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

[MayDayMayDay]

I have friends who went to Eton and other leading private/boarding schools. Between them they have: children at state schools, cancer, children with disabilities, been made redundant, parents with dementia, been unable to afford a house, become alcoholic, suffered marriage breakdowns, lost family in accidents, voted Labour, worried about the future...

We all have different experiences of life. Who really thinks one life is more 'real' than another? I might vote for David Cameron, I might not. Whatever I vote it will have nothing to do with where any of the party leaders went to school. I'll leave those considerations to all the snobs who can't recognise themselves as such.

Gordy? Interesting semantics there.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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!

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

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.

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.

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.

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