[Sloper]

Niall Fergusson's book the Ascent of Money is worth reading as is Peter Jay's 'the road to riches'.

[Russell_B]

Perhaps someone not in the 1% of the population who had this start...

Thats a huge amount of variation in life-style/quality-of-life to experience.

And the experience is a very effective way to mould a character - Le Carre, DH Lawrence, Ian Flemming, Orwell amongst many others capture the essence well. 

There are the 1% who boarded and then there's the current bunch of decision makers stretching the scope of 'old school ties' - 1% becomes 0.001%.

It's a hard one to argue though. The 'calm down dear' comment Cameron made smacks of the defensive, elitist with low regard of women but how often and to what extent that part of the character plays into wider decision making is difficult to say.  We all have our nuances but I think boarding schools tend to develop a particularly British, institutionalised nuance that needs to be scrutinised for its broader, societal effects.

[Sloper]

'There are the 1% who boarded and then there's the current bunch of decision makers stretching the scope of 'old school ties' - 1% becomes 0.001%.

It's a hard one to argue though. The 'calm down dear' comment Cameron made smacks of the defensive, elitist with low regard of women but how often and to what extent that part of the character plays into wider decision making is difficult to say.  We all have our nuances but I think boarding schools tend to develop a particularly British, institutionalised nuance that needs to be scrutinised for its broader, societal effects. '

Utter cock. If you're still andgry and blaming your parents it's time to grow up. I know the last sentence is a load of cock too, but I'm trying to welcome you to the equivalnet of the far fives court and make you feel at home.

[slackline]

Perhaps someone not in the 1% of the population who had this start...

Thats a huge amount of variation in life-style/quality-of-life to experience.

And the experience is a very effective way to mould a character - Le Carre, DH Lawrence, Ian Flemming, Orwell amongst many others capture the essence well. 

There are the 1% who boarded and then there's the current bunch of decision makers stretching the scope of 'old school ties' - 1% becomes 0.001%.

It's a hard one to argue though. The 'calm down dear' comment Cameron made smacks of the defensive, elitist with low regard of women but how often and to what extent that part of the character plays into wider decision making is difficult to say.  We all have our nuances but I think boarding schools tend to develop a particularly British, institutionalised nuance that needs to be scrutinised for its broader, societal effects.

I'm not saying that its not worth while, rather that it is a lot of other ways of living to experience, tourist town in Cornwall, council estate in Birmigham, middle-class Berkshire etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

[Russell_B]

You've just reminded me that we didn't have a fives court at mine. Only racquets! Another thing to be pissed at Mummy and Daddy for.

Seriously though, are you refuting their effect on British society?  I realise that there is a hint of disgruntlement in the tone of my last one and I'm pre-empting your reaction to this but I think the 'rich kid whinging' judgement that you've run with means this debate never makes it past the first hurdle.

[slackline]

I realise that there is a hint of disgruntlement in the tone of my last one and I'm pre-empting your reaction to this but I think the 'rich kid whinging' judgement that you've run with means this debate never makes it past the first hurdle.

Where exactly do you get the idea I've run with anything?

If you read very carefully what I've written you will see that what I've written is exactly what I mean.  Just to make it clear for you though...

I have said very clearly that there are a lot of ways in which "others" live.

Thats it, nothing more, nothing less.  If I had meant more or less than that I would have written it.

Seriously though, are you refuting their effect on British society?

Again, read what I've written.  I made no comment on the effect what you are highlighting has on British society.  If I had wanted to comment then I would have done so rather than not writing anything.

EDIT : Now clear that it wasn't directed at me.

[Russell_B]

Sorry, meant to quote Sloper.  Read what you'd written clearly.

[Sloper]

You've just reminded me that we didn't have a fives court at mine. Only racquets! Another thing to be pissed at Mummy and Daddy for.

Seriously though, are you refuting their effect on British society?  I realise that there is a hint of disgruntlement in the tone of my last one and I'm pre-empting your reaction to this but I think the 'rich kid whinging' judgement that you've run with means this debate never makes it past the first hurdle.

What about nanny, surely she's not blameless?

As for there being any meaningful effect on British society; yes I am refuting that suggestion. There may have been some merit in positing that in say 1850, but in modern society I'd say that there is no discernable effect either positive or malign.

Whether this aspect of the debate has sufficient legs to clear the first hurdle or otherwise is contingent on you having something meangingful to contribute: thus far you haven't gone beyond a vey limp version of Dave Spart, in fact are you sure you're not Tristram Hunt?

[Russell_B]

I've been told there is some physical resemblance with Tristram Hunt. 

