Does the UK begrudge success?

The Uk has had a chequered history of relations with what is now the EU, since it was founded in 1956/7 by Jean Monnet. De Gaulle, who was sheltered in the UK as the leader of Free France during the war and treated as a head of state, decided to freeze out the UK and refused UK applications repeatedly. Instead we joined EFTA and the European Coal and Steel trades consortium (I can't remember the acronym).

This has always seemed to me to be something of an Anglo-French grudge match. The French are determined to lead Europe into a glorious future, With Germany, if they have to. But never with the English. On a personal level, we gel. But politically, we vie for supremacy. The French are at the centre of European politics, the UK isn't, but the UK has very decent statistics, even post Brexit, and a much larger field to play on. Countries want to join the Commonwealth; Mozambique has no British colonialist past, for example, but asked to join voluntarily.

I see you ignore my point about the UK not being invited to t join the "EEC", as you called it...

Anyway, over the decade of the 1950s, GDP rose 4.5%, and unemployment rose 2.8%.

"on glue" what an intellectual insight

But on your point, how by the middle of the 1950s were they not? What's your argument other than the "on glue" comment(like most wealthy people who want to covet their wealth, i strongly suspect you haven't one)? strong productivity growth was reflected in real-terms household disposable income by 1959 this was 22% greater than it was in 1950. Even the Prime Minister, Harold Macmillan, captured the spirit of the age when he said "Some of our people have never had it so good".

Please, please enlighten me as to why this is a complete fallacy, an unlived mythical fairy tale told by our parents(one of whom in my case was an Economist in that era) make us feel better about the dire economic predicament of the British working/middle classes in 2024, oh hang on?🙄

Are you on glue? The fifties were not a growth decade for the UK.

And as for the EEC, or the EC as it was then, they didn't ask us to join - we asked, and they refused us, twice. On the third attempt we got in.

What?? So the 50's, 60's is understood to be the Golden age of economic growth in Britain, increase in real terms GDP per person. Living conditions improved, wealth inequality declined and job security was relatively high. Are you British? I am and anecdotally my parents, young people of the 1960s along with my DH's, all of friends and peers Boomer parents never had it so good, all afforded a university education that was never an option for their parents, fighting off opportunities for employment of a high calibre following completion of this education, high levels of disposable income, my parents at 21 had a honeymoon in 1966 in Jamaica for example! They moved to London and bought a detached house in South West London when they were 26! It is a similar story with my friends parents and colleagues parents who are that age! To date, what are the markers of the resounding successes of your Thatcherite, neo liberal politics?

Had we been the sick man of Europe we would not have been asked to join the EEC. In 1973, when we entered, our annual national growth rate in real terms was a record 7.4% so the economic basket case argument doesn’t work.

You should have added, "in my opinion", this is not how the Economy works because your notion of infinite resources is a fallacy hence why the pie does need to be cut more equally!

@JazbayGrapes yep- I suspect that is indeed the situation - but those who are here in the UK keep that mentality too - I think it's deep in the culture.

I agree- I think there is a great deal of 'your kids need to be successful' to help you out in southern Asian culture. Not saying that's right or wrong but hard for us westerners to get their head around

Zero welfare to fall back on in home countries. Kids' success is parents' retirement plan.

@chopc I agree- I think there is a great deal of 'your kids need to be successful' to help you out in southern Asian culture. Not saying that's right or wrong but hard for us westerners to get their head around

OP, I had a similar experience to you. My family were poor growing up, my mother worked in a factory and my dad was a labourer. The stars aligned when I was due to go to secondary school and they got a small inheritance, and I earned a large bursary with top test results, so I went to private school. I appreciate it so much now, but at the time it was hard, being the poor kid with second hand uniform that doesn't fit, had never done my homework because the home situation was so stressful - I also experienced dv and what I realise years later was neglect.

I think I see privilege differently now after learning about intersectionality, that you can be privileged in one way but not in others. You might have gone to private school, but also experienced racial bias and discrimination, or for others, you might have grown up poor but be white, straight, and faced less discrimination.

I don't know why people would be judging you now for your privilege, my own experience is different because I don't talk about my personal life at work - the good or the bad, and I decide very carefully what I am comfortable sharing with friends, building trust and sharing my past gradually.

My brother was not as lucky as me, my parents could only afford to send one of us to private school and even though it wasn't my choice, I still carry the guilt for that. Our lives have been very different, I went to uni and have a good job now, he doesn't. I have a very clear and always present reminder of the privilege I experienced.

@Viohh have you had therapy? I think that will be very useful for you.

We live in a nanny state in UK. Most don't appreciate the privilege of the opportunities available and make excuses for their position in life (if they are struggling). So it is better for them to say that you achieved your success as you are privileged.

Also OP, most people from Western cultures won't appreciate the extremes of the sacrifices made by your parents. It would be a bizarre concept. This is not a criticism of Western cultures but I feel there is more of an emphasis on children's happiness and people are proud of their kids just because rather than because they are doing well at school or have a particular characteristic etc

Part of the British post-war success was down to the demolition of Germany and most of the rest of the industrialised parts of western Europe, meaning Europe couldn't produce the goods it needed.

The US economy was the real post-war winner both in the short term and long term, and part of what created the modern economic behemoth that is the US was the GI Bill under which returned servicemen and women (and their children) were able to attend university.

No such forward thinking policy was created in the UK, and so a generation returned from war to the shop floors with no possibility of bettering themselves apart from joining unions and engaging in the old dynamics that had characterised labour-capital relations in the UK from the 19th century.

Third level education remained out of reach for most, despite the development of polytechnics and the introduction of comprehensives. The idea that the economy might need to grow, to compete, and develop in different directions - and education was the key to all of that - didn't seem to have crossed the mind of planners. The only way the vast majority of working class Britons could ultimately establish wealth was by buying their council houses.

TL:DR The post-war years were years of wasted opportunity and failure to see the way the wind was blowing. It was a massive failure with far-reaching consequences. By the time the UK joined the EEC it had iirc nine out of ten of western Europe's most deprived regions.

.......
The last sentence there illustrates the fundamentally flawed "finite amount of pie/ cake" theory that bedevils the British understanding of how an economy works.

Not necessarily.

After independence (and even before) Irish small farmers won the right to ownership of the land they farmed. My ancestors bought their land (back) from the local landlord family they had formerly paid rent to.

The Land Commission was tasked with the breaking up of large estate assets, with small farms awarded to the farmers who had lived there with the shadow of eviction hanging over them for generations.

There has been a good deal of consolidation of farms since the 1940s but the average farm is just over 32 hectares. Dairy farmers tend to belong to farmers' cooperatives which started small and are now massive enterprises, global in their reach.

I accept that is quite probably the case.

But, what I would point out is that land ownership in the UK is either a hangover from the feudal system or resulting from the enclosure of common land - quite literally taking it from the poorest people.

Estates 2 was basically gifted by the monarch to the original owner!

@AnonyLonnymouse isnt it the case that most countries in the developed world which have a significant agricultural base have large tracts of land owned by individual landowners or corporations? Most farms aren’t economic unless they have significant land holdings.

Most people who have a mortgage will be spending at least that though, we were unlucky enough to lose a parent too soon so paid the house off and used the mortgage money for private school. It's still not super rich and is actually less than the mortgage would be.

I haven't said we are not privileged but we are not super rich.

Following on from my previous post, it is a mistake to underestimate the importance of historical land and land ownership.

There is a large hill near my rural town and I was sitting up there one day, enjoying the view and picking out landmarks, when it dawned on me that almost the entire landscape that I could see was owned by one of three large local estates or the National Trust. The houses and gardens owned by average people, even those in expensive houses, were in total just a pocket handkerchief compared to the size of the estates. But it’s not the extent of the land, it’s what you can do with it.

Estate 1 - now owned by a multi-millionaire. Entirely private and no business use made of the land, apart from perhaps some tenant farmers.

Estate 2 - passed down from original owners to another family, in default of heirs. Valuable businesses on the land including farming, brewing and tourism.

Estate 3 - still with the original owners, inherited from centuries back! Valuable businesses on the land including farming, retail, a restaurant and a brewery.

While of course it takes skill and dedication to create successful rural businesses, any business is easier to setup if you already have the freehold land. You are only really limited by your own capabilities and what planners will allow. The income generated from land can sustain the owner throughout their life. Their children already have jobs, if they want them. The owner has security forever.

The system of land inheritance builds wealth, security and advantage far beyond the realm of what an average person can achieve in their lifetime.

It doesnt really matter so much what income is, but what disposable income is. Obviously having 12k a year to throw at private education is beyond the wildest dreams of most people. Definitely super rich!

What sort of salary would you consider super rich? My DSs fees are just over £1k a month, that is equivalent of a less than average mortgage where we live, we can only send him to private school due to DH losing his mum tragically young so we no longer have a mortgage. I think you have a weird view of super rich.

I think you would be surprised at some of the salaries people have with their kids at private school. Certainly not super rich, decent earners perhaps though.

I understand what you are saying. I.am second generation south asisn and I had a horrible physically and emotionally abusive childhood. Looking at me and siblings now, we are so damaged inwards but externally we are a success. Meanwhile our parents got away with the abuse they threw at us. I am angry because me and siblings cannot hold them accountable. I have tried to get them to acknowledge even a little part of our childhood but become get raging mad. It's like they want to delete a massive part of us. I want the the world to know what they did and I want them to know they cannot delete my experiences. They pretend none of it happened.

I noticed this - the kids who grew up with certain degree of privilege - it being private education, or foreign travel, or just a room full of coolest toys - resent it and would happily swapped it for "simpler lives" - like less pressure and stress, more relaxed and loving parents, lower expectations of success. But then they grow up they can see the grass isn't greener on the other side.

if anyone can afford 16k, they are rich

@autrejour no, that is the kind of false dichotomy the very wealthy would like us to believe is the only thing there is.

The other side of the coin is countries like the Scandinavian ones, where you pay high taxes but you get something good back for them, where the safety net actually means something and where you can afford to go to work because there is affordable childcare. There's no such thing as utopia, but there is middle ground between two shades of bad.

The average annual wage in the UK is £28k, I'm talking about a family where 2 adults earn not much more than that each.

School fees around here are around 16k and some families manage it on a combined wage of around average. I had a friend move to Kent and HAVE to put their child in private because there wasn't a school place for them.

This why many families are panicking about Labour getting in and taking away private's charitable status, causing fees to go up, because they're NOT 'rich' and cannot afford a few more thousand a year.

The other side of the coin is a communist society where party membership=money=power
The richest, most powerful people were high up in the party. No matter how hard you worked, what profession you had (doctor , solicitor) , unless you joined the ranks you were nobody.
At least in capitalism you have a chance through honest means not by selling your soul to an ideology.