Get fucked, Boris

[GratefulApe]

But that's not a reason to attack him ad hominem, on the basis that his posh background must be reflected in his political views (after all, Oxford isn't exactly the bastion of poshness anymore, despite what people claim, there's no middle classers than toffs; and Eton doesn't necessarily engender racist or homophobic views - but that's only based on Old Etonians I've met). The idea that the upper class (just as any other class) has a particular way of looking at the world is ludicrous. It's just drawing lazy conclusions from the fact that he had a priveliged upbringing, it sounds just like Parkinson when he interviewed Boris and sneered at him. You might as well just poison the well and add the precursor, "He went to Eton and Oxford..." and save everyone a lot of trouble. By attacking his background you're falling into the same trap of criticising someone for their family and their upbringing, something which they had no control over, and thus cannot be held responsible. But yes, I'd agree that - shock horror - the Tories would rather keep the class divide.

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

Is there a reason for your enthusiastic interest in this topic, GratefulApe? Not complaining, I enjoy reading the conflicting views even if I find sections of it breathtakingly different to my own.

I worry about Boris Johson becoming Mayor for political reasons primarily, like what causes is he going to set back and what silly things he's almost bound to introduce. The document just serves as a lucky dip of horror for anyone looking to pick out individual reasons why this ghastly cretin shouldn't be put in charge of a coconut shy.

The bit at the bottom of it, the dialogue with that thug is a perfect illustration of the secretive workings of people in the upper echelons of society, and if you pick out almost any other quote to supplement that section, it is evidence that he neither knows or cares about the lives of people he represents. A baron in any other name. I just hope Livingstone is still popular enough to defeat him, or he just has a heart murmur and has to retire to a hunting lodge somewhere, either one works.

[Blue Jam]

I still think Ken's the lesser of the two evils here and I'll probably vote for him again. Having Boris as London Mayor would be funny for five minutes but that's no reason to vote for anyone and after those five minutes it would just seem deeply regrettable. I agree with some comments I read  suggesting that he needs to choose whether to carry on playing the bumbling toff, or put that phase behind him now and become a serious politician. He can't do both as I think most people now realise he's not an idiot and that he knows better than he makes out, so he won't be able to fall back on the buffoon act forever. He'll have to take responsibilty for his fuck-ups this time, instead of claiming he was "on holiday" at the time.

I think he's in danger of becoming just the next David Cameron- I reckon the Tories' spin doctors will work hard to make him seem loveable and down-to-earth, but like Cameron he'll come across as trying too hard and being an image-obsessed phony. In London especially- I live in George Galloway's constituency and I know a lot of people there weren't at all amused by his cat impersonations and his painfully obvious desire to be a celebrity.

Boris Johnson really should quit politics and just present HIGNFY or something. He should get a job where he can play the bumbling fool forever, something where he won't be given any real power or a chance to become a danger to society.

Thanks for the Compass link, I knew he was right-ring (and it's no surprise to anyone who's ever read that rag The Spectator) but it's still an interesting read and I'll be forwarding it on to all my mates who are planning to Vote Boris "for a laugh." Incidentally check out this Wikipedia article and the section "Non-Loonies who nevertheless claimed to be." I never knew about Patrick Moore's right-wing past until recently, perhaps the "television is run by women" comments shouldn't have been so surprising.

[GratefulApe]

S?S! wrote:

Is there a reason for your enthusiastic interest in this topic, GratefulApe?

Not especially. I just find it odd that some people seem to have an incredibly embittered view of others they see as priveliged, and I think it undermines a lot of political debate. Debate lerches into ad hominem attacks on politicians' backgrounds, rather than their politics. I do the same, I sort of did with Ken earlier, but it's not particularly useful for anything. As I said before, I think most politicians are driven by extremely similiar (if not the same) desires, regardless of background, and I don't think a working class MP is more trustworthy than an upper class one, or vice-versa; accents are something to hide behind or exploit. I understand that people get royally pissed off at the nepotism amongst public schools, universities and high office, so do I - though, admittedly, I get also annoyed that the Daily Telegraph is now almost entirely populated by Bill Deedes' family, none of whom are as talented as he was - but it's a matter of looking beyond all a politician's tricks and disguises, including his accent and his background (which may have contributed to his views, but is irrelevant when it comes to voting for him).

