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]

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.

[friend-of-tofu.livejournal.com]

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.