Originally posted by Roger Mellie
View Post
This US-based link (which is equally applicable to the UK or any other western democratic system) underscores my point as to why I think a working class background is by and large meaningless: http://www.psmag.com/politics-and-la...ng-class-87478
And this underscores why it's mostly just a PR exercise: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/generalelecti...ng-in-britain/
I'd be more willing to accept this argument if it could be shown how such a background leads to better policy and leadership. To me, it seems like the individuals you mentioned (Thatcher, Major) had a bit more than just humble origins.
Also, according to this the "traditional working class" is barely 15% of the population: SAGE - the natural home for authors, editors and societies - About us
So if we were to assume MPs should exist in proportions reflective of the populational makeup, it'd take another 10% or so of a working class background, but again I wonder for what benefit?
My issue with them isn't their background but the fixation on short-termist policy and vote-whoring, which are system-driven. I think the political pressures to maximise voter buy-in on them are the same irrespective of that background. Particularly if you're an individual lacking in the ability to empathise (and I see no reason to assume those of a working class background are any more likely to possess this ability; politicians as a class tend to attract sociopaths), the background will simply be turned into a hook to capture more voters, irrespective of whether you intend for there to be any follow through.
If anything, too much of a commonality of a background is what has allowed politicians in democratic countries to perpetuate the illusion that it is rule of, for and by the people, when in reality it is nothing of the sort. They should always be subjected to scrutiny and suspicion.
Leave a comment: