Is the Public Education system to blame for the present Governments predicament ?

[whitewave]

One of the qualities that the Public School system seem to be very good at is installing in their inmates is a sense of self belief in one's ability, no bad thing if there is a sense of balance. On the negative side children removed from their parents at a tender age, cannot hope to develop so well emotionally as those who remain within the family unit. The problem it seems to me when considering our current government is that this emotional immaturity accompanied with an inflated self belief in their ability, overrides an individuals awareness of their actual ability. Unfortuately this is clearly in evidence as we watch Mr Cameron, throwing his toys out of his pram, (taking the form of unpleasant remarks, amongst others) when he is made to do something he doesn't want to do(return to parliament answer questions) or is critisised by the opposition, this together with so many decisions by the governement that have subsequently been withdrawn, or muddled through.

I personally think the elite public schools do still like to instil the idea in their students that they were born and educated either to rule the country or to dominate in some other sphere (eg sport or academia). There's certainly no apparent encouragement of a hankering for the quiet life, or the virtue of modesty. For those already inclined to think in that way, the result can be quite nauseating for those who have to put up with them; for those it doesn't suit, the result can be a miserable school experience; and for those who only needed a bit of encouragement to aim high, I guess it can result in great achievements. It's a shame so many people in politics already thought they were born to rule before they even made it to school.

What's the 'virtue of modesty'? Is it the same as 'knowing your place'? Any system that breaks down that crab-bucket mentality and pushes children to be the absolute best they can possibly be is better than the state system of 'Oh, that'll do'.

The best you can be is one thing, making sure that this is better than everyone else and earns you more money than anyone else, whether by fair means or foul, is another. Ensuring you remain at the top in a cosy, elite circle where everyone scratches everyone else's back, covers up for everyone else, ensures that nobody can complain about it and subtly or not so subtly does down anyone who tries to muscle their way in on merit, is not the way to behave. It is very easily fallen into if you have a common background to appreciate with someone, though.

And also easily fallen into if you believe that you were born and educated to rule and that anyone educated in the state sector was born and educated to serve.

But whatever school you attend we can assume I suppose that the intellectual spread of ability is the same at all levels of society.

So, as rabbit said above, getting a top job does not necessarily depend on a person's merit, and given that, then the country cannot be best served by the born to rule mentality, where a persons ability does not necessarily match up to their self belief

Exactly "What's the 'virtue of modesty'? Is it the same as 'knowing your place'? Any system that breaks down that crab-bucket mentality and pushes children to be the absolute best they can possibly be is better than the state system of 'Oh, that'll do'."

Far too many women are content to be useless alsorans with no desire to lead this country. I like to be the best at what I do in the UK. Since I was a child I have been ambitious. I do not think that is a result of school but personality. Most people have low IQs and are pretty useless and we certainly don't want those ones running the country. Far too many people do not have enough confidence. We should be looking at why some schools are pathetic at instilling confidence and thinking wow - our fee paying schools are some of the best on the planet - let's replicate that in state schools, perhaps even get state school pupils speaking with better accents too - they have much to learn from the private system.

But cozy circles exist on every level in society. You try getting a job at London Underground - a very cozy circle! We naturally circulate in our own circles and most people are comfortable within that and don't see why they should break the circle.
Of course MUmsnet is full of circle breakers!

Of course most people naturally circulate in their own circles, but do we want all the leaders of our country to circulate within one very small circle, making decisions about and for everyone else? It's a bit silly to say most people circulate in tiny little groups, so it's perfectly acceptable for politicians, too, if you ask me. Politicians need to get outside their own comfort zone from time to time, whether they like it or not - and if they dislike it that much, they should find another occupation.

YABU. Has it occurred to you that the person willing to stand for public office is going to be a particular personality type regardless of which school they went to? You have to be pretty confident and resilient to go knocking on doors, standing up to opponents in hustings or debating your point in a council chamber. Throw in a particularly intrusive press and social media scene, micro-analysing your every move, personal or professional, and it's pretty obvious that a thick skin is an asset and shrinking violets need not apply. You have to believe that you deserve the job or you wouldn't be standing in the first place and you have to believe that what you're saying is right or you won't carry the argument on the day. Some call it arrogance, others call it force of personality. Depends what side you're on whether you think it's positive or negative. Blaming the school system is bizarre.

I agree, you need a thick skin and a belief in yourself. However, it doesn't seem to apply that you need to believe what you are saying is right - too many times I've seen politicians attempting to stand up for something they clearly don't believe in, because they have to toe the party line. And very squirmy and uncomfortable some of them look, too. Not to mention ridiculous. Lucky they have such thick skins.

Oh, and then there's the even more cringeworthy attempts to stick up for yourself when you've clearly done something very stupid that you've been caught out on and don't want to have to admit to the truth.

Of course having a thick skin and being sensitive or having integrity are not mutually exclusive. It does require maturity/self-control and confidence though. Apparently seen as unambitious by some too.

I was taught that public life used to be for people who wanted to make a difference, and fundamentally it is to provide service beyond their own needs. It's also easier to have a thick skin and confidence when you're mindful that's why you're doing it. Much harder when ego takes over. Of course there are plenty of examples of stupidity and even corruption, and not just in this country. The question is really what we think the norm is now.

I entirely agree, thirdhill; public life should be for people who want to make a difference and to provide a service beyond their own needs. I think a colossal ego and a desire to protect your chosen career and sphere of influence take over too often, these days - probably because there are so many career politicians.

I think if it was taught that public life was to make a difference, that would have been in the days before politicians were so minutely scrutinised. If egos are taking over it's because we, the voters, have made the business of politics very personal. We 'play the man, not the ball' if you like. We're less bothered about policy than which school someone has gone to apparently . We do not allow anyone to admit a mistake without great Twitter-led howls of approbation. Is it any wonder they close ranks and put up the emotional shutters?

Cognito in one of my many overlong chats with my legal advisor, he said that Obama decided even as a student that he wanted to enter politics, which was why his court appearances were limited [or possibly non-existent?]. He knew then that times change, and anything you may have said decades ago, that was spot on, could be used against you later, when time change. He's in a position to change lives because that's what he wanted to do, and probably would have been labelled unambitious by some on the way there.

I think it is unacceptable to shift the responsibility for one's own behaviour onto the media or others. Nobody may be perfect but the wish to serve is what will protect you. The time for service will also end, like all things, and acceptance of that is part of the "deal", if you like. Emotional shutters are far less powerful than the belief in what you're doing and acceptance that that will come to an end, or certainly change, preferably by your own choice. Like Mandela for example.

I don't think people are less interested in the policy than the school - I think you will find that if someone agrees with the policy, they will turn a blind eye to the politician's personal life and history. If they disagree, then they will look for reasons why the politician's arguments may be as spurious as they already think, or look for ways of showing that that politician shouldn't be trusted to run for public office at all, so as to remove them altogether from their argument. That's the way it has always worked. It's just that the evidence is easier to collect and publicise these days. And politicians don't admit to mistakes, anyway, so of course they are hounded until they admit to the truth.

If a politician wants to stand up and make some of the disparaging remarks that are made by politicians about social workers, or teachers, or nurses, or the police, or any other public servant in order to justify the changes he is proposing to make to their lives, then he has absolutely no right to claim that people should stop picking on the people and start listening to the policies, as though they are two separate things. Politicians themselves make everything extremely personal when they attempt to manipulate everyone to agree with them, so they really should be prepared for the same treatment. I really do object to the idea that I have to be governed by an outrageous hypocrite.