for wondering why normal people are not represented anymore?

[mummyonvalium]

The basic idea is in the title.

Most of our elected in government seem to have come from either oxford or cambridge with public school behind them (Eton being the favourite) background.

I have also been following the archbishop candidates - the hot favourite was educated where do you think? Cambridge and Eton. It just leaves a taste that this is something of a political decision rather than the right decision for the Church of England.

I don't mean this to be a religious thread more of a thread about the pampered and privileged who get all the best jobs in the country. Their lives are so far removed from 99% of people's lives it just seems wrong. I am sure it is not entirely to do with the fact that they have the best brains in the country and also has something to do with looking after their own.

There must be decent brains in other universities and/or people who came from state sector education who are just as talented. Why does it seem normal people with normal backgrounds so completely unrepresented?

The appointment of the Archbishop of Canterbury has always been a political decision.

I was really sad to see this particular Archbishop suggested. Not only did he go to Eton - he made his money in the oil trade, and he is on record saying he's 'one of the thickest' of the bishops. To me, that doesn't sound nicely self-deprecating: it sounds as if he thinks it is somehow going to make him popular to claim to be 'thick', as if that makes up for his privilege. I would much rather hear from someone very bright and likely to be good at the job, even if they had gone to Eton!

I don't think it is unusual, though. I just wish it would change.

My ds1 (current Oxbridge student), is neither pampered or privileged (and was state school educated) - These universities pick the brightest, that doesn't mean they are not "normal" or capable of representing "normal" people at some point is their career!

It's all about connections. The chances of making connections in high up places is more likely at Oxbridge than at another normal university.

YABU because you are basing your wonderings on false information. Most of our elected MPs have not been to Oxford or Cambridge or Eton. According to Parliament's website 78% of MPs did not go to Oxbridge and 65% had a state school education. In fact 20 MPs went to Eton 630 didn't.

I think that's a bit unfair scotch - I don't think anyone is saying that Oxbridge never selects people who could represent 'normal' people in a career like this. But surely there is something to be said about the fact so many people in the cabinet, and so many people in the Church of England, have been to Eton and Oxbridge?

'78% of MPs did not go to Oxbridge.'

Ie., 22 percent of them did attend either of those two universities?

How exactly is that not something to wonder about?

Because the OP said 'most of our elected MPs seem have come from Oxford or Cambridge'. 78% didn't therefore wondering why most did is weird because 22% does not constitute 'most'.

YABU for using the word "anymore". It has always been thus. Money and power breed money and power. Not so long ago MPs weren't salaried and it was only the very very rich who were in politics.

The appointment of this man as Archishop of Cantebury is hugely disappointing. He worked in the oil trade for years. So how is he going to lead the C of E on the most important issue of this century - global warming? But never mind that - he's good at making money, apparently.

I do see that, flamin, but I still think it is worthwhile to wonder why so many do come from such a narrow background.

What exactly is normal? Please do define.

"normal" in my definition means what most people do.

Maybe it is in my imagination a bit but most people go to state school, most people don't go to oxford / cambridge and most people have to work their arses off because they don't have connections.

I know that oxbridge candidates represent the brightest in the country but this is not purely the case. I have met really bright people who have not had the same life opportunities and I think these are the sort of people who should be representing us.

YABU... we shouldn't discriminate against people for the school or university they went to. But, at the same time, we should look at the systems of parliament and work out if they are creating the problem. MP's pay for example. This is will get me a flaming, I'm sure, but it's not high enough. So the candidates that can afford to be an MP will be those that own a business, are a successful professional or have independent means. That is a fairly small subset of the population. Someone more 'ordinary' is going to struggle to make ends meet running two homes on £65k especially when the bizarre expenses system operated results in nothing but howls of 'snouts in the trough'. Add in zero job security, ridiculous hours and intrusion into private life and only the most determined will put themselves forward.

As for an A of C formerly in the oil business... surely anyone who gives up a fat salary for life as a penniless priest is walking the talk?