Some food for thought: Posh and Posher - Why Public School Boys Run Britain

This program was on last night on BBC 2. Its on iPlayer now for those who want to watch it. Its very thought provoking, at least for me.

Andrew Neil Presents the program. He's a basically a media type, been chief editor of the times, I think he reports on a lot of political stuff for the BBC as well etc etc. He's from a working class background and managed to go to a grammar school back in the day.

What he is talking about is that in his day, there was a lot more avenues for the common working man to enter politics and enter politics with the vision of making a difference and representing his/her people. He notes that there was a period in british politics where these types of people made it to the top job, Prime Minister. Thatcher, Major and some other dude... all were from working class or lower classes of society.

Now, with grammar schools disappearing, replaced by comprehensives and looking at where the current crop of politicians came from theres one major commonality. They've all been educated at schools like Oxford, Cambridge, Eton, Westminster. Schools that are highly selective and require yearly fee's up to ?30k. Trade Unions are also not as strong as they once were back in the 50's and 60's so the route to politics through those has also been quashed.

What Andrew Neil is asking is, is this a bad thing? is it fair that the boys and girls filling the spaces in our politics are coming from an increasingly narrow field of people where you need bucket loads of money and a healthy set of connections to get in?


The scene he is setting in short is:

In his day, it was easier for normal folk to get into politics and get into the top jobs. Today less powerful trade unions, declining grammar schools and high-fee elite schools have essentially cut off the opportunity for all but the wealthiest, poshest, best connected people. Is politics better with a wide spread of people from lots of different backgrounds or is it ok that they all come from a narrow group of highly privilidged, highly wealthy people?

Politics now basically is full of career politicians. People who've known nothing else, never worked in industry, never experienced what its like for the average person in this country, never grown up or even been on a rough housing estate, never been to a normal school etc etc. Are these people really the best ones for calling the shots? do they know whats best for us all? can they know?

Meritocracy or background, money and priviledge? discuss.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00y37gk/Posh_and_Posher_Why_Public_School_Boys_Run_Britain/

Some choice cuts : Condensed quotes:

Neil certainly makes it hard to argue otherwise: from start to finish, we are confronted with a series of facts and statistics that all drive home the point that modern politics has become disproportionately represented by the rich and public school educated. Three quarters of the coalition cabinet are millionaires; David Cameron, Nick Clegg and George Osborne all went to schools that now charge fees higher than the average wage; a third of today?s Labour front bench went to Oxford or Cambridge; Eton has produced 19 prime ministers; around seven per cent of the UK population go to fee paying schools, yet this accounts for half of the cabinet. And so on? You get the point.

Click to expand...

With the demise of grammar schools, Neil points to the current crop of forty something political leaders who are the first ?post grammar school? generation. He says: ?30 years on from the end of the grammars, it?s no coincidence that public school boys have triumphed. Without the grammars, there?s simply less competition. And that means politics is missing out on a lot of potential.?

Click to expand...

It was a posh conspiracy - unspoken, it did not have to be. The stupid lefties who were supposed to be representing the working classes fell for it hook, line and sinker, they thought that the kids who went to Grammar schools would tend to be right politically as they had tried to make something of themselves - er many of the lefties were very posh too!

There is now such an agreement that in the UK being for Grammar Schools is like being a Global Warming sceptic - not acceptable.

The route for a lower middle/working class person up to University was through what were known as the County Grammar schools in particular - good schools situated in working class areas generally - (mine was in SE London, it is now closed, what a surprise).

Comprehensives are generally much larger than the old Grammar, Technical High Schools and Secondary Modern schools. That allowed there to be opportunities for teachers to have nice "Head of. ..." titles and hence more money. In my school there were teachers, head of lower school and deputy headmaster - that was the complete management structure.

Universities - there really are four levels, unacknowledged officially but exist:

http://www.russellgroup.ac.uk/our-universities/

"The Russell Group represents 20 leading UK universities which are committed to maintaining the very best research, an outstanding teaching and learning experience and unrivalled links with business and the public sector."