[Suttonpubcrawl]

Not especially. I just find it odd that some people seem to have an incredibly embittered view of others they see as priveliged, and I think it undermines a lot of political debate.

That's not what's happening. What's happening is that people are expressing their concerns about Boris Johnson as a politician and you're then saying that they hold those views because he's posh. That doesn't match what most people have actually been saying in the thread. And for you to start going on about ad-hominem attacks when your first post to the thread consisted of calling Livingstone a "weasily [sic] little turd" is quite an amazing u-turn.

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

His background has a lot to do with his policies- just like David Cameron he has very little appreciation for how ordinary people live. Don't try to argue otherwise, because he wouldn't have come out with that crap about Liverpudlians if he did. Backgrounds needn't matter, but when they're his and the majority of the Tory front bench's little clique of Etonites and public school southerners it's very worrying. They're supposed to be representing people in parliament but it's obvious they're just carrying on family tradition and operating within a different hierachy motivated by non-democrative matters that entirely excludes the people that vote for them as MP's. Compare that to Labours front bench where you have people who have actually fought to protect peoples livelihoods and educations, who appreciate the struggle of living on the poverty line not just in small numbers but practically one after another, give or take the odd defectee and downright shit.

[GratefulApe]

There have been attacks on Boris based entirely on his background.

Eg:
the ruffian on the stair  wrote:

I hope the inbred, toffee-nosed toss-pot is humiliated in the election.

Also, I can vaguely remember when that Bullingdon Club photo was first posted here (not on this thread, on another http://www.cookdandbombd.co.uk/forums/index.php?topic=14148.0). Fair enough, what they do, smashing up places, is cuntish by any standard, but Christ, that thread was seething with hatred and it wasn't just for that.  

I called Ken a little turd because of his politics - which I then went onto explain, such as my opposition to the congesiton charge and his grovelling apology for slavery.

Yes, that doesn't even sound convincing in my head.

[Suttonpubcrawl]

There have been attacks on Boris based entirely on his background.

Eg:
the ruffian on the stair  wrote:

That's one attack. Are there any others? And I would say what you posted is about as bad:

Livingstone, who just is this nasty piece of work who wants to take revenge on society because he was bullied as a child; he seethes with bitterness

Also, I can vaguely remember when that Bullingdon Club photo was first posted here (not on this thread, on another http://www.cookdandbombd.co.uk/forums/index.php?topic=14148.0). Fair enough, what they do, smashing up places, is cuntish by any standard, but Christ, that thread was seething with hatred and it wasn't just for that.

That's a completely different thread talking about a completely different thing. This is about Boris running for Mayor. As I recall the other thread was about Cameron.

[Kapuscinski]

George Osbourne (Shadow Chancellor) was also a member of the Bullingdon club. Maybe if the Tories ever get into power they'll run through the House of Commons smashing up any ceramic objects in their sight.

I would say though that lack of understanding of ordinary people isn't confined to upper-class Tories. Norman Tebbit and Thatcher were both middle-class, and neither of them seemed to understand the need for good public services and social cohesion. Thatcher seemed to think travelling on a bus after mid-twenties was a sign of failure.

I can't imagine either of them in a rowdy dining club though.

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

Yeah, what a cunt he was for apologizing for slavery therefore avoiding any sort of hassle without having to stoop to any sort of depths.

*warning, im only going by your comment, i dont know what he said in specifics

[GratefulApe]

Yes, but as I went onto say, Ken is not alone in being motivated by a desire to control and influence others; he's not the only MP who seethes with bitterness, but he is running for Mayor.

