Why should going to Eton make you less part of 'real life'?

Nooka - the teenage boys at my comp (being less numerate and less fussy) categorised girls into 'with' or 'without' a bag over their head!

I read the article jackstarbright, I just don't agree with it. I really don't associate Etonian = gentleman at all (rather I am afraid to say, obnoxiousness). On the other hand I recall when I was thinking (at sixth form) of applying for Westminster that I was told that the boys there liked to call out a number (1-10) as the girls came into the dining room rating their attractiveness. I decided against going there at that point. So perhaps they both breed obnoxious teenage boys.

In any case I am sure that the progress of the debates will be interesting.

Hmm. What would a Tory plant be? Something blue...a Hyacinth (as in Bucket). Or perhaps a Forget-me-not if this debate is anything like last week's.

jackstarbright, I hope you are right and we see some real debate in the next one.

Ladybiscuit,
"You're a rubbish tory party plant"
I know I am rubbish because I am not a Tory plant. If I was one I would be able to make a far better job of it.

The public have had enough of politicians full stop claig - they have mostly been proven to be a bunch of people who have taken advantage of the trust the electorate place in them, whatever colour flag they're flying.

You're a rubbish tory party plant

Claig whatever made him hold back and 'play by the rules' - I expect we'll see a change on Thursday!! Plus, last week all the expectation was on Cameron - this week it'll also be on Clegg!

I don't think Cameron's performance in the debate had anything to do with his Eton background. I don't think Clegg said much of substance apart from saying that the other two were saying the same old same old and that things had to change. Cameron could have easily won the debate if he had been more aggressive and if he had attacked Brown's policies and pointed out all of the mistakes that Brown has made. Labour are an easy target because their 13 years of rule have been littered with lots of mistakes and scandals. Cameron should have listed them and Brown would have had no answer.

I think Cameron has been badly advised by his advisors. They have probably told him that their focus groups show that the public doesn't like yah-boo politics and that he shouldn't attack Brown, because this won't play well. I think this is nonsense. The public want to be educated about the real issues and the public want to see a real difference between the parties and want to see that the polticians actually have convictions. Cameron's current strategy is to "accentuate the positive" i.e. not to attack Brown's record. If he carries on like this, Cameron will carry on missing open goals and risk a hung parliament. It is almost as if that is what he really wants.

The public has had enough of Labour, it should be easy to win the election, and yet Cameron looks as if he is determined to throw it away. Some conservatives like Boris Johnson are now urging Cameron to change his policy and to go on the attack. It will be interesting to see if Cameron follows that advice or continues listening to his current advisors.

Nooka - Donimic Lawson went to both (left Eton because he was unhappy).

It's the 'noblesse oblige - old money' versus the 'middle class city new Money' argument. All pretty stereotypical, of course, but, Nick Clegg out smarted David Cammeron with the type of debating technique, Dominic Lawson claims, he would have learnt at Westminster.

Thinking about the Old Etonians I know, and my father, who went to Westminster I'd say that was bull. But that's a small sample!

According to the Dominic Lawson article I posted on here earlier: Cameron's weakness in the TV debate was his Eton sense of fair play and gentlemanly conduct (he obeyed Alistair Stuart's commands). Whereas, Nick Clegg's 'Westminster School education' meant he was prepared to 'bend the rules' (he carried on talking despite Mr Stuarts loud interuptions).

Interesting take I thought.

WilfandWilma -- I agree with your implicit contention that Nick Clegg lives a life of great privilege. I was making the point that it's a different kind of privilege and he was surrounded by different types of people at school.

MaydayMayday -- I know the fees could, in principle, be afforded by someone earning less than 300k. It takes, what 50 to 60k gross earnings to pay for each child, so it's clearly possible in principle. And there are bursaries etc. In practice, though, most parents are earning considerably more, as school fees will not account for the majority of outgoings. Housing, holidays, clothes, cars, and staff will all be very chunky too.

I agree (as I think most would) that merely going to Eton should not alone be enough to rule Cameron out. But it is quite a useful shorthand for why I'm concerned about him, especially given that his policy intentions seem quite carefully focused at supporting the rich and very rich while cutting support for the poor, eg reluctant to regulate the City, inheritance tax, pushing for tax cuts etc. And I stand by my assertion that it takes a really exceptional person to keep childhood canalisation as strong as Eton's culture at a distance when thinking about people in less fortunate circumstances, and I see nothing to indicate that he is that sort of a person -- while I'm sure the friends you mention are.

Gordy? Interesting semantics there.

Not read the whole thread but worth remembering that Nick Clegg went to Westminster.

Where these people went to school is NOT relevant, contrary to what Gordy would like you to believe.

The whole Eton thing is being vamped up, doubt he [Gordy] will dare to attempt do the same to Clegg - if he did he [Gordy] would be seen for what he is.

George Orwell went to Eton. So did the environmentalist Jonathon Porritt. So I don't think that everybody from Eton is of the same mindset.

Edam - William Hague??

I know some nice Old Etonians BUT they don't tend to hang out almost exclusively with other OEs. Or promote other OEs and survivors of a tiny elite group of public schools to the exclusion of anyone else. The OEs I know manage to surround themselves with colleagues who are a mixed bunch of people from all sorts of backgrounds.

It wouldn't matter so much that Cameron is an OE if it weren't for the fact that he's promoted other ex-top public schoolboys and seems unable to find anyone from an ordinary background fit to help him run the country.

The Eton vs Westminster thing was covered in the Sunday Times by Dominic Lawson who went to both.

Slhilly - Nick Clegg's wife is an (equity?) partner at DLA Piper and must be earning at least £400,000 - £500,000 pa. He has refused to rule out sending his own children to a private school in the future - perhaps he'd like them to go to Westminster just like him.

Eton is a problem because it's a toxic combination of:

1. Extraordinarily vast sums of money
2. Ossified views about privilege and status

Eton and Westminster (Clegg's school) are both technically public school, but they are worlds apart in mindsets. Eton remains full of chinless wonders who think they were born to rule the world, who do the season, and whose parents own half of Oxfordshire. Westminster is full of smart-as-a-whip kids whose parents are at Goldmans or are partners in top-rank management consultancies, or are diplomats, or CEOs, etc. They have a very different mindset: they think of themselves are very international, very lucky, very very bright, and as technocrats -- problem-solvers. Clegg going to work for the EC exemplifies this.

Re money, it's important to realise just how rich people who go to Eton are. By and large, you don't go if daddy is earning £100k -- a figure that is beyond the dreams of avarice for the majority of the UK population. You go if daddy is earning £300 or £400k at a minimum. You don't live in flat in Hampstead or a nice semi in Putney, you live in a several million pound pile in the home counties, and may well have an apartment worth the same in a Crown Lease estate on the edge of Regent's Park or in Mayfair. Your family is likely to be richer than 99.99% of all other families in the country (yes, I mean .99, not just .9). Your life is just astoundingly different from that of nearly everyone in the country. (Westminster is similar although not quite as extreme.) It takes truly vast amounts of empathy for an Etonian to truly get it, in their guts, that there are millions of people in the same country who have never been on a plane, or live in a small damp flat, and that it's not their fault.

A very high proportion of all MPs have received public school education compared to the general public, and that has increased (there used to be a large grammar school intake). So all the parties could be accused of being elitist really. But given Tory party policies tend to benefit the rich at the expense of the poor it's a better stick to beat them with. Although as has been said for this election there are other more pressing issues around policy (although I do wonder about George Osbourne's capabilities)

Clegg is posher than Cameron
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/election/article-1266826/The-United-Nations-Nick-Clegg.html
he is just keeping quiet about it

It's very simplistic to look simply at Cameron, or any of the other party leaders and judge purely on the basis of their educational backgrounds. We don't have a presidential system, and should not make decisions on that basis. Yes the PM is important, but what matters more is the depth of skills, aptitudes, knowledge and experience of the whole front bench.

Oh, and to the person who asked about our voting system, we all vote only for our local MP, the party with the most MPs then forms government, from that party the Cabinet and MP is chosen (and it is up to the party how to do that, whether by internal election or smoke filled rooms).

I am public school educated, and I agree with whoever commented on Etonians being a bit different, that has been my experience too, although only I think for ten years or so after they leave. But it is undoubtedly true that being very privileged affects your outlook on life (as of course all of our upbringings affect us).

On the whole the evidence (from business) suggests that diversity is a good thing because it brings a variety of experience and outlooks to decision making and makes it more likely that people are recruited and promoted on merit rather than old boy type networking. Of course it may also be uncomfortable, which is why people tend to be more likely to group together with other people of a similar background and outlook.

Nick Clegg has more social and communcation skills than DC. DC is trying so hard present himself as one of us that he's doing the opposite.

Nick Clegg went to Westminster and Cambridge.

His grandmother was an aristocrat.

Funny how nobody seems to have noticed.