Rob the Gob

In the next few days, I fear we are going to see a change in British politics much more fundamental than a simple change in government. It is a change back from democracy to oligarchy. We should be worried, and we should be embarrassed.

Historically speaking, most democracies have, at some point or another, devolved into oligarchies. It is in their nature, especially in societies where money is allowed to determine access to resources so that the richest people tend to be the best educated, inherit wealth in both raw and money-generating assets (like companies), and power and privilege of all kinds, and are, therefore, hugely more likely to be found in positions of political power. Though this could give rise to a plutocracy, generally speaking it rapidly devolves to oligarchy as dynasties develop interests in specialist areas – some flourish in politics, others in business, and so on. You can see this structure in the U.S. But here in Britain, we have had, historically, a class system which utterly dominated all of our politics for the entire history of our democracy, based on nothing but birthright. Lest we forget, it was only in the last decade that the second chamber of our parliament was almost entirely composed of people who had no qualification or right to rule other than that they were born a Lord. Worse, it was extremely difficult, due to poor educational standards, the ravages of poverty and the sheer lack of opportunity, for anyone who wasn’t already part of the establishment to become a Member of Parliament.  The debates and contests took place between two groups of people who were, for the most part, educated in a tiny handful of schools and universities (more likely to educate the future rulers of foreign nations than the poorer sections of their own society – the ‘poorer’ sections here including anyone who wasn’t a member of the aristocracy).

Yet, in the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries, after hundreds of years of struggle, Britain finally started to see small numbers of politicians arising from amongst the people. Even though the vast majority of MP’s still came from the families of privileged few, the numbers of those from less privileged sections of society steadily rose. Yet now we have a situation where it is highly likely that the next Prime Minister of Britain will be yet another Etonian. As a proportion of the population, Eton educates less than 0.02 % of the British population. That means that, as a proportion of population, they should have about 0.10 seats. Yep, that’s a decimal place. Not even one. One tenth of a seat. Another way of looking at it is this – if everyone had a equal chance of becoming Prime Minister of Britain, and we are somewhat generous to their chances, then we should expect to return an Etonian Prime Minister roughly once every 25,000 years. If he gets in – as seems likely – David Cameron will be the nineteenth. Sitting in Parliament after the next election, there are likely to be at least 14 Etonians on the front bench alone.

If I told you that there was still a country where the families of those that had, historically, ruled the nation for a thousand years had just been voted into power, you would presume that there was some form of corruption at work. If I then told you that the head of state was an unelected monarch, you’d be worried, until I told you that this monarch was effectively powerless, at which point you might think that was quite cute and quirky. Until I told you that there were still members of the aristocracy that still had political power for no reason other than they were members of the aristocracy; that our democratically elected Prime Minister was fifth cousin to the monarch, and married to a daughter of the landed gentry; that a large proportion of his party were also members of the landed gentry; that, by blood and marriage he and a large number of the members of his government were related to those who inherited power in the second chamber; that the people who funded his party were also, quite commonly, titled members of the aristocratic establishment. Then I might tell you that, in this country, many of the major companies and much of the land is similarly owned by this one tiny group, and that they form the major part of the intake to all of the top schools and hugely disproportionate number of places at the top universities. Now let me tell you that, in this country, so skewed was society in the favour of this group that something that ought to be nearly impossible is the case – nearly half of the most powerful men in the country went to ONE SCHOOL – the most prestigious in the land. One.

This is the function of a peculiar – though not unique in the world – historical and cultural contingency. Despite all the many changes that Britain has undergone, it is still, sadly, the case that those who do well for themselves express this by buying in to the trappings of privilege that were established in feudal times. Worldwide, Britain is the place to flock to for those who wish to add a little bit of upper-class prestige to their lacklustre roots. The wealth of the world is poured into the coffers of Eton, Rugby, Winchester, Goldsmiths and similar prestigious schools so that the sons and daughters of the world’s wealthy elite can learn how to exude that odd presence of the European upper classes. To us it might seem rather silly, (and perhaps, even a horribly ironic consequence of European imperialism), but throughout the world, those who are educated in British public schools – and a smattering of other European institutions (and a lesser number of American ones) of a similar kind – are an effective oligarchy. They form a huge core of the worlds ruling families, and even when we are not beholden to these people directly, it is not unusual to be buying oil, ore or manufactured goods from them. The sun, indeed, still does not set on this quiet empire.

You might feel like I was talking about a situation from the eighteenth century. It feels like something that you should only be able to make jokes about, something that should be utterly irrelevant to the modern world. But sadly it isn’t. And in recent years, it’s become more and more relevant. Because, for the first time in history, the trend for the dominance of those born into hugely privileged circumstances to find position in the government has actually climbed. The trend was always downwards – never so much that there was anything like equal opportunity (in fact, it’s always be hideously loaded in favour of those who might, rather unfashionably be labelled the ‘upper’ classes; by proportion of the population, we should only have two or three MPs at most from this whole demographic group), but steadily, through access to education, media, resources and damn hard work, the proportion of those from less privileged backgrounds has been steadily, slowly climbing. Then came the last couple of decades. And then the last three years.

I do not absolve New Labour of responsibility for this either, before you ask. But it is likely about to get a whole load worse.

The simple fact is that, those who would say that a person’s background should be immaterial when it comes to assessing their ability to rule are playing upon one truth to try and prove another. It should not be our primary concern that David Cameron is an old Etonian, a relative of the Queen or anything else he might be, unless we see that this fits into a larger and more worrying pattern. They cite personal prejudice even as soon as Cameron’s background is mentioned. However, it should concern us very much if we see it as part of a larger pattern. I’m suggesting that it is. The personal prejudice here is working the other way around – the much, much scarier way. This group is acting only to protect its own interests, and the rest of us – the vast majority – should be terrified. If they behave in such a way that does not fit this pattern, then their origin could, and should be ignored. If they act to reinforce it, then it is our duty, as citizens, to hold them to account for it; just as if they acted upon policies and fostered structures that favoured white men at the expense of coloured people or women.

We ignore these things at our peril. Groups act to protect themselves, and never, ever believe that these people do not see themselves as a group. It is not surprising that when people get into power, their friends and families are elevated with them. It is corruption, but it is of a kind we (sadly) expect. However, the group in question here is, hideously, the very same group that have ruled this land, in one form or another, for centuries. No wonder they call themselves ‘Conservatives’. We have a duty to prevent the people who see themselves as the natural rulers of this country from actually becoming so. If we allow a group of people to structure society so that those who inherit privilege are allowed to further structure society so that it reinforces this situation, we will have gone back hundreds of years. We cannot afford to take one step back, because every tiny inch of ground made against the establishment has been so hard fought, and will similarly difficult to regain. And ‘call me Dave’ is about to steal a whole march.