|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Jan 14, 2023 14:44:59 GMT
There are plans to make the BBC far more working class and from what I gather of how processes work, this will have a wider political knock-on effect. The so-called levelling up agenda is also a political initiative to hand the power to the working class. The third prong of power is the trade unions, where these are run by more working class.
In all cases the arguments for this revolve around representation. They say how can you rule if you never knew what it was like to be poor and work in a shitty manual job for years.
There are certain motifs in this as well, like I notice that to identify with the working class one must be poorly spoken. Every trade union leader I have come across has this characteristic. The BBC often hosts working class comedians. Here you can see more regular patterns. There is this value in making fun and putting down anyone who thinks in complicated ways. The institutionally correct view is the simplest and most obvious. The more thinking the point requires to understand it the less political traction it has, hence you get a form of fascism, often called zero tolerance, as per no finesse, no middle ground. The other characteristic that is very common is vulgarity. A lot of working class comedians use vulgarity on the BBC to make people laugh and entertain them.
Should we hand more of less power to these types, and if you think less power, which people would you like to see it handed to. Take your pick - you can have anyone in the country.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Jan 14, 2023 15:08:20 GMT
We should stop being ruled by working class plebs and hand more power to upper class, public school educate toffs .
There , I said it .
|
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Jan 14, 2023 15:25:06 GMT
We should stop being ruled by working class plebs and hand more power to upper class, public school educate toffs . There , I said it . In anthropology it is widely recognised that the civilisations of the past that achieved advancement were those who were rich enough to support a class that did not have to eke out a survival that was hand to mouth. The society would generate a surplus of food which would feed the upper class whilst they took on more intellectual pursuits. You see this with the Celts and how they left behind works of art. You see it with the Egyptians who had a very hierarchical class structure and also with the Greeks who had poets and philosophers, and later with the Romans. In Britain too, the age of science was established by aristocrats like Lord Kelvin where in this time it was the thing with the aristocracy to be was an amateur scientist and to have your own laboratory in your mansion. This is why you see many old pieces of scientific apparatus beautifully built out of finely crafted wood and so on. They were show-pieces to to pubic demonstrations. Many years later these very discoveries would empower the nation to rule over societies that were purely agrarian and classless.
|
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on Jan 14, 2023 15:29:24 GMT
We should stop being ruled by working class plebs and hand more power to upper class, public school educate toffs . There , I said it . Oh how I long for the days of flat caps, mufflers, whippets black boots or clogs, third class train carriages to come back I do miss them  |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Jan 14, 2023 15:29:59 GMT
We should stop being ruled by working class plebs and hand more power to upper class, public school educate toffs . There , I said it . In anthropology it is widely recognised that the civilisations of the past that achieved advancement were those who were rich enough to support a class that did not have to eke out a survival that was hand to mouth. The society would generate a surplus of food which would feed the upper class whilst they took on more intellectual pursuits. You see this with the Celts and how they left behind works of art. You see it with the Egyptians who had a very hierarchical class structure and also with the Greeks who had poets and philosophers, and later with the Romans. In Britain too, the age of science was established by aristocrats like Lord Kelvin where in this time it was the thing with the aristocracy to be was an amateur scientist and to have your own laboratory in your mansion. This is why you see many old pieces of scientific apparatus beautifully built out of finely crafted wood and so on. They were show-pieces to to pubic demonstrations. Many years later these very discoveries would empower the nation to rule over societies that were purely agrarian and classless.
That doesn’t mean that there was not the potential within the lower classes. The upper class has the luxury and indulgence to be educated. The lower classes did not . This is why I am a supporter of the Grammar school system as it was in the 60s. The system liberated the more intelligent working class pupils . |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Jan 14, 2023 15:44:30 GMT
In anthropology it is widely recognised that the civilisations of the past that achieved advancement were those who were rich enough to support a class that did not have to eke out a survival that was hand to mouth. The society would generate a surplus of food which would feed the upper class whilst they took on more intellectual pursuits. You see this with the Celts and how they left behind works of art. You see it with the Egyptians who had a very hierarchical class structure and also with the Greeks who had poets and philosophers, and later with the Romans. In Britain too, the age of science was established by aristocrats like Lord Kelvin where in this time it was the thing with the aristocracy to be was an amateur scientist and to have your own laboratory in your mansion. This is why you see many old pieces of scientific apparatus beautifully built out of finely crafted wood and so on. They were show-pieces to to pubic demonstrations. Many years later these very discoveries would empower the nation to rule over societies that were purely agrarian and classless.
That doesn’t mean that there was not the potential within the lower classes. The upper class has the luxury and indulgence to be educated. The lower classes did not . This is why I am a supporter of the Grammar school system as it was in the 60s. The system liberated the more intelligent working class pupils . Yes the grammar schools were far better than the comprehensives. The thing is to be upper class there has to be a point where you prove yourself, like the knight in glorious shining armour. It was a working class dogsbody who invented the lithium battery, but was never recognised. The Nobel Prize went to the one who copied him, as in what they call prior art. It's not always the case, but happens more than it should.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Jan 14, 2023 15:52:02 GMT
In anthropology it is widely recognised that the civilisations of the past that achieved advancement were those who were rich enough to support a class that did not have to eke out a survival that was hand to mouth. The society would generate a surplus of food which would feed the upper class whilst they took on more intellectual pursuits. You see this with the Celts and how they left behind works of art. You see it with the Egyptians who had a very hierarchical class structure and also with the Greeks who had poets and philosophers, and later with the Romans. In Britain too, the age of science was established by aristocrats like Lord Kelvin where in this time it was the thing with the aristocracy to be was an amateur scientist and to have your own laboratory in your mansion. This is why you see many old pieces of scientific apparatus beautifully built out of finely crafted wood and so on. They were show-pieces to to pubic demonstrations. Many years later these very discoveries would empower the nation to rule over societies that were purely agrarian and classless.
That doesn’t mean that there was not the potential within the lower classes. The upper class has the luxury and indulgence to be educated. The lower classes did not . This is why I am a supporter of the Grammar school system as it was in the 60s.The system liberated the more intelligent working class pupils . Comprehensive schools were the political crime of the century. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Jan 14, 2023 15:58:52 GMT
That doesn’t mean that there was not the potential within the lower classes. The upper class has the luxury and indulgence to be educated. The lower classes did not . This is why I am a supporter of the Grammar school system as it was in the 60s.The system liberated the more intelligent working class pupils . Comprehensive schools were the political crime of the century. No they were not. The leftie wreckers did away with grammar school excellence and replaced it with Comprehensive mediocrity. They were the modern day Luddites . |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Jan 14, 2023 15:59:52 GMT
That doesn’t mean that there was not the potential within the lower classes. The upper class has the luxury and indulgence to be educated. The lower classes did not . This is why I am a supporter of the Grammar school system as it was in the 60s. The system liberated the more intelligent working class pupils . Yes the grammar schools were far better than the comprehensives. The thing is to be upper class there has to be a point where you prove yourself, like the knight in glorious shining armour. It was a working class dogsbody who invented the lithium battery, but was never recognised. The Nobel Prize went to the one who copied him, as in what they call prior art. It's not always the case, but happens more than it should.
Harold Wilson Wilson won a scholarship to attend Royds Hall Grammar School, his local grammar school (now a comprehensive school) in Huddersfield in Yorkshire. His father, working as an industrial chemist, was made redundant in December 1930, and it took him nearly two years to find work; he moved to Spital in Cheshire, on the Wirral, to do so. Wilson continued his education in the Sixth Form at the Wirral Grammar School for Boys, where he became Head Boy.
Starmer and Labour are double standard hypocrites trying to scrap Grammar Schools, it gave Wilson a chance he probably would never have had, and probably never would have became a Labour leader .... Labour and their hypocrisy is just jaw dropping.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 14, 2023 16:04:19 GMT
We should stop being ruled by working class plebs and hand more power to upper class, public school educate toffs . There , I said it . They have most of the power already and never before have I known this country to be in such a state. Perhaps we need a few more people in power who understand through personal experience the lives of ordinary people. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Jan 14, 2023 16:06:24 GMT
We should stop being ruled by working class plebs and hand more power to upper class, public school educate toffs . There , I said it . They have most of the power already and never before have I known this country to be in such a state. Perhaps we need a few more people in power who understand through personal experience the lives of ordinary people. Indeed iirc there were a few after WW2 and beyond. Very few nowadays and when they occur they are a token working class Aunt Sally like Prescott and Rayner. |
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Jan 14, 2023 16:07:23 GMT
Comprehensive schools were the political crime of the century. No they were not. The leftie wreckers did away with grammar school excellence and replaced it with Comprehensive mediocrity. They were the modern day Luddites . The Wilson government brought in comprehensives at the expense of grammar schools, the Tories followed suit under their Education Minister Margaret Thatcher. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Jan 14, 2023 16:11:53 GMT
No they were not. The leftie wreckers did away with grammar school excellence and replaced it with Comprehensive mediocrity. They were the modern day Luddites . The Wilson government brought in comprehensives at the expense of grammar schools, the Tories followed suit under their Education Minister Margaret Thatcher. So? That doesn’t refute the post you answered . |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Jan 14, 2023 16:25:23 GMT
In anthropology it is widely recognised that the civilisations of the past that achieved advancement were those who were rich enough to support a class that did not have to eke out a survival that was hand to mouth. The society would generate a surplus of food which would feed the upper class whilst they took on more intellectual pursuits. You see this with the Celts and how they left behind works of art. You see it with the Egyptians who had a very hierarchical class structure and also with the Greeks who had poets and philosophers, and later with the Romans. In Britain too, the age of science was established by aristocrats like Lord Kelvin where in this time it was the thing with the aristocracy to be was an amateur scientist and to have your own laboratory in your mansion. This is why you see many old pieces of scientific apparatus beautifully built out of finely crafted wood and so on. They were show-pieces to to pubic demonstrations. Many years later these very discoveries would empower the nation to rule over societies that were purely agrarian and classless.
That doesn’t mean that there was not the potential within the lower classes. The upper class has the luxury and indulgence to be educated. The lower classes did not . This is why I am a supporter of the Grammar school system as it was in the 60s. The system liberated the more intelligent working class pupils . I was about to post a 'like' for you post until I read about your claim about Grammar schools 'liberating the more intelligent working class students. The 11+ was just about the most diabolical way of deciding who would go to grammar schools and who would not. A system introduced by well meaning educated morons who might have been hard pressed to design a more useless system. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Jan 14, 2023 16:26:53 GMT
I remember years ago I read a book that had quite an effect on me, I still remember it quite well. It was a biography about a poor kid from a large family who's father was a miner. In spite of his very humble background he went on to become a giant among politicians, yes he was a socialist, and one of the most gifted orators and principled politicians of the 20th century. His name, Nye Bevan. I'm not a socialist, but I have every respect for Nye Bevan and I'm sure anyone who read one of his biographies, I believe there's more than one, would agree.
|
|
