Michael Henderson suggests

Email registration

Free weekly email update

Great products and special offers for Spectator readers

Click here for great value events

Click here for exclusive articles, offers, tasting notes and discussion

Noblesse oblige (Prospect)

Wednesday, 28th May 2008

I have asmall piece in this month's Prospect about Old Etonians and politics. It's behind a subscription wall, but here's an extract:

Does an education at an elite public school diminish a politician's legitimacy? Gordon Brown's dismissal of David Cameron as "just an Old Etonian" signifies not just his view that products of privilege have no place in politics, but also that the electorate will, as a matter of course, reject him ab initio because of his background.
Boris Johnson's election as mayor of London appears to have put paid to that idea. There could hardly be a more caricature Old Etonian than the foppish Johnson, but it did not stop voters in the most cosmopolitan city in the world from electing him. Far from seeing him as a pre-modern relic, they relished his postmodern idiosyncrasy.
It is difficult to understand why some people have a problem with a political system in which the products of privilege involve themselves in politics. First, to put this in the proper context, the influence of public schooling on the Conservative party hasn't increased, it has sharply declined: the percentage of privately educated MPs in the shadow cabinet is, at 62 per cent, lower than any (actual) Tory cabinet from 1938 to 1992; John Major's was 80 per cent privately educated. The only two old Etonians in the shadow cabinet are Cameron and Oliver Letwin. Heath’s cabinet was 22 per cent Old Etonian, Thatcher’s was 20 per cent.

...After a long period in which elite public school alumni abandoned noblesse oblige for private enrichment, society can only benefit from their renewed involvement.

...If the phrase “one nation” is ever to mean anything, then politics and public life can only gain from the participation of such people. In a vibrant democracy, they could not, even if they wanted to, stand simply for their own class interest. As David Cameron shows, they can only win power if they demonstrate their understanding of the lives of the less fortunate and their grasp of the details of policy—of welfare, of means-testing for care homes for the elderly, of state education, of tax credits, town planning and so on.

None of this is to assume that they are not as egotistical and vainglorious as politicians from any other background. But how can it not be a good thing to have as wide a pool as possible from which to draw? It is not as if we are over endowed with good politicians.

Previous Back to Stephen Pollard Next

Blogs: Clive Davis | Melanie Phillips | Americano | Coffee House | Trading Floor

Actions: Print this article | Email to a friend | Permalink | Comments (2)

Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit

Ross

May 28th, 2008 7:22pm

I agree with most of what you say but not this bit:

"After a long period in which elite public school alumni abandoned noblesse oblige for private enrichment, society can only benefit from their renewed involvement."

Seeing as private enrichment generally only comes about by providing people with goods or services that they either want or need, private enrichment seems far more beneficial to society than entering politics.