How wrong can you be....?

[RRconway]

I'm with DanO where over-powerful unions and shoddy goods are concerned, Morris Marina anyone?! We still have one or two dinosaurs out there running rings around us however, and Bob Crow is perhaps the most successful. I was amazed to learn that he had won the London underground train drivers around 55K salaries and other benefits for basically as far as I can see pushing a lever forward to go when a green light shows, and pulling it back to stop when a red light comes on. I stand to be corrected just exactly how the lever works however! The sooner we have driverless trains (like the DLR for instance) on the underground the better.

And Google the Paris Metro crash to see what happens when you get it wrong. Not saying the salary is not high, but we're constantly told pay is linked to responsibility. If you can trouser multi million pound bonuses for handling large sums of money it stands to reason a job where multiple deaths are probable if you mess up wages will be high. Besides LU's turnover is massive, they're hardly a struggling company. Doesn't seem unreasonable those that work there get a share of it.

I'm sorry, responsibility?
Maybe but its relative.
They don't have to steer the train, all they have to do is make it go forward,(in response to a light that tells them when to go and stop and slow down), and not trap people in the doors!!!!

As an A licenced aircraft engineer holding ratings on 3 of BAs types, I have to work outside in all weathers, all year round, at all hours of the 24 available.
I certify the routine aircraft inspections on a daily basis including airframe, engine and all internals with no one required to check after me.
I work for one of the UKs industry leaders with the benefit of one of the better wage structures, and if you take out my shift pay (which is payed for anti-social hours not responsibility), I do not see 33k a year.
There are engs with cheaper carriers earning less and with more responsibility.
Our B licence holders don't earn 55k.

Train drivers and responsibility, it doesn't add up.

Cheers,
Jeff.

The salary may well be too high, I didn't disagree with that, and other jobs may well be underpaid and undervalued for what they do, I don't disagree with that either but that's a different issue. LU drivers may bwell be overpaid that's a matter of interpretation but to say the job doesn't carry large responsibility is just not true. If a driver messes up, he will go to prison. This has been demonstrated on many occasions and as for train driving being easy it's far from it, it's a very skilled profession. I can't speak for LU directly as it's not my area, but my Grandad worked for BR for 45 years at a time when pay was less than sparkling. He had to know every route, gradient, wheelslip point, signal location etc as overrunning a signal once would lose him his job at best and kill people at worst. It's not a car. You don't just put the brakes on and it stops it needs to be calculated exactly. Leave it too late and you're in trouble. Simple on paper, but stopping distance of approx 1 mile on the main line railway, with a heavy train, poor visibility and wet rails? And you don't see any responsibility in that?

To clarify,my last line "it doesn't add up", I am refering to the fact that whatever responsibility a train driver has, I don't believe that the weight of that responsibility is so much greater to other professions mentioned here, that it translates into the huge difference in pay compared to others who have the same or greater amount of responsibility.

Also,
I didn't say I don't see any responsibility, I said its relative.
FYI, if an aircraft engineer messes up he will go to prison also.

The fact remains that if you look at most other professions who put their own lives on the line, or are responsible for the lives of countless others I think you will find that 55K is not proportional to those other jobs, for example, health care professionals, firefighters, police officers, soldiers, bus drivers, and, yes, aircraft engineers and cabin crew.
Even flight crew pay is slowly being reduced. In some smaller operators it is far less than I earn. The big carriers are unfortunately the exception to this generalisation....doh.

Why do you say that the fact that other jobs may be underpaid or undervalued is a different issue. I didn't say either of those things. Maybe it is because it is easier to say other professions are underpaid, than to substantially justify the overpayment of the train drivers.

One more thing, I'm sure your grandfather lost out really. When he started driving it was certainly far more dangerous than it is today, he didn't have all the modern safety features that adorn the trains of today.
Development means that rail transport has become safer over the years so why then should the drivers be compensated for the reduction in risk that I'm sure your grandfather experienced? I'm sure that many of the issues that you have said your grandfather had to deal with, are today monitored my myriad of electronic devices, if not controlled completely by them in an emergency or quality lapse.

I hope that clarifys my point.

Cheers,
Jeff.