The point I was making with the other thread is that people are far more comfortable attacking MPs for their background than they are for their politics. It's easier to call Cameron or Boris a toff and to claim they know fuck all about the common man than it is to try to argue against his political views. It seems an unacceptable view that a public school boy might make a good PM, even though he fill up his cabinet with people who are priveliged, university leavers - or people who have shagged their way to their top (that's an attack ad hominem, but perhaps a fair one; Patricia Hewitt is known for it). I wasn't condemning Livingstone for being brought up in a working class family, because I don't give a fuck. I read that other thread and it's basically, "Look at those posh cunts being posh and rich, how dare they!" Which is a pathetic strain of snobbery from people whom I hope would rail against any other kind of snobbery. It's not as if we were discussing Boris' quotes at any great depth (sorry I don't mean that in a condemnatory way, but we weren't tearing them apart), but I felt that a lot of the abuse thrown at Boris wasn't based on wholly on that document, but rather on the fact that as an ex-Etonian and Oxonian, he constitutes a very easy target.

[boxofslice]

I really didn't see the point in Livingstone apologizing for slavery. Yes you can regret something happened on behalf of a nation 200 years ago but you can't apologize for it. The only people who can do that are long since dead. It just made it meaningless.

[NoSleep]

S?S! wrote:

I just find it odd that some people seem to have an incredibly embittered view of others they see as priveliged, and I think it undermines a lot of political debate.

It isn't his 'privilege', it's his point of view. His background merely highlights how little of real life in the UK he has actually experienced at first hand. Compare him to Tony Benn to see how you can come from a privileged background and survive to have humane (& sage) political views.

All I see in that photo is a bunch of young upstarts trying to look as much like bunch of cunts as they possibly can (successfully), I can't see the 'gentlemen' you describe at all.

[GratefulApe]

S?S! wrote:

Yeah, what a cunt he was for apologizing for slavery therefore avoiding any sort of hassle without having to stoop to any sort of depths.

I found his apology histrionic, but I always think that apologising for something abolished 200 years ago is pointless. It's a not sign that we don't care, it's just an empty gesture - so the London Mayor says sorry for something he didn't do? It almost implies a kind of original sin that's handed down on everyone who has indirectly and unpurposefully 'benefitted' from the slave trade. It's a sentimental, patronising show of pomp, and I thought it was silly. If we're going to apologise for the slave trade, there's a lot more we could apologise for, and a lot more everyone else could apologise for, and we'll end up apologising to each other. If that makes you feel good, then maybe I''m just a bastard, but it seemed meaningless to me. I'm particularly annoyed about it now because (I think) Jesse Jackson has demanded Bristol apologise for its role too.

[GratefulApe]

NoSleep wrote:

All I see in that photo is a bunch of young upstarts trying to look as much like bunch of cunts as they possibly can (successfully), I can't see the 'gentlemen' you describe at all.

Did I call them gentlemen? I might have meant it sarcastically, I don't know.

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

I really didn't see the point in Livingstone apologizing for slavery. Yes you can regret something happened on behalf of a nation 200 years ago but you can't apologize for it. The only people who can do that are long since dead. It just made it meaningless.

Yes, it's pointless. But when he did it, the issue dissolved away. Unlike someone like Boris who'd be pigheaded like that and cause more trouble than what he had to start with.

[boxofslice]

S?S! wrote:

I found his apology histrionic, but I always think that apologising for something abolished 200 years ago is pointless. It's a not sign that we don't care, it's just an empty gesture - so the London Mayor says sorry for something he didn't do? It almost implies a kind of original sin that's handed down on everyone who has indirectly and unpurposefully 'benefitted' from the slave trade. It's a sentimental, patronising show of pomp, and I thought it was silly. If we're going to apologise for the slave trade, there's a lot more we could apologise for, and a lot more everyone else could apologise for, and we'll end up apologising to each other. If that makes you feel good, then maybe I''m just a bastard, but it seemed meaningless to me. I'm particularly annoyed about it now because (I think) Jesse Jackson has demanded Bristol apologise for its role too.

Exactly. It would have the same relevance if a 10 year old german child now was to apologize for what the nazis did in the war.

[GratefulApe]

We should have just said, "Look, we abolished it 200 years ago. Nobody who owned slaves is still alive. Obviously it was an appalling abuse of human beings, made worse from its disgusting profiteering. But to apologise now is to trivialise a serious matter, to submit to cheap emotion and empty sentiment. We owe your ancestors more than that."

See, it'd be simple if I ran the country.

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

Point missing. He said it because he knew it would put the issue to rest, not due to any genuine feelings of needing to apologize, it's called politics.

[boxofslice]

Point missing. He said it because he knew it would put the issue to rest, not due to any genuine feelings of needing to apologize, it's called politics.

Personally i believe an issue can be put to rest once we've learned from it and moved on in the right way. The only slavery still going on today is in the sweat shops of Asia. Right kids?

[GratefulApe]

S?S! wrote:

Point missing. He said it because he knew it would put the issue to rest, not due to any genuine feelings of needing to apologize, it's called politics.

Calm down dear, I wasn't being serious. But, seriously, what issue needs to be put to rest here? Dredging something up just for a bit of publicity? To appease Jesse Jackson's campaign to pay reparations to the descendents of slaves? Or just appease Anti Slavery Int? I mean, Ken did seem to take it very seriously indeed, he even had a bit of cry.

[23 Daves]

George Osbourne (Shadow Chancellor) was also a member of the Bullingdon club. Maybe if the Tories ever get into power they'll run through the House of Commons smashing up any ceramic objects in their sight.

Actually, that sounds quite appealing - it would turn Question Time into something akin to Noel's House Party.  There could even be a little box in the corner of the TV screen for Noel to wheeze with laughter in.  

On a more serious note, Mr. Ape, you have got me bang to rights.  If you're eagle-eyed, you'll know that I already started a thread on Cookd and Bombd not too long ago about the fact that I do indeed have an extreme prejudice against people from the Upper Classes.  Everybody has their sore spot, and that's mine.   The simple fact is that, in my experience, their very culture and education is geared around believing in their inherent superiority to the rest of society.  I've had to work for old Etonites, my wife has as well, and the conclusion we've both drawn is that they're usually like overgrown children - bad at dealing with counter-arguments from "subordinates", however sensibly or politely they're put, indulgent with alcohol and drugs, prone to ridiculous ideas they can't be talked down from, and often operating with no sodding idea about how the rest of society thinks or how positively or negatively they'll be likely to respond to their plans.  Hilarious fun and witty over a few glasses of nice wine, unquestionably, but an enormous pain in the arse if you find yourself having to work for or alongside them.

Now, I know there's an obvious counter-argument here that can be presented.  You can reply with "Ah, but the trouble with the working classes is that they're thick, lazy, clueless, and in my experience", etc.  The one major difference between the working classes and the upper classes I would argue, though, is that the upper classes more often than not have so much cushioning them in family and industry that they don't have to make an effort to learn different ways of thinking or doing things.  There's no incentive.  They've got the cash, why should they bother?  If they lose a job, or a business goes bust, they'll find a way to start another (and they always seem to).  It's not a lifestyle or background that demands you become responsible or suffer the consequences.  

Boris, as I more-or-less said earlier, is a primary example of the above syndrome.  Trust me.  Everyone on this thread who is saying "his buffoonery is an act" is sadly wrong, in my view.  The letters we used to get from him when I worked at a department in Whitehall read like the naive dribblings of a twelve year old schoolboy.  He didn't have any good reason to "put on an act" when he knew only two or three officials were going to be reading a letter.  Nor did he have any particular incentive for saying that his assistant would be doing "parliamentry wonkery" when he placed an advert in the press recently, not that I could tell anyway.  Unless he meant "wankery", but let's not go there.

And before anyone brings up Stephen Fry, I'm afraid to say I don't like him much either, and often sigh at him as well when he comes on television.  The way he tuts or acts as if it's irrelevant whenever somebody brings up anything remotely "popular culture" orientated is irritating in the extreme, a classic example of the mentality the elite 1% of the population have, thinking that the other 99% are all wrong or weird.  He's an amusing man, but I still can't bring myself to like him.

Yep, I'm a bigot.  But I've already confessed, and can't see myself changing.  Do I feel insecure and threatened?  Definitely, yes.

[Sheldon Finklestein]

It seems an unacceptable view that a public school boy might make a good PM, even though he fill up his cabinet with people who are priveliged, university leavers - or people who have shagged their way to their top (that's an attack ad hominem, but perhaps a fair one; Patricia Hewitt is known for it).

What the fuck? You are kidding, aren't you? I honestly can't tell.

