Labour would fast-track working-class and ethnic minority applicants to top of civil service

Hundreds more people from working-class backgrounds and ethnic minorities will be fast-tracked into senior civil service jobs under a Labour government in an attempt to end the white upper-class dominance of Whitehall. Higher diversity targets will be set in Labour's manifesto, the shadow Cabinet Office minister Michael Dugher will announce this week,

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-would-fasttrack-workingclass-and-ethnic-minority-applicants-to-top-of-civil-service-9241177.html

That'll end well.

They just don't understand that in their quest for 'equality', they are making things less equal!


I want people doing top jobs based on merit, not theis ethnic background.

Tesstacious wrote:Hundreds more people from working-class backgrounds and ethnic minorities will be fast-tracked into senior civil service jobs under a Labour government in an attempt to end the white upper-class dominance of Whitehall.  Higher diversity targets will be set in Labour's manifesto, the shadow Cabinet Office minister Michael Dugher will announce this week,

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-would-fasttrack-workingclass-and-ethnic-minority-applicants-to-top-of-civil-service-9241177.html

That'll end well.

That is exactly what they did when they had 'women only' lists of candidates for MPs in a set number of constituences. To begin with there were howls of derision. Now the prejudice has been broken, women Labour candidates are completely accepted and they don't need the 'women only' lists anymore. That's why Labour have so many more women MPs than the Conservatives. It broke down the prejudice and did the job it was designed to do.

Oh yes, I remember!


Harriet harmam was all in favour of those all women short lists, until it was going to be applied to her husband jack droney's seat, then funnily enough, she wasn't so keen...!



Many women don't want all women short lists either as they want to be selected because they are good, not for being female and just making up the numbers.


Only a true sexist would think they were a good idea.


I thought we lived in an equal society and a meritocracy.

Tommy Monk wrote:Oh yes, I remember!


Harriet harmam was all in favour of those all women short lists, until it was going to be applied to her husband jack droney's seat, then funnily enough, she wasn't so keen...!



Many women don't want all women short lists either as they want to be selected because they are good, not for being female and just making up the numbers.


Only a true sexist would think they were a good idea.


I thought we lived in an equal society and a meritocracy.

They don't have them anymore, they don't need them, they have done their job and broken down the prejudice. The Conservatives on the other hand are still living in a previous century, hence:

The Tory case for all-women shortlists
Feb 12 2014

Within a few years the Tory Party will almost certainly have adopted all-women shortlists to select parliamentary candidates. Opinion is changing at great speed on this issue, at least among those Tories who have given any thought to it.
Related Articles

Cameron’s North-West Frontier
Julia Manning: Can Saint Simon rescue the NHS?
Boris is back on top in our future leader poll – just. And Osborne’s support nearly doubles.
Charlotte Leslie MP: Why it’s wrong to look down on stay-at-home mothers
Alastair McNair: Why Cameron should not be so certain about death and tax cuts

Ed Miliband’s jibes at Prime Minister’s Questions last Wednesday have had the useful effect of drawing attention to the question. The Labour leader waved at the row of ministers facing him and said:

“A picture tells a thousand words. Look at the all-male front bench ranged before us.”

My first thought was that in Miliband’s case, a picture tells two thousand words (a joke borrowed from Tom Stoppard’s play Night and Day). The second thought was that Miliband was being un-prime-ministerial, a view confirmed when he went on to say:

“I guess they did not let women in to the Bullingdon Club either, so there we go.”

Miliband uses the Tories’ shortage of women to make cheap cracks: a displacement activity which helps him avoid talking about the economy, a subject on which he has nothing to say. But my third thought was that for reasons which have nothing to do with the Labour leader, it would be a good thing to go on increasing the number of Conservative women MPs.

No one knows more about this subject than Anne Jenkin (now Lady Jenkin of Kennington). In 2005 she launched the Women2Win campaign with Theresa May, in order to get more women into Parliament, and she still chairs it. This has made an enormous contribution to the rapid increase in the number of Conservative women MPs, from 17 at the 2005 general election to 49 in 2010.

But when Louise Mensch left Westminster for New York, that number fell to 48, and there is now a sense that the campaign has lost momentum, and that Cameron has other things to think about. One factor, as I reported for ConHome in November, it that it is in some ways even harder for a woman to enjoy, or at least tolerate, parliamentary life than it is for a man, so the attrition rate among women is higher.

Jenkin recognises the danger that the Conservatives will have fewer women MPs after May 2015, and insists that something will have to be done if this happens: “If we end up with fewer women MPs after the election I think the Conservative Party should be prepared to look at all the options and consider more radical measures, including all-women selections. Complacency isn’t an option.”

http://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2014/02/the-tory-case-for-all-women-shortlists.html

Quite a long and interesting article actually.

Sassy wrote:

Tesstacious wrote:Hundreds more people from working-class backgrounds and ethnic minorities will be fast-tracked into senior civil service jobs under a Labour government in an attempt to end the white upper-class dominance of Whitehall.  Higher diversity targets will be set in Labour's manifesto, the shadow Cabinet Office minister Michael Dugher will announce this week,

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-would-fasttrack-workingclass-and-ethnic-minority-applicants-to-top-of-civil-service-9241177.html

That'll end well.

That is exactly what they did when they had 'women only' lists of candidates for MPs in a set number of constituences.   To begin with there were howls of derision.   Now the prejudice has been broken, women Labour candidates are completely accepted and they don't need the 'women only' lists anymore.   That's why Labour have so many more women MPs than the Conservatives.   It broke down the prejudice and did the job it was designed to do.

That's because the women were intelligent enough to do the job anyway and the only reason they didn't get appointed was because of sexism. This is a different ballgame, we'll get under-achievers and people who just aren't up to the task.

Tesstacious wrote:

Sassy wrote:

That is exactly what they did when they had 'women only' lists of candidates for MPs in a set number of constituences.   To begin with there were howls of derision.   Now the prejudice has been broken, women Labour candidates are completely accepted and they don't need the 'women only' lists anymore.   That's why Labour have so many more women MPs than the Conservatives.   It broke down the prejudice and did the job it was designed to do.

That's because the women were intelligent enough to do the job anyway and the only reason they didn't get appointed was because of sexism.  This is a different ballgame, we'll get under-achievers and people who just aren't up to the task.  

What! You think working class people etc are under achievers? The reason why there is a monopoly on top jobs in the public service is the old boy's network. That doesn't just work against women, it works against anyone who hasn't been to the 'right' school or come from the 'right' background.

Well in a world where all are equal, does it really matter if an MP is male or female?
As long as they can do the job properly?
Like I said, I want a system where it is based on merit.
And a policy of women only, black only or Asian only etc is discrimination.
P.S. don't forget Tory are the Only party in history to have a female leader and prime minister....!

Yes, it matters. Read the article and you will see why it matters. Women are dropping the Conservatives like a hot brick because they can see how entrenched their sexism is. And women get pretty fed up of the way Conservative men conduct themselves in the HOC. The more it is televised the more fed up they get.

Women like you Sassy.


Women who prefer to be patronized by being included as a token gesture.....


But this thread is not about make female selection, it is about top jobs in civil service being given out to people by ethnicity.

Positive discrimination, always worked well in the past yes?!

Tommy Monk wrote:Women like you Sassy.


Women who prefer to be patronized by being included as a token gesture.....


But this thread is not about make female selection, it is about top jobs in civil service being given out to people by ethnicity.

They weren't patronised, they were given a chance that they would not have been given before due to discrimination against them and showed themselves to be well up to the job.   Exactly what will happen with working class and minority applicants.   Someone has to break the hold the old school network has.

Do you think the men who are given the jobs simply because of the school they went to have been patronised? And do you think this should continue? Or do you think they should be chosen because of their ability, because that isn't happening at the moment.

Sassy wrote:

Tesstacious wrote:
That's because the women were intelligent enough to do the job anyway and the only reason they didn't get appointed was because of sexism.  This is a different ballgame, we'll get under-achievers and people who just aren't up to the task.  