[RRconway]

I personally haven't much time for Bob Crow but to be fair he represents his unions members and if he has got them that sort of salary then he is obviously doing his job to the best of his ability ! Being a Driver for the underground ( or overground ) can be a thankless task especially when things go wrong and you are the only member of staff on show to take the passengers wrath ,even if it's nothing to do with you ! how many office workers/bankers etc risk charges of manslaughter if they make an error ?
Try throwing 4 or 5 drug addled or drunk morons off a train at 12-30 on a Saturday night on your own and I think you will find the money is well earned,oh by the way I do know what I am talking about being an ex SE London train driver !

Surely its not part of a train drivers job description to eject unruly or disruptive passengers, that what the police are for.
A pilot doesn't unboard unruly air passengers, they call in the proper authoritys to do it.
A Doctor or Nurse on night duty doesn't tackle drunken yobs, they call security.
If your company left you to do that then that is something that Bob Crow failed on, he spent too much time extracting money from them and didn't ensure that his members were properly supported by their company.

Cheers,
Jeff.

Uh yes but try getting the police to attend late at night while you are having a face off with the great unwashed and see how long you have to wait ! Once there was staff at nearly all stations and there were guards on trains so you had help but in the name of profit they were removed so some stations are no go areas for ordinary fare paying passengers ,they are just too scary !

Thats as maybe but if it was not part of your job description you can't use it to justify your wages. You can bet that had you come to harm tackling these people, your employer would have been the first to claim no responsibility.

Bob Crow was never my union leader as I worked for British Railways and then the companies that followed them and yes, I saw some great improvements after we were privatised ,money was invested and used sensibly by management to try and improve the service ,as part of their improvements they agreed to improve and streamline the drivers wage structure and in fairness done a good job ! I never felt that as a driver I was overpaid

With all due respect I don't think I have ever met anyone who thinks, or would admit, they were overpaid

,wages are now dependent on many factors,not least location ,not all unions are greedy money grabbing dinosaurs, some do a good job representing the members who pay them for doing so.

No arguments there.

As a final note try driving a train at 90 mph at night in thick fog and to then find a ill- lit country station or to drive a packed commuter train into Charing Cross with other trains a matter of 100 yards in front and you will feel that the wages are appropriate for the job

You were obviously a mainline driver, I would hope the Underground drivers don't do 90 mph in the fog

....but Ok, just to complete the "my jobs more differcult or dangerous than your job" part of the conversation....
Try laying under the engine of a 767 in the rain checking for leaks while the engine is running and you are only two foot from the intake, or laying between the mainwheels of a 767 with the brakes off so there is enough play to remove the brake reaction pins, or having just done a 12 hour nightshift outside having to attend an aircraft on departure to give your assessment of a problem, with the Captain and 300 passengers desperate to get away, when all you feel like doing is sleeping, or spending 6 hours inside a fuel tank using pneumatic rivetting tools to do a repair wearing breathing apparatus and despite the cramped, sweltering conditions ensuring it is done correctly and with regard to numerous regulations.

,if other folk feel that they are not paid enough for the skills and responsibilities they have then perhaps they should either get a better union to speak for them or change jobs and not try to put down others doing a job they have no experience of !
Cheers

To re-iterate my reply to Craig above:

Why do you say "if other folk feel that they are not paid enough for the skills and responsibilities they have then perhaps they should either get a better union to speak for them or change jobs" who's saying that, I didn't. Maybe you say that because it is easier to say other professions are underpaid, than to substantially justify the overpayment of the train drivers.

The fact remains that if you look at most other professions who put their own lives on the line, or are responsible for the lives of countless others I think you will find that 55K is not proportional to those other jobs, for example, health care professionals, firefighters, police officers, soldiers, bus drivers, and, yes, aircraft engineers and cabin crew.
Even flight crew pay is slowly being reduced. In some smaller operators it is far less than I earn. The big carriers are unfortunately the exception to this generalisation....doh.

I would also like to make the point that when a train driver leaves his job or retires, I presume that his responsibility ends?
Work that I have carried out in my 22 years with BA is still flying around today, and work that I carry out tomorrow could still be flying after I retire. If something happens as a result of that work, I could still be held responsible, and that includes the work I have certified on customer aircraft, Qantas, Singapore to name but two.

So just to be clear, the issue I have is that to award the tube drivers another pay rise to 55k is really quite offensive, especially as ultimately the cost is passed on to the commuter.

For the record though I would like a better pay-rise, but I realise in this current time its not going to happen, and its certainly 100% never going to go to 55k.