University of Birmingham
University of Bristol
University of Cambridge
Cardiff University
University of Edinburgh
University of Glasgow
Imperial College London
King's College London
University of Leeds
University of Liverpool
London School of Economics & Political Science
University of Manchester
Newcastle University
University of Nottingham
University of Oxford
Queen's University Belfast
University of Sheffield
University of Southampton
University College London
University of Warwick

Basically get in to one of these and that is a good move - guess who they prefer?

Next the old red brick and 'New' universities

Next to them are the old Polytechnics, and finally

Colleges of further education now offering degrees

To become a candidate in one of the main parties now it would be very very difficult without coming from Oxford or Cambridge University. And the majority of people who go there (and now have to fund it themselves) are posh.

btw - The other PM in the late 20th. Century who went to a Grammar school btw, was that twit Ted Heath.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Heath#Early_life

"Edward Heath (known as "Teddy" as a young man) was born the son of a carpenter and a maid from Broadstairs, Kent. His father was later a successful small businessman. He was educated at Chatham House Grammar School in Ramsgate and in 1935 with the aid of a county scholarship he went up to study at Balliol College, Oxford. "


He was educated at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chatham_House_Grammar_School

I dunno whether to be suprised or not that loughborough isnt on that list. Though I guess it may well be too specialist in what its good at with respect to teaching/research etc. Its mostly known for its engineering and sports/sports science. Certainly cant question most on that list though.

Another state schooled PM.... Harold Wilson. From him up to John Major, they were all state schooled. However were they really any better at the job than the elites? For a start running a country has got to be incredibly difficult. With 60 odd million of us, there aint no way to please everyone.


I particulalry liked the interview with Sarah Teather. She is part of the coalition and she admits she thinks its a bad idea that most of their party come from priviledged backgrounds and are well moneid. But as he presses her for more info she just wilts. Either, like most in pollitics her answers are only 6 inches deep, or she's basically got eyes starring a hole in the back of her head from across the room, making sure she doesnt say too much.

A good point by the telegraph review of this show is that its pretty much bereft of any one currently in the party in power, guessing that the subject matter had been labled toxic and that no one should speak to Andrew under any circumstance.

Tories are S**t scared of their own activists, many of whom still think that the Grammar Education system was a good thing (Oh and hate the EU and all its works, so at every party conference the party managers try to keep a lid on these subjects).

Grammar Schools being selective (Not by money but by brains and effort) the best people from what ever lower strata of society managed to get a leg up and therefore could become candidates for office - these days they do not even get on the lists for being considered as candidates!

My comments on the education system refer to Englans - the Scottish and N.Irish systems are different - I am unaware of the Welsh system since they got their own parliament.

I just think, how can someone with a very narrow social experience and litterally no real world experience (ie never worked in industry, never stack shelves, never made the tea, never been a lifeguard or a shop assistant or whatever, never experienced life of a normal person) become a SPAD (special advisor for people like the prime minister) and then later on be parachuted into a cozy position? What about their experience, other than the bunff they learn at college makes them suitable to be advising the decision makers on what to do? Ive spent 5 years getting an 1st class MEng in Engineering, I'm now doing a PhD and I've worked 2-3 years in industry. At the end of this I'm still going to be miles away from being considered as some one who can offer sound engineering advice simply because I havent had enough experience. And rightly so. What you learn in the class room, IMO, is only tiny compared to what you learn on the job.

The problem is, a lot of people see these guys and their background and just think what can they possibly have in common with the man on the street? How can they represent us if they have no idea what its like to be us? Probably why no party had a decisive victory in the last election.

With grammar schools I can see why people might of wanted to get rid of them. I mean basically seperating people off, in a black n white manner, at the age of 11 ish with the 11 plus exams does strike me as a bit unfair. I myself wasnt particularly academic at that age, so I'd of ended up in the comp schools destined to dig ditches. But fast forward a few years and that all changed once I discovered stuff I was actually interested in. I'd of missed out in the two-tier system for sure. Then again, if we had the two-tier system still im guessing my parents would of pushed me more, earlier on, to do well in those exams so I would have the best chance. So who knows!?