What!   You think working class people etc are under achievers?   The reason why there is a monopoly on top jobs in the public service is the old boy's network.  That doesn't just work against women, it works against anyone who hasn't been to the 'right' school or come from the 'right' background.

That never used to be the case before they abolished grammar schools! But then the working classes got the jobs through endeavour and being up to the task, not through being patronised.

Tesstacious wrote:

Sassy wrote:

What!   You think working class people etc are under achievers?   The reason why there is a monopoly on top jobs in the public service is the old boy's network.  That doesn't just work against women, it works against anyone who hasn't been to the 'right' school or come from the 'right' background.

That never used to be the case before they abolished grammar schools!  But then the working classes got the jobs through endeavour and being up to the task, not through being patronised.  

Sorry Tess, that is rubbish. They never got the jobs then either, the number of working class people in the higher echelons of public service is minimal, and always has been, the public school system saw to that.

Sassy wrote:

Tesstacious wrote:

That never used to be the case before they abolished grammar schools!  But then the working classes got the jobs through endeavour and being up to the task, not through being patronised.  

Sorry Tess, that is rubbish.   They never got the jobs then either, the number of working class people in the higher echelons of public service is minimal, and always has been, the public school system saw to that.

WHAT?!! Rubbish?  Harold Wilson, Ted Heath, Margaret Thatcher, John Major... they were Prime Ministers that I know off-hand went to grammar schools.  Loads of MPs and such in the past.. Michael Howard... even my own cousins who went to grammar school went on to having very important jobs; one was a diplomat in the Foreign Office... I don't know what to google to get examples, but there must be loads!

And grammar schools were making a big impact on it.
Nobody should be given a top job just because they are black/asian.
Set job criteria and qualification levels by all means, but no racist agenda!

Another reason NOT to vote labour!!!!

Jesus we have MORE than enough incompetent "civil servants" as it is WITHOUT promoting underqualified half wits to senior posts based merely on their ethnic background or socio-economic class.

Looks like labour is desperate to finish the job this time round..

AND..as for the "ethnic" question...If they are an ethnic minority, then they should be a minortity in those positions.

Tommy Monk wrote:And grammar schools were making a big impact on it.
Nobody should be given a top job just because they are black/asian.
Set job criteria and qualification levels by all means, but no racist agenda!

Works well in the US....

http://www.newsfixboard.com/t3708-texas-commissioner-thinks-black-hole-is-a-racist-term

 ://?roflmao?/: 

Tesstacious wrote:

Sassy wrote:

Sorry Tess, that is rubbish.   They never got the jobs then either, the number of working class people in the higher echelons of public service is minimal, and always has been, the public school system saw to that.

WHAT?!! Rubbish?  Harold Wilson, Ted Heath, Margaret Thatcher, John Major... they were Prime Ministers that I know off-hand went to grammar schools.  Loads of MPs and such in the past... even my own cousins who went to grammar school went on to having very important jobs; one was a diplomat in the Foreign Office... I don't know what to google to get examples, but there must be loads!

Ted Heath etc were MPs, and thats not the subject of the proposal.

Found this.   The top civil servants have nearly always, in the great majority, come from Oxford and Cambridge, and they in their turn, have until very recently, recruited the majority of their students from public schools:

In a historical sociology perspective, two other explanations seem to be more
convincing. The first deals with the historical relationship between the institutionalization of the civil service and the reform and consolidation of Oxford and Cambridge universities in the 19th century. Indeed, this period is a time of reform for the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, after a period of decline in prestige marked by problems of discipline in the context of the development of other types of universities in the United Kingdom, especially oriented toward research and the production of knowledge rather than to the transmission of classical humanities (Vernon, 2004: 9-50). Concomitantly, the recruitment of civil servants
among the graduates of these universities was progressively organised, first through the constitution of administrative networks of patronage and then through the
institutionalization of the “open competition” as recruitment process for the civil service. As put forward by Keraudren, the “integration experience” and the institutionalization of “open competition” did not mean the end of cooptation but rather its transformation from a political to an administrative type (Keraudren, 1994: 69-78). Indeed, the institutionalization of the civil service as a separate sector cannot be separated from the necessity to secure the source of an elitist recruitment. Some crucial actors in the reforms of Universities, such as
Benjamin Jowett at Balliol College, Oxford, were also involved in administrative reforms matter and contributed to build the Oxbridge quasi-monopoly over graduates’ recruitment in the civil service (Vernon, 2004 : 41-47). Conversely, major administrative actors, often themselves with an Oxbridge background, looked towards these prestigious universities as 5the most desirable source of recruitment for the state: Gladstone wrote in a letter to Lord
The British “generalist”, having studied “Greats” in Oxford, or mathematics in Cambrid
ge, is thus likely to be the product of the historical “trade-off” between Oxbridge universities and the civil service and of the mutual reinforcement of the traditional links between these institutions.

http://oxpo.politics.ox.ac.uk/working_papers/wp_08-09/OXPO_WP08-09b_Gally.pdf

Sassy wrote:

Tesstacious wrote:
WHAT?!! Rubbish?  Harold Wilson, Ted Heath, Margaret Thatcher, John Major... they were Prime Ministers that I know off-hand went to grammar schools.  Loads of MPs and such in the past... even my own cousins who went to grammar school went on to having very important jobs; one was a diplomat in the Foreign Office... I don't know what to google to get examples, but there must be loads!

Ted Heath etc were MPs, and thats not the subject of the proposal.

Found this.   The top civil servants have nearly always, in the great majority, come from Oxford and Cambridge, and they in their turn, have until very recently, recruited the majority of their students from public schools:

In a historical sociology perspective, two other explanations seem to be more
convincing. The first deals with the historical relationship between the institutionalization of the civil service and the reform and consolidation of Oxford and Cambridge universities in the 19th century. Indeed, this period is a time of reform for the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, after a period of decline in prestige marked by problems of discipline in the context of the development of other types of universities in the United Kingdom, especially oriented toward research and the production of knowledge rather than to the transmission of classical humanities (Vernon, 2004: 9-50). Concomitantly, the recruitment of civil servants
among the graduates of these universities was progressively organised, first through the constitution of administrative networks of patronage and then through the
institutionalization of the “open competition” as recruitment process for the civil service. As put forward by Keraudren, the “integration experience” and the institutionalization of “open competition” did not mean the end of cooptation but rather its transformation from a political to an administrative type (Keraudren, 1994: 69-78). Indeed, the institutionalization of the civil service as a separate sector cannot be separated from the necessity to secure the source of an elitist recruitment. Some crucial actors in the reforms of Universities, such as
Benjamin Jowett at Balliol College, Oxford, were also involved in administrative reforms matter and contributed to build the Oxbridge quasi-monopoly over graduates’ recruitment in the civil service (Vernon, 2004 : 41-47). Conversely, major administrative actors, often themselves with an Oxbridge background, looked towards these prestigious universities as 5the most desirable source of recruitment for the state: Gladstone wrote in a letter to Lord
The British “generalist”, having studied “Greats” in Oxford, or mathematics in Cambrid
ge, is thus likely to be the product of the historical “trade-off” between Oxbridge universities and the civil service and of the mutual reinforcement of the traditional links between these institutions.

http://oxpo.politics.ox.ac.uk/working_papers/wp_08-09/OXPO_WP08-09b_Gally.pdf

I don't get the relevance - Oxford and Cambridge are universities. A lot of the people mentioned in your link who went there could easily have got places at Oxford from grammar schools - as in my own family's case as I've said - and we were working class.

I didn't say that no state school pupils got to Oxford and Cambridge, but a lot more public school pupils do, with the same A level results:

Just five schools in England sent more pupils to Oxford and Cambridge over three years than nearly 2,000 others combined, researchers have found.

The Sutton Trust charity said its school-by-school data on university entry showed "stark" differences.

BBC analysis of the data shows private schools often get more pupils into selective universities than state schools with similar results do.

Universities called for more freedom in offering places to bright state pupils.

The Sutton Trust has, for the first time, combined individual schools' A-level results with data from the university admissions body Ucas.

Its table shows, by individual school, what percentage of pupils went forward into higher education in general, and what percentage went to a list of 30 universities the charity considers "highly selective".

Four independent schools - Eton, Westminster, St Paul's Boys and St Paul's Girls - and state-funded Hills Road Sixth Form College in Cambridge, together sent 946 pupils to Oxford and Cambridge between 2007 and 2009.

By contrast, 2,000 lower-performing schools combined sent a total of 927 students to the two elite universities, getting less than 6% of available places, the Sutton Trust found.

Many of these schools sent no pupils at all, or on average fewer than one per year.

The BBC used the data to compare schools with similar average A-level points against each other, and found that the figures suggested a gap remained between independent and state schools' university admissions.

For example, among schools where pupils achieved an average of 801-850 A-level points each (900 is equivalent to three A grades), 26% of the comprehensive school pupils went on to the selective universities, compared with 45% of the independent school pupils.

And for schools with 851-900 A-level points per student, 50% of independent school pupils got places at the selective universities, while only 32% of comprehensive pupils did.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-14069516

Nobody should be given a top job for being black/asian any more than somebody should be denied the job for the same reasons.
That is equality.

Until the prejudice cycle is broken they will continue to be denied the job.   Doesn't take long to break it, as soon as people see them being their as 'normal' the positive discrimination is no longer required.

Oh, BTW, the way positive discrimation works is for people to be given the job, not just because they are black/asian, but because they are black/asian and have the qualifications and potential to do the job well.

Discrimination is discrimination.

I want the best qualified and able to do the top jobs.


I don't want people discriminated against because they are not black/asian.




You go on about unfairness etc, lien wish to impose exactly that!


Two wrongs don't make a right.

yep, exactly what men said when they had all women shortlists, but it worked and they now don't need them in the Labour Party.

The shortlists will contain people suitably qualified and as soon as the numbers are normalised, they won't be needed anymore. At the moment we have all white shortlists when there are suitably qualified people from other ethnic groups.

I think that you will find that the reality is somewhat different sassy...
labour STOPPED it because it was costing them seats...

because people like me voted against them ..NOT for having a woman MP BUT for deselecting sitting male MP's and "parachuting in" women...to meet their "quota" I wasnt abot to vote for an MP...male OR female tyhat was broughtin from outside the "area" who had no, and often conflicting ideals, to the people he/she represented...

parachuting in an MP is OK in the short term to replace one who has died/resigned at short notice/ no longer functioning.....BUT NOT to meet some political agenda...

This is the same.....equality? :aspffftas: some or clearly more equal than others...

victorisnotamused wrote:I think that you will find that the reality is somewhat different sassy...
labour STOPPED it because it was costing them seats...

because people like me voted against them ..NOT for having a woman MP BUT for deselecting sitting male MP's and "parachuting in" women...to meet their "quota"  I wasnt abot to vote for an MP...male OR female tyhat was broughtin from outside the "area" who had no, and often conflicting ideals, to the people he/she represented...

parachuting in an MP is OK in the short term to replace one who has died/resigned at short notice/ no longer functioning.....BUT NOT to meet some political agenda...

This is the same.....equality? :aspffftas: some or clearly more equal than others...

No they didn't, that's why they have more women MPs than the Conservatives.   Yes, at the moment, some are far more equal than others, that's why it needs to be done, especially in the case of working class candidates of all colours.

Is it fair, right and proper that that graduates are more likely to be fast tracked in the civil service if they attended Eton I Westminster and an Oxbridge uni, regardless of experience and qualifications; over another, regardless of colour , creed and education who is vastly better qualified, experienced and demonstrably more able?
In today's Civil service; a posh background and posh schooling still counts.
A posh surname, preferably double barrelled such as Ponsonby-Carruthers helps too.

