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]

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?

[malvino.livejournal.com]

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

[friend-of-tofu.livejournal.com]

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...

[malvino.livejournal.com]

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.

[friend-of-tofu.livejournal.com]

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.

[malvino.livejournal.com]

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.

[friend-of-tofu.livejournal.com]

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.

[malvino.livejournal.com]

"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.

[friend-of-tofu.livejournal.com]

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.