8 ms·

Im not really sure of the point this article is trying to make. It seems like a moan about the upper class from a by-gone era. "This country could do with a lo

Im not really sure of the point this article is trying to make. It seems like a moan about the upper class from a by-gone era. "This country could do with a lot more Hannahs and far fewer Jacob Rees-Moggs." The remaining Jacob Rees-Moggs of the UK stick out like sore thumbs and are almost caricatures. I also don't imagine many people are oblivious to the fact that the "aristocracy" (what does that even mean in a UK context nowadays?) made their living off of exploitation. Just as todays elite do but in softer ways (see Bezos).

user-the-name 5y ago
What makes you think it's bygone? These people largely run the country right now.
- simonh 5y ago
  They really don't. They're disproportionately represented in the country's leadership, but haven't formed a majority of it or even close for a generation or two. Anyway, we're a democracy. If we don't like the constitution of our political leadership, we can change it any time we like and do so frequently.
  - EliRivers 5y ago
    Can we? Boris Johnson is the PM. About 25000 voters voted for him as an MP. I had zero choice in the matter. He was then picked as a leadership candidate by some other MPs, and ultimately made leader and thus Prime Minister by about 90000 members of his political party (who had the choice of him and one other person that they could make leader and thus Prime Minister). About 115000 votes in total, from a UK voting population of about 47 million. Sure, technically I suppose it is democracy, but it certainly doesn't feel like it.
    - Veen 5y ago
      He also won a massive majority in a general election.
      - EliRivers 5y ago
        About 25000 people voted for Boris Johnson in that election.
        simonh 5y ago
        I look forward to your similarly vitriolic complaints when a politician you support wins the premiership (not the football one). The fact that prime ministers are answerable to parliament, and that parliament is sovereign, is IMHO the single best and most important feature of the British political system. Contrast that with presidential systems, particularly that in the US in which the president fulfils the constitutional role of an elected George III circa 1790. Which for some reason Americans seem to think is somehow modern over 200 years later. If one of them goes off the rails you're stuck with them for years. Our leader of government serves at the discretion of our elected representatives and can be turfed out at any moment, which actually happens and isn't just a theoretical mechanism. An excellent arrangement.
        chalst 5y ago
        Parliamentary sovereignty as a principle was fundamentally weakened in the tussle over the Brexit leave date: the government lost the battle but won the war. This parliament has been very ineffective in providing oversight of government. I'm not seeing the advantage of the UK system of oversight over the US one right now. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_(Withdrawal)_(No._2)_Act_2019 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_(Withdrawal)_...
        simonh 5y ago
        Well, as a confirmed remainer and someone who will never forgive Johnson for stabbing us in the back, eh. The act required him to send a letter, which he did. Frankly, it's a silly and spurious requirement. It didn't require him to want an extension, or bar him for saying he didn't think it was a good idea. Parliament can't directly negotiate treaties with foreign powers. It's just not possible, that's a function of the executive. Parliament can approve or disapprove of such treaties but can't determine what the executive wants to do. The same goes for the referendum and is why it was a stupid idea. No referendum can require parliament or the government to want to do something, or specify exactly and unambiguously how they should go about doing something they don't want to do.
boomboomsubban 5y ago
The article is talking about a women's experiences in the ~60's. Why do you think such society no longer exists? >The remaining Jacob Rees-Moggs of the UK stick out like sore thumbs and are almost caricatures Then why has he risen to the top? The common people are not just itching for a caricature of an aristocrat to lead them, he represents people that are similar to him.
- krona 5y ago
  > he represents people that are similar to him. Catholics?
  - swarnie_ 5y ago
    Religion plays very little role in English politics. I doubt many people in North East Somerset considered this mans faith before voting for him.
  - carnitine 5y ago
    Probably the most genuine thing about him, being Catholic in a non-recusant way deviates from the image he tries to give off (though I doubt many of the target audience care).
- Veen 5y ago
  He rose to the top partly because his father was a successful well-known journalist and newspaper editor, partly because he is a clever and competent organizer, and partly because he plays a role that appeals to a certain class of people. His family were not aristocratic in the sense this article discusses: his father was the middle-class son of an Irish American Catholic immigrant. William Rees-Mogg went to Oxford on a scholarship and succeeded in life through hard work, intelligence, and contacts he made at Uni. Jacob has more of an advantage than his father because of Eton and because his father had climbed the greasy pole before him, but his background is exactly the type that "We came over with William the Conqueror" aristocrats look down on. He has more in common with Otto English's mother than he would probably like to admit. Just like her, he is a caricature of the British upper classes, not the real deal. Plus, of course, he has risen to the top because the people in his constituency vote for him.