So in summary, I don't doubt that the drivers have responsibility, but do they really have that much more than me as to deserve that difference in pay?, no I really don't think so.

I hope that clarifys my position.

Cheers,
Jeff.

[aceyone]

Well as a mainline train driver I was never paid anywhere near that amount ,my basic wage on retirement was £35000 and at that time we always were of the opinion that tube drivers were overpaid compared to us ( and still are ) so perhaps you and I agree on something Reading your job description it becomes clear that you do a highly skilled and very responsible job of which you are obviously proud to do and that's fine but would you like it if someone who has only a sketchy idea of your duties publicly states that you are overpaid ? I would never dream of commenting on your salary without a thorough knowledge of your role ! A train drivers duties doesn't stop with driving the train,he/she must have a very thorough knowledge of the mechanics of the traction he is driving so he/she can undertake on the track repairs,sometimes in difficult and dangerous places,he/she must have a complete and exhaustive comprehension of the rules in the event of breakdowns where assistance may be required and finally may be called upon to totally ignore possibly injured passengers so he/she can carry out protection duties in the event of a derailment or worse .Did you know that modern trains carry" black boxes " and at any given time your driving performance can be downloaded and assessed ? and God help you if you done anything amiss ! which was fine by me ,it also meant that Management couldn't accuse you of say,passing a signal at danger, for example !
It's a free market,when British Rail was sold off the new Train Operating Companys were actively advertising in railway newspaper for drivers and offering higher wages to entice staff to leave their current employer and join them,they obviously thought it was worth paying the going rate and more,training a driver takes up to a year dependent on Traction Stock requirements and track/route knowledge needed so it was cheaper to gain trained drivers! There are many that deserve more pay than a train driver ,I don't dispute that but you cannot use that as a excuse to infer that the drivers are overpaid,well not ALL of them anyway !

[Abingdonman]

I dont think its possible to have a truly fair system in place...
The system is crazy the way it is,with a few so grossly overpaid,they wont worry if petrol is up or fuel bills are up,and then most having to work O/T to get the reported average wage!
as for a wage freeze,only if you not well paid for most!
I remember coming home one lunchtime and 'Workers playtime' was on the radio (Workers playtime? )this comedian was saying ....'I walked into this pub and said to one of my old pals "what you having son?" he said "Thanks mate,but I'll be buying...your working!"
that was 40 yrs ago...whats changed!

[AlexC]

Well as a mainline train driver I was never paid anywhere near that amount ,my basic wage on retirement was £35000

I was a building surveyor for a local authority and I wasn't getting that much. Don't believe all that you may hear about excessive pay in local government. Some of the chief executives and senior managers and the like are overpaid that's for sure, but not the average employee, ie the PBI. We had a senior manager go sick for several months (it was all aboveboard, he really was sick) and we all got on with the job perfectly well without him. Another chap was promoted way about his ability simply because he had the gift of the gab, and got on well with the councillors. Don't know for sure if he was a Mason, but it wouldn't surprise me if he was!

[aceyone]

Well as a mainline train driver I was never paid anywhere near that amount ,my basic wage on retirement was £35000

I was a building surveyor for a local authority and I wasn't getting that much. Don't believe all that you may hear about excessive pay in local government. Some of the chief executives and senior managers and the like are overpaid that's for sure, but not the average employee, ie the PBI. We had a senior manager go sick for several months (it was all aboveboard, he really was sick) and we all got on with the job perfectly well without him. Another chap was promoted way about his ability simply because he had the gift of the gab, and got on well with the councillors. Don't know for sure if he was a Mason, but it wouldn't surprise me if he was!

Indeed,strange handshakes etc were rife on the railways even after privatization

[triple_ace]

I hate politics!

[Dragon Rapide]

Yup - perhaps you do, but it affects almost everything you do every day of your life, so you can't put the earphones on and escape it!!

[RRconway]

Well as a mainline train driver I was never paid anywhere near that amount ,my basic wage on retirement was £35000 and at that time we always were of the opinion that tube drivers were overpaid compared to us ( and still are ) so perhaps you and I agree on something

Indeed, and in fact as I was originally refering to the post made by AlexC about the Tube Drivers, we may have both been discussing for no good reason

I would never dream of commenting on your salary without a thorough knowledge of your role ! A train drivers duties doesn't stop with driving the train,he/she must have a very thorough knowledge of the mechanics of the traction he is driving so he/she can undertake on the track repairs,sometimes in difficult and dangerous places,he/she must have a complete and exhaustive comprehension of the rules in the event of breakdowns where assistance may be required and finally may be called upon to totally ignore possibly injured passengers so he/she can carry out protection duties in the event of a derailment or worse

Yes I understand that, but there are also many extra pieces of knowledge or training that are required in the other fields I have cited, mine included, which would come under the banner of non standard scenarios that may never be used. Cabin Crew for example are trained how to handle violent passengers and even how to disarm or subdue the same, for the safety of all on board the aircraft, and indeed the safety of the aircraft itself.

It's a free market,when British Rail was sold off the new Train Operating Companys were actively advertising in railway newspaper for drivers and offering higher wages to entice staff to leave their current employer and join them,they obviously thought it was worth paying the going rate and more,training a driver takes up to a year dependent on Traction Stock requirements and track/route knowledge needed so it was cheaper to gain trained drivers! There are many that deserve more pay than a train driver ,I don't dispute that but you cannot use that as a excuse to infer that the drivers are overpaid,well not ALL of them anyway !

I think you are missing my fundamental point.
While I think that some of the occupations I listed do deserve a pay rise, dare I say including myself!!!!, I do not believe there is an exscuse for any of them to be more than the Tube Drivers, and at no point have I said that.
What I do still maintain, and you have agreed with at the top of this post, is that the Tube Drivers have enjoyed a period of an already healthy pay structure being buoyed up further by the likes of Bob Crowe, and I still maintain that compared to other occupations who have equal and more responsibility than they do, that the element of them being overpaid, is far greater than the others being underpaid, although that differance is on a sliding scale for some of the listed occupations.

I think we agree in principle, but maybe by differing degrees, but thats what makes this discussion so interesting.

One thing I will say though, I've got another 20 odd years before I can retire, you lucky so and so. I bet you don't miss getting up at silly o'clock eh?

Cheers,
Jeff.

[aceyone]

Well as a mainline train driver I was never paid anywhere near that amount ,my basic wage on retirement was £35000 and at that time we always were of the opinion that tube drivers were overpaid compared to us ( and still are ) so perhaps you and I agree on something

Indeed, and in fact as I was originally refering to the post made by AlexC about the Tube Drivers, we may have both been discussing for no good reason

I would never dream of commenting on your salary without a thorough knowledge of your role ! A train drivers duties doesn't stop with driving the train,he/she must have a very thorough knowledge of the mechanics of the traction he is driving so he/she can undertake on the track repairs,sometimes in difficult and dangerous places,he/she must have a complete and exhaustive comprehension of the rules in the event of breakdowns where assistance may be required and finally may be called upon to totally ignore possibly injured passengers so he/she can carry out protection duties in the event of a derailment or worse

Yes I understand that, but there are also many extra pieces of knowledge or training that are required in the other fields I have cited, mine included, which would come under the banner of non standard scenarios that may never be used. Cabin Crew for example are trained how to handle violent passengers and even how to disarm or subdue the same, for the safety of all on board the aircraft, and indeed the safety of the aircraft itself.

It's a free market,when British Rail was sold off the new Train Operating Companys were actively advertising in railway newspaper for drivers and offering higher wages to entice staff to leave their current employer and join them,they obviously thought it was worth paying the going rate and more,training a driver takes up to a year dependent on Traction Stock requirements and track/route knowledge needed so it was cheaper to gain trained drivers! There are many that deserve more pay than a train driver ,I don't dispute that but you cannot use that as a excuse to infer that the drivers are overpaid,well not ALL of them anyway !

I think you are missing my fundamental point.
While I think that some of the occupations I listed do deserve a pay rise, dare I say including myself!!!!, I do not believe there is an exscuse for any of them to be more than the Tube Drivers, and at no point have I said that.
What I do still maintain, and you have agreed with at the top of this post, is that the Tube Drivers have enjoyed a period of an already healthy pay structure being buoyed up further by the likes of Bob Crowe, and I still maintain that compared to other occupations who have equal and more responsibility than they do, that the element of them being overpaid, is far greater than the others being underpaid, although that differance is on a sliding scale for some of the listed occupations.

I think we agree in principle, but maybe by differing degrees, but thats what makes this discussion so interesting.

One thing I will say though, I've got another 20 odd years before I can retire, you lucky so and so. I bet you don't miss getting up at silly o'clock eh?

Cheers,
Jeff.

Yep, I concede your points and after due consideration am prepared to agree about the tube drivers salary,it does seem excessive when compared to other employment but in a way I say good luck to them ,it's nice to see what are( probably ) not overly- educated , ordinary working class folk doing alright for themselves,after all THAT doesn't happen often.well not unless you are a plumber but that's another story !


ps I had to retire at the age of 57 on a minuscule pension to look after an unwell spouse and yes ,I certainly don't miss getting up early or nightwork or Sundays etc etc !

[RRconway]

ps I had to retire at the age of 57 on a minuscule pension to look after an unwell spouse and yes ,I certainly don't miss getting up early or nightwork or Sundays etc etc !

Sorry to hear that, I did assume of course you had retired for normal reasons, my apologies.

Cheers,
Jeff.

[phreakf4]

Although this discussion of the pay of railway and Underground drivers is interesting and illustrates a commonly-held view, namely that "anyone who is paid more than me for a job which I reckon a trained monkey could do (even though I've never even attempted to do said job and have no real idea what it involves) is paid too much", it nevertheless digresses from the original point of my post which is that socialism, properly applied, is a far fairer and more civilised system than properly applied capitalism.

Dan's argument ins that it "goes aginst the "natural human ambition" for self-betterment" which usually translates as "I want more money and I don't care who I have to trample on to get it." Since when is applying "the law of the jungle" a sign of an advanced civilization?

It is true that few truly socialist systems have worked, although there are and have been several countries which have operated a "mixed economy" where individual "success" (i.e. more money than anyone else) is possible yet the less-fortunate in society are not allowed, or expected, to simply crawl away and die, thus becoming "not our problem".

The reason such systems have not worked is not the "laziness" of the ordinary "working classes" but the greed of those who have clawed their way to the top and thus eventually engender resentment similar to that felt by many at "Dave" Cameron's now-infamous "We are all in this together" statement. I think that statement will haunt Mr. Cameron, and the Tory party, for a very long time.

On a slightly different tack of the same argument, Dan and his friends are quite convinced that all those on unemployment benefit are "lazy scroungers". One simple fact disproves this. Using the government's own figures, which everyone except the devotees of Thatcher and her followers knows to have been "massaged" to make them look better than they really are, there are over 2.5 million unemployed people, and less than 700,000 jobs. Telling these people to "get off their backsides and get a job" is worse than pointless, it is insulting.

[DanO1978]

Dan's argument ins that it "goes aginst the "natural human ambition" for self-betterment" which usually translates as "I want more money and I don't care who I have to trample on to get it." Since when is applying "the law of the jungle" a sign of an advanced civilization?

Frankly, and for all your fine words, a load of poppycock. There's nothing of the "law of the jungle about it". We live, thankfully, in a capitalist meritocracy. You want to succeed in life, then pull your finger out and damn well work for it. You don't try hard enough, then you'll fall to the bottom. Nothing could be fairer. Yes the State should be there to some extent to help those who fall by the wayside, but only as a safety net.

Socialism treats everyone as too stupid to help themselves, while capitalism trusts our human instinct to strive to provide for yourself.

The best society is surely one where everyone is working to be the best they can be, without over-reliance and interference from the state.

[Craig]

Dan's argument ins that it "goes aginst the "natural human ambition" for self-betterment" which usually translates as "I want more money and I don't care who I have to trample on to get it." Since when is applying "the law of the jungle" a sign of an advanced civilization?

Frankly, and for all your fine words, a load of poppycock. There's nothing of the "law of the jungle about it". We live, thankfully, in a capitalist meritocracy. You want to succeed in life, then pull your finger out and damn well work for it. You don't try hard enough, then you'll fall to the bottom. Nothing could be fairer. Yes the State should be there to some extent to help those who fall by the wayside, but only as a safety net.

Socialism treats everyone as too stupid to help themselves, while capitalism trusts our human instinct to strive to provide for yourself.

The best society is surely one where everyone is working to be the best they can be, without over-reliance and interference from the state.

But hard work and wages don't always match. For many no matter how hard you work you won't reach the big money and boardrooms. Rich parents who can get you into the right schools and with the right contacts however go a long way towards sorting that. There are people working 60 hour plus weeks just to provide for thweir family because politicians won't risk upsetting their donors. How is this "fair"?

