like it’s back up and running now - the issue was the NOTAM system crashed, which contains messages for pilots that they are required to know before they take off. Long-haul departures resumed a few minutes ago, but there’s lots of planes in the sky that need to land or have diverted elsewhere.
Probably a couple of days of chaos incoming, before things get back to whatever is considered normal.
Is there anything wrong with having a private GP? If so, why?
You would have to ask Rishi that, since he is the one who seems ashamed of it.
He had three routes with integrity. One was to use the NHS while he was a high profile politician. One was to come up with a solid explanation, as OGH has done above. The third was to not enter politics. Not choosing any of those does make him look like a worse person.
And if he had to go down this path, he should have said "personal matter" not "private matter".
I disagree - it's a trap and there is no answer that won't draw bile from those who want to be bilious.
(a) Yes, I go private - Oh, NHS not good enough for you? How the hell can you be in charge of something you don't even trust to use?
(b) Lie - get found out (as has been shown) - Why did you lie?
What's wrong with Stuartinromford's first option, not going private whilst a prominent politician? It's not as if the PM's going to struggle to get an NHS appointment if he needed one.
Because its performative nonsense, thats why. Should a politician only sit in rubbish seats at football (come on Keir, get out of that box)? Of only drive rubbish cars? And as for schooling - no more private schools for the kids. That would upset quite a few labour folk.
I don't have a problem with rich people having nicer stuff. I'm richer than most people, I live in a nice big house, drive a decent sized car, had a nice long haul holiday over Christmas etc. I'm very grateful and I pay my taxes and I don't feel bad about it. But for me things like education and health are in a different class, because these are rights and everyone should have the best quality service that the country can afford. I don't think it's right that rich people can jump the queue to get operations before other people, and I don't think that rich people's kids should get better schools than other children. And I don't trust politicians who tell us they are going to deliver the best service possible and fund it appropriately, but refuse to use it themselves. To me the two just seem contradictory and I can't trust a politician like that. Of course other people feel differently about these things, as is their right.
Pretty much my view too. With money comes all sorts of pleasures and privileges - which is fine - but what money shouldn't be able to buy is educational advantage or better essential healthcare
For me the schools point is the bigger one since the more that parental bank balance features there, the greater is the violation of the ideal of equal opportunities. So I feel more strongly about private schools than I do about private health.
Wading in because I normally agree with you & onlylivingboy but here I differ... I see healthcare as a more essential right than education. I am less tolerant of inequities in healthcare.
For education - I want everyone to get a pretty high standard level of provision, but beyond that I'm okay with there being some inequality based on ability, desire to learn, prioritization of parents etc.
16 or 18 years cut-off seems reasonable to me as the state having set you up okay. And parents deciding to hire a tutor or teach their own children to read is reasonable to me, even though I am sure it is unfair and introduces inequality. Even private schools are fine, although they should lose tax privileges.
For health - I want everyone to get access to the best. I know there are cost limitations at a certain point, but I really hate hate hate the idea that someone is wealthy enough to get cancer drugs to prolong their life and someone else isn't.
Generally agree with you. But is it a given that if you prevented the wealthy buying cancer drugs privately it would make them any more available on the NHS? That is a genuine question not an assertion. I don't know.
If your position is that if they can only be afforded by a small number of people then no one should be allowed to have them then I would disagree with you (I am not saying that is your position by the way). If you are saying that preventing private purchase would make them available for everyone who needed them then I agree with you.
I wouldn't ban private purchase (provided the medication is safe) - and I don't think that doing so would increase availability for the NHS.
But I feel we need to invest a LOT of our societal resources into health collectively to ensure a very, very high standard of care is available to all and to ensure there is no need to go private. It's a sadness to me that sometimes people go to America to get access to care that isn't available here.
To misquote Frank Dobson, we should have a first class service and we should pay a first class fare.
I suppose the next question is, can the country as a whole afford such care? Again I don't know. I know that other countries in Europe spend more on health care than the UK but I also know that there is much larger private provision of health care on the continent and that, generally, their systems seem to work better than ours. But I assume these same questions still arise and for all of us will only get worse as the population ages and the boundaries between health care and social care get more and more blurred.
(I'm not aware of any studies supporting this but) I suspect private healthcare can be fairly wasteful, particularly at the top end. Have a niggle, get a CT scan. Want drug X Y Z? Fine. Want to see a consultant on a regular basis about nothing very much? No problem...
The US is, of course, the extreme version, but does at least have some data supporting this in e.g. the opioid pain killer crisis (easy to get whether you need them or not) and the staggering numbers of interventions in childbirth there compared to here. It is, to an extent, in insurers' interests to let the members have something to show for their/their employers' premiums (there's also the issue of vendors directly targeting and provideing corporate hospitality to physicians). Would be less of an issue here, I think and less of an issue under some of the continental models. Even here though, it can happen to an extent. I know of two people with effectively undiagnosed long term conditions (syndromes - i.e. collections of symptoms but underlying cause unknown, one is chronic fatigue syndrome) who took a chunk of NHS time before effectively being told "yes, you have symptoms, but there's nothing we can do" who then took a much larger chunk of private healthcare time (and a lot of extra tests) to be eventually told exactly the same thing. But people, reasonably, like being listened to and feeling like they're taken seriously. Both thought the private healthcare not to be a waste of time or money, despite no improvement in outcome.
Being wasteful is not, of course, a particular problem if the person paying is happy to pay. It might mean that an objectively similar level of outcome to other countries could be achieved with lower cost than some private insurance based systems.
Is there anything wrong with having a private GP? If so, why?
You would have to ask Rishi that, since he is the one who seems ashamed of it.
He had three routes with integrity. One was to use the NHS while he was a high profile politician. One was to come up with a solid explanation, as OGH has done above. The third was to not enter politics. Not choosing any of those does make him look like a worse person.
And if he had to go down this path, he should have said "personal matter" not "private matter".
I disagree - it's a trap and there is no answer that won't draw bile from those who want to be bilious.
(a) Yes, I go private - Oh, NHS not good enough for you? How the hell can you be in charge of something you don't even trust to use?
(b) Lie - get found out (as has been shown) - Why did you lie?
What's wrong with Stuartinromford's first option, not going private whilst a prominent politician? It's not as if the PM's going to struggle to get an NHS appointment if he needed one.
Because its performative nonsense, thats why. Should a politician only sit in rubbish seats at football (come on Keir, get out of that box)? Of only drive rubbish cars? And as for schooling - no more private schools for the kids. That would upset quite a few labour folk.
I don't have a problem with rich people having nicer stuff. I'm richer than most people, I live in a nice big house, drive a decent sized car, had a nice long haul holiday over Christmas etc. I'm very grateful and I pay my taxes and I don't feel bad about it. But for me things like education and health are in a different class, because these are rights and everyone should have the best quality service that the country can afford. I don't think it's right that rich people can jump the queue to get operations before other people, and I don't think that rich people's kids should get better schools than other children. And I don't trust politicians who tell us they are going to deliver the best service possible and fund it appropriately, but refuse to use it themselves. To me the two just seem contradictory and I can't trust a politician like that. Of course other people feel differently about these things, as is their right.
How on earth do you think you would implement that?
Even if you outlawed them in this country, would you try to stop people from travelling abroad for medical treatment, or sending their children to private schools in other countries? Would you override devolution and enforce your policy across the whole UK?
Er, I already commented down thread that I'm not talking about banning things! Perhaps you are an instinctive authoritarian who wants to ban everything that you disapprove of, but I'm a liberal. People are free to do whatever the hell they like. But if you use private healthcare and schools then I will need a lot of persuading that you have the interests of their state equivalents close to your heart, and I probably won't vote for you, because I want the NHS and our schools to get the best possible funding and to deliver the best possible service for all of us.
Crops up a lot, this, and I have a standing order sentence which you can use if you like.
"I assess private schools as net harmful to society but it's only an opinion and I'm not saying they should be illegal."
Mind you, if I was Prez with a landslide and a 10 year term ...
But it's completely hypocritical. Would you or @OnlyLivingBoy refrain from taking/sending your children on a culturally enriching holiday because some people can't afford it?
There isn't a shred of hypocrisy. You're doing that reductive exaggeration strawman thing. It's like me saying to you - if you're cool with people buying educational privilege for their kids would you be in favour of an open market in body parts?
Yes. Why should there not be an open market in body parts?
Donations are important, and I'm on the organ donor list, but if someone wants to sell a kidney that should be their choice. Their body, their choice.
Ah it's you. This is what happens when you enshrine a principle and force yourself to agree with every single one of its implications. You end up arguing for an open market in body parts.
I don't force myself to agree with every one of its implications. I'm willing to break my principles and support something that goes against my principles, where it suits. EG I supported the smoking ban and still do. My principles say that anyone who wants to have a building where people smoke inside, that should be their choice and anyone who disagrees can go elsewhere - but for purely selfish reasons I'm willing to set aside my principles and say that I prefer no smoking indoors and let the smokers go elsewhere instead. There's no principle behind my view there, I know that I'm going against my liberal principles in supporting a smoking ban but I don't care.
I'm OK with an open market in body parts, because I see no harm in it. If someone is willing to sell a kidney, that should be their choice.
No harm in poor people selling their arms and legs in order to pay the leccy? C'mon. Let's park this since you can't be serious.
More taken by your other point - on the smoking ban. You're saying you support it even though you feel it's wrong. That's interesting. People don't usually admit to this but it does happen a lot imo. That sort of doublethink is essential to get by in this world.
Who says its only poor people who'd sell body parts, if it were an option? It could be wealthy or middle income people too. Frankly why people choose to do something, is up to them.
I don't believe in victimless crimes. If someone wants to sell something of theirs, and does so knowingly, then who is the victim? And if there's no victim, why should it be illegal?
I'm not aware of people donating arms and legs already today, so your position is one of reductio ad absurdum anyway, but if I wanted to donate a kidney to save my brother's life, that would be perfectly legal. But if someone wanted to sell theirs to eg fund a holiday, or a deposit on a home, or quite frankly anything else that's up to them, and someone wanted to pay in order to save their or their relative's life, then that is illegal. Why? Why should directed donations be legal, but paid for ones not be?
I've tried selling various parts of my body, but have been advised that they're worthless.
I've donated mine to medical students. I guess I should check that it is only after I have finished with it.
Can I suggest others do the same. It is simply to do. Makes life easy for your own family and does some good for future generations.
Ah, I see we're in for another day of anti-trans hate. Situation normal.
I’m surprised you, of all people, are illustrating the point. It’s not just women’s rights Trans activists are harming. They are hurting trans peoples rights too by their “no debate” and sometimes violent shutting down of any attempt to discuss it.
I'm not illustrating your point - at least, as I read your point. Do you really think 'trans activists' have caused the deluge of anti-trans stuff in the media and online? As an example. when did you last post something supporting trans people, instead of a litany of negativity towards them?
I don't see myself as an 'activist' - I'm just someone who has known a few trans people, a couple of whom were very good friends. I'd argue *you* are an activist - as it seems you feel the need to post negative sh*t about them all the time. It's just that you're a negative activist.
If there is a deluge of anti trans stuff in the media please link to some examples, so we can see if it really anti trans or not.
The number of trans people in your life seems to make you a statistical outlier.
"The number of trans people in your life seems to make you a statistical outlier."
Perhaps. Perhaps not. You'd be surprising how hard it can be to tell an individual is trans. And IME, the longer they are trans, and the older they get, the harder it is to tell. And despite what some may say, women cannot automagically 'tell' when someone is male or trans. At least the ones I've asked cannot.
As for the articles: I might suggest you look at the following as an example of a constant stream of negativity. Can you point to an article there that says: "Hey look, this trans person has done something cool!" ?
Are you expecting the Daily Mail to be posting positive articles about anything at all? I think I may have found your problem.
The issue with the trans debate that puts me off is that people on both sides can be a bit all or nothing about it. For me the position I have settled upon is that people who are trans should be treated with respect and care, and so long as it doesn't cause any safeguarding issues should be treated as the gender they identify as - and by any names or pronouns they prefer. Where safeguarding is a concern, then sex should trump gender identity.
I'd have gone with the Telegraph, except I don't have a subscription to link to articles. I do get some of my dad's cast-offs, though.
The tragedy of this 'debate' is that often people are closer together than it seems. As an example, I think it's right for sports to exclude trans men - but only on safety grounds, and the default should be for inclusion. The Caster Semenya case, although not about trans, shows the problems that can occur with exclusions. (*)
In addition, my view is that it is right that someone wanting to transition should live their lives in their new identity for a period, and am wary of making it easier (though could be convinced by evidence). It is a major change that can have lifelong effects, so it is important that they are sure what they are doing. Then again, there are many other things people do that have lifelong consequences that get done without any questions.
In this, I'm probably not too far away from the position of some on here who see themselves on the other side of the debate.
But it should not be made harder to transition, either. And that's where this ridiculous stuff about public toilets is important, as if some have their way, it would be next to impossible to transition. Which I think is actually what some people want.
The thing that really gets me though, is the 'othering' of trans people. The continuous insinuations that they are somehow a 'threat', or a minority and therefore do not matter. We've all seen that road travelled before, and it often ends poorly.
As ever, terminology is a big issue in this. 'Trans' can mean many things, from a transvestite to transsexual. It can be the woman in her sixties who was born Larry, but has been Mary for forty years. Or Eddie Izzard.
(*) Anyway, top athletes are all freaks of nature anyway, people who have won the genetic lottery.
I don't see much of an insinuation that trans people are a threat.
What I do see is people objecting that violating safeguarding can be a threat. Which it can be, that is why safeguarding existed in the first place.
Which is why I have my line drawn as treat trans people with respect, but don't violate safeguarding, where the safeguarding exists for good reasons. That should be the reasonable proposal that keeps everyone safe, even if it doesn't make any extremist 100% happy.
People have been bludgeoned to death with hammers. Let us treat everyone who uses a hammer as a criminal and do not try telling me that only a tiny percentage of hammer users are murderers!
We need to stamp this out!!!! Public safety demands it.
Sorry but hammers suits my point not yours.
If you want to go to B&Q and buy a hammer and take it home, then you are free to do so.
If you want to get a hammer and take it in your bag with you to Manchester Airport or the MEN Arena then security may stop you and say that its not allowed, as carrying that violates their safeguarding procedures.
Nobody sane is saying to stamp out hammers/trans people. What should happen is sensible safeguarding - have a hammer in your toolbox, that's not an issue, but don't expect to be able to board a plane or enter an arena with it. Have a penis and call yourself her/Jane, that's not an issue for me, but if you want to enter a female-only rape crisis centre then it might be an issue.
Safeguarding should be taken seriously, but sensitively.
It should be, but it is fast becoming another weapon in the crossfire war between opposing sides. Something that is becoming more and more common these days.
The internet has allowed some really good things to happen, but the social media side of it is, all too often, an open pipeline into the sewers that some people have for minds.
Yes the all or nothing nature of the internet and Twitter especially is a problem, hence why I dislike that and said that from the start we should ideally IMHO reject that and go with sensible policies instead. Give as much flexibility and care as we can, but don't violate safeguarding where it matters.
If someone wants to be called "they" that is not a safeguarding concern. Anyone who objects to that is being silly, and anyone who objects on the grounds that its a plural word only is both categorically wrong and silly.
If someone wants to go into protected grounds, then that needs to be treated sensitively and sensibly, not a blanket policy.
Agree, but public toilets are not protected grounds.
And when it comes to other things, such as refuges, then there needs to be suitable accommodation for trans people as well. Trans people (and men) can need refuge as well.
I said earlier, I don't especially care about public toilets. Though refuges/prisons/sports etc can be protected and that can be where safeguarding matters far more.
Yes there should be suitable accommodation for trans people in refuges, there should be suitable accommodation for men, and there should be suitable accommodation for women. These might not all be in the same place though. A women's-only refuge that only offers support for women, which excludes both men and trans individuals, is not a problem so long as suitable support exists for male and trans individuals elsewhere.
We have existed a long time with both female-only refuges, and male victims, and the male victims can't go to the female refuges. Its not ideal, but its messy and fits the safeguarding issues, the support needs to be offered elsewhere for males and there's no reason that can't apply to trans too.
The main problem with public toilets is that most of them have been shut and the ones that haven't are filthy. That's a far bigger problem than anything trans related and a small example of how these hysterical culture war shouting matches crowd out discussion of more substantive issues.
I now take raising the issue of public toilets as a warning sign of possible bad faith in these sorts of discussions. It's a complete red herring compared to more serious issues surrounding prisons, hospitals, school trips, good manners, respect, privacy, etc.
I'm not sure the same can be said for the US, but in this country the issue of toilets seems to be brought up more by supporters of the trans orthodoxy than its opponents.
In the US I know that at least one Republican State has passed a bathroom law, which I certainly see as a bad faith intervention.
Is there anything wrong with having a private GP? If so, why?
You would have to ask Rishi that, since he is the one who seems ashamed of it.
He had three routes with integrity. One was to use the NHS while he was a high profile politician. One was to come up with a solid explanation, as OGH has done above. The third was to not enter politics. Not choosing any of those does make him look like a worse person.
And if he had to go down this path, he should have said "personal matter" not "private matter".
I disagree - it's a trap and there is no answer that won't draw bile from those who want to be bilious.
(a) Yes, I go private - Oh, NHS not good enough for you? How the hell can you be in charge of something you don't even trust to use?
(b) Lie - get found out (as has been shown) - Why did you lie?
What's wrong with Stuartinromford's first option, not going private whilst a prominent politician? It's not as if the PM's going to struggle to get an NHS appointment if he needed one.
Because its performative nonsense, thats why. Should a politician only sit in rubbish seats at football (come on Keir, get out of that box)? Of only drive rubbish cars? And as for schooling - no more private schools for the kids. That would upset quite a few labour folk.
I don't have a problem with rich people having nicer stuff. I'm richer than most people, I live in a nice big house, drive a decent sized car, had a nice long haul holiday over Christmas etc. I'm very grateful and I pay my taxes and I don't feel bad about it. But for me things like education and health are in a different class, because these are rights and everyone should have the best quality service that the country can afford. I don't think it's right that rich people can jump the queue to get operations before other people, and I don't think that rich people's kids should get better schools than other children. And I don't trust politicians who tell us they are going to deliver the best service possible and fund it appropriately, but refuse to use it themselves. To me the two just seem contradictory and I can't trust a politician like that. Of course other people feel differently about these things, as is their right.
How on earth do you think you would implement that?
Even if you outlawed them in this country, would you try to stop people from travelling abroad for medical treatment, or sending their children to private schools in other countries? Would you override devolution and enforce your policy across the whole UK?
Er, I already commented down thread that I'm not talking about banning things! Perhaps you are an instinctive authoritarian who wants to ban everything that you disapprove of, but I'm a liberal. People are free to do whatever the hell they like. But if you use private healthcare and schools then I will need a lot of persuading that you have the interests of their state equivalents close to your heart, and I probably won't vote for you, because I want the NHS and our schools to get the best possible funding and to deliver the best possible service for all of us.
Crops up a lot, this, and I have a standing order sentence which you can use if you like.
"I assess private schools as net harmful to society but it's only an opinion and I'm not saying they should be illegal."
Mind you, if I was Prez with a landslide and a 10 year term ...
But it's completely hypocritical. Would you or @OnlyLivingBoy refrain from taking/sending your children on a culturally enriching holiday because some people can't afford it?
There isn't a shred of hypocrisy. You're doing that reductive exaggeration strawman thing. It's like me saying to you - if you're cool with people buying educational privilege for their kids would you be in favour of an open market in body parts?
Yes. Why should there not be an open market in body parts?
Donations are important, and I'm on the organ donor list, but if someone wants to sell a kidney that should be their choice. Their body, their choice.
Ah it's you. This is what happens when you enshrine a principle and force yourself to agree with every single one of its implications. You end up arguing for an open market in body parts.
I don't force myself to agree with every one of its implications. I'm willing to break my principles and support something that goes against my principles, where it suits. EG I supported the smoking ban and still do. My principles say that anyone who wants to have a building where people smoke inside, that should be their choice and anyone who disagrees can go elsewhere - but for purely selfish reasons I'm willing to set aside my principles and say that I prefer no smoking indoors and let the smokers go elsewhere instead. There's no principle behind my view there, I know that I'm going against my liberal principles in supporting a smoking ban but I don't care.
I'm OK with an open market in body parts, because I see no harm in it. If someone is willing to sell a kidney, that should be their choice.
No harm in poor people selling their arms and legs in order to pay the leccy? C'mon. Let's park this since you can't be serious.
More taken by your other point - on the smoking ban. You're saying you support it even though you feel it's wrong. That's interesting. People don't usually admit to this but it does happen a lot imo. That sort of doublethink is essential to get by in this world.
Who says its only poor people who'd sell body parts, if it were an option? It could be wealthy or middle income people too. Frankly why people choose to do something, is up to them.
I don't believe in victimless crimes. If someone wants to sell something of theirs, and does so knowingly, then who is the victim? And if there's no victim, why should it be illegal?
I'm not aware of people donating arms and legs already today, so your position is one of reductio ad absurdum anyway, but if I wanted to donate a kidney to save my brother's life, that would be perfectly legal. But if someone wanted to sell theirs to eg fund a holiday, or a deposit on a home, or quite frankly anything else that's up to them, and someone wanted to pay in order to save their or their relative's life, then that is illegal. Why? Why should directed donations be legal, but paid for ones not be?
I've tried selling various parts of my body, but have been advised that they're worthless.
Selling bits of your body would be foolish.
You’d create an immediate tax liability.
You should really construct some Collateralised Body Part Obligations and start trading them OTC. By structuring the physical delivery in an offshore location, you could reduce the tax liability, potentially, to zero.
This would inevitably happen. New asset class, arcane structures. The City would be all over it.
Since you were discussing this subject earlier, let me add two bits of info from Amazon in the US: Amazon refuses to sell "When Harry Became Sally" by Ryan T. Anderson. Amazon does sell "Irreversible Damage" by Abigail Shrier, but has refused, I have read, to allow the publisher to buy ads for the book on Amazon.
(Full disclosure: I have mostly stopped buying books from Amazon, as a result of their refusing to sell Anderson's book. And I buy a lot of books.
On the larger subject: It seems unlikely to me that neutering or spaying young people will be good for many of them, in the long run.)
Is there anything wrong with having a private GP? If so, why?
You would have to ask Rishi that, since he is the one who seems ashamed of it.
He had three routes with integrity. One was to use the NHS while he was a high profile politician. One was to come up with a solid explanation, as OGH has done above. The third was to not enter politics. Not choosing any of those does make him look like a worse person.
And if he had to go down this path, he should have said "personal matter" not "private matter".
I disagree - it's a trap and there is no answer that won't draw bile from those who want to be bilious.
(a) Yes, I go private - Oh, NHS not good enough for you? How the hell can you be in charge of something you don't even trust to use?
(b) Lie - get found out (as has been shown) - Why did you lie?
What's wrong with Stuartinromford's first option, not going private whilst a prominent politician? It's not as if the PM's going to struggle to get an NHS appointment if he needed one.
Because its performative nonsense, thats why. Should a politician only sit in rubbish seats at football (come on Keir, get out of that box)? Of only drive rubbish cars? And as for schooling - no more private schools for the kids. That would upset quite a few labour folk.
I don't have a problem with rich people having nicer stuff. I'm richer than most people, I live in a nice big house, drive a decent sized car, had a nice long haul holiday over Christmas etc. I'm very grateful and I pay my taxes and I don't feel bad about it. But for me things like education and health are in a different class, because these are rights and everyone should have the best quality service that the country can afford. I don't think it's right that rich people can jump the queue to get operations before other people, and I don't think that rich people's kids should get better schools than other children. And I don't trust politicians who tell us they are going to deliver the best service possible and fund it appropriately, but refuse to use it themselves. To me the two just seem contradictory and I can't trust a politician like that. Of course other people feel differently about these things, as is their right.
Pretty much my view too. With money comes all sorts of pleasures and privileges - which is fine - but what money shouldn't be able to buy is educational advantage or better essential healthcare
For me the schools point is the bigger one since the more that parental bank balance features there, the greater is the violation of the ideal of equal opportunities. So I feel more strongly about private schools than I do about private health.
The thing is Education is a public good. The better-educated the population is the better it is for society as a whole. So you'd think it would be good if people were using their own resources to increase the total amount of Education in the country. Why is it better in your eyes for someone to buy a new sports car every other year instead of pay Eton school fees?
The reason, I think, is that you've bought into the ideology of meritocracy. This means that you see private education as someone cheating in the great meritocratic struggle. The problem here isn't private education. The problem is that meritocracy is a con used to justify inequality.
It's a futile struggle to try and create a level playing field for meritocracy. Will never happen. Instead I think we should concentrate on people's right to dignity even if they don't become doctors or lawyers, and a fair share of the proceeds generated for society by Eton's education of the wealthy.
You have me wrong here, LP. I don't fetishize meritocracy. That it ends in "ocracy" is a tell. It's an oppressive notion by itself. Eg, if outcomes are grossly unequal but everyone has a meritocratic fair shot at hitting the jackpot, this isn't the End of History imo. It makes no sense to view equal opportunity in isolation from outcomes. Both are important. Plus they impact each other in either direction.
The goal for me is everyone realizes their potential, wealth of background minimized as a factor, with the material outcomes achieved to be far more closely bunched than they are today. It's an unachievable goal of course so the direction of travel is what counts in practice.
Eton v sports car? Serial fast car purchase doesn't hardcode inequality into society, propagate it down through the generations. This is the essential difference to me.
Yes it does.
If you ask the average working class man whether he could have a new sports car or send his children to learn Latin and Maths to 18 at Eton he would take the new sports car every time!
But it doesn't cascade inequality down the generations, a Porsche 911, does it? Ditto most areas of discretionary private spend. Eg I bet I'd disapprove of some of your jumpers - find them morally wrong even - but I'll be relaxed about it because there's no violation of equal opportunities or propagating of societal inequality in your sartorial choices. Unless I'm missing something.
It does if inherited.
You are assuming that because everyone can't go to Eton nobody can. Except forgetting that even if private education was banned, grammar schools were banned, academies and free schools and faith schools were banned and everyone had to send their children to the local comprehensive there would still be inequality.
For parents living in wealthier areas with more expensive houses would have better local schools than those living in poorer areas. So you would have to ban private sale of housing too and ensure everyone lived in social housing.
Yet even then would still be inequality because those of high iq would tend to marry others of high iq and those of low iq those of low iq. So the children of the former would still be much more likely to become doctors, lawyers, ceos etc. So you would have to ban marriage amongst those of the same but not average iq and force the high iq to marry the low iq to ensure genetic shift towards average iq
People don't usually inherit jumpers.
And to say that inequality is multi-sourced and inevitable isn't a strong argument in favour of something that actively increases it.
Thing is, H, this is an unbridgeable-by-debate difference in values and worldview. I'm egalitarian, meaning I have reducing inequality as a very high priority. Heart and head both tell me this. Head because I think it's illogical how resources are so unequally distributed. Heart because it upsets me that they are.
You, otoh, are a traditional tory - with all that this entails.
No you are not egalitarian, if you were you would be Communist or hardcore Socialist and support equality of outcome. If that was the case then fair enough, I might have some respect for your position even if I believed it misguided and likely to lead to more poverty overall.
Instead you are just a liberal meritocrat. Fine with capitalism as long as there is perfect equality of opportunity, except as I have shown you and was pointed out earlier that is impossible to achieve and just reduces choice and excellence in education in reality in my view too
Astonishing you are allowed to get away with:
"If you ask the average working class man whether he could have a new sports car or send his children to learn Latin and Maths to 18 at Eton he would take the new sports car every time!" Have you met anyone working class?
Plenty and I stand by my comment in terms of most of them
Ah, I see we're in for another day of anti-trans hate. Situation normal.
I’m surprised you, of all people, are illustrating the point. It’s not just women’s rights Trans activists are harming. They are hurting trans peoples rights too by their “no debate” and sometimes violent shutting down of any attempt to discuss it.
I'm not illustrating your point - at least, as I read your point. Do you really think 'trans activists' have caused the deluge of anti-trans stuff in the media and online? As an example. when did you last post something supporting trans people, instead of a litany of negativity towards them?
I don't see myself as an 'activist' - I'm just someone who has known a few trans people, a couple of whom were very good friends. I'd argue *you* are an activist - as it seems you feel the need to post negative sh*t about them all the time. It's just that you're a negative activist.
If there is a deluge of anti trans stuff in the media please link to some examples, so we can see if it really anti trans or not.
The number of trans people in your life seems to make you a statistical outlier.
"The number of trans people in your life seems to make you a statistical outlier."
Perhaps. Perhaps not. You'd be surprising how hard it can be to tell an individual is trans. And IME, the longer they are trans, and the older they get, the harder it is to tell. And despite what some may say, women cannot automagically 'tell' when someone is male or trans. At least the ones I've asked cannot.
As for the articles: I might suggest you look at the following as an example of a constant stream of negativity. Can you point to an article there that says: "Hey look, this trans person has done something cool!" ?
Are you expecting the Daily Mail to be posting positive articles about anything at all? I think I may have found your problem.
The issue with the trans debate that puts me off is that people on both sides can be a bit all or nothing about it. For me the position I have settled upon is that people who are trans should be treated with respect and care, and so long as it doesn't cause any safeguarding issues should be treated as the gender they identify as - and by any names or pronouns they prefer. Where safeguarding is a concern, then sex should trump gender identity.
I'd have gone with the Telegraph, except I don't have a subscription to link to articles. I do get some of my dad's cast-offs, though.
The tragedy of this 'debate' is that often people are closer together than it seems. As an example, I think it's right for sports to exclude trans men - but only on safety grounds, and the default should be for inclusion. The Caster Semenya case, although not about trans, shows the problems that can occur with exclusions. (*)
In addition, my view is that it is right that someone wanting to transition should live their lives in their new identity for a period, and am wary of making it easier (though could be convinced by evidence). It is a major change that can have lifelong effects, so it is important that they are sure what they are doing. Then again, there are many other things people do that have lifelong consequences that get done without any questions.
In this, I'm probably not too far away from the position of some on here who see themselves on the other side of the debate.
But it should not be made harder to transition, either. And that's where this ridiculous stuff about public toilets is important, as if some have their way, it would be next to impossible to transition. Which I think is actually what some people want.
The thing that really gets me though, is the 'othering' of trans people. The continuous insinuations that they are somehow a 'threat', or a minority and therefore do not matter. We've all seen that road travelled before, and it often ends poorly.
As ever, terminology is a big issue in this. 'Trans' can mean many things, from a transvestite to transsexual. It can be the woman in her sixties who was born Larry, but has been Mary for forty years. Or Eddie Izzard.
(*) Anyway, top athletes are all freaks of nature anyway, people who have won the genetic lottery.
I don't see much of an insinuation that trans people are a threat.
What I do see is people objecting that violating safeguarding can be a threat. Which it can be, that is why safeguarding existed in the first place.
Which is why I have my line drawn as treat trans people with respect, but don't violate safeguarding, where the safeguarding exists for good reasons. That should be the reasonable proposal that keeps everyone safe, even if it doesn't make any extremist 100% happy.
People have been bludgeoned to death with hammers. Let us treat everyone who uses a hammer as a criminal and do not try telling me that only a tiny percentage of hammer users are murderers!
We need to stamp this out!!!! Public safety demands it.
Sorry but hammers suits my point not yours.
If you want to go to B&Q and buy a hammer and take it home, then you are free to do so.
If you want to get a hammer and take it in your bag with you to Manchester Airport or the MEN Arena then security may stop you and say that its not allowed, as carrying that violates their safeguarding procedures.
Nobody sane is saying to stamp out hammers/trans people. What should happen is sensible safeguarding - have a hammer in your toolbox, that's not an issue, but don't expect to be able to board a plane or enter an arena with it. Have a penis and call yourself her/Jane, that's not an issue for me, but if you want to enter a female-only rape crisis centre then it might be an issue.
Safeguarding should be taken seriously, but sensitively.
It should be, but it is fast becoming another weapon in the crossfire war between opposing sides. Something that is becoming more and more common these days.
The internet has allowed some really good things to happen, but the social media side of it is, all too often, an open pipeline into the sewers that some people have for minds.
Yes the all or nothing nature of the internet and Twitter especially is a problem, hence why I dislike that and said that from the start we should ideally IMHO reject that and go with sensible policies instead. Give as much flexibility and care as we can, but don't violate safeguarding where it matters.
If someone wants to be called "they" that is not a safeguarding concern. Anyone who objects to that is being silly, and anyone who objects on the grounds that its a plural word only is both categorically wrong and silly.
If someone wants to go into protected grounds, then that needs to be treated sensitively and sensibly, not a blanket policy.
Agree, but public toilets are not protected grounds.
And when it comes to other things, such as refuges, then there needs to be suitable accommodation for trans people as well. Trans people (and men) can need refuge as well.
I said earlier, I don't especially care about public toilets. Though refuges/prisons/sports etc can be protected and that can be where safeguarding matters far more.
Yes there should be suitable accommodation for trans people in refuges, there should be suitable accommodation for men, and there should be suitable accommodation for women. These might not all be in the same place though. A women's-only refuge that only offers support for women, which excludes both men and trans individuals, is not a problem so long as suitable support exists for male and trans individuals elsewhere.
We have existed a long time with both female-only refuges, and male victims, and the male victims can't go to the female refuges. Its not ideal, but its messy and fits the safeguarding issues, the support needs to be offered elsewhere for males and there's no reason that can't apply to trans too.
The main problem with public toilets is that most of them have been shut and the ones that haven't are filthy. That's a far bigger problem than anything trans related and a small example of how these hysterical culture war shouting matches crowd out discussion of more substantive issues.
I now take raising the issue of public toilets as a warning sign of possible bad faith in these sorts of discussions. It's a complete red herring compared to more serious issues surrounding prisons, hospitals, school trips, good manners, respect, privacy, etc.
I'm not sure the same can be said for the US, but in this country the issue of toilets seems to be brought up more by supporters of the trans orthodoxy than its opponents.
"trans orthodoxy"?
The reason I keep on mentioning it is that banning someone from going to the toilet (which a ban on transitioning people would be) is essentially adding a massive barrier to their transitioning.
Which I fear many of the people calling on them to be banned actually want.
Besides, a ban on trans people from toilets is utterly unworkable, and likely to cause much more harm to women than any threat from pretendy trans men.
Is there anything wrong with having a private GP? If so, why?
You would have to ask Rishi that, since he is the one who seems ashamed of it.
He had three routes with integrity. One was to use the NHS while he was a high profile politician. One was to come up with a solid explanation, as OGH has done above. The third was to not enter politics. Not choosing any of those does make him look like a worse person.
And if he had to go down this path, he should have said "personal matter" not "private matter".
I disagree - it's a trap and there is no answer that won't draw bile from those who want to be bilious.
(a) Yes, I go private - Oh, NHS not good enough for you? How the hell can you be in charge of something you don't even trust to use?
(b) Lie - get found out (as has been shown) - Why did you lie?
What's wrong with Stuartinromford's first option, not going private whilst a prominent politician? It's not as if the PM's going to struggle to get an NHS appointment if he needed one.
Because its performative nonsense, thats why. Should a politician only sit in rubbish seats at football (come on Keir, get out of that box)? Of only drive rubbish cars? And as for schooling - no more private schools for the kids. That would upset quite a few labour folk.
I don't have a problem with rich people having nicer stuff. I'm richer than most people, I live in a nice big house, drive a decent sized car, had a nice long haul holiday over Christmas etc. I'm very grateful and I pay my taxes and I don't feel bad about it. But for me things like education and health are in a different class, because these are rights and everyone should have the best quality service that the country can afford. I don't think it's right that rich people can jump the queue to get operations before other people, and I don't think that rich people's kids should get better schools than other children. And I don't trust politicians who tell us they are going to deliver the best service possible and fund it appropriately, but refuse to use it themselves. To me the two just seem contradictory and I can't trust a politician like that. Of course other people feel differently about these things, as is their right.
How on earth do you think you would implement that?
Even if you outlawed them in this country, would you try to stop people from travelling abroad for medical treatment, or sending their children to private schools in other countries? Would you override devolution and enforce your policy across the whole UK?
Er, I already commented down thread that I'm not talking about banning things! Perhaps you are an instinctive authoritarian who wants to ban everything that you disapprove of, but I'm a liberal. People are free to do whatever the hell they like. But if you use private healthcare and schools then I will need a lot of persuading that you have the interests of their state equivalents close to your heart, and I probably won't vote for you, because I want the NHS and our schools to get the best possible funding and to deliver the best possible service for all of us.
Crops up a lot, this, and I have a standing order sentence which you can use if you like.
"I assess private schools as net harmful to society but it's only an opinion and I'm not saying they should be illegal."
Mind you, if I was Prez with a landslide and a 10 year term ...
But it's completely hypocritical. Would you or @OnlyLivingBoy refrain from taking/sending your children on a culturally enriching holiday because some people can't afford it?
There isn't a shred of hypocrisy. You're doing that reductive exaggeration strawman thing. It's like me saying to you - if you're cool with people buying educational privilege for their kids would you be in favour of an open market in body parts?
Yes. Why should there not be an open market in body parts?
Donations are important, and I'm on the organ donor list, but if someone wants to sell a kidney that should be their choice. Their body, their choice.
Ah it's you. This is what happens when you enshrine a principle and force yourself to agree with every single one of its implications. You end up arguing for an open market in body parts.
I don't force myself to agree with every one of its implications. I'm willing to break my principles and support something that goes against my principles, where it suits. EG I supported the smoking ban and still do. My principles say that anyone who wants to have a building where people smoke inside, that should be their choice and anyone who disagrees can go elsewhere - but for purely selfish reasons I'm willing to set aside my principles and say that I prefer no smoking indoors and let the smokers go elsewhere instead. There's no principle behind my view there, I know that I'm going against my liberal principles in supporting a smoking ban but I don't care.
I'm OK with an open market in body parts, because I see no harm in it. If someone is willing to sell a kidney, that should be their choice.
No harm in poor people selling their arms and legs in order to pay the leccy? C'mon. Let's park this since you can't be serious.
More taken by your other point - on the smoking ban. You're saying you support it even though you feel it's wrong. That's interesting. People don't usually admit to this but it does happen a lot imo. That sort of doublethink is essential to get by in this world.
Who says its only poor people who'd sell body parts, if it were an option? It could be wealthy or middle income people too. Frankly why people choose to do something, is up to them.
I don't believe in victimless crimes. If someone wants to sell something of theirs, and does so knowingly, then who is the victim? And if there's no victim, why should it be illegal?
I'm not aware of people donating arms and legs already today, so your position is one of reductio ad absurdum anyway, but if I wanted to donate a kidney to save my brother's life, that would be perfectly legal. But if someone wanted to sell theirs to eg fund a holiday, or a deposit on a home, or quite frankly anything else that's up to them, and someone wanted to pay in order to save their or their relative's life, then that is illegal. Why? Why should directed donations be legal, but paid for ones not be?
We're not having an open market in body parts and that's the end of it.
Too late - I've got a trader setting up the CBPOs as we speak and there will be an OTC market by the end of the week.
Is there anything wrong with having a private GP? If so, why?
You would have to ask Rishi that, since he is the one who seems ashamed of it.
He had three routes with integrity. One was to use the NHS while he was a high profile politician. One was to come up with a solid explanation, as OGH has done above. The third was to not enter politics. Not choosing any of those does make him look like a worse person.
And if he had to go down this path, he should have said "personal matter" not "private matter".
I disagree - it's a trap and there is no answer that won't draw bile from those who want to be bilious.
(a) Yes, I go private - Oh, NHS not good enough for you? How the hell can you be in charge of something you don't even trust to use?
(b) Lie - get found out (as has been shown) - Why did you lie?
What's wrong with Stuartinromford's first option, not going private whilst a prominent politician? It's not as if the PM's going to struggle to get an NHS appointment if he needed one.
Because its performative nonsense, thats why. Should a politician only sit in rubbish seats at football (come on Keir, get out of that box)? Of only drive rubbish cars? And as for schooling - no more private schools for the kids. That would upset quite a few labour folk.
I don't have a problem with rich people having nicer stuff. I'm richer than most people, I live in a nice big house, drive a decent sized car, had a nice long haul holiday over Christmas etc. I'm very grateful and I pay my taxes and I don't feel bad about it. But for me things like education and health are in a different class, because these are rights and everyone should have the best quality service that the country can afford. I don't think it's right that rich people can jump the queue to get operations before other people, and I don't think that rich people's kids should get better schools than other children. And I don't trust politicians who tell us they are going to deliver the best service possible and fund it appropriately, but refuse to use it themselves. To me the two just seem contradictory and I can't trust a politician like that. Of course other people feel differently about these things, as is their right.
How on earth do you think you would implement that?
Even if you outlawed them in this country, would you try to stop people from travelling abroad for medical treatment, or sending their children to private schools in other countries? Would you override devolution and enforce your policy across the whole UK?
Er, I already commented down thread that I'm not talking about banning things! Perhaps you are an instinctive authoritarian who wants to ban everything that you disapprove of, but I'm a liberal. People are free to do whatever the hell they like. But if you use private healthcare and schools then I will need a lot of persuading that you have the interests of their state equivalents close to your heart, and I probably won't vote for you, because I want the NHS and our schools to get the best possible funding and to deliver the best possible service for all of us.
Crops up a lot, this, and I have a standing order sentence which you can use if you like.
"I assess private schools as net harmful to society but it's only an opinion and I'm not saying they should be illegal."
Mind you, if I was Prez with a landslide and a 10 year term ...
But it's completely hypocritical. Would you or @OnlyLivingBoy refrain from taking/sending your children on a culturally enriching holiday because some people can't afford it?
There isn't a shred of hypocrisy. You're doing that reductive exaggeration strawman thing. It's like me saying to you - if you're cool with people buying educational privilege for their kids would you be in favour of an open market in body parts?
Yes. Why should there not be an open market in body parts?
Donations are important, and I'm on the organ donor list, but if someone wants to sell a kidney that should be their choice. Their body, their choice.
Ah it's you. This is what happens when you enshrine a principle and force yourself to agree with every single one of its implications. You end up arguing for an open market in body parts.
I don't force myself to agree with every one of its implications. I'm willing to break my principles and support something that goes against my principles, where it suits. EG I supported the smoking ban and still do. My principles say that anyone who wants to have a building where people smoke inside, that should be their choice and anyone who disagrees can go elsewhere - but for purely selfish reasons I'm willing to set aside my principles and say that I prefer no smoking indoors and let the smokers go elsewhere instead. There's no principle behind my view there, I know that I'm going against my liberal principles in supporting a smoking ban but I don't care.
I'm OK with an open market in body parts, because I see no harm in it. If someone is willing to sell a kidney, that should be their choice.
No harm in poor people selling their arms and legs in order to pay the leccy? C'mon. Let's park this since you can't be serious.
More taken by your other point - on the smoking ban. You're saying you support it even though you feel it's wrong. That's interesting. People don't usually admit to this but it does happen a lot imo. That sort of doublethink is essential to get by in this world.
Who says its only poor people who'd sell body parts, if it were an option? It could be wealthy or middle income people too. Frankly why people choose to do something, is up to them.
I don't believe in victimless crimes. If someone wants to sell something of theirs, and does so knowingly, then who is the victim? And if there's no victim, why should it be illegal?
I'm not aware of people donating arms and legs already today, so your position is one of reductio ad absurdum anyway, but if I wanted to donate a kidney to save my brother's life, that would be perfectly legal. But if someone wanted to sell theirs to eg fund a holiday, or a deposit on a home, or quite frankly anything else that's up to them, and someone wanted to pay in order to save their or their relative's life, then that is illegal. Why? Why should directed donations be legal, but paid for ones not be?
Because paid for donations opens up all sorts of possibilities for abuse (eg: manipulating parents manipulating an 18 year old offspring to sell a kidney to avoid the parents losing their home, or to fund university/experimental medical care/whatever for a younger sibling). Directed donations, precisely because there is no money involved, do not carry anywhere near the same level of risk.
Abuse is possible with directed donations too, eg manipulative parents manipulating an offspring to help save the life of a sibling.
Any directed donation could have just as much abuse, both mental, emotional and other, as any fiscal transaction could.
Ah, I see we're in for another day of anti-trans hate. Situation normal.
I’m surprised you, of all people, are illustrating the point. It’s not just women’s rights Trans activists are harming. They are hurting trans peoples rights too by their “no debate” and sometimes violent shutting down of any attempt to discuss it.
I'm not illustrating your point - at least, as I read your point. Do you really think 'trans activists' have caused the deluge of anti-trans stuff in the media and online? As an example. when did you last post something supporting trans people, instead of a litany of negativity towards them?
I don't see myself as an 'activist' - I'm just someone who has known a few trans people, a couple of whom were very good friends. I'd argue *you* are an activist - as it seems you feel the need to post negative sh*t about them all the time. It's just that you're a negative activist.
If there is a deluge of anti trans stuff in the media please link to some examples, so we can see if it really anti trans or not.
The number of trans people in your life seems to make you a statistical outlier.
"The number of trans people in your life seems to make you a statistical outlier."
Perhaps. Perhaps not. You'd be surprising how hard it can be to tell an individual is trans. And IME, the longer they are trans, and the older they get, the harder it is to tell. And despite what some may say, women cannot automagically 'tell' when someone is male or trans. At least the ones I've asked cannot.
As for the articles: I might suggest you look at the following as an example of a constant stream of negativity. Can you point to an article there that says: "Hey look, this trans person has done something cool!" ?
Are you expecting the Daily Mail to be posting positive articles about anything at all? I think I may have found your problem.
The issue with the trans debate that puts me off is that people on both sides can be a bit all or nothing about it. For me the position I have settled upon is that people who are trans should be treated with respect and care, and so long as it doesn't cause any safeguarding issues should be treated as the gender they identify as - and by any names or pronouns they prefer. Where safeguarding is a concern, then sex should trump gender identity.
I'd have gone with the Telegraph, except I don't have a subscription to link to articles. I do get some of my dad's cast-offs, though.
The tragedy of this 'debate' is that often people are closer together than it seems. As an example, I think it's right for sports to exclude trans men - but only on safety grounds, and the default should be for inclusion. The Caster Semenya case, although not about trans, shows the problems that can occur with exclusions. (*)
In addition, my view is that it is right that someone wanting to transition should live their lives in their new identity for a period, and am wary of making it easier (though could be convinced by evidence). It is a major change that can have lifelong effects, so it is important that they are sure what they are doing. Then again, there are many other things people do that have lifelong consequences that get done without any questions.
In this, I'm probably not too far away from the position of some on here who see themselves on the other side of the debate.
But it should not be made harder to transition, either. And that's where this ridiculous stuff about public toilets is important, as if some have their way, it would be next to impossible to transition. Which I think is actually what some people want.
The thing that really gets me though, is the 'othering' of trans people. The continuous insinuations that they are somehow a 'threat', or a minority and therefore do not matter. We've all seen that road travelled before, and it often ends poorly.
As ever, terminology is a big issue in this. 'Trans' can mean many things, from a transvestite to transsexual. It can be the woman in her sixties who was born Larry, but has been Mary for forty years. Or Eddie Izzard.
(*) Anyway, top athletes are all freaks of nature anyway, people who have won the genetic lottery.
I don't see much of an insinuation that trans people are a threat.
What I do see is people objecting that violating safeguarding can be a threat. Which it can be, that is why safeguarding existed in the first place.
Which is why I have my line drawn as treat trans people with respect, but don't violate safeguarding, where the safeguarding exists for good reasons. That should be the reasonable proposal that keeps everyone safe, even if it doesn't make any extremist 100% happy.
People have been bludgeoned to death with hammers. Let us treat everyone who uses a hammer as a criminal and do not try telling me that only a tiny percentage of hammer users are murderers!
We need to stamp this out!!!! Public safety demands it.
Sorry but hammers suits my point not yours.
If you want to go to B&Q and buy a hammer and take it home, then you are free to do so.
If you want to get a hammer and take it in your bag with you to Manchester Airport or the MEN Arena then security may stop you and say that its not allowed, as carrying that violates their safeguarding procedures.
Nobody sane is saying to stamp out hammers/trans people. What should happen is sensible safeguarding - have a hammer in your toolbox, that's not an issue, but don't expect to be able to board a plane or enter an arena with it. Have a penis and call yourself her/Jane, that's not an issue for me, but if you want to enter a female-only rape crisis centre then it might be an issue.
