Well - somewhat tangential to the article text if not to its title - consider this image[1].
The Prime Minister of the UK (seated at the right of the bottom row) just appointed the circled person stood in front of the door, to the "committee on standards in public life," one of whose tasks would be to ensure the propriety of corporate lobbying undertaken by the person stood next but one on his left, the ex-Prime Minister of the UK David Cameron, which has recently caused some disquiet[2]
The photo, notoriously, shows the members of a "private all-male dining club for Oxford University students. It is known for its wealthy members, grand banquets, and bad behaviour, including vandalism of restaurants and students' rooms. The club is known to select its members not only on the grounds of wealth and willingness to partake but also by means of education. Former pupils of public schools such as Eton, Harrow, Stowe School, Radley, Oundle, Shrewsbury, Sedbergh, Rugby, Westminster, Charterhouse, St. Paul's, and Winchester form the bulk of its membership."[3]
Britain's "todays elite" are the old elite.
1: https://www.thenational.scot/resources/images/12804107/
2: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/jul/20/david-camer...
[1] https://www.facebook.com/14554658690/photos/a.10150355587333...
[2] https://old.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/1zdaa7/david_mitchell...
The fact that they're not upper-upper doesn't change the fact that a public school education is a fast track to Oxbridge and to insider status.
But even with the fast track, the upper middle classes are motivated by anxiety and envy about not being upper upper enough. The original article almost highlights this, but doesn't quite hammer it home.
The class system is about aspiring to become the kind of person who has ancestral money and some huge houses. (Not just one huge house. That's the entry level.)
But the people with the ancestral money and huge houses are neither special nor interesting. They're groomed for confident self-interest and social polish, but they don't actually do much except cream money off the markets, order inferiors around, and breed.
Their self interest sets the tone for those lower down the tree who aspire to be like them. That's why they're so toxic. They're hostile to any kind of collectivity which erodes their "natural" privilege.
And they'd rather own a country which is falling apart than lose some status in a country with more social mobility which might challenge their self-perceived high status.
*Note for non-Brits: "public school" is the British way of saying "private school"[1]
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_school_(United_Kingdom)
The Wikipedia link I provided has the details.
When push comes to shove I wonder whether people who are anti public-schools would welcome this style of government - in a country where people are free to do what they want, people will spend a huge amount of money for their children to get advantage/opportunity.
How do you negate this? Should you negate this?
The public school track really isn't the advantage some (including the schools themselves) make it out to be; it's a well-known trope among the middle classes that a merely diligent straight-As student will have a much better chance applying from a state school than from a public school.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_school_(United_Kin...
You see the same effect with grammar schools (in the U.K.) or magnet high schools (in the Us) which feels a little more egalitarian, though of course the availability of such schools can vary a lot geographically (and a higher cost of living near good schools can push out poorer parents too.)
I don’t really know what the solution is. It seems unmeritocratic to expect universities to take only 7% independent school students (for one thing I would expect they make up slightly more than 7% of the university student body; for another this would probably have the undesired effect of having the 7% at Oxford and Cambridge mostly made up of the top public schools) but it also feels slightly unfair to only look at grades (indeed the universities do try to be more accessible and take into account the fact that some students have depressed grades due to poorer schools)
I think it slides right past the point without noticing it, for the reason you state. None of these people are running the UK.
I always find it irritating that politicians of all stripes who have gone out of their way to cultivate a particularly niche image are lazily described by the commenteriat as more "authentic" than those are quite happy to dress and speak like regular politicians and demonstrate their authenticity (or lack thereof) with the actual positions they hold
So, despite what random commenters on a tech forum (or their friends) might have to say, I think the simplest explanation is that he just is posh.
Obviously, he plays into his image (He doesn't exactly hide this fact). But that doesn't mean his image is false.
Nobody is pretending he was born poor, we're just noting that that person who had the same level of privileged background as dozens of other politicians probably isn't more "authentic" than them because they're not regarded as caricatures...
You don't have to tell me what you and previous commenters had stated, because it's still right there in the comments.
> I keep on pointing it out, because people for some reason miss it: The person you know as Jacob Rees-Mogg is a schtick
> I'm reliably informed by a contemporary at Westminster Grammar that he "wasn't that posh" until later.
Now for some useless internet anecdotes.
I was actually at Oxford with Jacob's nephew. Very humble chap, very likeable, and very liberal in his conservatism. Was always quite reluctant to spill the beans on Jacob though, which is fair enough.
Also interestingly is the continued existence of people like Hannah in the article. My tutor, a professor at Christ Church (informally seen as one of the most 'aristocratic' colleges), was 'busted' for running a secret dining society populated by public schoolboys, a number of whom would be described as being upper class. This is despite him coming from a relatively modest background up in Hull, and never entirely managed to shirk his regional accent. He didn't even read for his undergraduate degree at Oxford, heaven forbid! (Great guy though). Now it all makes sense as to why he was so inquisitive about my schooling and family background during our first meeting.
