Meritocracy - can (and should) it ever exist?

PS. I agree about the House of Lords, but it wasn't the Queen who suggested that Zac Goldsmith, Kate Hoey, Evgeny Lebedev, Ian Botham, Claire Fox, Gavin Williamson, Michelle Mone and some others should be peers.

Meritocracy isn’t a new concept growstuff, I did a sociology degree in the 1980s, and it had been around as a construct for 30 years or more then. Elegran’s description fits my understanding of the pros and cons - fundamentally it’s a flawed system in that by introducing any ability/merit based system some rise in the system above others, and some of them abuse their power, using it to give advantage to themselves and others.
I agree with you about the monarchy being a red herring in this context. Republics are not meritocratic systems either.

Monarchy has absolutely nothimg to do with meriticracy. if it was asbolished tomorrow it would have effect on the way society is run.meriticracy would not be checked and the class system went out with the dodo. All that matters today is how much money you have.

A plumber who made a billion by building from a one man band to a huge national plumbing company would have no difficulty at all being accepted by others with all kinds of backgrounds who are in the same income bracket as him. There are lots of companies started by one man (it is usually a man). I mean to say Russian Oligarchs and all sorts of other unsavoury people have been welcomed into society if they have enough money.

Try checking out the people on these links
realbusiness.co.uk/the-uks-top-25-self-made-millionaires

www.moneyguru.com/insights/where-are-britains-self-made-super-rich-from

www.prowess.org.uk/female-entrepreneurs-uk/

It seems to me that Britian is an ingrained 'can't do' country. There is much wrong with the US but at least they are 'can do' country.

I agree with you about the monarchy being a red herring in this context. Republics are not meritocratic systems either.

Indeed. It is possible that some monarchies are more meritocratic...

But, so much hinges on the questions 'What is merit?' and 'How do you measure success?'

I think that the criteria for 'success' in life has for so long been the acquisition and retention of wealth that it completely skews the concept of meritocracy and relationships between those who have achieved wealth and those who haven't.

But 'merit' surely encompasses far more than the ability to screw money out of your fellow citizens...

It seems to me that Britian is an ingrained 'can't do' country. There is much wrong with the US but at least they are 'can do' country.

No mistaking what your definition of 'merit' is, then MOnica.

God, we British are a pathetic lot, aren't we? No huge desire to make money...

Casdon

Meritocracy isn’t a new concept growstuff, I did a sociology degree in the 1980s, and it had been around as a construct for 30 years or more then. Elegran’s description fits my understanding of the pros and cons - fundamentally it’s a flawed system in that by introducing any ability/merit based system some rise in the system above others, and some of them abuse their power, using it to give advantage to themselves and others.
I agree with you about the monarchy being a red herring in this context. Republics are not meritocratic systems either.

No, it isn't a new concept - I agree. However, it started being on the agenda in the 1950s, so that fits with your experience in the 1980s.

I actually think it's fundamentally more flawed than Elegran's description. In my opinion, it's a flawed ideology philosophically, which is used by those at the top to justify their position.

MaizieD

^It seems to me that Britian is an ingrained 'can't do' country. There is much wrong with the US but at least they are 'can do' country.^

No mistaking what your definition of 'merit' is, then MOnica.

God, we British are a pathetic lot, aren't we? No huge desire to make money...

Social mobility has stalled in the US too, despite the alleged "can do" attitude.

I'm afraid I don't think that abolishing the monarchy would result in a fairer, more equal society. I'm not a monarchist, but I think the royal family is a red herring.

It's not totally irrelevant. In the small government/market economy we have had thrust upon us, the richest rise to the top regardless of merit. It's no surprise, therefore, to find wealth right at the top.

We do not live in a meritocracy. Any chance of that has been worn away over the last 40 years. We have what the New Right always wanted - a Small Government Market Economy. Is that what you wanted? Did you vote for it - or even against it? Did you know this was the road we were being taken down? Individuals don't count in this type of economy; merit has little value only money and those who make it count. Do you have enough to count? The idea is to take away any you have ensuring the richest get richer and the poor poorer.

We have private (money-making) companies running the NHS; private (money-making) companies running the Schools; private (money-making) companies running Care; private (money-making) companies run the basic, monopoly services of fuel, water, etc.

Let's have a list of the major privatisations in the UK during the last 40 years.
Associated British Ports
British Aerospace
British Airports Authority
British Airways
British Coal
British Energy
British Gas
British Leyland
British Nuclear Fuels Limited (BNFL)
British Petroleum
British Rail
British Shipbuilders and Harland and Wolff
British Steel Corporation
British Sugar Corporation
British Telecom
Buses
Cable & Wireless
Electricity Supply Industry
London Underground
National Air Traffic Services
Rolls Royce
Royal Dockyards
Royal Mail
Royal Ordnance Factories
Short Brothers
Horserace Totalisator Board (The Tote)
Thomas Cook
Water Industry

We could argue whether some needed to be privatised but we were not told, upfront, that everything but the air we breathe (and possibly even that) might go to the profit makers.

A Small Government Market Economy also means fewer controls on business, fewer rules for workers' conditions and safety. They sort of said they would do that but they also said "the country" would benefit. What they meant was the rich would benefit while the workers would work harder, for less, in worse conditions.

Yes, folks, you truly do live in a marketplace where the government thinks only of money, and only those that have it, count.

DaisyAnne I have never voted Tory in my life, so no I didn't vote for it. If you've ever read any of my posts on GN (or any of my posts in my real name elsewhere) you'd know that I have spoken up about the political system we have. I'm actually more radical in real life, but I prefer to remain relatively anonymous on GN. I have two children who are politically active too and regularly speak up about injustices.

I'm well aware that the UK has sold its "national family silver", but it seems to me many people just don't care or realise how important it is. There are times when I truly despair about the state this country is in.

PS. I assume your post was addressed to me.

Quite frankly, I don't know how anybody didn't know that the aim was to privatise just about everything.

DaisyAnne it’s not quite as black and white as you paint it, because in some countries of the UK where our own governments have some control there is less privatisation than there is in England. The NHS is a good example of diverse systems across the UK.

growstuff

DaisyAnne I have never voted Tory in my life, so no I didn't vote for it. If you've ever read any of my posts on GN (or any of my posts in my real name elsewhere) you'd know that I have spoken up about the political system we have. I'm actually more radical in real life, but I prefer to remain relatively anonymous on GN. I have two children who are politically active too and regularly speak up about injustices.

I'm well aware that the UK has sold its "national family silver", but it seems to me many people just don't care or realise how important it is. There are times when I truly despair about the state this country is in.

PS. I assume your post was addressed to me.

Growstuff. No, it wasn't. It just picked up on the preceding conversation to which I added my thoughts.

Casdon

DaisyAnne it’s not quite as black and white as you paint it, because in some countries of the UK where our own governments have some control there is less privatisation than there is in England. The NHS is a good example of diverse systems across the UK.

I don't disagree Casdon but that doesn't stop the English/UK government from trying to inflict their political stance on the whole of the UK as far as they can.

There are a few of us on here who've never voted Tory and despair at the selling and redistribution of the wealth from our national industries into Tory pockets. Because that's where the sell off money went and continues to go.

GagaJo

There are a few of us on here who've never voted Tory and despair at the selling and redistribution of the wealth from our national industries into Tory pockets. Because that's where the sell off money went and continues to go.

Not only into tory pockets, GagaJo, but abroad, too. How many of our utilities and former British enterprises are foreign owned?

How many of us recall Harold MacMillan castigating Thatcher for 'selling off the family silver'? It's certainly all come back to bite us, hasn't it?

This isn't strictly speaking to do with meritocracy.

growstuff

This isn't strictly speaking to do with meritocracy.

Sorry ma'am.

My simple answer to your original question would be that the concept is fine, has worked in a fashion since universal education and universal suffrage, but we always seem to end up with an 'elite', usually based on wealth, which supersedes the ability of people to 'achieve' on merit alone.

Of course, as others have pointed out, we need to explore just what 'achievement' and 'merit' actually mean. There must be more to both than just money and power..

I don't have much of a problem with some people being rewarded more if they are genuinely more talented, hard working and willing to take risks within an acceptable social framework. My concern is inherited wealth, which means that offspring don't "merit" the extras. It also means that many who do merit greater rewards don't get an even playing field. As a society, we're missing out on some of the most talented not taking on responsibilities. Have you read Orwell's "Lion and the Unicorn"?

*Maizie 'can do'/can't do' has nothing to do with merit, but all to do with people being encouraged to do the best they can and helping those who really do have problems.

In this country, too many people spend their time telling people, especially young people and especially those in most disadvantaged homes that they have no hope, that life is stacked against them, thay they are doomed and might as well not try to better their condition in any way because they will never succeed.

Yes the playing field is never level, but as my links in my past email, showed, there are significant number of people who made it through to the higher levels of the 'meritocracy' and many many more who achieved better lives and careers than their parents.

I went to a northern technical university in the early 1960s. Mostly male students, mostly the sons of men working as operatives in the heavy industries, all benefits of the Butler Education Act, when there was a positive attitude to the sons and daughters of people in all sectors of Society going to university.

It wasn't perfect, what is? But it was a darn sight better than today, when there are so many doomsayers telling children they will not succeed because they are so poor, badly housed, badly educated. Those are difficulties, I would not deny that, but they that can be surmounted and some do it, but many more could if they only had encouragement instead being constantly told they do not stand a chance.

Perhaps with all the positive stories and books about women who have made successful lives for themselves, despite great difficulty, we should have some where working class boys have made good.

I have never voted Conservative, or been tempted to. I haven't ever voted Labour either.

growstuff

This isn't strictly speaking to do with meritocracy.

It is. We don't have one. I'm not sure how else you can say that. It's difficult to talk about something that the government has been working to eliminate for 40 years other than to say the government has been working to eliminate it and replace it with a Small Government Market Economy. That may be boring for those who have always known this. However, I do get the impression not everyone is/was aware that this was what they set out to do - and people voted for.

I have just been listening to the fact that if an Academy Group is not working the government cannot take back the school buildings although it sounded as if they could stop them from being a school. I must have got that wrong. No government would leave themselves in that position, surely?

Success or merit is the ability convince others to have confidence in you, that may be as a Polititian, Doctor, Nurse, Car Mechanic or any other skill you care to mention
A skill is an activity that others need you to supply it may be leadership or a practical skill and applies at all pay grades.

Ah well! I was hoping to discuss the concept of meritocracy. I know there are other problems, but there are other threads about them. Never mind!

Katie59

Success or merit is the ability convince others to have confidence in you, that may be as a Polititian, Doctor, Nurse, Car Mechanic or any other skill you care to mention
A skill is an activity that others need you to supply it may be leadership or a practical skill and applies at all pay grades.

But that's not what meritocracy is about.

So define meritocracy

In this country, too many people spend their time telling people, especially young people and especially those in most disadvantaged homes that they have no hope, that life is stacked against them, thay they are doomed and might as well not try to better their condition in any way because they will never succeed.

I'd like to know who these people are.

I worked in a bog standard secondary school in a deprived area for 12 years. Believe you me the teaching staff did their utmost to encourage the children to work and gain decent GCSEs (we were 11 - 16 only). No telling them about 'no hope' and 'life stacked against them', even though the teachers were well aware that the second of those things was true for many of them. I don't think that any teacher in any school is discouraging children from trying to achieve.

So who is doing this,*MOnica*?

(Frankly, I think you're talking nonsense)