I remember reading an article by David Mitchell a while back in which he criticised viewers of Would I Lie to You? who would take seriously the casual class warfare between him and Lee Mack. He used this as a basis to emphasise the need to base opinions on actions rather than backgrounds. "It's wrong to infer from the jokes that being born into a rich family means you're a bad person or that judging politicians on their backgrounds rather than their actions is fair." All sounds very noble coming from the Oxbridge-educated, private school comedian whose status as a well-loved entertainer and columnist for a major newspaper of course has nothing to do with his background.
Watching Sunday Morning Live with Francis Boulle from Made in Chelsea this week kind of pushed me over the edge though - the suggestion that classism or prejudice of people based on their upper-class backgrounds is akin to racism was just too much to take. But it's symbolic of the way that class consciousness has been completely trampled over in this country and a taboo has been created around the suggestion that maybe some people in life actually do more opportunities than others based on their background.
The post-war Labour government did more than any government before or since to eliminate the class barrier with its introduction of high tax rates for the wealthy, the creation of the welfare state, expansion of the public sector, free education, free healthcare etc. and there was a conscious belief among a large percentage of the population in the following decades, even through Tory governments, that things were getting better and that class was no longer the barrier to success it had been before the war.
In spite of this, class consciousness was still on a high. Labour supporters were divided from Conservative supporters and whole communities were structured this way - Labour supported the working class, Conservatives were the party of privilege.
Harold Wilson, in stark contrast to today's RP-speaking politicians, consciously modified his accent to try and emphasise his Yorkshire roots, in spite of the fact that his father spoke upper-class English. Being seen as coming from the working-class gave a sense of familiarity to people; it could be worn with pride.
The problems started in the 80s - Thatcher played down class more than any leader before by attempting to emphasise a free market system which opened up opportunities to all. The phrase "there's no such thing as society" stood to emphasise the pointlessness of class loyalties as much as anything else. The fact that it was completely untrue was irrelevant.
Starting then, and continuing throughout the neo-Thatcherism of the Blair years, an indescribably wealthy uber-class of bankers, investors, businessmen, hedge fund managers and various celebrity types grew as the Labour party became more relaxed about "people getting filthy rich."
Behind this, a massive middle-class grew as well as an increasingly disenfranchised working and unskilled class mainly in the post-industrial North and ghettoised ethnic minorities. With the onset of the financial crisis - caused by the filthy rich - the middle-class are declining again and wealth inequality is going through the roof. Wages are falling, the private sector is contracting, more and more people are unemployed and yet executive pay rose on average 12% in the UK last year, in spite of the FTSE 100 losing 6% of its value. Occupy highlighted this effectively with the 99% campaign - the class divide is not only not shrinking, it is more massive than any time since World War II. Bob Diamond earned last year more money than your average nurse could earn in 21 lifetimes. That's a class divide.
But people don't want to hear it. The Diamond Jubilee summarises this total lack of class awareness - the huge popularity of the event and the register of approval for the monarchy that arose from it signifies this. The Jubilee was immense spectacle of privilege, wealth and hereditary superiority. And the public lapped it up.
Similarly, the election of Boris Johnson as Mayor of London was based on his cartoonish toffery, a self-parody of his own immense wealth and privilege - again the public lapped it up. The cabinet of millionaires hardly needs to be mentioned. Cameron and Osborne belong to an Etonian, Oxbridge, Bullingdon Club heritage which almost guarantees them power; if not as politicians, then as businessmen. Their opportunities in life were guaranteed by their extreme wealth and connections and now they are telling the rest of us that we need to save more, that the public sector needs to be reduced and that the NHS needs reform - even though they haven't the faintest idea of what any of this means for those of us who do not have unlimited wealth.
And yet all the polls are suggesting that they are still trusted on the economy more than the opposition, in spite of the fact that the economy is crashing like a ton of bricks. How much of this is based on an attitude of deference to class superiority? The idea that some people are just "born for power" and should be left to run the country - which is not for the likes of the rest of us?
The idea that someone should not be criticised on the basis of their background sounds pretty noble on paper - but it's in fact a far more regressive and reactionary notion to apply this to those born into wealth and privilege.