[GratefulApe]

23 Daves wrote:

The letters we used to get from him when I worked at a department in Whitehall read like the naive dribblings of a twelve year old schoolboy.

Ah, inside information, fair enough. Could you give us any more details? Direct quotes? Photocopies perhaps?

It's not a lifestyle or background that demands you become responsible or suffer the consequences.

That's only true of a thin sliver of upper class society though. I mean, I know Old Etonians who are *normal.* That might sound strange, but they're normal; their parents work (yes, both of them), they're doing a degree, they'll have to get a job and earn a living, and they're not expecting an inheritance which could buy an island. Of course, their parents have to be relatively well off to send them to God-knows-how-much-a-year Eton, but on the scale of privilege, they're still very small fish. Obviously there are some very, very, very rich people at Eton and other schools, and as tempting as it is to claim that all Old Etonians are care-free chinless yobs-on-horseback, many of them just aren't. Most aren't upper class at all, they're upper middle class - well, okay, perhaps that's a bullshit distinction, but they don't all live on country estates, but do they have all the trappings of what we associate with typical middle-classdom. Of course it depends on your definition of 'normal'; it's probably not normal to spend £25,000 a year on your child's education, unless everyone else around you does it. I agree with you though that coming from a background of privilege makes you more reckless with money, and maybe with people too; you take everything for granted. But we can swap all stories about dickheads like that, as we (or at least, I) can swap stories about working class dickheads who are determined to make everyone feel inferior to them to satisfy whatever insecurity they have. But, yes, the upper class don't necessarily have to worry about the next five minutes as much as most people do. In my experience, I've found that people who are proud of their class - perhaps that's too general, exuberantly or even arrogantly proud - act like pricks, because they think they've earned the right to treat others like shit. In that sense, I don't care whether someone is proud of coming up from a council estate or being the 42nd Earl of wherever, because they're breaking the very simple rule that you shouldn't think you're better than others. I hate this idea that anyone is born better than anyone else - it sounds absurd to say that in a way, because it seems so antiquated, but it's something I've personally found coming from people of all backgrounds and classes, that in some way, they reason that they're superior because of x.

Anyway, I suspect I've contradicted myself quite a lot in regard to my previous posts, so feel free to point it out.

If I may ask, what do you think of Chris Morris then? Stonyhurst is a very expensive school, and he is quite posh.

[GratefulApe]

Sheldon Finklestein wrote:

What the fuck? You are kidding, aren't you? I honestly can't tell.

No, no. It's been well documented in Private Eye over the years. It's not epoch-shattering, but she's climbed the greasy pole like the rest of them. She didn't shag Mandelson or Campbell, it's not that good. And before you say, Private Eye isn't a reliable source of information, she's never sued or threatened to sue. Er, therefore it's true.

I can dig the issues out if you want. The first articles goes back to 1985, I think, so it might take a while.

[23 Daves]

If I may ask, what do you think of Chris Morris then? Stonyhurst is a very expensive school, and he is quite posh.

I've no idea, I've never met him, or heard many interviews with him where he's holding forth on topics other than his latest programme.  Chris Morris is always great in that respect - I love comedians, musicians, writers and artists who are shady figures, or who lie incessantly.  It almost feels as if there's less baggage in the way of what they do.  But that's another topic.

You could equally have held up Peter Cook as an example, and from what I know of the man, I'm almost certain I wouldn't have liked him as a human being.  Spoilt, bitter, spiteful, condescending, arguably idle with his talent and possibly a misogynist as well - but damn funny. 

As to your other points, you may well be right, and perhaps I do need a few positive experiences with the toffs of this great isle to cure me of my bigotry.  Maybe there's even a Channel Four programme in it.  Until then, though, I'll always be terribly suspicious in my dealings with them.  I also think there's a lot to be said about education systems - the best public schools teach students to tap into their leadership skills and brilliance, whereas comprehensives are more likely to teach their students to become drones.  Those are hugely different upbringings, money or no.  One leads to arrogance and superiority, the other potentially to self-doubt and neurosis. 