Safeguarding should be taken seriously, but sensitively.
It should be, but it is fast becoming another weapon in the crossfire war between opposing sides. Something that is becoming more and more common these days.
The internet has allowed some really good things to happen, but the social media side of it is, all too often, an open pipeline into the sewers that some people have for minds.
Yes the all or nothing nature of the internet and Twitter especially is a problem, hence why I dislike that and said that from the start we should ideally IMHO reject that and go with sensible policies instead. Give as much flexibility and care as we can, but don't violate safeguarding where it matters.
If someone wants to be called "they" that is not a safeguarding concern. Anyone who objects to that is being silly, and anyone who objects on the grounds that its a plural word only is both categorically wrong and silly.
If someone wants to go into protected grounds, then that needs to be treated sensitively and sensibly, not a blanket policy.
Agree, but public toilets are not protected grounds.
And when it comes to other things, such as refuges, then there needs to be suitable accommodation for trans people as well. Trans people (and men) can need refuge as well.
I said earlier, I don't especially care about public toilets. Though refuges/prisons/sports etc can be protected and that can be where safeguarding matters far more.
Yes there should be suitable accommodation for trans people in refuges, there should be suitable accommodation for men, and there should be suitable accommodation for women. These might not all be in the same place though. A women's-only refuge that only offers support for women, which excludes both men and trans individuals, is not a problem so long as suitable support exists for male and trans individuals elsewhere.
We have existed a long time with both female-only refuges, and male victims, and the male victims can't go to the female refuges. Its not ideal, but its messy and fits the safeguarding issues, the support needs to be offered elsewhere for males and there's no reason that can't apply to trans too.
The main problem with public toilets is that most of them have been shut and the ones that haven't are filthy. That's a far bigger problem than anything trans related and a small example of how these hysterical culture war shouting matches crowd out discussion of more substantive issues.
I now take raising the issue of public toilets as a warning sign of possible bad faith in these sorts of discussions. It's a complete red herring compared to more serious issues surrounding prisons, hospitals, school trips, good manners, respect, privacy, etc.
I'm not sure the same can be said for the US, but in this country the issue of toilets seems to be brought up more by supporters of the trans orthodoxy than its opponents.
On selling kidneys: Some years ago, one of the late night talk show hosts called our attention to a man in China who had sold a kidney in order to buy the latest iPhone. The host quipped that we shouldn't worry about the man, because he still has one kidney left so he will be able to buy an even newer iPhone in six months.
Is there anything wrong with having a private GP? If so, why?
You would have to ask Rishi that, since he is the one who seems ashamed of it.
He had three routes with integrity. One was to use the NHS while he was a high profile politician. One was to come up with a solid explanation, as OGH has done above. The third was to not enter politics. Not choosing any of those does make him look like a worse person.
And if he had to go down this path, he should have said "personal matter" not "private matter".
I disagree - it's a trap and there is no answer that won't draw bile from those who want to be bilious.
(a) Yes, I go private - Oh, NHS not good enough for you? How the hell can you be in charge of something you don't even trust to use?
(b) Lie - get found out (as has been shown) - Why did you lie?
What's wrong with Stuartinromford's first option, not going private whilst a prominent politician? It's not as if the PM's going to struggle to get an NHS appointment if he needed one.
Because its performative nonsense, thats why. Should a politician only sit in rubbish seats at football (come on Keir, get out of that box)? Of only drive rubbish cars? And as for schooling - no more private schools for the kids. That would upset quite a few labour folk.
I don't have a problem with rich people having nicer stuff. I'm richer than most people, I live in a nice big house, drive a decent sized car, had a nice long haul holiday over Christmas etc. I'm very grateful and I pay my taxes and I don't feel bad about it. But for me things like education and health are in a different class, because these are rights and everyone should have the best quality service that the country can afford. I don't think it's right that rich people can jump the queue to get operations before other people, and I don't think that rich people's kids should get better schools than other children. And I don't trust politicians who tell us they are going to deliver the best service possible and fund it appropriately, but refuse to use it themselves. To me the two just seem contradictory and I can't trust a politician like that. Of course other people feel differently about these things, as is their right.
Pretty much my view too. With money comes all sorts of pleasures and privileges - which is fine - but what money shouldn't be able to buy is educational advantage or better essential healthcare
For me the schools point is the bigger one since the more that parental bank balance features there, the greater is the violation of the ideal of equal opportunities. So I feel more strongly about private schools than I do about private health.
The thing is Education is a public good. The better-educated the population is the better it is for society as a whole. So you'd think it would be good if people were using their own resources to increase the total amount of Education in the country. Why is it better in your eyes for someone to buy a new sports car every other year instead of pay Eton school fees?
The reason, I think, is that you've bought into the ideology of meritocracy. This means that you see private education as someone cheating in the great meritocratic struggle. The problem here isn't private education. The problem is that meritocracy is a con used to justify inequality.
It's a futile struggle to try and create a level playing field for meritocracy. Will never happen. Instead I think we should concentrate on people's right to dignity even if they don't become doctors or lawyers, and a fair share of the proceeds generated for society by Eton's education of the wealthy.
You have me wrong here, LP. I don't fetishize meritocracy. That it ends in "ocracy" is a tell. It's an oppressive notion by itself. Eg, if outcomes are grossly unequal but everyone has a meritocratic fair shot at hitting the jackpot, this isn't the End of History imo. It makes no sense to view equal opportunity in isolation from outcomes. Both are important. Plus they impact each other in either direction.
The goal for me is everyone realizes their potential, wealth of background minimized as a factor, with the material outcomes achieved to be far more closely bunched than they are today. It's an unachievable goal of course so the direction of travel is what counts in practice.
Eton v sports car? Serial fast car purchase doesn't hardcode inequality into society, propagate it down through the generations. This is the essential difference to me.
Yes it does.
If you ask the average working class man whether he could have a new sports car or send his children to learn Latin and Maths to 18 at Eton he would take the new sports car every time!
But it doesn't cascade inequality down the generations, a Porsche 911, does it? Ditto most areas of discretionary private spend. Eg I bet I'd disapprove of some of your jumpers - find them morally wrong even - but I'll be relaxed about it because there's no violation of equal opportunities or propagating of societal inequality in your sartorial choices. Unless I'm missing something.
It does if inherited.
You are assuming that because everyone can't go to Eton nobody can. Except forgetting that even if private education was banned, grammar schools were banned, academies and free schools and faith schools were banned and everyone had to send their children to the local comprehensive there would still be inequality.
For parents living in wealthier areas with more expensive houses would have better local schools than those living in poorer areas. So you would have to ban private sale of housing too and ensure everyone lived in social housing.
Yet even then would still be inequality because those of high iq would tend to marry others of high iq and those of low iq those of low iq. So the children of the former would still be much more likely to become doctors, lawyers, ceos etc. So you would have to ban marriage amongst those of the same but not average iq and force the high iq to marry the low iq to ensure genetic shift towards average iq
People don't usually inherit jumpers.
And to say that inequality is multi-sourced and inevitable isn't a strong argument in favour of something that actively increases it.
Thing is, H, this is an unbridgeable-by-debate difference in values and worldview. I'm egalitarian, meaning I have reducing inequality as a very high priority. Heart and head both tell me this. Head because I think it's illogical how resources are so unequally distributed. Heart because it upsets me that they are.
You, otoh, are a traditional tory - with all that this entails.
No you are not egalitarian, if you were you would be Communist or hardcore Socialist and support equality of outcome. If that was the case then fair enough, I might have some respect for your position even if I believed it misguided and likely to lead to more poverty overall.
Instead you are just a liberal meritocrat. Fine with capitalism as long as there is perfect equality of opportunity, except as I have shown you and was pointed out earlier that is impossible to achieve and just reduces choice and excellence in education in reality in my view too
An egalitarian can have reducing inequality as a high priority without wishing to do away with political freedom and the mixed economy. And pls see my previous post (to Lost Password) about meritocracy and 'opportunity vs outcomes'. I'm not at all a 'liberal meritocrat' (yuck). That's not where I'm coming from. V disappointed not to have earned your respect after all this time. Ah well.
Either you genuinely believe in full equality and redistribution of wealth or you don't.
Certainly if you propose banning private education completely then that also needs full socialism in the economic sphere too for consistency
Is there anything wrong with having a private GP? If so, why?
You would have to ask Rishi that, since he is the one who seems ashamed of it.
He had three routes with integrity. One was to use the NHS while he was a high profile politician. One was to come up with a solid explanation, as OGH has done above. The third was to not enter politics. Not choosing any of those does make him look like a worse person.
And if he had to go down this path, he should have said "personal matter" not "private matter".
I disagree - it's a trap and there is no answer that won't draw bile from those who want to be bilious.
(a) Yes, I go private - Oh, NHS not good enough for you? How the hell can you be in charge of something you don't even trust to use?
(b) Lie - get found out (as has been shown) - Why did you lie?
What's wrong with Stuartinromford's first option, not going private whilst a prominent politician? It's not as if the PM's going to struggle to get an NHS appointment if he needed one.
Because its performative nonsense, thats why. Should a politician only sit in rubbish seats at football (come on Keir, get out of that box)? Of only drive rubbish cars? And as for schooling - no more private schools for the kids. That would upset quite a few labour folk.
I don't have a problem with rich people having nicer stuff. I'm richer than most people, I live in a nice big house, drive a decent sized car, had a nice long haul holiday over Christmas etc. I'm very grateful and I pay my taxes and I don't feel bad about it. But for me things like education and health are in a different class, because these are rights and everyone should have the best quality service that the country can afford. I don't think it's right that rich people can jump the queue to get operations before other people, and I don't think that rich people's kids should get better schools than other children. And I don't trust politicians who tell us they are going to deliver the best service possible and fund it appropriately, but refuse to use it themselves. To me the two just seem contradictory and I can't trust a politician like that. Of course other people feel differently about these things, as is their right.
How on earth do you think you would implement that?
Even if you outlawed them in this country, would you try to stop people from travelling abroad for medical treatment, or sending their children to private schools in other countries? Would you override devolution and enforce your policy across the whole UK?
Er, I already commented down thread that I'm not talking about banning things! Perhaps you are an instinctive authoritarian who wants to ban everything that you disapprove of, but I'm a liberal. People are free to do whatever the hell they like. But if you use private healthcare and schools then I will need a lot of persuading that you have the interests of their state equivalents close to your heart, and I probably won't vote for you, because I want the NHS and our schools to get the best possible funding and to deliver the best possible service for all of us.
Crops up a lot, this, and I have a standing order sentence which you can use if you like.
"I assess private schools as net harmful to society but it's only an opinion and I'm not saying they should be illegal."
Mind you, if I was Prez with a landslide and a 10 year term ...
But it's completely hypocritical. Would you or @OnlyLivingBoy refrain from taking/sending your children on a culturally enriching holiday because some people can't afford it?
There isn't a shred of hypocrisy. You're doing that reductive exaggeration strawman thing. It's like me saying to you - if you're cool with people buying educational privilege for their kids would you be in favour of an open market in body parts?
Yes. Why should there not be an open market in body parts?
Donations are important, and I'm on the organ donor list, but if someone wants to sell a kidney that should be their choice. Their body, their choice.
Ah it's you. This is what happens when you enshrine a principle and force yourself to agree with every single one of its implications. You end up arguing for an open market in body parts.
I don't force myself to agree with every one of its implications. I'm willing to break my principles and support something that goes against my principles, where it suits. EG I supported the smoking ban and still do. My principles say that anyone who wants to have a building where people smoke inside, that should be their choice and anyone who disagrees can go elsewhere - but for purely selfish reasons I'm willing to set aside my principles and say that I prefer no smoking indoors and let the smokers go elsewhere instead. There's no principle behind my view there, I know that I'm going against my liberal principles in supporting a smoking ban but I don't care.
I'm OK with an open market in body parts, because I see no harm in it. If someone is willing to sell a kidney, that should be their choice.
No harm in poor people selling their arms and legs in order to pay the leccy? C'mon. Let's park this since you can't be serious.
More taken by your other point - on the smoking ban. You're saying you support it even though you feel it's wrong. That's interesting. People don't usually admit to this but it does happen a lot imo. That sort of doublethink is essential to get by in this world.
Who says its only poor people who'd sell body parts, if it were an option? It could be wealthy or middle income people too. Frankly why people choose to do something, is up to them.
I don't believe in victimless crimes. If someone wants to sell something of theirs, and does so knowingly, then who is the victim? And if there's no victim, why should it be illegal?
I'm not aware of people donating arms and legs already today, so your position is one of reductio ad absurdum anyway, but if I wanted to donate a kidney to save my brother's life, that would be perfectly legal. But if someone wanted to sell theirs to eg fund a holiday, or a deposit on a home, or quite frankly anything else that's up to them, and someone wanted to pay in order to save their or their relative's life, then that is illegal. Why? Why should directed donations be legal, but paid for ones not be?
I've tried selling various parts of my body, but have been advised that they're worthless.
Selling bits of your body would be foolish.
You’d create an immediate tax liability.
You should really construct some Collateralised Body Part Obligations and start trading them OTC. By structuring the physical delivery in an offshore location, you could reduce the tax liability, potentially, to zero.
This would inevitably happen. New asset class, arcane structures. The City would be all over it.
Do you want in on the ground floor? All the wannabe Gordon Geckos will be totally in awe of what real ruthlessness is.....
Plus when investing on behalf of the more interesting clients, you can one-up them on the scary stakes.
"Yes, Mr Mexican Cartel boss, I'm quite sure you've chopped up some people. We make a profit on that stuff. We can even arrange a close and personal tour of our operation, for people who threaten us."
Is there anything wrong with having a private GP? If so, why?
You would have to ask Rishi that, since he is the one who seems ashamed of it.
He had three routes with integrity. One was to use the NHS while he was a high profile politician. One was to come up with a solid explanation, as OGH has done above. The third was to not enter politics. Not choosing any of those does make him look like a worse person.
And if he had to go down this path, he should have said "personal matter" not "private matter".
I disagree - it's a trap and there is no answer that won't draw bile from those who want to be bilious.
(a) Yes, I go private - Oh, NHS not good enough for you? How the hell can you be in charge of something you don't even trust to use?
(b) Lie - get found out (as has been shown) - Why did you lie?
What's wrong with Stuartinromford's first option, not going private whilst a prominent politician? It's not as if the PM's going to struggle to get an NHS appointment if he needed one.
Because its performative nonsense, thats why. Should a politician only sit in rubbish seats at football (come on Keir, get out of that box)? Of only drive rubbish cars? And as for schooling - no more private schools for the kids. That would upset quite a few labour folk.
I don't have a problem with rich people having nicer stuff. I'm richer than most people, I live in a nice big house, drive a decent sized car, had a nice long haul holiday over Christmas etc. I'm very grateful and I pay my taxes and I don't feel bad about it. But for me things like education and health are in a different class, because these are rights and everyone should have the best quality service that the country can afford. I don't think it's right that rich people can jump the queue to get operations before other people, and I don't think that rich people's kids should get better schools than other children. And I don't trust politicians who tell us they are going to deliver the best service possible and fund it appropriately, but refuse to use it themselves. To me the two just seem contradictory and I can't trust a politician like that. Of course other people feel differently about these things, as is their right.
Pretty much my view too. With money comes all sorts of pleasures and privileges - which is fine - but what money shouldn't be able to buy is educational advantage or better essential healthcare
For me the schools point is the bigger one since the more that parental bank balance features there, the greater is the violation of the ideal of equal opportunities. So I feel more strongly about private schools than I do about private health.
The thing is Education is a public good. The better-educated the population is the better it is for society as a whole. So you'd think it would be good if people were using their own resources to increase the total amount of Education in the country. Why is it better in your eyes for someone to buy a new sports car every other year instead of pay Eton school fees?
The reason, I think, is that you've bought into the ideology of meritocracy. This means that you see private education as someone cheating in the great meritocratic struggle. The problem here isn't private education. The problem is that meritocracy is a con used to justify inequality.
It's a futile struggle to try and create a level playing field for meritocracy. Will never happen. Instead I think we should concentrate on people's right to dignity even if they don't become doctors or lawyers, and a fair share of the proceeds generated for society by Eton's education of the wealthy.
You have me wrong here, LP. I don't fetishize meritocracy. That it ends in "ocracy" is a tell. It's an oppressive notion by itself. Eg, if outcomes are grossly unequal but everyone has a meritocratic fair shot at hitting the jackpot, this isn't the End of History imo. It makes no sense to view equal opportunity in isolation from outcomes. Both are important. Plus they impact each other in either direction.
The goal for me is everyone realizes their potential, wealth of background minimized as a factor, with the material outcomes achieved to be far more closely bunched than they are today. It's an unachievable goal of course so the direction of travel is what counts in practice.
Eton v sports car? Serial fast car purchase doesn't hardcode inequality into society, propagate it down through the generations. This is the essential difference to me.
Yes it does.
If you ask the average working class man whether he could have a new sports car or send his children to learn Latin and Maths to 18 at Eton he would take the new sports car every time!
But it doesn't cascade inequality down the generations, a Porsche 911, does it? Ditto most areas of discretionary private spend. Eg I bet I'd disapprove of some of your jumpers - find them morally wrong even - but I'll be relaxed about it because there's no violation of equal opportunities or propagating of societal inequality in your sartorial choices. Unless I'm missing something.
It does if inherited.
You are assuming that because everyone can't go to Eton nobody can. Except forgetting that even if private education was banned, grammar schools were banned, academies and free schools and faith schools were banned and everyone had to send their children to the local comprehensive there would still be inequality.
For parents living in wealthier areas with more expensive houses would have better local schools than those living in poorer areas. So you would have to ban private sale of housing too and ensure everyone lived in social housing.
Yet even then would still be inequality because those of high iq would tend to marry others of high iq and those of low iq those of low iq. So the children of the former would still be much more likely to become doctors, lawyers, ceos etc. So you would have to ban marriage amongst those of the same but not average iq and force the high iq to marry the low iq to ensure genetic shift towards average iq
People don't usually inherit jumpers.
And to say that inequality is multi-sourced and inevitable isn't a strong argument in favour of something that actively increases it.
Thing is, H, this is an unbridgeable-by-debate difference in values and worldview. I'm egalitarian, meaning I have reducing inequality as a very high priority. Heart and head both tell me this. Head because I think it's illogical how resources are so unequally distributed. Heart because it upsets me that they are.
You, otoh, are a traditional tory - with all that this entails.
No you are not egalitarian, if you were you would be Communist or hardcore Socialist and support equality of outcome. If that was the case then fair enough, I might have some respect for your position even if I believed it misguided and likely to lead to more poverty overall.
Instead you are just a liberal meritocrat. Fine with capitalism as long as there is perfect equality of opportunity, except as I have shown you and was pointed out earlier that is impossible to achieve and just reduces choice and excellence in education in reality in my view too
An egalitarian can have reducing inequality as a high priority without wishing to do away with political freedom and the mixed economy. And pls see my previous post (to Lost Password) about meritocracy and 'opportunity vs outcomes'. I'm not at all a 'liberal meritocrat' (yuck). That's not where I'm coming from. V disappointed not to have earned your respect after all this time. Ah well.
Either you genuinely believe in full equality and redistribution of wealth or you don't.
Certainly if you propose banning private education completely then that also needs full socialism in the economy sphere too for consistency
Is there anything wrong with having a private GP? If so, why?
You would have to ask Rishi that, since he is the one who seems ashamed of it.
He had three routes with integrity. One was to use the NHS while he was a high profile politician. One was to come up with a solid explanation, as OGH has done above. The third was to not enter politics. Not choosing any of those does make him look like a worse person.
And if he had to go down this path, he should have said "personal matter" not "private matter".
I disagree - it's a trap and there is no answer that won't draw bile from those who want to be bilious.
(a) Yes, I go private - Oh, NHS not good enough for you? How the hell can you be in charge of something you don't even trust to use?
(b) Lie - get found out (as has been shown) - Why did you lie?
What's wrong with Stuartinromford's first option, not going private whilst a prominent politician? It's not as if the PM's going to struggle to get an NHS appointment if he needed one.
Because its performative nonsense, thats why. Should a politician only sit in rubbish seats at football (come on Keir, get out of that box)? Of only drive rubbish cars? And as for schooling - no more private schools for the kids. That would upset quite a few labour folk.
I don't have a problem with rich people having nicer stuff. I'm richer than most people, I live in a nice big house, drive a decent sized car, had a nice long haul holiday over Christmas etc. I'm very grateful and I pay my taxes and I don't feel bad about it. But for me things like education and health are in a different class, because these are rights and everyone should have the best quality service that the country can afford. I don't think it's right that rich people can jump the queue to get operations before other people, and I don't think that rich people's kids should get better schools than other children. And I don't trust politicians who tell us they are going to deliver the best service possible and fund it appropriately, but refuse to use it themselves. To me the two just seem contradictory and I can't trust a politician like that. Of course other people feel differently about these things, as is their right.
How on earth do you think you would implement that?
Even if you outlawed them in this country, would you try to stop people from travelling abroad for medical treatment, or sending their children to private schools in other countries? Would you override devolution and enforce your policy across the whole UK?
Er, I already commented down thread that I'm not talking about banning things! Perhaps you are an instinctive authoritarian who wants to ban everything that you disapprove of, but I'm a liberal. People are free to do whatever the hell they like. But if you use private healthcare and schools then I will need a lot of persuading that you have the interests of their state equivalents close to your heart, and I probably won't vote for you, because I want the NHS and our schools to get the best possible funding and to deliver the best possible service for all of us.
Crops up a lot, this, and I have a standing order sentence which you can use if you like.
"I assess private schools as net harmful to society but it's only an opinion and I'm not saying they should be illegal."
Mind you, if I was Prez with a landslide and a 10 year term ...
But it's completely hypocritical. Would you or @OnlyLivingBoy refrain from taking/sending your children on a culturally enriching holiday because some people can't afford it?
There isn't a shred of hypocrisy. You're doing that reductive exaggeration strawman thing. It's like me saying to you - if you're cool with people buying educational privilege for their kids would you be in favour of an open market in body parts?
Yes. Why should there not be an open market in body parts?
Donations are important, and I'm on the organ donor list, but if someone wants to sell a kidney that should be their choice. Their body, their choice.
Ah it's you. This is what happens when you enshrine a principle and force yourself to agree with every single one of its implications. You end up arguing for an open market in body parts.
I don't force myself to agree with every one of its implications. I'm willing to break my principles and support something that goes against my principles, where it suits. EG I supported the smoking ban and still do. My principles say that anyone who wants to have a building where people smoke inside, that should be their choice and anyone who disagrees can go elsewhere - but for purely selfish reasons I'm willing to set aside my principles and say that I prefer no smoking indoors and let the smokers go elsewhere instead. There's no principle behind my view there, I know that I'm going against my liberal principles in supporting a smoking ban but I don't care.
I'm OK with an open market in body parts, because I see no harm in it. If someone is willing to sell a kidney, that should be their choice.
No harm in poor people selling their arms and legs in order to pay the leccy? C'mon. Let's park this since you can't be serious.
More taken by your other point - on the smoking ban. You're saying you support it even though you feel it's wrong. That's interesting. People don't usually admit to this but it does happen a lot imo. That sort of doublethink is essential to get by in this world.
Who says its only poor people who'd sell body parts, if it were an option? It could be wealthy or middle income people too. Frankly why people choose to do something, is up to them.
I don't believe in victimless crimes. If someone wants to sell something of theirs, and does so knowingly, then who is the victim? And if there's no victim, why should it be illegal?
I'm not aware of people donating arms and legs already today, so your position is one of reductio ad absurdum anyway, but if I wanted to donate a kidney to save my brother's life, that would be perfectly legal. But if someone wanted to sell theirs to eg fund a holiday, or a deposit on a home, or quite frankly anything else that's up to them, and someone wanted to pay in order to save their or their relative's life, then that is illegal. Why? Why should directed donations be legal, but paid for ones not be?
I've tried selling various parts of my body, but have been advised that they're worthless.
I've donated mine to medical students. I guess I should check that it is only after I have finished with it.
Can I suggest others do the same. It is simply to do. Makes life easy for your own family and does some good for future generations.
I would only do so, on the explicit understanding that my body parts *must* be used in juvenile pranks by the medicals students.
Selebian said: "I suspect private healthcare can be fairly wasteful, particularly at the top end."
The designer(s) of "Obamacare" would agree with you. They proposed a tax on "Cadillac" insurance plans that provided too many benefits. (Some of those had been negotiated by powerful unions, by the way.)
Is there anything wrong with having a private GP? If so, why?
You would have to ask Rishi that, since he is the one who seems ashamed of it.
He had three routes with integrity. One was to use the NHS while he was a high profile politician. One was to come up with a solid explanation, as OGH has done above. The third was to not enter politics. Not choosing any of those does make him look like a worse person.
And if he had to go down this path, he should have said "personal matter" not "private matter".
I disagree - it's a trap and there is no answer that won't draw bile from those who want to be bilious.
(a) Yes, I go private - Oh, NHS not good enough for you? How the hell can you be in charge of something you don't even trust to use?
(b) Lie - get found out (as has been shown) - Why did you lie?
What's wrong with Stuartinromford's first option, not going private whilst a prominent politician? It's not as if the PM's going to struggle to get an NHS appointment if he needed one.
Because its performative nonsense, thats why. Should a politician only sit in rubbish seats at football (come on Keir, get out of that box)? Of only drive rubbish cars? And as for schooling - no more private schools for the kids. That would upset quite a few labour folk.
I don't have a problem with rich people having nicer stuff. I'm richer than most people, I live in a nice big house, drive a decent sized car, had a nice long haul holiday over Christmas etc. I'm very grateful and I pay my taxes and I don't feel bad about it. But for me things like education and health are in a different class, because these are rights and everyone should have the best quality service that the country can afford. I don't think it's right that rich people can jump the queue to get operations before other people, and I don't think that rich people's kids should get better schools than other children. And I don't trust politicians who tell us they are going to deliver the best service possible and fund it appropriately, but refuse to use it themselves. To me the two just seem contradictory and I can't trust a politician like that. Of course other people feel differently about these things, as is their right.
Pretty much my view too. With money comes all sorts of pleasures and privileges - which is fine - but what money shouldn't be able to buy is educational advantage or better essential healthcare
For me the schools point is the bigger one since the more that parental bank balance features there, the greater is the violation of the ideal of equal opportunities. So I feel more strongly about private schools than I do about private health.
The thing is Education is a public good. The better-educated the population is the better it is for society as a whole. So you'd think it would be good if people were using their own resources to increase the total amount of Education in the country. Why is it better in your eyes for someone to buy a new sports car every other year instead of pay Eton school fees?
The reason, I think, is that you've bought into the ideology of meritocracy. This means that you see private education as someone cheating in the great meritocratic struggle. The problem here isn't private education. The problem is that meritocracy is a con used to justify inequality.
It's a futile struggle to try and create a level playing field for meritocracy. Will never happen. Instead I think we should concentrate on people's right to dignity even if they don't become doctors or lawyers, and a fair share of the proceeds generated for society by Eton's education of the wealthy.
You have me wrong here, LP. I don't fetishize meritocracy. That it ends in "ocracy" is a tell. It's an oppressive notion by itself. Eg, if outcomes are grossly unequal but everyone has a meritocratic fair shot at hitting the jackpot, this isn't the End of History imo. It makes no sense to view equal opportunity in isolation from outcomes. Both are important. Plus they impact each other in either direction.
The goal for me is everyone realizes their potential, wealth of background minimized as a factor, with the material outcomes achieved to be far more closely bunched than they are today. It's an unachievable goal of course so the direction of travel is what counts in practice.
Eton v sports car? Serial fast car purchase doesn't hardcode inequality into society, propagate it down through the generations. This is the essential difference to me.
Yes it does.
If you ask the average working class man whether he could have a new sports car or send his children to learn Latin and Maths to 18 at Eton he would take the new sports car every time!
But it doesn't cascade inequality down the generations, a Porsche 911, does it? Ditto most areas of discretionary private spend. Eg I bet I'd disapprove of some of your jumpers - find them morally wrong even - but I'll be relaxed about it because there's no violation of equal opportunities or propagating of societal inequality in your sartorial choices. Unless I'm missing something.
It does if inherited.
You are assuming that because everyone can't go to Eton nobody can. Except forgetting that even if private education was banned, grammar schools were banned, academies and free schools and faith schools were banned and everyone had to send their children to the local comprehensive there would still be inequality.
For parents living in wealthier areas with more expensive houses would have better local schools than those living in poorer areas. So you would have to ban private sale of housing too and ensure everyone lived in social housing.
Yet even then would still be inequality because those of high iq would tend to marry others of high iq and those of low iq those of low iq. So the children of the former would still be much more likely to become doctors, lawyers, ceos etc. So you would have to ban marriage amongst those of the same but not average iq and force the high iq to marry the low iq to ensure genetic shift towards average iq
People don't usually inherit jumpers.
And to say that inequality is multi-sourced and inevitable isn't a strong argument in favour of something that actively increases it.
Thing is, H, this is an unbridgeable-by-debate difference in values and worldview. I'm egalitarian, meaning I have reducing inequality as a very high priority. Heart and head both tell me this. Head because I think it's illogical how resources are so unequally distributed. Heart because it upsets me that they are.
You, otoh, are a traditional tory - with all that this entails.
No you are not egalitarian, if you were you would be Communist or hardcore Socialist and support equality of outcome. If that was the case then fair enough, I might have some respect for your position even if I believed it misguided and likely to lead to more poverty overall.
Instead you are just a liberal meritocrat. Fine with capitalism as long as there is perfect equality of opportunity, except as I have shown you and was pointed out earlier that is impossible to achieve and just reduces choice and excellence in education in reality in my view too
An egalitarian can have reducing inequality as a high priority without wishing to do away with political freedom and the mixed economy. And pls see my previous post (to Lost Password) about meritocracy and 'opportunity vs outcomes'. I'm not at all a 'liberal meritocrat' (yuck). That's not where I'm coming from. V disappointed not to have earned your respect after all this time. Ah well.
Either you genuinely believe in full equality and redistribution of wealth or you don't.
Certainly if you propose banning private education completely then that also needs full socialism in the economy sphere too for consistency
Is there anything wrong with having a private GP? If so, why?
You would have to ask Rishi that, since he is the one who seems ashamed of it.
He had three routes with integrity. One was to use the NHS while he was a high profile politician. One was to come up with a solid explanation, as OGH has done above. The third was to not enter politics. Not choosing any of those does make him look like a worse person.
And if he had to go down this path, he should have said "personal matter" not "private matter".
I disagree - it's a trap and there is no answer that won't draw bile from those who want to be bilious.
(a) Yes, I go private - Oh, NHS not good enough for you? How the hell can you be in charge of something you don't even trust to use?
(b) Lie - get found out (as has been shown) - Why did you lie?
What's wrong with Stuartinromford's first option, not going private whilst a prominent politician? It's not as if the PM's going to struggle to get an NHS appointment if he needed one.
Because its performative nonsense, thats why. Should a politician only sit in rubbish seats at football (come on Keir, get out of that box)? Of only drive rubbish cars? And as for schooling - no more private schools for the kids. That would upset quite a few labour folk.
I don't have a problem with rich people having nicer stuff. I'm richer than most people, I live in a nice big house, drive a decent sized car, had a nice long haul holiday over Christmas etc. I'm very grateful and I pay my taxes and I don't feel bad about it. But for me things like education and health are in a different class, because these are rights and everyone should have the best quality service that the country can afford. I don't think it's right that rich people can jump the queue to get operations before other people, and I don't think that rich people's kids should get better schools than other children. And I don't trust politicians who tell us they are going to deliver the best service possible and fund it appropriately, but refuse to use it themselves. To me the two just seem contradictory and I can't trust a politician like that. Of course other people feel differently about these things, as is their right.
Pretty much my view too. With money comes all sorts of pleasures and privileges - which is fine - but what money shouldn't be able to buy is educational advantage or better essential healthcare
For me the schools point is the bigger one since the more that parental bank balance features there, the greater is the violation of the ideal of equal opportunities. So I feel more strongly about private schools than I do about private health.
The thing is Education is a public good. The better-educated the population is the better it is for society as a whole. So you'd think it would be good if people were using their own resources to increase the total amount of Education in the country. Why is it better in your eyes for someone to buy a new sports car every other year instead of pay Eton school fees?
The reason, I think, is that you've bought into the ideology of meritocracy. This means that you see private education as someone cheating in the great meritocratic struggle. The problem here isn't private education. The problem is that meritocracy is a con used to justify inequality.
It's a futile struggle to try and create a level playing field for meritocracy. Will never happen. Instead I think we should concentrate on people's right to dignity even if they don't become doctors or lawyers, and a fair share of the proceeds generated for society by Eton's education of the wealthy.
You have me wrong here, LP. I don't fetishize meritocracy. That it ends in "ocracy" is a tell. It's an oppressive notion by itself. Eg, if outcomes are grossly unequal but everyone has a meritocratic fair shot at hitting the jackpot, this isn't the End of History imo. It makes no sense to view equal opportunity in isolation from outcomes. Both are important. Plus they impact each other in either direction.
The goal for me is everyone realizes their potential, wealth of background minimized as a factor, with the material outcomes achieved to be far more closely bunched than they are today. It's an unachievable goal of course so the direction of travel is what counts in practice.
Eton v sports car? Serial fast car purchase doesn't hardcode inequality into society, propagate it down through the generations. This is the essential difference to me.
Yes it does.
If you ask the average working class man whether he could have a new sports car or send his children to learn Latin and Maths to 18 at Eton he would take the new sports car every time!
But it doesn't cascade inequality down the generations, a Porsche 911, does it? Ditto most areas of discretionary private spend. Eg I bet I'd disapprove of some of your jumpers - find them morally wrong even - but I'll be relaxed about it because there's no violation of equal opportunities or propagating of societal inequality in your sartorial choices. Unless I'm missing something.
It does if inherited.
You are assuming that because everyone can't go to Eton nobody can. Except forgetting that even if private education was banned, grammar schools were banned, academies and free schools and faith schools were banned and everyone had to send their children to the local comprehensive there would still be inequality.
For parents living in wealthier areas with more expensive houses would have better local schools than those living in poorer areas. So you would have to ban private sale of housing too and ensure everyone lived in social housing.
Yet even then would still be inequality because those of high iq would tend to marry others of high iq and those of low iq those of low iq. So the children of the former would still be much more likely to become doctors, lawyers, ceos etc. So you would have to ban marriage amongst those of the same but not average iq and force the high iq to marry the low iq to ensure genetic shift towards average iq
People don't usually inherit jumpers.
And to say that inequality is multi-sourced and inevitable isn't a strong argument in favour of something that actively increases it.
Thing is, H, this is an unbridgeable-by-debate difference in values and worldview. I'm egalitarian, meaning I have reducing inequality as a very high priority. Heart and head both tell me this. Head because I think it's illogical how resources are so unequally distributed. Heart because it upsets me that they are.
You, otoh, are a traditional tory - with all that this entails.
No you are not egalitarian, if you were you would be Communist or hardcore Socialist and support equality of outcome. If that was the case then fair enough, I might have some respect for your position even if I believed it misguided and likely to lead to more poverty overall.
Instead you are just a liberal meritocrat. Fine with capitalism as long as there is perfect equality of opportunity, except as I have shown you and was pointed out earlier that is impossible to achieve and just reduces choice and excellence in education in reality in my view too
An egalitarian can have reducing inequality as a high priority without wishing to do away with political freedom and the mixed economy. And pls see my previous post (to Lost Password) about meritocracy and 'opportunity vs outcomes'. I'm not at all a 'liberal meritocrat' (yuck). That's not where I'm coming from. V disappointed not to have earned your respect after all this time. Ah well.
Either you genuinely believe in full equality and redistribution of wealth or you don't.
Certainly if you propose banning private education completely then that also needs full socialism in the economy sphere too for consistency
I don't believe or propose any of that. It's caricature. I insist on the right to a position with just a modicum of nuance. Which tbf (to me) I grant to others. Do you find me saying people aren't proper capitalists unless they favour rich people starting every meal with a freshly grilled pauper's finger from Fortnums? No you don't.
Ah, I see we're in for another day of anti-trans hate. Situation normal.
I’m surprised you, of all people, are illustrating the point. It’s not just women’s rights Trans activists are harming. They are hurting trans peoples rights too by their “no debate” and sometimes violent shutting down of any attempt to discuss it.
I'm not illustrating your point - at least, as I read your point. Do you really think 'trans activists' have caused the deluge of anti-trans stuff in the media and online? As an example. when did you last post something supporting trans people, instead of a litany of negativity towards them?
I don't see myself as an 'activist' - I'm just someone who has known a few trans people, a couple of whom were very good friends. I'd argue *you* are an activist - as it seems you feel the need to post negative sh*t about them all the time. It's just that you're a negative activist.
If there is a deluge of anti trans stuff in the media please link to some examples, so we can see if it really anti trans or not.
The number of trans people in your life seems to make you a statistical outlier.
"The number of trans people in your life seems to make you a statistical outlier."
Perhaps. Perhaps not. You'd be surprising how hard it can be to tell an individual is trans. And IME, the longer they are trans, and the older they get, the harder it is to tell. And despite what some may say, women cannot automagically 'tell' when someone is male or trans. At least the ones I've asked cannot.
As for the articles: I might suggest you look at the following as an example of a constant stream of negativity. Can you point to an article there that says: "Hey look, this trans person has done something cool!" ?
Are you expecting the Daily Mail to be posting positive articles about anything at all? I think I may have found your problem.
The issue with the trans debate that puts me off is that people on both sides can be a bit all or nothing about it. For me the position I have settled upon is that people who are trans should be treated with respect and care, and so long as it doesn't cause any safeguarding issues should be treated as the gender they identify as - and by any names or pronouns they prefer. Where safeguarding is a concern, then sex should trump gender identity.
That's all fine, but how do you define sex? - Natal sex? - Based on presence of sex organs? - Based on receipt (or not) of x-sex hormones?
There are possible arguments for all of those, depending on the situation. Natal sex tends to imply physical strength and size, for example (although not universally, of course, and depending to some extent on the age of other interventions). Presence of a penis is of course relevant to some sexual safeguarding, but a natal male in long term receipt of x-sex hormones may be unable to have an erection. All shades of grey, as I think you appreciate.
You halfwit your sex is decided at conception and you are born male or female. Anything else is absolute garbage.
Is there anything wrong with having a private GP? If so, why?
You would have to ask Rishi that, since he is the one who seems ashamed of it.
He had three routes with integrity. One was to use the NHS while he was a high profile politician. One was to come up with a solid explanation, as OGH has done above. The third was to not enter politics. Not choosing any of those does make him look like a worse person.
And if he had to go down this path, he should have said "personal matter" not "private matter".
I disagree - it's a trap and there is no answer that won't draw bile from those who want to be bilious.
(a) Yes, I go private - Oh, NHS not good enough for you? How the hell can you be in charge of something you don't even trust to use?
(b) Lie - get found out (as has been shown) - Why did you lie?
What's wrong with Stuartinromford's first option, not going private whilst a prominent politician? It's not as if the PM's going to struggle to get an NHS appointment if he needed one.
Because its performative nonsense, thats why. Should a politician only sit in rubbish seats at football (come on Keir, get out of that box)? Of only drive rubbish cars? And as for schooling - no more private schools for the kids. That would upset quite a few labour folk.
I don't have a problem with rich people having nicer stuff. I'm richer than most people, I live in a nice big house, drive a decent sized car, had a nice long haul holiday over Christmas etc. I'm very grateful and I pay my taxes and I don't feel bad about it. But for me things like education and health are in a different class, because these are rights and everyone should have the best quality service that the country can afford. I don't think it's right that rich people can jump the queue to get operations before other people, and I don't think that rich people's kids should get better schools than other children. And I don't trust politicians who tell us they are going to deliver the best service possible and fund it appropriately, but refuse to use it themselves. To me the two just seem contradictory and I can't trust a politician like that. Of course other people feel differently about these things, as is their right.
Pretty much my view too. With money comes all sorts of pleasures and privileges - which is fine - but what money shouldn't be able to buy is educational advantage or better essential healthcare
For me the schools point is the bigger one since the more that parental bank balance features there, the greater is the violation of the ideal of equal opportunities. So I feel more strongly about private schools than I do about private health.
The thing is Education is a public good. The better-educated the population is the better it is for society as a whole. So you'd think it would be good if people were using their own resources to increase the total amount of Education in the country. Why is it better in your eyes for someone to buy a new sports car every other year instead of pay Eton school fees?
The reason, I think, is that you've bought into the ideology of meritocracy. This means that you see private education as someone cheating in the great meritocratic struggle. The problem here isn't private education. The problem is that meritocracy is a con used to justify inequality.
It's a futile struggle to try and create a level playing field for meritocracy. Will never happen. Instead I think we should concentrate on people's right to dignity even if they don't become doctors or lawyers, and a fair share of the proceeds generated for society by Eton's education of the wealthy.
You have me wrong here, LP. I don't fetishize meritocracy. That it ends in "ocracy" is a tell. It's an oppressive notion by itself. Eg, if outcomes are grossly unequal but everyone has a meritocratic fair shot at hitting the jackpot, this isn't the End of History imo. It makes no sense to view equal opportunity in isolation from outcomes. Both are important. Plus they impact each other in either direction.
The goal for me is everyone realizes their potential, wealth of background minimized as a factor, with the material outcomes achieved to be far more closely bunched than they are today. It's an unachievable goal of course so the direction of travel is what counts in practice.
Eton v sports car? Serial fast car purchase doesn't hardcode inequality into society, propagate it down through the generations. This is the essential difference to me.
Yes it does.
If you ask the average working class man whether he could have a new sports car or send his children to learn Latin and Maths to 18 at Eton he would take the new sports car every time!
But it doesn't cascade inequality down the generations, a Porsche 911, does it? Ditto most areas of discretionary private spend. Eg I bet I'd disapprove of some of your jumpers - find them morally wrong even - but I'll be relaxed about it because there's no violation of equal opportunities or propagating of societal inequality in your sartorial choices. Unless I'm missing something.
It does if inherited.
You are assuming that because everyone can't go to Eton nobody can. Except forgetting that even if private education was banned, grammar schools were banned, academies and free schools and faith schools were banned and everyone had to send their children to the local comprehensive there would still be inequality.
For parents living in wealthier areas with more expensive houses would have better local schools than those living in poorer areas. So you would have to ban private sale of housing too and ensure everyone lived in social housing.
Yet even then would still be inequality because those of high iq would tend to marry others of high iq and those of low iq those of low iq. So the children of the former would still be much more likely to become doctors, lawyers, ceos etc. So you would have to ban marriage amongst those of the same but not average iq and force the high iq to marry the low iq to ensure genetic shift towards average iq
People don't usually inherit jumpers.
And to say that inequality is multi-sourced and inevitable isn't a strong argument in favour of something that actively increases it.
Thing is, H, this is an unbridgeable-by-debate difference in values and worldview. I'm egalitarian, meaning I have reducing inequality as a very high priority. Heart and head both tell me this. Head because I think it's illogical how resources are so unequally distributed. Heart because it upsets me that they are.
You, otoh, are a traditional tory - with all that this entails.
No you are not egalitarian, if you were you would be Communist or hardcore Socialist and support equality of outcome. If that was the case then fair enough, I might have some respect for your position even if I believed it misguided and likely to lead to more poverty overall.
Instead you are just a liberal meritocrat. Fine with capitalism as long as there is perfect equality of opportunity, except as I have shown you and was pointed out earlier that is impossible to achieve and just reduces choice and excellence in education in reality in my view too
An egalitarian can have reducing inequality as a high priority without wishing to do away with political freedom and the mixed economy. And pls see my previous post (to Lost Password) about meritocracy and 'opportunity vs outcomes'. I'm not at all a 'liberal meritocrat' (yuck). That's not where I'm coming from. V disappointed not to have earned your respect after all this time. Ah well.
Either you genuinely believe in full equality and redistribution of wealth or you don't.
Certainly if you propose banning private education completely then that also needs full socialism in the economy sphere too for consistency
To be honest, I don't care if he uses private medicine, the NHS, or the local witch doctor. As long as he runs the country ok he's fine by me. In that respect, he's a damn sight better than the previous two incumbents of his office so I would cut him personally some slack for the occasional PR gaff.
He needs some time to improve his presentational skills. Not sure he'll get much though.
Is there anything wrong with having a private GP? If so, why?
You would have to ask Rishi that, since he is the one who seems ashamed of it.
He had three routes with integrity. One was to use the NHS while he was a high profile politician. One was to come up with a solid explanation, as OGH has done above. The third was to not enter politics. Not choosing any of those does make him look like a worse person.
And if he had to go down this path, he should have said "personal matter" not "private matter".
I disagree - it's a trap and there is no answer that won't draw bile from those who want to be bilious.
(a) Yes, I go private - Oh, NHS not good enough for you? How the hell can you be in charge of something you don't even trust to use?
(b) Lie - get found out (as has been shown) - Why did you lie?
What's wrong with Stuartinromford's first option, not going private whilst a prominent politician? It's not as if the PM's going to struggle to get an NHS appointment if he needed one.
Because its performative nonsense, thats why. Should a politician only sit in rubbish seats at football (come on Keir, get out of that box)? Of only drive rubbish cars? And as for schooling - no more private schools for the kids. That would upset quite a few labour folk.
I don't have a problem with rich people having nicer stuff. I'm richer than most people, I live in a nice big house, drive a decent sized car, had a nice long haul holiday over Christmas etc. I'm very grateful and I pay my taxes and I don't feel bad about it. But for me things like education and health are in a different class, because these are rights and everyone should have the best quality service that the country can afford. I don't think it's right that rich people can jump the queue to get operations before other people, and I don't think that rich people's kids should get better schools than other children. And I don't trust politicians who tell us they are going to deliver the best service possible and fund it appropriately, but refuse to use it themselves. To me the two just seem contradictory and I can't trust a politician like that. Of course other people feel differently about these things, as is their right.
Pretty much my view too. With money comes all sorts of pleasures and privileges - which is fine - but what money shouldn't be able to buy is educational advantage or better essential healthcare
For me the schools point is the bigger one since the more that parental bank balance features there, the greater is the violation of the ideal of equal opportunities. So I feel more strongly about private schools than I do about private health.
The thing is Education is a public good. The better-educated the population is the better it is for society as a whole. So you'd think it would be good if people were using their own resources to increase the total amount of Education in the country. Why is it better in your eyes for someone to buy a new sports car every other year instead of pay Eton school fees?
The reason, I think, is that you've bought into the ideology of meritocracy. This means that you see private education as someone cheating in the great meritocratic struggle. The problem here isn't private education. The problem is that meritocracy is a con used to justify inequality.
It's a futile struggle to try and create a level playing field for meritocracy. Will never happen. Instead I think we should concentrate on people's right to dignity even if they don't become doctors or lawyers, and a fair share of the proceeds generated for society by Eton's education of the wealthy.
You have me wrong here, LP. I don't fetishize meritocracy. That it ends in "ocracy" is a tell. It's an oppressive notion by itself. Eg, if outcomes are grossly unequal but everyone has a meritocratic fair shot at hitting the jackpot, this isn't the End of History imo. It makes no sense to view equal opportunity in isolation from outcomes. Both are important. Plus they impact each other in either direction.
The goal for me is everyone realizes their potential, wealth of background minimized as a factor, with the material outcomes achieved to be far more closely bunched than they are today. It's an unachievable goal of course so the direction of travel is what counts in practice.
Eton v sports car? Serial fast car purchase doesn't hardcode inequality into society, propagate it down through the generations. This is the essential difference to me.
Yes it does.
If you ask the average working class man whether he could have a new sports car or send his children to learn Latin and Maths to 18 at Eton he would take the new sports car every time!
But it doesn't cascade inequality down the generations, a Porsche 911, does it? Ditto most areas of discretionary private spend. Eg I bet I'd disapprove of some of your jumpers - find them morally wrong even - but I'll be relaxed about it because there's no violation of equal opportunities or propagating of societal inequality in your sartorial choices. Unless I'm missing something.
It does if inherited.
You are assuming that because everyone can't go to Eton nobody can. Except forgetting that even if private education was banned, grammar schools were banned, academies and free schools and faith schools were banned and everyone had to send their children to the local comprehensive there would still be inequality.
For parents living in wealthier areas with more expensive houses would have better local schools than those living in poorer areas. So you would have to ban private sale of housing too and ensure everyone lived in social housing.
