And then they look after the interests of the type of people that go to Eton and Oxbridge. We need a meritocracy not a place where money buys power.
I've had very little confidence in Brown since, when as chancellor, he decided to not only sell the nations gold stocks, but was kind enough to tell everybody beforehand of his intentions. The City couldn't believe how stupid that was. The price plunged, he sold at the bottom of the market - and susequently, the price has risen 5 fold!...
Don't get me wrong, I'm not disputing that WY. I don't actually mind that they go to Oxbridge or wherever. Having intelligence at the top can't be a wholly bad thing - although I would point out that I know one or two people who went to Oxford who, while phenomenally academically intelligent, were not what people on this thread would call charismatic, or good leaders, in any way. Balance as in all things, is needed, and Oxbridge if anything doesn't produce balance, it produces and encourages sheer intellect. Surely though, it would be nice to see more visible representation of the average British man/woman, who didn't go to Oxbridge (or maybe even university?) and wasn't privately educated, in positions of high power. Going to Oxbridge doesn't necessarily equate to what I would call social intelligence, or people skills, a crucial skill for an MP surely. And I would emphatically point out that I personally am in a severe minority in not being too opposed (within reason) to what appears to be an Oxbridge-dominated government - the majority of fellow students I have discussed politics with at uni are dead against it, and view it as an Elitist, 'jobs for the old boys' arrangement. Even if their views are often sadly misguided I can see the thinking behind it. Very few people I came into contact with at Uni, myself included, identified with any party or leader in the UK, and that can't be helped by the fact that the people often seem so very different. Hell, I don't identify with them and I came from a middle class background, had some years of private education and went to a good Uni. On those grounds I should identify with some of the politicians, but I don't, so why is someone from (just purely as an example) Darlington, who went to a pretty awful school (her words not mine) and did very well to get to Uni, going to think that David Cameron or Theresa May in any way represents her, let alone that she comes from a Labour voting background, and Ed Milliband is hardly a great leader for them at the moment either.
Is it a bad reason for voting no? Self preservation? I suppose that all depends on what you have to lose, or have been frightened into believing you will lose. In summary, no concession of anything from me, I just beleive some people bought into the hype and shat it.
There's a difference between education and intelligence. When I worked in the City, some of the brightest, sharpest guys in the market were from ordinary backgrounds - secondary school, etc. Some of the dumbest from the top public schools. I think in some ways, it's gotten worse where only the so called elite get the chance to shine. Campbell went to Oxford ( Christ knows how! ) would you describe him as outstandingly bright?
The other obvious problem with having a political class full of privately educated and wealthy MPs is that they simply won't be able to relate to most of the voters. A lot of people won't be able to relate to them, either. That leads to the fringe parties being able to push an agenda of "being for the people", then the likes of UKIP are anything but that. Extremism and prejudice are leaking back into British politics in a big way. As was already pointed out earlier in the thread, the parties are all trying to be everything to everyone and they end up representing nobody. They're the old joke about the statistician who puts his head in an oven and his feet in a freezer, saying, "On average, I feel fine." Certain people having far too much of an influence on the media is also a massive problem. Murdoch may feel comfortable bragging about his power, but he needs dealing with. The British public should not have their views poisoned by a billionaire megalomaniac, just because he's got his thumbs in a lot of pies. It's bollocks.
Which Campbell, Alastair? Sol?! No doubt that there is a difference between education and intelligence. I wouldn't dare to pretend that an expensive education can buy a brain, I went to a pretty good public school and I'd say for half of my fellow pupils it was a waste of money. Many left with little ability to think for themselves, meagre interest in current affairs, and no care or passion for what they would do for the rest of their lives. The fact of the matter is that Oxbridge doesn't accept those types. They DO only accept the intelligent ones, from any walk of life. Some people act as if there's no vetting process, that public school is an automatic pass to Oxbridge, and clump the two very distinct entities into one.
What was with Andy Murray making out that he was part of the Yes campaign yesterday, by the way? He was funded by the British public, he's got an OBE and he lives in ****ing London. Didn't even have a vote, did he? Weird that so many that were backing independence don't actually have much to do with Scotland anymore.
It's taken seveal years for everyone to get over his "Anyone but England" joke and now he does this. Not sure he said he was part of the campaign, but after keeping out of it right until the last moment, it was very strange.
"And there is an absence these days of clever people from more modest backgrounds in politics. You won't see another Harold Wilson, for example." Or another Maggie (grocers' daughter, grammar school education, Oxford degree) .
"There's a difference between education and intelligence. When I worked in the City, some of the brightest, sharpest guys in the market were from ordinary backgrounds - secondary school, etc. Some of the dumbest from the top public schools. I think in some ways, it's gotten worse where only the so called elite get the chance to shine." You have to distinguish between academic and real world intelligence. The difference between them is akin to the difference between engineering and basic science. Whereas both may have what my trade call the same "body of knowledge" , that doesn't mean both will be competent in both fields.
Basically- Glasgow wanted independence- and the rest of the country didn't. (more or less). Result is good for Scotland both yes and no. Yes voters may not have got the independence they wanted- but they get 3/4 of the way there with Devo Max (which they might not have been getting without the referendum)... No voters get to stay part of the union. Personally, I'm glad Cameron is talking about devolution across the whole of the UK... I think this is the way forwards. Also glad Scotland stays in UK, because Scotland will probably be the tipping point that keeps Britain in the EU- without Scotland we'd be isolated from Europe shortly I've no doubt. Scotland helps balance the UK's political spectrum. Sorry to all those who wanted yes... but, I hope the way forward is prosperous for all of the UK- and I suspect Scotland may have helped all of the UK by having this referendum and allowing Devo to become a possibility!
The way I've always looked at this, is that the upper classes produce a far more civilised imbecile than the less privileged classes. That's mainly down to the fact that public schools are pretty good at getting thick kids into higher education, and whilst these thick rich kids will never do more than obtain a basic degree, at least they are no dressed up in hoodies and on the streets of Merseyside, at night, engaging in acts of mindless violence. I speak as an Oxbridge graduate, myself, and someone who most definitely did not come from a privileged background, and I can assure everyone that this myth - that rich people can get their thick kids into Cambridge or Oxford - is simply that, a myth. One simply doesn't make it into the system unless one is at least as academically able as all the other candidates, and if they did - by some form of bribery - make it into the system, I can absolutely assure you that they would have a pretty miserable time. And whilst I might agree that "education" does not necessarily equate with "intelligence" that is not an argument to dismiss any graduate, let alone Oxbridge graduates, as thick. Intelligent kids from less privileged backgrounds may struggle to realise their full, or any, potential in the education system, but it takes a fantastic degree of discipline and application to graduate with a degree from a UK University. Please, chaps, do not fall into the thick white-van-man trap of believing that anyone with an education "lacks common sense." "Yeah, mate. I've got a double-first in Law from Trinity College, Cambridge, but because I don't know how to plaster a wall I'm a complete twat! Now, if you wouldn't mind, please **** off, or I'll have my man set the dogs on you!"
Another thing that is interesting... the regions that Yes won in were the same regions that had the lowest voter turn out.
"I speak as an Oxbridge graduate, myself, and someone who most definitely did not come from a privileged background" AFAIK, only the Polytechics ever offered degrees in WUMmery. "do not fall into the thick white-van-man trap of believing that anyone with an education "lacks common sense." You met my dad !!?? That was one of his top three things he used to say to me (although TBF he often used to say to me "I wish I had an education like you" ) .
.. Some of the Oxbridge grads I have met I wouldn't trust to cross the road without getting run over. The fact is, that certainly until the very recent past, Oxbridge was populated most, but maybe no exclusively, by public school educated people. To get in from an ordinary secondary school, you would have needed to be able to demonstrate remarkable ability. Even then it would be entirely likely that you would fail the interview as you wouldn't be considered to be the "right sort" to fit in.
That must be the daftest post I have ever read on here - and I read all your stuff. There is so much wrong with it that I haven't got the time to set out my arguments. I'll just say Does "public schools are pretty good at getting thick kids into higher education" not contradict "this myth - that rich people can get their thick kids into Cambridge or Oxford - is simply that, a myth" either Public school eductaion helps or it doesn't. To refute your second point. Princes Edward, Harry and William all went to Oxbridge and are all stupid.
Neither Harry, nor William studied at Oxbridge... I don't know about Edward. No contradiction in that point you brought up. 'Higher Education' emcompasses all the hundreds of UK universities from Cambridge at the top to Edge Hill or likewise at the bottom. I agree with HIAG, in this day and age money does not get you into Oxbridge, other than intelligence the only thing that does is rowing ability.
I don't know whether HIAG is wumming here or not SpursDisciple, but his point does make a bit of sense. What he is saying is that a privately educated person is more likely to go to university because the overwhelming assumption within that system is that they will do because Mummy and Daddy have paid through the nose for the education, so whether it is right for the child or not they normally go. And an intelligent person at a good private school will have an advantage over a similarly intelligent person from a state school, due to smaller class size, generally better facilities (although this is sometimes actually not the case) and generally better coaching about writing personal statements and detailed preparation for potential Oxbridge applicants that is on offer in the private sector that is not there dot the same extent in the state sector. What he isn't saying is that a rich Arab can walk into an Oxford college admissions office, slam a briefcase of cash on the desk and proclaim that his son/daughter is going to Oxford. Long may these institutions remain as pure meritocracies in my view - the significant work that needs to be done to even the numbers of state/private sector students at Oxbridge is at the school's end, not in screwing with what is a rigorous application process that selects on pure merit, as far as it is possible to discern that in the process.