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

Who did she shag then? She made it to Health Secretary, there aren't really many men in the position above that. I remain confident that if she was determined to shag her way to the top, then she'd have had to have sorted out one or more of the following:

-Tony Blair
-Gordon Brown
-Alistair Campbell
-John Prescott
-Peter Mandelson
-Jonathan Powell
-Phillip Gould
-Alan Milburn
-David Blunkett
-John Reid
-Charles Clarke
-Margaret Beckett (wild card, I went there)

[GratefulApe]

I'm fairly sure it wasn't anyone particularly famous, more positioning and manoeuvring, so to speak, not quite as direct as "fuck me and I'll promote you to Health." I can't find the issue right now, I'll keep looking. It's old and tatty, and buried in my room somewhere.

23 Daves wrote:

the best public schools teach students to tap into their leadership skills and brilliance, whereas comprehensives are more likely to teach their students to become drones.  Those are hugely different upbringings, money or no.  One leads to arrogance and superiority, the other potentially to self-doubt and neurosis.

Of course it depends hugely on your personality. The type of person who is more likely to enter politics will have absorbed all the leadership training and encouragement his school had to offer, whereas a more 'arty' public school pupil might have ignored and spent all his time doing whatever people like Cook, Morris, Fry, Cleese and the rest did. Or at least, the type of boy who wants to become a politician takes full advantage of that. But there's a fairly substantial list of neurotic ex-public schoolers, not least Fry, Laurie, even Langham (hmm). Public schools can induce a very acute kind of neurosis, not any worse or afflicting that the kind you develop at a state school, but one that develops from feeling continually judged against invisible, intangible standards and an "England expects" sort of duty, which you find is completely hollow and full of shit when you discover the very teacher who extolls these virtues rubbing a younger boy. And I imagine from many other things.

[23 Daves]

But there's a fairly substantial list of neurotic ex-public schoolers, not least Fry, Laurie, even Langham (hmm). Public schools can induce a very acute kind of neurosis, not any worse or afflicting that the kind you develop at a state school, but one that develops from feeling continually judged against invisible, intangible standards and an "England expects" sort of duty, which you find is completely hollow and full of shit when you discover the very teacher who extolls these virtues rubbing a younger boy. And I imagine from many other things.

I've met the more creative posh boys and girls, though - tons of them in fact - and you know what?  Nine times out of ten, they utterly struggle to relate to me or my friends despite the large volume of things we often have in common.  There's definitely a communication problem there, and most people of a lower middle class or working class background I know have observed the same thing.  There's an extreme awkwardness on both sides, and if you asked either party to articulate why, they'd probably struggle, but nonetheless I think it's apparent.  I've also been referred to as "laddish" by a lot of Oxbridge graduates, which is laughable and slightly offensive.  I have an Estuary accent, but by no bloody means am I "laddish".  They've also referred to me as "urban".  I mean, pardon?  Really, bro?  How so?

It's something I noticed the total absence of when I lived in Australia - it was only when I moved away that I realised how bizarrely divided Britain often is, and how many cultural misunderstandings there are.  Not that I'd ever dream of moving permanently to Australia, I hasten to add.

[GratefulApe]

How do you mean by relate to exactly? Not meaning to be ironic there.

I know a lot of people, and indeed am friends with many of them, who were privately educated but aren't 'posh.' They're straight down the centre middle class with aspirational parents, or whatever you want to call them, but they weren't born with a silver spoon in their mouth (all things being relative). They've made a very conscious effort to be able to 'relate' to people outside their social group. I'm not sure what their method is, but it has varying success rates. Maybe it's quite self-conscious really, and it slips over into wannabe-a-common-person sort of thing, though those people are so irritating they're well worth avoiding. In that sense, I suppose you are judging someone almost entirely on their background because you're saying, "You have a rich family, so why are you acting like a poor person?" but there's slightly more too it than that; a lot of those people are ridiculously pompous and conceited, and that's their way of stopping becoming their fathers.

I've never been to America, and it's something I should find out about, but I've always been interested in their class system, because I remember when I was young thinking how wonderful it was that they didn't seem to care, that there was no class hierarchy, or at least, not one of the severity of England's. But obviously I think that's probably very wrong now. I wouldn't mind living in America actually, everything seems more interesting over there. Bigger. (Grass is greener on the other side of the Atlantic, I know).