Despite the earlier bashing, I think Cameron is an interesting character and agree with some of his policies.  Bucking the family schooling tradition by electing to send his kids to state school does raise an eyebrow surely? Can't just be a political move to show support for state schools?

I would agree that the debate against is supported 'softly' (psychology theory and practice loosely backed by neuroscience, an emergent science at that) but I think that public perception is generally swaying against them as an idea and that this will bring a change (perhaps an extension of the abuse scandals that the schools feature heavily in).

Anyway, like I said, just testing the waters. Continues to draw out strong feelings on both sides with this chat being pretty tame compared to online newspaper commentary.

[Oldmanmatt]

Public schools are a hangover from the days before state education.
A time when the best an "Ordinary" person could hope for was to learn to read, write and practice a trade.
Now, the gamut of knowledge is available to Joe Prole, should he/she/it have the wit and grit to seek it.

The idea that Public school boys (and it's still mainly boys) are somehow more intelligent and better able to lead is crap (hence their declining numbers in the worlds military officer corps, except infantry).

There may once have been an intellect gap, I'd posit that that  was principally the result of poor diet in the poor; is that really still true?

The self proclaimed "Elite" are only such, because they say so and have yet to lose the reins by virtue of wealth and prior positioning.

I would hypothesise the rise of the Meritocracy is inevitable, albeit something that will take many generations to come to full fruition and suffer reversals along the way.

Vive la Science!

Up the Evidence based revolution!

Long live the Enlightened Proportionally Represented Democratic Republic!

Power to the Educated Peoples Front!

[Sloper]

The point about diet is a very good one the ante natal 'lifestyle' choices of the mother are perhaps more so? (foetal alochol/drugs syndrome is almost solely found in the lower socio economic groups regardless of how you describe them).

I would suggest that in addition to diet the most important factor in educational outcomes is the parents expectations and aspirations which are predominantly a cultural factor: hence we see children from south asian backgrounds outperforming other groups (when all other factors are taken into consideration) by enormous amounts.

As for your point about the education available to the 'ordinary folk) from memory something like 80% of children were in school until the age of 13 in early victorian times and the state's involvement in education in what 1870 or so probably resulted in a massive increase in the penetration of education.

The 'elite' are the elite for a number of reasons: there are far fewer impediments to achieving the elite status, their parents inculcate them with the idea that they will succeed, the educational opportunities are far superior and of course the 'old school tie' and OB network open doors that remain closed to others.

Of these the last is becoming more vestigial now than ever before but sadly for 'the masses' the impediments are growing, the 'aspiration' of parents is withering and the quality of schooling is stagnating.

[slackline]

Tho-mas himself:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2014/07/thomas-piketty-history-money

Great video

Radio 4 : More or Less - The Piketty Affair

[andy popp]

An interesting article from the Boston Globe on the links between past slavery and current inequality:

ww.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2014/08/23/where-slavery-thrived-inequality-rules-today/iF5zgFsXncPoYmYCMMs67J/story.html

Much of the detail is specific to the case of the US but the general argument about the persistent, long-run effect of historical institutions on current economic structures/outcomes is one worth considering in the UK context too.

[andy popp]

C'mon Toby, there's clearly no attempt to claim a history of sugar plantations explains all examples of inequality/immobility. Besides, Alaska has clearly had a heavy reliance on extractive industries that might induce similar effects (e.g. not much need to invest in human capital/social capital). I wouldn't even be surprised if there is a history of indentured labour in Alaskan mining/logging etc., though that is speculation on my part.

The article is review of hypotheses advanced by a number of different people and readily admits to the possible critiques. Anyway, I was much more interested in the broader point of the historical legacies of prior institutions - for example patterns of land ownership here in the UK might be explored.

[andy popp]

I think we found the same reference (and there was clearly also use of indentured labour in 'European' Alaska as well)

However, no matter how far from the romantic ideal the native peoples were they still got totally, royally fucked over by the Europeans. But still off topic.

[AndyR]

Actually I googled slavery in Alaska and was rather shocked to uncover reference to the indigenous people having some tradition of enslaving each other. This cannot possibly be true of the equivalent folk across the border in western Canada as it is a truth universally acknowledged that our First Nations' history comprises millennia of sustainable and tranquil harmony with the universe until the rapacious Europeans arrived.

 

Obvs being sarcastic, but there's a very strong tradition of completing raiding parties of neighbouring 'nations' to murder key people and capture dozens of slaves - who would then be kept until they snuffed it/became favoured/were released in next raiding attempt - this is very well documented in north of BC (especially Tsimshian and Coast Tsimshian) but I'm not sure how prevalent it was across rest of province/canuckada. It's not hidden as such, but is a part of FN life that Ont-based bleeding heart guilt-ridden types don't like to discuss...