Yet even then would still be inequality because those of high iq would tend to marry others of high iq and those of low iq those of low iq. So the children of the former would still be much more likely to become doctors, lawyers, ceos etc. So you would have to ban marriage amongst those of the same but not average iq and force the high iq to marry the low iq to ensure genetic shift towards average iq
People don't usually inherit jumpers.
And to say that inequality is multi-sourced and inevitable isn't a strong argument in favour of something that actively increases it.
Thing is, H, this is an unbridgeable-by-debate difference in values and worldview. I'm egalitarian, meaning I have reducing inequality as a very high priority. Heart and head both tell me this. Head because I think it's illogical how resources are so unequally distributed. Heart because it upsets me that they are.
You, otoh, are a traditional tory - with all that this entails.
No you are not egalitarian, if you were you would be Communist or hardcore Socialist and support equality of outcome. If that was the case then fair enough, I might have some respect for your position even if I believed it misguided and likely to lead to more poverty overall.
Instead you are just a liberal meritocrat. Fine with capitalism as long as there is perfect equality of opportunity, except as I have shown you and was pointed out earlier that is impossible to achieve and just reduces choice and excellence in education in reality in my view too
An egalitarian can have reducing inequality as a high priority without wishing to do away with political freedom and the mixed economy. And pls see my previous post (to Lost Password) about meritocracy and 'opportunity vs outcomes'. I'm not at all a 'liberal meritocrat' (yuck). That's not where I'm coming from. V disappointed not to have earned your respect after all this time. Ah well.
Either you genuinely believe in full equality and redistribution of wealth or you don't.
Certainly if you propose banning private education completely then that also needs full socialism in the economy sphere too for consistency
Is there anything wrong with having a private GP? If so, why?
You would have to ask Rishi that, since he is the one who seems ashamed of it.
He had three routes with integrity. One was to use the NHS while he was a high profile politician. One was to come up with a solid explanation, as OGH has done above. The third was to not enter politics. Not choosing any of those does make him look like a worse person.
And if he had to go down this path, he should have said "personal matter" not "private matter".
I disagree - it's a trap and there is no answer that won't draw bile from those who want to be bilious.
(a) Yes, I go private - Oh, NHS not good enough for you? How the hell can you be in charge of something you don't even trust to use?
(b) Lie - get found out (as has been shown) - Why did you lie?
What's wrong with Stuartinromford's first option, not going private whilst a prominent politician? It's not as if the PM's going to struggle to get an NHS appointment if he needed one.
Because its performative nonsense, thats why. Should a politician only sit in rubbish seats at football (come on Keir, get out of that box)? Of only drive rubbish cars? And as for schooling - no more private schools for the kids. That would upset quite a few labour folk.
I don't have a problem with rich people having nicer stuff. I'm richer than most people, I live in a nice big house, drive a decent sized car, had a nice long haul holiday over Christmas etc. I'm very grateful and I pay my taxes and I don't feel bad about it. But for me things like education and health are in a different class, because these are rights and everyone should have the best quality service that the country can afford. I don't think it's right that rich people can jump the queue to get operations before other people, and I don't think that rich people's kids should get better schools than other children. And I don't trust politicians who tell us they are going to deliver the best service possible and fund it appropriately, but refuse to use it themselves. To me the two just seem contradictory and I can't trust a politician like that. Of course other people feel differently about these things, as is their right.
How on earth do you think you would implement that?
Even if you outlawed them in this country, would you try to stop people from travelling abroad for medical treatment, or sending their children to private schools in other countries? Would you override devolution and enforce your policy across the whole UK?
Er, I already commented down thread that I'm not talking about banning things! Perhaps you are an instinctive authoritarian who wants to ban everything that you disapprove of, but I'm a liberal. People are free to do whatever the hell they like. But if you use private healthcare and schools then I will need a lot of persuading that you have the interests of their state equivalents close to your heart, and I probably won't vote for you, because I want the NHS and our schools to get the best possible funding and to deliver the best possible service for all of us.
Crops up a lot, this, and I have a standing order sentence which you can use if you like.
"I assess private schools as net harmful to society but it's only an opinion and I'm not saying they should be illegal."
Mind you, if I was Prez with a landslide and a 10 year term ...
But it's completely hypocritical. Would you or @OnlyLivingBoy refrain from taking/sending your children on a culturally enriching holiday because some people can't afford it?
There isn't a shred of hypocrisy. You're doing that reductive exaggeration strawman thing. It's like me saying to you - if you're cool with people buying educational privilege for their kids would you be in favour of an open market in body parts?
Yes. Why should there not be an open market in body parts?
Donations are important, and I'm on the organ donor list, but if someone wants to sell a kidney that should be their choice. Their body, their choice.
Ah it's you. This is what happens when you enshrine a principle and force yourself to agree with every single one of its implications. You end up arguing for an open market in body parts.
I don't force myself to agree with every one of its implications. I'm willing to break my principles and support something that goes against my principles, where it suits. EG I supported the smoking ban and still do. My principles say that anyone who wants to have a building where people smoke inside, that should be their choice and anyone who disagrees can go elsewhere - but for purely selfish reasons I'm willing to set aside my principles and say that I prefer no smoking indoors and let the smokers go elsewhere instead. There's no principle behind my view there, I know that I'm going against my liberal principles in supporting a smoking ban but I don't care.
I'm OK with an open market in body parts, because I see no harm in it. If someone is willing to sell a kidney, that should be their choice.
No harm in poor people selling their arms and legs in order to pay the leccy? C'mon. Let's park this since you can't be serious.
More taken by your other point - on the smoking ban. You're saying you support it even though you feel it's wrong. That's interesting. People don't usually admit to this but it does happen a lot imo. That sort of doublethink is essential to get by in this world.
Who says its only poor people who'd sell body parts, if it were an option? It could be wealthy or middle income people too. Frankly why people choose to do something, is up to them.
I don't believe in victimless crimes. If someone wants to sell something of theirs, and does so knowingly, then who is the victim? And if there's no victim, why should it be illegal?
I'm not aware of people donating arms and legs already today, so your position is one of reductio ad absurdum anyway, but if I wanted to donate a kidney to save my brother's life, that would be perfectly legal. But if someone wanted to sell theirs to eg fund a holiday, or a deposit on a home, or quite frankly anything else that's up to them, and someone wanted to pay in order to save their or their relative's life, then that is illegal. Why? Why should directed donations be legal, but paid for ones not be?
I've tried selling various parts of my body, but have been advised that they're worthless.
I've donated mine to medical students. I guess I should check that it is only after I have finished with it.
Can I suggest others do the same. It is simply to do. Makes life easy for your own family and does some good for future generations.
I would only do so, on the explicit understanding that my body parts *must* be used in juvenile pranks by the medicals students.
Boston Legal had a really good story arc covering these sort of topics, featuring Michael J Fox as a dying wealthy businessman who ends up in court for bribing his way into drug trials, and buying body parts for transplant etc
Storyline ends with his own body being chopped and sold after he dies, his head ends up in a haunted house in Salem, Massachusetts.
To be honest, I don't care if he uses private medicine, the NHS, or the local witch doctor. As long as he runs the country ok he's fine by me. In that respect, he's a damn sight better than the previous two incumbents of his office so I would cut him personally some slack for the occasional PR gaff.
He needs some time to improve his presentational skills. Not sure he'll get much though.
Is there anything wrong with having a private GP? If so, why?
You would have to ask Rishi that, since he is the one who seems ashamed of it.
He had three routes with integrity. One was to use the NHS while he was a high profile politician. One was to come up with a solid explanation, as OGH has done above. The third was to not enter politics. Not choosing any of those does make him look like a worse person.
And if he had to go down this path, he should have said "personal matter" not "private matter".
I disagree - it's a trap and there is no answer that won't draw bile from those who want to be bilious.
(a) Yes, I go private - Oh, NHS not good enough for you? How the hell can you be in charge of something you don't even trust to use?
(b) Lie - get found out (as has been shown) - Why did you lie?
What's wrong with Stuartinromford's first option, not going private whilst a prominent politician? It's not as if the PM's going to struggle to get an NHS appointment if he needed one.
Because its performative nonsense, thats why. Should a politician only sit in rubbish seats at football (come on Keir, get out of that box)? Of only drive rubbish cars? And as for schooling - no more private schools for the kids. That would upset quite a few labour folk.
I don't have a problem with rich people having nicer stuff. I'm richer than most people, I live in a nice big house, drive a decent sized car, had a nice long haul holiday over Christmas etc. I'm very grateful and I pay my taxes and I don't feel bad about it. But for me things like education and health are in a different class, because these are rights and everyone should have the best quality service that the country can afford. I don't think it's right that rich people can jump the queue to get operations before other people, and I don't think that rich people's kids should get better schools than other children. And I don't trust politicians who tell us they are going to deliver the best service possible and fund it appropriately, but refuse to use it themselves. To me the two just seem contradictory and I can't trust a politician like that. Of course other people feel differently about these things, as is their right.
Pretty much my view too. With money comes all sorts of pleasures and privileges - which is fine - but what money shouldn't be able to buy is educational advantage or better essential healthcare
For me the schools point is the bigger one since the more that parental bank balance features there, the greater is the violation of the ideal of equal opportunities. So I feel more strongly about private schools than I do about private health.
The thing is Education is a public good. The better-educated the population is the better it is for society as a whole. So you'd think it would be good if people were using their own resources to increase the total amount of Education in the country. Why is it better in your eyes for someone to buy a new sports car every other year instead of pay Eton school fees?
The reason, I think, is that you've bought into the ideology of meritocracy. This means that you see private education as someone cheating in the great meritocratic struggle. The problem here isn't private education. The problem is that meritocracy is a con used to justify inequality.
It's a futile struggle to try and create a level playing field for meritocracy. Will never happen. Instead I think we should concentrate on people's right to dignity even if they don't become doctors or lawyers, and a fair share of the proceeds generated for society by Eton's education of the wealthy.
You have me wrong here, LP. I don't fetishize meritocracy. That it ends in "ocracy" is a tell. It's an oppressive notion by itself. Eg, if outcomes are grossly unequal but everyone has a meritocratic fair shot at hitting the jackpot, this isn't the End of History imo. It makes no sense to view equal opportunity in isolation from outcomes. Both are important. Plus they impact each other in either direction.
The goal for me is everyone realizes their potential, wealth of background minimized as a factor, with the material outcomes achieved to be far more closely bunched than they are today. It's an unachievable goal of course so the direction of travel is what counts in practice.
Eton v sports car? Serial fast car purchase doesn't hardcode inequality into society, propagate it down through the generations. This is the essential difference to me.
Yes it does.
If you ask the average working class man whether he could have a new sports car or send his children to learn Latin and Maths to 18 at Eton he would take the new sports car every time!
But it doesn't cascade inequality down the generations, a Porsche 911, does it? Ditto most areas of discretionary private spend. Eg I bet I'd disapprove of some of your jumpers - find them morally wrong even - but I'll be relaxed about it because there's no violation of equal opportunities or propagating of societal inequality in your sartorial choices. Unless I'm missing something.
It does if inherited.
You are assuming that because everyone can't go to Eton nobody can. Except forgetting that even if private education was banned, grammar schools were banned, academies and free schools and faith schools were banned and everyone had to send their children to the local comprehensive there would still be inequality.
For parents living in wealthier areas with more expensive houses would have better local schools than those living in poorer areas. So you would have to ban private sale of housing too and ensure everyone lived in social housing.
Yet even then would still be inequality because those of high iq would tend to marry others of high iq and those of low iq those of low iq. So the children of the former would still be much more likely to become doctors, lawyers, ceos etc. So you would have to ban marriage amongst those of the same but not average iq and force the high iq to marry the low iq to ensure genetic shift towards average iq
People don't usually inherit jumpers.
And to say that inequality is multi-sourced and inevitable isn't a strong argument in favour of something that actively increases it.
Thing is, H, this is an unbridgeable-by-debate difference in values and worldview. I'm egalitarian, meaning I have reducing inequality as a very high priority. Heart and head both tell me this. Head because I think it's illogical how resources are so unequally distributed. Heart because it upsets me that they are.
You, otoh, are a traditional tory - with all that this entails.
No you are not egalitarian, if you were you would be Communist or hardcore Socialist and support equality of outcome. If that was the case then fair enough, I might have some respect for your position even if I believed it misguided and likely to lead to more poverty overall.
Instead you are just a liberal meritocrat. Fine with capitalism as long as there is perfect equality of opportunity, except as I have shown you and was pointed out earlier that is impossible to achieve and just reduces choice and excellence in education in reality in my view too
An egalitarian can have reducing inequality as a high priority without wishing to do away with political freedom and the mixed economy. And pls see my previous post (to Lost Password) about meritocracy and 'opportunity vs outcomes'. I'm not at all a 'liberal meritocrat' (yuck). That's not where I'm coming from. V disappointed not to have earned your respect after all this time. Ah well.
Either you genuinely believe in full equality and redistribution of wealth or you don't.
Certainly if you propose banning private education completely then that also needs full socialism in the economy sphere too for consistency
MONARCHY = SOCIALISM!
No Monarchy is a key component of Toryism.
State control of most of the economy = Socialism
Your Monarchism makes you a Socialist!
No it doesn't, only if I supported state control of most of the economy would I be a Socialist
As an aside, the Co-Op bank is currently trying to get us to go for a £15 a month new current account with 'advantages' that are similar to the ones I used to get from NatWest. I quite like my old 'free' current account.
Likewise, I just walked into my local Natwest branch to find it is closing next month, meaning I will have to go into Cambridge or Huntingdon for many banking services. The Barclays next door was very busy.
Banking services are becoming increasingly expensive and hard to access for anyone not on t'Internet. And it seems banks are too incompetent to make enough money from the money we deposit in them.
(We try to split our money between many banks, perhaps unnecessarily in the case of current accounts.)
Very good as always. Two questions of Mr Meeks. It is clear from his article who has behaved badly. But which factions/groups/interests does he think have behaved well?
Secondly, it remains obvious to the middling sort who can think and don't have vested interests that the majority of the UK would accept the EU economic/trade agenda but would reject the EU political integration agenda.
This is why the vote was so close, and most normal people were torn in their opinions (especially so as both campaigns were abominations).
How does Mr Meeks resolve this?
For me it is and always has been EFTA/EEA as the only possible, though imperfect, solution.
Should transgender people be able to change the sex recorded on their birth certificate?
In 2016, a majority of each age group supported this; in 2021 (with a slight change in question wording) a minority did. The sharpest fall in support was from older people.
And the drumbeat of anti-trans pieces in the Times, the Telegraph, the Mail and elsewhere have absolutely nothing to do with this then?
You manage to tell us about a new article in the press on a practically daily basis CV. I note a singular lack of articles written by actual trans people, whether they’re the “trans activists” you’re so keen to decry or the silent majority of trans people you think hold a less activist position.
Why do they not to print articles in the mainstream press every other day?
Debbie Hayton, a trans person (male to female) regularly writes in the mainstream press. Robin White, a male to female barrister, was on Politics Live yesterday morning. Rowan Moore, father of a trans child, wrote a long and interesting article in Prospect a few months back. There are others - including some who have transitioned and then detransitioned or the wives of men who have transitioned. There was one such couple who had a big piece in the Sunday Times recently, for instance.
There is plenty more on other more technical aspects eg some of the medical research and how other countries approach the issue which is worth seeking out if you are interested.
All of these have differing views on differing aspects of this issue and all are worth hearing, even if - perhaps especially if - you do not necessarily agree.
So the idea that there is not plenty of material from differing perspectives is wrong. It is not, in my view, a "drumbeat of anti-trans" pieces more that as the issue has gained a certain salience the "no debate" approach has received push back and a number of people, some from the world of medicine, others who have had actual experience of the issues and others affected have - rightly - started asking some questions about the issues involved, the consequences and the unchallenged assumptions. Challenging assumptions and claims is a good - not a bad - thing.
My point was not that there is a complete absence of articles from trans people in the press - these do exist as you rightly point out - but that CV never ever posts them. They seem to be singularly obsessed with this particular issue.
Even if that's the case, CV wouldn't be the only poster here who is singularly obsessed with a particular issue.
I believe CV posts on many topics and obviously being female is affected by all these changes and very entitled to give her opinion as a "woman" who may not want men in women's safe places. Getting rid of the rights of 50% of thepopulation to suit the fads of 0.04% of the population is criminal.
Ah, I see we're in for another day of anti-trans hate. Situation normal.
I’m surprised you, of all people, are illustrating the point. It’s not just women’s rights Trans activists are harming. They are hurting trans peoples rights too by their “no debate” and sometimes violent shutting down of any attempt to discuss it.
I'm not illustrating your point - at least, as I read your point. Do you really think 'trans activists' have caused the deluge of anti-trans stuff in the media and online? As an example. when did you last post something supporting trans people, instead of a litany of negativity towards them?
I don't see myself as an 'activist' - I'm just someone who has known a few trans people, a couple of whom were very good friends. I'd argue *you* are an activist - as it seems you feel the need to post negative sh*t about them all the time. It's just that you're a negative activist.
If there is a deluge of anti trans stuff in the media please link to some examples, so we can see if it really anti trans or not.
The number of trans people in your life seems to make you a statistical outlier.
"The number of trans people in your life seems to make you a statistical outlier."
Perhaps. Perhaps not. You'd be surprising how hard it can be to tell an individual is trans. And IME, the longer they are trans, and the older they get, the harder it is to tell. And despite what some may say, women cannot automagically 'tell' when someone is male or trans. At least the ones I've asked cannot.
As for the articles: I might suggest you look at the following as an example of a constant stream of negativity. Can you point to an article there that says: "Hey look, this trans person has done something cool!" ?
Are you expecting the Daily Mail to be posting positive articles about anything at all? I think I may have found your problem.
The issue with the trans debate that puts me off is that people on both sides can be a bit all or nothing about it. For me the position I have settled upon is that people who are trans should be treated with respect and care, and so long as it doesn't cause any safeguarding issues should be treated as the gender they identify as - and by any names or pronouns they prefer. Where safeguarding is a concern, then sex should trump gender identity.
That's all fine, but how do you define sex? - Natal sex? - Based on presence of sex organs? - Based on receipt (or not) of x-sex hormones?
There are possible arguments for all of those, depending on the situation. Natal sex tends to imply physical strength and size, for example (although not universally, of course, and depending to some extent on the age of other interventions). Presence of a penis is of course relevant to some sexual safeguarding, but a natal male in long term receipt of x-sex hormones may be unable to have an erection. All shades of grey, as I think you appreciate.
You halfwit your sex is decided at conception and you are born male or female. Anything else is absolute garbage.
Afternoon Malc, hope all good with you
That's not strictly true of course (XY babies where the male characteristics never developed who are, in all ways except genetically, female and would never realise they had XY chromosomes without a genetic test) although those cases are rare. It's a valid question though, is it not, in the context of safeguarding? Would you ban a fully (surgically) transitioned person who was born male but now has female sex organs from a female only space?
Secondly, it remains obvious to the middling sort who can think and don't have vested interests that the majority of the UK would accept the EU economic/trade agenda but would reject the EU political integration agenda.
This is why the vote was so close, and most normal people were torn in their opinions (especially so as both campaigns were abominations).
How does Mr Meeks resolve this?
For me it is and always has been EFTA/EEA as the only possible, though imperfect, solution.
We had 50 years of the economics trumps the politics.
Now we have had 6 years of the politics trumps the economics.
Is there anything wrong with having a private GP? If so, why?
You would have to ask Rishi that, since he is the one who seems ashamed of it.
He had three routes with integrity. One was to use the NHS while he was a high profile politician. One was to come up with a solid explanation, as OGH has done above. The third was to not enter politics. Not choosing any of those does make him look like a worse person.
And if he had to go down this path, he should have said "personal matter" not "private matter".
I disagree - it's a trap and there is no answer that won't draw bile from those who want to be bilious.
(a) Yes, I go private - Oh, NHS not good enough for you? How the hell can you be in charge of something you don't even trust to use?
(b) Lie - get found out (as has been shown) - Why did you lie?
What's wrong with Stuartinromford's first option, not going private whilst a prominent politician? It's not as if the PM's going to struggle to get an NHS appointment if he needed one.
Because its performative nonsense, thats why. Should a politician only sit in rubbish seats at football (come on Keir, get out of that box)? Of only drive rubbish cars? And as for schooling - no more private schools for the kids. That would upset quite a few labour folk.
I don't have a problem with rich people having nicer stuff. I'm richer than most people, I live in a nice big house, drive a decent sized car, had a nice long haul holiday over Christmas etc. I'm very grateful and I pay my taxes and I don't feel bad about it. But for me things like education and health are in a different class, because these are rights and everyone should have the best quality service that the country can afford. I don't think it's right that rich people can jump the queue to get operations before other people, and I don't think that rich people's kids should get better schools than other children. And I don't trust politicians who tell us they are going to deliver the best service possible and fund it appropriately, but refuse to use it themselves. To me the two just seem contradictory and I can't trust a politician like that. Of course other people feel differently about these things, as is their right.
Pretty much my view too. With money comes all sorts of pleasures and privileges - which is fine - but what money shouldn't be able to buy is educational advantage or better essential healthcare
For me the schools point is the bigger one since the more that parental bank balance features there, the greater is the violation of the ideal of equal opportunities. So I feel more strongly about private schools than I do about private health.
The thing is Education is a public good. The better-educated the population is the better it is for society as a whole. So you'd think it would be good if people were using their own resources to increase the total amount of Education in the country. Why is it better in your eyes for someone to buy a new sports car every other year instead of pay Eton school fees?
The reason, I think, is that you've bought into the ideology of meritocracy. This means that you see private education as someone cheating in the great meritocratic struggle. The problem here isn't private education. The problem is that meritocracy is a con used to justify inequality.
It's a futile struggle to try and create a level playing field for meritocracy. Will never happen. Instead I think we should concentrate on people's right to dignity even if they don't become doctors or lawyers, and a fair share of the proceeds generated for society by Eton's education of the wealthy.
You have me wrong here, LP. I don't fetishize meritocracy. That it ends in "ocracy" is a tell. It's an oppressive notion by itself. Eg, if outcomes are grossly unequal but everyone has a meritocratic fair shot at hitting the jackpot, this isn't the End of History imo. It makes no sense to view equal opportunity in isolation from outcomes. Both are important. Plus they impact each other in either direction.
The goal for me is everyone realizes their potential, wealth of background minimized as a factor, with the material outcomes achieved to be far more closely bunched than they are today. It's an unachievable goal of course so the direction of travel is what counts in practice.
Eton v sports car? Serial fast car purchase doesn't hardcode inequality into society, propagate it down through the generations. This is the essential difference to me.
Yes it does.
If you ask the average working class man whether he could have a new sports car or send his children to learn Latin and Maths to 18 at Eton he would take the new sports car every time!
But it doesn't cascade inequality down the generations, a Porsche 911, does it? Ditto most areas of discretionary private spend. Eg I bet I'd disapprove of some of your jumpers - find them morally wrong even - but I'll be relaxed about it because there's no violation of equal opportunities or propagating of societal inequality in your sartorial choices. Unless I'm missing something.
It does if inherited.
You are assuming that because everyone can't go to Eton nobody can. Except forgetting that even if private education was banned, grammar schools were banned, academies and free schools and faith schools were banned and everyone had to send their children to the local comprehensive there would still be inequality.
For parents living in wealthier areas with more expensive houses would have better local schools than those living in poorer areas. So you would have to ban private sale of housing too and ensure everyone lived in social housing.
Yet even then would still be inequality because those of high iq would tend to marry others of high iq and those of low iq those of low iq. So the children of the former would still be much more likely to become doctors, lawyers, ceos etc. So you would have to ban marriage amongst those of the same but not average iq and force the high iq to marry the low iq to ensure genetic shift towards average iq
People don't usually inherit jumpers.
And to say that inequality is multi-sourced and inevitable isn't a strong argument in favour of something that actively increases it.
Thing is, H, this is an unbridgeable-by-debate difference in values and worldview. I'm egalitarian, meaning I have reducing inequality as a very high priority. Heart and head both tell me this. Head because I think it's illogical how resources are so unequally distributed. Heart because it upsets me that they are.
You, otoh, are a traditional tory - with all that this entails.
No you are not egalitarian, if you were you would be Communist or hardcore Socialist and support equality of outcome. If that was the case then fair enough, I might have some respect for your position even if I believed it misguided and likely to lead to more poverty overall.
Instead you are just a liberal meritocrat. Fine with capitalism as long as there is perfect equality of opportunity, except as I have shown you and was pointed out earlier that is impossible to achieve and just reduces choice and excellence in education in reality in my view too
Astonishing you are allowed to get away with:
"If you ask the average working class man whether he could have a new sports car or send his children to learn Latin and Maths to 18 at Eton he would take the new sports car every time!" Have you met anyone working class?
Plenty and I stand by my comment in terms of most of them
And presumably they would all slap er indoors about a bit if she dared to advance her own opinion.
Should transgender people be able to change the sex recorded on their birth certificate?
In 2016, a majority of each age group supported this; in 2021 (with a slight change in question wording) a minority did. The sharpest fall in support was from older people.
And the drumbeat of anti-trans pieces in the Times, the Telegraph, the Mail and elsewhere have absolutely nothing to do with this then?
You manage to tell us about a new article in the press on a practically daily basis CV. I note a singular lack of articles written by actual trans people, whether they’re the “trans activists” you’re so keen to decry or the silent majority of trans people you think hold a less activist position.
Why do they not to print articles in the mainstream press every other day?
Debbie Hayton, a trans person (male to female) regularly writes in the mainstream press. Robin White, a male to female barrister, was on Politics Live yesterday morning. Rowan Moore, father of a trans child, wrote a long and interesting article in Prospect a few months back. There are others - including some who have transitioned and then detransitioned or the wives of men who have transitioned. There was one such couple who had a big piece in the Sunday Times recently, for instance.
There is plenty more on other more technical aspects eg some of the medical research and how other countries approach the issue which is worth seeking out if you are interested.
All of these have differing views on differing aspects of this issue and all are worth hearing, even if - perhaps especially if - you do not necessarily agree.
So the idea that there is not plenty of material from differing perspectives is wrong. It is not, in my view, a "drumbeat of anti-trans" pieces more that as the issue has gained a certain salience the "no debate" approach has received push back and a number of people, some from the world of medicine, others who have had actual experience of the issues and others affected have - rightly - started asking some questions about the issues involved, the consequences and the unchallenged assumptions. Challenging assumptions and claims is a good - not a bad - thing.
My point was not that there is a complete absence of articles from trans people in the press - these do exist as you rightly point out - but that CV never ever posts them. They seem to be singularly obsessed with this particular issue.
Even if that's the case, CV wouldn't be the only poster here who is singularly obsessed with a particular issue.
I believe CV posts on many topics and obviously being female is affected by all these changes and very entitled to give her opinion as a "woman" who may not want men in women's safe places. Getting rid of the rights of 50% of thepopulation to suit the fads of 0.04% of the population is criminal.
Removing rights from 0.04% of the population because they are only a tiny part of the population is highly immoral. And it's been done before, rarely with good consequences.
To be honest, I don't care if he uses private medicine, the NHS, or the local witch doctor. As long as he runs the country ok he's fine by me. In that respect, he's a damn sight better than the previous two incumbents of his office so I would cut him personally some slack for the occasional PR gaff.
He needs some time to improve his presentational skills. Not sure he'll get much though.
This debacle speaks to Rishi ascending to the highest office without being tested along the way (although of course he was tested, and soundly beaten, by Liz Truss)
His public image is someone out of touch. I don't think he can change that before the next election
Is there anything wrong with having a private GP? If so, why?
You would have to ask Rishi that, since he is the one who seems ashamed of it.
He had three routes with integrity. One was to use the NHS while he was a high profile politician. One was to come up with a solid explanation, as OGH has done above. The third was to not enter politics. Not choosing any of those does make him look like a worse person.
And if he had to go down this path, he should have said "personal matter" not "private matter".
I disagree - it's a trap and there is no answer that won't draw bile from those who want to be bilious.
(a) Yes, I go private - Oh, NHS not good enough for you? How the hell can you be in charge of something you don't even trust to use?
(b) Lie - get found out (as has been shown) - Why did you lie?
What's wrong with Stuartinromford's first option, not going private whilst a prominent politician? It's not as if the PM's going to struggle to get an NHS appointment if he needed one.
Because its performative nonsense, thats why. Should a politician only sit in rubbish seats at football (come on Keir, get out of that box)? Of only drive rubbish cars? And as for schooling - no more private schools for the kids. That would upset quite a few labour folk.
I don't have a problem with rich people having nicer stuff. I'm richer than most people, I live in a nice big house, drive a decent sized car, had a nice long haul holiday over Christmas etc. I'm very grateful and I pay my taxes and I don't feel bad about it. But for me things like education and health are in a different class, because these are rights and everyone should have the best quality service that the country can afford. I don't think it's right that rich people can jump the queue to get operations before other people, and I don't think that rich people's kids should get better schools than other children. And I don't trust politicians who tell us they are going to deliver the best service possible and fund it appropriately, but refuse to use it themselves. To me the two just seem contradictory and I can't trust a politician like that. Of course other people feel differently about these things, as is their right.
Pretty much my view too. With money comes all sorts of pleasures and privileges - which is fine - but what money shouldn't be able to buy is educational advantage or better essential healthcare
For me the schools point is the bigger one since the more that parental bank balance features there, the greater is the violation of the ideal of equal opportunities. So I feel more strongly about private schools than I do about private health.
The thing is Education is a public good. The better-educated the population is the better it is for society as a whole. So you'd think it would be good if people were using their own resources to increase the total amount of Education in the country. Why is it better in your eyes for someone to buy a new sports car every other year instead of pay Eton school fees?
The reason, I think, is that you've bought into the ideology of meritocracy. This means that you see private education as someone cheating in the great meritocratic struggle. The problem here isn't private education. The problem is that meritocracy is a con used to justify inequality.
It's a futile struggle to try and create a level playing field for meritocracy. Will never happen. Instead I think we should concentrate on people's right to dignity even if they don't become doctors or lawyers, and a fair share of the proceeds generated for society by Eton's education of the wealthy.
You have me wrong here, LP. I don't fetishize meritocracy. That it ends in "ocracy" is a tell. It's an oppressive notion by itself. Eg, if outcomes are grossly unequal but everyone has a meritocratic fair shot at hitting the jackpot, this isn't the End of History imo. It makes no sense to view equal opportunity in isolation from outcomes. Both are important. Plus they impact each other in either direction.
The goal for me is everyone realizes their potential, wealth of background minimized as a factor, with the material outcomes achieved to be far more closely bunched than they are today. It's an unachievable goal of course so the direction of travel is what counts in practice.
Eton v sports car? Serial fast car purchase doesn't hardcode inequality into society, propagate it down through the generations. This is the essential difference to me.
Yes it does.
If you ask the average working class man whether he could have a new sports car or send his children to learn Latin and Maths to 18 at Eton he would take the new sports car every time!
But it doesn't cascade inequality down the generations, a Porsche 911, does it? Ditto most areas of discretionary private spend. Eg I bet I'd disapprove of some of your jumpers - find them morally wrong even - but I'll be relaxed about it because there's no violation of equal opportunities or propagating of societal inequality in your sartorial choices. Unless I'm missing something.
It does if inherited.
You are assuming that because everyone can't go to Eton nobody can. Except forgetting that even if private education was banned, grammar schools were banned, academies and free schools and faith schools were banned and everyone had to send their children to the local comprehensive there would still be inequality.
For parents living in wealthier areas with more expensive houses would have better local schools than those living in poorer areas. So you would have to ban private sale of housing too and ensure everyone lived in social housing.
Yet even then would still be inequality because those of high iq would tend to marry others of high iq and those of low iq those of low iq. So the children of the former would still be much more likely to become doctors, lawyers, ceos etc. So you would have to ban marriage amongst those of the same but not average iq and force the high iq to marry the low iq to ensure genetic shift towards average iq
People don't usually inherit jumpers.
And to say that inequality is multi-sourced and inevitable isn't a strong argument in favour of something that actively increases it.
Thing is, H, this is an unbridgeable-by-debate difference in values and worldview. I'm egalitarian, meaning I have reducing inequality as a very high priority. Heart and head both tell me this. Head because I think it's illogical how resources are so unequally distributed. Heart because it upsets me that they are.
You, otoh, are a traditional tory - with all that this entails.
No you are not egalitarian, if you were you would be Communist or hardcore Socialist and support equality of outcome. If that was the case then fair enough, I might have some respect for your position even if I believed it misguided and likely to lead to more poverty overall.
Instead you are just a liberal meritocrat. Fine with capitalism as long as there is perfect equality of opportunity, except as I have shown you and was pointed out earlier that is impossible to achieve and just reduces choice and excellence in education in reality in my view too
Let's breakdown part of of one of your sentences: You were stating that '[@kinabalu was] Fine with capitialism as long as there is perfect equality of opportunity, except as I have shown you and pointed out earlier that is impossible to achieve....' and therefore you were disagreeing with him.
So breaking this down, presumably if you think it is impossible to achieve (and I would agree with you it never is, except in an ideal world) then by implication you are not in favour of the bit before which is 'capitalism as long as there is perfect equality of opportunity'.
This part has two conditions to be met 'capitalism' and 'perfect equality of opportunity'.
'capitalism' I assume you approve of because you are Tory, although frankly you do make a number of posts that I would consider quite authoritarian and you are much less of financial or social liberal than someone like me, but let's take it as read you are a capitalist.
So that leaves 'perfect equality of opportunity'. Logically this can be broken down into 2 parts also. 'perfect' I agree is impossible, but that does not mean we should not aim for something even if we never achieve it. 'equality of opportunity' I would have thought was a moral objective. It certainly is for many Tories, including Margaret Thatcher who made attempts to achieve this with share ownership, council house sales, etc. Why should some have a greater opportunity than others to achieve? Only the toff not the plebs. I agree it will never be perfect, but so what, give it a go.
Ah, I see we're in for another day of anti-trans hate. Situation normal.
I’m surprised you, of all people, are illustrating the point. It’s not just women’s rights Trans activists are harming. They are hurting trans peoples rights too by their “no debate” and sometimes violent shutting down of any attempt to discuss it.
I'm not illustrating your point - at least, as I read your point. Do you really think 'trans activists' have caused the deluge of anti-trans stuff in the media and online? As an example. when did you last post something supporting trans people, instead of a litany of negativity towards them?
I don't see myself as an 'activist' - I'm just someone who has known a few trans people, a couple of whom were very good friends. I'd argue *you* are an activist - as it seems you feel the need to post negative sh*t about them all the time. It's just that you're a negative activist.
If there is a deluge of anti trans stuff in the media please link to some examples, so we can see if it really anti trans or not.
The number of trans people in your life seems to make you a statistical outlier.
"The number of trans people in your life seems to make you a statistical outlier."
Perhaps. Perhaps not. You'd be surprising how hard it can be to tell an individual is trans. And IME, the longer they are trans, and the older they get, the harder it is to tell. And despite what some may say, women cannot automagically 'tell' when someone is male or trans. At least the ones I've asked cannot.
As for the articles: I might suggest you look at the following as an example of a constant stream of negativity. Can you point to an article there that says: "Hey look, this trans person has done something cool!" ?
Are you expecting the Daily Mail to be posting positive articles about anything at all? I think I may have found your problem.
The issue with the trans debate that puts me off is that people on both sides can be a bit all or nothing about it. For me the position I have settled upon is that people who are trans should be treated with respect and care, and so long as it doesn't cause any safeguarding issues should be treated as the gender they identify as - and by any names or pronouns they prefer. Where safeguarding is a concern, then sex should trump gender identity.
That's all fine, but how do you define sex? - Natal sex? - Based on presence of sex organs? - Based on receipt (or not) of x-sex hormones?
There are possible arguments for all of those, depending on the situation. Natal sex tends to imply physical strength and size, for example (although not universally, of course, and depending to some extent on the age of other interventions). Presence of a penis is of course relevant to some sexual safeguarding, but a natal male in long term receipt of x-sex hormones may be unable to have an erection. All shades of grey, as I think you appreciate.
You halfwit your sex is decided at conception and you are born male or female. Anything else is absolute garbage.
Afternoon Malc, hope all good with you
That's not strictly true of course (XY babies where the male characteristics never developed who are, in all ways except genetically female and would never realise they had XY chromosomes without a genetic test) although those cases are rare. It's a valid question though, is it not, in the context of safeguarding? Would you ban a fully (surgically) transitioned person who was born male but now has female sex organs from a female only space?
It would depend upon the situation.
For competitive athletics, then yes. Having transitioned doesn't reverse having been through male puberty.
For prisons, then maybe. I would not put someone born male who has raped a woman, into a woman's prison for instance. If the individual can't go into a male prison because they'd be targeted, then either a special trans unit would need to be created or protective solitary custody may be the only safe options, but I wouldn't violate women's safeguarding by putting a man who raped women into their space regardless of whether or not they'd transitioned.
For areas that don't require safeguarding, or don't have safeguarding concerns, then its not an issue.
Is there anything wrong with having a private GP? If so, why?
You would have to ask Rishi that, since he is the one who seems ashamed of it.
He had three routes with integrity. One was to use the NHS while he was a high profile politician. One was to come up with a solid explanation, as OGH has done above. The third was to not enter politics. Not choosing any of those does make him look like a worse person.
And if he had to go down this path, he should have said "personal matter" not "private matter".
I disagree - it's a trap and there is no answer that won't draw bile from those who want to be bilious.
(a) Yes, I go private - Oh, NHS not good enough for you? How the hell can you be in charge of something you don't even trust to use?
(b) Lie - get found out (as has been shown) - Why did you lie?
What's wrong with Stuartinromford's first option, not going private whilst a prominent politician? It's not as if the PM's going to struggle to get an NHS appointment if he needed one.
Because its performative nonsense, thats why. Should a politician only sit in rubbish seats at football (come on Keir, get out of that box)? Of only drive rubbish cars? And as for schooling - no more private schools for the kids. That would upset quite a few labour folk.
I don't have a problem with rich people having nicer stuff. I'm richer than most people, I live in a nice big house, drive a decent sized car, had a nice long haul holiday over Christmas etc. I'm very grateful and I pay my taxes and I don't feel bad about it. But for me things like education and health are in a different class, because these are rights and everyone should have the best quality service that the country can afford. I don't think it's right that rich people can jump the queue to get operations before other people, and I don't think that rich people's kids should get better schools than other children. And I don't trust politicians who tell us they are going to deliver the best service possible and fund it appropriately, but refuse to use it themselves. To me the two just seem contradictory and I can't trust a politician like that. Of course other people feel differently about these things, as is their right.
Pretty much my view too. With money comes all sorts of pleasures and privileges - which is fine - but what money shouldn't be able to buy is educational advantage or better essential healthcare
For me the schools point is the bigger one since the more that parental bank balance features there, the greater is the violation of the ideal of equal opportunities. So I feel more strongly about private schools than I do about private health.
The thing is Education is a public good. The better-educated the population is the better it is for society as a whole. So you'd think it would be good if people were using their own resources to increase the total amount of Education in the country. Why is it better in your eyes for someone to buy a new sports car every other year instead of pay Eton school fees?
The reason, I think, is that you've bought into the ideology of meritocracy. This means that you see private education as someone cheating in the great meritocratic struggle. The problem here isn't private education. The problem is that meritocracy is a con used to justify inequality.
It's a futile struggle to try and create a level playing field for meritocracy. Will never happen. Instead I think we should concentrate on people's right to dignity even if they don't become doctors or lawyers, and a fair share of the proceeds generated for society by Eton's education of the wealthy.
You have me wrong here, LP. I don't fetishize meritocracy. That it ends in "ocracy" is a tell. It's an oppressive notion by itself. Eg, if outcomes are grossly unequal but everyone has a meritocratic fair shot at hitting the jackpot, this isn't the End of History imo. It makes no sense to view equal opportunity in isolation from outcomes. Both are important. Plus they impact each other in either direction.
The goal for me is everyone realizes their potential, wealth of background minimized as a factor, with the material outcomes achieved to be far more closely bunched than they are today. It's an unachievable goal of course so the direction of travel is what counts in practice.
Eton v sports car? Serial fast car purchase doesn't hardcode inequality into society, propagate it down through the generations. This is the essential difference to me.
Yes it does.
If you ask the average working class man whether he could have a new sports car or send his children to learn Latin and Maths to 18 at Eton he would take the new sports car every time!
But it doesn't cascade inequality down the generations, a Porsche 911, does it? Ditto most areas of discretionary private spend. Eg I bet I'd disapprove of some of your jumpers - find them morally wrong even - but I'll be relaxed about it because there's no violation of equal opportunities or propagating of societal inequality in your sartorial choices. Unless I'm missing something.
It does if inherited.
You are assuming that because everyone can't go to Eton nobody can. Except forgetting that even if private education was banned, grammar schools were banned, academies and free schools and faith schools were banned and everyone had to send their children to the local comprehensive there would still be inequality.
For parents living in wealthier areas with more expensive houses would have better local schools than those living in poorer areas. So you would have to ban private sale of housing too and ensure everyone lived in social housing.
Yet even then would still be inequality because those of high iq would tend to marry others of high iq and those of low iq those of low iq. So the children of the former would still be much more likely to become doctors, lawyers, ceos etc. So you would have to ban marriage amongst those of the same but not average iq and force the high iq to marry the low iq to ensure genetic shift towards average iq
People don't usually inherit jumpers.
And to say that inequality is multi-sourced and inevitable isn't a strong argument in favour of something that actively increases it.
Thing is, H, this is an unbridgeable-by-debate difference in values and worldview. I'm egalitarian, meaning I have reducing inequality as a very high priority. Heart and head both tell me this. Head because I think it's illogical how resources are so unequally distributed. Heart because it upsets me that they are.
You, otoh, are a traditional tory - with all that this entails.
No you are not egalitarian, if you were you would be Communist or hardcore Socialist and support equality of outcome. If that was the case then fair enough, I might have some respect for your position even if I believed it misguided and likely to lead to more poverty overall.
Instead you are just a liberal meritocrat. Fine with capitalism as long as there is perfect equality of opportunity, except as I have shown you and was pointed out earlier that is impossible to achieve and just reduces choice and excellence in education in reality in my view too
Astonishing you are allowed to get away with:
"If you ask the average working class man whether he could have a new sports car or send his children to learn Latin and Maths to 18 at Eton he would take the new sports car every time!" Have you met anyone working class?
Plenty and I stand by my comment in terms of most of them
And presumably they would all slap er indoors about a bit if she dared to advance her own opinion.
No but if you really want to believe the average working class male in this country would turn down a new sports car in favour of sending their child to learn Latin at Eton that is up to you
The thing that does my head in about people like Andrew Bridgen is their failure to grasp that they are people like Andrew Bridgen.
It’s like, they develop a contentious opinion, but never seem to go, “hang on, how likely is it that I, Andrew Bridgen, a famously fatuous moron, have got this one right?”
“And even if by some chance I have got this right,” they also never think, “then is this really a message best spread by me, aforementioned notorious and renowned fuckwit that I am?”
Is there anything wrong with having a private GP? If so, why?
You would have to ask Rishi that, since he is the one who seems ashamed of it.
He had three routes with integrity. One was to use the NHS while he was a high profile politician. One was to come up with a solid explanation, as OGH has done above. The third was to not enter politics. Not choosing any of those does make him look like a worse person.
And if he had to go down this path, he should have said "personal matter" not "private matter".
I disagree - it's a trap and there is no answer that won't draw bile from those who want to be bilious.
(a) Yes, I go private - Oh, NHS not good enough for you? How the hell can you be in charge of something you don't even trust to use?
(b) Lie - get found out (as has been shown) - Why did you lie?
What's wrong with Stuartinromford's first option, not going private whilst a prominent politician? It's not as if the PM's going to struggle to get an NHS appointment if he needed one.
Because its performative nonsense, thats why. Should a politician only sit in rubbish seats at football (come on Keir, get out of that box)? Of only drive rubbish cars? And as for schooling - no more private schools for the kids. That would upset quite a few labour folk.
I don't have a problem with rich people having nicer stuff. I'm richer than most people, I live in a nice big house, drive a decent sized car, had a nice long haul holiday over Christmas etc. I'm very grateful and I pay my taxes and I don't feel bad about it. But for me things like education and health are in a different class, because these are rights and everyone should have the best quality service that the country can afford. I don't think it's right that rich people can jump the queue to get operations before other people, and I don't think that rich people's kids should get better schools than other children. And I don't trust politicians who tell us they are going to deliver the best service possible and fund it appropriately, but refuse to use it themselves. To me the two just seem contradictory and I can't trust a politician like that. Of course other people feel differently about these things, as is their right.
Pretty much my view too. With money comes all sorts of pleasures and privileges - which is fine - but what money shouldn't be able to buy is educational advantage or better essential healthcare
For me the schools point is the bigger one since the more that parental bank balance features there, the greater is the violation of the ideal of equal opportunities. So I feel more strongly about private schools than I do about private health.
The thing is Education is a public good. The better-educated the population is the better it is for society as a whole. So you'd think it would be good if people were using their own resources to increase the total amount of Education in the country. Why is it better in your eyes for someone to buy a new sports car every other year instead of pay Eton school fees?
The reason, I think, is that you've bought into the ideology of meritocracy. This means that you see private education as someone cheating in the great meritocratic struggle. The problem here isn't private education. The problem is that meritocracy is a con used to justify inequality.
It's a futile struggle to try and create a level playing field for meritocracy. Will never happen. Instead I think we should concentrate on people's right to dignity even if they don't become doctors or lawyers, and a fair share of the proceeds generated for society by Eton's education of the wealthy.
You have me wrong here, LP. I don't fetishize meritocracy. That it ends in "ocracy" is a tell. It's an oppressive notion by itself. Eg, if outcomes are grossly unequal but everyone has a meritocratic fair shot at hitting the jackpot, this isn't the End of History imo. It makes no sense to view equal opportunity in isolation from outcomes. Both are important. Plus they impact each other in either direction.
The goal for me is everyone realizes their potential, wealth of background minimized as a factor, with the material outcomes achieved to be far more closely bunched than they are today. It's an unachievable goal of course so the direction of travel is what counts in practice.
Eton v sports car? Serial fast car purchase doesn't hardcode inequality into society, propagate it down through the generations. This is the essential difference to me.
Yes it does.
If you ask the average working class man whether he could have a new sports car or send his children to learn Latin and Maths to 18 at Eton he would take the new sports car every time!
But it doesn't cascade inequality down the generations, a Porsche 911, does it? Ditto most areas of discretionary private spend. Eg I bet I'd disapprove of some of your jumpers - find them morally wrong even - but I'll be relaxed about it because there's no violation of equal opportunities or propagating of societal inequality in your sartorial choices. Unless I'm missing something.
It does if inherited.
You are assuming that because everyone can't go to Eton nobody can. Except forgetting that even if private education was banned, grammar schools were banned, academies and free schools and faith schools were banned and everyone had to send their children to the local comprehensive there would still be inequality.
For parents living in wealthier areas with more expensive houses would have better local schools than those living in poorer areas. So you would have to ban private sale of housing too and ensure everyone lived in social housing.
Yet even then would still be inequality because those of high iq would tend to marry others of high iq and those of low iq those of low iq. So the children of the former would still be much more likely to become doctors, lawyers, ceos etc. So you would have to ban marriage amongst those of the same but not average iq and force the high iq to marry the low iq to ensure genetic shift towards average iq
People don't usually inherit jumpers.
And to say that inequality is multi-sourced and inevitable isn't a strong argument in favour of something that actively increases it.
Thing is, H, this is an unbridgeable-by-debate difference in values and worldview. I'm egalitarian, meaning I have reducing inequality as a very high priority. Heart and head both tell me this. Head because I think it's illogical how resources are so unequally distributed. Heart because it upsets me that they are.
You, otoh, are a traditional tory - with all that this entails.
No you are not egalitarian, if you were you would be Communist or hardcore Socialist and support equality of outcome. If that was the case then fair enough, I might have some respect for your position even if I believed it misguided and likely to lead to more poverty overall.
Instead you are just a liberal meritocrat. Fine with capitalism as long as there is perfect equality of opportunity, except as I have shown you and was pointed out earlier that is impossible to achieve and just reduces choice and excellence in education in reality in my view too
Astonishing you are allowed to get away with:
"If you ask the average working class man whether he could have a new sports car or send his children to learn Latin and Maths to 18 at Eton he would take the new sports car every time!" Have you met anyone working class?
Plenty and I stand by my comment in terms of most of them
And presumably they would all slap er indoors about a bit if she dared to advance her own opinion.
No but if you really want to believe the average working class male in this country would turn down a new sports car in favour of sending their child to learn Latin at Eton that is up to you
The thing that does my head in about people like Andrew Bridgen is their failure to grasp that they are people like Andrew Bridgen.
It’s like, they develop a contentious opinion, but never seem to go, “hang on, how likely is it that I, Andrew Bridgen, a famously fatuous moron, have got this one right?”
“And even if by some chance I have got this right,” they also never think, “then is this really a message best spread by me, aforementioned notorious and renowned fuckwit that I am?”
Ah, I see we're in for another day of anti-trans hate. Situation normal.
I’m surprised you, of all people, are illustrating the point. It’s not just women’s rights Trans activists are harming. They are hurting trans peoples rights too by their “no debate” and sometimes violent shutting down of any attempt to discuss it.
I'm not illustrating your point - at least, as I read your point. Do you really think 'trans activists' have caused the deluge of anti-trans stuff in the media and online? As an example. when did you last post something supporting trans people, instead of a litany of negativity towards them?
I don't see myself as an 'activist' - I'm just someone who has known a few trans people, a couple of whom were very good friends. I'd argue *you* are an activist - as it seems you feel the need to post negative sh*t about them all the time. It's just that you're a negative activist.
If there is a deluge of anti trans stuff in the media please link to some examples, so we can see if it really anti trans or not.
The number of trans people in your life seems to make you a statistical outlier.
"The number of trans people in your life seems to make you a statistical outlier."
Perhaps. Perhaps not. You'd be surprising how hard it can be to tell an individual is trans. And IME, the longer they are trans, and the older they get, the harder it is to tell. And despite what some may say, women cannot automagically 'tell' when someone is male or trans. At least the ones I've asked cannot.
As for the articles: I might suggest you look at the following as an example of a constant stream of negativity. Can you point to an article there that says: "Hey look, this trans person has done something cool!" ?
Are you expecting the Daily Mail to be posting positive articles about anything at all? I think I may have found your problem.
The issue with the trans debate that puts me off is that people on both sides can be a bit all or nothing about it. For me the position I have settled upon is that people who are trans should be treated with respect and care, and so long as it doesn't cause any safeguarding issues should be treated as the gender they identify as - and by any names or pronouns they prefer. Where safeguarding is a concern, then sex should trump gender identity.
That's all fine, but how do you define sex? - Natal sex? - Based on presence of sex organs? - Based on receipt (or not) of x-sex hormones?
There are possible arguments for all of those, depending on the situation. Natal sex tends to imply physical strength and size, for example (although not universally, of course, and depending to some extent on the age of other interventions). Presence of a penis is of course relevant to some sexual safeguarding, but a natal male in long term receipt of x-sex hormones may be unable to have an erection. All shades of grey, as I think you appreciate.
You halfwit your sex is decided at conception and you are born male or female. Anything else is absolute garbage.
Afternoon Malc, hope all good with you
That's not strictly true of course (XY babies where the male characteristics never developed who are, in all ways except genetically female and would never realise they had XY chromosomes without a genetic test) although those cases are rare. It's a valid question though, is it not, in the context of safeguarding? Would you ban a fully (surgically) transitioned person who was born male but now has female sex organs from a female only space?
Hello Selebian, Good afternoon to you. If they have fully transitioned then I would say I would not ban them but the vast majority , ie high 90's% wise, have not. However personally I am of the opinion you are what you are born no matter what tinkering you do. I am all for everyone having rights but not at expense of the majority.
Is there anything wrong with having a private GP? If so, why?
You would have to ask Rishi that, since he is the one who seems ashamed of it.
He had three routes with integrity. One was to use the NHS while he was a high profile politician. One was to come up with a solid explanation, as OGH has done above. The third was to not enter politics. Not choosing any of those does make him look like a worse person.
And if he had to go down this path, he should have said "personal matter" not "private matter".
I disagree - it's a trap and there is no answer that won't draw bile from those who want to be bilious.
(a) Yes, I go private - Oh, NHS not good enough for you? How the hell can you be in charge of something you don't even trust to use?
(b) Lie - get found out (as has been shown) - Why did you lie?
What's wrong with Stuartinromford's first option, not going private whilst a prominent politician? It's not as if the PM's going to struggle to get an NHS appointment if he needed one.
Because its performative nonsense, thats why. Should a politician only sit in rubbish seats at football (come on Keir, get out of that box)? Of only drive rubbish cars? And as for schooling - no more private schools for the kids. That would upset quite a few labour folk.
I don't have a problem with rich people having nicer stuff. I'm richer than most people, I live in a nice big house, drive a decent sized car, had a nice long haul holiday over Christmas etc. I'm very grateful and I pay my taxes and I don't feel bad about it. But for me things like education and health are in a different class, because these are rights and everyone should have the best quality service that the country can afford. I don't think it's right that rich people can jump the queue to get operations before other people, and I don't think that rich people's kids should get better schools than other children. And I don't trust politicians who tell us they are going to deliver the best service possible and fund it appropriately, but refuse to use it themselves. To me the two just seem contradictory and I can't trust a politician like that. Of course other people feel differently about these things, as is their right.
Pretty much my view too. With money comes all sorts of pleasures and privileges - which is fine - but what money shouldn't be able to buy is educational advantage or better essential healthcare
For me the schools point is the bigger one since the more that parental bank balance features there, the greater is the violation of the ideal of equal opportunities. So I feel more strongly about private schools than I do about private health.
The thing is Education is a public good. The better-educated the population is the better it is for society as a whole. So you'd think it would be good if people were using their own resources to increase the total amount of Education in the country. Why is it better in your eyes for someone to buy a new sports car every other year instead of pay Eton school fees?
The reason, I think, is that you've bought into the ideology of meritocracy. This means that you see private education as someone cheating in the great meritocratic struggle. The problem here isn't private education. The problem is that meritocracy is a con used to justify inequality.
It's a futile struggle to try and create a level playing field for meritocracy. Will never happen. Instead I think we should concentrate on people's right to dignity even if they don't become doctors or lawyers, and a fair share of the proceeds generated for society by Eton's education of the wealthy.
You have me wrong here, LP. I don't fetishize meritocracy. That it ends in "ocracy" is a tell. It's an oppressive notion by itself. Eg, if outcomes are grossly unequal but everyone has a meritocratic fair shot at hitting the jackpot, this isn't the End of History imo. It makes no sense to view equal opportunity in isolation from outcomes. Both are important. Plus they impact each other in either direction.
The goal for me is everyone realizes their potential, wealth of background minimized as a factor, with the material outcomes achieved to be far more closely bunched than they are today. It's an unachievable goal of course so the direction of travel is what counts in practice.
Eton v sports car? Serial fast car purchase doesn't hardcode inequality into society, propagate it down through the generations. This is the essential difference to me.
Yes it does.
If you ask the average working class man whether he could have a new sports car or send his children to learn Latin and Maths to 18 at Eton he would take the new sports car every time!
But it doesn't cascade inequality down the generations, a Porsche 911, does it? Ditto most areas of discretionary private spend. Eg I bet I'd disapprove of some of your jumpers - find them morally wrong even - but I'll be relaxed about it because there's no violation of equal opportunities or propagating of societal inequality in your sartorial choices. Unless I'm missing something.
It does if inherited.
You are assuming that because everyone can't go to Eton nobody can. Except forgetting that even if private education was banned, grammar schools were banned, academies and free schools and faith schools were banned and everyone had to send their children to the local comprehensive there would still be inequality.
For parents living in wealthier areas with more expensive houses would have better local schools than those living in poorer areas. So you would have to ban private sale of housing too and ensure everyone lived in social housing.
Yet even then would still be inequality because those of high iq would tend to marry others of high iq and those of low iq those of low iq. So the children of the former would still be much more likely to become doctors, lawyers, ceos etc. So you would have to ban marriage amongst those of the same but not average iq and force the high iq to marry the low iq to ensure genetic shift towards average iq
People don't usually inherit jumpers.
And to say that inequality is multi-sourced and inevitable isn't a strong argument in favour of something that actively increases it.
Thing is, H, this is an unbridgeable-by-debate difference in values and worldview. I'm egalitarian, meaning I have reducing inequality as a very high priority. Heart and head both tell me this. Head because I think it's illogical how resources are so unequally distributed. Heart because it upsets me that they are.
You, otoh, are a traditional tory - with all that this entails.
No you are not egalitarian, if you were you would be Communist or hardcore Socialist and support equality of outcome. If that was the case then fair enough, I might have some respect for your position even if I believed it misguided and likely to lead to more poverty overall.
Instead you are just a liberal meritocrat. Fine with capitalism as long as there is perfect equality of opportunity, except as I have shown you and was pointed out earlier that is impossible to achieve and just reduces choice and excellence in education in reality in my view too
Astonishing you are allowed to get away with:
"If you ask the average working class man whether he could have a new sports car or send his children to learn Latin and Maths to 18 at Eton he would take the new sports car every time!" Have you met anyone working class?
Plenty and I stand by my comment in terms of most of them
And presumably they would all slap er indoors about a bit if she dared to advance her own opinion.
No but if you really want to believe the average working class male in this country would turn down a new sports car in favour of sending their child to learn Latin at Eton that is up to you
From what we know of your life, you presumably meet these ghastly people either at Tory party events or in church. Strong argument against both institutions.
The thing that does my head in about people like Andrew Bridgen is their failure to grasp that they are people like Andrew Bridgen.
It’s like, they develop a contentious opinion, but never seem to go, “hang on, how likely is it that I, Andrew Bridgen, a famously fatuous moron, have got this one right?”
“And even if by some chance I have got this right,” they also never think, “then is this really a message best spread by me, aforementioned notorious and renowned fuckwit that I am?”
Ah, I see we're in for another day of anti-trans hate. Situation normal.
I’m surprised you, of all people, are illustrating the point. It’s not just women’s rights Trans activists are harming. They are hurting trans peoples rights too by their “no debate” and sometimes violent shutting down of any attempt to discuss it.
I'm not illustrating your point - at least, as I read your point. Do you really think 'trans activists' have caused the deluge of anti-trans stuff in the media and online? As an example. when did you last post something supporting trans people, instead of a litany of negativity towards them?
I don't see myself as an 'activist' - I'm just someone who has known a few trans people, a couple of whom were very good friends. I'd argue *you* are an activist - as it seems you feel the need to post negative sh*t about them all the time. It's just that you're a negative activist.
If there is a deluge of anti trans stuff in the media please link to some examples, so we can see if it really anti trans or not.
The number of trans people in your life seems to make you a statistical outlier.
"The number of trans people in your life seems to make you a statistical outlier."
Perhaps. Perhaps not. You'd be surprising how hard it can be to tell an individual is trans. And IME, the longer they are trans, and the older they get, the harder it is to tell. And despite what some may say, women cannot automagically 'tell' when someone is male or trans. At least the ones I've asked cannot.
As for the articles: I might suggest you look at the following as an example of a constant stream of negativity. Can you point to an article there that says: "Hey look, this trans person has done something cool!" ?
Are you expecting the Daily Mail to be posting positive articles about anything at all? I think I may have found your problem.
The issue with the trans debate that puts me off is that people on both sides can be a bit all or nothing about it. For me the position I have settled upon is that people who are trans should be treated with respect and care, and so long as it doesn't cause any safeguarding issues should be treated as the gender they identify as - and by any names or pronouns they prefer. Where safeguarding is a concern, then sex should trump gender identity.
That's all fine, but how do you define sex? - Natal sex? - Based on presence of sex organs? - Based on receipt (or not) of x-sex hormones?
There are possible arguments for all of those, depending on the situation. Natal sex tends to imply physical strength and size, for example (although not universally, of course, and depending to some extent on the age of other interventions). Presence of a penis is of course relevant to some sexual safeguarding, but a natal male in long term receipt of x-sex hormones may be unable to have an erection. All shades of grey, as I think you appreciate.
You halfwit your sex is decided at conception and you are born male or female. Anything else is absolute garbage.
Afternoon Malc, hope all good with you
That's not strictly true of course (XY babies where the male characteristics never developed who are, in all ways except genetically female and would never realise they had XY chromosomes without a genetic test) although those cases are rare. It's a valid question though, is it not, in the context of safeguarding? Would you ban a fully (surgically) transitioned person who was born male but now has female sex organs from a female only space?
It would depend upon the situation.
For competitive athletics, then yes. Having transitioned doesn't reverse having been through male puberty.
For prisons, then maybe. I would not put someone born male who has raped a woman, into a woman's prison for instance. If the individual can't go into a male prison because they'd be targeted, then either a special trans unit would need to be created or protective solitary custody may be the only safe options, but I wouldn't violate women's safeguarding by putting a man who raped women into their space regardless of whether or not they'd transitioned.
For areas that don't require safeguarding, or don't have safeguarding concerns, then its not an issue.
Athletics, fair enough. I can add the puberty blockers, then x-sex hormones then surgery scenario, but tbh I don't know what long term differences are established in physicality pre-puberty to have a good opinion on that myself...
Re prisons, what do you do with a homosexual woman who has a history of sexual assualt against women? The same? If not, why not? Might come back to different physical size/strength again, in which case fair enough.
Is there anything wrong with having a private GP? If so, why?
You would have to ask Rishi that, since he is the one who seems ashamed of it.
He had three routes with integrity. One was to use the NHS while he was a high profile politician. One was to come up with a solid explanation, as OGH has done above. The third was to not enter politics. Not choosing any of those does make him look like a worse person.
And if he had to go down this path, he should have said "personal matter" not "private matter".
I disagree - it's a trap and there is no answer that won't draw bile from those who want to be bilious.
(a) Yes, I go private - Oh, NHS not good enough for you? How the hell can you be in charge of something you don't even trust to use?
(b) Lie - get found out (as has been shown) - Why did you lie?
What's wrong with Stuartinromford's first option, not going private whilst a prominent politician? It's not as if the PM's going to struggle to get an NHS appointment if he needed one.
Because its performative nonsense, thats why. Should a politician only sit in rubbish seats at football (come on Keir, get out of that box)? Of only drive rubbish cars? And as for schooling - no more private schools for the kids. That would upset quite a few labour folk.
I don't have a problem with rich people having nicer stuff. I'm richer than most people, I live in a nice big house, drive a decent sized car, had a nice long haul holiday over Christmas etc. I'm very grateful and I pay my taxes and I don't feel bad about it. But for me things like education and health are in a different class, because these are rights and everyone should have the best quality service that the country can afford. I don't think it's right that rich people can jump the queue to get operations before other people, and I don't think that rich people's kids should get better schools than other children. And I don't trust politicians who tell us they are going to deliver the best service possible and fund it appropriately, but refuse to use it themselves. To me the two just seem contradictory and I can't trust a politician like that. Of course other people feel differently about these things, as is their right.
Pretty much my view too. With money comes all sorts of pleasures and privileges - which is fine - but what money shouldn't be able to buy is educational advantage or better essential healthcare
For me the schools point is the bigger one since the more that parental bank balance features there, the greater is the violation of the ideal of equal opportunities. So I feel more strongly about private schools than I do about private health.
The thing is Education is a public good. The better-educated the population is the better it is for society as a whole. So you'd think it would be good if people were using their own resources to increase the total amount of Education in the country. Why is it better in your eyes for someone to buy a new sports car every other year instead of pay Eton school fees?
The reason, I think, is that you've bought into the ideology of meritocracy. This means that you see private education as someone cheating in the great meritocratic struggle. The problem here isn't private education. The problem is that meritocracy is a con used to justify inequality.
It's a futile struggle to try and create a level playing field for meritocracy. Will never happen. Instead I think we should concentrate on people's right to dignity even if they don't become doctors or lawyers, and a fair share of the proceeds generated for society by Eton's education of the wealthy.
You have me wrong here, LP. I don't fetishize meritocracy. That it ends in "ocracy" is a tell. It's an oppressive notion by itself. Eg, if outcomes are grossly unequal but everyone has a meritocratic fair shot at hitting the jackpot, this isn't the End of History imo. It makes no sense to view equal opportunity in isolation from outcomes. Both are important. Plus they impact each other in either direction.
The goal for me is everyone realizes their potential, wealth of background minimized as a factor, with the material outcomes achieved to be far more closely bunched than they are today. It's an unachievable goal of course so the direction of travel is what counts in practice.
Eton v sports car? Serial fast car purchase doesn't hardcode inequality into society, propagate it down through the generations. This is the essential difference to me.
Yes it does.
If you ask the average working class man whether he could have a new sports car or send his children to learn Latin and Maths to 18 at Eton he would take the new sports car every time!
But it doesn't cascade inequality down the generations, a Porsche 911, does it? Ditto most areas of discretionary private spend. Eg I bet I'd disapprove of some of your jumpers - find them morally wrong even - but I'll be relaxed about it because there's no violation of equal opportunities or propagating of societal inequality in your sartorial choices. Unless I'm missing something.
It does if inherited.
You are assuming that because everyone can't go to Eton nobody can. Except forgetting that even if private education was banned, grammar schools were banned, academies and free schools and faith schools were banned and everyone had to send their children to the local comprehensive there would still be inequality.
For parents living in wealthier areas with more expensive houses would have better local schools than those living in poorer areas. So you would have to ban private sale of housing too and ensure everyone lived in social housing.
Yet even then would still be inequality because those of high iq would tend to marry others of high iq and those of low iq those of low iq. So the children of the former would still be much more likely to become doctors, lawyers, ceos etc. So you would have to ban marriage amongst those of the same but not average iq and force the high iq to marry the low iq to ensure genetic shift towards average iq
People don't usually inherit jumpers.
And to say that inequality is multi-sourced and inevitable isn't a strong argument in favour of something that actively increases it.
Thing is, H, this is an unbridgeable-by-debate difference in values and worldview. I'm egalitarian, meaning I have reducing inequality as a very high priority. Heart and head both tell me this. Head because I think it's illogical how resources are so unequally distributed. Heart because it upsets me that they are.
You, otoh, are a traditional tory - with all that this entails.
No you are not egalitarian, if you were you would be Communist or hardcore Socialist and support equality of outcome. If that was the case then fair enough, I might have some respect for your position even if I believed it misguided and likely to lead to more poverty overall.
Instead you are just a liberal meritocrat. Fine with capitalism as long as there is perfect equality of opportunity, except as I have shown you and was pointed out earlier that is impossible to achieve and just reduces choice and excellence in education in reality in my view too
Let's breakdown part of of one of your sentences: You were stating that '[@kinabalu was] Fine with capitialism as long as there is perfect equality of opportunity, except as I have shown you and pointed out earlier that is impossible to achieve....' and therefore you were disagreeing with him.
So breaking this down, presumably if you think it is impossible to achieve (and I would agree with you it never is, except in an ideal world) then by implication you are not in favour of the bit before which is 'capitalism as long as there is perfect equality of opportunity'.
This part has two conditions to be met 'capitalism' and 'perfect equality of opportunity'.
'capitalism' I assume you approve of because you are Tory, although frankly you do make a number of posts that I would consider quite authoritarian and you are much less of financial or social liberal than someone like me, but let's take it as read you are a capitalist.
So that leaves 'perfect equality of opportunity'. Logically this can be broken down into 2 parts also. 'perfect' I agree is impossible, but that does not mean we should not aim for something even if we never achieve it. 'equality of opportunity' I would have thought was a moral objective. It certainly is for many Tories, including Margaret Thatcher who made attempts to achieve this with share ownership, council house sales, etc. Why should some have a greater opportunity than others to achieve? Only the toff not the plebs. I agree it will never be perfect, but so what, give it a go.
I am more of a capitalist than a socialist yes but I also believe in a role for the state and have never said I am an ideological capitalist.
I believe in equality of opportunity yes indeed through share ownership, council house sales, as well as more grammar schools, more free schools, more bursaries to private schools yes.
I don't believe in banning private schools which as I pointed out earlier dies nothing for equality of opportunity and is in reality another socialist policy of equality of outcome
Is there anything wrong with having a private GP? If so, why?
You would have to ask Rishi that, since he is the one who seems ashamed of it.
He had three routes with integrity. One was to use the NHS while he was a high profile politician. One was to come up with a solid explanation, as OGH has done above. The third was to not enter politics. Not choosing any of those does make him look like a worse person.
And if he had to go down this path, he should have said "personal matter" not "private matter".
I disagree - it's a trap and there is no answer that won't draw bile from those who want to be bilious.
(a) Yes, I go private - Oh, NHS not good enough for you? How the hell can you be in charge of something you don't even trust to use?
(b) Lie - get found out (as has been shown) - Why did you lie?
What's wrong with Stuartinromford's first option, not going private whilst a prominent politician? It's not as if the PM's going to struggle to get an NHS appointment if he needed one.
Because its performative nonsense, thats why. Should a politician only sit in rubbish seats at football (come on Keir, get out of that box)? Of only drive rubbish cars? And as for schooling - no more private schools for the kids. That would upset quite a few labour folk.
I don't have a problem with rich people having nicer stuff. I'm richer than most people, I live in a nice big house, drive a decent sized car, had a nice long haul holiday over Christmas etc. I'm very grateful and I pay my taxes and I don't feel bad about it. But for me things like education and health are in a different class, because these are rights and everyone should have the best quality service that the country can afford. I don't think it's right that rich people can jump the queue to get operations before other people, and I don't think that rich people's kids should get better schools than other children. And I don't trust politicians who tell us they are going to deliver the best service possible and fund it appropriately, but refuse to use it themselves. To me the two just seem contradictory and I can't trust a politician like that. Of course other people feel differently about these things, as is their right.
Pretty much my view too. With money comes all sorts of pleasures and privileges - which is fine - but what money shouldn't be able to buy is educational advantage or better essential healthcare
For me the schools point is the bigger one since the more that parental bank balance features there, the greater is the violation of the ideal of equal opportunities. So I feel more strongly about private schools than I do about private health.
The thing is Education is a public good. The better-educated the population is the better it is for society as a whole. So you'd think it would be good if people were using their own resources to increase the total amount of Education in the country. Why is it better in your eyes for someone to buy a new sports car every other year instead of pay Eton school fees?
The reason, I think, is that you've bought into the ideology of meritocracy. This means that you see private education as someone cheating in the great meritocratic struggle. The problem here isn't private education. The problem is that meritocracy is a con used to justify inequality.
It's a futile struggle to try and create a level playing field for meritocracy. Will never happen. Instead I think we should concentrate on people's right to dignity even if they don't become doctors or lawyers, and a fair share of the proceeds generated for society by Eton's education of the wealthy.
You have me wrong here, LP. I don't fetishize meritocracy. That it ends in "ocracy" is a tell. It's an oppressive notion by itself. Eg, if outcomes are grossly unequal but everyone has a meritocratic fair shot at hitting the jackpot, this isn't the End of History imo. It makes no sense to view equal opportunity in isolation from outcomes. Both are important. Plus they impact each other in either direction.
The goal for me is everyone realizes their potential, wealth of background minimized as a factor, with the material outcomes achieved to be far more closely bunched than they are today. It's an unachievable goal of course so the direction of travel is what counts in practice.
Eton v sports car? Serial fast car purchase doesn't hardcode inequality into society, propagate it down through the generations. This is the essential difference to me.
Yes it does.
If you ask the average working class man whether he could have a new sports car or send his children to learn Latin and Maths to 18 at Eton he would take the new sports car every time!
But it doesn't cascade inequality down the generations, a Porsche 911, does it? Ditto most areas of discretionary private spend. Eg I bet I'd disapprove of some of your jumpers - find them morally wrong even - but I'll be relaxed about it because there's no violation of equal opportunities or propagating of societal inequality in your sartorial choices. Unless I'm missing something.
It does if inherited.
You are assuming that because everyone can't go to Eton nobody can. Except forgetting that even if private education was banned, grammar schools were banned, academies and free schools and faith schools were banned and everyone had to send their children to the local comprehensive there would still be inequality.
For parents living in wealthier areas with more expensive houses would have better local schools than those living in poorer areas. So you would have to ban private sale of housing too and ensure everyone lived in social housing.
Yet even then would still be inequality because those of high iq would tend to marry others of high iq and those of low iq those of low iq. So the children of the former would still be much more likely to become doctors, lawyers, ceos etc. So you would have to ban marriage amongst those of the same but not average iq and force the high iq to marry the low iq to ensure genetic shift towards average iq
People don't usually inherit jumpers.
And to say that inequality is multi-sourced and inevitable isn't a strong argument in favour of something that actively increases it.
Thing is, H, this is an unbridgeable-by-debate difference in values and worldview. I'm egalitarian, meaning I have reducing inequality as a very high priority. Heart and head both tell me this. Head because I think it's illogical how resources are so unequally distributed. Heart because it upsets me that they are.
You, otoh, are a traditional tory - with all that this entails.
No you are not egalitarian, if you were you would be Communist or hardcore Socialist and support equality of outcome. If that was the case then fair enough, I might have some respect for your position even if I believed it misguided and likely to lead to more poverty overall.
Instead you are just a liberal meritocrat. Fine with capitalism as long as there is perfect equality of opportunity, except as I have shown you and was pointed out earlier that is impossible to achieve and just reduces choice and excellence in education in reality in my view too
Astonishing you are allowed to get away with:
"If you ask the average working class man whether he could have a new sports car or send his children to learn Latin and Maths to 18 at Eton he would take the new sports car every time!" Have you met anyone working class?
Plenty and I stand by my comment in terms of most of them
And presumably they would all slap er indoors about a bit if she dared to advance her own opinion.
No but if you really want to believe the average working class male in this country would turn down a new sports car in favour of sending their child to learn Latin at Eton that is up to you
From what we know of your life, you presumably meet these ghastly people either at Tory party events or in church. Strong argument against both institutions.
No, I meet them in the high street, people I canvass in working class areas, conversations overheard in the pub etc. People in my church would certainly send their children to Eton over a new sports car as would most Tory members except maybe a few of the new money ones.
Where is your evidence most working class males would send their children to Eton over a new sports car?
Is there anything wrong with having a private GP? If so, why?
You would have to ask Rishi that, since he is the one who seems ashamed of it.
He had three routes with integrity. One was to use the NHS while he was a high profile politician. One was to come up with a solid explanation, as OGH has done above. The third was to not enter politics. Not choosing any of those does make him look like a worse person.
And if he had to go down this path, he should have said "personal matter" not "private matter".
I disagree - it's a trap and there is no answer that won't draw bile from those who want to be bilious.
(a) Yes, I go private - Oh, NHS not good enough for you? How the hell can you be in charge of something you don't even trust to use?
(b) Lie - get found out (as has been shown) - Why did you lie?
What's wrong with Stuartinromford's first option, not going private whilst a prominent politician? It's not as if the PM's going to struggle to get an NHS appointment if he needed one.
Because its performative nonsense, thats why. Should a politician only sit in rubbish seats at football (come on Keir, get out of that box)? Of only drive rubbish cars? And as for schooling - no more private schools for the kids. That would upset quite a few labour folk.
I don't have a problem with rich people having nicer stuff. I'm richer than most people, I live in a nice big house, drive a decent sized car, had a nice long haul holiday over Christmas etc. I'm very grateful and I pay my taxes and I don't feel bad about it. But for me things like education and health are in a different class, because these are rights and everyone should have the best quality service that the country can afford. I don't think it's right that rich people can jump the queue to get operations before other people, and I don't think that rich people's kids should get better schools than other children. And I don't trust politicians who tell us they are going to deliver the best service possible and fund it appropriately, but refuse to use it themselves. To me the two just seem contradictory and I can't trust a politician like that. Of course other people feel differently about these things, as is their right.
Pretty much my view too. With money comes all sorts of pleasures and privileges - which is fine - but what money shouldn't be able to buy is educational advantage or better essential healthcare
For me the schools point is the bigger one since the more that parental bank balance features there, the greater is the violation of the ideal of equal opportunities. So I feel more strongly about private schools than I do about private health.
The thing is Education is a public good. The better-educated the population is the better it is for society as a whole. So you'd think it would be good if people were using their own resources to increase the total amount of Education in the country. Why is it better in your eyes for someone to buy a new sports car every other year instead of pay Eton school fees?
The reason, I think, is that you've bought into the ideology of meritocracy. This means that you see private education as someone cheating in the great meritocratic struggle. The problem here isn't private education. The problem is that meritocracy is a con used to justify inequality.
It's a futile struggle to try and create a level playing field for meritocracy. Will never happen. Instead I think we should concentrate on people's right to dignity even if they don't become doctors or lawyers, and a fair share of the proceeds generated for society by Eton's education of the wealthy.
You have me wrong here, LP. I don't fetishize meritocracy. That it ends in "ocracy" is a tell. It's an oppressive notion by itself. Eg, if outcomes are grossly unequal but everyone has a meritocratic fair shot at hitting the jackpot, this isn't the End of History imo. It makes no sense to view equal opportunity in isolation from outcomes. Both are important. Plus they impact each other in either direction.
The goal for me is everyone realizes their potential, wealth of background minimized as a factor, with the material outcomes achieved to be far more closely bunched than they are today. It's an unachievable goal of course so the direction of travel is what counts in practice.
Eton v sports car? Serial fast car purchase doesn't hardcode inequality into society, propagate it down through the generations. This is the essential difference to me.
Yes it does.
If you ask the average working class man whether he could have a new sports car or send his children to learn Latin and Maths to 18 at Eton he would take the new sports car every time!
But it doesn't cascade inequality down the generations, a Porsche 911, does it? Ditto most areas of discretionary private spend. Eg I bet I'd disapprove of some of your jumpers - find them morally wrong even - but I'll be relaxed about it because there's no violation of equal opportunities or propagating of societal inequality in your sartorial choices. Unless I'm missing something.
It does if inherited.
You are assuming that because everyone can't go to Eton nobody can. Except forgetting that even if private education was banned, grammar schools were banned, academies and free schools and faith schools were banned and everyone had to send their children to the local comprehensive there would still be inequality.
For parents living in wealthier areas with more expensive houses would have better local schools than those living in poorer areas. So you would have to ban private sale of housing too and ensure everyone lived in social housing.
Yet even then would still be inequality because those of high iq would tend to marry others of high iq and those of low iq those of low iq. So the children of the former would still be much more likely to become doctors, lawyers, ceos etc. So you would have to ban marriage amongst those of the same but not average iq and force the high iq to marry the low iq to ensure genetic shift towards average iq
People don't usually inherit jumpers.
And to say that inequality is multi-sourced and inevitable isn't a strong argument in favour of something that actively increases it.
Thing is, H, this is an unbridgeable-by-debate difference in values and worldview. I'm egalitarian, meaning I have reducing inequality as a very high priority. Heart and head both tell me this. Head because I think it's illogical how resources are so unequally distributed. Heart because it upsets me that they are.
You, otoh, are a traditional tory - with all that this entails.
No you are not egalitarian, if you were you would be Communist or hardcore Socialist and support equality of outcome. If that was the case then fair enough, I might have some respect for your position even if I believed it misguided and likely to lead to more poverty overall.
Instead you are just a liberal meritocrat. Fine with capitalism as long as there is perfect equality of opportunity, except as I have shown you and was pointed out earlier that is impossible to achieve and just reduces choice and excellence in education in reality in my view too
Astonishing you are allowed to get away with:
"If you ask the average working class man whether he could have a new sports car or send his children to learn Latin and Maths to 18 at Eton he would take the new sports car every time!" Have you met anyone working class?
Plenty and I stand by my comment in terms of most of them
And presumably they would all slap er indoors about a bit if she dared to advance her own opinion.
No but if you really want to believe the average working class male in this country would turn down a new sports car in favour of sending their child to learn Latin at Eton that is up to you
Would the average middle class male?
Good point. There may be evidence out there to the contrary but I assume that regardless of class what you do or don't do for your sprogs is limited mainly by your financial circumstances. I suppose there might be some more unwanted kids in working class families who come lower down the pegging order than a new sports car, but it is not a very nice view hyufd has of the plebs (gets pay packet on Friday and goes straight down the bookies and the pub)
The thing that does my head in about people like Andrew Bridgen is their failure to grasp that they are people like Andrew Bridgen.
It’s like, they develop a contentious opinion, but never seem to go, “hang on, how likely is it that I, Andrew Bridgen, a famously fatuous moron, have got this one right?”
“And even if by some chance I have got this right,” they also never think, “then is this really a message best spread by me, aforementioned notorious and renowned fuckwit that I am?”
Is there anything wrong with having a private GP? If so, why?
You would have to ask Rishi that, since he is the one who seems ashamed of it.
He had three routes with integrity. One was to use the NHS while he was a high profile politician. One was to come up with a solid explanation, as OGH has done above. The third was to not enter politics. Not choosing any of those does make him look like a worse person.
And if he had to go down this path, he should have said "personal matter" not "private matter".
I disagree - it's a trap and there is no answer that won't draw bile from those who want to be bilious.
(a) Yes, I go private - Oh, NHS not good enough for you? How the hell can you be in charge of something you don't even trust to use?
(b) Lie - get found out (as has been shown) - Why did you lie?
What's wrong with Stuartinromford's first option, not going private whilst a prominent politician? It's not as if the PM's going to struggle to get an NHS appointment if he needed one.
Because its performative nonsense, thats why. Should a politician only sit in rubbish seats at football (come on Keir, get out of that box)? Of only drive rubbish cars? And as for schooling - no more private schools for the kids. That would upset quite a few labour folk.
I don't have a problem with rich people having nicer stuff. I'm richer than most people, I live in a nice big house, drive a decent sized car, had a nice long haul holiday over Christmas etc. I'm very grateful and I pay my taxes and I don't feel bad about it. But for me things like education and health are in a different class, because these are rights and everyone should have the best quality service that the country can afford. I don't think it's right that rich people can jump the queue to get operations before other people, and I don't think that rich people's kids should get better schools than other children. And I don't trust politicians who tell us they are going to deliver the best service possible and fund it appropriately, but refuse to use it themselves. To me the two just seem contradictory and I can't trust a politician like that. Of course other people feel differently about these things, as is their right.
Pretty much my view too. With money comes all sorts of pleasures and privileges - which is fine - but what money shouldn't be able to buy is educational advantage or better essential healthcare
For me the schools point is the bigger one since the more that parental bank balance features there, the greater is the violation of the ideal of equal opportunities. So I feel more strongly about private schools than I do about private health.
The thing is Education is a public good. The better-educated the population is the better it is for society as a whole. So you'd think it would be good if people were using their own resources to increase the total amount of Education in the country. Why is it better in your eyes for someone to buy a new sports car every other year instead of pay Eton school fees?
The reason, I think, is that you've bought into the ideology of meritocracy. This means that you see private education as someone cheating in the great meritocratic struggle. The problem here isn't private education. The problem is that meritocracy is a con used to justify inequality.
It's a futile struggle to try and create a level playing field for meritocracy. Will never happen. Instead I think we should concentrate on people's right to dignity even if they don't become doctors or lawyers, and a fair share of the proceeds generated for society by Eton's education of the wealthy.
You have me wrong here, LP. I don't fetishize meritocracy. That it ends in "ocracy" is a tell. It's an oppressive notion by itself. Eg, if outcomes are grossly unequal but everyone has a meritocratic fair shot at hitting the jackpot, this isn't the End of History imo. It makes no sense to view equal opportunity in isolation from outcomes. Both are important. Plus they impact each other in either direction.
The goal for me is everyone realizes their potential, wealth of background minimized as a factor, with the material outcomes achieved to be far more closely bunched than they are today. It's an unachievable goal of course so the direction of travel is what counts in practice.
Eton v sports car? Serial fast car purchase doesn't hardcode inequality into society, propagate it down through the generations. This is the essential difference to me.
Yes it does.
If you ask the average working class man whether he could have a new sports car or send his children to learn Latin and Maths to 18 at Eton he would take the new sports car every time!
But it doesn't cascade inequality down the generations, a Porsche 911, does it? Ditto most areas of discretionary private spend. Eg I bet I'd disapprove of some of your jumpers - find them morally wrong even - but I'll be relaxed about it because there's no violation of equal opportunities or propagating of societal inequality in your sartorial choices. Unless I'm missing something.
It does if inherited.
You are assuming that because everyone can't go to Eton nobody can. Except forgetting that even if private education was banned, grammar schools were banned, academies and free schools and faith schools were banned and everyone had to send their children to the local comprehensive there would still be inequality.
For parents living in wealthier areas with more expensive houses would have better local schools than those living in poorer areas. So you would have to ban private sale of housing too and ensure everyone lived in social housing.
Yet even then would still be inequality because those of high iq would tend to marry others of high iq and those of low iq those of low iq. So the children of the former would still be much more likely to become doctors, lawyers, ceos etc. So you would have to ban marriage amongst those of the same but not average iq and force the high iq to marry the low iq to ensure genetic shift towards average iq
People don't usually inherit jumpers.
And to say that inequality is multi-sourced and inevitable isn't a strong argument in favour of something that actively increases it.
Thing is, H, this is an unbridgeable-by-debate difference in values and worldview. I'm egalitarian, meaning I have reducing inequality as a very high priority. Heart and head both tell me this. Head because I think it's illogical how resources are so unequally distributed. Heart because it upsets me that they are.
You, otoh, are a traditional tory - with all that this entails.
No you are not egalitarian, if you were you would be Communist or hardcore Socialist and support equality of outcome. If that was the case then fair enough, I might have some respect for your position even if I believed it misguided and likely to lead to more poverty overall.
Instead you are just a liberal meritocrat. Fine with capitalism as long as there is perfect equality of opportunity, except as I have shown you and was pointed out earlier that is impossible to achieve and just reduces choice and excellence in education in reality in my view too
Astonishing you are allowed to get away with:
"If you ask the average working class man whether he could have a new sports car or send his children to learn Latin and Maths to 18 at Eton he would take the new sports car every time!" Have you met anyone working class?
Plenty and I stand by my comment in terms of most of them
And presumably they would all slap er indoors about a bit if she dared to advance her own opinion.
No but if you really want to believe the average working class male in this country would turn down a new sports car in favour of sending their child to learn Latin at Eton that is up to you
Would the average middle class male?
The average graduate upper middle class male would likely choose Eton over a new sports car, it is just reality
Is there anything wrong with having a private GP? If so, why?
You would have to ask Rishi that, since he is the one who seems ashamed of it.
He had three routes with integrity. One was to use the NHS while he was a high profile politician. One was to come up with a solid explanation, as OGH has done above. The third was to not enter politics. Not choosing any of those does make him look like a worse person.
And if he had to go down this path, he should have said "personal matter" not "private matter".
I disagree - it's a trap and there is no answer that won't draw bile from those who want to be bilious.
(a) Yes, I go private - Oh, NHS not good enough for you? How the hell can you be in charge of something you don't even trust to use?
(b) Lie - get found out (as has been shown) - Why did you lie?
What's wrong with Stuartinromford's first option, not going private whilst a prominent politician? It's not as if the PM's going to struggle to get an NHS appointment if he needed one.
Because its performative nonsense, thats why. Should a politician only sit in rubbish seats at football (come on Keir, get out of that box)? Of only drive rubbish cars? And as for schooling - no more private schools for the kids. That would upset quite a few labour folk.
I don't have a problem with rich people having nicer stuff. I'm richer than most people, I live in a nice big house, drive a decent sized car, had a nice long haul holiday over Christmas etc. I'm very grateful and I pay my taxes and I don't feel bad about it. But for me things like education and health are in a different class, because these are rights and everyone should have the best quality service that the country can afford. I don't think it's right that rich people can jump the queue to get operations before other people, and I don't think that rich people's kids should get better schools than other children. And I don't trust politicians who tell us they are going to deliver the best service possible and fund it appropriately, but refuse to use it themselves. To me the two just seem contradictory and I can't trust a politician like that. Of course other people feel differently about these things, as is their right.
Pretty much my view too. With money comes all sorts of pleasures and privileges - which is fine - but what money shouldn't be able to buy is educational advantage or better essential healthcare
For me the schools point is the bigger one since the more that parental bank balance features there, the greater is the violation of the ideal of equal opportunities. So I feel more strongly about private schools than I do about private health.
The thing is Education is a public good. The better-educated the population is the better it is for society as a whole. So you'd think it would be good if people were using their own resources to increase the total amount of Education in the country. Why is it better in your eyes for someone to buy a new sports car every other year instead of pay Eton school fees?
The reason, I think, is that you've bought into the ideology of meritocracy. This means that you see private education as someone cheating in the great meritocratic struggle. The problem here isn't private education. The problem is that meritocracy is a con used to justify inequality.
It's a futile struggle to try and create a level playing field for meritocracy. Will never happen. Instead I think we should concentrate on people's right to dignity even if they don't become doctors or lawyers, and a fair share of the proceeds generated for society by Eton's education of the wealthy.
You have me wrong here, LP. I don't fetishize meritocracy. That it ends in "ocracy" is a tell. It's an oppressive notion by itself. Eg, if outcomes are grossly unequal but everyone has a meritocratic fair shot at hitting the jackpot, this isn't the End of History imo. It makes no sense to view equal opportunity in isolation from outcomes. Both are important. Plus they impact each other in either direction.
The goal for me is everyone realizes their potential, wealth of background minimized as a factor, with the material outcomes achieved to be far more closely bunched than they are today. It's an unachievable goal of course so the direction of travel is what counts in practice.
Eton v sports car? Serial fast car purchase doesn't hardcode inequality into society, propagate it down through the generations. This is the essential difference to me.
Yes it does.
If you ask the average working class man whether he could have a new sports car or send his children to learn Latin and Maths to 18 at Eton he would take the new sports car every time!
But it doesn't cascade inequality down the generations, a Porsche 911, does it? Ditto most areas of discretionary private spend. Eg I bet I'd disapprove of some of your jumpers - find them morally wrong even - but I'll be relaxed about it because there's no violation of equal opportunities or propagating of societal inequality in your sartorial choices. Unless I'm missing something.
It does if inherited.
You are assuming that because everyone can't go to Eton nobody can. Except forgetting that even if private education was banned, grammar schools were banned, academies and free schools and faith schools were banned and everyone had to send their children to the local comprehensive there would still be inequality.
For parents living in wealthier areas with more expensive houses would have better local schools than those living in poorer areas. So you would have to ban private sale of housing too and ensure everyone lived in social housing.
Yet even then would still be inequality because those of high iq would tend to marry others of high iq and those of low iq those of low iq. So the children of the former would still be much more likely to become doctors, lawyers, ceos etc. So you would have to ban marriage amongst those of the same but not average iq and force the high iq to marry the low iq to ensure genetic shift towards average iq
People don't usually inherit jumpers.
And to say that inequality is multi-sourced and inevitable isn't a strong argument in favour of something that actively increases it.
Thing is, H, this is an unbridgeable-by-debate difference in values and worldview. I'm egalitarian, meaning I have reducing inequality as a very high priority. Heart and head both tell me this. Head because I think it's illogical how resources are so unequally distributed. Heart because it upsets me that they are.
You, otoh, are a traditional tory - with all that this entails.
No you are not egalitarian, if you were you would be Communist or hardcore Socialist and support equality of outcome. If that was the case then fair enough, I might have some respect for your position even if I believed it misguided and likely to lead to more poverty overall.
Instead you are just a liberal meritocrat. Fine with capitalism as long as there is perfect equality of opportunity, except as I have shown you and was pointed out earlier that is impossible to achieve and just reduces choice and excellence in education in reality in my view too
Astonishing you are allowed to get away with:
"If you ask the average working class man whether he could have a new sports car or send his children to learn Latin and Maths to 18 at Eton he would take the new sports car every time!" Have you met anyone working class?
Plenty and I stand by my comment in terms of most of them
And presumably they would all slap er indoors about a bit if she dared to advance her own opinion.
No but if you really want to believe the average working class male in this country would turn down a new sports car in favour of sending their child to learn Latin at Eton that is up to you
Would the average middle class male?
Good point. There may be evidence out there to the contrary but I assume that regardless of class what you do or don't do for your sprogs is limited mainly by your financial circumstances. I suppose there might be some more unwanted kids in working class families who come lower down the pegging order than a new sports car, but it is not a very nice view hyufd has of the plebs (gets pay packet on Friday and goes straight down the bookies and the pub)
I take the other viewpoint, that my kids come higher up the pecking order than sending them to a boarding school where they won't live with the family.
Forced choice for my kids I would choose: Sports car (because why not), then no car at all, then Eton at the bottom of the list. Not because I don't rate my kids, but because I do, and I want them at home with me not shipped away to a boarding school unnecessarily.
Is there anything wrong with having a private GP? If so, why?
You would have to ask Rishi that, since he is the one who seems ashamed of it.
He had three routes with integrity. One was to use the NHS while he was a high profile politician. One was to come up with a solid explanation, as OGH has done above. The third was to not enter politics. Not choosing any of those does make him look like a worse person.
And if he had to go down this path, he should have said "personal matter" not "private matter".
I disagree - it's a trap and there is no answer that won't draw bile from those who want to be bilious.
(a) Yes, I go private - Oh, NHS not good enough for you? How the hell can you be in charge of something you don't even trust to use?
(b) Lie - get found out (as has been shown) - Why did you lie?
What's wrong with Stuartinromford's first option, not going private whilst a prominent politician? It's not as if the PM's going to struggle to get an NHS appointment if he needed one.
Because its performative nonsense, thats why. Should a politician only sit in rubbish seats at football (come on Keir, get out of that box)? Of only drive rubbish cars? And as for schooling - no more private schools for the kids. That would upset quite a few labour folk.
I don't have a problem with rich people having nicer stuff. I'm richer than most people, I live in a nice big house, drive a decent sized car, had a nice long haul holiday over Christmas etc. I'm very grateful and I pay my taxes and I don't feel bad about it. But for me things like education and health are in a different class, because these are rights and everyone should have the best quality service that the country can afford. I don't think it's right that rich people can jump the queue to get operations before other people, and I don't think that rich people's kids should get better schools than other children. And I don't trust politicians who tell us they are going to deliver the best service possible and fund it appropriately, but refuse to use it themselves. To me the two just seem contradictory and I can't trust a politician like that. Of course other people feel differently about these things, as is their right.
Pretty much my view too. With money comes all sorts of pleasures and privileges - which is fine - but what money shouldn't be able to buy is educational advantage or better essential healthcare
For me the schools point is the bigger one since the more that parental bank balance features there, the greater is the violation of the ideal of equal opportunities. So I feel more strongly about private schools than I do about private health.
The thing is Education is a public good. The better-educated the population is the better it is for society as a whole. So you'd think it would be good if people were using their own resources to increase the total amount of Education in the country. Why is it better in your eyes for someone to buy a new sports car every other year instead of pay Eton school fees?
The reason, I think, is that you've bought into the ideology of meritocracy. This means that you see private education as someone cheating in the great meritocratic struggle. The problem here isn't private education. The problem is that meritocracy is a con used to justify inequality.
It's a futile struggle to try and create a level playing field for meritocracy. Will never happen. Instead I think we should concentrate on people's right to dignity even if they don't become doctors or lawyers, and a fair share of the proceeds generated for society by Eton's education of the wealthy.
You have me wrong here, LP. I don't fetishize meritocracy. That it ends in "ocracy" is a tell. It's an oppressive notion by itself. Eg, if outcomes are grossly unequal but everyone has a meritocratic fair shot at hitting the jackpot, this isn't the End of History imo. It makes no sense to view equal opportunity in isolation from outcomes. Both are important. Plus they impact each other in either direction.
The goal for me is everyone realizes their potential, wealth of background minimized as a factor, with the material outcomes achieved to be far more closely bunched than they are today. It's an unachievable goal of course so the direction of travel is what counts in practice.
Eton v sports car? Serial fast car purchase doesn't hardcode inequality into society, propagate it down through the generations. This is the essential difference to me.
Yes it does.
If you ask the average working class man whether he could have a new sports car or send his children to learn Latin and Maths to 18 at Eton he would take the new sports car every time!
But it doesn't cascade inequality down the generations, a Porsche 911, does it? Ditto most areas of discretionary private spend. Eg I bet I'd disapprove of some of your jumpers - find them morally wrong even - but I'll be relaxed about it because there's no violation of equal opportunities or propagating of societal inequality in your sartorial choices. Unless I'm missing something.
It does if inherited.
You are assuming that because everyone can't go to Eton nobody can. Except forgetting that even if private education was banned, grammar schools were banned, academies and free schools and faith schools were banned and everyone had to send their children to the local comprehensive there would still be inequality.
For parents living in wealthier areas with more expensive houses would have better local schools than those living in poorer areas. So you would have to ban private sale of housing too and ensure everyone lived in social housing.
Yet even then would still be inequality because those of high iq would tend to marry others of high iq and those of low iq those of low iq. So the children of the former would still be much more likely to become doctors, lawyers, ceos etc. So you would have to ban marriage amongst those of the same but not average iq and force the high iq to marry the low iq to ensure genetic shift towards average iq
People don't usually inherit jumpers.
And to say that inequality is multi-sourced and inevitable isn't a strong argument in favour of something that actively increases it.
Thing is, H, this is an unbridgeable-by-debate difference in values and worldview. I'm egalitarian, meaning I have reducing inequality as a very high priority. Heart and head both tell me this. Head because I think it's illogical how resources are so unequally distributed. Heart because it upsets me that they are.
You, otoh, are a traditional tory - with all that this entails.
No you are not egalitarian, if you were you would be Communist or hardcore Socialist and support equality of outcome. If that was the case then fair enough, I might have some respect for your position even if I believed it misguided and likely to lead to more poverty overall.
Instead you are just a liberal meritocrat. Fine with capitalism as long as there is perfect equality of opportunity, except as I have shown you and was pointed out earlier that is impossible to achieve and just reduces choice and excellence in education in reality in my view too
Astonishing you are allowed to get away with:
"If you ask the average working class man whether he could have a new sports car or send his children to learn Latin and Maths to 18 at Eton he would take the new sports car every time!" Have you met anyone working class?
Plenty and I stand by my comment in terms of most of them
And presumably they would all slap er indoors about a bit if she dared to advance her own opinion.
No but if you really want to believe the average working class male in this country would turn down a new sports car in favour of sending their child to learn Latin at Eton that is up to you
Would the average middle class male?
The average graduate upper middle class male would likely choose Eton over a new sports car, it is just reality
I don't think they would. I think the average graduate upper middle class male would choose to have their kids in their family home, than in a boarding school.
Ah, I see we're in for another day of anti-trans hate. Situation normal.
I’m surprised you, of all people, are illustrating the point. It’s not just women’s rights Trans activists are harming. They are hurting trans peoples rights too by their “no debate” and sometimes violent shutting down of any attempt to discuss it.
I'm not illustrating your point - at least, as I read your point. Do you really think 'trans activists' have caused the deluge of anti-trans stuff in the media and online? As an example. when did you last post something supporting trans people, instead of a litany of negativity towards them?
I don't see myself as an 'activist' - I'm just someone who has known a few trans people, a couple of whom were very good friends. I'd argue *you* are an activist - as it seems you feel the need to post negative sh*t about them all the time. It's just that you're a negative activist.
If there is a deluge of anti trans stuff in the media please link to some examples, so we can see if it really anti trans or not.
The number of trans people in your life seems to make you a statistical outlier.
"The number of trans people in your life seems to make you a statistical outlier."
Perhaps. Perhaps not. You'd be surprising how hard it can be to tell an individual is trans. And IME, the longer they are trans, and the older they get, the harder it is to tell. And despite what some may say, women cannot automagically 'tell' when someone is male or trans. At least the ones I've asked cannot.
As for the articles: I might suggest you look at the following as an example of a constant stream of negativity. Can you point to an article there that says: "Hey look, this trans person has done something cool!" ?
Are you expecting the Daily Mail to be posting positive articles about anything at all? I think I may have found your problem.
The issue with the trans debate that puts me off is that people on both sides can be a bit all or nothing about it. For me the position I have settled upon is that people who are trans should be treated with respect and care, and so long as it doesn't cause any safeguarding issues should be treated as the gender they identify as - and by any names or pronouns they prefer. Where safeguarding is a concern, then sex should trump gender identity.
That's all fine, but how do you define sex? - Natal sex? - Based on presence of sex organs? - Based on receipt (or not) of x-sex hormones?
There are possible arguments for all of those, depending on the situation. Natal sex tends to imply physical strength and size, for example (although not universally, of course, and depending to some extent on the age of other interventions). Presence of a penis is of course relevant to some sexual safeguarding, but a natal male in long term receipt of x-sex hormones may be unable to have an erection. All shades of grey, as I think you appreciate.
You halfwit your sex is decided at conception and you are born male or female. Anything else is absolute garbage.
Afternoon Malc, hope all good with you
That's not strictly true of course (XY babies where the male characteristics never developed who are, in all ways except genetically female and would never realise they had XY chromosomes without a genetic test) although those cases are rare. It's a valid question though, is it not, in the context of safeguarding? Would you ban a fully (surgically) transitioned person who was born male but now has female sex organs from a female only space?
Hello Selebian, Good afternoon to you. If they have fully transitioned then I would say I would not ban them but the vast majority , ie high 90's% wise, have not. However personally I am of the opinion you are what you are born no matter what tinkering you do. I am all for everyone having rights but not at expense of the majority.
I think it's fair and right to allow fully surgically transitioned, legally transitioned transexual women to use women's toilet facilities. If you have a cock and balls, no way.
Transitioning people who are uncomfortable using facilities designed for the gender that they are transitioning away from can have dispensation to use the disabled facilities, which are private, as do many other people without any obvious physical impairment.
Is there anything wrong with having a private GP? If so, why?
You would have to ask Rishi that, since he is the one who seems ashamed of it.
He had three routes with integrity. One was to use the NHS while he was a high profile politician. One was to come up with a solid explanation, as OGH has done above. The third was to not enter politics. Not choosing any of those does make him look like a worse person.
And if he had to go down this path, he should have said "personal matter" not "private matter".
I disagree - it's a trap and there is no answer that won't draw bile from those who want to be bilious.
(a) Yes, I go private - Oh, NHS not good enough for you? How the hell can you be in charge of something you don't even trust to use?
(b) Lie - get found out (as has been shown) - Why did you lie?
What's wrong with Stuartinromford's first option, not going private whilst a prominent politician? It's not as if the PM's going to struggle to get an NHS appointment if he needed one.
Because its performative nonsense, thats why. Should a politician only sit in rubbish seats at football (come on Keir, get out of that box)? Of only drive rubbish cars? And as for schooling - no more private schools for the kids. That would upset quite a few labour folk.
I don't have a problem with rich people having nicer stuff. I'm richer than most people, I live in a nice big house, drive a decent sized car, had a nice long haul holiday over Christmas etc. I'm very grateful and I pay my taxes and I don't feel bad about it. But for me things like education and health are in a different class, because these are rights and everyone should have the best quality service that the country can afford. I don't think it's right that rich people can jump the queue to get operations before other people, and I don't think that rich people's kids should get better schools than other children. And I don't trust politicians who tell us they are going to deliver the best service possible and fund it appropriately, but refuse to use it themselves. To me the two just seem contradictory and I can't trust a politician like that. Of course other people feel differently about these things, as is their right.
Pretty much my view too. With money comes all sorts of pleasures and privileges - which is fine - but what money shouldn't be able to buy is educational advantage or better essential healthcare
For me the schools point is the bigger one since the more that parental bank balance features there, the greater is the violation of the ideal of equal opportunities. So I feel more strongly about private schools than I do about private health.
The thing is Education is a public good. The better-educated the population is the better it is for society as a whole. So you'd think it would be good if people were using their own resources to increase the total amount of Education in the country. Why is it better in your eyes for someone to buy a new sports car every other year instead of pay Eton school fees?
The reason, I think, is that you've bought into the ideology of meritocracy. This means that you see private education as someone cheating in the great meritocratic struggle. The problem here isn't private education. The problem is that meritocracy is a con used to justify inequality.
It's a futile struggle to try and create a level playing field for meritocracy. Will never happen. Instead I think we should concentrate on people's right to dignity even if they don't become doctors or lawyers, and a fair share of the proceeds generated for society by Eton's education of the wealthy.
You have me wrong here, LP. I don't fetishize meritocracy. That it ends in "ocracy" is a tell. It's an oppressive notion by itself. Eg, if outcomes are grossly unequal but everyone has a meritocratic fair shot at hitting the jackpot, this isn't the End of History imo. It makes no sense to view equal opportunity in isolation from outcomes. Both are important. Plus they impact each other in either direction.
The goal for me is everyone realizes their potential, wealth of background minimized as a factor, with the material outcomes achieved to be far more closely bunched than they are today. It's an unachievable goal of course so the direction of travel is what counts in practice.
Eton v sports car? Serial fast car purchase doesn't hardcode inequality into society, propagate it down through the generations. This is the essential difference to me.
Yes it does.
If you ask the average working class man whether he could have a new sports car or send his children to learn Latin and Maths to 18 at Eton he would take the new sports car every time!
But it doesn't cascade inequality down the generations, a Porsche 911, does it? Ditto most areas of discretionary private spend. Eg I bet I'd disapprove of some of your jumpers - find them morally wrong even - but I'll be relaxed about it because there's no violation of equal opportunities or propagating of societal inequality in your sartorial choices. Unless I'm missing something.
It does if inherited.
You are assuming that because everyone can't go to Eton nobody can. Except forgetting that even if private education was banned, grammar schools were banned, academies and free schools and faith schools were banned and everyone had to send their children to the local comprehensive there would still be inequality.
For parents living in wealthier areas with more expensive houses would have better local schools than those living in poorer areas. So you would have to ban private sale of housing too and ensure everyone lived in social housing.
Yet even then would still be inequality because those of high iq would tend to marry others of high iq and those of low iq those of low iq. So the children of the former would still be much more likely to become doctors, lawyers, ceos etc. So you would have to ban marriage amongst those of the same but not average iq and force the high iq to marry the low iq to ensure genetic shift towards average iq
People don't usually inherit jumpers.
And to say that inequality is multi-sourced and inevitable isn't a strong argument in favour of something that actively increases it.
Thing is, H, this is an unbridgeable-by-debate difference in values and worldview. I'm egalitarian, meaning I have reducing inequality as a very high priority. Heart and head both tell me this. Head because I think it's illogical how resources are so unequally distributed. Heart because it upsets me that they are.
You, otoh, are a traditional tory - with all that this entails.
No you are not egalitarian, if you were you would be Communist or hardcore Socialist and support equality of outcome. If that was the case then fair enough, I might have some respect for your position even if I believed it misguided and likely to lead to more poverty overall.
Instead you are just a liberal meritocrat. Fine with capitalism as long as there is perfect equality of opportunity, except as I have shown you and was pointed out earlier that is impossible to achieve and just reduces choice and excellence in education in reality in my view too
Astonishing you are allowed to get away with:
"If you ask the average working class man whether he could have a new sports car or send his children to learn Latin and Maths to 18 at Eton he would take the new sports car every time!" Have you met anyone working class?
Plenty and I stand by my comment in terms of most of them
And presumably they would all slap er indoors about a bit if she dared to advance her own opinion.
No but if you really want to believe the average working class male in this country would turn down a new sports car in favour of sending their child to learn Latin at Eton that is up to you
Would the average middle class male?
The average graduate upper middle class male would likely choose Eton over a new sports car, it is just reality
I don't think they would. I think the average graduate upper middle class male would choose to have their kids in their family home, than in a boarding school.
Is there anything wrong with having a private GP? If so, why?
You would have to ask Rishi that, since he is the one who seems ashamed of it.
He had three routes with integrity. One was to use the NHS while he was a high profile politician. One was to come up with a solid explanation, as OGH has done above. The third was to not enter politics. Not choosing any of those does make him look like a worse person.
And if he had to go down this path, he should have said "personal matter" not "private matter".
I disagree - it's a trap and there is no answer that won't draw bile from those who want to be bilious.
(a) Yes, I go private - Oh, NHS not good enough for you? How the hell can you be in charge of something you don't even trust to use?
(b) Lie - get found out (as has been shown) - Why did you lie?
What's wrong with Stuartinromford's first option, not going private whilst a prominent politician? It's not as if the PM's going to struggle to get an NHS appointment if he needed one.
Because its performative nonsense, thats why. Should a politician only sit in rubbish seats at football (come on Keir, get out of that box)? Of only drive rubbish cars? And as for schooling - no more private schools for the kids. That would upset quite a few labour folk.
I don't have a problem with rich people having nicer stuff. I'm richer than most people, I live in a nice big house, drive a decent sized car, had a nice long haul holiday over Christmas etc. I'm very grateful and I pay my taxes and I don't feel bad about it. But for me things like education and health are in a different class, because these are rights and everyone should have the best quality service that the country can afford. I don't think it's right that rich people can jump the queue to get operations before other people, and I don't think that rich people's kids should get better schools than other children. And I don't trust politicians who tell us they are going to deliver the best service possible and fund it appropriately, but refuse to use it themselves. To me the two just seem contradictory and I can't trust a politician like that. Of course other people feel differently about these things, as is their right.
Pretty much my view too. With money comes all sorts of pleasures and privileges - which is fine - but what money shouldn't be able to buy is educational advantage or better essential healthcare
For me the schools point is the bigger one since the more that parental bank balance features there, the greater is the violation of the ideal of equal opportunities. So I feel more strongly about private schools than I do about private health.
The thing is Education is a public good. The better-educated the population is the better it is for society as a whole. So you'd think it would be good if people were using their own resources to increase the total amount of Education in the country. Why is it better in your eyes for someone to buy a new sports car every other year instead of pay Eton school fees?
The reason, I think, is that you've bought into the ideology of meritocracy. This means that you see private education as someone cheating in the great meritocratic struggle. The problem here isn't private education. The problem is that meritocracy is a con used to justify inequality.
It's a futile struggle to try and create a level playing field for meritocracy. Will never happen. Instead I think we should concentrate on people's right to dignity even if they don't become doctors or lawyers, and a fair share of the proceeds generated for society by Eton's education of the wealthy.
You have me wrong here, LP. I don't fetishize meritocracy. That it ends in "ocracy" is a tell. It's an oppressive notion by itself. Eg, if outcomes are grossly unequal but everyone has a meritocratic fair shot at hitting the jackpot, this isn't the End of History imo. It makes no sense to view equal opportunity in isolation from outcomes. Both are important. Plus they impact each other in either direction.
The goal for me is everyone realizes their potential, wealth of background minimized as a factor, with the material outcomes achieved to be far more closely bunched than they are today. It's an unachievable goal of course so the direction of travel is what counts in practice.
Eton v sports car? Serial fast car purchase doesn't hardcode inequality into society, propagate it down through the generations. This is the essential difference to me.
Yes it does.
If you ask the average working class man whether he could have a new sports car or send his children to learn Latin and Maths to 18 at Eton he would take the new sports car every time!
But it doesn't cascade inequality down the generations, a Porsche 911, does it? Ditto most areas of discretionary private spend. Eg I bet I'd disapprove of some of your jumpers - find them morally wrong even - but I'll be relaxed about it because there's no violation of equal opportunities or propagating of societal inequality in your sartorial choices. Unless I'm missing something.
It does if inherited.
You are assuming that because everyone can't go to Eton nobody can. Except forgetting that even if private education was banned, grammar schools were banned, academies and free schools and faith schools were banned and everyone had to send their children to the local comprehensive there would still be inequality.
For parents living in wealthier areas with more expensive houses would have better local schools than those living in poorer areas. So you would have to ban private sale of housing too and ensure everyone lived in social housing.
Yet even then would still be inequality because those of high iq would tend to marry others of high iq and those of low iq those of low iq. So the children of the former would still be much more likely to become doctors, lawyers, ceos etc. So you would have to ban marriage amongst those of the same but not average iq and force the high iq to marry the low iq to ensure genetic shift towards average iq
People don't usually inherit jumpers.
And to say that inequality is multi-sourced and inevitable isn't a strong argument in favour of something that actively increases it.
Thing is, H, this is an unbridgeable-by-debate difference in values and worldview. I'm egalitarian, meaning I have reducing inequality as a very high priority. Heart and head both tell me this. Head because I think it's illogical how resources are so unequally distributed. Heart because it upsets me that they are.
You, otoh, are a traditional tory - with all that this entails.
No you are not egalitarian, if you were you would be Communist or hardcore Socialist and support equality of outcome. If that was the case then fair enough, I might have some respect for your position even if I believed it misguided and likely to lead to more poverty overall.
Instead you are just a liberal meritocrat. Fine with capitalism as long as there is perfect equality of opportunity, except as I have shown you and was pointed out earlier that is impossible to achieve and just reduces choice and excellence in education in reality in my view too
Astonishing you are allowed to get away with:
"If you ask the average working class man whether he could have a new sports car or send his children to learn Latin and Maths to 18 at Eton he would take the new sports car every time!" Have you met anyone working class?
Plenty and I stand by my comment in terms of most of them
And presumably they would all slap er indoors about a bit if she dared to advance her own opinion.
No but if you really want to believe the average working class male in this country would turn down a new sports car in favour of sending their child to learn Latin at Eton that is up to you
Would the average middle class male?
The average graduate upper middle class male would likely choose Eton over a new sports car, it is just reality
I wouldn't. I would certainly consider a private school (and will consider it; our current opinion is that it's not worth it), but not Eton.
I want our son to go to school to get a good education, and to form him into a well-rounded individual. I don't give a rat's arse for contact networks or all of the other shite. Worse, I know many of the other parents would look down at us for being rather non-Eton material.
I'd much rather consider my old school than Eton, and save £15k a year.
Is there anything wrong with having a private GP? If so, why?
You would have to ask Rishi that, since he is the one who seems ashamed of it.
He had three routes with integrity. One was to use the NHS while he was a high profile politician. One was to come up with a solid explanation, as OGH has done above. The third was to not enter politics. Not choosing any of those does make him look like a worse person.
And if he had to go down this path, he should have said "personal matter" not "private matter".
I disagree - it's a trap and there is no answer that won't draw bile from those who want to be bilious.
(a) Yes, I go private - Oh, NHS not good enough for you? How the hell can you be in charge of something you don't even trust to use?
(b) Lie - get found out (as has been shown) - Why did you lie?
What's wrong with Stuartinromford's first option, not going private whilst a prominent politician? It's not as if the PM's going to struggle to get an NHS appointment if he needed one.
Because its performative nonsense, thats why. Should a politician only sit in rubbish seats at football (come on Keir, get out of that box)? Of only drive rubbish cars? And as for schooling - no more private schools for the kids. That would upset quite a few labour folk.
I don't have a problem with rich people having nicer stuff. I'm richer than most people, I live in a nice big house, drive a decent sized car, had a nice long haul holiday over Christmas etc. I'm very grateful and I pay my taxes and I don't feel bad about it. But for me things like education and health are in a different class, because these are rights and everyone should have the best quality service that the country can afford. I don't think it's right that rich people can jump the queue to get operations before other people, and I don't think that rich people's kids should get better schools than other children. And I don't trust politicians who tell us they are going to deliver the best service possible and fund it appropriately, but refuse to use it themselves. To me the two just seem contradictory and I can't trust a politician like that. Of course other people feel differently about these things, as is their right.
Pretty much my view too. With money comes all sorts of pleasures and privileges - which is fine - but what money shouldn't be able to buy is educational advantage or better essential healthcare
For me the schools point is the bigger one since the more that parental bank balance features there, the greater is the violation of the ideal of equal opportunities. So I feel more strongly about private schools than I do about private health.
The thing is Education is a public good. The better-educated the population is the better it is for society as a whole. So you'd think it would be good if people were using their own resources to increase the total amount of Education in the country. Why is it better in your eyes for someone to buy a new sports car every other year instead of pay Eton school fees?
The reason, I think, is that you've bought into the ideology of meritocracy. This means that you see private education as someone cheating in the great meritocratic struggle. The problem here isn't private education. The problem is that meritocracy is a con used to justify inequality.
It's a futile struggle to try and create a level playing field for meritocracy. Will never happen. Instead I think we should concentrate on people's right to dignity even if they don't become doctors or lawyers, and a fair share of the proceeds generated for society by Eton's education of the wealthy.
You have me wrong here, LP. I don't fetishize meritocracy. That it ends in "ocracy" is a tell. It's an oppressive notion by itself. Eg, if outcomes are grossly unequal but everyone has a meritocratic fair shot at hitting the jackpot, this isn't the End of History imo. It makes no sense to view equal opportunity in isolation from outcomes. Both are important. Plus they impact each other in either direction.
The goal for me is everyone realizes their potential, wealth of background minimized as a factor, with the material outcomes achieved to be far more closely bunched than they are today. It's an unachievable goal of course so the direction of travel is what counts in practice.
Eton v sports car? Serial fast car purchase doesn't hardcode inequality into society, propagate it down through the generations. This is the essential difference to me.
Yes it does.
If you ask the average working class man whether he could have a new sports car or send his children to learn Latin and Maths to 18 at Eton he would take the new sports car every time!
But it doesn't cascade inequality down the generations, a Porsche 911, does it? Ditto most areas of discretionary private spend. Eg I bet I'd disapprove of some of your jumpers - find them morally wrong even - but I'll be relaxed about it because there's no violation of equal opportunities or propagating of societal inequality in your sartorial choices. Unless I'm missing something.
It does if inherited.
You are assuming that because everyone can't go to Eton nobody can. Except forgetting that even if private education was banned, grammar schools were banned, academies and free schools and faith schools were banned and everyone had to send their children to the local comprehensive there would still be inequality.
For parents living in wealthier areas with more expensive houses would have better local schools than those living in poorer areas. So you would have to ban private sale of housing too and ensure everyone lived in social housing.
Yet even then would still be inequality because those of high iq would tend to marry others of high iq and those of low iq those of low iq. So the children of the former would still be much more likely to become doctors, lawyers, ceos etc. So you would have to ban marriage amongst those of the same but not average iq and force the high iq to marry the low iq to ensure genetic shift towards average iq
People don't usually inherit jumpers.
And to say that inequality is multi-sourced and inevitable isn't a strong argument in favour of something that actively increases it.
Thing is, H, this is an unbridgeable-by-debate difference in values and worldview. I'm egalitarian, meaning I have reducing inequality as a very high priority. Heart and head both tell me this. Head because I think it's illogical how resources are so unequally distributed. Heart because it upsets me that they are.
You, otoh, are a traditional tory - with all that this entails.
No you are not egalitarian, if you were you would be Communist or hardcore Socialist and support equality of outcome. If that was the case then fair enough, I might have some respect for your position even if I believed it misguided and likely to lead to more poverty overall.
Instead you are just a liberal meritocrat. Fine with capitalism as long as there is perfect equality of opportunity, except as I have shown you and was pointed out earlier that is impossible to achieve and just reduces choice and excellence in education in reality in my view too
Astonishing you are allowed to get away with:
"If you ask the average working class man whether he could have a new sports car or send his children to learn Latin and Maths to 18 at Eton he would take the new sports car every time!" Have you met anyone working class?
Plenty and I stand by my comment in terms of most of them
And presumably they would all slap er indoors about a bit if she dared to advance her own opinion.
No but if you really want to believe the average working class male in this country would turn down a new sports car in favour of sending their child to learn Latin at Eton that is up to you
From what we know of your life, you presumably meet these ghastly people either at Tory party events or in church. Strong argument against both institutions.
No, I meet them in the high street, people I canvass in working class areas, conversations overheard in the pub etc. People in my church would certainly send their children to Eton over a new sports car as would most Tory members except maybe a few of the new money ones.
Where is your evidence most working class males would send their children to Eton over a new sports car?
Knowledge of human nature supported by the fact that I am a father myself, and an absence of baseless snobbery. I know first hand that many middle-class families sacrifice all sorts of pleasures and status symbols in favour of education. I know some of the poorest countries in the world and I know people in those countries working as servants and street sweepers and taxi drivers to be able to afford to supplement the virtually or actually non existent state education for their children. I do not have your contempt for the English poor.
Is there anything wrong with having a private GP? If so, why?
You would have to ask Rishi that, since he is the one who seems ashamed of it.
He had three routes with integrity. One was to use the NHS while he was a high profile politician. One was to come up with a solid explanation, as OGH has done above. The third was to not enter politics. Not choosing any of those does make him look like a worse person.
And if he had to go down this path, he should have said "personal matter" not "private matter".
I disagree - it's a trap and there is no answer that won't draw bile from those who want to be bilious.
(a) Yes, I go private - Oh, NHS not good enough for you? How the hell can you be in charge of something you don't even trust to use?
(b) Lie - get found out (as has been shown) - Why did you lie?
What's wrong with Stuartinromford's first option, not going private whilst a prominent politician? It's not as if the PM's going to struggle to get an NHS appointment if he needed one.
Because its performative nonsense, thats why. Should a politician only sit in rubbish seats at football (come on Keir, get out of that box)? Of only drive rubbish cars? And as for schooling - no more private schools for the kids. That would upset quite a few labour folk.
I don't have a problem with rich people having nicer stuff. I'm richer than most people, I live in a nice big house, drive a decent sized car, had a nice long haul holiday over Christmas etc. I'm very grateful and I pay my taxes and I don't feel bad about it. But for me things like education and health are in a different class, because these are rights and everyone should have the best quality service that the country can afford. I don't think it's right that rich people can jump the queue to get operations before other people, and I don't think that rich people's kids should get better schools than other children. And I don't trust politicians who tell us they are going to deliver the best service possible and fund it appropriately, but refuse to use it themselves. To me the two just seem contradictory and I can't trust a politician like that. Of course other people feel differently about these things, as is their right.
How on earth do you think you would implement that?
Even if you outlawed them in this country, would you try to stop people from travelling abroad for medical treatment, or sending their children to private schools in other countries? Would you override devolution and enforce your policy across the whole UK?
Er, I already commented down thread that I'm not talking about banning things! Perhaps you are an instinctive authoritarian who wants to ban everything that you disapprove of, but I'm a liberal. People are free to do whatever the hell they like. But if you use private healthcare and schools then I will need a lot of persuading that you have the interests of their state equivalents close to your heart, and I probably won't vote for you, because I want the NHS and our schools to get the best possible funding and to deliver the best possible service for all of us.
Crops up a lot, this, and I have a standing order sentence which you can use if you like.
"I assess private schools as net harmful to society but it's only an opinion and I'm not saying they should be illegal."
Mind you, if I was Prez with a landslide and a 10 year term ...
But it's completely hypocritical. Would you or @OnlyLivingBoy refrain from taking/sending your children on a culturally enriching holiday because some people can't afford it?
There isn't a shred of hypocrisy. You're doing that reductive exaggeration strawman thing. It's like me saying to you - if you're cool with people buying educational privilege for their kids would you be in favour of an open market in body parts?
Yes. Why should there not be an open market in body parts?
Donations are important, and I'm on the organ donor list, but if someone wants to sell a kidney that should be their choice. Their body, their choice.
Ah it's you. This is what happens when you enshrine a principle and force yourself to agree with every single one of its implications. You end up arguing for an open market in body parts.
I don't force myself to agree with every one of its implications. I'm willing to break my principles and support something that goes against my principles, where it suits. EG I supported the smoking ban and still do. My principles say that anyone who wants to have a building where people smoke inside, that should be their choice and anyone who disagrees can go elsewhere - but for purely selfish reasons I'm willing to set aside my principles and say that I prefer no smoking indoors and let the smokers go elsewhere instead. There's no principle behind my view there, I know that I'm going against my liberal principles in supporting a smoking ban but I don't care.
I'm OK with an open market in body parts, because I see no harm in it. If someone is willing to sell a kidney, that should be their choice.
No harm in poor people selling their arms and legs in order to pay the leccy? C'mon. Let's park this since you can't be serious.
More taken by your other point - on the smoking ban. You're saying you support it even though you feel it's wrong. That's interesting. People don't usually admit to this but it does happen a lot imo. That sort of doublethink is essential to get by in this world.
Who says its only poor people who'd sell body parts, if it were an option? It could be wealthy or middle income people too. Frankly why people choose to do something, is up to them.
I don't believe in victimless crimes. If someone wants to sell something of theirs, and does so knowingly, then who is the victim? And if there's no victim, why should it be illegal?
I'm not aware of people donating arms and legs already today, so your position is one of reductio ad absurdum anyway, but if I wanted to donate a kidney to save my brother's life, that would be perfectly legal. But if someone wanted to sell theirs to eg fund a holiday, or a deposit on a home, or quite frankly anything else that's up to them, and someone wanted to pay in order to save their or their relative's life, then that is illegal. Why? Why should directed donations be legal, but paid for ones not be?
Because paid for donations opens up all sorts of possibilities for abuse (eg: manipulating parents manipulating an 18 year old offspring to sell a kidney to avoid the parents losing their home, or to fund university/experimental medical care/whatever for a younger sibling). Directed donations, precisely because there is no money involved, do not carry anywhere near the same level of risk.
Abuse is possible with directed donations too, eg manipulative parents manipulating an offspring to help save the life of a sibling.
Any directed donation could have just as much abuse, both mental, emotional and other, as any fiscal transaction could.
Abuse is just about possible with directed donations - just about - but even then, the worst case scenario is someone gets pressured into doing something potentially life saving for no financial reward. And you'd expect doctors to pick most of those cases up and act appropriately.
Abuse is much, much more likely when there's money involved. And the worst case scenario (OK, the worst I can currently think of) involves gangs of organised criminals hoovering up vulnerable people by the thousand and collecting 90%+ commissions on the sale of their organs. And then some portion of the donors dying, because they were coached to lie about their medical history to ensure the donation went ahead.
Is there anything wrong with having a private GP? If so, why?
You would have to ask Rishi that, since he is the one who seems ashamed of it.
He had three routes with integrity. One was to use the NHS while he was a high profile politician. One was to come up with a solid explanation, as OGH has done above. The third was to not enter politics. Not choosing any of those does make him look like a worse person.
And if he had to go down this path, he should have said "personal matter" not "private matter".
I disagree - it's a trap and there is no answer that won't draw bile from those who want to be bilious.
(a) Yes, I go private - Oh, NHS not good enough for you? How the hell can you be in charge of something you don't even trust to use?
(b) Lie - get found out (as has been shown) - Why did you lie?
What's wrong with Stuartinromford's first option, not going private whilst a prominent politician? It's not as if the PM's going to struggle to get an NHS appointment if he needed one.
Because its performative nonsense, thats why. Should a politician only sit in rubbish seats at football (come on Keir, get out of that box)? Of only drive rubbish cars? And as for schooling - no more private schools for the kids. That would upset quite a few labour folk.
I don't have a problem with rich people having nicer stuff. I'm richer than most people, I live in a nice big house, drive a decent sized car, had a nice long haul holiday over Christmas etc. I'm very grateful and I pay my taxes and I don't feel bad about it. But for me things like education and health are in a different class, because these are rights and everyone should have the best quality service that the country can afford. I don't think it's right that rich people can jump the queue to get operations before other people, and I don't think that rich people's kids should get better schools than other children. And I don't trust politicians who tell us they are going to deliver the best service possible and fund it appropriately, but refuse to use it themselves. To me the two just seem contradictory and I can't trust a politician like that. Of course other people feel differently about these things, as is their right.
Pretty much my view too. With money comes all sorts of pleasures and privileges - which is fine - but what money shouldn't be able to buy is educational advantage or better essential healthcare
For me the schools point is the bigger one since the more that parental bank balance features there, the greater is the violation of the ideal of equal opportunities. So I feel more strongly about private schools than I do about private health.
The thing is Education is a public good. The better-educated the population is the better it is for society as a whole. So you'd think it would be good if people were using their own resources to increase the total amount of Education in the country. Why is it better in your eyes for someone to buy a new sports car every other year instead of pay Eton school fees?
The reason, I think, is that you've bought into the ideology of meritocracy. This means that you see private education as someone cheating in the great meritocratic struggle. The problem here isn't private education. The problem is that meritocracy is a con used to justify inequality.
It's a futile struggle to try and create a level playing field for meritocracy. Will never happen. Instead I think we should concentrate on people's right to dignity even if they don't become doctors or lawyers, and a fair share of the proceeds generated for society by Eton's education of the wealthy.
You have me wrong here, LP. I don't fetishize meritocracy. That it ends in "ocracy" is a tell. It's an oppressive notion by itself. Eg, if outcomes are grossly unequal but everyone has a meritocratic fair shot at hitting the jackpot, this isn't the End of History imo. It makes no sense to view equal opportunity in isolation from outcomes. Both are important. Plus they impact each other in either direction.
The goal for me is everyone realizes their potential, wealth of background minimized as a factor, with the material outcomes achieved to be far more closely bunched than they are today. It's an unachievable goal of course so the direction of travel is what counts in practice.
Eton v sports car? Serial fast car purchase doesn't hardcode inequality into society, propagate it down through the generations. This is the essential difference to me.
Yes it does.
If you ask the average working class man whether he could have a new sports car or send his children to learn Latin and Maths to 18 at Eton he would take the new sports car every time!
But it doesn't cascade inequality down the generations, a Porsche 911, does it? Ditto most areas of discretionary private spend. Eg I bet I'd disapprove of some of your jumpers - find them morally wrong even - but I'll be relaxed about it because there's no violation of equal opportunities or propagating of societal inequality in your sartorial choices. Unless I'm missing something.
It does if inherited.
You are assuming that because everyone can't go to Eton nobody can. Except forgetting that even if private education was banned, grammar schools were banned, academies and free schools and faith schools were banned and everyone had to send their children to the local comprehensive there would still be inequality.
For parents living in wealthier areas with more expensive houses would have better local schools than those living in poorer areas. So you would have to ban private sale of housing too and ensure everyone lived in social housing.
Yet even then would still be inequality because those of high iq would tend to marry others of high iq and those of low iq those of low iq. So the children of the former would still be much more likely to become doctors, lawyers, ceos etc. So you would have to ban marriage amongst those of the same but not average iq and force the high iq to marry the low iq to ensure genetic shift towards average iq
People don't usually inherit jumpers.
And to say that inequality is multi-sourced and inevitable isn't a strong argument in favour of something that actively increases it.
Thing is, H, this is an unbridgeable-by-debate difference in values and worldview. I'm egalitarian, meaning I have reducing inequality as a very high priority. Heart and head both tell me this. Head because I think it's illogical how resources are so unequally distributed. Heart because it upsets me that they are.
You, otoh, are a traditional tory - with all that this entails.
No you are not egalitarian, if you were you would be Communist or hardcore Socialist and support equality of outcome. If that was the case then fair enough, I might have some respect for your position even if I believed it misguided and likely to lead to more poverty overall.
Instead you are just a liberal meritocrat. Fine with capitalism as long as there is perfect equality of opportunity, except as I have shown you and was pointed out earlier that is impossible to achieve and just reduces choice and excellence in education in reality in my view too
Astonishing you are allowed to get away with:
"If you ask the average working class man whether he could have a new sports car or send his children to learn Latin and Maths to 18 at Eton he would take the new sports car every time!" Have you met anyone working class?
Plenty and I stand by my comment in terms of most of them
And presumably they would all slap er indoors about a bit if she dared to advance her own opinion.
No but if you really want to believe the average working class male in this country would turn down a new sports car in favour of sending their child to learn Latin at Eton that is up to you
Would the average middle class male?
The average graduate upper middle class male would likely choose Eton over a new sports car, it is just reality
I don't think they would. I think the average graduate upper middle class male would choose to have their kids in their family home, than in a boarding school.
I think the latter is a very niche preference.
Or a private day school learning Latin then
I can't wait until you are Secretary of State for Education. I am sure you will have all the Secondary Modern kids fluent in Latin by the time they are 16. Fortunately it will all be a least 45 years too late for me..
As far as I can work out, about 28,000 "sports cars" were sold in Britain in 2022, and about 600,000 children are being privately educated at any one time, so school fees seem to be about twenty times more likely to be paid than sports cars bought.
This will depend on your definition of a sports car and the number of children receiving bursaries.
Is there anything wrong with having a private GP? If so, why?
You would have to ask Rishi that, since he is the one who seems ashamed of it.
He had three routes with integrity. One was to use the NHS while he was a high profile politician. One was to come up with a solid explanation, as OGH has done above. The third was to not enter politics. Not choosing any of those does make him look like a worse person.
And if he had to go down this path, he should have said "personal matter" not "private matter".
I disagree - it's a trap and there is no answer that won't draw bile from those who want to be bilious.
(a) Yes, I go private - Oh, NHS not good enough for you? How the hell can you be in charge of something you don't even trust to use?
(b) Lie - get found out (as has been shown) - Why did you lie?
What's wrong with Stuartinromford's first option, not going private whilst a prominent politician? It's not as if the PM's going to struggle to get an NHS appointment if he needed one.
Because its performative nonsense, thats why. Should a politician only sit in rubbish seats at football (come on Keir, get out of that box)? Of only drive rubbish cars? And as for schooling - no more private schools for the kids. That would upset quite a few labour folk.
I don't have a problem with rich people having nicer stuff. I'm richer than most people, I live in a nice big house, drive a decent sized car, had a nice long haul holiday over Christmas etc. I'm very grateful and I pay my taxes and I don't feel bad about it. But for me things like education and health are in a different class, because these are rights and everyone should have the best quality service that the country can afford. I don't think it's right that rich people can jump the queue to get operations before other people, and I don't think that rich people's kids should get better schools than other children. And I don't trust politicians who tell us they are going to deliver the best service possible and fund it appropriately, but refuse to use it themselves. To me the two just seem contradictory and I can't trust a politician like that. Of course other people feel differently about these things, as is their right.
Pretty much my view too. With money comes all sorts of pleasures and privileges - which is fine - but what money shouldn't be able to buy is educational advantage or better essential healthcare
For me the schools point is the bigger one since the more that parental bank balance features there, the greater is the violation of the ideal of equal opportunities. So I feel more strongly about private schools than I do about private health.
The thing is Education is a public good. The better-educated the population is the better it is for society as a whole. So you'd think it would be good if people were using their own resources to increase the total amount of Education in the country. Why is it better in your eyes for someone to buy a new sports car every other year instead of pay Eton school fees?
The reason, I think, is that you've bought into the ideology of meritocracy. This means that you see private education as someone cheating in the great meritocratic struggle. The problem here isn't private education. The problem is that meritocracy is a con used to justify inequality.
It's a futile struggle to try and create a level playing field for meritocracy. Will never happen. Instead I think we should concentrate on people's right to dignity even if they don't become doctors or lawyers, and a fair share of the proceeds generated for society by Eton's education of the wealthy.
You have me wrong here, LP. I don't fetishize meritocracy. That it ends in "ocracy" is a tell. It's an oppressive notion by itself. Eg, if outcomes are grossly unequal but everyone has a meritocratic fair shot at hitting the jackpot, this isn't the End of History imo. It makes no sense to view equal opportunity in isolation from outcomes. Both are important. Plus they impact each other in either direction.
The goal for me is everyone realizes their potential, wealth of background minimized as a factor, with the material outcomes achieved to be far more closely bunched than they are today. It's an unachievable goal of course so the direction of travel is what counts in practice.
Eton v sports car? Serial fast car purchase doesn't hardcode inequality into society, propagate it down through the generations. This is the essential difference to me.
Yes it does.
If you ask the average working class man whether he could have a new sports car or send his children to learn Latin and Maths to 18 at Eton he would take the new sports car every time!
But it doesn't cascade inequality down the generations, a Porsche 911, does it? Ditto most areas of discretionary private spend. Eg I bet I'd disapprove of some of your jumpers - find them morally wrong even - but I'll be relaxed about it because there's no violation of equal opportunities or propagating of societal inequality in your sartorial choices. Unless I'm missing something.
It does if inherited.
You are assuming that because everyone can't go to Eton nobody can. Except forgetting that even if private education was banned, grammar schools were banned, academies and free schools and faith schools were banned and everyone had to send their children to the local comprehensive there would still be inequality.
For parents living in wealthier areas with more expensive houses would have better local schools than those living in poorer areas. So you would have to ban private sale of housing too and ensure everyone lived in social housing.
Yet even then would still be inequality because those of high iq would tend to marry others of high iq and those of low iq those of low iq. So the children of the former would still be much more likely to become doctors, lawyers, ceos etc. So you would have to ban marriage amongst those of the same but not average iq and force the high iq to marry the low iq to ensure genetic shift towards average iq
People don't usually inherit jumpers.
And to say that inequality is multi-sourced and inevitable isn't a strong argument in favour of something that actively increases it.
Thing is, H, this is an unbridgeable-by-debate difference in values and worldview. I'm egalitarian, meaning I have reducing inequality as a very high priority. Heart and head both tell me this. Head because I think it's illogical how resources are so unequally distributed. Heart because it upsets me that they are.
You, otoh, are a traditional tory - with all that this entails.
No you are not egalitarian, if you were you would be Communist or hardcore Socialist and support equality of outcome. If that was the case then fair enough, I might have some respect for your position even if I believed it misguided and likely to lead to more poverty overall.
Instead you are just a liberal meritocrat. Fine with capitalism as long as there is perfect equality of opportunity, except as I have shown you and was pointed out earlier that is impossible to achieve and just reduces choice and excellence in education in reality in my view too
Astonishing you are allowed to get away with:
"If you ask the average working class man whether he could have a new sports car or send his children to learn Latin and Maths to 18 at Eton he would take the new sports car every time!" Have you met anyone working class?
Plenty and I stand by my comment in terms of most of them
And presumably they would all slap er indoors about a bit if she dared to advance her own opinion.
No but if you really want to believe the average working class male in this country would turn down a new sports car in favour of sending their child to learn Latin at Eton that is up to you
Would the average middle class male?
The average graduate upper middle class male would likely choose Eton over a new sports car, it is just reality
I don't think they would. I think the average graduate upper middle class male would choose to have their kids in their family home, than in a boarding school.
I think the latter is a very niche preference.
Also, five years at Eton costs £225k which is a lot more the cost of a sports car.
Is there anything wrong with having a private GP? If so, why?
You would have to ask Rishi that, since he is the one who seems ashamed of it.
He had three routes with integrity. One was to use the NHS while he was a high profile politician. One was to come up with a solid explanation, as OGH has done above. The third was to not enter politics. Not choosing any of those does make him look like a worse person.
And if he had to go down this path, he should have said "personal matter" not "private matter".
I disagree - it's a trap and there is no answer that won't draw bile from those who want to be bilious.
(a) Yes, I go private - Oh, NHS not good enough for you? How the hell can you be in charge of something you don't even trust to use?
(b) Lie - get found out (as has been shown) - Why did you lie?
What's wrong with Stuartinromford's first option, not going private whilst a prominent politician? It's not as if the PM's going to struggle to get an NHS appointment if he needed one.
Because its performative nonsense, thats why. Should a politician only sit in rubbish seats at football (come on Keir, get out of that box)? Of only drive rubbish cars? And as for schooling - no more private schools for the kids. That would upset quite a few labour folk.
I don't have a problem with rich people having nicer stuff. I'm richer than most people, I live in a nice big house, drive a decent sized car, had a nice long haul holiday over Christmas etc. I'm very grateful and I pay my taxes and I don't feel bad about it. But for me things like education and health are in a different class, because these are rights and everyone should have the best quality service that the country can afford. I don't think it's right that rich people can jump the queue to get operations before other people, and I don't think that rich people's kids should get better schools than other children. And I don't trust politicians who tell us they are going to deliver the best service possible and fund it appropriately, but refuse to use it themselves. To me the two just seem contradictory and I can't trust a politician like that. Of course other people feel differently about these things, as is their right.
Pretty much my view too. With money comes all sorts of pleasures and privileges - which is fine - but what money shouldn't be able to buy is educational advantage or better essential healthcare
For me the schools point is the bigger one since the more that parental bank balance features there, the greater is the violation of the ideal of equal opportunities. So I feel more strongly about private schools than I do about private health.
The thing is Education is a public good. The better-educated the population is the better it is for society as a whole. So you'd think it would be good if people were using their own resources to increase the total amount of Education in the country. Why is it better in your eyes for someone to buy a new sports car every other year instead of pay Eton school fees?
The reason, I think, is that you've bought into the ideology of meritocracy. This means that you see private education as someone cheating in the great meritocratic struggle. The problem here isn't private education. The problem is that meritocracy is a con used to justify inequality.
It's a futile struggle to try and create a level playing field for meritocracy. Will never happen. Instead I think we should concentrate on people's right to dignity even if they don't become doctors or lawyers, and a fair share of the proceeds generated for society by Eton's education of the wealthy.
You have me wrong here, LP. I don't fetishize meritocracy. That it ends in "ocracy" is a tell. It's an oppressive notion by itself. Eg, if outcomes are grossly unequal but everyone has a meritocratic fair shot at hitting the jackpot, this isn't the End of History imo. It makes no sense to view equal opportunity in isolation from outcomes. Both are important. Plus they impact each other in either direction.
The goal for me is everyone realizes their potential, wealth of background minimized as a factor, with the material outcomes achieved to be far more closely bunched than they are today. It's an unachievable goal of course so the direction of travel is what counts in practice.
Eton v sports car? Serial fast car purchase doesn't hardcode inequality into society, propagate it down through the generations. This is the essential difference to me.
Yes it does.
If you ask the average working class man whether he could have a new sports car or send his children to learn Latin and Maths to 18 at Eton he would take the new sports car every time!
But it doesn't cascade inequality down the generations, a Porsche 911, does it? Ditto most areas of discretionary private spend. Eg I bet I'd disapprove of some of your jumpers - find them morally wrong even - but I'll be relaxed about it because there's no violation of equal opportunities or propagating of societal inequality in your sartorial choices. Unless I'm missing something.
It does if inherited.
You are assuming that because everyone can't go to Eton nobody can. Except forgetting that even if private education was banned, grammar schools were banned, academies and free schools and faith schools were banned and everyone had to send their children to the local comprehensive there would still be inequality.
For parents living in wealthier areas with more expensive houses would have better local schools than those living in poorer areas. So you would have to ban private sale of housing too and ensure everyone lived in social housing.
Yet even then would still be inequality because those of high iq would tend to marry others of high iq and those of low iq those of low iq. So the children of the former would still be much more likely to become doctors, lawyers, ceos etc. So you would have to ban marriage amongst those of the same but not average iq and force the high iq to marry the low iq to ensure genetic shift towards average iq
People don't usually inherit jumpers.
And to say that inequality is multi-sourced and inevitable isn't a strong argument in favour of something that actively increases it.
Thing is, H, this is an unbridgeable-by-debate difference in values and worldview. I'm egalitarian, meaning I have reducing inequality as a very high priority. Heart and head both tell me this. Head because I think it's illogical how resources are so unequally distributed. Heart because it upsets me that they are.
You, otoh, are a traditional tory - with all that this entails.
No you are not egalitarian, if you were you would be Communist or hardcore Socialist and support equality of outcome. If that was the case then fair enough, I might have some respect for your position even if I believed it misguided and likely to lead to more poverty overall.
Instead you are just a liberal meritocrat. Fine with capitalism as long as there is perfect equality of opportunity, except as I have shown you and was pointed out earlier that is impossible to achieve and just reduces choice and excellence in education in reality in my view too
Astonishing you are allowed to get away with:
"If you ask the average working class man whether he could have a new sports car or send his children to learn Latin and Maths to 18 at Eton he would take the new sports car every time!" Have you met anyone working class?
Plenty and I stand by my comment in terms of most of them
And presumably they would all slap er indoors about a bit if she dared to advance her own opinion.
No but if you really want to believe the average working class male in this country would turn down a new sports car in favour of sending their child to learn Latin at Eton that is up to you
Would the average middle class male?
The average graduate upper middle class male would likely choose Eton over a new sports car, it is just reality
I don't think they would. I think the average graduate upper middle class male would choose to have their kids in their family home, than in a boarding school.
I think the latter is a very niche preference.
Or a private day school learning Latin then
I learned Latin at my (comprehensive) school. I even learned Ancient Greek. It was fun but not terribly useful later in life, and I wish I had persevered with French or learned another modern foreign language instead.
Is there anything wrong with having a private GP? If so, why?
You would have to ask Rishi that, since he is the one who seems ashamed of it.
He had three routes with integrity. One was to use the NHS while he was a high profile politician. One was to come up with a solid explanation, as OGH has done above. The third was to not enter politics. Not choosing any of those does make him look like a worse person.
And if he had to go down this path, he should have said "personal matter" not "private matter".
I disagree - it's a trap and there is no answer that won't draw bile from those who want to be bilious.
(a) Yes, I go private - Oh, NHS not good enough for you? How the hell can you be in charge of something you don't even trust to use?
(b) Lie - get found out (as has been shown) - Why did you lie?
What's wrong with Stuartinromford's first option, not going private whilst a prominent politician? It's not as if the PM's going to struggle to get an NHS appointment if he needed one.
Because its performative nonsense, thats why. Should a politician only sit in rubbish seats at football (come on Keir, get out of that box)? Of only drive rubbish cars? And as for schooling - no more private schools for the kids. That would upset quite a few labour folk.
I don't have a problem with rich people having nicer stuff. I'm richer than most people, I live in a nice big house, drive a decent sized car, had a nice long haul holiday over Christmas etc. I'm very grateful and I pay my taxes and I don't feel bad about it. But for me things like education and health are in a different class, because these are rights and everyone should have the best quality service that the country can afford. I don't think it's right that rich people can jump the queue to get operations before other people, and I don't think that rich people's kids should get better schools than other children. And I don't trust politicians who tell us they are going to deliver the best service possible and fund it appropriately, but refuse to use it themselves. To me the two just seem contradictory and I can't trust a politician like that. Of course other people feel differently about these things, as is their right.
Pretty much my view too. With money comes all sorts of pleasures and privileges - which is fine - but what money shouldn't be able to buy is educational advantage or better essential healthcare
For me the schools point is the bigger one since the more that parental bank balance features there, the greater is the violation of the ideal of equal opportunities. So I feel more strongly about private schools than I do about private health.
The thing is Education is a public good. The better-educated the population is the better it is for society as a whole. So you'd think it would be good if people were using their own resources to increase the total amount of Education in the country. Why is it better in your eyes for someone to buy a new sports car every other year instead of pay Eton school fees?
The reason, I think, is that you've bought into the ideology of meritocracy. This means that you see private education as someone cheating in the great meritocratic struggle. The problem here isn't private education. The problem is that meritocracy is a con used to justify inequality.
It's a futile struggle to try and create a level playing field for meritocracy. Will never happen. Instead I think we should concentrate on people's right to dignity even if they don't become doctors or lawyers, and a fair share of the proceeds generated for society by Eton's education of the wealthy.
You have me wrong here, LP. I don't fetishize meritocracy. That it ends in "ocracy" is a tell. It's an oppressive notion by itself. Eg, if outcomes are grossly unequal but everyone has a meritocratic fair shot at hitting the jackpot, this isn't the End of History imo. It makes no sense to view equal opportunity in isolation from outcomes. Both are important. Plus they impact each other in either direction.
The goal for me is everyone realizes their potential, wealth of background minimized as a factor, with the material outcomes achieved to be far more closely bunched than they are today. It's an unachievable goal of course so the direction of travel is what counts in practice.
Eton v sports car? Serial fast car purchase doesn't hardcode inequality into society, propagate it down through the generations. This is the essential difference to me.
Yes it does.
If you ask the average working class man whether he could have a new sports car or send his children to learn Latin and Maths to 18 at Eton he would take the new sports car every time!
But it doesn't cascade inequality down the generations, a Porsche 911, does it? Ditto most areas of discretionary private spend. Eg I bet I'd disapprove of some of your jumpers - find them morally wrong even - but I'll be relaxed about it because there's no violation of equal opportunities or propagating of societal inequality in your sartorial choices. Unless I'm missing something.
It does if inherited.
You are assuming that because everyone can't go to Eton nobody can. Except forgetting that even if private education was banned, grammar schools were banned, academies and free schools and faith schools were banned and everyone had to send their children to the local comprehensive there would still be inequality.
For parents living in wealthier areas with more expensive houses would have better local schools than those living in poorer areas. So you would have to ban private sale of housing too and ensure everyone lived in social housing.
Yet even then would still be inequality because those of high iq would tend to marry others of high iq and those of low iq those of low iq. So the children of the former would still be much more likely to become doctors, lawyers, ceos etc. So you would have to ban marriage amongst those of the same but not average iq and force the high iq to marry the low iq to ensure genetic shift towards average iq
People don't usually inherit jumpers.
And to say that inequality is multi-sourced and inevitable isn't a strong argument in favour of something that actively increases it.
Thing is, H, this is an unbridgeable-by-debate difference in values and worldview. I'm egalitarian, meaning I have reducing inequality as a very high priority. Heart and head both tell me this. Head because I think it's illogical how resources are so unequally distributed. Heart because it upsets me that they are.
You, otoh, are a traditional tory - with all that this entails.
No you are not egalitarian, if you were you would be Communist or hardcore Socialist and support equality of outcome. If that was the case then fair enough, I might have some respect for your position even if I believed it misguided and likely to lead to more poverty overall.
Instead you are just a liberal meritocrat. Fine with capitalism as long as there is perfect equality of opportunity, except as I have shown you and was pointed out earlier that is impossible to achieve and just reduces choice and excellence in education in reality in my view too
Astonishing you are allowed to get away with:
"If you ask the average working class man whether he could have a new sports car or send his children to learn Latin and Maths to 18 at Eton he would take the new sports car every time!" Have you met anyone working class?
Plenty and I stand by my comment in terms of most of them
And presumably they would all slap er indoors about a bit if she dared to advance her own opinion.
No but if you really want to believe the average working class male in this country would turn down a new sports car in favour of sending their child to learn Latin at Eton that is up to you
Would the average middle class male?
The average graduate upper middle class male would likely choose Eton over a new sports car, it is just reality
I wouldn't. I would certainly consider a private school (and will consider it; our current opinion is that it's not worth it), but not Eton.
I want our son to go to school to get a good education, and to form him into a well-rounded individual. I don't give a rat's arse for contact networks or all of the other shite. Worse, I know many of the other parents would look down at us for being rather non-Eton material.
I'd much rather consider my old school than Eton, and save £15k a year.
My sentiments entirely, JJ.
I have no interest in cars, never mind overpriced sports ones, but send my kid to Eton? Only if I didn't like the little sod.
It would have to be the car, even if I didn't ever drive it.
Is there anything wrong with having a private GP? If so, why?
You would have to ask Rishi that, since he is the one who seems ashamed of it.
He had three routes with integrity. One was to use the NHS while he was a high profile politician. One was to come up with a solid explanation, as OGH has done above. The third was to not enter politics. Not choosing any of those does make him look like a worse person.
And if he had to go down this path, he should have said "personal matter" not "private matter".
I disagree - it's a trap and there is no answer that won't draw bile from those who want to be bilious.
(a) Yes, I go private - Oh, NHS not good enough for you? How the hell can you be in charge of something you don't even trust to use?
(b) Lie - get found out (as has been shown) - Why did you lie?
What's wrong with Stuartinromford's first option, not going private whilst a prominent politician? It's not as if the PM's going to struggle to get an NHS appointment if he needed one.
Because its performative nonsense, thats why. Should a politician only sit in rubbish seats at football (come on Keir, get out of that box)? Of only drive rubbish cars? And as for schooling - no more private schools for the kids. That would upset quite a few labour folk.
I don't have a problem with rich people having nicer stuff. I'm richer than most people, I live in a nice big house, drive a decent sized car, had a nice long haul holiday over Christmas etc. I'm very grateful and I pay my taxes and I don't feel bad about it. But for me things like education and health are in a different class, because these are rights and everyone should have the best quality service that the country can afford. I don't think it's right that rich people can jump the queue to get operations before other people, and I don't think that rich people's kids should get better schools than other children. And I don't trust politicians who tell us they are going to deliver the best service possible and fund it appropriately, but refuse to use it themselves. To me the two just seem contradictory and I can't trust a politician like that. Of course other people feel differently about these things, as is their right.
Pretty much my view too. With money comes all sorts of pleasures and privileges - which is fine - but what money shouldn't be able to buy is educational advantage or better essential healthcare
For me the schools point is the bigger one since the more that parental bank balance features there, the greater is the violation of the ideal of equal opportunities. So I feel more strongly about private schools than I do about private health.
The thing is Education is a public good. The better-educated the population is the better it is for society as a whole. So you'd think it would be good if people were using their own resources to increase the total amount of Education in the country. Why is it better in your eyes for someone to buy a new sports car every other year instead of pay Eton school fees?
The reason, I think, is that you've bought into the ideology of meritocracy. This means that you see private education as someone cheating in the great meritocratic struggle. The problem here isn't private education. The problem is that meritocracy is a con used to justify inequality.
It's a futile struggle to try and create a level playing field for meritocracy. Will never happen. Instead I think we should concentrate on people's right to dignity even if they don't become doctors or lawyers, and a fair share of the proceeds generated for society by Eton's education of the wealthy.
You have me wrong here, LP. I don't fetishize meritocracy. That it ends in "ocracy" is a tell. It's an oppressive notion by itself. Eg, if outcomes are grossly unequal but everyone has a meritocratic fair shot at hitting the jackpot, this isn't the End of History imo. It makes no sense to view equal opportunity in isolation from outcomes. Both are important. Plus they impact each other in either direction.
The goal for me is everyone realizes their potential, wealth of background minimized as a factor, with the material outcomes achieved to be far more closely bunched than they are today. It's an unachievable goal of course so the direction of travel is what counts in practice.
Eton v sports car? Serial fast car purchase doesn't hardcode inequality into society, propagate it down through the generations. This is the essential difference to me.
Yes it does.
If you ask the average working class man whether he could have a new sports car or send his children to learn Latin and Maths to 18 at Eton he would take the new sports car every time!
But it doesn't cascade inequality down the generations, a Porsche 911, does it? Ditto most areas of discretionary private spend. Eg I bet I'd disapprove of some of your jumpers - find them morally wrong even - but I'll be relaxed about it because there's no violation of equal opportunities or propagating of societal inequality in your sartorial choices. Unless I'm missing something.
It does if inherited.
You are assuming that because everyone can't go to Eton nobody can. Except forgetting that even if private education was banned, grammar schools were banned, academies and free schools and faith schools were banned and everyone had to send their children to the local comprehensive there would still be inequality.
For parents living in wealthier areas with more expensive houses would have better local schools than those living in poorer areas. So you would have to ban private sale of housing too and ensure everyone lived in social housing.
Yet even then would still be inequality because those of high iq would tend to marry others of high iq and those of low iq those of low iq. So the children of the former would still be much more likely to become doctors, lawyers, ceos etc. So you would have to ban marriage amongst those of the same but not average iq and force the high iq to marry the low iq to ensure genetic shift towards average iq
People don't usually inherit jumpers.
And to say that inequality is multi-sourced and inevitable isn't a strong argument in favour of something that actively increases it.
Thing is, H, this is an unbridgeable-by-debate difference in values and worldview. I'm egalitarian, meaning I have reducing inequality as a very high priority. Heart and head both tell me this. Head because I think it's illogical how resources are so unequally distributed. Heart because it upsets me that they are.
You, otoh, are a traditional tory - with all that this entails.
No you are not egalitarian, if you were you would be Communist or hardcore Socialist and support equality of outcome. If that was the case then fair enough, I might have some respect for your position even if I believed it misguided and likely to lead to more poverty overall.
Instead you are just a liberal meritocrat. Fine with capitalism as long as there is perfect equality of opportunity, except as I have shown you and was pointed out earlier that is impossible to achieve and just reduces choice and excellence in education in reality in my view too
Astonishing you are allowed to get away with:
"If you ask the average working class man whether he could have a new sports car or send his children to learn Latin and Maths to 18 at Eton he would take the new sports car every time!" Have you met anyone working class?
Plenty and I stand by my comment in terms of most of them
And presumably they would all slap er indoors about a bit if she dared to advance her own opinion.
No but if you really want to believe the average working class male in this country would turn down a new sports car in favour of sending their child to learn Latin at Eton that is up to you
Would the average middle class male?
The average graduate upper middle class male would likely choose Eton over a new sports car, it is just reality
I don't think they would. I think the average graduate upper middle class male would choose to have their kids in their family home, than in a boarding school.
I think the latter is a very niche preference.
Also, five years at Eton costs £225k which is a lot more the cost of a sports car.
Is there anything wrong with having a private GP? If so, why?
You would have to ask Rishi that, since he is the one who seems ashamed of it.
He had three routes with integrity. One was to use the NHS while he was a high profile politician. One was to come up with a solid explanation, as OGH has done above. The third was to not enter politics. Not choosing any of those does make him look like a worse person.
And if he had to go down this path, he should have said "personal matter" not "private matter".
I disagree - it's a trap and there is no answer that won't draw bile from those who want to be bilious.
(a) Yes, I go private - Oh, NHS not good enough for you? How the hell can you be in charge of something you don't even trust to use?
(b) Lie - get found out (as has been shown) - Why did you lie?
What's wrong with Stuartinromford's first option, not going private whilst a prominent politician? It's not as if the PM's going to struggle to get an NHS appointment if he needed one.
Because its performative nonsense, thats why. Should a politician only sit in rubbish seats at football (come on Keir, get out of that box)? Of only drive rubbish cars? And as for schooling - no more private schools for the kids. That would upset quite a few labour folk.
I don't have a problem with rich people having nicer stuff. I'm richer than most people, I live in a nice big house, drive a decent sized car, had a nice long haul holiday over Christmas etc. I'm very grateful and I pay my taxes and I don't feel bad about it. But for me things like education and health are in a different class, because these are rights and everyone should have the best quality service that the country can afford. I don't think it's right that rich people can jump the queue to get operations before other people, and I don't think that rich people's kids should get better schools than other children. And I don't trust politicians who tell us they are going to deliver the best service possible and fund it appropriately, but refuse to use it themselves. To me the two just seem contradictory and I can't trust a politician like that. Of course other people feel differently about these things, as is their right.
Pretty much my view too. With money comes all sorts of pleasures and privileges - which is fine - but what money shouldn't be able to buy is educational advantage or better essential healthcare
For me the schools point is the bigger one since the more that parental bank balance features there, the greater is the violation of the ideal of equal opportunities. So I feel more strongly about private schools than I do about private health.
The thing is Education is a public good. The better-educated the population is the better it is for society as a whole. So you'd think it would be good if people were using their own resources to increase the total amount of Education in the country. Why is it better in your eyes for someone to buy a new sports car every other year instead of pay Eton school fees?
The reason, I think, is that you've bought into the ideology of meritocracy. This means that you see private education as someone cheating in the great meritocratic struggle. The problem here isn't private education. The problem is that meritocracy is a con used to justify inequality.
It's a futile struggle to try and create a level playing field for meritocracy. Will never happen. Instead I think we should concentrate on people's right to dignity even if they don't become doctors or lawyers, and a fair share of the proceeds generated for society by Eton's education of the wealthy.
You have me wrong here, LP. I don't fetishize meritocracy. That it ends in "ocracy" is a tell. It's an oppressive notion by itself. Eg, if outcomes are grossly unequal but everyone has a meritocratic fair shot at hitting the jackpot, this isn't the End of History imo. It makes no sense to view equal opportunity in isolation from outcomes. Both are important. Plus they impact each other in either direction.
The goal for me is everyone realizes their potential, wealth of background minimized as a factor, with the material outcomes achieved to be far more closely bunched than they are today. It's an unachievable goal of course so the direction of travel is what counts in practice.
Eton v sports car? Serial fast car purchase doesn't hardcode inequality into society, propagate it down through the generations. This is the essential difference to me.
Yes it does.
If you ask the average working class man whether he could have a new sports car or send his children to learn Latin and Maths to 18 at Eton he would take the new sports car every time!
But it doesn't cascade inequality down the generations, a Porsche 911, does it? Ditto most areas of discretionary private spend. Eg I bet I'd disapprove of some of your jumpers - find them morally wrong even - but I'll be relaxed about it because there's no violation of equal opportunities or propagating of societal inequality in your sartorial choices. Unless I'm missing something.
It does if inherited.
You are assuming that because everyone can't go to Eton nobody can. Except forgetting that even if private education was banned, grammar schools were banned, academies and free schools and faith schools were banned and everyone had to send their children to the local comprehensive there would still be inequality.
For parents living in wealthier areas with more expensive houses would have better local schools than those living in poorer areas. So you would have to ban private sale of housing too and ensure everyone lived in social housing.
Yet even then would still be inequality because those of high iq would tend to marry others of high iq and those of low iq those of low iq. So the children of the former would still be much more likely to become doctors, lawyers, ceos etc. So you would have to ban marriage amongst those of the same but not average iq and force the high iq to marry the low iq to ensure genetic shift towards average iq
People don't usually inherit jumpers.
And to say that inequality is multi-sourced and inevitable isn't a strong argument in favour of something that actively increases it.
Thing is, H, this is an unbridgeable-by-debate difference in values and worldview. I'm egalitarian, meaning I have reducing inequality as a very high priority. Heart and head both tell me this. Head because I think it's illogical how resources are so unequally distributed. Heart because it upsets me that they are.
You, otoh, are a traditional tory - with all that this entails.
No you are not egalitarian, if you were you would be Communist or hardcore Socialist and support equality of outcome. If that was the case then fair enough, I might have some respect for your position even if I believed it misguided and likely to lead to more poverty overall.
Instead you are just a liberal meritocrat. Fine with capitalism as long as there is perfect equality of opportunity, except as I have shown you and was pointed out earlier that is impossible to achieve and just reduces choice and excellence in education in reality in my view too
Astonishing you are allowed to get away with:
"If you ask the average working class man whether he could have a new sports car or send his children to learn Latin and Maths to 18 at Eton he would take the new sports car every time!" Have you met anyone working class?
Plenty and I stand by my comment in terms of most of them
And presumably they would all slap er indoors about a bit if she dared to advance her own opinion.
No but if you really want to believe the average working class male in this country would turn down a new sports car in favour of sending their child to learn Latin at Eton that is up to you
Would the average middle class male?
The average graduate upper middle class male would likely choose Eton over a new sports car, it is just reality
I don't think they would. I think the average graduate upper middle class male would choose to have their kids in their family home, than in a boarding school.
I think the latter is a very niche preference.
Or a private day school learning Latin then
There are a number of subjects which I regret not having studied to GCE level but Latin isn’t one of them. It was an option at the grammar school I attended.
Is there anything wrong with having a private GP? If so, why?
You would have to ask Rishi that, since he is the one who seems ashamed of it.
He had three routes with integrity. One was to use the NHS while he was a high profile politician. One was to come up with a solid explanation, as OGH has done above. The third was to not enter politics. Not choosing any of those does make him look like a worse person.
And if he had to go down this path, he should have said "personal matter" not "private matter".
I disagree - it's a trap and there is no answer that won't draw bile from those who want to be bilious.
(a) Yes, I go private - Oh, NHS not good enough for you? How the hell can you be in charge of something you don't even trust to use?
(b) Lie - get found out (as has been shown) - Why did you lie?
What's wrong with Stuartinromford's first option, not going private whilst a prominent politician? It's not as if the PM's going to struggle to get an NHS appointment if he needed one.
Because its performative nonsense, thats why. Should a politician only sit in rubbish seats at football (come on Keir, get out of that box)? Of only drive rubbish cars? And as for schooling - no more private schools for the kids. That would upset quite a few labour folk.
I don't have a problem with rich people having nicer stuff. I'm richer than most people, I live in a nice big house, drive a decent sized car, had a nice long haul holiday over Christmas etc. I'm very grateful and I pay my taxes and I don't feel bad about it. But for me things like education and health are in a different class, because these are rights and everyone should have the best quality service that the country can afford. I don't think it's right that rich people can jump the queue to get operations before other people, and I don't think that rich people's kids should get better schools than other children. And I don't trust politicians who tell us they are going to deliver the best service possible and fund it appropriately, but refuse to use it themselves. To me the two just seem contradictory and I can't trust a politician like that. Of course other people feel differently about these things, as is their right.
Pretty much my view too. With money comes all sorts of pleasures and privileges - which is fine - but what money shouldn't be able to buy is educational advantage or better essential healthcare
For me the schools point is the bigger one since the more that parental bank balance features there, the greater is the violation of the ideal of equal opportunities. So I feel more strongly about private schools than I do about private health.
The thing is Education is a public good. The better-educated the population is the better it is for society as a whole. So you'd think it would be good if people were using their own resources to increase the total amount of Education in the country. Why is it better in your eyes for someone to buy a new sports car every other year instead of pay Eton school fees?
The reason, I think, is that you've bought into the ideology of meritocracy. This means that you see private education as someone cheating in the great meritocratic struggle. The problem here isn't private education. The problem is that meritocracy is a con used to justify inequality.
It's a futile struggle to try and create a level playing field for meritocracy. Will never happen. Instead I think we should concentrate on people's right to dignity even if they don't become doctors or lawyers, and a fair share of the proceeds generated for society by Eton's education of the wealthy.
You have me wrong here, LP. I don't fetishize meritocracy. That it ends in "ocracy" is a tell. It's an oppressive notion by itself. Eg, if outcomes are grossly unequal but everyone has a meritocratic fair shot at hitting the jackpot, this isn't the End of History imo. It makes no sense to view equal opportunity in isolation from outcomes. Both are important. Plus they impact each other in either direction.
The goal for me is everyone realizes their potential, wealth of background minimized as a factor, with the material outcomes achieved to be far more closely bunched than they are today. It's an unachievable goal of course so the direction of travel is what counts in practice.
Eton v sports car? Serial fast car purchase doesn't hardcode inequality into society, propagate it down through the generations. This is the essential difference to me.
Yes it does.
If you ask the average working class man whether he could have a new sports car or send his children to learn Latin and Maths to 18 at Eton he would take the new sports car every time!
But it doesn't cascade inequality down the generations, a Porsche 911, does it? Ditto most areas of discretionary private spend. Eg I bet I'd disapprove of some of your jumpers - find them morally wrong even - but I'll be relaxed about it because there's no violation of equal opportunities or propagating of societal inequality in your sartorial choices. Unless I'm missing something.
It does if inherited.
You are assuming that because everyone can't go to Eton nobody can. Except forgetting that even if private education was banned, grammar schools were banned, academies and free schools and faith schools were banned and everyone had to send their children to the local comprehensive there would still be inequality.
For parents living in wealthier areas with more expensive houses would have better local schools than those living in poorer areas. So you would have to ban private sale of housing too and ensure everyone lived in social housing.
Yet even then would still be inequality because those of high iq would tend to marry others of high iq and those of low iq those of low iq. So the children of the former would still be much more likely to become doctors, lawyers, ceos etc. So you would have to ban marriage amongst those of the same but not average iq and force the high iq to marry the low iq to ensure genetic shift towards average iq
People don't usually inherit jumpers.
And to say that inequality is multi-sourced and inevitable isn't a strong argument in favour of something that actively increases it.
Thing is, H, this is an unbridgeable-by-debate difference in values and worldview. I'm egalitarian, meaning I have reducing inequality as a very high priority. Heart and head both tell me this. Head because I think it's illogical how resources are so unequally distributed. Heart because it upsets me that they are.
You, otoh, are a traditional tory - with all that this entails.
No you are not egalitarian, if you were you would be Communist or hardcore Socialist and support equality of outcome. If that was the case then fair enough, I might have some respect for your position even if I believed it misguided and likely to lead to more poverty overall.
Instead you are just a liberal meritocrat. Fine with capitalism as long as there is perfect equality of opportunity, except as I have shown you and was pointed out earlier that is impossible to achieve and just reduces choice and excellence in education in reality in my view too
Astonishing you are allowed to get away with:
"If you ask the average working class man whether he could have a new sports car or send his children to learn Latin and Maths to 18 at Eton he would take the new sports car every time!" Have you met anyone working class?
Plenty and I stand by my comment in terms of most of them
And presumably they would all slap er indoors about a bit if she dared to advance her own opinion.
No but if you really want to believe the average working class male in this country would turn down a new sports car in favour of sending their child to learn Latin at Eton that is up to you
Would the average middle class male?
The average graduate upper middle class male would likely choose Eton over a new sports car, it is just reality
I don't think they would. I think the average graduate upper middle class male would choose to have their kids in their family home, than in a boarding school.
I think the latter is a very niche preference.
Also, five years at Eton costs £225k which is a lot more the cost of a sports car.
Is there anything wrong with having a private GP? If so, why?
You would have to ask Rishi that, since he is the one who seems ashamed of it.
He had three routes with integrity. One was to use the NHS while he was a high profile politician. One was to come up with a solid explanation, as OGH has done above. The third was to not enter politics. Not choosing any of those does make him look like a worse person.
And if he had to go down this path, he should have said "personal matter" not "private matter".
I disagree - it's a trap and there is no answer that won't draw bile from those who want to be bilious.
(a) Yes, I go private - Oh, NHS not good enough for you? How the hell can you be in charge of something you don't even trust to use?
(b) Lie - get found out (as has been shown) - Why did you lie?
What's wrong with Stuartinromford's first option, not going private whilst a prominent politician? It's not as if the PM's going to struggle to get an NHS appointment if he needed one.
Because its performative nonsense, thats why. Should a politician only sit in rubbish seats at football (come on Keir, get out of that box)? Of only drive rubbish cars? And as for schooling - no more private schools for the kids. That would upset quite a few labour folk.
I don't have a problem with rich people having nicer stuff. I'm richer than most people, I live in a nice big house, drive a decent sized car, had a nice long haul holiday over Christmas etc. I'm very grateful and I pay my taxes and I don't feel bad about it. But for me things like education and health are in a different class, because these are rights and everyone should have the best quality service that the country can afford. I don't think it's right that rich people can jump the queue to get operations before other people, and I don't think that rich people's kids should get better schools than other children. And I don't trust politicians who tell us they are going to deliver the best service possible and fund it appropriately, but refuse to use it themselves. To me the two just seem contradictory and I can't trust a politician like that. Of course other people feel differently about these things, as is their right.
Pretty much my view too. With money comes all sorts of pleasures and privileges - which is fine - but what money shouldn't be able to buy is educational advantage or better essential healthcare
For me the schools point is the bigger one since the more that parental bank balance features there, the greater is the violation of the ideal of equal opportunities. So I feel more strongly about private schools than I do about private health.
The thing is Education is a public good. The better-educated the population is the better it is for society as a whole. So you'd think it would be good if people were using their own resources to increase the total amount of Education in the country. Why is it better in your eyes for someone to buy a new sports car every other year instead of pay Eton school fees?
The reason, I think, is that you've bought into the ideology of meritocracy. This means that you see private education as someone cheating in the great meritocratic struggle. The problem here isn't private education. The problem is that meritocracy is a con used to justify inequality.
It's a futile struggle to try and create a level playing field for meritocracy. Will never happen. Instead I think we should concentrate on people's right to dignity even if they don't become doctors or lawyers, and a fair share of the proceeds generated for society by Eton's education of the wealthy.
You have me wrong here, LP. I don't fetishize meritocracy. That it ends in "ocracy" is a tell. It's an oppressive notion by itself. Eg, if outcomes are grossly unequal but everyone has a meritocratic fair shot at hitting the jackpot, this isn't the End of History imo. It makes no sense to view equal opportunity in isolation from outcomes. Both are important. Plus they impact each other in either direction.
The goal for me is everyone realizes their potential, wealth of background minimized as a factor, with the material outcomes achieved to be far more closely bunched than they are today. It's an unachievable goal of course so the direction of travel is what counts in practice.
Eton v sports car? Serial fast car purchase doesn't hardcode inequality into society, propagate it down through the generations. This is the essential difference to me.
Yes it does.
If you ask the average working class man whether he could have a new sports car or send his children to learn Latin and Maths to 18 at Eton he would take the new sports car every time!
But it doesn't cascade inequality down the generations, a Porsche 911, does it? Ditto most areas of discretionary private spend. Eg I bet I'd disapprove of some of your jumpers - find them morally wrong even - but I'll be relaxed about it because there's no violation of equal opportunities or propagating of societal inequality in your sartorial choices. Unless I'm missing something.
It does if inherited.
You are assuming that because everyone can't go to Eton nobody can. Except forgetting that even if private education was banned, grammar schools were banned, academies and free schools and faith schools were banned and everyone had to send their children to the local comprehensive there would still be inequality.
For parents living in wealthier areas with more expensive houses would have better local schools than those living in poorer areas. So you would have to ban private sale of housing too and ensure everyone lived in social housing.
Yet even then would still be inequality because those of high iq would tend to marry others of high iq and those of low iq those of low iq. So the children of the former would still be much more likely to become doctors, lawyers, ceos etc. So you would have to ban marriage amongst those of the same but not average iq and force the high iq to marry the low iq to ensure genetic shift towards average iq
People don't usually inherit jumpers.
And to say that inequality is multi-sourced and inevitable isn't a strong argument in favour of something that actively increases it.
Thing is, H, this is an unbridgeable-by-debate difference in values and worldview. I'm egalitarian, meaning I have reducing inequality as a very high priority. Heart and head both tell me this. Head because I think it's illogical how resources are so unequally distributed. Heart because it upsets me that they are.
You, otoh, are a traditional tory - with all that this entails.
No you are not egalitarian, if you were you would be Communist or hardcore Socialist and support equality of outcome. If that was the case then fair enough, I might have some respect for your position even if I believed it misguided and likely to lead to more poverty overall.
Instead you are just a liberal meritocrat. Fine with capitalism as long as there is perfect equality of opportunity, except as I have shown you and was pointed out earlier that is impossible to achieve and just reduces choice and excellence in education in reality in my view too
Astonishing you are allowed to get away with:
"If you ask the average working class man whether he could have a new sports car or send his children to learn Latin and Maths to 18 at Eton he would take the new sports car every time!" Have you met anyone working class?
Plenty and I stand by my comment in terms of most of them
And presumably they would all slap er indoors about a bit if she dared to advance her own opinion.
No but if you really want to believe the average working class male in this country would turn down a new sports car in favour of sending their child to learn Latin at Eton that is up to you
From what we know of your life, you presumably meet these ghastly people either at Tory party events or in church. Strong argument against both institutions.
No, I meet them in the high street, people I canvass in working class areas, conversations overheard in the pub etc. People in my church would certainly send their children to Eton over a new sports car as would most Tory members except maybe a few of the new money ones.
Where is your evidence most working class males would send their children to Eton over a new sports car?
Knowledge of human nature supported by the fact that I am a father myself, and an absence of baseless snobbery. I know first hand that many middle-class families sacrifice all sorts of pleasures and status symbols in favour of education. I know some of the poorest countries in the world and I know people in those countries working as servants and street sweepers and taxi drivers to be able to afford to supplement the virtually or actually non existent state education for their children. I do not have your contempt for the English poor.
I said working class British fathers not middle class parents, or indeed parents in developing countries
Is there anything wrong with having a private GP? If so, why?
You would have to ask Rishi that, since he is the one who seems ashamed of it.
He had three routes with integrity. One was to use the NHS while he was a high profile politician. One was to come up with a solid explanation, as OGH has done above. The third was to not enter politics. Not choosing any of those does make him look like a worse person.
And if he had to go down this path, he should have said "personal matter" not "private matter".
I disagree - it's a trap and there is no answer that won't draw bile from those who want to be bilious.
(a) Yes, I go private - Oh, NHS not good enough for you? How the hell can you be in charge of something you don't even trust to use?
(b) Lie - get found out (as has been shown) - Why did you lie?
What's wrong with Stuartinromford's first option, not going private whilst a prominent politician? It's not as if the PM's going to struggle to get an NHS appointment if he needed one.
Because its performative nonsense, thats why. Should a politician only sit in rubbish seats at football (come on Keir, get out of that box)? Of only drive rubbish cars? And as for schooling - no more private schools for the kids. That would upset quite a few labour folk.
I don't have a problem with rich people having nicer stuff. I'm richer than most people, I live in a nice big house, drive a decent sized car, had a nice long haul holiday over Christmas etc. I'm very grateful and I pay my taxes and I don't feel bad about it. But for me things like education and health are in a different class, because these are rights and everyone should have the best quality service that the country can afford. I don't think it's right that rich people can jump the queue to get operations before other people, and I don't think that rich people's kids should get better schools than other children. And I don't trust politicians who tell us they are going to deliver the best service possible and fund it appropriately, but refuse to use it themselves. To me the two just seem contradictory and I can't trust a politician like that. Of course other people feel differently about these things, as is their right.
Pretty much my view too. With money comes all sorts of pleasures and privileges - which is fine - but what money shouldn't be able to buy is educational advantage or better essential healthcare
For me the schools point is the bigger one since the more that parental bank balance features there, the greater is the violation of the ideal of equal opportunities. So I feel more strongly about private schools than I do about private health.
The thing is Education is a public good. The better-educated the population is the better it is for society as a whole. So you'd think it would be good if people were using their own resources to increase the total amount of Education in the country. Why is it better in your eyes for someone to buy a new sports car every other year instead of pay Eton school fees?
The reason, I think, is that you've bought into the ideology of meritocracy. This means that you see private education as someone cheating in the great meritocratic struggle. The problem here isn't private education. The problem is that meritocracy is a con used to justify inequality.
It's a futile struggle to try and create a level playing field for meritocracy. Will never happen. Instead I think we should concentrate on people's right to dignity even if they don't become doctors or lawyers, and a fair share of the proceeds generated for society by Eton's education of the wealthy.
You have me wrong here, LP. I don't fetishize meritocracy. That it ends in "ocracy" is a tell. It's an oppressive notion by itself. Eg, if outcomes are grossly unequal but everyone has a meritocratic fair shot at hitting the jackpot, this isn't the End of History imo. It makes no sense to view equal opportunity in isolation from outcomes. Both are important. Plus they impact each other in either direction.
The goal for me is everyone realizes their potential, wealth of background minimized as a factor, with the material outcomes achieved to be far more closely bunched than they are today. It's an unachievable goal of course so the direction of travel is what counts in practice.
Eton v sports car? Serial fast car purchase doesn't hardcode inequality into society, propagate it down through the generations. This is the essential difference to me.
Yes it does.
If you ask the average working class man whether he could have a new sports car or send his children to learn Latin and Maths to 18 at Eton he would take the new sports car every time!
But it doesn't cascade inequality down the generations, a Porsche 911, does it? Ditto most areas of discretionary private spend. Eg I bet I'd disapprove of some of your jumpers - find them morally wrong even - but I'll be relaxed about it because there's no violation of equal opportunities or propagating of societal inequality in your sartorial choices. Unless I'm missing something.
It does if inherited.
You are assuming that because everyone can't go to Eton nobody can. Except forgetting that even if private education was banned, grammar schools were banned, academies and free schools and faith schools were banned and everyone had to send their children to the local comprehensive there would still be inequality.
For parents living in wealthier areas with more expensive houses would have better local schools than those living in poorer areas. So you would have to ban private sale of housing too and ensure everyone lived in social housing.
Yet even then would still be inequality because those of high iq would tend to marry others of high iq and those of low iq those of low iq. So the children of the former would still be much more likely to become doctors, lawyers, ceos etc. So you would have to ban marriage amongst those of the same but not average iq and force the high iq to marry the low iq to ensure genetic shift towards average iq
People don't usually inherit jumpers.
And to say that inequality is multi-sourced and inevitable isn't a strong argument in favour of something that actively increases it.
Thing is, H, this is an unbridgeable-by-debate difference in values and worldview. I'm egalitarian, meaning I have reducing inequality as a very high priority. Heart and head both tell me this. Head because I think it's illogical how resources are so unequally distributed. Heart because it upsets me that they are.
You, otoh, are a traditional tory - with all that this entails.
No you are not egalitarian, if you were you would be Communist or hardcore Socialist and support equality of outcome. If that was the case then fair enough, I might have some respect for your position even if I believed it misguided and likely to lead to more poverty overall.
Instead you are just a liberal meritocrat. Fine with capitalism as long as there is perfect equality of opportunity, except as I have shown you and was pointed out earlier that is impossible to achieve and just reduces choice and excellence in education in reality in my view too
Astonishing you are allowed to get away with:
"If you ask the average working class man whether he could have a new sports car or send his children to learn Latin and Maths to 18 at Eton he would take the new sports car every time!" Have you met anyone working class?
Plenty and I stand by my comment in terms of most of them
And presumably they would all slap er indoors about a bit if she dared to advance her own opinion.
No but if you really want to believe the average working class male in this country would turn down a new sports car in favour of sending their child to learn Latin at Eton that is up to you
Would the average middle class male?
The average graduate upper middle class male would likely choose Eton over a new sports car, it is just reality
I suspect the "upper middle class" can afford both. Perhaps forego the £140,000 BMW M8 for a more modest sub-£100,000 M4.
I guess you are alluding to someone foregoing a nearly new BMW 320D for a ten year old Fiesta. I imagine these days being dropped off in an "old banger" gets the **** kicked out of your child for being "poor". Thus the experience is somewhat mitigated. 10A*s plus a facial tic from the emotional scarring isn't optimal.
Is there anything wrong with having a private GP? If so, why?
You would have to ask Rishi that, since he is the one who seems ashamed of it.
He had three routes with integrity. One was to use the NHS while he was a high profile politician. One was to come up with a solid explanation, as OGH has done above. The third was to not enter politics. Not choosing any of those does make him look like a worse person.
And if he had to go down this path, he should have said "personal matter" not "private matter".
I disagree - it's a trap and there is no answer that won't draw bile from those who want to be bilious.
(a) Yes, I go private - Oh, NHS not good enough for you? How the hell can you be in charge of something you don't even trust to use?
(b) Lie - get found out (as has been shown) - Why did you lie?
What's wrong with Stuartinromford's first option, not going private whilst a prominent politician? It's not as if the PM's going to struggle to get an NHS appointment if he needed one.
Because its performative nonsense, thats why. Should a politician only sit in rubbish seats at football (come on Keir, get out of that box)? Of only drive rubbish cars? And as for schooling - no more private schools for the kids. That would upset quite a few labour folk.
I don't have a problem with rich people having nicer stuff. I'm richer than most people, I live in a nice big house, drive a decent sized car, had a nice long haul holiday over Christmas etc. I'm very grateful and I pay my taxes and I don't feel bad about it. But for me things like education and health are in a different class, because these are rights and everyone should have the best quality service that the country can afford. I don't think it's right that rich people can jump the queue to get operations before other people, and I don't think that rich people's kids should get better schools than other children. And I don't trust politicians who tell us they are going to deliver the best service possible and fund it appropriately, but refuse to use it themselves. To me the two just seem contradictory and I can't trust a politician like that. Of course other people feel differently about these things, as is their right.
Pretty much my view too. With money comes all sorts of pleasures and privileges - which is fine - but what money shouldn't be able to buy is educational advantage or better essential healthcare
For me the schools point is the bigger one since the more that parental bank balance features there, the greater is the violation of the ideal of equal opportunities. So I feel more strongly about private schools than I do about private health.
The thing is Education is a public good. The better-educated the population is the better it is for society as a whole. So you'd think it would be good if people were using their own resources to increase the total amount of Education in the country. Why is it better in your eyes for someone to buy a new sports car every other year instead of pay Eton school fees?
The reason, I think, is that you've bought into the ideology of meritocracy. This means that you see private education as someone cheating in the great meritocratic struggle. The problem here isn't private education. The problem is that meritocracy is a con used to justify inequality.
It's a futile struggle to try and create a level playing field for meritocracy. Will never happen. Instead I think we should concentrate on people's right to dignity even if they don't become doctors or lawyers, and a fair share of the proceeds generated for society by Eton's education of the wealthy.
You have me wrong here, LP. I don't fetishize meritocracy. That it ends in "ocracy" is a tell. It's an oppressive notion by itself. Eg, if outcomes are grossly unequal but everyone has a meritocratic fair shot at hitting the jackpot, this isn't the End of History imo. It makes no sense to view equal opportunity in isolation from outcomes. Both are important. Plus they impact each other in either direction.
The goal for me is everyone realizes their potential, wealth of background minimized as a factor, with the material outcomes achieved to be far more closely bunched than they are today. It's an unachievable goal of course so the direction of travel is what counts in practice.
Eton v sports car? Serial fast car purchase doesn't hardcode inequality into society, propagate it down through the generations. This is the essential difference to me.
Yes it does.
If you ask the average working class man whether he could have a new sports car or send his children to learn Latin and Maths to 18 at Eton he would take the new sports car every time!
But it doesn't cascade inequality down the generations, a Porsche 911, does it? Ditto most areas of discretionary private spend. Eg I bet I'd disapprove of some of your jumpers - find them morally wrong even - but I'll be relaxed about it because there's no violation of equal opportunities or propagating of societal inequality in your sartorial choices. Unless I'm missing something.
It does if inherited.
You are assuming that because everyone can't go to Eton nobody can. Except forgetting that even if private education was banned, grammar schools were banned, academies and free schools and faith schools were banned and everyone had to send their children to the local comprehensive there would still be inequality.
For parents living in wealthier areas with more expensive houses would have better local schools than those living in poorer areas. So you would have to ban private sale of housing too and ensure everyone lived in social housing.
Yet even then would still be inequality because those of high iq would tend to marry others of high iq and those of low iq those of low iq. So the children of the former would still be much more likely to become doctors, lawyers, ceos etc. So you would have to ban marriage amongst those of the same but not average iq and force the high iq to marry the low iq to ensure genetic shift towards average iq
People don't usually inherit jumpers.
And to say that inequality is multi-sourced and inevitable isn't a strong argument in favour of something that actively increases it.
Thing is, H, this is an unbridgeable-by-debate difference in values and worldview. I'm egalitarian, meaning I have reducing inequality as a very high priority. Heart and head both tell me this. Head because I think it's illogical how resources are so unequally distributed. Heart because it upsets me that they are.
You, otoh, are a traditional tory - with all that this entails.
No you are not egalitarian, if you were you would be Communist or hardcore Socialist and support equality of outcome. If that was the case then fair enough, I might have some respect for your position even if I believed it misguided and likely to lead to more poverty overall.
Instead you are just a liberal meritocrat. Fine with capitalism as long as there is perfect equality of opportunity, except as I have shown you and was pointed out earlier that is impossible to achieve and just reduces choice and excellence in education in reality in my view too
Astonishing you are allowed to get away with:
"If you ask the average working class man whether he could have a new sports car or send his children to learn Latin and Maths to 18 at Eton he would take the new sports car every time!" Have you met anyone working class?
Plenty and I stand by my comment in terms of most of them
And presumably they would all slap er indoors about a bit if she dared to advance her own opinion.
No but if you really want to believe the average working class male in this country would turn down a new sports car in favour of sending their child to learn Latin at Eton that is up to you
Would the average middle class male?
The average graduate upper middle class male would likely choose Eton over a new sports car, it is just reality
I suspect the "upper middle class" can afford both. Perhaps forego the £140,000 BMW M8 for a more modest sub-£100,000 M4.
I guess you are alluding to someone foregoing a nearly new BMW 320D for a ten year old Fiesta. I imagine these days being dropped off in an "old banger" gets the **** kicked out of your child for being "poor". Thus the experience is somewhat mitigated. 10A*s plus a facial tic from the emotional scarring isn't optimal.
No they can't afford both, only the top 1% or more likely the top 0.5% by income or wealth can afford both not the top 25%.
The premise was they were offered a choice of either free
Is there anything wrong with having a private GP? If so, why?
You would have to ask Rishi that, since he is the one who seems ashamed of it.
He had three routes with integrity. One was to use the NHS while he was a high profile politician. One was to come up with a solid explanation, as OGH has done above. The third was to not enter politics. Not choosing any of those does make him look like a worse person.
And if he had to go down this path, he should have said "personal matter" not "private matter".
I disagree - it's a trap and there is no answer that won't draw bile from those who want to be bilious.
(a) Yes, I go private - Oh, NHS not good enough for you? How the hell can you be in charge of something you don't even trust to use?
(b) Lie - get found out (as has been shown) - Why did you lie?
What's wrong with Stuartinromford's first option, not going private whilst a prominent politician? It's not as if the PM's going to struggle to get an NHS appointment if he needed one.
Because its performative nonsense, thats why. Should a politician only sit in rubbish seats at football (come on Keir, get out of that box)? Of only drive rubbish cars? And as for schooling - no more private schools for the kids. That would upset quite a few labour folk.
I don't have a problem with rich people having nicer stuff. I'm richer than most people, I live in a nice big house, drive a decent sized car, had a nice long haul holiday over Christmas etc. I'm very grateful and I pay my taxes and I don't feel bad about it. But for me things like education and health are in a different class, because these are rights and everyone should have the best quality service that the country can afford. I don't think it's right that rich people can jump the queue to get operations before other people, and I don't think that rich people's kids should get better schools than other children. And I don't trust politicians who tell us they are going to deliver the best service possible and fund it appropriately, but refuse to use it themselves. To me the two just seem contradictory and I can't trust a politician like that. Of course other people feel differently about these things, as is their right.
Pretty much my view too. With money comes all sorts of pleasures and privileges - which is fine - but what money shouldn't be able to buy is educational advantage or better essential healthcare
For me the schools point is the bigger one since the more that parental bank balance features there, the greater is the violation of the ideal of equal opportunities. So I feel more strongly about private schools than I do about private health.
The thing is Education is a public good. The better-educated the population is the better it is for society as a whole. So you'd think it would be good if people were using their own resources to increase the total amount of Education in the country. Why is it better in your eyes for someone to buy a new sports car every other year instead of pay Eton school fees?
The reason, I think, is that you've bought into the ideology of meritocracy. This means that you see private education as someone cheating in the great meritocratic struggle. The problem here isn't private education. The problem is that meritocracy is a con used to justify inequality.
It's a futile struggle to try and create a level playing field for meritocracy. Will never happen. Instead I think we should concentrate on people's right to dignity even if they don't become doctors or lawyers, and a fair share of the proceeds generated for society by Eton's education of the wealthy.
You have me wrong here, LP. I don't fetishize meritocracy. That it ends in "ocracy" is a tell. It's an oppressive notion by itself. Eg, if outcomes are grossly unequal but everyone has a meritocratic fair shot at hitting the jackpot, this isn't the End of History imo. It makes no sense to view equal opportunity in isolation from outcomes. Both are important. Plus they impact each other in either direction.
The goal for me is everyone realizes their potential, wealth of background minimized as a factor, with the material outcomes achieved to be far more closely bunched than they are today. It's an unachievable goal of course so the direction of travel is what counts in practice.
Eton v sports car? Serial fast car purchase doesn't hardcode inequality into society, propagate it down through the generations. This is the essential difference to me.
Yes it does.
If you ask the average working class man whether he could have a new sports car or send his children to learn Latin and Maths to 18 at Eton he would take the new sports car every time!
But it doesn't cascade inequality down the generations, a Porsche 911, does it? Ditto most areas of discretionary private spend. Eg I bet I'd disapprove of some of your jumpers - find them morally wrong even - but I'll be relaxed about it because there's no violation of equal opportunities or propagating of societal inequality in your sartorial choices. Unless I'm missing something.
It does if inherited.
You are assuming that because everyone can't go to Eton nobody can. Except forgetting that even if private education was banned, grammar schools were banned, academies and free schools and faith schools were banned and everyone had to send their children to the local comprehensive there would still be inequality.
For parents living in wealthier areas with more expensive houses would have better local schools than those living in poorer areas. So you would have to ban private sale of housing too and ensure everyone lived in social housing.
Yet even then would still be inequality because those of high iq would tend to marry others of high iq and those of low iq those of low iq. So the children of the former would still be much more likely to become doctors, lawyers, ceos etc. So you would have to ban marriage amongst those of the same but not average iq and force the high iq to marry the low iq to ensure genetic shift towards average iq
People don't usually inherit jumpers.
And to say that inequality is multi-sourced and inevitable isn't a strong argument in favour of something that actively increases it.
Thing is, H, this is an unbridgeable-by-debate difference in values and worldview. I'm egalitarian, meaning I have reducing inequality as a very high priority. Heart and head both tell me this. Head because I think it's illogical how resources are so unequally distributed. Heart because it upsets me that they are.
You, otoh, are a traditional tory - with all that this entails.
No you are not egalitarian, if you were you would be Communist or hardcore Socialist and support equality of outcome. If that was the case then fair enough, I might have some respect for your position even if I believed it misguided and likely to lead to more poverty overall.
Instead you are just a liberal meritocrat. Fine with capitalism as long as there is perfect equality of opportunity, except as I have shown you and was pointed out earlier that is impossible to achieve and just reduces choice and excellence in education in reality in my view too
Astonishing you are allowed to get away with:
"If you ask the average working class man whether he could have a new sports car or send his children to learn Latin and Maths to 18 at Eton he would take the new sports car every time!" Have you met anyone working class?
Plenty and I stand by my comment in terms of most of them
And presumably they would all slap er indoors about a bit if she dared to advance her own opinion.
No but if you really want to believe the average working class male in this country would turn down a new sports car in favour of sending their child to learn Latin at Eton that is up to you
Would the average middle class male?
The average graduate upper middle class male would likely choose Eton over a new sports car, it is just reality
I don't think they would. I think the average graduate upper middle class male would choose to have their kids in their family home, than in a boarding school.
I think the latter is a very niche preference.
Also, five years at Eton costs £225k which is a lot more the cost of a sports car.
Is there anything wrong with having a private GP? If so, why?
You would have to ask Rishi that, since he is the one who seems ashamed of it.
He had three routes with integrity. One was to use the NHS while he was a high profile politician. One was to come up with a solid explanation, as OGH has done above. The third was to not enter politics. Not choosing any of those does make him look like a worse person.
And if he had to go down this path, he should have said "personal matter" not "private matter".
I disagree - it's a trap and there is no answer that won't draw bile from those who want to be bilious.
(a) Yes, I go private - Oh, NHS not good enough for you? How the hell can you be in charge of something you don't even trust to use?
(b) Lie - get found out (as has been shown) - Why did you lie?
What's wrong with Stuartinromford's first option, not going private whilst a prominent politician? It's not as if the PM's going to struggle to get an NHS appointment if he needed one.
Because its performative nonsense, thats why. Should a politician only sit in rubbish seats at football (come on Keir, get out of that box)? Of only drive rubbish cars? And as for schooling - no more private schools for the kids. That would upset quite a few labour folk.
I don't have a problem with rich people having nicer stuff. I'm richer than most people, I live in a nice big house, drive a decent sized car, had a nice long haul holiday over Christmas etc. I'm very grateful and I pay my taxes and I don't feel bad about it. But for me things like education and health are in a different class, because these are rights and everyone should have the best quality service that the country can afford. I don't think it's right that rich people can jump the queue to get operations before other people, and I don't think that rich people's kids should get better schools than other children. And I don't trust politicians who tell us they are going to deliver the best service possible and fund it appropriately, but refuse to use it themselves. To me the two just seem contradictory and I can't trust a politician like that. Of course other people feel differently about these things, as is their right.
Pretty much my view too. With money comes all sorts of pleasures and privileges - which is fine - but what money shouldn't be able to buy is educational advantage or better essential healthcare
For me the schools point is the bigger one since the more that parental bank balance features there, the greater is the violation of the ideal of equal opportunities. So I feel more strongly about private schools than I do about private health.
The thing is Education is a public good. The better-educated the population is the better it is for society as a whole. So you'd think it would be good if people were using their own resources to increase the total amount of Education in the country. Why is it better in your eyes for someone to buy a new sports car every other year instead of pay Eton school fees?
The reason, I think, is that you've bought into the ideology of meritocracy. This means that you see private education as someone cheating in the great meritocratic struggle. The problem here isn't private education. The problem is that meritocracy is a con used to justify inequality.
It's a futile struggle to try and create a level playing field for meritocracy. Will never happen. Instead I think we should concentrate on people's right to dignity even if they don't become doctors or lawyers, and a fair share of the proceeds generated for society by Eton's education of the wealthy.
You have me wrong here, LP. I don't fetishize meritocracy. That it ends in "ocracy" is a tell. It's an oppressive notion by itself. Eg, if outcomes are grossly unequal but everyone has a meritocratic fair shot at hitting the jackpot, this isn't the End of History imo. It makes no sense to view equal opportunity in isolation from outcomes. Both are important. Plus they impact each other in either direction.
The goal for me is everyone realizes their potential, wealth of background minimized as a factor, with the material outcomes achieved to be far more closely bunched than they are today. It's an unachievable goal of course so the direction of travel is what counts in practice.
Eton v sports car? Serial fast car purchase doesn't hardcode inequality into society, propagate it down through the generations. This is the essential difference to me.
Yes it does.
If you ask the average working class man whether he could have a new sports car or send his children to learn Latin and Maths to 18 at Eton he would take the new sports car every time!
But it doesn't cascade inequality down the generations, a Porsche 911, does it? Ditto most areas of discretionary private spend. Eg I bet I'd disapprove of some of your jumpers - find them morally wrong even - but I'll be relaxed about it because there's no violation of equal opportunities or propagating of societal inequality in your sartorial choices. Unless I'm missing something.
It does if inherited.
You are assuming that because everyone can't go to Eton nobody can. Except forgetting that even if private education was banned, grammar schools were banned, academies and free schools and faith schools were banned and everyone had to send their children to the local comprehensive there would still be inequality.
For parents living in wealthier areas with more expensive houses would have better local schools than those living in poorer areas. So you would have to ban private sale of housing too and ensure everyone lived in social housing.
Yet even then would still be inequality because those of high iq would tend to marry others of high iq and those of low iq those of low iq. So the children of the former would still be much more likely to become doctors, lawyers, ceos etc. So you would have to ban marriage amongst those of the same but not average iq and force the high iq to marry the low iq to ensure genetic shift towards average iq
People don't usually inherit jumpers.
And to say that inequality is multi-sourced and inevitable isn't a strong argument in favour of something that actively increases it.
Thing is, H, this is an unbridgeable-by-debate difference in values and worldview. I'm egalitarian, meaning I have reducing inequality as a very high priority. Heart and head both tell me this. Head because I think it's illogical how resources are so unequally distributed. Heart because it upsets me that they are.
You, otoh, are a traditional tory - with all that this entails.
No you are not egalitarian, if you were you would be Communist or hardcore Socialist and support equality of outcome. If that was the case then fair enough, I might have some respect for your position even if I believed it misguided and likely to lead to more poverty overall.
Instead you are just a liberal meritocrat. Fine with capitalism as long as there is perfect equality of opportunity, except as I have shown you and was pointed out earlier that is impossible to achieve and just reduces choice and excellence in education in reality in my view too
Astonishing you are allowed to get away with:
"If you ask the average working class man whether he could have a new sports car or send his children to learn Latin and Maths to 18 at Eton he would take the new sports car every time!" Have you met anyone working class?
Plenty and I stand by my comment in terms of most of them
And presumably they would all slap er indoors about a bit if she dared to advance her own opinion.
No but if you really want to believe the average working class male in this country would turn down a new sports car in favour of sending their child to learn Latin at Eton that is up to you
Would the average middle class male?
Good point. There may be evidence out there to the contrary but I assume that regardless of class what you do or don't do for your sprogs is limited mainly by your financial circumstances. I suppose there might be some more unwanted kids in working class families who come lower down the pegging order than a new sports car, but it is not a very nice view hyufd has of the plebs (gets pay packet on Friday and goes straight down the bookies and the pub)
I take the other viewpoint, that my kids come higher up the pecking order than sending them to a boarding school where they won't live with the family.
Forced choice for my kids I would choose: Sports car (because why not), then no car at all, then Eton at the bottom of the list. Not because I don't rate my kids, but because I do, and I want them at home with me not shipped away to a boarding school unnecessarily.
My comment was really about @hyufd looking down on the working class. There are of course exceptions, but most parents do the best they can for their kids regardless of class, like you clearly do. Those with more money can do more, but it isn't all about money. So like you I would never send my children to Eton for the same reasons and because I want them to have a rounded education even though I could afford it.
As I have mentioned before my son is exceptionally bright. Off the scale bright. As it happens we live relatively close to a very very selective private school and we did have issues in his primary school. Nothing serious at all but the teachers and pupils were conscious of him being different. The teachers were great and the kids ok, but it was awkward and we wanted him challenged.
My daughter however is of average intelligence and so the place for her was the really good local comp where she got an excellent education and met lots of friends.
Both have come out of it well, although my son is still a smart arse.
As far as I can work out, about 28,000 "sports cars" were sold in Britain in 2022, and about 600,000 children are being privately educated at any one time, so school fees seem to be about twenty times more likely to be paid than sports cars bought.
This will depend on your definition of a sports car and the number of children receiving bursaries.
To be fair the original claim was Eton, not private day schools in general.
And also your definition of sports cars seems to only include the supercar varieties like Ferrari and not more mainstream sports cars like Porsche. As far as I can tell, more Porsche 911 are sold than the entire supercar industry combined.
If you widen Eton to private schools in general, then that's certainly going to increase the number of people who would pay for that. Paying for good day schooling is a very different proposition to paying for boarding schools.
Is there anything wrong with having a private GP? If so, why?
You would have to ask Rishi that, since he is the one who seems ashamed of it.
He had three routes with integrity. One was to use the NHS while he was a high profile politician. One was to come up with a solid explanation, as OGH has done above. The third was to not enter politics. Not choosing any of those does make him look like a worse person.
And if he had to go down this path, he should have said "personal matter" not "private matter".
I disagree - it's a trap and there is no answer that won't draw bile from those who want to be bilious.
(a) Yes, I go private - Oh, NHS not good enough for you? How the hell can you be in charge of something you don't even trust to use?
(b) Lie - get found out (as has been shown) - Why did you lie?
What's wrong with Stuartinromford's first option, not going private whilst a prominent politician? It's not as if the PM's going to struggle to get an NHS appointment if he needed one.
Because its performative nonsense, thats why. Should a politician only sit in rubbish seats at football (come on Keir, get out of that box)? Of only drive rubbish cars? And as for schooling - no more private schools for the kids. That would upset quite a few labour folk.
I don't have a problem with rich people having nicer stuff. I'm richer than most people, I live in a nice big house, drive a decent sized car, had a nice long haul holiday over Christmas etc. I'm very grateful and I pay my taxes and I don't feel bad about it. But for me things like education and health are in a different class, because these are rights and everyone should have the best quality service that the country can afford. I don't think it's right that rich people can jump the queue to get operations before other people, and I don't think that rich people's kids should get better schools than other children. And I don't trust politicians who tell us they are going to deliver the best service possible and fund it appropriately, but refuse to use it themselves. To me the two just seem contradictory and I can't trust a politician like that. Of course other people feel differently about these things, as is their right.
Pretty much my view too. With money comes all sorts of pleasures and privileges - which is fine - but what money shouldn't be able to buy is educational advantage or better essential healthcare
For me the schools point is the bigger one since the more that parental bank balance features there, the greater is the violation of the ideal of equal opportunities. So I feel more strongly about private schools than I do about private health.
The thing is Education is a public good. The better-educated the population is the better it is for society as a whole. So you'd think it would be good if people were using their own resources to increase the total amount of Education in the country. Why is it better in your eyes for someone to buy a new sports car every other year instead of pay Eton school fees?
The reason, I think, is that you've bought into the ideology of meritocracy. This means that you see private education as someone cheating in the great meritocratic struggle. The problem here isn't private education. The problem is that meritocracy is a con used to justify inequality.
It's a futile struggle to try and create a level playing field for meritocracy. Will never happen. Instead I think we should concentrate on people's right to dignity even if they don't become doctors or lawyers, and a fair share of the proceeds generated for society by Eton's education of the wealthy.
You have me wrong here, LP. I don't fetishize meritocracy. That it ends in "ocracy" is a tell. It's an oppressive notion by itself. Eg, if outcomes are grossly unequal but everyone has a meritocratic fair shot at hitting the jackpot, this isn't the End of History imo. It makes no sense to view equal opportunity in isolation from outcomes. Both are important. Plus they impact each other in either direction.
The goal for me is everyone realizes their potential, wealth of background minimized as a factor, with the material outcomes achieved to be far more closely bunched than they are today. It's an unachievable goal of course so the direction of travel is what counts in practice.
Eton v sports car? Serial fast car purchase doesn't hardcode inequality into society, propagate it down through the generations. This is the essential difference to me.
Yes it does.
If you ask the average working class man whether he could have a new sports car or send his children to learn Latin and Maths to 18 at Eton he would take the new sports car every time!
But it doesn't cascade inequality down the generations, a Porsche 911, does it? Ditto most areas of discretionary private spend. Eg I bet I'd disapprove of some of your jumpers - find them morally wrong even - but I'll be relaxed about it because there's no violation of equal opportunities or propagating of societal inequality in your sartorial choices. Unless I'm missing something.
It does if inherited.
You are assuming that because everyone can't go to Eton nobody can. Except forgetting that even if private education was banned, grammar schools were banned, academies and free schools and faith schools were banned and everyone had to send their children to the local comprehensive there would still be inequality.
For parents living in wealthier areas with more expensive houses would have better local schools than those living in poorer areas. So you would have to ban private sale of housing too and ensure everyone lived in social housing.
Yet even then would still be inequality because those of high iq would tend to marry others of high iq and those of low iq those of low iq. So the children of the former would still be much more likely to become doctors, lawyers, ceos etc. So you would have to ban marriage amongst those of the same but not average iq and force the high iq to marry the low iq to ensure genetic shift towards average iq
People don't usually inherit jumpers.
And to say that inequality is multi-sourced and inevitable isn't a strong argument in favour of something that actively increases it.
Thing is, H, this is an unbridgeable-by-debate difference in values and worldview. I'm egalitarian, meaning I have reducing inequality as a very high priority. Heart and head both tell me this. Head because I think it's illogical how resources are so unequally distributed. Heart because it upsets me that they are.
You, otoh, are a traditional tory - with all that this entails.
No you are not egalitarian, if you were you would be Communist or hardcore Socialist and support equality of outcome. If that was the case then fair enough, I might have some respect for your position even if I believed it misguided and likely to lead to more poverty overall.
Instead you are just a liberal meritocrat. Fine with capitalism as long as there is perfect equality of opportunity, except as I have shown you and was pointed out earlier that is impossible to achieve and just reduces choice and excellence in education in reality in my view too
Astonishing you are allowed to get away with:
"If you ask the average working class man whether he could have a new sports car or send his children to learn Latin and Maths to 18 at Eton he would take the new sports car every time!" Have you met anyone working class?
Plenty and I stand by my comment in terms of most of them
And presumably they would all slap er indoors about a bit if she dared to advance her own opinion.
No but if you really want to believe the average working class male in this country would turn down a new sports car in favour of sending their child to learn Latin at Eton that is up to you
Would the average middle class male?
The average graduate upper middle class male would likely choose Eton over a new sports car, it is just reality
I don't think they would. I think the average graduate upper middle class male would choose to have their kids in their family home, than in a boarding school.
I think the latter is a very niche preference.
Or a private day school learning Latin then
I learned Latin at my (comprehensive) school. I even learned Ancient Greek. It was fun but not terribly useful later in life, and I wish I had persevered with French or learned another modern foreign language instead.
GCSE A grades in French AND German
(um, this was back in 1992, years before this A* nonsense!)
As far as I can work out, about 28,000 "sports cars" were sold in Britain in 2022, and about 600,000 children are being privately educated at any one time, so school fees seem to be about twenty times more likely to be paid than sports cars bought.
This will depend on your definition of a sports car and the number of children receiving bursaries.
To be fair the original claim was Eton, not private day schools in general.
And also your definition of sports cars seems to only include the supercar varieties like Ferrari and not more mainstream sports cars like Porsche. As far as I can tell, more Porsche 911 are sold than the entire supercar industry combined.
If you widen Eton to private schools in general, then that's certainly going to increase the number of people who would pay for that. Paying for good day schooling is a very different proposition to paying for boarding schools.
This discussion (even more than cocks, balls and public toilets) is peak PB
It's like doing the trolley problem question and someone asks whether any of the people at risk are Tory voters....
Is there anything wrong with having a private GP? If so, why?
You would have to ask Rishi that, since he is the one who seems ashamed of it.
He had three routes with integrity. One was to use the NHS while he was a high profile politician. One was to come up with a solid explanation, as OGH has done above. The third was to not enter politics. Not choosing any of those does make him look like a worse person.
And if he had to go down this path, he should have said "personal matter" not "private matter".
I disagree - it's a trap and there is no answer that won't draw bile from those who want to be bilious.
(a) Yes, I go private - Oh, NHS not good enough for you? How the hell can you be in charge of something you don't even trust to use?
(b) Lie - get found out (as has been shown) - Why did you lie?
What's wrong with Stuartinromford's first option, not going private whilst a prominent politician? It's not as if the PM's going to struggle to get an NHS appointment if he needed one.
Because its performative nonsense, thats why. Should a politician only sit in rubbish seats at football (come on Keir, get out of that box)? Of only drive rubbish cars? And as for schooling - no more private schools for the kids. That would upset quite a few labour folk.
I don't have a problem with rich people having nicer stuff. I'm richer than most people, I live in a nice big house, drive a decent sized car, had a nice long haul holiday over Christmas etc. I'm very grateful and I pay my taxes and I don't feel bad about it. But for me things like education and health are in a different class, because these are rights and everyone should have the best quality service that the country can afford. I don't think it's right that rich people can jump the queue to get operations before other people, and I don't think that rich people's kids should get better schools than other children. And I don't trust politicians who tell us they are going to deliver the best service possible and fund it appropriately, but refuse to use it themselves. To me the two just seem contradictory and I can't trust a politician like that. Of course other people feel differently about these things, as is their right.
Pretty much my view too. With money comes all sorts of pleasures and privileges - which is fine - but what money shouldn't be able to buy is educational advantage or better essential healthcare
For me the schools point is the bigger one since the more that parental bank balance features there, the greater is the violation of the ideal of equal opportunities. So I feel more strongly about private schools than I do about private health.
The thing is Education is a public good. The better-educated the population is the better it is for society as a whole. So you'd think it would be good if people were using their own resources to increase the total amount of Education in the country. Why is it better in your eyes for someone to buy a new sports car every other year instead of pay Eton school fees?
The reason, I think, is that you've bought into the ideology of meritocracy. This means that you see private education as someone cheating in the great meritocratic struggle. The problem here isn't private education. The problem is that meritocracy is a con used to justify inequality.
It's a futile struggle to try and create a level playing field for meritocracy. Will never happen. Instead I think we should concentrate on people's right to dignity even if they don't become doctors or lawyers, and a fair share of the proceeds generated for society by Eton's education of the wealthy.
You have me wrong here, LP. I don't fetishize meritocracy. That it ends in "ocracy" is a tell. It's an oppressive notion by itself. Eg, if outcomes are grossly unequal but everyone has a meritocratic fair shot at hitting the jackpot, this isn't the End of History imo. It makes no sense to view equal opportunity in isolation from outcomes. Both are important. Plus they impact each other in either direction.
The goal for me is everyone realizes their potential, wealth of background minimized as a factor, with the material outcomes achieved to be far more closely bunched than they are today. It's an unachievable goal of course so the direction of travel is what counts in practice.
Eton v sports car? Serial fast car purchase doesn't hardcode inequality into society, propagate it down through the generations. This is the essential difference to me.
Yes it does.
If you ask the average working class man whether he could have a new sports car or send his children to learn Latin and Maths to 18 at Eton he would take the new sports car every time!
But it doesn't cascade inequality down the generations, a Porsche 911, does it? Ditto most areas of discretionary private spend. Eg I bet I'd disapprove of some of your jumpers - find them morally wrong even - but I'll be relaxed about it because there's no violation of equal opportunities or propagating of societal inequality in your sartorial choices. Unless I'm missing something.
It does if inherited.
You are assuming that because everyone can't go to Eton nobody can. Except forgetting that even if private education was banned, grammar schools were banned, academies and free schools and faith schools were banned and everyone had to send their children to the local comprehensive there would still be inequality.
For parents living in wealthier areas with more expensive houses would have better local schools than those living in poorer areas. So you would have to ban private sale of housing too and ensure everyone lived in social housing.
Yet even then would still be inequality because those of high iq would tend to marry others of high iq and those of low iq those of low iq. So the children of the former would still be much more likely to become doctors, lawyers, ceos etc. So you would have to ban marriage amongst those of the same but not average iq and force the high iq to marry the low iq to ensure genetic shift towards average iq
People don't usually inherit jumpers.
And to say that inequality is multi-sourced and inevitable isn't a strong argument in favour of something that actively increases it.
Thing is, H, this is an unbridgeable-by-debate difference in values and worldview. I'm egalitarian, meaning I have reducing inequality as a very high priority. Heart and head both tell me this. Head because I think it's illogical how resources are so unequally distributed. Heart because it upsets me that they are.
You, otoh, are a traditional tory - with all that this entails.
No you are not egalitarian, if you were you would be Communist or hardcore Socialist and support equality of outcome. If that was the case then fair enough, I might have some respect for your position even if I believed it misguided and likely to lead to more poverty overall.
Instead you are just a liberal meritocrat. Fine with capitalism as long as there is perfect equality of opportunity, except as I have shown you and was pointed out earlier that is impossible to achieve and just reduces choice and excellence in education in reality in my view too
Astonishing you are allowed to get away with:
"If you ask the average working class man whether he could have a new sports car or send his children to learn Latin and Maths to 18 at Eton he would take the new sports car every time!" Have you met anyone working class?
Plenty and I stand by my comment in terms of most of them
And presumably they would all slap er indoors about a bit if she dared to advance her own opinion.
No but if you really want to believe the average working class male in this country would turn down a new sports car in favour of sending their child to learn Latin at Eton that is up to you
Would the average middle class male?
The average graduate upper middle class male would likely choose Eton over a new sports car, it is just reality
I don't think they would. I think the average graduate upper middle class male would choose to have their kids in their family home, than in a boarding school.
I think the latter is a very niche preference.
Also, five years at Eton costs £225k which is a lot more the cost of a sports car.
You said sports car, not super car. Most sports car cost nothing like that. You may remember I am looking to buy a Panther Kallista. I'm looking to spend about £15,000.
Is there anything wrong with having a private GP? If so, why?
You would have to ask Rishi that, since he is the one who seems ashamed of it.
He had three routes with integrity. One was to use the NHS while he was a high profile politician. One was to come up with a solid explanation, as OGH has done above. The third was to not enter politics. Not choosing any of those does make him look like a worse person.
And if he had to go down this path, he should have said "personal matter" not "private matter".
I disagree - it's a trap and there is no answer that won't draw bile from those who want to be bilious.
(a) Yes, I go private - Oh, NHS not good enough for you? How the hell can you be in charge of something you don't even trust to use?
(b) Lie - get found out (as has been shown) - Why did you lie?
What's wrong with Stuartinromford's first option, not going private whilst a prominent politician? It's not as if the PM's going to struggle to get an NHS appointment if he needed one.
Because its performative nonsense, thats why. Should a politician only sit in rubbish seats at football (come on Keir, get out of that box)? Of only drive rubbish cars? And as for schooling - no more private schools for the kids. That would upset quite a few labour folk.
I don't have a problem with rich people having nicer stuff. I'm richer than most people, I live in a nice big house, drive a decent sized car, had a nice long haul holiday over Christmas etc. I'm very grateful and I pay my taxes and I don't feel bad about it. But for me things like education and health are in a different class, because these are rights and everyone should have the best quality service that the country can afford. I don't think it's right that rich people can jump the queue to get operations before other people, and I don't think that rich people's kids should get better schools than other children. And I don't trust politicians who tell us they are going to deliver the best service possible and fund it appropriately, but refuse to use it themselves. To me the two just seem contradictory and I can't trust a politician like that. Of course other people feel differently about these things, as is their right.
Pretty much my view too. With money comes all sorts of pleasures and privileges - which is fine - but what money shouldn't be able to buy is educational advantage or better essential healthcare
For me the schools point is the bigger one since the more that parental bank balance features there, the greater is the violation of the ideal of equal opportunities. So I feel more strongly about private schools than I do about private health.
The thing is Education is a public good. The better-educated the population is the better it is for society as a whole. So you'd think it would be good if people were using their own resources to increase the total amount of Education in the country. Why is it better in your eyes for someone to buy a new sports car every other year instead of pay Eton school fees?
The reason, I think, is that you've bought into the ideology of meritocracy. This means that you see private education as someone cheating in the great meritocratic struggle. The problem here isn't private education. The problem is that meritocracy is a con used to justify inequality.
It's a futile struggle to try and create a level playing field for meritocracy. Will never happen. Instead I think we should concentrate on people's right to dignity even if they don't become doctors or lawyers, and a fair share of the proceeds generated for society by Eton's education of the wealthy.
You have me wrong here, LP. I don't fetishize meritocracy. That it ends in "ocracy" is a tell. It's an oppressive notion by itself. Eg, if outcomes are grossly unequal but everyone has a meritocratic fair shot at hitting the jackpot, this isn't the End of History imo. It makes no sense to view equal opportunity in isolation from outcomes. Both are important. Plus they impact each other in either direction.
The goal for me is everyone realizes their potential, wealth of background minimized as a factor, with the material outcomes achieved to be far more closely bunched than they are today. It's an unachievable goal of course so the direction of travel is what counts in practice.
Eton v sports car? Serial fast car purchase doesn't hardcode inequality into society, propagate it down through the generations. This is the essential difference to me.
Yes it does.
If you ask the average working class man whether he could have a new sports car or send his children to learn Latin and Maths to 18 at Eton he would take the new sports car every time!
But it doesn't cascade inequality down the generations, a Porsche 911, does it? Ditto most areas of discretionary private spend. Eg I bet I'd disapprove of some of your jumpers - find them morally wrong even - but I'll be relaxed about it because there's no violation of equal opportunities or propagating of societal inequality in your sartorial choices. Unless I'm missing something.
It does if inherited.
You are assuming that because everyone can't go to Eton nobody can. Except forgetting that even if private education was banned, grammar schools were banned, academies and free schools and faith schools were banned and everyone had to send their children to the local comprehensive there would still be inequality.
For parents living in wealthier areas with more expensive houses would have better local schools than those living in poorer areas. So you would have to ban private sale of housing too and ensure everyone lived in social housing.
Yet even then would still be inequality because those of high iq would tend to marry others of high iq and those of low iq those of low iq. So the children of the former would still be much more likely to become doctors, lawyers, ceos etc. So you would have to ban marriage amongst those of the same but not average iq and force the high iq to marry the low iq to ensure genetic shift towards average iq
People don't usually inherit jumpers.
And to say that inequality is multi-sourced and inevitable isn't a strong argument in favour of something that actively increases it.
Thing is, H, this is an unbridgeable-by-debate difference in values and worldview. I'm egalitarian, meaning I have reducing inequality as a very high priority. Heart and head both tell me this. Head because I think it's illogical how resources are so unequally distributed. Heart because it upsets me that they are.
You, otoh, are a traditional tory - with all that this entails.
No you are not egalitarian, if you were you would be Communist or hardcore Socialist and support equality of outcome. If that was the case then fair enough, I might have some respect for your position even if I believed it misguided and likely to lead to more poverty overall.
Instead you are just a liberal meritocrat. Fine with capitalism as long as there is perfect equality of opportunity, except as I have shown you and was pointed out earlier that is impossible to achieve and just reduces choice and excellence in education in reality in my view too
Astonishing you are allowed to get away with:
"If you ask the average working class man whether he could have a new sports car or send his children to learn Latin and Maths to 18 at Eton he would take the new sports car every time!" Have you met anyone working class?
Plenty and I stand by my comment in terms of most of them
And presumably they would all slap er indoors about a bit if she dared to advance her own opinion.
No but if you really want to believe the average working class male in this country would turn down a new sports car in favour of sending their child to learn Latin at Eton that is up to you
Would the average middle class male?
The average graduate upper middle class male would likely choose Eton over a new sports car, it is just reality
I suspect the "upper middle class" can afford both. Perhaps forego the £140,000 BMW M8 for a more modest sub-£100,000 M4.
I guess you are alluding to someone foregoing a nearly new BMW 320D for a ten year old Fiesta. I imagine these days being dropped off in an "old banger" gets the **** kicked out of your child for being "poor". Thus the experience is somewhat mitigated. 10A*s plus a facial tic from the emotional scarring isn't optimal.
No they can't afford both, only the top 1% or more likely the top 0.5% by income or wealth can afford both not the top 25%.
The premise was they were offered a choice of either free
Anecdote alert.
My maths teacher father threatened to sell the family 1970 Austin 1300 back in 1973 to send me to Solihull School because I was a little sluggish in a couple of subjects at school. He never did, and I am not sure how many terms a 3 year old basic family car would pay for. Not many I suspect.
Is there anything wrong with having a private GP? If so, why?
You would have to ask Rishi that, since he is the one who seems ashamed of it.
He had three routes with integrity. One was to use the NHS while he was a high profile politician. One was to come up with a solid explanation, as OGH has done above. The third was to not enter politics. Not choosing any of those does make him look like a worse person.
And if he had to go down this path, he should have said "personal matter" not "private matter".
I disagree - it's a trap and there is no answer that won't draw bile from those who want to be bilious.
(a) Yes, I go private - Oh, NHS not good enough for you? How the hell can you be in charge of something you don't even trust to use?
(b) Lie - get found out (as has been shown) - Why did you lie?
What's wrong with Stuartinromford's first option, not going private whilst a prominent politician? It's not as if the PM's going to struggle to get an NHS appointment if he needed one.
Because its performative nonsense, thats why. Should a politician only sit in rubbish seats at football (come on Keir, get out of that box)? Of only drive rubbish cars? And as for schooling - no more private schools for the kids. That would upset quite a few labour folk.
I don't have a problem with rich people having nicer stuff. I'm richer than most people, I live in a nice big house, drive a decent sized car, had a nice long haul holiday over Christmas etc. I'm very grateful and I pay my taxes and I don't feel bad about it. But for me things like education and health are in a different class, because these are rights and everyone should have the best quality service that the country can afford. I don't think it's right that rich people can jump the queue to get operations before other people, and I don't think that rich people's kids should get better schools than other children. And I don't trust politicians who tell us they are going to deliver the best service possible and fund it appropriately, but refuse to use it themselves. To me the two just seem contradictory and I can't trust a politician like that. Of course other people feel differently about these things, as is their right.
Pretty much my view too. With money comes all sorts of pleasures and privileges - which is fine - but what money shouldn't be able to buy is educational advantage or better essential healthcare
For me the schools point is the bigger one since the more that parental bank balance features there, the greater is the violation of the ideal of equal opportunities. So I feel more strongly about private schools than I do about private health.
The thing is Education is a public good. The better-educated the population is the better it is for society as a whole. So you'd think it would be good if people were using their own resources to increase the total amount of Education in the country. Why is it better in your eyes for someone to buy a new sports car every other year instead of pay Eton school fees?
The reason, I think, is that you've bought into the ideology of meritocracy. This means that you see private education as someone cheating in the great meritocratic struggle. The problem here isn't private education. The problem is that meritocracy is a con used to justify inequality.
It's a futile struggle to try and create a level playing field for meritocracy. Will never happen. Instead I think we should concentrate on people's right to dignity even if they don't become doctors or lawyers, and a fair share of the proceeds generated for society by Eton's education of the wealthy.
You have me wrong here, LP. I don't fetishize meritocracy. That it ends in "ocracy" is a tell. It's an oppressive notion by itself. Eg, if outcomes are grossly unequal but everyone has a meritocratic fair shot at hitting the jackpot, this isn't the End of History imo. It makes no sense to view equal opportunity in isolation from outcomes. Both are important. Plus they impact each other in either direction.
The goal for me is everyone realizes their potential, wealth of background minimized as a factor, with the material outcomes achieved to be far more closely bunched than they are today. It's an unachievable goal of course so the direction of travel is what counts in practice.
Eton v sports car? Serial fast car purchase doesn't hardcode inequality into society, propagate it down through the generations. This is the essential difference to me.
Yes it does.
If you ask the average working class man whether he could have a new sports car or send his children to learn Latin and Maths to 18 at Eton he would take the new sports car every time!
But it doesn't cascade inequality down the generations, a Porsche 911, does it? Ditto most areas of discretionary private spend. Eg I bet I'd disapprove of some of your jumpers - find them morally wrong even - but I'll be relaxed about it because there's no violation of equal opportunities or propagating of societal inequality in your sartorial choices. Unless I'm missing something.
It does if inherited.
You are assuming that because everyone can't go to Eton nobody can. Except forgetting that even if private education was banned, grammar schools were banned, academies and free schools and faith schools were banned and everyone had to send their children to the local comprehensive there would still be inequality.
For parents living in wealthier areas with more expensive houses would have better local schools than those living in poorer areas. So you would have to ban private sale of housing too and ensure everyone lived in social housing.
Yet even then would still be inequality because those of high iq would tend to marry others of high iq and those of low iq those of low iq. So the children of the former would still be much more likely to become doctors, lawyers, ceos etc. So you would have to ban marriage amongst those of the same but not average iq and force the high iq to marry the low iq to ensure genetic shift towards average iq
People don't usually inherit jumpers.
And to say that inequality is multi-sourced and inevitable isn't a strong argument in favour of something that actively increases it.
Thing is, H, this is an unbridgeable-by-debate difference in values and worldview. I'm egalitarian, meaning I have reducing inequality as a very high priority. Heart and head both tell me this. Head because I think it's illogical how resources are so unequally distributed. Heart because it upsets me that they are.
You, otoh, are a traditional tory - with all that this entails.
No you are not egalitarian, if you were you would be Communist or hardcore Socialist and support equality of outcome. If that was the case then fair enough, I might have some respect for your position even if I believed it misguided and likely to lead to more poverty overall.
Instead you are just a liberal meritocrat. Fine with capitalism as long as there is perfect equality of opportunity, except as I have shown you and was pointed out earlier that is impossible to achieve and just reduces choice and excellence in education in reality in my view too
Astonishing you are allowed to get away with:
"If you ask the average working class man whether he could have a new sports car or send his children to learn Latin and Maths to 18 at Eton he would take the new sports car every time!" Have you met anyone working class?
Plenty and I stand by my comment in terms of most of them
And presumably they would all slap er indoors about a bit if she dared to advance her own opinion.
No but if you really want to believe the average working class male in this country would turn down a new sports car in favour of sending their child to learn Latin at Eton that is up to you
Would the average middle class male?
Good point. There may be evidence out there to the contrary but I assume that regardless of class what you do or don't do for your sprogs is limited mainly by your financial circumstances. I suppose there might be some more unwanted kids in working class families who come lower down the pegging order than a new sports car, but it is not a very nice view hyufd has of the plebs (gets pay packet on Friday and goes straight down the bookies and the pub)
I take the other viewpoint, that my kids come higher up the pecking order than sending them to a boarding school where they won't live with the family.
Forced choice for my kids I would choose: Sports car (because why not), then no car at all, then Eton at the bottom of the list. Not because I don't rate my kids, but because I do, and I want them at home with me not shipped away to a boarding school unnecessarily.
My comment was really about @hyufd looking down on the working class.
I stopped reading when he started relying on the pseudoscientific garbage that is "IQ".
If anyone is in need of a celebrity to enlighten them, Nassim Taleb, author of "The Black Swan", may do the job:
As for boarding school and sports cars, most people who didn't go to boarding school have little clue what it's like. Men who went there and who then send their sons there are filth. It's not like a sports car which you can imagine driving with some reasonable degree of realism even if you've never driven one.
Is there anything wrong with having a private GP? If so, why?
You would have to ask Rishi that, since he is the one who seems ashamed of it.
He had three routes with integrity. One was to use the NHS while he was a high profile politician. One was to come up with a solid explanation, as OGH has done above. The third was to not enter politics. Not choosing any of those does make him look like a worse person.
And if he had to go down this path, he should have said "personal matter" not "private matter".
I disagree - it's a trap and there is no answer that won't draw bile from those who want to be bilious.
(a) Yes, I go private - Oh, NHS not good enough for you? How the hell can you be in charge of something you don't even trust to use?
(b) Lie - get found out (as has been shown) - Why did you lie?
What's wrong with Stuartinromford's first option, not going private whilst a prominent politician? It's not as if the PM's going to struggle to get an NHS appointment if he needed one.
Because its performative nonsense, thats why. Should a politician only sit in rubbish seats at football (come on Keir, get out of that box)? Of only drive rubbish cars? And as for schooling - no more private schools for the kids. That would upset quite a few labour folk.
I don't have a problem with rich people having nicer stuff. I'm richer than most people, I live in a nice big house, drive a decent sized car, had a nice long haul holiday over Christmas etc. I'm very grateful and I pay my taxes and I don't feel bad about it. But for me things like education and health are in a different class, because these are rights and everyone should have the best quality service that the country can afford. I don't think it's right that rich people can jump the queue to get operations before other people, and I don't think that rich people's kids should get better schools than other children. And I don't trust politicians who tell us they are going to deliver the best service possible and fund it appropriately, but refuse to use it themselves. To me the two just seem contradictory and I can't trust a politician like that. Of course other people feel differently about these things, as is their right.
Pretty much my view too. With money comes all sorts of pleasures and privileges - which is fine - but what money shouldn't be able to buy is educational advantage or better essential healthcare
For me the schools point is the bigger one since the more that parental bank balance features there, the greater is the violation of the ideal of equal opportunities. So I feel more strongly about private schools than I do about private health.
The thing is Education is a public good. The better-educated the population is the better it is for society as a whole. So you'd think it would be good if people were using their own resources to increase the total amount of Education in the country. Why is it better in your eyes for someone to buy a new sports car every other year instead of pay Eton school fees?
The reason, I think, is that you've bought into the ideology of meritocracy. This means that you see private education as someone cheating in the great meritocratic struggle. The problem here isn't private education. The problem is that meritocracy is a con used to justify inequality.
It's a futile struggle to try and create a level playing field for meritocracy. Will never happen. Instead I think we should concentrate on people's right to dignity even if they don't become doctors or lawyers, and a fair share of the proceeds generated for society by Eton's education of the wealthy.
You have me wrong here, LP. I don't fetishize meritocracy. That it ends in "ocracy" is a tell. It's an oppressive notion by itself. Eg, if outcomes are grossly unequal but everyone has a meritocratic fair shot at hitting the jackpot, this isn't the End of History imo. It makes no sense to view equal opportunity in isolation from outcomes. Both are important. Plus they impact each other in either direction.
The goal for me is everyone realizes their potential, wealth of background minimized as a factor, with the material outcomes achieved to be far more closely bunched than they are today. It's an unachievable goal of course so the direction of travel is what counts in practice.
Eton v sports car? Serial fast car purchase doesn't hardcode inequality into society, propagate it down through the generations. This is the essential difference to me.
Yes it does.
If you ask the average working class man whether he could have a new sports car or send his children to learn Latin and Maths to 18 at Eton he would take the new sports car every time!
But it doesn't cascade inequality down the generations, a Porsche 911, does it? Ditto most areas of discretionary private spend. Eg I bet I'd disapprove of some of your jumpers - find them morally wrong even - but I'll be relaxed about it because there's no violation of equal opportunities or propagating of societal inequality in your sartorial choices. Unless I'm missing something.
It does if inherited.
You are assuming that because everyone can't go to Eton nobody can. Except forgetting that even if private education was banned, grammar schools were banned, academies and free schools and faith schools were banned and everyone had to send their children to the local comprehensive there would still be inequality.
For parents living in wealthier areas with more expensive houses would have better local schools than those living in poorer areas. So you would have to ban private sale of housing too and ensure everyone lived in social housing.
Yet even then would still be inequality because those of high iq would tend to marry others of high iq and those of low iq those of low iq. So the children of the former would still be much more likely to become doctors, lawyers, ceos etc. So you would have to ban marriage amongst those of the same but not average iq and force the high iq to marry the low iq to ensure genetic shift towards average iq
People don't usually inherit jumpers.
And to say that inequality is multi-sourced and inevitable isn't a strong argument in favour of something that actively increases it.
Thing is, H, this is an unbridgeable-by-debate difference in values and worldview. I'm egalitarian, meaning I have reducing inequality as a very high priority. Heart and head both tell me this. Head because I think it's illogical how resources are so unequally distributed. Heart because it upsets me that they are.
You, otoh, are a traditional tory - with all that this entails.
No you are not egalitarian, if you were you would be Communist or hardcore Socialist and support equality of outcome. If that was the case then fair enough, I might have some respect for your position even if I believed it misguided and likely to lead to more poverty overall.
Instead you are just a liberal meritocrat. Fine with capitalism as long as there is perfect equality of opportunity, except as I have shown you and was pointed out earlier that is impossible to achieve and just reduces choice and excellence in education in reality in my view too
Astonishing you are allowed to get away with:
"If you ask the average working class man whether he could have a new sports car or send his children to learn Latin and Maths to 18 at Eton he would take the new sports car every time!" Have you met anyone working class?
Plenty and I stand by my comment in terms of most of them
And presumably they would all slap er indoors about a bit if she dared to advance her own opinion.
No but if you really want to believe the average working class male in this country would turn down a new sports car in favour of sending their child to learn Latin at Eton that is up to you
Would the average middle class male?
The average graduate upper middle class male would likely choose Eton over a new sports car, it is just reality
I suspect the "upper middle class" can afford both. Perhaps forego the £140,000 BMW M8 for a more modest sub-£100,000 M4.
I guess you are alluding to someone foregoing a nearly new BMW 320D for a ten year old Fiesta. I imagine these days being dropped off in an "old banger" gets the **** kicked out of your child for being "poor". Thus the experience is somewhat mitigated. 10A*s plus a facial tic from the emotional scarring isn't optimal.
No they can't afford both, only the top 1% or more likely the top 0.5% by income or wealth can afford both not the top 25%.
The premise was they were offered a choice of either free
Tell you what HY. As a man with political ambitions, why not make it your USP as the Conservative Politician who rather than promoting elitism for the few, promises every child an elite top quality education whatever their background. I'd vote for you if you delivered that.
Is there anything wrong with having a private GP? If so, why?
You would have to ask Rishi that, since he is the one who seems ashamed of it.
He had three routes with integrity. One was to use the NHS while he was a high profile politician. One was to come up with a solid explanation, as OGH has done above. The third was to not enter politics. Not choosing any of those does make him look like a worse person.
And if he had to go down this path, he should have said "personal matter" not "private matter".
I disagree - it's a trap and there is no answer that won't draw bile from those who want to be bilious.
(a) Yes, I go private - Oh, NHS not good enough for you? How the hell can you be in charge of something you don't even trust to use?
(b) Lie - get found out (as has been shown) - Why did you lie?
What's wrong with Stuartinromford's first option, not going private whilst a prominent politician? It's not as if the PM's going to struggle to get an NHS appointment if he needed one.
Because its performative nonsense, thats why. Should a politician only sit in rubbish seats at football (come on Keir, get out of that box)? Of only drive rubbish cars? And as for schooling - no more private schools for the kids. That would upset quite a few labour folk.
I don't have a problem with rich people having nicer stuff. I'm richer than most people, I live in a nice big house, drive a decent sized car, had a nice long haul holiday over Christmas etc. I'm very grateful and I pay my taxes and I don't feel bad about it. But for me things like education and health are in a different class, because these are rights and everyone should have the best quality service that the country can afford. I don't think it's right that rich people can jump the queue to get operations before other people, and I don't think that rich people's kids should get better schools than other children. And I don't trust politicians who tell us they are going to deliver the best service possible and fund it appropriately, but refuse to use it themselves. To me the two just seem contradictory and I can't trust a politician like that. Of course other people feel differently about these things, as is their right.
Pretty much my view too. With money comes all sorts of pleasures and privileges - which is fine - but what money shouldn't be able to buy is educational advantage or better essential healthcare
For me the schools point is the bigger one since the more that parental bank balance features there, the greater is the violation of the ideal of equal opportunities. So I feel more strongly about private schools than I do about private health.
The thing is Education is a public good. The better-educated the population is the better it is for society as a whole. So you'd think it would be good if people were using their own resources to increase the total amount of Education in the country. Why is it better in your eyes for someone to buy a new sports car every other year instead of pay Eton school fees?
The reason, I think, is that you've bought into the ideology of meritocracy. This means that you see private education as someone cheating in the great meritocratic struggle. The problem here isn't private education. The problem is that meritocracy is a con used to justify inequality.
It's a futile struggle to try and create a level playing field for meritocracy. Will never happen. Instead I think we should concentrate on people's right to dignity even if they don't become doctors or lawyers, and a fair share of the proceeds generated for society by Eton's education of the wealthy.
You have me wrong here, LP. I don't fetishize meritocracy. That it ends in "ocracy" is a tell. It's an oppressive notion by itself. Eg, if outcomes are grossly unequal but everyone has a meritocratic fair shot at hitting the jackpot, this isn't the End of History imo. It makes no sense to view equal opportunity in isolation from outcomes. Both are important. Plus they impact each other in either direction.
The goal for me is everyone realizes their potential, wealth of background minimized as a factor, with the material outcomes achieved to be far more closely bunched than they are today. It's an unachievable goal of course so the direction of travel is what counts in practice.
Eton v sports car? Serial fast car purchase doesn't hardcode inequality into society, propagate it down through the generations. This is the essential difference to me.
Yes it does.
If you ask the average working class man whether he could have a new sports car or send his children to learn Latin and Maths to 18 at Eton he would take the new sports car every time!
But it doesn't cascade inequality down the generations, a Porsche 911, does it? Ditto most areas of discretionary private spend. Eg I bet I'd disapprove of some of your jumpers - find them morally wrong even - but I'll be relaxed about it because there's no violation of equal opportunities or propagating of societal inequality in your sartorial choices. Unless I'm missing something.
It does if inherited.
You are assuming that because everyone can't go to Eton nobody can. Except forgetting that even if private education was banned, grammar schools were banned, academies and free schools and faith schools were banned and everyone had to send their children to the local comprehensive there would still be inequality.
For parents living in wealthier areas with more expensive houses would have better local schools than those living in poorer areas. So you would have to ban private sale of housing too and ensure everyone lived in social housing.
Yet even then would still be inequality because those of high iq would tend to marry others of high iq and those of low iq those of low iq. So the children of the former would still be much more likely to become doctors, lawyers, ceos etc. So you would have to ban marriage amongst those of the same but not average iq and force the high iq to marry the low iq to ensure genetic shift towards average iq
People don't usually inherit jumpers.
And to say that inequality is multi-sourced and inevitable isn't a strong argument in favour of something that actively increases it.
Thing is, H, this is an unbridgeable-by-debate difference in values and worldview. I'm egalitarian, meaning I have reducing inequality as a very high priority. Heart and head both tell me this. Head because I think it's illogical how resources are so unequally distributed. Heart because it upsets me that they are.
You, otoh, are a traditional tory - with all that this entails.
No you are not egalitarian, if you were you would be Communist or hardcore Socialist and support equality of outcome. If that was the case then fair enough, I might have some respect for your position even if I believed it misguided and likely to lead to more poverty overall.
Instead you are just a liberal meritocrat. Fine with capitalism as long as there is perfect equality of opportunity, except as I have shown you and was pointed out earlier that is impossible to achieve and just reduces choice and excellence in education in reality in my view too
Astonishing you are allowed to get away with:
"If you ask the average working class man whether he could have a new sports car or send his children to learn Latin and Maths to 18 at Eton he would take the new sports car every time!" Have you met anyone working class?
Plenty and I stand by my comment in terms of most of them
And presumably they would all slap er indoors about a bit if she dared to advance her own opinion.
No but if you really want to believe the average working class male in this country would turn down a new sports car in favour of sending their child to learn Latin at Eton that is up to you
Would the average middle class male?
The average graduate upper middle class male would likely choose Eton over a new sports car, it is just reality
I don't think they would. I think the average graduate upper middle class male would choose to have their kids in their family home, than in a boarding school.
I think the latter is a very niche preference.
Also, five years at Eton costs £225k which is a lot more the cost of a sports car.
You said sports car, not super car. Most sports car cost nothing like that. You may remember I am looking to buy a Panther Kallista. I'm looking to spend about £15,000.
A Ferrari is a sports car and even £15 000 would also pay day fees for a year at many private schools
Very good as always. Two questions of Mr Meeks. It is clear from his article who has behaved badly. But which factions/groups/interests does he think have behaved well?
Secondly, it remains obvious to the middling sort who can think and don't have vested interests that the majority of the UK would accept the EU economic/trade agenda but would reject the EU political integration agenda.
This is why the vote was so close, and most normal people were torn in their opinions (especially so as both campaigns were abominations).
How does Mr Meeks resolve this?
For me it is and always has been EFTA/EEA as the only possible, though imperfect, solution.
Two issues related to Mr Meeks' article, both linked.
First, he assumes the answer is already determined (I get why - it suits his view). Second, he is viewing Brexit from 3 years out (not 2016, when we left). That's too short a timeframe.
Take Irish independence - 3 year view (or 7 years if want to take a 1918 / 2016 time comparison) absolute disaster - Civil War, trading war with your main economic partner, far poorer country and major economic / social disruption including persecution of a minority population.
30 years out - so so, country at peace and stable but obviously poorer than what it would have been if it stayed in the U.K. and suffering large scale migration.
70 years out - big success, going ahead of the U.K. in terms of growth, wealth and independence seen as a success.
My points are not Brexit will take 70 years to be a success, it's that (a) it takes time tor things to settle and (b) it depends on the timeframe you pick.
Is there anything wrong with having a private GP? If so, why?
You would have to ask Rishi that, since he is the one who seems ashamed of it.