Tesstacious wrote:Hundreds more people from working-class backgrounds and ethnic minorities will be fast-tracked into senior civil service jobs under a Labour government in an attempt to end the white upper-class dominance of Whitehall.  Higher diversity targets will be set in Labour's manifesto, the shadow Cabinet Office minister Michael Dugher will announce this week,

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-would-fasttrack-workingclass-and-ethnic-minority-applicants-to-top-of-civil-service-9241177.html

That'll end well.

  

LAST TIME I looked the so-called "working class" demographic was still in the majority in Britain...

AT well over 60% of your population..


So, Tess' has produced yet another of her usual bulldust headlines on here ?   

What has 60% of the population got to do with the number in top civil service jobs????      

Well it can't be any worse than the old school tie brigade or people getting the top jobs because of who they know. Look at Cameron's advisors in No. 10 several of whom are old members of the Bully club?

I see nothing wrong in sending out a message to young working class or ethnic kids at school that they shouldn't feel excluded from getting on in public life and if they have the will and the desire to do so then they will get help to try and help them achieve that and succeed in a profession where you wouldn't normally expect them to end up.
I doubt very much that people will be appointed to lofty positions if they don't measure up to the requirements needed to compete and get the jobs.

The civil service already has an equal opportunities policy.


Awards of jobs should be based purely on ability and qualifications.

Sassy wrote:
What has 60% of the population got to do with the number in top civil service jobs????      

  

WHAT does the colour of one's tie or the plum in one's mouth have to do with it either ?

AND it seems that Sassy missed the point (as usual in her uncomely haste to attack her foes on here..) that my comment was also aimed at the way that the heading for this thread was so poorly worded !

Tommy Monk wrote:The civil service already has an equal opportunities policy.


Awards of jobs should be based purely on ability and qualifications.

Well at the moment, the majority of it is based on what school you go to, and has been for years, so you obviously don't want it to stay that way. This will ensure it doesn't.

Tommy Monk wrote:The civil service already has an equal opportunities policy.


Awards of jobs should be based purely on ability and qualifications.

Absolute bollx. The equal oppotunities part only applies to the minions. The higher echelons and fast trackers to senior management are almost entirely recruited through Oxbridge, the Masons and the old boys network.

I know you have anyone you perceive as posh and anyone who does better than you, but you don't have to be posh to go to oxford or Cambridge, or to get to the top.



"...Margaret Hilda Roberts... originally from Northamptonshire, and her mother was Beatrice Ethel (née Stephenson) from Lincolnshire.[2] She spent her childhood in Grantham, where her father owned two grocery shops. She and her older sister Muriel (1921–2004) were raised in the flat above the larger of the two, on North Parade near the railway line..."


She was the longest-serving British Prime Minister of the 20th century and is the only woman to have held the office.

I guess you can't read.  Nobody said that some state school pupils can't get into Oxbridge, just the minority, I'll repost for you to take in:

I didn't say that no state school pupils got to Oxford and Cambridge, but a lot more public school pupils do, with the same A level results:

Just five schools in England sent more pupils to Oxford and Cambridge over three years than nearly 2,000 others combined, researchers have found.

The Sutton Trust charity said its school-by-school data on university entry showed "stark" differences.

BBC analysis of the data shows private schools often get more pupils into selective universities than state schools with similar results do.

Universities called for more freedom in offering places to bright state pupils.

The Sutton Trust has, for the first time, combined individual schools' A-level results with data from the university admissions body Ucas.

Its table shows, by individual school, what percentage of pupils went forward into higher education in general, and what percentage went to a list of 30 universities the charity considers "highly selective".

Four independent schools - Eton, Westminster, St Paul's Boys and St Paul's Girls - and state-funded Hills Road Sixth Form College in Cambridge, together sent 946 pupils to Oxford and Cambridge between 2007 and 2009.

By contrast, 2,000 lower-performing schools combined sent a total of 927 students to the two elite universities, getting less than 6% of available places, the Sutton Trust found.

Many of these schools sent no pupils at all, or on average fewer than one per year.

The BBC used the data to compare schools with similar average A-level points against each other, and found that the figures suggested a gap remained between independent and state schools' university admissions.

For example, among schools where pupils achieved an average of 801-850 A-level points each (900 is equivalent to three A grades), 26% of the comprehensive school pupils went on to the selective universities, compared with 45% of the independent school pupils.

And for schools with 851-900 A-level points per student, 50% of independent school pupils got places at the selective universities, while only 32% of comprehensive pupils did.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-14069516

And note, that is for pupils with the same levels of exam results.

Tommy Monk wrote:I know you have anyone you perceive as posh and anyone who does better than you, but you don't have to be posh to go to oxford or Cambridge, or to get to the top.



"...Margaret Hilda Roberts... originally from Northamptonshire, and her mother was Beatrice Ethel (née Stephenson) from Lincolnshire.[2] She spent her childhood in Grantham, where her father owned two grocery shops. She and her older sister Muriel (1921–2004) were raised in the flat above the larger of the two, on North Parade near the railway line..."


She was the longest-serving British Prime Minister of the 20th century and is the only woman to have held the office.

She married Dennis Thatcher, and he had plenty of money!   

Heres a way of getting working class and ethnic minorities into the higher echelons of the civil service (and everywhere else for that matter)

Bring back selective education based on quality. Yes Grammar schools.

Of course that will mean dealing with the elephant in the room of the increased social mobility that was seen with selective education - namely that this generations working class that "make it" and reach the higher echelons are no longer working class - and neither are their children.

Tommy Monk wrote:I know you have anyone you perceive as posh and anyone who does better than you, but you don't have to be posh to go to oxford or Cambridge, or to get to the top.



"...Margaret Hilda Roberts... originally from Northamptonshire, and her mother was Beatrice Ethel (née Stephenson) from Lincolnshire.[2] She spent her childhood in Grantham, where her father owned two grocery shops. She and her older sister Muriel (1921–2004) were raised in the flat above the larger of the two, on North Parade near the railway line..."


She was the longest-serving British Prime Minister of the 20th century and is the only woman to have held the office.

BTW, I think you meant 'hate' not 'have', and that is hardly likely as I am perceived as being 'posh' myself.

What I hate is people given opportunities because of the old boy network, while people who deserve them are stopped from having them.

sphinx wrote:Heres a way of getting working class and ethnic minorities into the higher echelons of the civil service (and everywhere else for that matter)

Bring back selective education based on quality.  Yes Grammar schools.

Of course that will mean dealing with the elephant in the room of the increased social mobility that was seen with selective education - namely that this generations working class that "make it" and reach the higher echelons are no longer working class - and neither are their children.

That never made a jot of difference, the top civil servants were from public schools then.

My brother went to Oakham Public School and became Head Boy, because he passed his 11+ and it was the only school near with Grammar School status, so he got a bursary. I passed mine and went to Wymondham College, a state boarding Grammar School. We swopped tales over the years of how the school he went to opened doors for him, while his Ph.D, which was at Newcastle Uni, was looked down on, and how the two were counter productive in a lot of situations.

Yes this is an argument FOR grammar schools as far as I can see.
And pussyboy, doesn't change her upbringing.
And if you want posh and rich, you only have to look at some of the labour party MPs to find it.

Sassy wrote:

sphinx wrote:Heres a way of getting working class and ethnic minorities into the higher echelons of the civil service (and everywhere else for that matter)

Bring back selective education based on quality.  Yes Grammar schools.

Of course that will mean dealing with the elephant in the room of the increased social mobility that was seen with selective education - namely that this generations working class that "make it" and reach the higher echelons are no longer working class - and neither are their children.

That never made a jot of difference, the top civil servants were from public schools then.

Yes because it is totally impossible for anyone from a public school to have top class ability isnt it?

When the hell are we going to stop worrying about where a person came from and start focusing on what they can do? I really do not give a shit if my surgeon/MP/Chief Inspector/Head teacher came from a one parent council estate family or some massive family estate, whether they went to the crappiest school in Britain or Eton - all I care about is whether they are the best at their job.

Why do people insist believing that the only people with real talent must come from disadvantaged homes and that family money automatically rules out any possibility of brains.

