mirrorshard | Posh gits and (upper-)class heroes

Entry tags:

politics

Posh gits and (upper-)class heroes

The very rich are not like you and I.
No, they have more money.

Yes, this is a post about Boris Johnson. Feel free to skip.

A lot of the Boris-criticism-criticism I've been seeing lately can be more or less summed up as "don't hate him for being a posh Tory prat". After all, we wouldn't dream of saying that someone wasn't qualified for an elected position because they were too working-class, right?

The problem with that is that the two aren't equivalent. Because our Mayor has always been rich, he's always been privileged and insulated - he's been surrounded by other people of his own class, race, and wealth level to a greater extent than any council-estate hoodie, first at private school and then at Oxbridge. He's never been forced to work at something he didn't want to do, never run the risk of homelessness or bad credit, never had to live hand to mouth. (To the best of my knowledge, at least. I may be wrong about that. If so, please correct me.)

The fact that he went to Eton depresses me more than the Oxford education - after all, many people manage to get through Oxford without being ruined. (And I should stress that this isn't linked to party affiliation. At the moment, they're all posh gits.) But he was a member of the Bullingdon Club, like Cameron, there. For those of you not familiar with the term, they're a bunch of yobs who dress up in penguin costumes and go out to smash up restaurants.

So, like David Cameron (notorious for surrounding himself with others of his own background) he has a far smaller range of people he can identify with, empathise with, and relate to than someone like Ken Livingstone with a more rounded education and socialization. I'm not trying to say he can't, or that he has no interest in it - just that being a posh toff brings with it a lot of disadvantages when it comes to relating to ordinary people, and posh toffs are statistically much more likely to be out of touch with ordinary people than the rest of us are.

What I'd like to see - though there are more than a few problems with the idea - is a rule that nobody can stand for public office unless they've spent at least six months on Government benefits in the past.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I see the difference. I am not talking about Boris, I agree he does not care to and is a waste of privilege who nobody in their right mind would have voted for. You may not be suggesting that people be prevented from political office based on a lack of experience in what you consider a particularly relevent area, but

mirrorshard did, and it was him I replied to. If you're not disagreeing with me, then why are you replying to me saying I don't see something?

I agreed with his suggestion about a 6 months spell on benefits. That would not be preventing someone taking up their role, because they could spend the first 6 months of it accessing and utilising benefits services. As a nicer option, I suggested the minimum wage concept instead, which is much kinder.

Right, then, why are benefits so important? Driving and congestion is a key issue, would you exclude anyone who does not have a licence?

Can't speak for

friend_of_tofu, but to me at least being poor - having had the experience of being poor - is not like other things. It's a combination of helplessness, social stigma, and exclusion that has knock-on effects on almost everything else.

They say the same about having children, life changing experience by all accounts.

Presumably having children while being poor is a double-whammy, then!

So if you accept that, why not accept that it is a big deal and it does matter?

It's a big deal, I never said it wasn't.

But it's pretty closely linked with wealth, wouldn't you say?

Let's not pretend that poverty isn't used to criticise people's parental abilities...

Sure, poverty is linked to wealth, of course it is. Is it linked to inherited wealth or the lack of it? Yes, but it has a much closer link to education.

Poverty may be used to criticise all sorts of things, that doesn't mean those critiisms are valid. I, personally, would not like to see any government making policy based on invalid criticisms or incorrect observations.

Is it linked to inherited wealth or the lack of it? Yes, but it has a much closer link to education.

But quality of education has a very close link with parental wealth too, and that has increased over the last 20 years due to the removal of provisions for students in higher education.

I, personally, would not like to see any government making policy based on invalid criticisms or incorrect observations.

You must have terrible difficulty when it comes to voting, then! ;¬) Not that I'm saying I don't agree with you - on this point, I whole-heartedly do.

So inherited wealth ties in to quality of education eh? In which case you're saying that you'd prefer lesser educated people to be in positions of power?

I disagree on both counts.

So inherited wealth ties in to quality of education eh? In which case you're saying that you'd prefer lesser educated people to be in positions of power?

I said nothing of the sort. What I *would* prefer is for education to be equally and realistically available to everyone, which it presently is not. Are you genuinely denying that there is a strong link between family wealth and quality of education? If so, you amaze me.

To take your point seriously for a moment, though - education alone is not the only or even the best measure of capability to do a job, especially a job like holding a public office. I am more interested in a person's competence than in their holding of qualifications which are unrelated to the post. Competence includes the ability to understand the needs and concerns of the people you're working for.

John Major is probably a very good example of a relatively less-well-educated politician and public office holder (though he was still better educated than many, despite much of his education being practical rather than academic), but I don't believe his education 20 years previously (or lack thereof) was a central aspect of his ability to run the country. While I won't pretend that I agreed with many of his policies, I still think he was a perfectly competent politician and Prime Minister.

"I said nothing of the sort."

Yes you did, you said:

"quality of education has a very close link with parental wealth too"

"Are you genuinely denying that there is a strong link between family wealth and quality of education? If so, you amaze me."

Yes, I am saying this. It depends largely on the definition of quality, but I have had the finest education possible without wealthy parents. Expensive education isn't of any higher quality, just broader in scope. This I know from personal experience.

I absolutely agree with the rest of what you say (about qualifications and competence) and have never suggested otherwise. Again, if you want to preach and then pick an argument assuming that I hold some position you disagree with, I'm not interested, I don't hold the kind of views you are ranting against.

I really don't see why the one should follow from the other.

After all, grammar schools (where my mum went) were meant to provide quality education to the non-wealthy and in many regards succeeded.

However, the fact that you yourself have had good education without wealth does not mean that everyone does, and I am not even sure we are talking about the same kinds of education anyway (your point about defining quality being relevant). Are you denying that a child with poor parents will probably not be able to contemplate the many thousands of pounds of debt they will incur to get a degree? Are you denying that for those who do, they are comparatively disadvantaged throughout their lives compared to people who don't leave university with a massive debt? Are you denying that poor parents living in poor areas have a harder time finding 'good' schools, or being able to partake in their child's education when they do?

If you disagree that less well-educated people should be in positions of power, as you said, then what level of education do you think should be required to run for public offices?

I have no idea what views you hold other than the ones you've expressed here, so if you think I am completely misunderstanding your position then, again, you might want to think about how you're phrasing your responses. I'm not denying my own responsibility here, but I have read all your responses several times and those really are the impressions given by the words you have used.

The other way round, maybe! ;¬)

Seriously though, there are a variety of reasons why people might not drive, and not all of them are related to poverty - living close to good transport, being walking distance from work, environmental reasons, medical reasons, just not liking it, etc. Poverty is only one of them (and a more obvious issue in the US than here).

But the only damn reason for anyone to be on benefits is because they NEED THE MONEY. So people on benefits are automatically poor by at least some definitions - they're poor enough to submit themselves to the brain-shattering mystery that is the benefits system (and it's getting worse all the time). Therefore, benefits use *is* a clear measure of a certain kind of social grouping, and I would argue that it indicates a social group most desperately in need of attention and support. Any decent representative of the people therefore ought to make some effort, at the very least, to acquaint themselves with the merest shadow of a whisper of an idea of what it's all about.

I still don't see why poverty is more important than other issues the mayor has to deal with. Many would say that ethnic minorities comprise a certain kind of social grouping that is desperately in need of attention and support, likewise parents and others mentioned before. You've not answered the question, just said that those on benefits are important, which isn't something I'm questioning.

However, I disagee that you can only have the "merest shadow of a whisper of an idea" about somthing if you have experienced it. Best policy if that is the case is to close down schools and universities right now and save a buttload of cash. Even so, the merest shadow could be gained by visiting those in poverty or working with them for a while, no? Meaning that you appear to be agreeing with me, it is possible to know about it without experiencing it for yourself and therfore people should not be prejudged because they were born wealthy.

Many would say that ethnic minorities comprise a certain kind of social grouping that is desperately in need of attention and support

Agreed. And often that is because they are disproportionately poor.

Poverty ain't the only issue but it DOES have a disproportionately huge impact on people's lives compared to almost any other negative element, not least because other things that cause people difficulty (eg race, gender presentation, disability) are made even worse when those people are poor as well, and often that one of the biggest problems is that people who populate social groups with particular pressing problems are often members of social groups very likely to be poor too.

Poverty is not just 'another issue', because it's so massive a problem.

However, I disagee that you can only have the "merest shadow of a whisper of an idea" about somthing if you have experienced it.

Did I imply that?? Whoops.

the merest shadow could be gained by visiting those in poverty or working with them for a while, no?

I didn't say it wasn't possible (although there is a FUCKING MASSIVE difference between observing and experiencing - poverty tourism is less lovely, go ahead and insert pretty much any quote from "Common People" that you like), but many people with that privilege really don't do it. And I think people should aim for far more than the "merest shadow".

people should not be prejudged because they were born wealthy.

Indeed. Tony Benn is one of my heroes. It's all about how people recognise and deal with their privilege, if they do at all. Let's just say that most people born wealthy are NOT Tony Benn!

So we're back to "if you're not disagreeing with me", why are you replying telling me I don't get it?

I'm disagreeing with the specifics of what you're saying, and the approach, not necessarily with every word you're typing. That should be obvious!

What specifically are you disagreeing with? You agree that a lack of direct experience of poverty such as having been on benefits should be no bar to office, I haven't offered any further opinion to be specific about or disagree with other than that there are other social issues that have importance (which is something I think it is imposible to argue against).