shatnersbassoon 5y ago
I keep on pointing it out, because people for some reason miss it: The person you know as Jacob Rees-Mogg is a schtick. It was developed by a weedy kid to combat bullying at school. He later found it was generally useful in life because people would 1). Remember him 2). laugh at him so he would gain a measure of acceptance. Those that hated him he could turn to his advantage, because he could play the laughers against the haters.
- notahacker 5y ago
  I'm reliably informed by a contemporary at Westminster Grammar that he "wasn't that posh" until later. I always find it irritating that politicians of all stripes who have gone out of their way to cultivate a particularly niche image are lazily described by the commenteriat as more "authentic" than those are quite happy to dress and speak like regular politicians and demonstrate their authenticity (or lack thereof) with the actual positions they hold
  - garbagetime 5y ago
    I mean, he did go to Eton and then Oxford, he is married to Helena Anne Beatrix Wentworth Fitzwilliam de Chair, , his father was Lord Rees-Mogg, he is absurdly wealthy, etc. etc. So, despite what random commenters on a tech forum (or their friends) might have to say, I think the simplest explanation is that he just is posh. Obviously, he plays into his image (He doesn't exactly hide this fact). But that doesn't mean his image is false.
    - notahacker 5y ago
      Politics is full of people with well connected families and money who managed to attend Eton without coming to resemble the Rees Mogg "Honourable Member for the Eighteenth Century" novelty act. Nobody is pretending he was born poor, we're just noting that that person who had the same level of privileged background as dozens of other politicians probably isn't more "authentic" than them because they're not regarded as caricatures...
ttctciyf 5y ago
> todays elite Well - somewhat tangential to the article text if not to its title - consider this image[1]. The Prime Minister of the UK (seated at the right of the bottom row) just appointed the circled person stood in front of the door, to the "committee on standards in public life," one of whose tasks would be to ensure the propriety of corporate lobbying undertaken by the person stood next but one on his left, the ex-Prime Minister of the UK David Cameron, which has recently caused some disquiet[2] The photo, notoriously, shows the members of a "private all-male dining club for Oxford University students. It is known for its wealthy members, grand banquets, and bad behaviour, including vandalism of restaurants and students' rooms. The club is known to select its members not only on the grounds of wealth and willingness to partake but also by means of education. Former pupils of public schools such as Eton, Harrow, Stowe School, Radley, Oundle, Shrewsbury, Sedbergh, Rugby, Westminster, Charterhouse, St. Paul's, and Winchester form the bulk of its membership."[3] Britain's "todays elite" are the old elite. 1: https://www.thenational.scot/resources/images/12804107/ https://www.thenational.scot/resources/images/12804107/ 2: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/jul/20/david-cameron-showed-significant-lack-of-judgment-on-greensill-inquiry-finds https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/jul/20/david-camer... 3: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullingdon_Club https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullingdon_Club
- patrickk 5y ago
  To expand further on your point, this phenomenon can be seen beyond politics too, in media and culture. Consider the following photos[1][2] of Cambridge Footlights former members. Being a member of this theatrical club, attached to an elite university, has the capability of plugging you into a network of movers shakers who can propel you to the best TV careers going. If you didn't quite make it into Cambridge, tough luck. [1] https://www.facebook.com/14554658690/photos/a.10150355587333691/10156078217953691/?type=3&theater https://www.facebook.com/14554658690/photos/a.10150355587333... [2] https://old.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/1zdaa7/david_mitchell_richard_ayoade_and_john_oliver_at/ https://old.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/1zdaa7/david_mitchell... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Footlights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Footlights
  - Veen 5y ago
chrisseaton 5y ago
> It seems like a moan about the upper class from a by-gone era. It’s not even that, because the author has confused middle and upper in British terms. This is a moan about the British middle class.
new299 5y ago
Despite the title, the article seems to be more about someone who is described as working class trying to find a place in middle class society. And I suppose that the article is suggesting that the middle classes define themselves in relation to the upper class. And that British society would be better off without this dynamic. So it seems that the article highlights the working/middle class divide. More so really than the issues caused specifically by the upper classes (though they are mentioned).

