Posh gits and (upper-)class heroes

[mirrorshard]

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.

Comments

[malvino.livejournal.com]

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. Oh, and I've never been on benefits, I don't think it's the norm.

[thekumquat.livejournal.com]

While I agree with your first sentence, Boris doesn't appear to have made any efforts to understand non-rich life - although he clearly has made himself electable so could well have made such efforts and publicised them in outer London, just not inner London.
Or more succintly: I don't oppose him for being a post Tory prat, just for being a prat.

Some years ago I found that among all my friends (aged 25-30ish), I and one other were the only ones never to have been made redundant and thus gone on the dole, and that was because we were doing PhDs and never had jobs to become redundant from. I think both of us had claimed benefit previously. I don't know how representative that is, though, given I don't know a single Boris voter...

[mirrorshard.livejournal.com]

I don't know offhand what proportion of the population have - and I agree that people shouldn't be excluded - but it is pretty common.

To expand the notion of benefits slightly, I got free school meals as a child; I got a full government grant to go to university; I've been on jobseekers' allowance (or whatever they were calling it that year) twice, and on income support for quite a long period.

If I could find a better metric for "not being permanently financially secure" I would.

[mirrorshard.livejournal.com]

I'd suspect that Boris voters are a bit less likely to have claimed benefits in the past, but that's just a gut feeling. It may depend partly on how much of the National Front (and other piccaninny-hating) vote he drained away.

[malvino.livejournal.com]

I've been made redundant several times but never gone on the dole. Although I wouldn't vote for him either and think the people who did are morons, in principle I could vote for an Eton/Oxbridge man if he was sound. Opposing him for who he is is fine, opposing him for how he was born, is, to me, bigotted.

[malvino.livejournal.com]

Why is that such an issue, is money more important than anything else? What about people how have never had kids? How can they know what it's like to raise children and therfore represent those who are parent? What about people who have never been ethnic minorities, or the victims of crime, or disabled. No representative, or even delegate, can ever fully understand the concerns of every individual he speak for.

[mirrorshard.livejournal.com]

It's not just a matter of how he was born - it's down to how he's dealt with his disadvantages.

[purplecthulhu.livejournal.com]

he's been surrounded by other people of his own ... race

You do know his wife is half-indian don't you? His mother-in-law is called Dip Singh.

[malvino.livejournal.com]

So he should have flushed all his money and refused high paying jobs until he was eligable for benefits?

[mirrorshard.livejournal.com]

I didn't, actually - thank you for the clarification. That does help a bit, but it's one counterexample. I'm not in any sense accusing him of active racism or bigotry, but there is that early inexperience and insulation still.

[purplecthulhu.livejournal.com]

Fair enough - I have to say I was surprised to discover this over the weekend myself, which means that either he or the media haven't been making much of it in spite of all the racist allegations going round. If it's his decision not to bring it up that's to his credit, if it's the media playing it down that's to their discredit.

I'd submit, though, that his marriage would suggest he's got over any early inexperience and insulation which wouldn't have been his fault anyway.

[friend-of-tofu.livejournal.com]

I've spent quite some time on benefits, and I come from a middle-income background and have a degree and 2 post-grad qualifications. Almost everyone I grew up with, and most of them weren't really poor (many of them went to some sort of private school) has spent at least a few weeks on benefits, mostly more. Most of them are in reasonably well-paid jobs now, but that doesn't mean they didn't all really need the benefits at the time.

[friend-of-tofu.livejournal.com]

a rule that nobody can stand for public office unless they've spent at least six months on Government benefits in the past

I would support that policy :¬)

Or, they can just receive minimum wage for their public office. That'd do me. Might make Bozzer a bit keener on the minimum wage, methinks!

On the point about racism - it is quite possible for people to be tolerant of one race but hateful, rude or just plain crass about another. Additionally, when I was married to a non-white partner, I observed some pretty shocking examples of racism in their family (British Asian). Just because his wife is half-Indian doesn't make his remarks about watermelon smiles and picininnies any more acceptable.

[friend-of-tofu.livejournal.com]

I'd submit, though, that his marriage would suggest he's got over any early inexperience and insulation which wouldn't have been his fault anyway.

Sorry, I think that's nonsense, as I have said below.

[malvino.livejournal.com]

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

[friend-of-tofu.livejournal.com]

I actually did both at one point: I was earning so little at my 30+ hours a week job that I qualified. One of my friends was STILL earning so little at his retail job last year (at the age of 28) that he was getting housing benefit, despite often working a 6 day week.

I was over the moon when the minimum wage came in, as you can imagine.

My point was not to gain some kind of spurious prestige by mentioning that I and most of the people I know have been on benefits at some point - I'm not expecting a pat on the back - but to point out that it's actually pretty damn ordinary, and it's very likely that a *large* number of people in this country are or have been relying on benefits at some point. Including many people who are not typically regarded as benefit claimant material.

[malvino.livejournal.com]

Most people have children and get married, maybe even in the other order. Why not say people who have stayed childless and single are unable to identify and therfoer should not be allowed to stand?

[souldier-blue.livejournal.com]

When I was unemployed I didn't qualify for benefits as my partner was earning minimum wage in a temp job.

[mirrorshard.livejournal.com]

Another good point. Obviously, the metric'd have to be much more complex than 'on benefits', but I still think it's a good starting point.

[midnightmelody.livejournal.com]

Inexperience and insulation seems to be a totally different issue from 'first-hand personal experience'. For example, most TeachFirst recruits haven't ever been on benefits, but the daily experience of working with pupils from less privileged backgrounds hardly equates to an insulated or inexperienced viewpoint.

[friend-of-tofu.livejournal.com]

You appear not to be seeing the difference between trying to understand something one doesn't have direct personal experience of and not caring to try. I don't have kids and am presently unlikely to, however, I quite like children and think I have an OK knowledge of how to interact with them (I generally get on well with them). That's quite different to, say, hating children and finding them unnerving. In the former case, I think it'd be absolutely fine for me to want to work with the children; it might not be a very good idea if the latter was the case.

I'm not suggesting people should be prevented from political office if they lack certain qualifications/life experiences, but 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.

[friend-of-tofu.livejournal.com]

You didn't qualify for housing benefit on the sliding scale? I'm surprised by that, that sounds like an incorrect assessment if your partner was on minimum wage.

[malvino.livejournal.com]

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?

[friend-of-tofu.livejournal.com]

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.

[malvino.livejournal.com]

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