My cousin, who was also at Christ Church, knew a couple of the Bullingdon chaps. Heckling members of the public in the King's Arms because they didn't live in a castle was one unbecoming episode, as was another member turning up to a college party in a KKK outfit. From my understanding, traditionally upper class societies like the Bullingdon are strongly falling out of fashion and becoming much more underground, because of the toxicity surrounding them. While I was there, the Bullingdon club were caught assembling on their usual steps in Canterbury Quad in their tails, to take their annual photograph. They were promptly kicked out of college and told that they couldn't assemble in Christ Church again. As a result of this toxicity, they've had to expand their social reach to more non-traditional gents, in order to keep the club alive. Now more than ever, simply being from a wealthy family, rather than an aristocratic one, seems to qualify.
As to the rest of your comment, I agree that Jacob Rees-Mogg is not normal. But that doesn't mean he's a phony.
I went to private school in the UK - there are loads of people like him.
>The remaining Jacob Rees-Moggs of the UK stick out like sore thumbs and are almost caricatures
Then why has he risen to the top? The common people are not just itching for a caricature of an aristocrat to lead them, he represents people that are similar to him.
Jacob has more of an advantage than his father because of Eton and because his father had climbed the greasy pole before him, but his background is exactly the type that "We came over with William the Conqueror" aristocrats look down on. He has more in common with Otto English's mother than he would probably like to admit. Just like her, he is a caricature of the British upper classes, not the real deal.
Plus, of course, he has risen to the top because the people in his constituency vote for him.
But the previous consituency (Wansdyke) that covered a similar area was Labour from 1997 and until 2010 (the Blair/Brown years), when it was abolished and replaced by North East Somerset, at which point Rees-Mogg won it for the Tories. Prior to 1997 it was historically Tory.
So, we might conclude that it's a moderate Tory seat that doesn't mind going Labour provided its moderate Labour and not Corbynite-type Labour. It's certainly not populated by bunch of dyed-in-the-wool intransigent Tories, so there's every chance Rees-Mogg might have lost if the constituency didn't like him.
Interesting, Rees-Mogg is an arch-Brexiteer but his constituency only very narrowly voted in favour of Brexit (51%), so perhaps they like him and not just the party. Although the Labour and Lib Dem opponents split the Remain vote 50/50, which certainly helped him.
doing a good job should be more important than how one appears, however people's tend not to be rational.
Catholics?
I doubt many people in North East Somerset considered this mans faith before voting for him.
About 115000 votes in total, from a UK voting population of about 47 million.
Sure, technically I suppose it is democracy, but it certainly doesn't feel like it.
There isn't a stable relationship between proportion of the vote won by a party and seats in parliament. Your point isn't really contradicting the parent.
The fact that prime ministers are answerable to parliament, and that parliament is sovereign, is IMHO the single best and most important feature of the British political system.
Contrast that with presidential systems, particularly that in the US in which the president fulfils the constitutional role of an elected George III circa 1790. Which for some reason Americans seem to think is somehow modern over 200 years later. If one of them goes off the rails you're stuck with them for years. Our leader of government serves at the discretion of our elected representatives and can be turfed out at any moment, which actually happens and isn't just a theoretical mechanism. An excellent arrangement.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_(Withdrawal)_...
Parliament can't directly negotiate treaties with foreign powers. It's just not possible, that's a function of the executive. Parliament can approve or disapprove of such treaties but can't determine what the executive wants to do. The same goes for the referendum and is why it was a stupid idea. No referendum can require parliament or the government to want to do something, or specify exactly and unambiguously how they should go about doing something they don't want to do.
With the benefit of hindsight, it all worked out well for Johnson: he cowed the party, could renegotiate without much fear of the ultras, and could choose the circumstance of the next election to his best advantage.
The methods he chose to achieve this, though, greatly weakened parliamentary sovereignty.
Well of course I will. The system won't have changed, will it? I think you're actually accusing me of complaining just because I don't like Bojo. That's a really underhanded thing to do, and if you're going to say that, just say it straight like an adult. The rest of your comments are thoughtful and considered and part of an adult conversation; this passive-aggressive childishness really works against that.
I am somewhat in the minority on this, though.
Personally I think the characteristics of the local MP you actually vote for is not taken into sufficient consideration by most voters. That's the person that actually represents you, and actually gets to help chose the actual prime minister. Who they are as a person and their values does actually matter very much, yet most people who actually vote can't even name their local MP.
And I suppose that the article is suggesting that the middle classes define themselves in relation to the upper class. And that British society would be better off without this dynamic.
So it seems that the article highlights the working/middle class divide. More so really than the issues caused specifically by the upper classes (though they are mentioned).
It’s not even that, because the author has confused middle and upper in British terms. This is a moan about the British middle class.
"This country could do with a lot more Hannahs and far fewer Jacob Rees-Moggs."
The remaining Jacob Rees-Moggs of the UK stick out like sore thumbs and are almost caricatures. I also don't imagine many people are oblivious to the fact that the "aristocracy" (what does that even mean in a UK context nowadays?) made their living off of exploitation. Just as todays elite do but in softer ways (see Bezos).