[Sasquatch]

Is Alaska (shown as one of the worst areas for low economic mobility in the chart in that article) famous for its slave-owning past? Certainly not a great choice for a sugar plantation, judging from my personal experience of the pacific north-west climate. Sasquatch: able to help here?

I can state with a high degree of certainty that Alaska is indeed not a great choice for a sugar plantation.

As far as historic slavery/servitude amongst the native peoples, Ive never heard about it or researched it, but common sense would indicate that it likely occured amongst different groups at one time or another.  Much like the rest of the known world. 

In regards to the inequality issue here in Alaska and the relative comparison to Canada's FN people, Alaska has a very different relationship with native Alaskan's compared to almost any other state/province.  Here are a couple of links to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, which set the stage for a completely different system in Alaska. 

http://www.ciri.com/our-corporation/
http://www.nativefederation.org/about-afn/history/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Native_Claims_Settlement_Act

One item that is certainly not shown/reflected in the graphic showing Alaska is the relative impact of subsistance lifestyle, which is common in the red area of Alaska. 

All that aside, one point made by the article that I feel does fit Alaska is the importance of public infrastructure, and the availability of those resources.  The "corporations" put in place by the ANCSA forced a certain amount of democracy onto the native populations, as everyone was automatically an equal shareholder.  This meant that while there was a lingering impact from native cutoms and hereditary power structures, there was a counter measure in place to balance it over time.  While the road has been rocky, and certain native groups have done much better than others, the overall view is that the ANCSA path has been extremely successful when compared to other areas in the US and canada. 

[Sasquatch]

"More specifically, they observed that regions where sugar could be profitably grown invariably gave rise to societies defined by extreme inequality. The reason, they speculated, had to do with the fact that large-scale sugar plantations made intensive use of slave labor, generating institutions that privileged a small elite of white planters over a majority of black slaves."

I was rereading this thread and this statement popped out at me as not feeling quite right.  It seems to me when I think about public infrastructure and institutions, the opposite of the bold is the case.  Other areas developed institutions and infrastructure which benefitted everyone, whereas the plantation system did not develop these institutions, thereby leaving the people without mobility/access to education behind. 

[andy popp]

That's how I read what the article is saying?

[Sloper]

One of the key themes in 'Why Nations Fail' is the development of institutions that benefit everyone i.e. fair and open Courts lead to development and greater equality and those jurisdictions that develop institutions that are not inclusive lead to retarded development, poverty and greater inequality.

[andy popp]

This has been well established or a long time (see Douglass North especially). A key question then is: are our institutions becoming more or less fair and open?

[Sloper]

When you say 'our' I will consider England & Wales as I cannot comment on the institutions in Scotland or Northern Ireland.

My view is that it's rather hard to tell: while the foundation or rules of the institutions have not changed there are a significant number of real barriers to accessing the institutions which make them significantly less open to participants who are not, in essence either rich, middle class or connected ((perhaps also white other than in areas like Tower Hamlets etc), see Eyes passim))

There's also a question of the 'penetration' into political institutions (see the 'family' connections in the nominations for a leading national party, and more prevalent in local government (less a one party issue)) including the civil service and the gross under representation of, however you wish to describe them 'the working class'.

All of the above are problematic but these problems do not necessarily mean that the outcomes of the institutions are likely to become closer to the institutions of bygone ages: my answer is no, they are not becoming less open or fair, they may be less trusted and less representative of the communities they serve but that is another matter entirely.

[andy popp]

Interesting answer to a complex question. I don't have an answer myself but certainly the impression a lay person get is that access to the law is becoming less and less open, for example.

It is interesting that you highlight both the value of unchanging foundations and that current problematics won't necessarily lead us back to the institutions of a bygone age. I think 'we' (the English I suppose) are never quite sure whether our historic institutions are help or hindrance.

[Sloper]

Better discussed over a pint, however, there's a massive different between the rules and practices of an institution and how 'the game' is played: for example the practices of Parliament will not be altered by the parachuting in of the grand-daughter of the late Tony Benn, the son of Kinnock (or the son of Tim Yeo for that matter),similarly the Judiciary is drawn from the Bar, and the current situation in effect makes the criminal bar the preserve of the rich and 'banker's wifes' i.e. those that can sacrifice salary for principles, the effect in say 25 years time will be that the Judiciary has reverted to a stereotype from a bygone age.

None of these things are bad per se, but all these things do damage public confidence and that in and of itself is 'a bad thing'.

[andy popp]

Better discussed over a pint, however, there's a massive different between the rules and practices of an institution and how 'the game' is played:

Absolutely. Very much what I was alluding to. And of course privilege gives the power to entrench privilege.