Cava Conservatives by comparison just seems flat...like their manifesto pledges!

Again, meritocracy is the enemy of equality. They can't co-exist truthfully as the end goal of a society: one compromises the other. It's why I prefer the word 'fairness' to equality.

You keep deflecting away from the central reality in regards to O'Brien. A person who calls themselves a socialist but lives a wealthy lifestyle is a hypocrite. It's really quite simple. A socialist is meant to believe in equality.

Sure they can have 'socialist principles' but that doesn't change the fact that they themselves are hypocrites....as in 'champagne socialist'.

Like I originally stated, 'equality for thee, but not for me'.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Despite being quite comfortable with higher levels of income tax for higher earners, high levels of IHT do not sit too easily with me. A 'death tax' on assets obtained from (in most cases) taxed income and gains that flow directly to close family members seems a bit much.

When you speak of people wanting 'equality' I think you sometimes go a bit too far in thinking that some people want everyone to have exactly the same and any differentiation from the median is a outrage. Obviously I don't speak for others, but to me 'equality' means equal opportunity in life, not everyone having the same. Whether people choose to take that opportunity is down to them.

From my perspective the culture of society always has to be encouraged to be meritocratic rather than equal. For example, you want the best surgeon for your hospital operation.

How this is implemented however can have elements of fairness....as long as that doesn't result in ultimately not having the best people performing the important functions in life.

For example, I agree with you that a system where opportunity is open for 'everyone' to succeed ability wise independent of class is important.

That's why I don't believe in grammar schools and I would probably end private schools. Then again, I wouldn't be soft on poor behaviour and politically correct on performance. Rigor shouldn't be the buzz word it is and discipline and the caine would be back in my system. Activists would be shown the door.

I would still have our universities but I would end any form of affirmative action and ensure that only the brightest went to them.

This doesn't end the specter of inequality of course as better families educate their own people and rich ones pay for it.....but it does make the system fairer. I would come down hard on cronyism. I want the brightest, not the best connected.

A difference from you however is probably that you would have this open to everyone whereas I would only have the British educational systems open to the British, with the exception of paid for foreign students.

Edited by Stirlingsays (27 Jun 2018 9.43am)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

You know what other societies on the planet don't have the rich paying back into the system on scale?

Corrupt ones.

Look around the world at the state of countries and their cities where money earnt from society isn't reinvested back into it.

Look at the Victorian societies and the slums.

Even after Trump's massive tax reductions the top rate of income tax is 35 percent. The recognition that sh1t needs paying should be self evident.

Institutions and infrastructure needs to be paid for. Pensioners and children provision needs paying for. Security, the army and Police need paying for....I could go on of course.

Anyone who ever made it here....benefited from this. They wouldn't have what they have without the society that enabled them.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

I think polarization can be over stated.

I enjoy blunt language and people because I tend to find they get stuff done. In my view intellectual confrontation is development and is a tide that raises all boats and something that few healthy people should be allowed to shy away from. However, one of its downsides is that people can take things personally.

Still, rather like the differences between male and female, we are more similar than different (but this isn't a reason to attack those natural differences). A lot of the end aims will be the same but the paths to those destinations are what will differ.

We like to argue about the differences because that is of course relevant. However, in reality people may agree on many things.....but what's the point of a circle jerk. Political reach arounds soon get boring and stale.

Edited by Stirlingsays (27 Jun 2018 11.03am)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)