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

[friend-of-tofu.livejournal.com]

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.

[malvino.livejournal.com]

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.

[friend-of-tofu.livejournal.com]

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!

[malvino.livejournal.com]

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

[friend-of-tofu.livejournal.com]

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!

[malvino.livejournal.com]

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).

[friend-of-tofu.livejournal.com]

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!"?

[malvino.livejournal.com]

"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.

[friend-of-tofu.livejournal.com]

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

[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.