When did UK governments lose their way?

I'm perfectly happy to not quibble over the difference between equity and equality, Mollygo.

How would you go about achieving a more equitable society?

Mollygo

MaizieD
So you are completely resigned to our current state of inequality?

Please don’t misinterpret my posts.
I’m no more resigned to our current state of inequality than you are, presumably. I just think equality is the wrong word here, just as it is in teaching.
If I taught all the children in my class exactly the same the brightest and the poorest would not benefit equally.
The strategy is to give each child what they need end up the best they can be, which usually means more support for the less able whilst supporting the needs of the middle and more able group.
Where would you start? What do you think the (whichever) government should do?

I’ve read your post twice Mollygo, and I think you’ve misrepresented what you meant. Do you mean the most advantaged and least advantaged children, rather than the brightest and poorest - surely being bright isn’t dependent on level of poverty, it’s the opportunity the poorest have that is limited?

One of the first things I would do in government is to restart the Surestart and Communities First initiatives, and widen eligibility.

MaizieD
So you are completely resigned to our current state of inequality?

Please don’t misinterpret my posts.
I’m no more resigned to our current state of inequality than you are, presumably. I just think equality is the wrong word here, just as it is in teaching.
If I taught all the children in my class exactly the same the brightest and the poorest would not benefit equally.
The strategy is to give each child what they need end up the best they can be, which usually means more support for the less able whilst supporting the needs of the middle and more able group.
Where would you start? What do you think the (whichever) government should do?

Mollygo

MaizieD

Mollygo
Thanks. Should have been like this.
I like your graphic, Mollygo, but for me it says that the person with the biggest disadvantage, the fewest inches, get the biggest boost to achieve equity.

Now apply that principle to the people with the least advantages in our society and see where it gets you. Imagine suggesting that the poorest in society need a larger share of society's resources to achieve equity and see how the objections come flooding in...

Whoever said that objections wouldn’t come flooding in. Of course they would.
People would defend their right to keep what they have and argue that others were getting a bigger share of handouts.
But equality doesn’t make things better for every one. It’s like the % pay rises. 1% of a large salary can be worth more than 10% of a small salary but the outcry from the top earners . . .

So you are completely resigned to our current state of inequality?

Probably lost the way when the Attlee government lost office and was replaced by Churchill who played piquet a lot of the time.

MaizieD

Mollygo
Thanks. Should have been like this.
I like your graphic, Mollygo, but for me it says that the person with the biggest disadvantage, the fewest inches, get the biggest boost to achieve equity.

Now apply that principle to the people with the least advantages in our society and see where it gets you. Imagine suggesting that the poorest in society need a larger share of society's resources to achieve equity and see how the objections come flooding in...

Whoever said that objections wouldn’t come flooding in. Of course they would.
People would defend their right to keep what they have and argue that others were getting a bigger share of handouts.
But equality doesn’t make things better for every one. It’s like the % pay rises. 1% of a large salary can be worth more than 10% of a small salary but the outcry from the top earners . . .

Callistemon21

MaizieD

Callistemon21

Hetty58

It all started to go downhill with Thatcher - but there was, at least, a veneer of respectability, a sense that (although misguided) they believed they were working in our interests.

Now, we've got to the stage where they don't even bother to act the part, don't seem to care what we think - and don't even try to follow through their promises. It's just sad when you have to vote for the lesser evil, isn't it?

Margaret Thatcher was probably the least disingenuous, most honest politician in recent times.

Whether or not you liked or really disliked her and her policies, she was acting in what she thought were the best interests of the country and not in her own interests which so many politicians of all parties seem to o.

Sadly, that does not make her destruction of the post war consensus and her cult of individual self interest and denial of 'society' any more admirable or a model to copy.

I didn't say it did. Not everyone voted for her government.

But you got what it said on the tin.
Unlike so many politicians.

Oh, I forgot
I'm not supposed to address you in any way.

But if you answer and misinterpret my posts then it's necessary occasionally.

MaizieD

Callistemon21

Hetty58

It all started to go downhill with Thatcher - but there was, at least, a veneer of respectability, a sense that (although misguided) they believed they were working in our interests.

Now, we've got to the stage where they don't even bother to act the part, don't seem to care what we think - and don't even try to follow through their promises. It's just sad when you have to vote for the lesser evil, isn't it?

Margaret Thatcher was probably the least disingenuous, most honest politician in recent times.

Whether or not you liked or really disliked her and her policies, she was acting in what she thought were the best interests of the country and not in her own interests which so many politicians of all parties seem to o.

Sadly, that does not make her destruction of the post war consensus and her cult of individual self interest and denial of 'society' any more admirable or a model to copy.

I didn't say it did. Not everyone voted for her government.

But you got what it said on the tin.
Unlike so many politicians.

A young chap in Question Time audience said. "I can't see what's different between conservatives and "Labour Party "I don't know who to vote for and I shouldn't have to feel like that" says a lot of what young people think about the state of politics in this country now.

Callistemon21

Hetty58

It all started to go downhill with Thatcher - but there was, at least, a veneer of respectability, a sense that (although misguided) they believed they were working in our interests.

Now, we've got to the stage where they don't even bother to act the part, don't seem to care what we think - and don't even try to follow through their promises. It's just sad when you have to vote for the lesser evil, isn't it?

Margaret Thatcher was probably the least disingenuous, most honest politician in recent times.

Whether or not you liked or really disliked her and her policies, she was acting in what she thought were the best interests of the country and not in her own interests which so many politicians of all parties seem to o.

Sadly, that does not make her destruction of the post war consensus and her cult of individual self interest and denial of 'society' any more admirable or a model to copy.

Mollygo

Thanks. Should have been like this.

I like your graphic, Mollygo, but for me it says that the person with the biggest disadvantage, the fewest inches, get the biggest boost to achieve equity.

Now apply that principle to the people with the least advantages in our society and see where it gets you. Imagine suggesting that the poorest in society need a larger share of society's resources to achieve equity and see how the objections come flooding in...

I think Starmer is probably genuine but he should stick to what he truly believes in, not what he thinks some groups want to hear.

Hetty58

It all started to go downhill with Thatcher - but there was, at least, a veneer of respectability, a sense that (although misguided) they believed they were working in our interests.

Now, we've got to the stage where they don't even bother to act the part, don't seem to care what we think - and don't even try to follow through their promises. It's just sad when you have to vote for the lesser evil, isn't it?

Margaret Thatcher was probably the least disingenuous, most honest politician in recent times.

Whether or not you liked or really disliked her and her policies, she was acting in what she thought were the best interests of the country and not in her own interests which so many politicians of all parties seem to o.

Labour will not introduce PR - it would mean that they, just like the Conservatives, would never be able to gain a majority ever again. Turkeys do not vote for Christmas, despite the fact that the left of the party are keen on the idea. As for jobs before entering politics, our current and last two prime ministers all had jobs outside politics first. Not sure about Theresa May off the top of my head. There are far more MPs with prior work experience than you might think, despite appearances to the contrary.

It all started to go downhill with Thatcher - but there was, at least, a veneer of respectability, a sense that (although misguided) they believed they were working in our interests.

Now, we've got to the stage where they don't even bother to act the part, don't seem to care what we think - and don't even try to follow through their promises. It's just sad when you have to vote for the lesser evil, isn't it?

The biggest harm to politics has been perpetrated by the traitor Johnson; his lies, disdain for the rule of law and for the electorate has brought about the situation where many think "they're all the same, all corrupt" . Too many will use this mindset to justify their lack of research and subsequent vote for the Tories, yet again.

At the Labour Party conference this appeared.

Labour to make a commitment to introduce proportional representation for general elections in the next Labour manifesto.
During its first term in office the next Labour government must change the voting system for general elections to a form of PR.

Labour should convene an open and inclusive process to decide the specific proportional voting system it will introduce.

During their first term in office -would be good, but the third point makes me wonder what sort of PR they will organise.

This is the government voted in by a stonking majority. It seems to me that this society has been persuaded, I'd almost say trained, since the days of Thatcher to put self-interest first.
Privatisation of utilities, the right to buy council houses (without replacing them), rampant inflation of property prices, these have contributed to huge inequality in our society.
Yes, there are many whose wealth has increased, and they would like things to stay that way, so they vote for the party that assures them that it can. The same Tory wing of government which tricked the less privileged into thinking they would be better off if they voted Leave, it is still supported by so many, even with evidence of the negative effects of Brexit. As the saying goes, the country got the governmenr it (thought) it wanted.
Proportional representation is unarguably fairer than FPTP, and I'm glad the Labour party has backed it. We need other examples of fairness after Labour takes over. I think I'd start with a tax on second homes, like in Scotland. Enough for now.

I’m embarrassed and ashamed by our government.

Thanks. Should have been like this.

Good pic, Mollygo!

I’d love to address the gap between the poor and the rich, though I’m not sure that it will ever close.
Equality doesn’t help - giving everyone the same e.g. everyone gets a 100% pay rise does not help.
What I want is equity-in this instance. everyone to have a decent standard of living, but that’s not achieved by treating everyone equally.

The UK government lost its way when Edward Heath surrended our soveriegnty to the EEC in 1973! Even though there were only 11 members at the time. Now there are 27 and we sure are in a bad state.

Sadly I don't believe there is much of a difference now between Tories and Labour. The politicians on both sides are similar and will work to make money for wealthy backers. We need a change of government but I don't think much will change for the poor in our society but I can live in hope.

You can fiddle with the voting system and requirements for people to become MPs all you like, but until you vote for politicians who are prepared to address the glaring inequalities in our society, in which the gap between the rich and the poor is steadily widening, we are not going to see anything better than what we have experienced over the past 40 years.

Unless, that is, you think that inequality is a desirable outcome...