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

Lincstash so much of your last post is bollocks I hardly know where to start. I have the mental skills to answer you quite well but unfortunately I am typing one-handed with a baby on my lap and keep having to rush off to attend to a potty-training 3 yo.

1. stockbrokers are stockbrokers because of a combination of having the skills and the social exclusivity of the profession in the past (to a large degree) and to a lesser extent today. 2.

1. we know very little about social structure when people were hunting woolly mammoth - it's entirely possible for instance that all the young fit people in the tribe were involved in the hunting while the old people looked after the children. We just don't know.
2. in general - there is a whole history of (white) men using various tricks to exclude women from jobs some of them actually had the skills to do. It's called patriarchy. Sometimes there won't have been women with appropriate skills, in some cases there will but they didn't get the opportunity.

@ animula

The circle of links is between Wealth - Education - Power. Get one, you can get the other two.

thats partially why the middle classes expanded after WW2, that and consumerism.

@ BeenBeta

The middle classes have always been the Debted class. Even in Victorian times, the middle class put on the outward appearance of the prosperity and respectability, whilst being as poor as a church mouse and up to there necks in debt from social climbing, such as send there children to posh school, its still the same story 150 years later.

@seeker

Exactly. The class struggle has turned into the struggle between the haves and have nots, and its not the same war as the classic orwellian class war, the working class vs the old money aristocracy. Almost anyone can be a have or have not these days.

Oh, and I forgot to say, the links between income and power, and access to power is, I think, as strong as ever.

Do you think so, seeker?

I thought that actually over the last few years the income disparity has widened: Nationally and globally.

In fact, what we have seen emerge is a global 'ruling class' - some of whom are based in Britain - and influence our national government.

The disparity between these and ... me, for example, is huge. And there is a smaller, but still large, disparity between the people at the bottom of a nation like England, and the well-off. Making any idea of fluidity crazy.

I, personally, think the link between vast sums of money and ruling class has become very strong again. Nationally, certainly, but globally --- insanely so.

It can be seperate , I am a working class person with an above average income. However most of my family live below the povery line and have done so for generations. The two are often linked.

I know a lot of stockbrokers, bankers etc, many are in that career because that is what their parents did and it was expected of them.

And class and money have become very separate. People can now have as much money as 'the ruling class' used to and "the ruling class" less - but they are still the "ruling class' because of their effortless assumption of superiority.

@Miggsie

Right. But how did those peopel get the power and wealth in the first place? because it goes all the way back to hunter/gatherer society.

White middle aged men didnt pull some of of con trick on everyone else. The railways we built by men, because working class men were best adapted for the work. Women reared children, because they didnt have the skills to bring down and kill a Wooly Mammoth. Stockbrokers arent stockbrokers because they tricked there way in, there stockbrokers because there good at it.

Thats how society evolved. Darwinian selection. Im quite sure if some woman had come along with the appropriate physical and mental skill to achieve, then Hitler or Napolean or Genghis Khan might have been a woman. Boadicea was.

So lets drop this veiled implication that white middle class men got where they did by stealth or trickery. Plenty of men pulled themselves out the gutter to make it big, and so did plenty of women.

Theres no sleight of hand here. An appropriately skilled woman could have started the Industrial Revolution, rather the John Trevithik, but there wasnt one around at the time. Margaret Thatcher, on the other hand, was around, and got to the top of the Topry party in the days when it was 99% white middle aged men. Horses for courses and he that dares wins etc.

The class definitions may have changed, but there is still a definite divide.

The saddest thing IMO is some people think that the class other than the one they belong to doesn't exist.

I agree with seeker that wealth and the ensuing privilege will not stop real life hitting you with it's shitty stick, but it helps clean you up. It is the teflon suit if you like.

Cancer - see the top cons, know that if that you are having a problem you've got a phone call and action coming, not yet another msg being left for the cons secretary who never calls you back. Divorce - lot easier to deal with when money gives you freedom. State school - very diff experience when money buys you a house opposite that outstanding ofsted primary, and indeed you know that you can pull the plug at any time. It gives you choice.

And many many people don't have those choices and just struggle and struggle. I wish we could be led by the best of the best, rather than those with the most of the most. If those things coincide then great, but I fear that it's not always the case. However, I don't believe this to be exclusive to one political party.

I think the class system is still strong but takes different forms according to where you live.

When I lived back up north there was a very strong working class contingent, most of my friends were working class. I think the same of where my family roots are in the East End of London.

Now we have moved south the class system is rife in a different manner. Everywhere seems to be divided between land owners and it seems almost feudal. People are so deferential to people simply on the basis of how much land they own. It amazes me to hear students talk about the local landowners as if they are some kind of mini God, even students who see themselves as almost rebellious. We are the only people we know in out immediate area who state educate, we are seen as quite rebellious for making that choice. I am very aware of my working class traits having moved away from home. It is fascinating for people watching.

lincstash - I enjoyed reading what you said. Are you a historian? Social and economic history is fascinating.

Perhaps a slight nuance but I have been thinking about this in the post-industrial City I live in. It will be a key Lab-Con swing seat at the election.

There is a large section of the population that lives on benefits. It is quite a depressed place economically. In the old days those people would have all worked in the local industry, gone off to war or been in shops/domestic service. The major industry died 30 years ago, the armed forces stil recruits here but needs trained professionsals not just bodies and domestic/shop work is minimum wage that is barely worth more than benefits. Hence a large section of my City is trapped on benefits and defines what was the old 'working class'.

The aristocracy in my City were really the big land owners that lived around and about. Their big houses stil exist but they have even split up into flats or sold off to rich City people as occassional country retreats. A new phenomenn though is the depletion of the middle class here. Many have moved away to work in the South East, the once thriving professional class of merchants, bankers, acocuntanst, doctors, lawyers, armed forces officers is now essentially retired and living on dwindling savings. Those younger middle class that stayed are heavily in debt - the so called coping class as it is now known. Thet are terrified of sending their DCs to the frankly awful state schools but struggle to pay for private school out of desperation.

I see another potentially massive social shift coming through Britain like it did in the 1930s. I thnk what Cameron is trying to do is appeal to that 'coping class' throughout Britain, not recreate the aristocracy or pander to a few rich folk. Just not sure he has got that message through though.

Money can't buy happiness or emotional support - of course it can't. But it can make being miserable a lot easier. It can provide holidays, and respite care. It can provide good easy to prepare healthy food. It can provide a cleaner, a gardener, even a driver. It can provide a good reliable car. It means never having to use public transport. It means buying the book you want straight away, not having to wait til teh library can find it for you. And so on.

I remember a study I read while doing a course in business studies (otherwise I do not normally read these things) and it was discussing diversity in business, getting in more women, ethnic minorities etc and it basically concluded that all socio-economic groups instinctively recruit and befriend others of a like socio-economic group and would gravitate towards those with similar attitudes and experiences.

Thus white male middle class communities looked for those of similar ilk, also the female societies etc etc. This is why a lot of businesswomen have very "male" attitudes as they have found that the adopition of certain behaviour styles is the path to acceptance.

It also conclided that people make decisions and then look for material to reinforce those decisions and underline their "rightness".

Thus, those who think single mothers are scum and a large section of the population are benefit cheats and scroungers buy the Daily Mail specifically to reinforce their world view and prove their "rightness" of a pre made decision.

Thus, in any society/group including political parties you will get significant clusters of similar views and backgrounds.
And thus, those in power hand power to people like them...

What is the 'real world' though...we all live in our own small realities with our views on the world often based on what we do.

For example, my sister works in a women's refuge and believes many children are hugely deprived. I work with wealthy people's houses and get the impression many people are very wealthy.

However, hopefully both of us interact enough with other people and have enough empathy to know that our worlds (which are real to each of us because that's where we spend our time)are only a snapshot of the world we live in.

And for all the differences in the UK, there are vaster ones through the world.

Going to Eton/Fettes etc is no bar to understanding what life is like for the great unwashed. However surrounding yourself with advisors and colleagues with more or less exactly the same background as you makes it less likely that you ever encounter life as it is lived by the vast majority of the population.

Of all the people I would want a history lesson from ( not least because I teach some history) you would be one of the last tbh.

Lincs I come from good working class stock and while we all work very few members of my family have a car on their drive, own their own home or have a wide screen TV.

There is still a crossover between poverty and class.

I think you are right seeker having a disabled child is a different thing if you are very rich. His comment last night really annoyed me. "Even for me it was hard filling in the forms". Well, for a start he would have had someone else fill in the forms and what does he mean "Even for me" ? So he is far far better than the rest of the world but he still found it hard. Or, by his own admition his life is far easier ? He can pay for any amount of help anyway.

The class war, as written about by George Orwell in 1932 in such books as The Road to Wigan Pier. You need a history lesson, i can see.

The Aristocracy as such has been all but eliminated by two world wars, and isnt a shadow of what it used to be. Now dont get them confused with the rich - the rich and the aristocratic are not the same thing. There is indeed a 'Rich' class, but they are mainly risen from the ranks of the middle class. There the Ppo Aristocracy, the Paul McCartneys and Mick Jaggers, and the Football Rich, the Beckhams, but real Old Money Aristoracy is but the last surviving fragments of what it was.

The Working Class, the vast huge bulk of people who were grindingly poor in the 9130's and who constituted more than 50% of the population, have almost vanished along with there class enemies, the aristocracy. As I said earlier, if you want a description of the working class, read George Orwell. Your not working class if you have a new wide screen TV in your house and a car on the drive, and a job. A worst you are lower middle class.

Which brings us to them, the majority of society, the middle classes, who now form the vast majority of the populace. In Edwardian Times the middle classes were small, and consisted largely of educated sons of merchants, the clergy, the armed forces and rich entrepreneurs. The 'Class War'as defined was the war of the working class vs the Aristocracy, and the struggle of the Middle Class to social climb.

SO its dead, the vast majority of the olf working class are gone, there children have become middle class and the middle classes are the new rich. The vast majority of rich people are new rich, self made, usually on the back of property. There not privileged aristocracy. Harriet Harman, for example is the daughter of privileged Aristocracy. Funny that, her being a Labour Minister.

You're confusing the Class War with the Struggle against Poverty, which is an entirely different thing. Poverty can strike any 'class', but its created by government mismanagement, not accident of birth.

I don't think it's going to Eton so much as coming from a background where going to Eton is "what you do". Centuried of priviledge leave their mark.

And yes, David Cameron had a severely disabled child and perhaps to his credit, he doesn't appear to use this fact in his electioneering.

But - and I am sure there are people on her who will agree with me - having a severely disabled child as a rich person is a very different thing from having a similiarly disable child as a poor - or even an averagely well off person. Ditto having cancer, redundancy, dementia -practically everything on MayDay's list. Including using state education.

Yes, well said.