Incidentally people might like to look up the study from the French National Institute for Demographic Studies published in European Sociological Review
which found that selective Grammar school systems had a less discriminatory outcome for children from poorer backgrounds than the comprehensive system used in this country.

Children from poor home fair better in a selective environment because they are encouraged to achieve.

Sassy wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:I know you have anyone you perceive as posh and anyone who does better than you, but you don't have to be posh to go to oxford or Cambridge, or to get to the top.
"...Margaret Hilda Roberts... originally from Northamptonshire, and her mother was Beatrice Ethel (née Stephenson) from Lincolnshire.[2] She spent her childhood in Grantham, where her father owned two grocery shops. She and her older sister Muriel (1921–2004) were raised in the flat above the larger of the two, on North Parade near the railway line..."
She was the longest-serving British Prime Minister of the 20th century and is the only woman to have held the office.

BTW, I think you meant 'hate' not 'have', and that is hardly likely as I am perceived as being 'posh' myself.
What I hate is people given opportunities because of the old boy network, while people who deserve them are stopped from having them.

Yes I did mean hate, bloody predictive text.
So you advocatea meritocracy then. Glad we agree!

sphinx wrote:

Sassy wrote:

That never made a jot of difference, the top civil servants were from public schools then.

Yes because it is totally impossible for anyone from a public school to have top class ability isnt it?

When the hell are we going to stop worrying about where a person came from and start focusing on what they can do?  I really do not give a shit if my surgeon/MP/Chief Inspector/Head teacher came from a one parent council estate family or some massive family estate, whether they went to the crappiest school in Britain or Eton  - all I care about is whether they are the best at their job.

Why do people insist believing that the only people with real talent must come from disadvantaged homes and that family money automatically rules out any possibility of brains.

Which is exactly what ISN'T happening now.

Sassy wrote:

sphinx wrote:

Yes because it is totally impossible for anyone from a public school to have top class ability isnt it?

When the hell are we going to stop worrying about where a person came from and start focusing on what they can do?  I really do not give a shit if my surgeon/MP/Chief Inspector/Head teacher came from a one parent council estate family or some massive family estate, whether they went to the crappiest school in Britain or Eton  - all I care about is whether they are the best at their job.

Why do people insist believing that the only people with real talent must come from disadvantaged homes and that family money automatically rules out any possibility of brains.

Which is exactly what ISN'T happening now.

Never claimed it was - I just object to the huge numbers of people that seem to think the way to fix it is to swing totally in the other direction because they seem convinced that no brains or talent are possible among rich people.

Tommy Monk wrote:

Sassy wrote:
BTW, I think you meant 'hate' not 'have', and that is hardly likely as I am perceived as being 'posh' myself.
What I hate is people given opportunities because of the old boy network, while people who deserve them are stopped from having them.

Yes I did mean hate, bloody predictive text.
So you advocatea meritocracy then. Glad we agree!

I'm advocating for people's backgrounds not to give them a special advantage or a special disadvantage, for people who can do the job having the chance to do it. That is not happening now, and never will until something is done about it.

sphinx wrote:

Sassy wrote:

Which is exactly what ISN'T happening now.

Never claimed it was - I just object to the huge numbers of people that seem to think the way to fix it is to swing totally in the other direction because they seem convinced that no brains or talent are possible among rich people.

Rubbish, at the moment the thinking is that brains and talent ONLY come from the rich and from public schools as far as the Civil Service is concerned. And I object to that, because brains and talent come from every area.

Tommy Monk wrote:They just don't understand that in their quest for 'equality', they are making things less equal!


I want people doing top jobs based on merit, not theis ethnic background.

It is a good try but as Tommy said, we need people who understand how to communicate and deal with the job at hand. Labour are still grasping at straws, I believe it is because they are still out for their selves and not the people or this country. Going off topic slightly. They are saying nothing about fracking, chemtrails or the likes of Monsanto and other bio-tech companies, there has not even one mention of the tap water situation here. Until some leader takes all of the above concerns on board and seriously want to help with the missed generations that have lacked a decent education making it impossible to get a job, I ain't hearing or acknowledging any of them.  :asdjas: