Sunday 30 January 2011

A class above? - Britain's politicians

The concepts of Parliament and the evolution of the British political system appear to be extremely atypical. The rules of Westminster are dominated by tradition and convention. There is something very British about it all, the fact that there is and has been great disharmony; and yet we seem to get on with it. It does of course have its merits, the fact it is very flexible and nothing is entrenched in a written constitution. Of course, many people – mainly on the left – would say it is inherently unfair on the minority. Andrew Neil’s television programme about British politics being run by an Etonian and Oxbridge mafia highlighted the fact that the traditional routes taken by previous politicians are now redundant and the aggrandising of the professional politician is now pervasive.

This new breed of politicians has climbed the slippery pole through internships and research posts at Conservative or Labour Party HQ, to become advisers and then establish themselves as politicians. The issue Neil saw was that this coterie were emerging all from elite institutions that were becoming breeding grounds for future Ministers. Cameron, David and Ed Miliband, Osborne, Balls and Hague all read PPE at Oxford and generally followed the same route into politics. The argument is this: do our politicians, all coming from wealthy backgrounds, lack a real understanding of what politics is about at the grassroots? These men are extremely intelligent and have a great understanding of political theory and ideology; but does it justify them to make decisions on behalf of people they don’t particularly understand.

I think the problem of Neil’s examination is that he posed some questions but he didn’t really go anywhere with it. Surely we should be asking if there are so many old Etonians in the cabinet, then what happened to people like John Major and Gordon Brown. All these former Prime Ministers went through grammar schools, a selective institution that nurtured generations of pupils with a real possibility of high office. The irritable question that no one pointed out was that grammar schools worked, it was the secondary modern system that didn’t, creating a fault line that neither political party wanted to remain. It is a case that private education has maintained high standards whilst comprehensives had to adapt themselves to a universal education policy.

Perhaps it is just a case that this argument was more ‘explosive’ because of the news earlier on the day regarding the economy. For people struggling to make money in today’s climate, it may be seen as naive for Mr Osborne to blame the woes of the economy on the weather (How British!) The departures of the so-called working class influences of Andy Coulson and Alan Johnson only made the point a bit stronger. Historically, we must remember, it has been an easy gimmick to question someone’s experience or upbringing for political barracking; I don’t think this week’s analysis should detract away from that. Also after so much scrutiny regarding patronage and expenses, a great deal of effort has been made by all parties to regain public trust and enhance participation. As many commentators agree, the new faces within Westminster have a good grounding in the outside world and at a local level. I think ultimately we should be able to trust our politician’s judgement and their political record, not just their academic background because if you don’t like them then you can always vote them out.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Share

Widgets