Consensus

[peterbirks]

The narrowness of political "differences" in the UK is such that I often find it hard to think of a topic on which the political parties actually disagree. For example, that "forced sterilisation" thing seems to have fallen off the political agenda, doesn't it? And I was wondering whether I would be allowed to specify, when letting a flat, "no young women", on the grounds that they are the worst tenants in the universe - spoilt, incapable of boiling an egg, and always at home, rather than out boozing, as blokes are. And you can also guarantee that, when you let a flat to three women, you are usually going to have five people living there.

Political parties are rather like the Baptist churches in southern Tennessee. While they might scream "heretic!" at each other across the street, no sane outsider can see any difference between the pair.

So, let's raise a hand and a jar for Jamie Whyte in today's FT, for an article that says that one of our main problems in society today is that there is too much social mobility. Well, ya gotta admire someone who comes out with something that would bring about silence at just about any political party meeting.

Whyte's simple point is that, people confuse "social mobility" with "people becoming better off". But, for every person who moves up in the comparative social scale, someone else has to move down. And if, as I suspect, "wealth" is far more a matter in the developed world of comparisons rather than absolutes, "social mobility" doesn't make the country better off at all.

Or perhaps they are confusing social mobility with meritorious allocation of assets. But they aren't the same thing at all. I'm all in favour of maximising the opportunity of all people to reach the best of their potential -- although it seems to me that the UK eduication system does its level best to prevent that by discouraging any concept of "superiority". But that is nothing to do with social mobility. Indeed, the biggest cause of sudden social mobility in the UK is probably the lottery. And I don't think that the ability to pick the right six numbers at random is something that you can teach (or learn) at school.

So, the next time you ever get to speak to a prospective parliamentary candidate, ask them whether they think comparative social mobility is a good thing.

Then shoot them down in flames.

Comments

Mobile socialism

[(Anonymous)]

I think the way I've always viewed social mobility in this context is as a symptom, rather than as a goal. Put simply, if lots of people are moving "up the ladder" (or indeed down) then it's a sign that society is probably providing people with a framework in which meritocracy can thrive. If this is absent then perhaps there is a tumour in society that needs cutting out.

So I guess I'm agreeing with your point, but suggesting that if you reverse the chain of causality to meritocracy => social mobility then it makes sense.

Lurker

Re: Mobile socialism

[real-aardvark.livejournal.com]

Acch ... There we go again with the dim-bulb labels. "Mobile socialism" is what happens every four years or so when your local apparatchnik tours in a white van with a dodgy PA system and blairs "Vote for Me, because I'm Me!" at you.

Birks is entirely correct in pretty much every clause of this grumpy middle-aged man diatribe. If I may, however, I'd like to issue the caveat that the noun "meritocracy" was first coined by Michael Young in 1950 or so as something between an insult and a dystopian view of the (non-globalist and strictly English, at the time) future.

In other words, it was intended as satire. And, like so much satire, it has become reality (cf Orwell).

Me, I'm a grammar school boy. I don't see anything wrong with grammar schools. I don't see anything wrong with improving the quality of education in general. I do see something hideously wrong with debasing academic standards (which are, after all, merely designed for academia -- although they do have a follow-on effect), and with encouraging people who shouldn't go to university to go to university.

Wasting three or four years of a young person's life is just, frankly, obscene. Even without the surcharge and residual debt.

Re: Mobile socialism

[real-aardvark.livejournal.com]

Bollocks.

Apart from the point where he says "whether," which is a stupid get-out-of-gaol free sort of question. What he means is "why?"

Blogs are like that.

Re: Mobile socialism

[peterbirks.livejournal.com]

You ask the politician "whether" rather than "why" because that permits them to hang themselves. Making any assumption about a person's viewpoint before they express it themselves is a no-no when it comes to winning arguments. C'mon, Mr D, you are well aware of that.

A caveat here. If a person is denying something, then it can be clever to ask "Why". For example, in a murder case, you might ask "Why did you bury the body in your back garden after the murder?"

Although this might not be a wise line if you are defending counsel.

PJ

What would Brian Boitano do?

[real-aardvark.livejournal.com]

I'll have to think about this.

It's a fine distinction, isn't it? Part of it, as you correctly point out, is legalese (a word I hate, but which applies here as a short-cut), part of it is journalese (ditto), and part of it is philosophical. And then there's the other, tedious, bit to do with grammar and meaning. And we all know what Wittgenstein would say to that.

In this instance, "whether" sounds snotty, and really is a get-out-of-jail free card. For example, if you, in your Jeremy Paxman drag, asked me, in my careerist politician drag, the question "whether I think comparative social mobility is a good thing," then I get to equivocate. Naturally I think that social mobility is a good thing. And your question is a very good one. When you ask me whether comparative social mobility is a good thing, then we both have to ask ourselves: just what do we want out of comparative social mobility ... bork bork bork.

Now, if you ask "Why?" you are actually inviting either an honest analysis (unlikely, but you could strike gold-dust) or an outright evasion.

This is the Today strategy, and given the blatant fact that politicians are swine, I agree with it.

I wonder what Socrates would ask? "Pass the hemlock, baby, I'm outta this dump..."

Re: Mobile socialism

[peterbirks.livejournal.com]

The problem here is the standard confusion of causation. For example, I have noticed that, when it rains, my plants in the garden perk up. Therefore (according to the "promote social mobility" argument) if I water my plants, that makes it more likely that it will rain. Put in this way, it is clear what nonsense it is. As you say, it's a symptom of a 'good' thing. But that does not make promoting it more likely that the 'good' thing will happen.

The problem is, the 'good' thing has downsides that politicians don't like to think about.

"So, you think that the best should rise up the social laddder?"

"Absolutely", says politician.

"So the dregs should fall".

"Ah, well, that's a complex issue".


"If you think the best should rise to the top, then how does this stand with 'helping the disadvantaged'? Since aid is a zero-sum game, allocating funds to the disadvantaged, by definition, means taking those funds away from the talented. So, your strategy appears to be one of holding back the talented, not helping them rise to the top".

"Ahh, as I say, this is a complex area."

"But you are still in favour of promoting social mobility?"

"Oh yes! Absolutely".

Wankers.

PJ