Well, yes

The evidence is plain enough. In the wake of the election the proportion of new MPs educated privately stood at 35%, against 13% in 1997.

Tories are more likely to have been privately educated, Labour to have been State so.

So we\’d expect the ratio to change between the Tories going down under a Labour landslide and the Tories (just about) winning an election.

7 thoughts on “Well, yes”

  1. I suppose some new MPS might be as old as 50, and so entered secondary school about 40 years ago i.e. about 1970. Some will have gone to Direct Grant Grammar Schools, which you could probably classify either as public (Scottish and American sense) or Public (English sense). Perish the thought that Socialists would report such a schooling as “state school” and Tories as “Private”. Or that some journalist might. Anyone know the detail?

  2. Does n’t explain why 75% of judges are public school; 78% of finance directors; 70% leading barristers; 50% journalists :the list goes on.Is it any coincidence that things have gone inestimably worse with a financial crisis 1) with public school incompetents in control of British institutions 2) the contraction of the old mixed economy and its replacement by private sector uber alles policies in the control of public-school lightweights who compete only to sell their souls ?

  3. DBC – you what now? The big change in the City – and in wider business – over the last 25 years has been that the public school buffers who used to run it have been sidelined. Big Bang, and all of that. That’s why 41% of FTSE CEOs are foreign nationals, as are a huge proportion of people who work in the City.

    To the extent that any of this impacts on the GFC, you’ve got it almost exactly arse-about-tit: until the 1980s, UK plc meandered along under not-too-bright, old-school tie, two-bottles-of-claret-with-lunch, ‘this’ll do’ leadership.

    During the 1990s and 2000s, the advent of proper competition and ambitious people (both from abroad and from non-posh backgrounds) caused the massive drive for profit, based on innovative and clever financial products, which led more or less directly to the GFC.

  4. @JB So you think the figures show an improvement in class diversity or expansion of the pool of talent? Or do you think they show a regression to public-school mediocrity/desperation across the institutions :the figures don’t just cover the City as you assume with the usual privileging of its status?

    Tim adds: An alternative explanation might be that we’re now seeing the effect of the abolition of the grammars as the first age cohort (late 60s, early 70s and yes, it was indeed Maggie who closed the most) to be fully comprehensive educated reach the age group of the “top of society”.

    Or, in fact, not reach the top as the comprehensive education was so shit that the public school lot aer getting there, not the bright but poor that grammars might have helped?

    I don’t say this is true mind, only offer it as an alternative.

  5. John – do you have figures that private school educated people are less dominant in the City now than 30 years ago? I’d be a little surprised but do you mean because British people are less dominant, or as a % of British people?

  6. @Tim
    Clearly the suppression of grammar schools is significant but the failure of the Heath/ Thatcher generation and the following Major cohort of grammar school people to consolidate any inroads made into the public-school dominated Establishment has to be explained.Grammar schools did n’t just end in the Sixties: their “products” were on the long march through the institutions (Rudi Duetschke’s? phrase for the alternative to revolution) until recently.
    Andy Burnham is the case in point. With none of the frightened conformism of the public-school boy,he stood for Labour leadership on a platform of Land Value Tax and a very ‘original’ plan for a public service for the old!!.But he went from Cambridge to being unemployed, unlike Cameron who made an uninterupted transition from varsity to politics through family influence having shown sweet FA interest in politics previously.
    I would point a finger at the London housing market: to get on you have to live in London;the upper classes can always find some relative to put up a young nephew or niece and can support them financially while they find their feet, if not straight-out find them a job as in Cameron’s case.
    The Billy Liar option of talented young provincials making it in London entirely by their own efforts is no longer feasible. To essay a dubious metaphor: the Gulf Stream of talent flowing into London and institutions has packed up .
    (Look at the BBC for God’s sake: an” indoor relief”organisation for public-school conformists too embarrasssing to go into the family business or friends’ firms.)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *