Was it David Cameron ?
Or maybe Michael Portillo a long time ago ?
2 Likes
Not sure, it doesn’t feel as recent as that
…ahh! Thats the one. Portillo! Thanks for looking that up, Muddy!
Well, good for him for trying at least!
Brilliant suggestion Pixie Knuckles. Training in a youth detention centre, work in a food bank. an experience of the real world. Diana, did well to show her sons some of the harsh facts.
3 Likes
They ran rings around him, who at the time (not sure) was Minister Of Defence. 
I agree Cinderella - Diana seemed more down to earth, and she had compassion and empathy not usually associated with those of a high falutin’ nature. Her sons appear to have kept that with them to some degree.
1 Like
They are not exactly down to earth how can they be when they are so incredibly rich ?
However they have the ‘ common touch ‘ whereby they have the social graces to communicate .
Diana was empathetic though something the RF are not very good at with humans .
1 Like
Well…maybe down to earth wasn’t the correct terminology perhaps…Diana hugged people that others of that ilk wouldn’t even glance upon…
…Sorry, I’m derailing again. I’ll stop before I go on a RF rant! 
The thing is the PF are inescapably linked with the Etonian / upper social class scenario.
They are the top of the social muck heap so they cannot escape being brought into the discussion .
The present governments will pander to them as have all previous governments .
Prince George will probably go to Eton like his father so will be on speaking terms and make friends with old Etonians . Many of which have more than enough money not to work and so take up a political career .
Personally if I were rich I would not chose to go into politics but there you are they have to do something .
I’ve never understood how it is that these very expensive and very elitist schools (Eton, Harrow, Gordonstoun, etc.) qualify as charities - and get all the tax advantages from that. These schools give their pupils three incredible advantages: very good schooling with better staff to pupil ratios; tremendous confidence as they are treated as grown up early and it is made clear that they are better than the output from state schools; incredible connections via friends and families of friends. Basically advantages not available to all and as such not charitable.
1 Like
Totally wild guess, but perhaps the bursaries or scholarships they occasionally hand out qualifies the criteria.
Another who appears to have redeemed himself.
I suspect that you have a good point there. But that would mean Tesco could qualify as a charity if it sometimes gives out of date sandwiches to the homeless.
1 Like
There will, always, be people with more money than us, who set up better schools than us, who can pay for better Health Services than us, and who set themselves up into groups which ensure that they get better jobs than us.
OK. So, if you can agree with that, what do you want to do about that?.
We thought Communism made everyone equal, but money talks, goodbye communism!
I guess that we could execute all of the well off?
Maybe we could exclude these highly educated Etonians (and other schools & Unis) from jobs in Parliament?
I suggest that we just get on with what we’ve got!
There may well, always, be people worse off than us.
Maybe we should concentrate on that?
1 Like
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jul/24/just-one-in-100-tory-mps-came-from-a-working-class-
Only about 1% of the current crop of Tory MPs entered parliament from a working-class job, according to new research that suggests a growing “representation gap” in parliament.
Just 7% of all MPs can be considered “working class”, compared with 34% of all UK working-age adults. While 13% of Labour MPs joined parliament from a working-class occupation, the proportion has halved since the 1980s.
The analysis, by researchers of the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR), comes as both parties go through the process of selecting candidates for the next election. The proportion of British people who are working class has also fallen, but the decline among MPs has been twice as fast.
The paper is the third in a series, in collaboration with the Observer, examining the steep decline in trust in politics and how it can be addressed. Previous studies have found that working-class representatives are more likely to support action to tackle economic inequality and support more redistributive policies.
The proportion of Conservative MPs with working-class job backgrounds has been well below 5% for at least the past 50 years. However, 28% of Labour MPs came from working-class jobs after the 1987 election – the proportion has since halved.
Angela Rayner, Labour’s deputy leader, called for cross-party action to improve access. “When I first went into parliament it was like going into Hogwarts,” she said. “It can be intimidating to think of all the people who have stood at the dispatch box before me, as well as mixing with people from huge wealth, privilege and with expensive education.
“Those working in insecure or low-paid jobs are less likely to have an employer who will give them flexibility or to be able to afford to take time off work. Putting yourself forward for public life is not only daunting, it can be a big commitment in time and money that is inaccessible for many. We need a genuine cross-party discussion about how we can enhance participation in our democracy, and give ordinary people who are juggling inflexible work with other commitments more opportunities and support to run for office.”
The IPPR identified two main factors driving the decline. It pointed to the fact that trade unions were no longer as able as they were in the past to provide a route into politics for working-class candidates. Second, so much time and money is now required to become a political candidate that it has become “an insurmountable obstacle” for some interested in pursuing a career as an MP. It said there was effectively a “class ceiling”.
To analyse the class breakdown of parliament, researchers compared the number of MPs who entered Westminster directly from an occupation regarded as working class with the population at large in the same types of posts. The survey was based on an anonymised sample of MPs. It used an established academic definition of “working class”.
A Conservative spokesman said that the study underestimated the diversity within the current crop of Conservative MPs. “This report appears to apply an incredibly narrow definition of working class by only considering an MP’s job immediately before entering parliament,” he said. “That means, for example, a Conservative MP who was a coal miner for 10 years and went on to other work is excluded from these figures.
“The 2019 intake of Conservative MPs was our most diverse ever and helped us win seats right across the country and an 80-seat majority, as the party of working people. The Conservative Party Foundation funds a £250,000 bursary scheme to support candidates.”
Several other disparities with the population as a whole were uncovered. It found 86% of MPs attended higher education institutions, while only 34% of working-age adults have. Party candidates in 2019 were twice as likely to have voted for Remain compared with voters at large, while 35% of MPs were women – though this was up from 3% in 1979.
IPPR called for all parties to publish the number of working-class candidates they were putting forward and set targets, develop new talent pipelines and invest more in financially supporting candidates, including covering childcare costs. It said there should be a government-backed “right to run” fund and compulsory time off to stand for elected office.
“Too many voters feel that their voice is not heard in British democracy and that they are not represented by the member of parliament sitting in Westminster on their behalf,” said Harry Quilter-Pinner, IPPR’s director of research and engagement. “This is contributing with a decline in trust in politicians and democracy which should worry us all.”
Your link doesn’t work here!
True. And you are right that the answer to this is not to outlaw or prevent the things that the rich can afford to pay for. Or to penalise those who benefit - the privately educated kids, the ill person seeking private health care. Their choice to spend their money as they wish.
The answer is surely to make the state provided offering (education, health, etc.) so good that the decision to remain with the state offering is almost preferred - or at least a very close second. So fewer kids get private education as why would you pay when the state education is excellent? And further education is open to all and comes without the burden of debt.
And to pay for this state delivered excellence everyone is taxed. Its not redistribution - its everyone pitching in to make the whole country better.
1 Like
There are other criteria, such as being in employment for say, five years, or being a taxpayer for five years before being able to nominate for election. Even that wouldn’t eliminate professional pollies because too many of them start off as research assistants for other pollies.
I fear we would still end up with an over abundance of lawyers though.
Hi
I have no objections at all to Private Schools.
We do need a level playing field, so no Chartibale Status for them, they just pay the same as the Sate Schools.
My kids went to private schools for at least part of their education, they all attended a private primary school but two chose to attend the local state high school (different ones as it happened) the third chose to continue at a private high school.
They all made life long friends (so far) at each school, I am not convinced that the education at either the private school or the public school was better or worse than the other, certainly it was different but they were different children.
As far as I am aware the state subsidises all children whether they attend private or public school because all the parents pay taxes. The private school fees were not exorbitant.