is politics only for the upper classes Watch

Solid_Snake_100
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#41
Report 10 years ago
#41
i would say its the preserve of the middle and upper classes. And what do you expect, we need well mannered ambassadors for the country, which just makes it harder for the working class to be nominated as candidates (though by no means impossible, just they want people with good backgrounds)
0
reply
jammy21
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#42
Report 10 years ago
#42
(Original post by jazzyjelly)
To be a politician, must you be privately educated?
What an utterly ridiculous question! No, a private education is not a prerequisite for a career in politics, as far as I am concerned (speaking as somebody who attends a private school).

Insofar as you are more likely to receive a high-quality education, a private education may act as a slight advantage.

What I think is important is not having connections or a certain type of education but having an interest in particular issues and also being extremely ambitious. Without these qualities, a private education and the right family connections are unlikely to get you anywhere, certainly not in the U.K.
0
reply
jazzyjelly
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#43
Report Thread starter 10 years ago
#43
(Original post by Cognito)
As for all politicians being 'upper class', this is frankly ridiculous. 'Upper class' is usually used to refer to those with titles, estates and/or connections to royalty. (this may not be an entirely water tight definition but it is close enough). Outside of the Lords, there are few politicians who are in such a position. I would say that almost all politicians were middle class if such a distinction had to be made.
youre right, that did sound a bit idiotic and i didnt mean it like that. By upper class I meant in comparison to lower, so yes middle class, wealthy, privately educated.
0
reply
jazzyjelly
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#44
Report Thread starter 10 years ago
#44
(Original post by jammy21)
What an utterly ridiculous question! No, a private education is not a prerequisite for a career in politics, as far as I am concerned (speaking as somebody who attends a private school).

Insofar as you are more likely to receive a high-quality education, a private education may act as a slight advantage.

What I think is important is not having connections or a certain type of education but having an interest in particular issues and also being extremely ambitious. Without these qualities, a private education and the right family connections are unlikely to get you anywhere, certainly not in the U.K.
I understand the extremely ambitious and interest bit, but I believe if there were two candidates for a sought after job within politics and one came from a run down city area with state education and an accent and another was privately educated at Fettes, despite being the same level, the latter would become more successful.
0
reply
Adam83
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#45
Report 10 years ago
#45
depends what you mean by a job in politics.

If you mean politician, it has almost no impact.
0
reply
jammy21
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#46
Report 10 years ago
#46
(Original post by jazzyjelly)
I understand the extremely ambitious and interest bit, but I believe if there were two candidates for a sought after job within politics and one came from a run down city area with state education and an accent and another was privately educated at Fettes, despite being the same level, the latter would become more successful.
The OP referred to a 'politician' and I understood this to mean a person who runs for office (i.e. is elected) and viewed his question in terms of the election of MPs.

Do you understand how MPs acquire office?

Local parties choose their candidates at selection meetings at which various wards convene and cast their votes.

Then on election day, constituents choose which candidate they want to represent them in Westminster (or which party they want to be in government).

I think your hypothetical situation (that, if there were two candidates with nothing to distinguish between them but their education, the one with the private education and RP accent would win) is highly unlikely. More likely, there will be differences between the candidates and people will decide accordingly.

If the candidates were as you say 'at the same level', I think the person who gave the best speech at the selection meeting would be chosen and why would that necessarily be the privately educated one?

Anyway, I think it's really unfortunate that people take this sort of view because it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Perhaps that's why there's a disproportionate number of privately educated MPs in Westminster.

The aristocracy relies on people's belief in this kind of nonsense to hang onto what influence they have left.
0
reply
jazzyjelly
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#47
Report Thread starter 10 years ago
#47
i have to say, im not incredibly into politics. It was just a thought that sprung to mind. From an onlookers point of view (who knows little about the subject) it seems that the politicians i see on television are stuffy upper middle class people with connections.

But hey, like I said, what do I know.
0
reply
user_01332
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#48
Report 10 years ago
#48
Politics is not reserved for the upper-classes but it helps enormously in terms of contacts. But importantly I think those brought in world of Eaton etc are directed and motivated in quest for power. Whereas the majority of Oxbridge who were not actually brought up in the aristocracy are n more concerned with research and high paid City jobs as opposed to power, prestige and debating!

I know one oxford student and others who are doing very well but have no interest in a career in politics despite being suited to it (one being a first-class PPE student) and importantly this student is neither rich or from the aristocracy as David Cameroon is who studied PPE at oxford .

I make the reference to Oxbridge since most politicians, top researchers, lawyers and businessmen quite frankly are ex-Oxbridge students.
0
reply
user_01332
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#49
Report 10 years ago
#49
(Original post by Seven_Three)
This is the norm in socialists.



There are no individuals in socialism.

Well this is how it really is in our country:


Individuals still have freedom of speech to promote what they like. Large organsations dont.
0
reply
user_01332
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#50
Report 10 years ago
#50
(Original post by Seven_Three)
This is the norm in socialists.



There are no individuals in socialism.

Furthermore even if it is the norm to be encouraged by peers to say smoke - it does not mean the ones encouraged by the peers to smoke are idiots.

Norms don’t make something right or wrong.
0
reply
DJKL
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#51
Report 10 years ago
#51
(Original post by jazzyjelly)
To be a politician, must you be privately educated?
and do those who take degrees in politics end up being politicians, what other careers are available to them?
I have found a few who I guess would, in the main, be middle class, however do not appear to have been privately educated.

Alex Salmond
Gordon Brown
John Major
John Prescott
Margaret Thatcher
Charles Kennedy
0
reply
faber niger
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#52
Report 10 years ago
#52
Apparently, evidenced by my recent neg rep, Bagration's pro-smoking/pro-unfettered capitalism logo is not considered a problem by at least one TSR user. Conversely, that one TSR user is considered a problem by at least one other. :p:
0
reply
faber niger
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#53
Report 10 years ago
#53
(Original post by DJKL)
I have found a few who I guess would, in the main, be middle class, however do not appear to have been privately educated.

Alex Salmond
Gordon Brown
John Major
John Prescott
Margaret Thatcher
Charles Kennedy
Oh, there are many more than that. William Hague, for one. A large number of back-bench MPs.
0
reply
user_01332
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#54
Report 10 years ago
#54
(Original post by jismith1989)
Apparently, evidenced by my recent neg rep, Bagration's pro-smoking/pro-unfettered capitalism logo is not considered a problem by at least one TSR user. Conversely, that one TSR user is considered a problem by at least one other. :p:
EDIT: Sorry, maybe this was not aimed at me - I don’t believe I have left anyone any negative feedback.

What’s the need for the personal attack?

I don’t have a problem with Bagration sharing his fondness of Imperial Tobacco nor do I have problem with his fondness of smoking and thus his non-anti smoking views.

I don’t have a problem with you as a TSR user but I do disagree with you and don’t think the problem you have Bagration's so called "pro-smoking/pro-unfettered capitalism logo" has much credibility.
0
reply
user_01332
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#55
Report 10 years ago
#55
(Original post by DJKL)
I have found a few who I guess would, in the main, be middle class, however do not appear to have been privately educated.

Alex Salmond
Gordon Brown
John Major
John Prescott
Margaret Thatcher
Charles Kennedy
Margaret Thatcher - was not privately educated - she went to a grammar school - but there were no fees.
0
reply
DJKL
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#56
Report 10 years ago
#56
(Original post by user_01332)
Margaret Thatcher - was not privately educated - she went to a grammar school - but there were no fees.
Consider my use of the word "not" in my post, as in "not" privately educated.
0
reply
sarcastic pratchett fan
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#57
Report 10 years ago
#57
The majority of current politicians either attended grammar schools or independent schools. As the grammar school system has been abolished, are all the next generation of politicians going to be independently educated with a couple of rare representatives from the comprehensives?
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Have you registered to vote?

Yes! (552)
37.81%
No - but I will (115)
7.88%
No - I don't want to (102)
6.99%
No - I can't vote (<18, not in UK, etc) (691)
47.33%

Watched Threads

View All