Discussion about class

[AbsOfCroissant]

If anyone's interested.

I ws thinking about this (as it was pointed out on another thread), that three of the most powerful positions in the UK (PM, Chancellor and Mayor of London) are all held by people who went to public schools (two went to Eton), Oxford and were members of the Bullingdon Club. DC, Nick Clegg and Osbourne all have aristocratic heritage.

Now, before I get jumped all over and told that coming from a privileged background doesn't mean you can't be a good or genuine leader, I agree (I think the Queen is amazing, and she's pretty much the definition of privileged). But, what does depress me, SERIOUSLY about this - is that this kind of shows that the UK could not have an Obama (someone who came from nothing and worked their way up), and that there is, arguably, an oligarchy holding power in this country. And it's NOT going to get any better under the Tories.

Might as well give up any hope of a meritocracy and return to a feudal system.

There was a thread yesterday (?) which gave the % of MPs who went to private school - it's very low. I am not sure Gordon Brown did...?

It was something like:

• 54% (Tories)
• 20odd% (Lib Dems)
• 15% Labour

Margaret Thatcher was the daughter of a grocer.

John Major came from Brixton and left school with 3 O-Levels.

Social mobility has certainly declined, but the idea that people haven't made their own way in Britain is simply wrong.

Of course, there are dynasties in politics, particularly Labour ones (Milibands, Mandelsons, Benns, Goulds, Straws).

Hopefully the decline in social mobility will start to be reversed with the new free schools movement and pupil premiums - though we won't see the fruits for a decade, at the very least.

Ah, you already know I don't think it's as direct as that, i.e you aren't going to be a 'leader' unless you went to private school, I just think some private schools just sort of sway that way and almost...push? pupils towards careers like that. I don't think if anyone had those aspirations from a 'different' background would be discouraged, just ... well (bad example) the Whitakers are well known in the horse world (mainly showjumping). It's no coincidence that now the 2nd and third generation are famous riders, it's not because you have to have a famous relative to do well in that field, it's because it's the people they were surrounded by, the way they were brought up etc. It's that "cucumbers are green, my walls are green therefore my walls are cucumbers" type thing...

Well... do you think Cameron and Clegg only got where they are by virtue of their background alone and not by any merit or intellect? Did you feel the same way when Tony Blair (public school, Oxbridge) became PM? Did you feel the opposite when Major, Thatcher and Brown led?

If we believe in a meritocracy then we need to accept there will be leaders from a mix of backgrounds, as indeed there have been over the last 30 years. I do find this obsession with schooling and background rather dispiriting.

I honestly think that DC and NC didn't get there on their own steam. I would say the same for TB to an extent.

When Thatcher was PM, admittedly, I was about three so wasn't in any position to opine

David Cameron and Nick Clegg have both had far more than their fair share of nepotism, I will agree.

They have both had every advantage in life - but even then, it takes great steel and determination to actually seize that advantage and make it.

There will be people like Theresa May, William Hague, Baroness Warsi, Liam Fox, and Philip Hammond in the new cabinet - all coming from non-private school backgrounds.