Are there too many posh people in politics? And, if so, what should we do about it?

Chris Dillow, in a slightly chip-on-his-shoulder manner, writes how "posh people" should be disqualified from politics. Chris cites lack of hustle, overconfidence, a casual attitude to money and the lack of a "gut understanding" of how other people live. There's nothing new about the analysis presented - people who've had a struggle to escape from poverty very often resent the effortlessness with which posh people slide into grand roles.

There are, however, some thoughts arising from this that strike me as important:

1. By creating two categories, rich and poor, Chris ignores the reality which is that most people are neither. An interesting experiment here would be to contrast the manner in which 'middle class' is understood in the USA and the way in which 'middle class' is presented very often in the UK. I'm middle class (my Dad was an insurance clerk in the City for all his working life) but my experience bears little or no resemblance to the typical middle class life described in the Sunday supplements with its foreign holidays, private schools, nannies and endless dinner party angst.

2. Empathy is really important in politics - perhaps as important as what we could call "lived experience". One of the features of modern political discourse, with its emphasis on economics and obsession with evidence, is that it loses feeling. Everything is boiled down to a narrow utilitarian analysis with no room for "gut understanding". People parade class credentials (or attack others for their excess of privilege) without appreciating that this is simply adopting a badge not being empathetic, let alone understanding, of other people's lives. I may be the grandson of a miner but that doesn't make me working class - just a little bit closer to understanding that class than someone who is the grandson of an earl.

3. Policy-making is dominated by the well-off. Chris points to some very privileged people - Jacob Ree-Mogg, David Cameron, Boris Johnson, Seumas Milne and Andrew Murray - to make his point about how posh folk are a problem. But there's a much bigger group of people, not all the product of elite private schools, but still unquestionably wealthy and privileged. The influence of these people (they litter the media, civil service, think tanks and charity administration as well as politics) leads to tin-eared policy-making such as the persistent attacks on working- and lower middle-class lifestyle choices.

4. Generally-speaking the private sector is far more egalitarian than the public sector. I recall the then chief executive of Reed Elsevier telling a tale of how, for the annual report, his PR team were very proudly saying "all our senior management are graduates" - he had to point out to them this wasn't true as he wasn't a graduate. Employment in the city has always been a strange mish-mash between barrow boys and public school grandees (not least because trading requires that ability to hustle, negotiate or strategise that Chris points out is often missing in posh folk).

5. There are too few what I would call "ordinary people" in politics these days. From 1965 to 2005 the Conservative Party was led by people from ordinary backgrounds (Heath, Thatcher, Major, Hague, Duncan Smith, Howard) - all bar one from what us Londoners call the 'provinces'. That politics is now - in every part of its spectrum - completely dominated by folk from less ordinary backgrounds is a failing in what should be an egalitarian pastime.

We give a great deal of attention (rightly in the main) to getting better representation from women and ethnic minorities but much less attention to whether the interests and outlook of the people we chose, gender and race aside, reflect the interests and outlook of most people, especially outside London and the Home Counties. Indeed, there's a tendency to look down the nose as MPs like Phil Davies ("he used to work in ASDA, you know") or Ben Bradley ("shelf stacker in Lidl") rather than see this experience as providing a fighting chance of actually understanding what it's like for the customers and employees of value supermarkets.

I don't think the posh should be disqualified from politics, people like Tony Benn and Willie Whitelaw made major contributions to politics, but I do consider that Chris Dillow has a point - political parties need to think harder how they can get people who better represent the electorate. I think the Conservative Party has done some good work here but it is still the case that the centralised candidate approval system makes it too easy for London-based people with good connections to get approved and onto shortlists for winnable seats.

Perhaps we need also to look at non-graduate routes into professions - my uncle was a county court judge when he died but started his career as a 14-year old post boy in a solicitors' office (another uncle started at Barclay's as a sixteen-year old and finished as a senior tax accountant at the bank). These days too many jobs are closed off to non-graduates - the latest here is nursing which has gone the route of social work and policing in this regard - which makes it pretty tough for the 50% of kids who don't go to university.

Lastly, we need to ask whether the domination of London and the process of sortition by wealth (largely driven by housing costs) contributes to the manner in which well-off people simply don't have a clue about the real lives of most ordinary people - not just the poor but millions of people who are what the Americans would call 'middle class'.

....

The Incredible Shrinking Viscount

Labour Toff, Anthony Neil Wedgewood Benn talks down to the assembled working classes

A friend at university, Neil Duncanson, first coined the aptly descriptive term “Incredible Shrinking Viscount” to describe the then member of parliament for Bristol North East, a man who had started as Anthony Neil Wedgewood Benn, 2^nd Viscount Stansgate only to shrink (in inverse proportion to his self-importance) to the oh-so-proletarian, Tony Benn.

I was reminded of the Incredible Shrinking Viscount as a result of a little (and slightly snide) posting from Political Scrapbook:

Humourless Tory toff Jacob Rees-Mogg is attempting to close down a spoof Twitter account set up in his name.

Now Jacob Rees-Mogg may be humourless for wanting to shut down a Twitter account that takes the rise out of him. Indeed, some MPs would perhaps slice off parts of their anatomies to achieve the recognition and accolade of have some nitwit set up a spoof account in their name.

But – and this is a serious question – why did the author of this sniffy little piece have to use the term “Tory toff”? OK, I’m sure that the author will point out that Mr Rees-Mogg is a Tory and, in so far as the term is defined, most definitely a Toff but was that necessary to the story or merely playing to the Labour inverse snob gallery? The same gallery to which Labour Toff , Anthony Neil Wedgewood Benn, 2^nd Viscount Stansgate, inheritor of millions, pupil at top public school and Oxbridge educated – privilege and advantage defined, played when he dumbed down to just Tony Benn.

So why is it that Jacob Rees-Mogg, David Cameron, George Osborne and other Conservatives are routinely derided as “Tory Toffs” by the likes of Political Scrapbook whereas Benn, the late Michael Foot, Anthony Blair, Polly Toynbee and Tristam Hunt never receive the description as “Labour Toffs”? Is it that Labour folk like to avoid the real fact that there are plenty of really posh, champagne socialists out there – the sort of people who, as my father would say, “can afford to be socialists.”

Maybe though the term “Tory toff” is merely a random class-ridden term of abuse that we should accept as being from the same intellectual box as “Tory scum”. Demonstrating yet again that the left have no arguments left – merely insults.

....

Dave, stop shooting the messenger...

***

Here we go again...shoot the bloody messenger. The only reason we consumer "excessively" is because of evil advertising. Now not only is this complete tosh (the fact that we like having all that stuff has quite a lot to do with us buying it you know) but I'm getting royally fed up with the pig ignorance of our political classes.

Here's Dave holding forth....

"In a speech at an event hosted by the Demos think tank, Mr Cameron said that children were being "sold the idea that the path to happiness lies through excessive consumption". He said that it was "high time" advertisers curbed their practises, although he added that the Conservatives did not want to resort to regulation. "But we will make it clear that if business doesn't exercise some corporate responsibility, we will not be afraid to impose it," he added"

Sorry Dave but you're wrong. Children are not being encouraged towards excessive consumptions - most of them (and their parents) would like half a chance to have a quarter of the goodies you're able to give your kids.

Instead of protecting children from advertising you should be protecting them from the brainwashing they're getting at school.

...