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

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.

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...

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

Being poor isn't about money; it's about power.

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

(no subject)

friend-of-tofu.livejournal.com - 2008-05-08 19:18 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

malvino.livejournal.com - 2008-05-08 19:25 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

friend-of-tofu.livejournal.com - 2008-05-08 19:53 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

malvino.livejournal.com - 2008-05-08 20:40 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

friend-of-tofu.livejournal.com - 2008-05-08 20:56 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

malvino.livejournal.com - 2008-05-08 21:01 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

friend-of-tofu.livejournal.com - 2008-05-08 21:18 (UTC) - Expand

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?