To not know who "the elite" are?

[Fuzzyend]

Labour have announced a crusade against "the elite" but I'm not sure who they are.

When I think of elite people I think of sports stars, but I'm guessing Labour haven't got anything against Dina Asher-Smith or the England rugby team. So who the heck are "the elite" and why are they a bad thing?

Good question OP.

If you pay all the taxes you owe then that's fine in my book.

No idea who Labour considers the elite. Me probably.

Often when people say “tax the rich” they mean people richer than they are. Same with elite - someone who has power or wealth that you don’t.

I always think teenagers must be confused. On one hand we are trying to get more into oxford and cambridge and encouraging more to go to uni to get good well paid jobs. Then on the other hand, if you earn well and have an oxbridge degree you are suddenly part of the problem!

@AliceLittle - what amount of power, money or influence is disproportionate? That’s what op is asking

"The inteligentsia" - wtf is wrong with being intelligent?

'The intelligentsia' doesn't refer broadly to 'people who are intelligent' - it means small groups of people who have a strong intellectual influence in particular cultural or political spheres.

means small groups of people who have a strong intellectual influence in particular cultural or political spheres what, like Momentum?

Arguably high earners who send their children to independent schools are net contributors to the state sector, since they pay great deal of tax scarcely any of which is then used to fund their child's education, leaving more resource for other children.

Yes, in a utopian society we wouldn't have the underperforming state schools which mean the more affluent seek an alternative, but that is unrealistic at present and I don't think we should criticise other posters for making that choice for their family.

Actually, now I think of it, it's quite an extensive list but essentially, anyone with money, power and privilege. The absolute bastards

I think it's 'anyone who isn't me and who is richer than me'

Without giving too much away, you could definitelt consider my husband to be 'elite'. However he went to a local comp. Is he in the wrong for following his dreams and going through various established institutions? Should he not have bothered?

Under Labour it won't be worth bothering. There's a fine line between trying to (fairly) redistribute wealth and put of any aspirations people may have to be able to provide better for themselves and their families. The director at the company where I worked when I left school was very much working class; he spend most of his childhood in foster care, went to the local comp but left at 16 as he had no support back then, worked bloody hard and now employs a lot of people (and pays them a fair wage). Is he okay? Or would he not be okay if he was born rich? There needs to be a balance between supporting everyone who needs it, but also making it worthwhile having aspirations. Corbyn didn't exactly grow up in poverty did he, and it's not like he has distributed his wealth to benefit others. He just means others should.

@Fuzzyend I think this is a very good question OP.

The rich people are bad, poor people are good rhetoric I think is quite dangerous.

I understand what they are getting at as they mean tax dodgers and people able to make a difference who don’t.

But just vaguely referring to the ‘elite’ is dangerous as it is open to interpretation and alienates people.

It's an interesting question, isn't it? It means different things depending on where you stand politically. If you're a Corbyn follower it probably means corporations, the Rees-Moggs of this world and the super rich. If you're on the other side it means 'people who oppose Brexit' and for them the likes of Boris and JRM are just good old patriots.

It's become a meaningless term suitable only for slinging mud.

I think some are wilfully misunderstanding the meaning of elite. I don't think Labour is railing against anyone who goes to Oxford and ends up at the top of a business or a large institution. The question (which is no doubt up for debate) is whether those at the top have too much power.

There are multiple examples - for example, are political parties too swayed by financing from large donors? Are CEOs, who now earn much higher salaries in relation to average workers too driven by short-term financial bonuses rather than the health of the company? Are we seeing a greater amount of value-extraction rather than value-creation in the economy (Mariana Mazzucato has a great book on this).

No-one is attacking anyone for going to Oxford and getting into the Fast Stream.

Trump has said he wants his supporters to be called the super-elites because they have "more money and bigger boats".

So it seems the term elite lacks precision and can be interpreted to mean whatever the individual person wants it to mean (financial institutions/ private school parents/ the judiciary/ people who own 3+ houses) whatever your particular bugbear is.

If it means, for example, cracking down on tax evasion/avoidance then say that. If it means getting rid of private schools then say that.

I just want clarity. Because despite comments on here that I'm naive etc, no-one seems to be able to give a universally accepted definition.

I just want clarity. Because despite comments on here that I'm naive etc, no-one seems to be able to give a universally accepted definition.

No doubt you were equally horrified by the campaign to leave the European Union and the demand to "take back control", or the 2017 Conservative Slogan of "Forward, Together Strong and Stable".

I often wonder about people screaming about high earners and saying how wrong it is. If they were earning the same or had the same privilege, I'm sure they would think the opposite.

I was once told I was lucky as I earn a pretty decent wage and get some good perks with my job. To me, luck has nothing to do with it, I have worked bloody hard and still do. I don't feel any guilt whatsoever. In today's world of work, I could be out of a job tomorrow, so I will make the most of it whilst I can.

I think people are being unfair to the OP. There are women of all ages on here and of all educational levels. For the last few years we've all been thrust into thinking about politics much more than we might have done otherwise. It's good to ask questions. She's not slating your answers, but just trying to understand.

'The Elite' - just taken it straight out of the Trump campaign's playbook. The cynicism of the Labour party in using that is quite dismaying ( from the perspective of my very left upbringing) He is using it to mean an ill defined set of people who appear more than others therefore Bad, and also somehow suggesting they are working in cahoots to keep everyone else down.

Much easier to do that, to goad people into resentment, and suggest the the solution to inequality is to pull everyone down, rather than have any actual policies to raise everyone else up.

Any by some of the responses on here it might work :/

He means the lizards OP.

Seriously though, Labour are being a bit dodgy here. Their voting base isn’t the Khmer Rouge.