Being "posh" is neither a genetic trait nor an irreconcilable accident of birth. It is an establishment of superiority which will almost certainly guarantee you a better lot in life. While it might seem nice to suggest that you shouldn't then criticise the children of the wealthy for something they had no power to be born into, by withdrawing criticism you silence any possibility of the situation improving.
The children of Bob Diamond will do much better in life than any of us will. The children of Ian Donald Cameron and Sir Peter Osborne have done much better in life because of their inherited wealth. We do not all have the same opportunities in life for success. There is a class divide and it's as huge now as it ever has been and rather than accusing everyone who points it out of being a "class warrior" or "communist" we should start to address it and realise that inequality is rampant in our society - and that we CAN and SHOULD do something about it.
Follow Alex MacDonald on Twitter: www.twitter.com/@AlexJayMac
Denise Dennis: A Teachable Moment: Pride and Prejudice
Jacqui Smith: Boris' Big Adventure
Anne M. Plant: Saving the Woods is Class Prejudice
I don't think its about stirring anything ,its more about the creation of an unacceptable divide , i would prefer to live in a fair society where we could all live side by side .
Class is sadly just as alive as always in this country and it does us no favours. For some reason we as a nation pour scorn on the egalitarian notions of the post war period and instead triumph the elitist, money grabbing rhetoric of the 1980s.
If being posh was just a matter of having different tastes and culture then I wouldn't have a problem with it. It's the wealth and power which backs up the "posh" which I have issue with.
What really gets me angry is how many others buy into a peasant mentality of knowing their place like we live in some Indian caste system. I many in this country like being bossed around by the upper classes.
Scared of having to think and act for themselves they would rather live under the notion that because someone talks fancy & went to a posh school that they are inherently better to command their lives.
Seeing how badly this country is run it's about time we woke up to the fact that being an entertaining buffoon is not a sound reason to vote someone into governance. We should not be living in Downtown Abbey, we should be making sure no child goes hungry, no person has to sleep rough and everyone should have a fair go in life.
However, the rich have a distinct advantage over the poor and I challenge the notion that it's not easier to make it in life if you come from a privileged background.
This doesn't mean that rich people don't work for what they've got but it usually means that you have the right kind of upbringing and connections in place from birth which do give you an advantage over someone who comes from a poorer home.
There are of course exceptions to every rule in life and a minority from poor backgrounds will do well and a few from better off homes will fail.
Should you not treat people for what they are.
You also have to remember that the conservative goverment were elected - narrowly. Boris Johnston was elected. Are you saying that all those that voted were posh aswell. Clearly a substancial number of people can look past "class prejudice" and vote for who they will.
You live in a democracy - the conservatives were elected. If you stand for election with your own manifesto you may be supprised at the outcome.
conversely I am sure some "posh" people voted for labour - although there a quite a number of Oxbridge posh rich people in there to.
THe problem you create by saying that, is by giving license to the prejudice, you justify someone on the other side of the fence who disagrees with you, using exactly the same tactic on the feckless poor. See?
You just let the genie out of the bottle.
Nobody can help being born into an upper class family, just work hard and be yourself and you can get yourself somewhere in the future.
I was born into a working class family, my mother and father both being 16, and I grew up on a council estate. I worked hard and I attended King's College London for my degree.
I DO think that judging someone on being rich is wrong. It's just as wrong as judging me for being 'poor'. Someone once assumed that, because I was poor, I must have been helped by the government to be where I am. Wrong. Similarly, my friend is fortunate to have a good background and people assume that he has got there though his parent's help.
Why can't we judge someone based on their merits, and stop this quibbling over where they came from. It's who you ARE that matters to me.
Many of my friends from richer backgrounds acknowledge their fortune, and I have to say that if I ever had that kind of money, I would make sure my children were brought up with the best opportunities in life, like any parent would.
If my parents had more money, I am certain they would have used it to help me as much as possible.
Start looking at people for themselves, not their class.
What proportion of the kids you grew up with on your estate went on to achieve the success that you did? Is that proportion increasing or decreasing?
What proportion of your peers would have gone to Kings or a similar institution had you been born in, say the Stockbroker belt? Again what are the trends.
No one is saying that it's impossible to achieve in the UK and that brains, guts and determination don't help you get on, what is being suggested is that you can achieve to the same level with less brains, guts and determination depending on the social class you are born in to. And that is rightly an issue that needs thinking about.
Regardless, you still didn't understand MY point. I didn't suggest for a second that we don't have to look into how someone from a richer background can get places easier - it's almost a fact no-one can deny.
But is this the fault of the rich person? No. Not at all. Should we say "Oh, you're born into a rich family, so I'm just going to go ahead and discriminate against you because you're rich, or feel I'm able to judge you because society says you're a bad person through no fault of your own"?
Of course not. No-one can help what class they were born into. What you have issue with (and I'd agree) is our education system not being up to scratch, our admissions policies for good universities not being equal, the top bosses in large companies giving jobs under the radar, NOT the person who HAPPENED to be the result of two rich people having sex. They never asked for that.
You also say that you will use as much influence as you possibly can to aid your own children, something you will be much more able to do than your parents. But does this not undermine your central argument that you should be judged for who you are?
To truly be treated on merit then all children should be taught within the same system, comprehensive for example, all applications to university and all job applications should, in the initial stages at least, be anonymous and unpaid internships should be made illegal.
I'm with you on the unpaid internships.
Of course wealth gives you an edge. It's hard to get rid of that. I have friends who are poorer, and they wouldn't have been able to do some of the things even I have been fortunate to do (study abroad for example). It's all relative in many respects.
My comment is simply this: do not make assumptions based on wealth, be it lack of wealth or plentiful amounts of wealth.
And David Mitchell is loud in his belief that anyone who can pass the examinations to get into university, should be able to do so freely. And he's become popular not because he's posh, but because he's incisive and funny.
Granted there is social mobility (though I believe less than previously) but everything else being equal these class ceilings you've punched through would have already been beneath you if you'd been born the Duke of Kent, say.
Nope. Are their parents? oh come one! Most of these kids Dad's are not officers. Are they mistaken for toffs? Yep. A lot. Should they dumb down? Should someone from Birmingham speak less Brummie? No. Or someone who is Irish sound more English? Yes ......it is exactly the same kind of thing. It is wrong. But "apparently" posh people are fair game because they are seen to have done well. But let me tell you it is no fun when you are on the receiving end of jealousy. Job interviews; fights; mindless nonsense ..."Oh diddums" I hear you say. "They'll do well with the accent etc". Not necessarily and it success takes hard work wherever you are from ....especially if Daddy has no contacts (like everyone else).
There are other examples too - Priest's kids; Teacher's kids; Kids on scholarships.
In another life Alex, but with the same views of the opposition, would you have been an investment banker without a care in the world for anyone else?
I hope you are not suggesting teacher's kids are 'posh' as my own are 'teacher's kids' and we are the struggling majority. Working hard to pay a mortgage in a part of the country that the elite classes own second homes and yachts in.......so we struggle to live here and our kids will most likely rent forever or have to move to Burnley in order to buy a house.
So, no, my heart is not bleeding for the advantaged minority. I'll save my sympathy for those that need it-people living in squalid bedsits and boxes. Kids raised in poverty.
Anyway, it is lucky that the class war was won a long time ago. Anyone whoseriously advocates it loses credibility. Not because the rich and the posh stamp on those arguments but because those arguments are simply ridiculous. Anybody who rises in society becomes rich or posh (even the working class heroes tend to send their kids to top posh schools). And this brings the questions ......if the most succesful in society end up being rich or posh then how does society operate if these people are simply "leeching"? Well it couldn't operate. These people are creating jobs and forging innovation etc etc
Have people no right to work their way up? Must everyone who makes it in a career be classed as bad. Must everyone who is well educated and went to a decent private school be fair game for prejudice and pre-judging? Doesn't your argument expose certain (not all by any means) left wingers who are not really there for the good of society but there to have a pop at the other side (and who conveniently found a platform from which to do it).
I really do not think it is simple as you make it out to be. We are all products of upbringing. But that doesn't mean to say that one upbringing is inherantly bad or evil and the other must be good. People are good or bad. Whatever part of society. And yes those in power do do good to help others. They just disagree about what is the best way to do it.
I don't understand what you mean by "left wingers who are not really there for the good of society but there to have a pop at the other side."
I think you've rather misunderstood the point I was making.
But, I don't think we shoud harbour any blanket prejudices towards any particular class (either above or below us). I see that as no different to racism or sexism because then you're making blind assumptions about people's lives and their worth as a human being.