The consensus among the pundits seems to be that attacking the Tories for being posh - or "toffs" - is a legitimate tactic for Labour but has been ineptly done in the Crewe and Nantwich by-election.
Steve Richards says as much in the Independent today while in yesterday's Guardian Jonathan Freedland says that it would be ok if only Labour were truly meritocratic.
What always gets me is that people who defend public school privilege accuse their opponents of being anti-aspirational. Buying advantages is not about aspiration, it's about the keeping the already advantaged ahead of the aspiring. It is the opposite of meritocratic.
p.s. I've just come across a blog called class warfare which declares that it adheres to the Orwellian maxim: "During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Quote: attacking the Tories for being posh - or "toffs"
Response: That would be the fallacy of 'argumentum ad hominem', the deployment of which amounts to a confession that there is no better argument available.
Quote: has been ineptly done in the Crewe and Nantwich by-election.
Response: Can a fallacious mode of argument ever be deployed other than ineptly ? I hope not.
Quote: people who defend public school privilege accuse their opponents of being anti-aspirational
Response: There are multiple assumptions entangled here. Is everyone who rejects the suggestion that you should vote against a candidate because they went to public school thereby defending public school privilege ? Or are they rejecting the ad hominem ? Or are they noting that the individual should not be discriminated against on the basis of their parents' choices ? Or do they think it reasonable that a representative with a better education might be better than one with a worse ?
Quote: Buying advantages is not about aspiration, it's about the keeping the already advantaged ahead of the aspiring.
Response: Seeking the best possible education for one's children, and perhaps paying for it, in effect a second time, is surely about giving the child the best chance to fulfill their own aspirations. The terrible thing is that the majority of parents cannot do this, not that a few can.
Quote: It is the opposite of meritocratic.
Response: Meritocracy was the raison d'etre of the grammar schools, destroyed by a coalition of public-school socialists who did not want to compete with grammar oiks for the spoils of office, disappointed middle-class hopefuls whose kids failed the 11-plus, and egalitarian teachers. If you believe in meritocracy, you will want to introduce educational selection by ability / potential, tough exams, and elite support for elite universities. Do you ?
Post a Comment