The Gooner Forum

northbankbren wrote:As far as I know Danny Alexander is the only one to have a full state education. Who are the other 4?

I dont think I've back tracked at all, I just dont have figures to hand or memorised.

Out of the 600 odd mps I would say 5% at most are from what you could call underpriveledged backgrounds. I honestly believe this and would like to proved wrong if possible.

No coming from private education does not make them lord anyone, but dont tell me it doesnt give them a massive advantage when it comes to university/job applications, and eventually roles of power.

When it comes to the young aspiring politician who do you think will be given more opportunity, the eaton/oxbridge graduate or the kingston/tvu graduate? Honestly now?

If you honestly think that the vast vast vast majority of mps arent from extremely privileged backgrounds, your plain naive.

Liam Fox (council house boy), Baroness Warsi (daughter of Pakistani immigrant), Caroline Spellman, William Hague all went to state schools. And, as you rightly say, Danny Alexander. The Government Chief Whip - one of the most powerful jobs in Government - is Patrick McLoughlin (son of a miner) who went to a state school too. And not in the cabinet admittedly, yet nevertheless a holder of high office, John Bercow (son of a taxi driver) and comprehensive school educated.

Oh, we are talking about MP's from "under privileged" backgrounds now. That's a whole different story. Yes, of course this is likely to be a small number - not least because they are unlikely to engage in politics, therefore making it difficult for political parties to select them.

As for young aspiring politicians, I think things have changed massively in recent years to address the imbalance that may have previously existed in Parliament. The Conservatives have introduced local caucuses where any member of the public (not just party members) can vote on the selection of their local Parliamentary candidate. The Labour Party has introduced all women shortlists and positive discrimination for black candidates etc. If anything the Conservatives have been guilty of pandering to this whole push for diversity by creating the 'A' list of candidates, which is made up of people who are not best suited for the job but who instead represent a ‘broad cross sector of society’.

And finally in terms of Oxbridge educated candidates - surely a bright well educated person is a good choice? You seem to be mixing up good education with privilege and they are not necessarily the same thing. If the question is, “are they being selected because their father was Brigadier Trumpingtonâ€

I'll give you fox and spellman, but Hauge im pretty sure went to grammer school. I really dont have a clue about the baroness, other than her father was a millionaire, as was Hagues. Your rite about being from underpriveleged backgrounds is a different point, but you know exactly where im coming from. Hauge and the Baroness were born into privelge, which of course helped them in their careers.

As for the parties making effort to address imbalance in parlament, they're publicity stunts that actually speak volumes. An admittence that they arent in touch with the voters. And need to change. But the imbalance hasnt exactly been addressed has it.

My point on the whole state education thing is about opportunity. Again I ask the same question which i think sums up my opinion.

Two graduates with the exact same grade in politics...one from eaton/oxbridge, the other kingston/tvu....who gets the job?

northbankbren wrote:I'll give you fox and spellman, but Hauge im pretty sure went to grammer school. I really dont have a clue about the baroness, other than her father was a millionaire, as was Hagues. Your rite about being from underpriveleged backgrounds is a different point, but you know exactly where im coming from. Hauge and the Baroness were born into privelge, which of course helped them in their careers.

As for the parties making effort to address imbalance in parlament, they're publicity stunts that actually speak volumes. An admittence that they arent in touch with the voters. And need to change. But the imbalance hasnt exactly been addressed has it.

My point on the whole state education thing is about opportunity. Again I ask the same question which i think sums up my opinion.

Two graduates with the exact same grade in politics...one from eaton/oxbridge, the other kingston/tvu....who gets the job?

Hague 100% went to a comprehensive. Baroness Warsi was not born into privilege, her dad worked in a mill! He worked hard to set up his own business. Her title was given to her, not inherited.

With reference to who is more likely to get the job, depends on who is doing the interviewing. From the sound of it you would discriminate against the candidate educated at Eton simply because he went to Eton - which is equally as discriminatory as the other way around.

Anyway, you are probably as bored with this conversation as I am. The only point I wanted to make was that it was not accurate to make some of the claims you made.

ThomasMitchell wrote:

northbankbren wrote:I'll give you fox and spellman, but Hauge im pretty sure went to grammer school. I really dont have a clue about the baroness, other than her father was a millionaire, as was Hagues. Your rite about being from underpriveleged backgrounds is a different point, but you know exactly where im coming from. Hauge and the Baroness were born into privelge, which of course helped them in their careers.

As for the parties making effort to address imbalance in parlament, they're publicity stunts that actually speak volumes. An admittence that they arent in touch with the voters. And need to change. But the imbalance hasnt exactly been addressed has it.

My point on the whole state education thing is about opportunity. Again I ask the same question which i think sums up my opinion.

Two graduates with the exact same grade in politics...one from eaton/oxbridge, the other kingston/tvu....who gets the job?

Hague 100% went to a comprehensive. Baroness Warsi was not born into privilege, her dad worked in a mill! He worked hard to set up his own business. Her title was given to her, not inherited.

With reference to who is more likely to get the job, depends on who is doing the interviewing. From the sound of it you would discriminate against the candidate educated at Eton simply because he went to Eton - which is equally as discriminatory as the other way around.

Anyway, you are probably as bored with this conversation as I am. The only point I wanted to make was that it was not accurate to make some of the claims you made.

Hauge went to a Grammer school, which has since been turned into a comprehensive.

northbankbren wrote:

ThomasMitchell wrote:

northbankbren wrote:I'll give you fox and spellman, but Hauge im pretty sure went to grammer school. I really dont have a clue about the baroness, other than her father was a millionaire, as was Hagues. Your rite about being from underpriveleged backgrounds is a different point, but you know exactly where im coming from. Hauge and the Baroness were born into privelge, which of course helped them in their careers.

As for the parties making effort to address imbalance in parlament, they're publicity stunts that actually speak volumes. An admittence that they arent in touch with the voters. And need to change. But the imbalance hasnt exactly been addressed has it.

My point on the whole state education thing is about opportunity. Again I ask the same question which i think sums up my opinion.

Two graduates with the exact same grade in politics...one from eaton/oxbridge, the other kingston/tvu....who gets the job?

Hague 100% went to a comprehensive. Baroness Warsi was not born into privilege, her dad worked in a mill! He worked hard to set up his own business. Her title was given to her, not inherited.

With reference to who is more likely to get the job, depends on who is doing the interviewing. From the sound of it you would discriminate against the candidate educated at Eton simply because he went to Eton - which is equally as discriminatory as the other way around.

Anyway, you are probably as bored with this conversation as I am. The only point I wanted to make was that it was not accurate to make some of the claims you made.

Hauge went to a Grammer school, which has since been turned into a comprehensive.

So on that basis over 17% of the cabinet went to state schools (22% including the Chief Whip), still proves your initial point to be inaccurate. Not that grammar schools are exactly elitist academies for the rich.

ok 17%. Speaks volumes in my opnion.

Doubt very much it would be that much if it was applied to all mps.

grammar schools (in the south anyway) have rich SUrrey/Kent catchement areas
they are a gerrymandering based charity for the upper and middle classes
an educational subsidy for the rich

an lets also be quite clear on another thing - William Hague is a millionaire