How dare you seek to have the best chance in life!

So my last post was the definitive guide to class difficulties in the UK. It is excellent, I'm very pleased with it. As I read the Times article suggesting that private schools should be banned, I just wish everyone in Britain could read it (I imagine Google does too, but for different reasons).

It appears that in the wonderful world some people think equality is more useful than, well utility come to think about it. The concept that going to a school with other bright people gives you an advantage and that is unfair, so it is better to send us all to mixed school so we can all be equally stupid. It makes society worse, but at least it will suck for everyone, not just the few at the bottom of the pack.

It reminds me of what Jeremy Clarkson once said: 'socialists don't like helping the poor half as much as they like hurting the rich'. It appears he is a wise man. Grouping children together on how much their parents care about education is going to give the ones who do care an advantage over those whose parents don't. Those who are grouped in high level schools are going to have an advantage over those who are late developers and are therefore not put in high level schools. But this brings up a question, which is more important: everyone having exactly the same, or having a wholly functioning, intelligent civilised society that can support itself and those in it?

If everyone having the same is so essential then there are a few other changes that need to be made.

Parents should no longer bring up their children.
Some parents are smart others are thick, some are workaholics some are alcoholics. This isn't equal therefore all children should be brought up by the state.

Money
That is easy, time for Communism people it doesn't matter how hard you work or if your co worker is lazy, you should always be paid the same.

Intelligence
Some are born smarter than others, so not fair! If someone is more intelligent then they should be forced to drink until they kill enough brain cells so that we're all equally thick.

Good looks
We don't all look like Brad and Ange, so good looking people ought to start being forced to wear paper bags over their heads... that way everyone is equal

Hormones and fitness
Some of us have high testosterone and serotonin others have low, this isn't fair, it effects how we look, how fit we are, how strong we are, how much discipline we have. It makes a whole lot of sense to force the strong fit and healthy to smoke themselves into a state of bad health so everyone is on the same platform, after all some gifted people are so smug as to make use of their talents and succeed in sports and athletics. This is obviously unfair on those who spent their lives failing to move from the settee and so it must be rectified. After all think of when they go for a job, they will have less extra curricular activities on their CV!

This is of course an exercise in reductio ad absurdum, but nonetheless hopefully it makes a point. We are all different and life cannot be made 'fair' by state intervention. Sure we can help those at a natural disadvantage but some people are always going to have more opportunities than others. If we take that away from those people we're not helping anyone else, we're just confining our country to mediocraty and sending us back to the stone age.

The definitive guide to class in the UK.

This is starting to annoy me now. Everyone wants to express their opinion on why there is no class mobility. or why class mobility is so bad in the UK. The problem is most of the people who are expressing these opinions are journalists and politicians who chances are (by nature of their job) have no idea what problems there are for the working classes. So here it is, the definitive answer.

To begin after an introduction like that I feel I ought to explain a little about myself. Since this is the Internet and essentially anyone can read this however, it will be just that, a little.

My family heritage is based firmly in the working class. My fathers first job was digging roads and now I'm here a Barrister. So I feel I can state with confidence that I know what I'm talking about when it comes to class and class barriers.

Point number 1: Someone working class people just have an inferiority complex.

Some people who are successful in Britain still go on moping about how they don't really feel totally accepted in the middle class and how they still feel like outsiders. Allow me to put this in the plainest possible terms, just because you have an inferiority complex that doesn't mean that you don't fit in. What it means is that your insecurity is telling you that you don't fit in, despite the fact that you have in fact 'made it'. You have made the transition from one class to another. Your subjective feelings however are nothing to do with what anyone else thinks about you.

Admittedly this isn't something from which I suffer. As far as I'm concerned anyone who thinks they are better than me because they were born with money and I wasn't is actually proving the reverse. I have got to where they now are with less than what they had. This means that I'm superior, if they were as good as me then they wouldn't be where I am, they would be on a beach in Barbados living off their controlling interest in Virgin, in other words they would be Richard Branson, who now I come to think about it, wasn't born with money either, in fact he was born with very limited academic ability.

Point number 2: Some state schools are useless, but not for the reason you think.

Bla bla bla, private schools are so unfair, state schools aren't good enough bla bla bla. I'm so tired on this argument I don't know where to begin. The state school I went to was dire. I don't mean 'oh you didn't get an A*' dire, I mean 'pat that kid down for knives' dire. This got better at sixth form, but it was still no picnic. But the question to ask is why did it get better in 6th form? Th reason is that all the people who didn't want to be in school left. That is why it got better. It was still underfunded, the teachers still had to pay for their own white board pens, but the people who didn't want to be there left, and that is what counts. The attitude of the pupils who are there. Everyone in private school not only wants to be there, but wants to be there so badly that they are willing to pay £9,000 per year to be there. You don't pay that unless you really care about what you're coming out with (or you're so rich £9,000 is nothing but they often don't do well). The idea that public schools are better because they are better funded and therefore have better equipment is like me claiming that Marcel Fischer is a better fencer than me because his Épée cost more than mine. It may be true but it has nothing to do with why his is better (assuming he is of course!).

My school was rubbish because the attitude of the pupils was not one of competition and wanting to get the best marks possible. It was because it was filled with idiots, who thought school was "s***" and then left to spend their life on benefits and shop lifting, that isn't a generalisation, that is two case studies.

The fact is if these people went to a public school they would be kicked out and their backward looking educational outlook would leave with them. That just didn't happen in my school because the state makes it illegal for them not to go to school. As a result the morons must go somewhere and that somewhere was the same place that I went to learn.

Now those of a Guardian reading disposition love to say that failing state schools is a fault of the government. This is rubbish. All my teachers did their best under the circumstances and a good few went above and beyond what was required of them. But that doesn't change the fact that you're teaching an idiot, not because they aren't intelligent, but because they place no value in knowledge, to mis-quote the famous philosopher 'Chris Rock' "nothing pleases a [chav] more than not knowing something". To go slightly higher brow, Proverbs 1:22 “ How long, you simple ones, will you love simplicity? For scorners delight in their scorning, And fools hate knowledge.

And this is something that Guardian readers can't grasp, some people are fools. They are not stupid, they do not lack resources, they lack no good only that they are fools. I don't consider these people below me or anyone else for that matter. I don't think they are particularly bad, 'but for the grace of God go I' as John Bradford once said (well technically referred to himself in the third person, but we'll ignore that for the sake of simplicity).

These people need support but it is not more money for teachers and it is most certainly not banning private education from the rich. There is little the state can do because the attitudes that these people need are instilled by their parents and their families at large, this is something that the state just cannot do, no matter how much socialists like to think it can. It is society at large which has an effect on these people, not some man in number 10 who will never see or meet them. But I guess socialists don't like that idea, because it means you can't just load the blame on Parliament and anyone who so evil as to be rich.

No, if people really wanted to reform the education system they would do thus: they would allow parents to send their children to whichever school they like. This way parents who care about education will all go to good schools with others who are the same. Those who don't care about education will let their children go to whichever school is easiest because they don't care. The former schools could then focus on the dizzy heights of accomplishment and the later could focus on providing the type ambition and life skills that they may not be getting else where. It isn't a perfect solution I know, but then as I've already said, this is just one fight that the state cannot sort out on its own. It is in the hands of their families.

Point number 3: No one asks at interviews what is your fathers occupation.

There seems to be a thought that somehow when you go for an interview you will be given the job because you are middle class or upper class. No I don't know about you but I've never been asked what is my fathers occupation in an interview, so I fail to see how they are going to know whether anyone is upper, middle or lower class (or anything in between). Dress code, language and accent can all be modified if needed rendering one class indistinguishable from the next. The only indicators are the names of the schools and the universities. Frankly if there was a new convention introduced that the name of the schools were not allowed to be put on CVs and application forms (replaced with a serial number instead) I would have no problem with this at all. As for Universities generally Oxford and Cambridge give preference to state school candidates so there is unlikely to be class bias there. There is of course the issue of contacts, but I consider nepotism separate from class discrimination, I will address this later.

Point number 4: getting more people to go to university would do nothing, in fact it would be a hindrance.

Labour thought that sending everyone to University would make things fair. It doesn't. Not even slightly. First of all, we need to face facts that not everyone is intelligent enough to do a chemistry degree, in which case teaching them media studies isn't going to cut it. Getting more people to go to University just devalues degrees, this means that the value of the degree becomes less important forcing people to decide on other factors, such as, oh I don't know, contacts! All the while we don't have any plumbers and so we have to import the whole of Poland to compensate (which I imagine the Polish aren't too happy about). Although the people who really are well off can afford to just do a masters or an MPhil putting them ahead of those who cannot afford to do so. This brings things right back to class and money, except everyone has wasted three years of their lives doing a useless degree when they could have been working. That's the thing about money, the rich always have more of it.

Point number 5: nurture or nature, logically it would make sense for middle class couples to have intelligent children.

Oh my, middle class children earn more! How can this be? Well lets just think this through shall we? Whether you think intelligence is due to DNA or whether you think it is down to your upbringing, either way this favours middle class children. Between the ages of 2 and 10 I constantly harassed my father with every question my youthful mind could muster. Since my father has the patience of Job, rather than telling me to shut up before he drove off a cliff (we were often in the car at the time I recall) he told the time and effort to answer these inane questions. When we were travelling we would have a game of 'Capitols', one person names the country the other person has to state the capitol city. To this end I was devastated the other day when I couldn't remember the capitol of Romanian was Bucharest. Anyway, the point is that my cerebral development had as much to do with my parents intelligence and reception to knowledge as it had to do with to which school I went. Don't get me wrong I'm not saying that stupid parents cannot give birth to intelligent children, but logically it is going to be less likely. The result of this is obvious, intelligent children are likely to grow up and have high earning jobs. It isn't rocket science, and it isn't a class conspiracy.

While I did intend for this evaluation to be comprehensive, I didn't expect it to be so long, so I'm going to cut it in two here.

I'm not sure if you know Mr Reader but Gordon Brown is making off with your wallet.

I was planning on rambling on about poor Myleen Klass today. She recently had some guys peering through her window at mid night when only she and her daughter were home. She waved a knife at them and they left. Nothing wrong with that, until the police came around and told her off for possessing an offensive weapon.

But the thing is it is a bit too obvious. Everyone knows that a woman at home having people considering breaking into their house should be able to use most means available to scare away the intruders, and when no one is hurt in anyway they certainly should be told off for it.

All this is straight forward though, and there is something a lot more important that has come into view. It is not more important as such, but it is less obvious.

I have recently read about Labour taking money from the government foreign aid budget and giving it to the TUC.

Let me put that plainly, Labour is taking money earmarked for Orphans starving in Africa and giving it to the Trade Unions, who, pay large amounts of money to Labour.

I don't mean Labour as in the government either, I mean as a political party. Labour is taking tax that would/should/could be spent on schools hospitals and infrastructure and they are paying it into their own party bank account (indirectly).

So tax is being spent on keeping labour in power, propaganda and so on. If you are a UK citizen you are paying money to brain wash yourself that Labour aren't an incompetent bunch of morons. Why you ask?

Well it is also in the news that Labour as a party (not as a government) is all but bankrupt. They have massive debts and there is no chance of money coming in. So they are either going to go bust or use their dying moments in government to embezzle money out of the public to keep themselves afloat.

Apparently 'Jim, they're gone for door number 2!!'

Now if you're British the standard reaction you will be having now is one where you say 'typical' or 'no surprise there then!' But I resent this response even if it is wholly and completely British in nature. It is typical for a government to renege on its promises, it may be typical for the government to be less than forthcoming with the truth. But I'm sorry when they start committing out right fraud the response should not be 'no surprise there then' but rather, 'lock the cheating fraudsters up!'

We went mental when the MP's claimed for a duck island or two, we Brit's went mad when they claimed expenses for having their huge gardens tended (which technically was perfectly within the rules) but now that they are paying their supporters millions to keep themselves afloat it hardly makes the headlines. That is a bit backward.

All I can hope is this, David Cameron (leader of the Conservatives, the opposition) will hopefully make a big point out of this. Elect labour and money will be embezzled from you under the pretense of being given to the poor and then given to those who line the pockets of New Labour.... when I think about it is makes the people who were going to rob Myleens house look almost open and honest!

We'd like a carbon neutral flying train please.

While I'm on the environmentalist war path I will just briefly continue with another point.

Lord Adonis recently hyped up a new train track that would take high speed trains from London to the North of England.

Now you're probably expecting me to slate it and say that the government is incompetent and they should have done bla bla bla. But no, I'm not.

Frankly I think it is an excellent idea. Lord Adonis, far from being a stuck up pretentious prat who has never done a day of hard work in his life is actually the son of a Greek Cypriot immigrant and through his own talent, skill, hard work and blessing (a LEA grant) manged to get himself to Keable College Oxford. As such he has my respect. But that isn't a reason for endorsing his idea. No, that just comes from good sense.

What wasn't impressive was the title the Times went with when reporting the storey. It ran with how it was going to cut up the countryside and as a result the world would be a worse place (I paraphrase).

Now let me just check, what are we meant to do? If we drive out nice luxury saloon from London to the North the Greens will consider us the spawn or all that is evil. If we try to build a train that can get us there quickly and efficiently (rather than using the 18th century relic we have at the moment) then we're cutting up the countryside. And if we fly over the country side so that there is no need for either new roads or new tracks then we are supporting those evil air transport companies who so cruelly provide fast, cheap (essentially public) transport and skilled jobs for pilots and air craft control.

So the strong clear message here is stay in your homes and don't leave... especially if you live on a hill, if you do walking back your heart rate will increase and that will cause you to increase the CO2 you're producing.

It is time to face facts; people need to travel, get over it! The sooner people do get over it and accept that modern life necessitates travel then the sooner we can start focusing on which type is best so we can plough a fat wod of cash into it and make it work properly. If it is trains then great, planes great, small light cars, whatever I don't care. Just quit whining about it and get one with it. All this complaining is just pointless, besides getting stressed increases your heart rate and that increases the amount of carbon you're wasting. So shut up and calm down. Thanks.

We invented the train and yet at the moment with all the complaining the Chinese are making much better trains than we are! A few years ago they were on horse and cart and now they are travelling at 200mph in a train. We, mean while, are moaning because the new train track will have to be built within 500 miles of our house. Oh and in case you're wondering I live about 500m from a railway line and I have never once cared in my life, excluding the times I would specifically watch the trains go by when I was young.

Lots of light bulbs but not bright idea

NPower has just shipped out a ba-gillion energy efficient light bulbs, free of charge without request to its customers.

It has done this because a ban has just been implemented where unsolicited light bulbs are no longer allowed.
Why is it so desperate to give away light bulbs in the first place you ask?
Well there are regulations that the government has given out saying that the energy companies have to pay to make us all more carbon efficient and giving out bulbs like they are going out of fashion is a cheap way to do this.
The problem is that some peoples light aren't going to fit the bulbs and so they are just going to be wasted.
So to break it down to cut down waste they are producing more waste.

Don't get me wrong I don't think that it is a bad idea over all. Even if people don't need them immediately, only an idiot would throw them out. Therefore they will get used eventually, but this whole scheme shows just how unimaginative the companies and governments are being about all this.

They are pledging to cut carbon and they are are trying to do so by getting people to use less, less products, less food, less meat, less electricity, less petrol and so on. There are two problems with this:
1. This sort of change will only shave small amounts of carbon off our usage, if there were big savings to be made, chances are it would have been done already.
2. It goes against the whole character of the modern world.

Allow me to elaborate the second point.

The world is based on more, not less. Problems are solved by more and new, rarely are they solved with old and less.
There is good reason for this being the case. Lets take nuclear weapons as an example. There were lots of protests for nuclear disarmament in the last century. No one listened and a lot of people wasted their time. I'm sorry to say this but if you were in such a protest, you obviously didn't think that far ahead.

Once nuclear weapons were invented, they couldn't be 'uninvented'. If everyone instantly listened to the berks who were protesting it wouldn't have 'uninvented' the bomb. In fact it would probably have the reverse effect.

Once the US had the bomb Russia had to get it in order to be on a level playing field, but that was all. But essentially it was just a deterrent, no one would use it, because if they did they would have several coming their way too.

If the US burned all its papers and everyone gave up their bombs then that would give some real psychopath (read N Korea/Iran/Iraq/Libya) a real reason to make the bomb, because they would be the ONLY people to have it and therefore they would actually be in a position to use it.
Even if there was an international convention that everyone agreed to not to use nuclear weapons, the type of person who wants to blow millions of people into the next life, isn't the type of person who cares much for international conventions. As soon as the bomb was on the scene it was here to stay, the only thing which was more of a deterrent was more sophisticated bombs, or new anti missile technology. New, not old, more not less.

Now lets apply this to carbon. It is the same. If you shave off 5% of your carbon at a cost of £8Bn it means nothing because China is gong to increase their carbon by ten times as much and they are then going to make money from it. This means that those who care get weaker and those who don't get stronger.

The more restraints you put on your industries the more expensive they become and the better the prices of a Chinese factory look in comparison. Whatever you cut out, someone else will expand to fill the gap.

So essentially I'm saying sure having something that 5% more efficient is good, but it isn't going to save the world. And cutting things out altogether just make you poor as a country and as such you just lose influence... and with that goes your chance to change the rest of the world... which by the way, unless you're American or Chinese, is the bit that counts when it comes to carbon.

So then, how does my more and new policy work?

Simple instead of piddling into the wind by making energy companies buy you light bulbs (which by the way they are allowed to increase their charges for, so it is forcing you to buy them rather that getting anything for free in reality) they should be made to spent 10-25% of their profits on covering the sub Sahara in trees or solar panels. Either one, I don't care. Trees will taking carbon on a massive scale for the rest of time. Solar panels will give us free energy. We will have MORE energy and new technology can make it more and more efficient. I don't know how many panels £100m gets you but I bet it is a decent amount.

Instead of becoming weaker because some moron is complaining about air travel, you country because stronger because you can manufacture the panels in your own company giving you more new jobs.

Or you get more new jobs planting trees, heck you could even run a gap year program where unemployed 18-25 olds spend their time baking next to a pool and planting trees (while not getting paid obviously). Good for bored unemployed, good for the environment.

The idea of less, just cripples an economy, decreases employment and standard of life. More energy production from new methods increases jobs, provides free energy and thus makes countries more efficient and increases the standard of life. Hippies, I hope you're listening.