Comments on: It’s not about social mobility

By: More on social mobility | Could have been a contender

More on social mobility | Could have been a contender — Sun, 06 Jan 2008 22:01:36 +0000

[...] My previous post generated a bit of interest, especially thanks to Antonia Bance’s kind remarks, for which thanks. [...]

By: Tropical Medic

Tropical Medic — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 14:55:11 +0000

Do you know, all this talk of abolishing social mobility so the same people always stay poor reminds of a patient I once had.

http://www.dkimages.com/discover/previews/887/45066290.JPG

Well, strictly, that (or something very much like it) is what I *removed” from a patient I once had.

It reminds me very much of the average Labour voter!

By: Tom Watson MP » Blog Archive » Happy Christmas Antonia Bance

Tom Watson MP » Blog Archive » Happy Christmas Antonia Bance — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 12:13:38 +0000

[...] Keep fighting for what you believe in. [...]

By: Adrian

Adrian — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 16:21:05 +0000

Oh, so because you say the goal of policy should be the elimination of poverty rather than ensuring more people get the “chance” to live in poverty you want to establish a one party state, a GuLag and shackle the economy to the will of the bureucrats? Nice smear manfarang.

By: manfarang

manfarang — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 09:37:24 +0000

All this is enough to make someone full of Ostalgie.

By: Tom

Tom — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 14:27:20 +0000

“what frustrates me about many people on the left is the idea that there is a class-based phalanx of people in that bottom quartile who will always be there, and should celebrate the fact that they are there.”

Who on earth thinks this? It’s a weird thing to think. It’s a particularly weird thing for people who want to end poverty to think. I’m pretty sure I’ve never met anyone who thinks it.

By: simon

simon — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 12:44:36 +0000

know ‘their’ place … obviously

By: simon

simon — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 12:43:50 +0000

Hhhmmm …. I see what you and Adrian mean, but what I take to mean ’social mobility’ is that the ability to move out of that bottom quartile should not be constrained by your family background or social circumstances.

Yes, there will always be that bottom quartile, so one person moving up, does mean one person moving down, and you’re right that the MAIN aim should be working for the end of poverty, full stop.

BUT, what frustrates me about many people on the left is the idea that there is a class-based phalanx of people in that bottom quartile who will always be there, and should celebrate the fact that they are there. Know there place, kind of thing. Social mobility to me means the ability to move out of that bottom tier based on your own skills and talents, while at the same time wanting to raise the bar for those who take your place.

But Adrian is right. Some people who talk about ’social mobility’ have other motives.

By: Adrian

Adrian — Mon, 17 Dec 2007 23:23:31 +0000

You’ve also made me spot a few errors in the English in that piece, which I hope I’ve now fixed