working class folk voting for an ex etonian

[jj]

Sam Slater wrote:
> People should vote for the policies in which they believe in,
> regardless of an MP's school/college/uni.

Indeed; but unfortunately human nature doesn't seem to work
that way. Large swathes of the electorate vote for the party,
which necessarily doesn't offer a personally-tailored set of
policies; rather than an individual- to whom the same stricture
applies at a more local level. Polls repeatedly show that voters
[albeit unwillingly] make the above compromise, further muddied
by whatever happens to be the 'big issue' at the time of the
election and the current personal popularity of the Big Beasts.
Being 'one of us' of course has mass appeal in whatever
demographic you care to choose.
This, as you know, is the major problem with any centralized
democracy- it's incapable of genuinely responding to direct and
real concerns except in the most ineffective ways, and ends as
a mere ragbag of incoherent, doctrinaire velleities. But as long
as our constitution allows such evilly selfish power-gathering we
will never escape the vicious circle.



> William Gladstone went to Eton which ended with him championing
> the working class's right to vote.
Well, yes; as long as you were male, compos mentis and over 30 : -)
Any Old Etonian who champions the rights of the less privileged is
automatically suspect to old cynics like myself. Should his future
actions match his present rhetoric I will quite happily eat my Akubra.
But in the meantime I'll use it to keep the rain off.
The question should always be in one's mind: cui bono?

[Sam Slater]

[quote]This, as you know, is the major problem with any centralized
democracy- it's incapable of genuinely responding to direct and
real concerns except in the most ineffective ways, and ends as
a mere ragbag of incoherent, doctrinaire velleities.[/quote]

Socrates's criticism of democracy was indeed that it just couldn't get things done; he explained that democracy's problem was that it gave equal weight to everyone's ideas and ambitions despite how qualified they were; an imbecile's vote is equal to the wiseman's. For a whole nation to all pull in the same direction it needs authoritarianism, any kind of dictatorship or absolute monarchy. Democracy is just the fairest, of course, and so we compromise.

[quote]The question should always be in one's mind: cui bono?[/quote]

Well, not to everyone's, that's for sure. We have to keep in mind that the most working-class person, once an MP, isn't working-class any more. Isn't this person just as likely to have his/her own interests at heart as an ex-Etonian? I guess the only real advantage of the working-class MP is his/her understanding of the electorate through experience. Of course, both MPs will be restricted in what they do due to party policy.

I suppose we could sum it all up with two clich?d maxims:

"You can please some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time, but you can't please all of the people all of the time."

and:

"A camel is a horse designed by committee."

[jj]

Sam Slater wrote:
> Democracy is just the fairest, of course,
> and so we compromise.
Indeed; we defend a bad cause against a worse : -)

> We have to keep in mind that the most working-class person,
> once an MP, isn't working-class any more.
I immediately thought of Prescott. Funny, eh? A "w/c" man with
bourgeois tastes and aristocratic ambitions. I wonder if he ever
read [assuming for the nonce he is literate, which I personally
doubt] the history of the French Revolution- or indeed, the
Russian, with any insight or sense of irony.

> Isn't this person just as likely to
> have his/her own interests at heart as an ex-Etonian?
Yes, I too incline to Harold Acton's view.
But there's a [naive?] part of me that will not believe that ALL MPs
are like this, at least at first and sometimes even later. I have to
say that the examples that spring most easily to my mind are
almost exclusively [Old, of course...] Labour [the one exception I
can think of at the mo being Rab Butler].
The real test is, as always, how fast they jettison their principles
when put under stress- and by my reckoning they're little better as
a group than the frequently-derided 'Man on the Clapham Omnibus';
and how closely [or rarely, if you're a cynic] their words and deeds
coincide.
I think, in the end, it's the general mediocrity and bureaucratic
absence-of- mind I dislike so much in modern-day politicos. I might
disagree violently with, say, Ken Clarke, but he has a gravitas and
common-sense touch these new kids couldn't even buy.

> I guess the only real advantage of the working-class MP is his/
> her understanding of the electorate through experience.
Which is why I'm so incandescent at the parachuting-in to "w/c"
constituencies of public-school boys. Aside from their relative
youth- and therefore inexperience.....

[David Johnson]

So if you dont want us to vote for either the Labour party or the Tories, who do you reckon we should vote for?

[jj]

Let's face it: could the Lib-Dems do any worse than the Big Two?

[David Johnson]

Yes the Lib Dems could do worse. Given that as far as I recall Liberals of any persuasion havent won a general election since 1918, you would need to take the view that having no experience whatsoever of government would result in them not doing any worse than the Conservatives or Labour party. Personally, I find this a very optimistic view to take. Okay this country is suffering from a bad recession, but have you seen the reports on Zimbabwe over the last few years? There is doing bad and doing bad!

Secondly, the Lib Dems were found to line their pockets during the expenses scandal. Hence my question to Mick - who should we be voting for then?

[jj]

David Johnson wrote:
> Yes the Lib Dems could do worse. Given that as far as I recall
> Liberals of any persuasion havent won a general election since
> 1918, you would need to take the view that having no experience
> whatsoever of government would result in them not doing any
> worse than the Conservatives or Labour party.
Unlike, of course, all the newly-appointed ministers of the last
150 years, who also have had no prior experience whatsoever
of government?


> Personally, I find this a very optimistic view to take.
Actually, it was meant more as a counsel of despair. If you have
exhausted the obvious, then it's time to take a broader approach,
surely?


> Okay this country is
> suffering from a bad recession, but have you seen the reports
> on Zimbabwe over the last few years? There is doing bad and
> doing bad!
Are you seriously trying to compare the UK with Mugabe's little
tyranny?


> Secondly, the Lib Dems were found to line their pockets during
> the expenses scandal.
So in that respect they're standard, 'professional' politicians.
In a sense, I'd rather know that our politicos were squeezing one
teat of the cash-cow than be unaware that they were doing the
whole udder.