[RRconway]

We live, thankfully, in a capitalist meritocracy. You want to succeed in life, then pull your finger out and damn well work for it. You don't try hard enough, then you'll fall to the bottom. Nothing could be fairer. Yes the State should be there to some extent to help those who fall by the wayside, but only as a safety net.

Hear hear.
There are people at work whose 16yo+ children were recieving an 'allowance' from the government to stay on as 6th formers and further their academic achievements. It was 'sold' as an incentive for them to study.
As far as I'm concerned the incentive should be, 'get yourself a decent education or prepare to spend the next 50 years pushing a mop.

I still adopt that philosophy today. I recently spent a couple of months 'shadowing' another job role at work to give me an edge for when there are vacancies advertised. I was doing 16 to 20 hours a week unpaid and in my spare time, after work and at weekends.
No-one owes you a living.

[DerekF]

The best society is surely one where everyone is working to be the best they can be, without over-reliance and interference from the state.

And that is the fundamental difference; I think that everyone should work towards their societies' betterment and improvements in living standards should be as a consequence of the whole of society improving. Those that serve and improve their communities should be better rewarded than those who only better themselves. Humans are by nature a social species and have generally been at their best and achieved great things when working together towards a common goal.

A selfish, individualistic society as beloved by Thatcher has created many of the social ills we see today. Lack of regulation and single-minded pursuit of personal wealth in the financial sector has created the problems we now have. The only option is that the state will have to interfere and bring back the regulation that was previously removed. The financial sector proved to the world that they could not be trusted.

[Dragon Rapide]

Although this discussion of the pay of railway and Underground drivers is interesting and illustrates a commonly-held view, namely that "anyone who is paid more than me for a job which I reckon a trained monkey could do (even though I've never even attempted to do said job and have no real idea what it involves) is paid too much", it nevertheless digresses from the original point of my post which is that socialism, properly applied, is a far fairer and more civilised system than properly applied capitalism.

Dan's argument ins that it "goes aginst the "natural human ambition" for self-betterment" which usually translates as "I want more money and I don't care who I have to trample on to get it." Since when is applying "the law of the jungle" a sign of an advanced civilization?

It is true that few truly socialist systems have worked, although there are and have been several countries which have operated a "mixed economy" where individual "success" (i.e. more money than anyone else) is possible yet the less-fortunate in society are not allowed, or expected, to simply crawl away and die, thus becoming "not our problem".

The reason such systems have not worked is not the "laziness" of the ordinary "working classes" but the greed of those who have clawed their way to the top and thus eventually engender resentment similar to that felt by many at "Dave" Cameron's now-infamous "We are all in this together" statement. I think that statement will haunt Mr. Cameron, and the Tory party, for a very long time.

On a slightly different tack of the same argument, Dan and his friends are quite convinced that all those on unemployment benefit are "lazy scroungers". One simple fact disproves this. Using the government's own figures, which everyone except the devotees of Thatcher and her followers knows to have been "massaged" to make them look better than they really are, there are over 2.5 million unemployed people, and less than 700,000 jobs. Telling these people to "get off their backsides and get a job" is worse than pointless, it is insulting.

Indeed - there are 700,000 jobs available and several thousand more could have been filled had they not been greedily snapped up by the influx of immigrants over the past few years. The inevitable and necessary reduction in public service workers back to pre-Brown levels will certainly add to the numbers.

As for my general comments on your thesis I would refer you to my earlier posts.

[stratocaster]

A thread of the highest quality, will add one point.

When trying to place the blame with Labour or Conservative, Socialism or Capitalism, it should be noted that the British public since the war, for whatever reason have been incredibly passive when faced with watching the steady and relentless downfall of what was once the greatest nation state on the planet. Whatever your definition is of democracy, we the people do have ultimate power to change things and redirect the direction our country.
There are minor blips where minorities have felt aggrieved enough to take direct action (trade unions in the 70's, pole tax riots, anti-Iraq war demonstrations) but the bigger picture is that the vast majority have been so passive and self-centred in the pursuit of their own version of happiness that they have not looked at the bigger picture. Some politicians have been cynical in their exploitation of this (Thatcher bought votes with cheap council houses and Blair openly talked about targeting the vote of "mondeo man").

Other trends are beyond our own influence. The manufacturing industry was doomed from the 50s as developing countries with lower overheads and less regulation developed the infrastructure and ability to simply produce the same product at better prices but our own inept management gave up the fight way too early and again, the unions played their part in accelerating the delcine (just look at British Leyland).
The bottom line is that we get the Country we deserve and whilst we complain about fat cat bonuses, crime levels, defence cuts etc., how many of the electorate get directly involved in our society and the way it is governed. Our society is so dumbed down that many would not even be able to spell capitalism.

As long as there is another series of X-factor on the horizon, a MacDonalds on every corner and a bogof on Carling at Asda, we will stumble downwards from one general election to another with a large chunk not bothering to vote and the majority not have the intellectual ability or motivation to have genuine insight into our long term decline.

The vast majority of politicians accentuate the problem with offering short terms solutions (non of which have worked), sound bites and blaming the other side whilst at the same time shamelessly lining their own pockets.

Well put!

[pbeardmore]

I find it shocking that their are still those of us who think that we live in a meritocracy. I could write a book (many have) pointing out examples of large swaiths of society are there through factors purely other than their own merit. Politicians love the idea of a meritocracy (especially Cameron) but it is a myth, a dream and a mistake to think we are anywhere near it.
The idea that from 5 seconds after you are born, your fate is decided by your own merit (I suppose this must be in the DNA?) and overides all of the outside factors that will influence us throughout our lives is pure fiction.
This country is a million years from being a meritocracy and many many countries are further towards this goal than ourselves.
1% of the UK population owns 20% of the UKs wealth (figures from HMRC).
Does anyone seriously think that this 1% has arrived in their situation through their own merit?

[Dragon Rapide]

Not if they are Lottery winners, no. And as for determining merit how do you compare the physical ability of a footballer earning several million a year with a professor of astrophysics earning several thousand. I have never understood the resentment and envy people have for those better off or much better off than they are. Human beings are not all the same, thank god; some have little or no ability, some have huge ability. That's the way we are and the society which tries to force people down into some norm of mediocrity is a society which will fail. I have worked all my life and live in a modest house and continue to work beyond retirement age as I have no gold -plated public service pension and the small private pension was all but wiped out by our previous Prime Minister, but I have no feeling of envy towards those who are more fortunate, only anger at the mess various governments of both colours have made of our economy, education, health, social security and defence.

[pbeardmore]

I would be delighted if the the top 1% was made up of footballers etc who are their on merit. If only that were true. The working class lad becoming a millionare through his footballing tallent is a romantic tale (in USA it would be Rocky) but the reality is that it is a rare exception. Would I be wrong in saying that inherited wealth may play are larger role in deciding who gets into the 1% rather that sporting skills?

[Dragon Rapide]

That In wouldn't know - it would be instructive to learn how the 1% was made up. I just had a very quick search and it would appear that in the top 100, no footballers appear and only a small handful of landowners.The majority are in business in some form or another. How much of the 1% this list represents I do not know. But what does it prove? If you resent inherited wealth then those few will anger you, no doubt, but are you happy with gambling wealth? If I had been very successful and passed on an inheritance of several million to my son, would you resent him for that?

[pbeardmore]

I am not showing resentment, you implied that from a couple of postings. I am indicating that the idea of a meritocracy is not factually true and providing supportive evidence. Once you have money, its much easier to make money. If I have a million quid in the bank as security, the banks love you. If I have no security, its a challenge just to get an appointment. We live in a society where you get paid just for having money in the bank. So wealth re-enforces wealth and the vast majority of wealth is passed down the bloodline.
So I am just pointing this out to undermine the concept of us living in some sort of utopia where we all start with a clean slate and get rewarded for our own talents and efforts.

[Dragon Rapide]

Apologies if I misinterpreted your comments. Having said that I am not sure that anyone believes in the meritocratic utopia you refer to. It is a pipe-dream. As I said earlier we are all born with varying degrees of fortune, good and bad, and some will fail having started well and others will succeed having started poorly. That is the way it is. And all attempts to construct an artificial society have failed and are doomed to fail.

[Wes_Howes]

...greedily snapped up by the influx of immigrants over the past few years.

But when you learn that certain supermarket chains are advertising in the new EU nations, you have to ask yourself, what the hell is going on there??? They can't get away with paying them less than minimum wage so that's not a good reason...