Uk is a backwards aristocratic society

Ik it really isn't but is sure does feel like were in a feudal lord and peasant system.

It just doesn't have that meritocratic feel

Reply 1

Shrek2onDVD

3

yeah i really agree. The class system still shows as whole generations are stuck in lower 'classes' with lack of oppertunity. also it dosnt help that the leaders have not a clue what the people want

Reply 2

Napp

22

You are aware of British history right? Obviously the aristocratic basis to it is going to shine through compared to a country that didn't have it. Then again., as all countries have comparable systems its not very strange.

Reply 3

Entrepreneur.

OP

11

Original post by Shrek2onDVD

yeah i really agree. The class system still shows as whole generations are stuck in lower 'classes' with lack of oppertunity. also it dosnt help that the leaders have not a clue what the people want

Shrek2onDVD from .me

Reply 4

Entrepreneur.

OP

11

Original post by Napp

You are aware of British history right? Obviously the aristocratic basis to it is going to shine through compared to a country that didn't have it. Then again., as all countries have comparable systems its not very strange.

Duhh ofc it's just a bit comical how cultural movements like the enlightenment were supposed to get rid of all that but it's still prevalent and technically I think every society has a mix of both but in britain where your born, the school you go to and the way you communicate and accent have an effect on your chance of success in life meanwhile in America you could be born in the middle of nowhere in alabama and still end up wealthy.

I think Americas meritocratic system is truly amplified through their school system britain needs a change

(edited 6 months ago)

Reply 5

Napp

22

Original post by Entrepreneur.

Duhh ofc it's just a bit comical how cultural movements like the enlightenment were supposed to get rid of all that but it's still prevalent and technically I think every society has a mix of both but in britain where your born, the school you go to and the way you communicate and accent have an effect on your chance of success in life meanwhile in America you could be born in the middle of nowhere in alabama and still end up wealthy.

I think Americas meritocratic system is truly amplified through their school system britain needs a change

I think you have an overly flattering view of America if you really think thats the case. America might not have Lords and Ladies but to say that it doesn't have a modern iteration of anaristocraticc system is, well, about as wrong as its possible to be. Your university, place of birth, wealth (and indeed accent) absolutely influence what opportunities you have in life. a poor black from Mississippi who didn't go to Harvard has diddly squat chance of going anywhere in life compared to a WASP from up state NY.

Simply put, America does not have a meritocratic system. In some cases merit will help you and you can make something of yourself but they remain the exception to the rule for the majority. Merely look to the racial and economic divides. Not to mention how the inner city will screw most for life.

Reply 6

Miss Pulford

10

Op appears to be confusing wealth and class ( as we see with the likes of assocation footballists or someone like Charlie Mullins) and is fantasising about the USA

Reply 7

hotpud

18

Original post by Entrepreneur.

Ik it really isn't but is sure does feel like were in a feudal lord and peasant system.

It just doesn't have that meritocratic feel

Do you think this statement really sums up nearly 70 million people?

Reply 8

SoonToBeExpat

16

We're not a backwards society don't be foolish. But we do have an ingnorent, out of touch and selfish political class. I would also include the civil service in that grouping.

Original post by SoonToBeExpat

We're not a backwards society don't be foolish. But we do have an ingnorent, out of touch and selfish political class. I would also include the civil service in that grouping.

If the political class (e.g. ruling party) and civil service have generally been at odds with each other over the last decade, and have generally disagreed over policies, are they both selfish and out of touch?

Reply 10

Napp

22

Original post by SoonToBeExpat

We're not a backwards society don't be foolish. But we do have an ingnorent, out of touch and selfish political class. I would also include the civil service in that grouping.

Have you ever even met a civil servant?

Reply 11

Napp

22

Original post by BenRyan99

If the political class (e.g. ruling party) and civil service have generally been at odds with each other over the last decade, and have generally disagreed over policies, are they both selfish and out of touch?

Does raise an interesting question as to what being 'in touch' means if both extremes are considered out of touch

Original post by Napp

Have you ever even met a civil servant?

Yes, I worked for a short time at both HMT and the BoE.

Did I think all their approaches to policymaking was fantastic? No. Did I think that some individuals were a bit out of touch? Yes. Do I think this means it's fair to characterise the civil service as a whole as out of touch? No.

Honestly, most people are just normal people who sacrifice higher private sector salaries so that they can work in politics because they find it interesting, plus a bit of public spirit. Sure, you can argue that those in central government departments might not be representative of the average UK person, but that's probably looking at the issue backwards.

Reply 13

Rakas21

21

Original post by BenRyan99

If the political class (e.g. ruling party) and civil service have generally been at odds with each other over the last decade, and have generally disagreed over policies, are they both selfish and out of touch?

The role of the civil service is to enforce the will of the executive upon the country, not to block policy themselves.

As much as i am dismayed by the current executive, the civil service in departments like the Home Office have been pretty appalling, not to mention their hatched job on the likes of Raab and Patel (telling somebody they are bad at their job is poor management, not an offense).

Original post by Rakas21

The role of the civil service is to enforce the will of the executive upon the country, not to block policy themselves.

As much as i am dismayed by the current executive, the civil service in departments like the Home Office have been pretty appalling, not to mention their hatched job on the likes of Raab and Patel (telling somebody they are bad at their job is poor management, not an offense).

Unfortunately, things are quite as black and white as this in practice. The role of the civil service is to support the government in developing and implementing policy. Note, this is different to enforcing the will of the government. And the difference lies in the grey areas where a Minister's command requires a civil servant to breach the civil service code, do something that means the minister breaches their own ministerial code, or do something that is against current UK law.

Beyond this, there are several areas where it's natural to see things in the civil service code (e.g. 'basing advice and policy on rigorous analysis of evidence that delivers value for money') can come into conflict with ministerial commands, such as if the latter wants to push through a certain policy or action, without necessary due diligence and VfM scoping.

This is not to say that some civil servants don't go overboard with this, and some definitely do, but you get people like that in every big organisation. Moreover, these things are more likely to arise the more fractured the relationship between Ministers and their department gets. But it's worth thinking about how some of these issues aren't as clear cut as they appear from the outside, a civil servants job isn't to just do whatever a minister tells them to do. And to me, this doesn't justify the notion that the civil service as a whole, is out of touch.

I also think there's a risk you're sugar coating some of the recent breaches of the ministerial code. Taking your Raab example, I'd agree that telling their bad at their job isn't bullying. However, that's describing what happened lightly. Using actual quotes from the independent inquiry below shows this:

"Mr Raab acted in a way which was intimidating, in the sense of unreasonably and persistently aggressive".

"His conduct also involved an abuse or misuse of power in a way that undermines or humiliates"

You can't honestly tell me that the independent report's findings were limited to "telling people they were bad at their job". The ministerial code is there for a reason, just as the civil service code is, hopefully in the future both sides can adhere to them more closely.

(edited 4 months ago)

Uk is a backwards aristocratic society

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you