user-the-name 5y ago

What makes you think it's bygone? These people largely run the country right now.

simonh 5y ago
They really don't. They're disproportionately represented in the country's leadership, but haven't formed a majority of it or even close for a generation or two. Anyway, we're a democracy. If we don't like the constitution of our political leadership, we can change it any time we like and do so frequently.
- EliRivers 5y ago
  Can we? Boris Johnson is the PM. About 25000 voters voted for him as an MP. I had zero choice in the matter. He was then picked as a leadership candidate by some other MPs, and ultimately made leader and thus Prime Minister by about 90000 members of his political party (who had the choice of him and one other person that they could make leader and thus Prime Minister). About 115000 votes in total, from a UK voting population of about 47 million. Sure, technically I suppose it is democracy, but it certainly doesn't feel like it.
  - Veen 5y ago
    He also won a massive majority in a general election.
    - EliRivers 5y ago
      About 25000 people voted for Boris Johnson in that election.
      - simonh 5y ago
        I look forward to your similarly vitriolic complaints when a politician you support wins the premiership (not the football one). The fact that prime ministers are answerable to parliament, and that parliament is sovereign, is IMHO the single best and most important feature of the British political system. Contrast that with presidential systems, particularly that in the US in which the president fulfils the constitutional role of an elected George III circa 1790. Which for some reason Americans seem to think is somehow modern over 200 years later. If one of them goes off the rails you're stuck with them for years. Our leader of government serves at the discretion of our elected representatives and can be turfed out at any moment, which actually happens and isn't just a theoretical mechanism. An excellent arrangement.
        chalst 5y ago
        Parliamentary sovereignty as a principle was fundamentally weakened in the tussle over the Brexit leave date: the government lost the battle but won the war. This parliament has been very ineffective in providing oversight of government. I'm not seeing the advantage of the UK system of oversight over the US one right now. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_(Withdrawal)_(No._2)_Act_2019 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_(Withdrawal)_...
        simonh 5y ago
        Well, as a confirmed remainer and someone who will never forgive Johnson for stabbing us in the back, eh. The act required him to send a letter, which he did. Frankly, it's a silly and spurious requirement. It didn't require him to want an extension, or bar him for saying he didn't think it was a good idea. Parliament can't directly negotiate treaties with foreign powers. It's just not possible, that's a function of the executive. Parliament can approve or disapprove of such treaties but can't determine what the executive wants to do. The same goes for the referendum and is why it was a stupid idea. No referendum can require parliament or the government to want to do something, or specify exactly and unambiguously how they should go about doing something they don't want to do.

boomboomsubban 5y ago

The article is talking about a women's experiences in the ~60's. Why do you think such society no longer exists? >The remaining Jacob Rees-Moggs of the UK stick out like sore thumbs and are almost caricatures Then why has he risen to the top? The common people are not just itching for a caricature of an aristocrat to lead them, he represents people that are similar to him.

krona 5y ago
> he represents people that are similar to him. Catholics?
- swarnie_ 5y ago
  Religion plays very little role in English politics. I doubt many people in North East Somerset considered this mans faith before voting for him.
- carnitine 5y ago
  Probably the most genuine thing about him, being Catholic in a non-recusant way deviates from the image he tries to give off (though I doubt many of the target audience care).
Veen 5y ago
He rose to the top partly because his father was a successful well-known journalist and newspaper editor, partly because he is a clever and competent organizer, and partly because he plays a role that appeals to a certain class of people. His family were not aristocratic in the sense this article discusses: his father was the middle-class son of an Irish American Catholic immigrant. William Rees-Mogg went to Oxford on a scholarship and succeeded in life through hard work, intelligence, and contacts he made at Uni. Jacob has more of an advantage than his father because of Eton and because his father had climbed the greasy pole before him, but his background is exactly the type that "We came over with William the Conqueror" aristocrats look down on. He has more in common with Otto English's mother than he would probably like to admit. Just like her, he is a caricature of the British upper classes, not the real deal. Plus, of course, he has risen to the top because the people in his constituency vote for him.

shatnersbassoon 5y ago

I keep on pointing it out, because people for some reason miss it: The person you know as Jacob Rees-Mogg is a schtick. It was developed by a weedy kid to combat bullying at school. He later found it was generally useful in life because people would 1). Remember him 2). laugh at him so he would gain a measure of acceptance. Those that hated him he could turn to his advantage, because he could play the laughers against the haters.

notahacker 5y ago
I'm reliably informed by a contemporary at Westminster Grammar that he "wasn't that posh" until later. I always find it irritating that politicians of all stripes who have gone out of their way to cultivate a particularly niche image are lazily described by the commenteriat as more "authentic" than those are quite happy to dress and speak like regular politicians and demonstrate their authenticity (or lack thereof) with the actual positions they hold
- garbagetime 5y ago
  I mean, he did go to Eton and then Oxford, he is married to Helena Anne Beatrix Wentworth Fitzwilliam de Chair, , his father was Lord Rees-Mogg, he is absurdly wealthy, etc. etc. So, despite what random commenters on a tech forum (or their friends) might have to say, I think the simplest explanation is that he just is posh. Obviously, he plays into his image (He doesn't exactly hide this fact). But that doesn't mean his image is false.
  - notahacker 5y ago
    Politics is full of people with well connected families and money who managed to attend Eton without coming to resemble the Rees Mogg "Honourable Member for the Eighteenth Century" novelty act. Nobody is pretending he was born poor, we're just noting that that person who had the same level of privileged background as dozens of other politicians probably isn't more "authentic" than them because they're not regarded as caricatures...

ttctciyf 5y ago

> todays elite Well - somewhat tangential to the article text if not to its title - consider this image[1]. The Prime Minister of the UK (seated at the right of the bottom row) just appointed the circled person stood in front of the door, to the "committee on standards in public life," one of whose tasks would be to ensure the propriety of corporate lobbying undertaken by the person stood next but one on his left, the ex-Prime Minister of the UK David Cameron, which has recently caused some disquiet[2] The photo, notoriously, shows the members of a "private all-male dining club for Oxford University students. It is known for its wealthy members, grand banquets, and bad behaviour, including vandalism of restaurants and students' rooms. The club is known to select its members not only on the grounds of wealth and willingness to partake but also by means of education. Former pupils of public schools such as Eton, Harrow, Stowe School, Radley, Oundle, Shrewsbury, Sedbergh, Rugby, Westminster, Charterhouse, St. Paul's, and Winchester form the bulk of its membership."[3] Britain's "todays elite" are the old elite. 1: https://www.thenational.scot/resources/images/12804107/ https://www.thenational.scot/resources/images/12804107/ 2: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/jul/20/david-cameron-showed-significant-lack-of-judgment-on-greensill-inquiry-finds https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/jul/20/david-camer... 3: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullingdon_Club https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullingdon_Club

patrickk 5y ago
To expand further on your point, this phenomenon can be seen beyond politics too, in media and culture. Consider the following photos[1][2] of Cambridge Footlights former members. Being a member of this theatrical club, attached to an elite university, has the capability of plugging you into a network of movers shakers who can propel you to the best TV careers going. If you didn't quite make it into Cambridge, tough luck. [1] https://www.facebook.com/14554658690/photos/a.10150355587333691/10156078217953691/?type=3&theater https://www.facebook.com/14554658690/photos/a.10150355587333... [2] https://old.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/1zdaa7/david_mitchell_richard_ayoade_and_john_oliver_at/ https://old.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/1zdaa7/david_mitchell... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Footlights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Footlights
- Veen 5y ago

chrisseaton 5y ago

> It seems like a moan about the upper class from a by-gone era. It’s not even that, because the author has confused middle and upper in British terms. This is a moan about the British middle class.

new299 5y ago

Despite the title, the article seems to be more about someone who is described as working class trying to find a place in middle class society. And I suppose that the article is suggesting that the middle classes define themselves in relation to the upper class. And that British society would be better off without this dynamic. So it seems that the article highlights the working/middle class divide. More so really than the issues caused specifically by the upper classes (though they are mentioned).