"My father has never been in parliament.."
"No, he's in the House of Lords!"

:lol:

And while we're at it, the Lords is a part of the parliament, if I am not very much mistaken.

I think Andrew's posing an important question, and to some degrees, I think he's right. There was a time after MacMillan when politics in Britian just went down to earth. Wilson, Heath, Callaghan (he was a sheep farmer, good man), Thatcher and Mayor. They were all from humble backgrounds. God knows if it's true, but in the Long Walk to Finchley, Ted Heath's seen to react quite sternly when an older tory asks him if he wants a "grocer's daughter" running the nation. It's quite descriptive.

To be honest, much as it pains me to say this, I think the best of the bunch was Maggie. Not that I like her. But she was good at what she did. Even if she failed.

Alas, I digress. At least I'm quite happy that I could list the five successive PMs from humble backgrounds. Before Andrew made the same point. That does make me happy.

Grammar schools are like smallpox of UK educational politics, nobody dares touch it.

Even debate on that sort of idea is pretty much forbidden, because no politician wants to be seen as the one to want to split secondary education into good and not so good, because of the unending comparisons with the 50s system where kids who couldn't get into Grammars were essentially damned to a life of low level work, no matter what their aspirations were.

nomix said:

"My father has never been in parliament.."
"No, he's in the House of Lords!"

:lol:

And while we're at it, the Lords is a part of the parliament, if I am not very much mistaken.

I think Andrew's posing an important question, and to some degrees, I think he's right. There was a time after MacMillan when politics in Britian just went down to earth. Wilson, Heath, Callaghan (he was a sheep farmer, good man), Thatcher and Mayor. They were all from humble backgrounds. God knows if it's true, but in the Long Walk to Finchley, Ted Heath's seen to react quite sternly when an older tory asks him if he wants a "grocer's daughter" running the nation. It's quite descriptive.

To be honest, much as it pains me to say this, I think the best of the bunch was Maggie. Not that I like her. But she was good at what she did. Even if she failed.

Alas, I digress. At least I'm quite happy that I could list the five successive PMs from humble backgrounds. Before Andrew made the same point. That does make me happy.

Click to expand...

That guy was hilarious. That pompus accent clearly doesnt hide the fact he's a bit of a chump. Also saying he's a man of his people and then quoting some latin....... riiiiiight. I wouldnt vote for him in a million years. Andrew "Brillo" Neils house looked pretty damn pimp though, not sure why he had to bring all that up mind.

otispunkmeyer said:

That guy was hilarious. That pompus accent clearly doesnt hide the fact he's a bit of a chump. Also saying he's a man of his people and then quoting some latin....... riiiiiight. I wouldnt vote for him in a million years. Andrew "Brillo" Neils house looked pretty damn pimp though, not sure why he had to bring all that up mind.

Click to expand...

I think it was honest. He's showing that he is himself quite posh, in the modern sense of the word.

The tory MP didn't exactly seem like a man of the people, though.

I kind of support it, but it works really only in a pure merit based admissions structure. We all know this isn't the case, but what can you do? If in fact you come from a lesser university, then the body of your work needs to outshine your better pedigreed competitors, it happens in the job market and most certainly happens in politics. I know for a fact that many American Presidents are Ivy league educated, even the ones from more humble backgrounds. The best and brightest go to those schools for a reason, job placement and faculty quality.

Also, if you go to a top University, odds are that you have money in the first place and can therefore do the sort of menial office and admin jobs for politics (local, national, Party, whatever) as a prelude to a career rather than having to earn enough money to put food on the table.

IIRC, people used to go into political life comparatively late (having built a business or worked in a factory where they joined a union at an early age and worked up) because it was seen as a decent step onwards.

Most did, yeah. Churchill got into it quite early, though. He became an MP at the comparatively early age of 26. He became home secretary at the age of 36. At 40 (I think), he was First Lord of the Admiralty.

Then again, he had a career before it. Military and writing. More the latter than the former, to be honest.