Young, Bright, and on the Right

Well I have to say as a Conservative I found the whole documentary completely embarrassing. The people on the programme didn't seem to realise that politics is fundamentally about serving and representing other people - not about serving yourself.

What the Conservative party and politics as a whole needs is an emphasis on helping people, doing your utmost to improve people's lives but in a fair way so that other people are not restrained in the process.

All I got from that was who the hell is excited over selecting the cheese for a weekly meet. Honestly that showed the torries in such a bad light. Hopefully will convince some people away from voting for them, kinda shows why the current politians think the way they do.

They are so up themselves, thinking that all they are doing is important, when one of them even said that they have no power, and it was good that they didn't.

This is why I don't want to go to a prestigious university, would rather go to one which is good now, not just based on its past.

There are some normal ones, however which scenes were you thinking of? CUCA is certainly better for normality than OCA. Also I know quite a lot of these people and not all of those actually seen on the programme were part of OCA or CUCA, but rather unconsenting cameos.

(And none of them knew what they were being filmed for! The BBC camera crew completely lied to us - the debate you saw in Cambridge they claimed to be there to film the main debate later which included Vince Cable and several other MPs)

I cannot remember the exact scene to be honest. Really? That is suprising! I'm sure that the would of had to tell you for legal reasons?


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

Wait what?

Don't know why people are so anti-tory
You say you are middle class and what is benefiial
Things have gotten better since labour (strange, coming from someone who doesn't understand anti-conservative partyism).

And I hate on the working class doesn't exist, not even comedy has gone there. Its OK to joke about the underclass, council estates, benefits, chavs, and Lidl (even though a lot of middle class people go to Aldi and Lidl now, or atleast they do in the north). But, say someone, amongst your friends (these have happened to me haha), "omg, are you eating a burger with a knife and fork, so middle class haha" (FYI the burger was a microwavable rustlers and it was too hot to pick up), now if you turn round and say, "ha, look at you with your pot noodle, working class scumbag" .... reaction would be different.

I can't believe this. How many tramps have you seen shopping in Lidl? And since when did claiming benefits make you a member of the "underclass"?

Nah, doubt it. What you saw (about the Eurozone) was an "emergency debate" before the main one, so I think they'd have had permission to film both and just decided that the first one was more interesting - or it was the only one in which Chris spoke.

You seem to have slamed together my post and someone elses so I don't quite know what you are aiming at.

But, I have never seen a tramp shopping in Lidl, at my local one, it is mostly regular people, and oddly, a lot of people in 4x4's and BMW's, and then small shop owners bulk buying a load off stuff to mark up and sell for an immediate profit margain hahahah

And no benefits doesn't automatically make you underclass, since there are tens of types of them that everyone right upto but exluding royalty use. But I'm talking in generic terms, job seekers benefits, and dual child benefits so that those already on job seekers benefits, who (unfortunately) posses the basic knowledge and physical requirements to make tracksuit babies.

What, like, uh, Oxford or Cambridge?

Those 2 are also helped to getting good results by the fact the pupils they take in are incredibly skilled. Brilliant Uni's none the less however the image I get from them is kinda stuffy and more focused on their prestige rather then their future.

I want to mech engineering and hopefully go to loughborough, a very good uni however different to oxford and cambridge.

I guess they can be stuffy, but I think that's an unfair judgement. They wouldn't attract the best students if they weren't already the best universities. Whatever you think of their methodologies, all the league tables, which are the only remotely objective measures we have, confirm my opinion.

1. you seem to be ascribing characteristics associated with the working class to the underclass so as to be able to express contempt for the working class

2. claiming JSA makes you a member of it. And your remark about 'tracksuit babies' is just disgusting and ignorant--it's an idiotic stereotype and the quasi-malthusian sentiment is revolting.
.

2. Malthusian? Combinations act? Passing references to things hardly anyone knows about unless they have specifically studied them (luckily for me I did geography and strangely studied a song based on 18th century trade unionism so know what both are), does not strengethen your argument.

Anyway, my remark about tracksuit babies was tounge in cheek which unfortunatel has a horrible truth attached to it. I'd say the ratio of people who wear tracksuits (as an actual clothing item outside the gym) who are underclass, compared with the other 3 main ones, is well, well, I don't know, but you get it right? And you can say I'm stereotyping all you want, but again, if we worked out a ratio, the number of those on JSA or the benefit-frauds favourite, the Disability - DLA, and pinned them against their perceived class, or generalised measurable class ... well, again, don't need to go further, as I'm sure the findings would support the stereotype.

The question is, who are worse, the middle class welfare spongers, or the underclass ones, upon using such benefits, who inputs the most back into society. The person who will probably be going to uni and getting a decent professional job, or Darren or Shanon, who bang for cash (I forget to mention, again, a different ratio, or percentage could be worked out, the number of children correlated against class), pick fights with "******* gaybo's" and spend their benefits on tech gadgets and booze (yes this is a specific scenario haha).

The tragedy is that underclass welfare scum are perceived to be more prevalent on the benefit horizon, in comparison with those who actually need this help because they are actually mentally unwell or physically screwed.

Its odd, because the underclass as we know it (I classify underclass as benefit cheats in council houses/flats with multiple children, not those who actually need it) didn't seem to exist until a few years/decades ago.

They only ceremonial roles because they themselves were members while at Oxford.

OCA is very much on the fringe of the party, in fact is was almost disowned by it recently.

The OCA is probably better than the Bullingdon club but it has about as much impact on the Party as a whole and the contacts you might make their aren't what get you a seat.

The Associations are still fiercely independent and hugely resent having candidates parachuted onto them because they are mates with high up party members. Having been in the OCA doesn't give you much clout.

The real way that you get on in the party is to either work in the associations and become a Councillor and work your way up in that way, or to intern for MPs in University holidays and then get a job as a Spad for a few years after Uni.

Well if he doesn't he still should be, because that's how you build the experience, the communication skills and also your credibility with the electorate. I've campaigned in some pretty anti-Tory areas myself but it's all part of the parcel, you have to deal with this stuff and get used to it early on.

Ah OK. What is it you think that Oxford does that is so sought after, generally in politics, but seemingly particularly in the Tories? All of the PM, Chancellor, Foreign Sec, Home Sec and Mayor of London (probably the most powerful Tory politicians right now) and the rising star of Gove are Oxford alum so there must be something it does which isn't available at other universities.

I just guessed it was OCA because that's the Tory thing at Oxford but if not do you think it's the Union, PPE, Bullingdon (much as it's likely total coincidence the three biggest cheeses right now were all members) or something else entirely?

He will have done, I remember he was leaving college once to go campaign in an area which was the estate where the most famous riot of the miner's strike took place.

Well because it gives you an excellent education. And it tends to attract bright, confident, articulate young people who have ideas and know about Politics.

I don't think that it is the University itself per se, but more the nature of the kind of people who go there, ie. the sort of people who want to go into Politics and have the characteristics that make this likely to happen.