This, in fact, rather undermines the point. None of these people are traditional elites. David Mitchell's parents are middle-class hotel managers. John Oliver's parents are teachers. Richard Ayodade's parents are Nigerian and Norwegian immigrants. Ben Elton (in spite of the impression he strives to convey) does come from an upper middle-class background, as do Hugh Laurie and Steven Fry. But none of them are anything like aristocracy or the types that would be considered for Bullingdon membership.

Except for Oliver, everyone on your list went to public school.

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.

> everyone on your list went to public school.

*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)

Public schools are a type of private school in the UK, it’s not a direct mapping.

But a lot closer to what most non-British people would understand by "private school" than what they would by "public school"

The Wikipedia link I provided has the details.

Kind of tangential but China recently made sweeping changes and essentially outlawed private education. (it was more focused and nuanced than that, sure)

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?

Since 2000, the proportion of Oxbridge entrants who attended state schools has been consistently over 50% and is steadily approaching two thirds.

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.

Independent schools are only 7% of students in England[1] (even lower for the whole UK) and public schools would be a tiny fraction of that 7%. They are still greatly over-represented at Oxbridge, even if not quite to the extent that they used to be.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_school_(United_Kin...

If top universities selected only by grades, I think you would still end up with a high proportion from independent schools. It is not like a random 7% of the population attend independent schools. The top schools may be selective, only letting in students with better grades, or may have scholarships for bright (or athletic) students with lesser means which push up their averages. Those students who pay will generally have had an early childhood where they got good nutrition and plenty of attention and nurturing. If they were falling behind, their parents would more likely be better able to pay for extra tutoring. If the schools has more bright students than average, there can be positive feedback effects. There are also subjects which are taught more at independent schools like classics. It is hard for a university to find a lot of state school applicants with prior education in classics (the solution is to start with students who did well at history and give them a year of preliminary studies before moving to classics proper.)

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)

Most public schools will have Oxbridge Advisors who coach their sixth form students how to prepare and succeed in the interviews which is a huge hand up. Remember that way more than half of students don't go to public school so even if it's increasing its still a huge step up.

> undermines the point

I think it slides right past the point without noticing it, for the reason you state. None of these people are running the UK.