You agree that a lack of direct experience of poverty such as having been on benefits should be no bar to office

I didn't quite say that. I did say I supported the idea that a person who had never been on benefits could spend their first 6 months in office experiencing benefits claims. I didn't say it should be an AUTOMATIC bar, but that provision ought to be made for office holders to educate themselves. Because the above would be difficult, I suggested minimum wage for office holders as a better alternative, and one which would be a more accurate reflection of the reality of life for low earners anyway (because most people on benefits don't have a long and demanding job to keep them distracted).

My concern is that most of your responses seem to be suggesting that privilege is a neutral state which people can't help having and which they don't really need to examine, and it's very unreasonable to expect them to.

Have you ever seen the cartoon "But I've Never Benefitted from Racism!"?

"My concern is that most of your responses seem to be suggesting that privilege is a neutral state which people can't help having and which they don't really need to examine, and it's very unreasonable to expect them to."

What have I said that gives you that impression? It is certainly not something I agree with, and yes, I have seen the cartoon. I think I was pretty clear, I think that far from it being unreasonable to think they should examine this, it is actually appalling that someone (Boris in this case) would make no effort to find out about others' situations and so to waste the privilege they were born with.

I said all this way up there: "I am not talking about Boris, I agree he does not care to and is a waste of privilege who nobody in their right mind would have voted for." in reply to you saying "I think it's quite valid to suggest that a person who appears to have no interest in understanding what life is like for the majority of their electorate is probably not best qualified for the job."

Again, if you don't disagree with what I said, then why did you reply to me telling me I didn't see things? If you've persuaded yourself that I hold some position that you disagree with, and you want to argue that point, I'm not going to play along, mostly because as far as I can tell we don't disagree and I certainly do not hold the views you think I do.

What have I said that gives you that impression?

Continually, I'm afraid. If that was not your intention then you might want to think about your tone, or the phrases you choose, because that is how it comes across. I'm not wilfully looking for reasons to disagree here, this is what springs off the page to me.

I have not said that you are talking about Boris or are being supportive of him, because I'm well aware that you have already denied this. What I am taking issue with is your repeated reduction of the issues of privilege surrounding inherited wealth.

I'd also point out that comments such as;

"I've been made redundant several times but never gone on the dole. "

or

"Good for you. I never went on benefits, I did crappy temping jobs for peanuts instead."

read, without any tone of voice, as very snide and self-aggrandizing. No doubt you didn't intend them that way but again, that is how they read. You certainly appear not to see *that*

I have also disagreed with you on several specific points, not least that I was specifically arguing in favour of 'less-educated' (whatever that means - less-educated than who?) people in power, and also your statement (by disagreement) that this was a bad idea anyway (yes, it is possible to disagree with you on two apparently opposite arguments, both can be wrong).

If I have failed to express the reasons for my own disagreement sufficiently clearly, then, of course, mea maxima culpa. Hey, I guess *I* could run London - apparently knowing a bit of Latin is a big part of the job (cf Stanley Johnson)... **

**this isn't just me being flippant - this is a perfect example of the nonsensical idea that certain kinds of education = competence & leadership skills. I'm actually quite in favour of a classical education, but I don't think it makes you any better at balancing transport budgets

You replied to me with some testimonial about benefits. Was my reply to that snide? Sure. Was it self-aggrandizing? Maybe a little, but not as much as your own random comment was, which is why I gave you a verbal pat on the head for telling a random stranger your life story.

Other than that, I suggest you read what I write, but before that read what I'm replying to so that you have context, I'm not soundbiting.

My position, again, which you can read at the top, and which you replied to: "The fact is that he didn't get to chose to be born rich, and there's no reason why he should be excluded from direct participation in democracy just because he was." If you disagree with this, then disagree and we can have an arugment (each holding different opinions as we would), if you agree with this (and you have said that you do) why are you arguing with me in the thread that stemmed from me voicing this opinion?

I'm not going to bother replying anymore out of respect for this not being my journal. You're clearly a moron or a troll.

You replied to me with some testimonial about benefits. Was my reply to that snide? Sure. Was it self-aggrandizing? Maybe a little, but not as much as your own random comment was, which is why I gave you a verbal pat on the head for telling a random stranger your life story.

I'm glad you admit that.

I commented to give some balance to the idea that being on benefits is an unusual/uncommon situation, from personal experience. If you think that's self-aggrandizing, then all that suggests is that you don't want to be contradicted on anything - please note that my original comment to you wasn't any kind of personal attack. I think it's quite acceptable for me to pull out the parts of your comments which worry me and take issue with them - that doesn't mean I disagree with every opinion you hold, so stop castigating me for not spending more time agreeing with you on the points I do agree with. This implies that *you* are the person looking for a "pat on the head". I'm not the BBC, and I am not required to introduce an artificial note of 'balance' into every discussion, though I have tried to be fair about telling you when I did agree with you.

You calling me "a moron and a troll" is really quite excessive - I haven't resorted to personal attacks with you thus far, because I believe in having a reasonable discussion about the points raised, whereas you, by your own admission, have made it personal from the get-go. I suggest you take a look in the mirror.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Posh gits and (upper-)class heroes

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject