Some interesting social trends have been on our news lately. Let’s look at some examples:
1. Social mobility in Britain is lower than other advanced countries and declining.
2. English education is on the decline and every year, and our students performance declines to international standards.
3. The UK has the second highest teenage pregnancy rate in the developed world
Let’s assume that these surveys (and many others) have been conducted properly and their results are reliable. Considering that these trends have developed under Labour government, whose prime call is to support of the middle and lower socio-economic groups, what can we conclude?
In my view there are only two possible explanations. The first is gross incompetence. That is, our politicians are too busy with politics that they have no time left for policies (assuming that they have the ability). Therefore, most policies we see are just done off-hand, normally as a knee jerk reaction.
The other option is sinister. Remembering that the highest rate of support for the Labour comes from lower socio-economic groups, to guarantee re-election, the government needs to ensure that these groups spread, or at least remains unchanged. Trying to improve their status will be cutting the very tree the government is based on, and must be avoided.
Every failure is a win someone’s win, every loss a gain. When you say that something is a failure, think who was the winner, and then you will have the complete picture.
Each of us should make their own mind which of the two options describes our government better, incompetent, or devious.
jenray
Pro 
it reminds me arguments about the train. Show me a country that runs the train well. OK I say Singapore or Belgium. Then say: oh they are so small its so easy to manage on such a small scale. So I move to the other extreme: Japan. They answer: oh they are just so particular, so detailed. etc. 
Hmmm...now who is to really blame LOL...let me think...oh, yes, I know...Mrs. Damned Thatcher...she started the break up of our society into the winners and the losers, and established that as the new norm...no more classes like we had prior to her government...a new class of people were encouraged...basically survival of the fittest and ruthlessness was the name of the game...if you couldn't succeed you joined the new breed of losers...Labour inherited that and who should have taken over the Labour party but one of Thatcher's own breed...a winner and one who she declared she didn't know where he came from but she liked him...of course she bloody did, he was going to carry on in her shoes...only with a slight difference of accent...this time help would be given to the losers but the winners would also be supported because you've got to keep them happy or you'll lose the next election...so the losers stay the losers and the winners stay the winners and old socialists look on in despair and realise everything has changed beyond their ability to help anybody other than throwing cash at them and hope it lands somewhere in the vicinity of the losers...now the young know they're either trapped in the loser's class or they belong to the winner's class, and both are dealing with it in their own way, that is anarchically...it's ugly and sad, but they're products of the ugliest face of conservatism this country has ever seen...I think it's too late to change anything now...we're in decline as a world power, soon as an economy and, if we don't watch out, we'll end up a back water country with a whole group of people basically doing their own thing, and most of it won't be legal, and a heck of lot of them will be from all over the rest of the world taking advantage of the libertarian spirit that was basically a fine British quality and one we allowed to be used and abused...hmmm...sounds very gloomy but it's how I see it at the moment...The USA has it, and that's not going to improve either...big hugs..