He had three routes with integrity. One was to use the NHS while he was a high profile politician. One was to come up with a solid explanation, as OGH has done above. The third was to not enter politics. Not choosing any of those does make him look like a worse person.
And if he had to go down this path, he should have said "personal matter" not "private matter".
I disagree - it's a trap and there is no answer that won't draw bile from those who want to be bilious.
(a) Yes, I go private - Oh, NHS not good enough for you? How the hell can you be in charge of something you don't even trust to use?
(b) Lie - get found out (as has been shown) - Why did you lie?
What's wrong with Stuartinromford's first option, not going private whilst a prominent politician? It's not as if the PM's going to struggle to get an NHS appointment if he needed one.
Because its performative nonsense, thats why. Should a politician only sit in rubbish seats at football (come on Keir, get out of that box)? Of only drive rubbish cars? And as for schooling - no more private schools for the kids. That would upset quite a few labour folk.
I don't have a problem with rich people having nicer stuff. I'm richer than most people, I live in a nice big house, drive a decent sized car, had a nice long haul holiday over Christmas etc. I'm very grateful and I pay my taxes and I don't feel bad about it. But for me things like education and health are in a different class, because these are rights and everyone should have the best quality service that the country can afford. I don't think it's right that rich people can jump the queue to get operations before other people, and I don't think that rich people's kids should get better schools than other children. And I don't trust politicians who tell us they are going to deliver the best service possible and fund it appropriately, but refuse to use it themselves. To me the two just seem contradictory and I can't trust a politician like that. Of course other people feel differently about these things, as is their right.
Pretty much my view too. With money comes all sorts of pleasures and privileges - which is fine - but what money shouldn't be able to buy is educational advantage or better essential healthcare
For me the schools point is the bigger one since the more that parental bank balance features there, the greater is the violation of the ideal of equal opportunities. So I feel more strongly about private schools than I do about private health.
The thing is Education is a public good. The better-educated the population is the better it is for society as a whole. So you'd think it would be good if people were using their own resources to increase the total amount of Education in the country. Why is it better in your eyes for someone to buy a new sports car every other year instead of pay Eton school fees?
The reason, I think, is that you've bought into the ideology of meritocracy. This means that you see private education as someone cheating in the great meritocratic struggle. The problem here isn't private education. The problem is that meritocracy is a con used to justify inequality.
It's a futile struggle to try and create a level playing field for meritocracy. Will never happen. Instead I think we should concentrate on people's right to dignity even if they don't become doctors or lawyers, and a fair share of the proceeds generated for society by Eton's education of the wealthy.
You have me wrong here, LP. I don't fetishize meritocracy. That it ends in "ocracy" is a tell. It's an oppressive notion by itself. Eg, if outcomes are grossly unequal but everyone has a meritocratic fair shot at hitting the jackpot, this isn't the End of History imo. It makes no sense to view equal opportunity in isolation from outcomes. Both are important. Plus they impact each other in either direction.
The goal for me is everyone realizes their potential, wealth of background minimized as a factor, with the material outcomes achieved to be far more closely bunched than they are today. It's an unachievable goal of course so the direction of travel is what counts in practice.
Eton v sports car? Serial fast car purchase doesn't hardcode inequality into society, propagate it down through the generations. This is the essential difference to me.
Yes it does.
If you ask the average working class man whether he could have a new sports car or send his children to learn Latin and Maths to 18 at Eton he would take the new sports car every time!
But it doesn't cascade inequality down the generations, a Porsche 911, does it? Ditto most areas of discretionary private spend. Eg I bet I'd disapprove of some of your jumpers - find them morally wrong even - but I'll be relaxed about it because there's no violation of equal opportunities or propagating of societal inequality in your sartorial choices. Unless I'm missing something.
It does if inherited.
You are assuming that because everyone can't go to Eton nobody can. Except forgetting that even if private education was banned, grammar schools were banned, academies and free schools and faith schools were banned and everyone had to send their children to the local comprehensive there would still be inequality.
For parents living in wealthier areas with more expensive houses would have better local schools than those living in poorer areas. So you would have to ban private sale of housing too and ensure everyone lived in social housing.
Yet even then would still be inequality because those of high iq would tend to marry others of high iq and those of low iq those of low iq. So the children of the former would still be much more likely to become doctors, lawyers, ceos etc. So you would have to ban marriage amongst those of the same but not average iq and force the high iq to marry the low iq to ensure genetic shift towards average iq
People don't usually inherit jumpers.
And to say that inequality is multi-sourced and inevitable isn't a strong argument in favour of something that actively increases it.
Thing is, H, this is an unbridgeable-by-debate difference in values and worldview. I'm egalitarian, meaning I have reducing inequality as a very high priority. Heart and head both tell me this. Head because I think it's illogical how resources are so unequally distributed. Heart because it upsets me that they are.
You, otoh, are a traditional tory - with all that this entails.
No you are not egalitarian, if you were you would be Communist or hardcore Socialist and support equality of outcome. If that was the case then fair enough, I might have some respect for your position even if I believed it misguided and likely to lead to more poverty overall.
Instead you are just a liberal meritocrat. Fine with capitalism as long as there is perfect equality of opportunity, except as I have shown you and was pointed out earlier that is impossible to achieve and just reduces choice and excellence in education in reality in my view too
Astonishing you are allowed to get away with:
"If you ask the average working class man whether he could have a new sports car or send his children to learn Latin and Maths to 18 at Eton he would take the new sports car every time!" Have you met anyone working class?
Plenty and I stand by my comment in terms of most of them
And presumably they would all slap er indoors about a bit if she dared to advance her own opinion.
No but if you really want to believe the average working class male in this country would turn down a new sports car in favour of sending their child to learn Latin at Eton that is up to you
Would the average middle class male?
Good point. There may be evidence out there to the contrary but I assume that regardless of class what you do or don't do for your sprogs is limited mainly by your financial circumstances. I suppose there might be some more unwanted kids in working class families who come lower down the pegging order than a new sports car, but it is not a very nice view hyufd has of the plebs (gets pay packet on Friday and goes straight down the bookies and the pub)
I take the other viewpoint, that my kids come higher up the pecking order than sending them to a boarding school where they won't live with the family.
Forced choice for my kids I would choose: Sports car (because why not), then no car at all, then Eton at the bottom of the list. Not because I don't rate my kids, but because I do, and I want them at home with me not shipped away to a boarding school unnecessarily.
My comment was really about @hyufd looking down on the working class.
I stopped reading when he started relying on the pseudoscientific garbage that is "IQ".
If anyone is in need of a celebrity to enlighten them, Nassim Taleb, author of "The Black Swan", may do the job:
As for boarding school and sports cars, most people who didn't go to boarding school have little clue what it's like. Men who went there and who then send their sons there are filth. It's not like a sports car which you can imagine driving with some reasonable degree of realism even if you've never driven one.
Well if you believe the child of 2 Oxbridge science or law graduates will have the same IQ as the child of 2 parents who failed their GCSEs, fine
Is there anything wrong with having a private GP? If so, why?
You would have to ask Rishi that, since he is the one who seems ashamed of it.
He had three routes with integrity. One was to use the NHS while he was a high profile politician. One was to come up with a solid explanation, as OGH has done above. The third was to not enter politics. Not choosing any of those does make him look like a worse person.
And if he had to go down this path, he should have said "personal matter" not "private matter".
I disagree - it's a trap and there is no answer that won't draw bile from those who want to be bilious.
(a) Yes, I go private - Oh, NHS not good enough for you? How the hell can you be in charge of something you don't even trust to use?
(b) Lie - get found out (as has been shown) - Why did you lie?
What's wrong with Stuartinromford's first option, not going private whilst a prominent politician? It's not as if the PM's going to struggle to get an NHS appointment if he needed one.
Because its performative nonsense, thats why. Should a politician only sit in rubbish seats at football (come on Keir, get out of that box)? Of only drive rubbish cars? And as for schooling - no more private schools for the kids. That would upset quite a few labour folk.
I don't have a problem with rich people having nicer stuff. I'm richer than most people, I live in a nice big house, drive a decent sized car, had a nice long haul holiday over Christmas etc. I'm very grateful and I pay my taxes and I don't feel bad about it. But for me things like education and health are in a different class, because these are rights and everyone should have the best quality service that the country can afford. I don't think it's right that rich people can jump the queue to get operations before other people, and I don't think that rich people's kids should get better schools than other children. And I don't trust politicians who tell us they are going to deliver the best service possible and fund it appropriately, but refuse to use it themselves. To me the two just seem contradictory and I can't trust a politician like that. Of course other people feel differently about these things, as is their right.
Pretty much my view too. With money comes all sorts of pleasures and privileges - which is fine - but what money shouldn't be able to buy is educational advantage or better essential healthcare
For me the schools point is the bigger one since the more that parental bank balance features there, the greater is the violation of the ideal of equal opportunities. So I feel more strongly about private schools than I do about private health.
The thing is Education is a public good. The better-educated the population is the better it is for society as a whole. So you'd think it would be good if people were using their own resources to increase the total amount of Education in the country. Why is it better in your eyes for someone to buy a new sports car every other year instead of pay Eton school fees?
The reason, I think, is that you've bought into the ideology of meritocracy. This means that you see private education as someone cheating in the great meritocratic struggle. The problem here isn't private education. The problem is that meritocracy is a con used to justify inequality.
It's a futile struggle to try and create a level playing field for meritocracy. Will never happen. Instead I think we should concentrate on people's right to dignity even if they don't become doctors or lawyers, and a fair share of the proceeds generated for society by Eton's education of the wealthy.
You have me wrong here, LP. I don't fetishize meritocracy. That it ends in "ocracy" is a tell. It's an oppressive notion by itself. Eg, if outcomes are grossly unequal but everyone has a meritocratic fair shot at hitting the jackpot, this isn't the End of History imo. It makes no sense to view equal opportunity in isolation from outcomes. Both are important. Plus they impact each other in either direction.
The goal for me is everyone realizes their potential, wealth of background minimized as a factor, with the material outcomes achieved to be far more closely bunched than they are today. It's an unachievable goal of course so the direction of travel is what counts in practice.
Eton v sports car? Serial fast car purchase doesn't hardcode inequality into society, propagate it down through the generations. This is the essential difference to me.
Yes it does.
If you ask the average working class man whether he could have a new sports car or send his children to learn Latin and Maths to 18 at Eton he would take the new sports car every time!
But it doesn't cascade inequality down the generations, a Porsche 911, does it? Ditto most areas of discretionary private spend. Eg I bet I'd disapprove of some of your jumpers - find them morally wrong even - but I'll be relaxed about it because there's no violation of equal opportunities or propagating of societal inequality in your sartorial choices. Unless I'm missing something.
It does if inherited.
You are assuming that because everyone can't go to Eton nobody can. Except forgetting that even if private education was banned, grammar schools were banned, academies and free schools and faith schools were banned and everyone had to send their children to the local comprehensive there would still be inequality.
For parents living in wealthier areas with more expensive houses would have better local schools than those living in poorer areas. So you would have to ban private sale of housing too and ensure everyone lived in social housing.
Yet even then would still be inequality because those of high iq would tend to marry others of high iq and those of low iq those of low iq. So the children of the former would still be much more likely to become doctors, lawyers, ceos etc. So you would have to ban marriage amongst those of the same but not average iq and force the high iq to marry the low iq to ensure genetic shift towards average iq
People don't usually inherit jumpers.
And to say that inequality is multi-sourced and inevitable isn't a strong argument in favour of something that actively increases it.
Thing is, H, this is an unbridgeable-by-debate difference in values and worldview. I'm egalitarian, meaning I have reducing inequality as a very high priority. Heart and head both tell me this. Head because I think it's illogical how resources are so unequally distributed. Heart because it upsets me that they are.
You, otoh, are a traditional tory - with all that this entails.
No you are not egalitarian, if you were you would be Communist or hardcore Socialist and support equality of outcome. If that was the case then fair enough, I might have some respect for your position even if I believed it misguided and likely to lead to more poverty overall.
Instead you are just a liberal meritocrat. Fine with capitalism as long as there is perfect equality of opportunity, except as I have shown you and was pointed out earlier that is impossible to achieve and just reduces choice and excellence in education in reality in my view too
Astonishing you are allowed to get away with:
"If you ask the average working class man whether he could have a new sports car or send his children to learn Latin and Maths to 18 at Eton he would take the new sports car every time!" Have you met anyone working class?
Plenty and I stand by my comment in terms of most of them
And presumably they would all slap er indoors about a bit if she dared to advance her own opinion.
No but if you really want to believe the average working class male in this country would turn down a new sports car in favour of sending their child to learn Latin at Eton that is up to you
Would the average middle class male?
The average graduate upper middle class male would likely choose Eton over a new sports car, it is just reality
I suspect the "upper middle class" can afford both. Perhaps forego the £140,000 BMW M8 for a more modest sub-£100,000 M4.
I guess you are alluding to someone foregoing a nearly new BMW 320D for a ten year old Fiesta. I imagine these days being dropped off in an "old banger" gets the **** kicked out of your child for being "poor". Thus the experience is somewhat mitigated. 10A*s plus a facial tic from the emotional scarring isn't optimal.
No they can't afford both, only the top 1% or more likely the top 0.5% by income or wealth can afford both not the top 25%.
The premise was they were offered a choice of either free
Tell you what HY. As a man with political ambitions, why not make it your USP as the Conservative Politician who rather than promoting elitism for the few, promises every child an elite top quality education whatever their background. I'd vote for you if you delivered that.
On private schools - I suspect probably most students would be better off if their parents saved the cash and distributed it later for 'relatively sensible' purchases.
If the average day private school is £15k per year, you could easily pay your child's university fees and give them a deposit on a house for the same money.
Is there anything wrong with having a private GP? If so, why?
You would have to ask Rishi that, since he is the one who seems ashamed of it.
He had three routes with integrity. One was to use the NHS while he was a high profile politician. One was to come up with a solid explanation, as OGH has done above. The third was to not enter politics. Not choosing any of those does make him look like a worse person.
And if he had to go down this path, he should have said "personal matter" not "private matter".
I disagree - it's a trap and there is no answer that won't draw bile from those who want to be bilious.
(a) Yes, I go private - Oh, NHS not good enough for you? How the hell can you be in charge of something you don't even trust to use?
(b) Lie - get found out (as has been shown) - Why did you lie?
What's wrong with Stuartinromford's first option, not going private whilst a prominent politician? It's not as if the PM's going to struggle to get an NHS appointment if he needed one.
Because its performative nonsense, thats why. Should a politician only sit in rubbish seats at football (come on Keir, get out of that box)? Of only drive rubbish cars? And as for schooling - no more private schools for the kids. That would upset quite a few labour folk.
I don't have a problem with rich people having nicer stuff. I'm richer than most people, I live in a nice big house, drive a decent sized car, had a nice long haul holiday over Christmas etc. I'm very grateful and I pay my taxes and I don't feel bad about it. But for me things like education and health are in a different class, because these are rights and everyone should have the best quality service that the country can afford. I don't think it's right that rich people can jump the queue to get operations before other people, and I don't think that rich people's kids should get better schools than other children. And I don't trust politicians who tell us they are going to deliver the best service possible and fund it appropriately, but refuse to use it themselves. To me the two just seem contradictory and I can't trust a politician like that. Of course other people feel differently about these things, as is their right.
Pretty much my view too. With money comes all sorts of pleasures and privileges - which is fine - but what money shouldn't be able to buy is educational advantage or better essential healthcare
For me the schools point is the bigger one since the more that parental bank balance features there, the greater is the violation of the ideal of equal opportunities. So I feel more strongly about private schools than I do about private health.
The thing is Education is a public good. The better-educated the population is the better it is for society as a whole. So you'd think it would be good if people were using their own resources to increase the total amount of Education in the country. Why is it better in your eyes for someone to buy a new sports car every other year instead of pay Eton school fees?
The reason, I think, is that you've bought into the ideology of meritocracy. This means that you see private education as someone cheating in the great meritocratic struggle. The problem here isn't private education. The problem is that meritocracy is a con used to justify inequality.
It's a futile struggle to try and create a level playing field for meritocracy. Will never happen. Instead I think we should concentrate on people's right to dignity even if they don't become doctors or lawyers, and a fair share of the proceeds generated for society by Eton's education of the wealthy.
You have me wrong here, LP. I don't fetishize meritocracy. That it ends in "ocracy" is a tell. It's an oppressive notion by itself. Eg, if outcomes are grossly unequal but everyone has a meritocratic fair shot at hitting the jackpot, this isn't the End of History imo. It makes no sense to view equal opportunity in isolation from outcomes. Both are important. Plus they impact each other in either direction.
The goal for me is everyone realizes their potential, wealth of background minimized as a factor, with the material outcomes achieved to be far more closely bunched than they are today. It's an unachievable goal of course so the direction of travel is what counts in practice.
Eton v sports car? Serial fast car purchase doesn't hardcode inequality into society, propagate it down through the generations. This is the essential difference to me.
Yes it does.
If you ask the average working class man whether he could have a new sports car or send his children to learn Latin and Maths to 18 at Eton he would take the new sports car every time!
But it doesn't cascade inequality down the generations, a Porsche 911, does it? Ditto most areas of discretionary private spend. Eg I bet I'd disapprove of some of your jumpers - find them morally wrong even - but I'll be relaxed about it because there's no violation of equal opportunities or propagating of societal inequality in your sartorial choices. Unless I'm missing something.
It does if inherited.
You are assuming that because everyone can't go to Eton nobody can. Except forgetting that even if private education was banned, grammar schools were banned, academies and free schools and faith schools were banned and everyone had to send their children to the local comprehensive there would still be inequality.
For parents living in wealthier areas with more expensive houses would have better local schools than those living in poorer areas. So you would have to ban private sale of housing too and ensure everyone lived in social housing.
Yet even then would still be inequality because those of high iq would tend to marry others of high iq and those of low iq those of low iq. So the children of the former would still be much more likely to become doctors, lawyers, ceos etc. So you would have to ban marriage amongst those of the same but not average iq and force the high iq to marry the low iq to ensure genetic shift towards average iq
People don't usually inherit jumpers.
And to say that inequality is multi-sourced and inevitable isn't a strong argument in favour of something that actively increases it.
Thing is, H, this is an unbridgeable-by-debate difference in values and worldview. I'm egalitarian, meaning I have reducing inequality as a very high priority. Heart and head both tell me this. Head because I think it's illogical how resources are so unequally distributed. Heart because it upsets me that they are.
You, otoh, are a traditional tory - with all that this entails.
No you are not egalitarian, if you were you would be Communist or hardcore Socialist and support equality of outcome. If that was the case then fair enough, I might have some respect for your position even if I believed it misguided and likely to lead to more poverty overall.
Instead you are just a liberal meritocrat. Fine with capitalism as long as there is perfect equality of opportunity, except as I have shown you and was pointed out earlier that is impossible to achieve and just reduces choice and excellence in education in reality in my view too
Astonishing you are allowed to get away with:
"If you ask the average working class man whether he could have a new sports car or send his children to learn Latin and Maths to 18 at Eton he would take the new sports car every time!" Have you met anyone working class?
Plenty and I stand by my comment in terms of most of them
And presumably they would all slap er indoors about a bit if she dared to advance her own opinion.
No but if you really want to believe the average working class male in this country would turn down a new sports car in favour of sending their child to learn Latin at Eton that is up to you
Would the average middle class male?
The average graduate upper middle class male would likely choose Eton over a new sports car, it is just reality
As a lower middle class male, I'd go for the sports car, then sell it to pay off the mortgage. I'd then not have to work so hard and would be able to spend more time with my child.
Is there anything wrong with having a private GP? If so, why?
You would have to ask Rishi that, since he is the one who seems ashamed of it.
He had three routes with integrity. One was to use the NHS while he was a high profile politician. One was to come up with a solid explanation, as OGH has done above. The third was to not enter politics. Not choosing any of those does make him look like a worse person.
And if he had to go down this path, he should have said "personal matter" not "private matter".
I disagree - it's a trap and there is no answer that won't draw bile from those who want to be bilious.
(a) Yes, I go private - Oh, NHS not good enough for you? How the hell can you be in charge of something you don't even trust to use?
(b) Lie - get found out (as has been shown) - Why did you lie?
What's wrong with Stuartinromford's first option, not going private whilst a prominent politician? It's not as if the PM's going to struggle to get an NHS appointment if he needed one.
Because its performative nonsense, thats why. Should a politician only sit in rubbish seats at football (come on Keir, get out of that box)? Of only drive rubbish cars? And as for schooling - no more private schools for the kids. That would upset quite a few labour folk.
I don't have a problem with rich people having nicer stuff. I'm richer than most people, I live in a nice big house, drive a decent sized car, had a nice long haul holiday over Christmas etc. I'm very grateful and I pay my taxes and I don't feel bad about it. But for me things like education and health are in a different class, because these are rights and everyone should have the best quality service that the country can afford. I don't think it's right that rich people can jump the queue to get operations before other people, and I don't think that rich people's kids should get better schools than other children. And I don't trust politicians who tell us they are going to deliver the best service possible and fund it appropriately, but refuse to use it themselves. To me the two just seem contradictory and I can't trust a politician like that. Of course other people feel differently about these things, as is their right.
Pretty much my view too. With money comes all sorts of pleasures and privileges - which is fine - but what money shouldn't be able to buy is educational advantage or better essential healthcare
For me the schools point is the bigger one since the more that parental bank balance features there, the greater is the violation of the ideal of equal opportunities. So I feel more strongly about private schools than I do about private health.
The thing is Education is a public good. The better-educated the population is the better it is for society as a whole. So you'd think it would be good if people were using their own resources to increase the total amount of Education in the country. Why is it better in your eyes for someone to buy a new sports car every other year instead of pay Eton school fees?
The reason, I think, is that you've bought into the ideology of meritocracy. This means that you see private education as someone cheating in the great meritocratic struggle. The problem here isn't private education. The problem is that meritocracy is a con used to justify inequality.
It's a futile struggle to try and create a level playing field for meritocracy. Will never happen. Instead I think we should concentrate on people's right to dignity even if they don't become doctors or lawyers, and a fair share of the proceeds generated for society by Eton's education of the wealthy.
You have me wrong here, LP. I don't fetishize meritocracy. That it ends in "ocracy" is a tell. It's an oppressive notion by itself. Eg, if outcomes are grossly unequal but everyone has a meritocratic fair shot at hitting the jackpot, this isn't the End of History imo. It makes no sense to view equal opportunity in isolation from outcomes. Both are important. Plus they impact each other in either direction.
The goal for me is everyone realizes their potential, wealth of background minimized as a factor, with the material outcomes achieved to be far more closely bunched than they are today. It's an unachievable goal of course so the direction of travel is what counts in practice.
Eton v sports car? Serial fast car purchase doesn't hardcode inequality into society, propagate it down through the generations. This is the essential difference to me.
Yes it does.
If you ask the average working class man whether he could have a new sports car or send his children to learn Latin and Maths to 18 at Eton he would take the new sports car every time!
But it doesn't cascade inequality down the generations, a Porsche 911, does it? Ditto most areas of discretionary private spend. Eg I bet I'd disapprove of some of your jumpers - find them morally wrong even - but I'll be relaxed about it because there's no violation of equal opportunities or propagating of societal inequality in your sartorial choices. Unless I'm missing something.
It does if inherited.
You are assuming that because everyone can't go to Eton nobody can. Except forgetting that even if private education was banned, grammar schools were banned, academies and free schools and faith schools were banned and everyone had to send their children to the local comprehensive there would still be inequality.
For parents living in wealthier areas with more expensive houses would have better local schools than those living in poorer areas. So you would have to ban private sale of housing too and ensure everyone lived in social housing.
Yet even then would still be inequality because those of high iq would tend to marry others of high iq and those of low iq those of low iq. So the children of the former would still be much more likely to become doctors, lawyers, ceos etc. So you would have to ban marriage amongst those of the same but not average iq and force the high iq to marry the low iq to ensure genetic shift towards average iq
People don't usually inherit jumpers.
And to say that inequality is multi-sourced and inevitable isn't a strong argument in favour of something that actively increases it.
Thing is, H, this is an unbridgeable-by-debate difference in values and worldview. I'm egalitarian, meaning I have reducing inequality as a very high priority. Heart and head both tell me this. Head because I think it's illogical how resources are so unequally distributed. Heart because it upsets me that they are.
You, otoh, are a traditional tory - with all that this entails.
No you are not egalitarian, if you were you would be Communist or hardcore Socialist and support equality of outcome. If that was the case then fair enough, I might have some respect for your position even if I believed it misguided and likely to lead to more poverty overall.
Instead you are just a liberal meritocrat. Fine with capitalism as long as there is perfect equality of opportunity, except as I have shown you and was pointed out earlier that is impossible to achieve and just reduces choice and excellence in education in reality in my view too
Astonishing you are allowed to get away with:
"If you ask the average working class man whether he could have a new sports car or send his children to learn Latin and Maths to 18 at Eton he would take the new sports car every time!" Have you met anyone working class?
Plenty and I stand by my comment in terms of most of them
And presumably they would all slap er indoors about a bit if she dared to advance her own opinion.
No but if you really want to believe the average working class male in this country would turn down a new sports car in favour of sending their child to learn Latin at Eton that is up to you
Would the average middle class male?
Good point. There may be evidence out there to the contrary but I assume that regardless of class what you do or don't do for your sprogs is limited mainly by your financial circumstances. I suppose there might be some more unwanted kids in working class families who come lower down the pegging order than a new sports car, but it is not a very nice view hyufd has of the plebs (gets pay packet on Friday and goes straight down the bookies and the pub)
I take the other viewpoint, that my kids come higher up the pecking order than sending them to a boarding school where they won't live with the family.
Forced choice for my kids I would choose: Sports car (because why not), then no car at all, then Eton at the bottom of the list. Not because I don't rate my kids, but because I do, and I want them at home with me not shipped away to a boarding school unnecessarily.
My comment was really about @hyufd looking down on the working class.
I stopped reading when he started relying on the pseudoscientific garbage that is "IQ".
If anyone is in need of a celebrity to enlighten them, Nassim Taleb, author of "The Black Swan", may do the job:
As for boarding school and sports cars, most people who didn't go to boarding school have little clue what it's like. Men who went there and who then send their sons there are filth. It's not like a sports car which you can imagine driving with some reasonable degree of realism even if you've never driven one.
Well if you believe the child of 2 Oxbridge science or law graduates will have the same IQ as the child of 2 parents who failed their GCSEs, fine
We had a kid at comprehensive school who my father taught Maths to, who became a Maths Professor at Oxford or Cambridge (I can't remember which). His mum and dad sold ice cream to me off the back of a Mr Whippy van, so your statement is utter and absolute nonsense.
Should transgender people be able to change the sex recorded on their birth certificate?
In 2016, a majority of each age group supported this; in 2021 (with a slight change in question wording) a minority did. The sharpest fall in support was from older people.
And the drumbeat of anti-trans pieces in the Times, the Telegraph, the Mail and elsewhere have absolutely nothing to do with this then?
You manage to tell us about a new article in the press on a practically daily basis CV. I note a singular lack of articles written by actual trans people, whether they’re the “trans activists” you’re so keen to decry or the silent majority of trans people you think hold a less activist position.
Why do they not to print articles in the mainstream press every other day?
Debbie Hayton, a trans person (male to female) regularly writes in the mainstream press. Robin White, a male to female barrister, was on Politics Live yesterday morning. Rowan Moore, father of a trans child, wrote a long and interesting article in Prospect a few months back. There are others - including some who have transitioned and then detransitioned or the wives of men who have transitioned. There was one such couple who had a big piece in the Sunday Times recently, for instance.
There is plenty more on other more technical aspects eg some of the medical research and how other countries approach the issue which is worth seeking out if you are interested.
All of these have differing views on differing aspects of this issue and all are worth hearing, even if - perhaps especially if - you do not necessarily agree.
So the idea that there is not plenty of material from differing perspectives is wrong. It is not, in my view, a "drumbeat of anti-trans" pieces more that as the issue has gained a certain salience the "no debate" approach has received push back and a number of people, some from the world of medicine, others who have had actual experience of the issues and others affected have - rightly - started asking some questions about the issues involved, the consequences and the unchallenged assumptions. Challenging assumptions and claims is a good - not a bad - thing.
My point was not that there is a complete absence of articles from trans people in the press - these do exist as you rightly point out - but that CV never ever posts them. They seem to be singularly obsessed with this particular issue.
Even if that's the case, CV wouldn't be the only poster here who is singularly obsessed with a particular issue.
I believe CV posts on many topics and obviously being female is affected by all these changes and very entitled to give her opinion as a "woman" who may not want men in women's safe places. Getting rid of the rights of 50% of thepopulation to suit the fads of 0.04% of the population is criminal.
Removing rights from 0.04% of the population because they are only a tiny part of the population is highly immoral.
Which rights are there proposals to remove?
If anything the Scottish government is proposing a substantial increase in the rights of people who are trans and purport to be trans
Advancing the rights of 0.04% of the population (which is what is being proposed) potentially at the expense of 50%+ of the population is highly immoral. But there is to be "no debate". I wonder why?
Widening the point a little, does the government have *any* strategy to try and get through these strikes to a period of industrial calm? So far their actions have been deliberately provocative - as if having strikes across large chunks of the country makes the government look good. I think the whizzo idea - likely a few Prime Ministers ago in the summer - was pin the blame on Labour.
So why isn't it working? In part because the public either don't blame the strikers or are openly supportive. And in part because the Tories look so ham-fisted. Several clips doing the round on social media of Tory MPs saying the most stupid things. The "teachers are Bolsheviks!!!" comment by Jonathan Gullis was so dumb that the MP sat just behind him was visibly incredulous as he foamed on.
And the latest scheme, to make striking illegal? There will be a concentration and co-ordination of strikes as the railways managed last week to just shut things down. Which is bound to piss people off, but when the government are already seen as cack-handed and support is with the strikers this seems like a perilous path to take. We still talk about Labour's Winter of Discontent nearly 45 years on. The Tories want their own version to be talked about in the 2060s as a reason not to vote for them?
Sunak is cultivating the strikes. He needs a foe to unite the unhappy Tory tribes. He could solve the strikes in an instant. He doesn’t want to.
"In an instant"?
The only way to do that is to do what Starmer would do - "have talks", following which he caves in. God alone knows where the money comes from.
Prediction: Starmer is going to come out of these strikes very poorly.
Is there anything wrong with having a private GP? If so, why?
You would have to ask Rishi that, since he is the one who seems ashamed of it.
He had three routes with integrity. One was to use the NHS while he was a high profile politician. One was to come up with a solid explanation, as OGH has done above. The third was to not enter politics. Not choosing any of those does make him look like a worse person.
And if he had to go down this path, he should have said "personal matter" not "private matter".
I disagree - it's a trap and there is no answer that won't draw bile from those who want to be bilious.
(a) Yes, I go private - Oh, NHS not good enough for you? How the hell can you be in charge of something you don't even trust to use?
(b) Lie - get found out (as has been shown) - Why did you lie?
What's wrong with Stuartinromford's first option, not going private whilst a prominent politician? It's not as if the PM's going to struggle to get an NHS appointment if he needed one.
Because its performative nonsense, thats why. Should a politician only sit in rubbish seats at football (come on Keir, get out of that box)? Of only drive rubbish cars? And as for schooling - no more private schools for the kids. That would upset quite a few labour folk.
I don't have a problem with rich people having nicer stuff. I'm richer than most people, I live in a nice big house, drive a decent sized car, had a nice long haul holiday over Christmas etc. I'm very grateful and I pay my taxes and I don't feel bad about it. But for me things like education and health are in a different class, because these are rights and everyone should have the best quality service that the country can afford. I don't think it's right that rich people can jump the queue to get operations before other people, and I don't think that rich people's kids should get better schools than other children. And I don't trust politicians who tell us they are going to deliver the best service possible and fund it appropriately, but refuse to use it themselves. To me the two just seem contradictory and I can't trust a politician like that. Of course other people feel differently about these things, as is their right.
Pretty much my view too. With money comes all sorts of pleasures and privileges - which is fine - but what money shouldn't be able to buy is educational advantage or better essential healthcare
For me the schools point is the bigger one since the more that parental bank balance features there, the greater is the violation of the ideal of equal opportunities. So I feel more strongly about private schools than I do about private health.
The thing is Education is a public good. The better-educated the population is the better it is for society as a whole. So you'd think it would be good if people were using their own resources to increase the total amount of Education in the country. Why is it better in your eyes for someone to buy a new sports car every other year instead of pay Eton school fees?
The reason, I think, is that you've bought into the ideology of meritocracy. This means that you see private education as someone cheating in the great meritocratic struggle. The problem here isn't private education. The problem is that meritocracy is a con used to justify inequality.
It's a futile struggle to try and create a level playing field for meritocracy. Will never happen. Instead I think we should concentrate on people's right to dignity even if they don't become doctors or lawyers, and a fair share of the proceeds generated for society by Eton's education of the wealthy.
You have me wrong here, LP. I don't fetishize meritocracy. That it ends in "ocracy" is a tell. It's an oppressive notion by itself. Eg, if outcomes are grossly unequal but everyone has a meritocratic fair shot at hitting the jackpot, this isn't the End of History imo. It makes no sense to view equal opportunity in isolation from outcomes. Both are important. Plus they impact each other in either direction.
The goal for me is everyone realizes their potential, wealth of background minimized as a factor, with the material outcomes achieved to be far more closely bunched than they are today. It's an unachievable goal of course so the direction of travel is what counts in practice.
Eton v sports car? Serial fast car purchase doesn't hardcode inequality into society, propagate it down through the generations. This is the essential difference to me.
Yes it does.
If you ask the average working class man whether he could have a new sports car or send his children to learn Latin and Maths to 18 at Eton he would take the new sports car every time!
But it doesn't cascade inequality down the generations, a Porsche 911, does it? Ditto most areas of discretionary private spend. Eg I bet I'd disapprove of some of your jumpers - find them morally wrong even - but I'll be relaxed about it because there's no violation of equal opportunities or propagating of societal inequality in your sartorial choices. Unless I'm missing something.
It does if inherited.
You are assuming that because everyone can't go to Eton nobody can. Except forgetting that even if private education was banned, grammar schools were banned, academies and free schools and faith schools were banned and everyone had to send their children to the local comprehensive there would still be inequality.
For parents living in wealthier areas with more expensive houses would have better local schools than those living in poorer areas. So you would have to ban private sale of housing too and ensure everyone lived in social housing.
Yet even then would still be inequality because those of high iq would tend to marry others of high iq and those of low iq those of low iq. So the children of the former would still be much more likely to become doctors, lawyers, ceos etc. So you would have to ban marriage amongst those of the same but not average iq and force the high iq to marry the low iq to ensure genetic shift towards average iq
People don't usually inherit jumpers.
And to say that inequality is multi-sourced and inevitable isn't a strong argument in favour of something that actively increases it.
Thing is, H, this is an unbridgeable-by-debate difference in values and worldview. I'm egalitarian, meaning I have reducing inequality as a very high priority. Heart and head both tell me this. Head because I think it's illogical how resources are so unequally distributed. Heart because it upsets me that they are.
You, otoh, are a traditional tory - with all that this entails.
No you are not egalitarian, if you were you would be Communist or hardcore Socialist and support equality of outcome. If that was the case then fair enough, I might have some respect for your position even if I believed it misguided and likely to lead to more poverty overall.
Instead you are just a liberal meritocrat. Fine with capitalism as long as there is perfect equality of opportunity, except as I have shown you and was pointed out earlier that is impossible to achieve and just reduces choice and excellence in education in reality in my view too
Astonishing you are allowed to get away with:
"If you ask the average working class man whether he could have a new sports car or send his children to learn Latin and Maths to 18 at Eton he would take the new sports car every time!" Have you met anyone working class?
Plenty and I stand by my comment in terms of most of them
And presumably they would all slap er indoors about a bit if she dared to advance her own opinion.
No but if you really want to believe the average working class male in this country would turn down a new sports car in favour of sending their child to learn Latin at Eton that is up to you
Would the average middle class male?
Good point. There may be evidence out there to the contrary but I assume that regardless of class what you do or don't do for your sprogs is limited mainly by your financial circumstances. I suppose there might be some more unwanted kids in working class families who come lower down the pegging order than a new sports car, but it is not a very nice view hyufd has of the plebs (gets pay packet on Friday and goes straight down the bookies and the pub)
I take the other viewpoint, that my kids come higher up the pecking order than sending them to a boarding school where they won't live with the family.
Forced choice for my kids I would choose: Sports car (because why not), then no car at all, then Eton at the bottom of the list. Not because I don't rate my kids, but because I do, and I want them at home with me not shipped away to a boarding school unnecessarily.
My comment was really about @hyufd looking down on the working class.
I stopped reading when he started relying on the pseudoscientific garbage that is "IQ".
If anyone is in need of a celebrity to enlighten them, Nassim Taleb, author of "The Black Swan", may do the job:
As for boarding school and sports cars, most people who didn't go to boarding school have little clue what it's like. Men who went there and who then send their sons there are filth. It's not like a sports car which you can imagine driving with some reasonable degree of realism even if you've never driven one.
Well if you believe the child of 2 Oxbridge science or law graduates will have the same IQ as the child of 2 parents who failed their GCSEs, fine
We had a kid at comprehensive school who my father taught Maths to, who became a Maths Professor at Oxford or Cambridge (I can't remember which). His mum and dad sold ice cream to me off the back of a Mr Whippy van, so your statement is utter and absolute nonsense.
So what, just because they sold ice cream doesn't mean they failed their O Levels does it?
Comments
Probably a couple of days of chaos incoming, before things get back to whatever is considered normal.
The US is, of course, the extreme version, but does at least have some data supporting this in e.g. the opioid pain killer crisis (easy to get whether you need them or not) and the staggering numbers of interventions in childbirth there compared to here. It is, to an extent, in insurers' interests to let the members have something to show for their/their employers' premiums (there's also the issue of vendors directly targeting and provideing corporate hospitality to physicians). Would be less of an issue here, I think and less of an issue under some of the continental models. Even here though, it can happen to an extent. I know of two people with effectively undiagnosed long term conditions (syndromes - i.e. collections of symptoms but underlying cause unknown, one is chronic fatigue syndrome) who took a chunk of NHS time before effectively being told "yes, you have symptoms, but there's nothing we can do" who then took a much larger chunk of private healthcare time (and a lot of extra tests) to be eventually told exactly the same thing. But people, reasonably, like being listened to and feeling like they're taken seriously. Both thought the private healthcare not to be a waste of time or money, despite no improvement in outcome.
Being wasteful is not, of course, a particular problem if the person paying is happy to pay. It might mean that an objectively similar level of outcome to other countries could be achieved with lower cost than some private insurance based systems.
Can I suggest others do the same. It is simply to do. Makes life easy for your own family and does some good for future generations.
(Full disclosure: I have mostly stopped buying books from Amazon, as a result of their refusing to sell Anderson's book. And I buy a lot of books.
On the larger subject: It seems unlikely to me that neutering or spaying young people will be good for many of them, in the long run.)
The reason I keep on mentioning it is that banning someone from going to the toilet (which a ban on transitioning people would be) is essentially adding a massive barrier to their transitioning.
Which I fear many of the people calling on them to be banned actually want.
Besides, a ban on trans people from toilets is utterly unworkable, and likely to cause much more harm to women than any threat from pretendy trans men.
Any directed donation could have just as much abuse, both mental, emotional and other, as any fiscal transaction could.
Certainly if you propose banning private education completely then that also needs full socialism in the economic sphere too for consistency
Plus when investing on behalf of the more interesting clients, you can one-up them on the scary stakes.
"Yes, Mr Mexican Cartel boss, I'm quite sure you've chopped up some people. We make a profit on that stuff. We can even arrange a close and personal tour of our operation, for people who threaten us."
The designer(s) of "Obamacare" would agree with you. They proposed a tax on "Cadillac" insurance plans that provided too many benefits. (Some of those had been negotiated by powerful unions, by the way.)
State control of most of the economy = Socialism
Which is fine but could do with a bit more vision and campaigning skills and connection with the public
He needs some time to improve his presentational skills. Not sure he'll get much though.
Storyline ends with his own body being chopped and sold after he dies, his head ends up in a haunted house in Salem, Massachusetts.
Likewise, I just walked into my local Natwest branch to find it is closing next month, meaning I will have to go into Cambridge or Huntingdon for many banking services. The Barclays next door was very busy.
Banking services are becoming increasingly expensive and hard to access for anyone not on t'Internet. And it seems banks are too incompetent to make enough money from the money we deposit in them.
(We try to split our money between many banks, perhaps unnecessarily in the case of current accounts.)
Secondly, it remains obvious to the middling sort who can think and don't have vested interests that the majority of the UK would accept the EU economic/trade agenda but would reject the EU political integration agenda.
This is why the vote was so close, and most normal people were torn in their opinions (especially so as both campaigns were abominations).
How does Mr Meeks resolve this?
For me it is and always has been EFTA/EEA as the only possible, though imperfect, solution.
That's not strictly true of course (XY babies where the male characteristics never developed who are, in all ways except genetically, female and would never realise they had XY chromosomes without a genetic test) although those cases are rare. It's a valid question though, is it not, in the context of safeguarding? Would you ban a fully (surgically) transitioned person who was born male but now has female sex organs from a female only space?
Now we have had 6 years of the politics trumps the economics.
History leans heavily towards the former
His public image is someone out of touch. I don't think he can change that before the next election
So breaking this down, presumably if you think it is impossible to achieve (and I would agree with you it never is, except in an ideal world) then by implication you are not in favour of the bit before which is 'capitalism as long as there is perfect equality of opportunity'.
This part has two conditions to be met 'capitalism' and 'perfect equality of opportunity'.
'capitalism' I assume you approve of because you are Tory, although frankly you do make a number of posts that I would consider quite authoritarian and you are much less of financial or social liberal than someone like me, but let's take it as read you are a capitalist.
So that leaves 'perfect equality of opportunity'. Logically this can be broken down into 2 parts also. 'perfect' I agree is impossible, but that does not mean we should not aim for something even if we never achieve it. 'equality of opportunity' I would have thought was a moral objective. It certainly is for many Tories, including Margaret Thatcher who made attempts to achieve this with share ownership, council house sales, etc. Why should some have a greater opportunity than others to achieve? Only the toff not the plebs. I agree it will never be perfect, but so what, give it a go.
For competitive athletics, then yes. Having transitioned doesn't reverse having been through male puberty.
For prisons, then maybe. I would not put someone born male who has raped a woman, into a woman's prison for instance. If the individual can't go into a male prison because they'd be targeted, then either a special trans unit would need to be created or protective solitary custody may be the only safe options, but I wouldn't violate women's safeguarding by putting a man who raped women into their space regardless of whether or not they'd transitioned.
For areas that don't require safeguarding, or don't have safeguarding concerns, then its not an issue.
It’s like, they develop a contentious opinion, but never seem to go, “hang on, how likely is it that I, Andrew Bridgen, a famously fatuous moron, have got this one right?”
“And even if by some chance I have got this right,” they also never think, “then is this really a message best spread by me, aforementioned notorious and renowned fuckwit that I am?”
https://twitter.com/hugorifkind/status/1613181949476048896
Pakistan still struggling
Re prisons, what do you do with a homosexual woman who has a history of sexual assualt against women? The same? If not, why not? Might come back to different physical size/strength again, in which case fair enough.
I believe in equality of opportunity yes indeed through share ownership, council house sales, as well as more grammar schools, more free schools, more bursaries to private schools yes.
I don't believe in banning private schools which as I pointed out earlier dies nothing for equality of opportunity and is in reality another socialist policy of equality of outcome
Where is your evidence most working class males would send their children to Eton over a new sports car?
He promised "honesty and integrity". But the essence of honesty and integrity is doing the right thing BEFORE you get caught. ~AA
https://twitter.com/nickeardleybbc/status/1613161118481907712
Forced choice for my kids I would choose: Sports car (because why not), then no car at all, then Eton at the bottom of the list. Not because I don't rate my kids, but because I do, and I want them at home with me not shipped away to a boarding school unnecessarily.
I think the latter is a very niche preference.
Is not forcing your wife to change her tax status to help your career dishonest or unintegrous? Some might argue that to do so would be abusive...
Transitioning people who are uncomfortable using facilities designed for the gender that they are transitioning away from can have dispensation to use the disabled facilities, which are private, as do many other people without any obvious physical impairment.
I want our son to go to school to get a good education, and to form him into a well-rounded individual. I don't give a rat's arse for contact networks or all of the other shite. Worse, I know many of the other parents would look down at us for being rather non-Eton material.
I'd much rather consider my old school than Eton, and save £15k a year.
Abuse is much, much more likely when there's money involved. And the worst case scenario (OK, the worst I can currently think of) involves gangs of organised criminals hoovering up vulnerable people by the thousand and collecting 90%+ commissions on the sale of their organs. And then some portion of the donors dying, because they were coached to lie about their medical history to ensure the donation went ahead.
This will depend on your definition of a sports car and the number of children receiving bursaries.
I have no interest in cars, never mind overpriced sports ones, but send my kid to Eton? Only if I didn't like the little sod.
It would have to be the car, even if I didn't ever drive it.
https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/ferrari/296/359006/new-ferrari-296-gts-2022-review
It was an option at the grammar school I attended.
I guess you are alluding to someone foregoing a nearly new BMW 320D for a ten year old Fiesta. I imagine these days being dropped off in an "old banger" gets the **** kicked out of your child for being "poor". Thus the experience is somewhat mitigated. 10A*s plus a facial tic from the emotional scarring isn't optimal.
The premise was they were offered a choice of either free
As I have mentioned before my son is exceptionally bright. Off the scale bright. As it happens we live relatively close to a very very selective private school and we did have issues in his primary school. Nothing serious at all but the teachers and pupils were conscious of him being different. The teachers were great and the kids ok, but it was awkward and we wanted him challenged.
My daughter however is of average intelligence and so the place for her was the really good local comp where she got an excellent education and met lots of friends.
Both have come out of it well, although my son is still a smart arse.
And also your definition of sports cars seems to only include the supercar varieties like Ferrari and not more mainstream sports cars like Porsche. As far as I can tell, more Porsche 911 are sold than the entire supercar industry combined.
If you widen Eton to private schools in general, then that's certainly going to increase the number of people who would pay for that. Paying for good day schooling is a very different proposition to paying for boarding schools.
(um, this was back in 1992, years before this A* nonsense!)
It's like doing the trolley problem question and someone asks whether any of the people at risk are Tory voters....
My maths teacher father threatened to sell the family 1970 Austin 1300 back in 1973 to send me to Solihull School because I was a little sluggish in a couple of subjects at school. He never did, and I am not sure how many terms a 3 year old basic family car would pay for. Not many I suspect.
If anyone is in need of a celebrity to enlighten them, Nassim Taleb, author of "The Black Swan", may do the job:
https://medium.com/incerto/iq-is-largely-a-pseudoscientific-swindle-f131c101ba39
As for boarding school and sports cars, most people who didn't go to boarding school have little clue what it's like. Men who went there and who then send their sons there are filth. It's not like a sports car which you can imagine driving with some reasonable degree of realism even if you've never driven one.
Flash sports car, or Eton? Tricky.
£15 000 would also pay day fees for a year at many private schools
First, he assumes the answer is already determined (I get why - it suits his view). Second, he is viewing Brexit from 3 years out (not 2016, when we left). That's too short a timeframe.
Take Irish independence - 3 year view (or 7 years if want to take a 1918 / 2016 time comparison) absolute disaster - Civil War, trading war with your main economic partner, far poorer country and major economic / social disruption including persecution of a minority population.
30 years out - so so, country at peace and stable but obviously poorer than what it would have been if it stayed in the U.K. and suffering large scale migration.
70 years out - big success, going ahead of the U.K. in terms of growth, wealth and independence seen as a success.
My points are not Brexit will take 70 years to be a success, it's that (a) it takes time tor things to settle and (b) it depends on the timeframe you pick.
If the average day private school is £15k per year, you could easily pay your child's university fees and give them a deposit on a house for the same money.
If anything the Scottish government is proposing a substantial increase in the rights of people who are trans and purport to be trans
Advancing the rights of 0.04% of the population (which is what is being proposed) potentially at the expense of 50%+ of the population is highly immoral. But there is to be "no debate". I wonder why?
The only way to do that is to do what Starmer would do - "have talks", following which he caves in. God alone knows where the money comes from.
Prediction: Starmer is going to come out of these strikes very poorly.