Tag Archive: English Establishment

Elitism in Britain: unequal opportunities = unequal outcomes

© Ricardo Pinto, 2015, AngloDeutsch™ Blog, www.AngloDeutsch.EU

In my previous post, I showed that, on the basis of their educational background (i.e. whether they attended an independent school and one of the top two universities), the UK cabinet is very much part of the Establishment or the elite of the country. In stark contrast to the German cabinet, there is an extreme concentration of people with such a background: a staggering 42.8% of the British cabinet, are doubly privileged, David Cameron and George Osborne included.

If that was not amazing enough, I would like to report some of the results of an official analysis by the Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission called Elitist Britain (2014).

Secondary Education and Higher Education are the foundation for elitism

Whereas 89% of pupils attend comprehensive schools, 4% go to grammar schools and a further 7% to independent schools, the latter being independent in terms of finances as well as governance. The terms independent and private school are used synonymous in the UK and basically involve significant tuition charges which only the affluent can afford.

Whereas 62% of the UK adults do not attend university, 1 in 9 attend the so-called Russel Group Universities (the leading 24 higher education institutions in the UK, including Oxford and Cambridge or Oxbridge) but only 1 in 100 attend Oxbridge or 1% of the adult population, which is a classic definition of the elite.

Britain’s elite: formed on the playing fields of independent schools

To get a feel for the influence of the independent schools, consider the following statistics: 71% of senior judges, 62% of senior armed forces officers, 55% of Permanent Secretaries, 53% of senior diplomats, 50% of members of the House of Lords, 45% of public body chairs, 44% of the Sunday Times Rich List, 43% of newspaper columnists, 36% of the Cabinet, 35% of the national rugby team, 33% of MPs, 33% of the England cricket team, 26% of BBC executives and 22% of the Shadow Cabinet attended independent schools compared with 7% of the public as a whole. This means complete domination of the most powerful and influential positions in UK society by those that attend independent schools.

Britain’s elite: finished in Oxbridge

If that provides food for thought, than the influence of the top two universities in the UK is absolutely gobsmacking: 75% of senior judges, 59% of the Cabinet, 57% of Permanent Secretaries, 50% of diplomats, 47% of newspaper columnists, 44% of public body chairs, 38% of members of the House of Lords, 33% of BBC executives, 33% of the Shadow Cabinet, 24% of MPs and 12% of the Sunday Times Rich List attended Oxbridge, compared to less than 1% of the public as a whole. The influence of Oxford and Cambridge in respect to the top positions in Britain is extremely disproportionate, to put it mildly.

Oxford, R Pinto 2015

Oxford Trinity College, © R. Pinto, 2015

 

Sectors of entrenched elitism

The preceding analysis demonstrates the extent to which privilege is entrenched in Britain and this advantage tends to cumulate over time, since is generally passed-on from generation to generation. Since Britons generally take pride in living in a meritocratic society, it is worth delving a bit deeper into some sectors to illustrate what this form of elitism means in practice:

  • Parliament: the advantages are even more entrenched than suggested at first sight by the fact that 36% of the cabinet went to independent schools and 59% went to Oxbridge. Out of the 365 Members of Parliament (MPs) 33% went to independent schools (52% of Conservatives, 41% of Liberal Democrats and 10% of Labour) and 24% went to Oxbridge (32% of Conserves, 28% of Liberal Democrats and 17% of Labour). It should be noted that the MP data refer to 2014 and thus the previous Parliament, though there is no reason to assume this has changed dramatically in the current parliamentary intake. The situation is even more extreme in the case of the House of Lords or the Upper House. Half of the Lords attended independent schools (50%), which is seven times more than the UK population as a whole and over a third (38%) of the Lords attended Oxbridge.
  • Civil Service: over half (55%) of Whitehall permanent secretaries (the most senior civil servant charged with running government a department or ministry on a day-to-day basis) attended an independent school, as did 45% of Public body chairs and 34% of Public body CEOs. Public bodies are created to provide public services such as British Rail (BR) and the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC). Unsurprisingly, more than half of the same Whitehall permanent secretaries are Oxbridge educated (57%), as are 44% of the Public body chairs and 26% of Public body CEOs.
  • Law: 71% of judges attended an independent school and a further 23% of judges attended a grammar school, which take 4% of the pupils. Thus independent/grammar schools account for a staggering 94% of all judges in Britain. Not only that, but one in seven judges (14%) went to just five independent schools: Eton, Westminster, Radley, Charterhouse and St Paul’s Boys. 75% of judges went to Oxbridge. Our judiciary is a highly self-selective group, it seems.
  • Order: the concentration in the army is almost as extreme as for judges and civil servants. Senior armed forces officers were also largely educated in independent schools (62%) and fewer than 1 in 10 (7%) went to comprehensives. But the equivalent in the police services are less concentrated; a mere 22% attended independent schools and 6% went to Oxbridge.
  • Business: Excluding those educated abroad, 41% of British-educated FTSE350 CEOs and six out of 10 of those in the Sunday Times Rich List (60%) were educated privately. Almost half of FTSE350 CEOs (43%) and over a quarter of those on the Sunday Times Rich List attended Russell Group universities (28%), of which 18% and 12% respectively attended Oxbridge.
  • Media: in terms of the other key set of people setting the agenda for the rest of the population, 54% of the Top 100 media professionals (newspaper editors, columnists and broadcasters) are drawn from independent schools and 45% attended Oxbridge. More than two in five newspaper columnists (43%) in the British press attended an independent school; and 47% graduated from Oxbridge. The situation is even more extreme if we add the independent and grammar school categories together (or 11% of the public): 89% of the Top 100 media professionals are from such schools. Looking specifically at the tabloids (a newspaper having pages half the size of those of a standard newspaper, typically popular in style and dominated by headlines, photographs and sensational stories such as The Sun, The Mirror, etc.) 38% of the columnists attended independent schools and 25% attended Oxbridge (and 49% went to a Russell Group institution). 45% of the broadsheet columnists (a newspaper with a large format regarded as more serious and less sensationalist than tabloids such as The Telegraph, The Independent and The Guardian) went to independent schools and 57% to Oxbridge. The 1% seems to have cornered the media market too.

Self-selection and group think to the fore

As I was writing this piece, I was reflecting on my long-held belief that British society is meritocratic – where the people holding power are selected on the basis of their ability. I still believe this to be the case. I do not doubt that the elite comprising the 7% or 1% is extremely well-educated or that they hold their powerful, prestigious and well-remunerated positions on the basis of their ability. But they are greatly aided by attending the top schools and facilities that money can buy and abetted by a self-selecting and entrenched Oxbridge network of their ilk. To suggest that there is equality of opportunity in Britain, but not necessarily equality of outcome is not only misleading, it is also plain wrong.

This situation may be broadly meritocratic but it is hardly the same as being fair, right or healthy for a democracy; only a small subset of the population has the resources, contacts and know-how to buy the entry ticket to an independent school (7%) which the gateway to securing a pass to one of the top two universities in the country (1%), which in turn results in access to the most influential, powerful and lucrative professions in Britain. The opportunities and the outcomes are systematically cornered, generation after generation, by the same elites.

The very fact that the report Elitist Britain (2014) was released at all demonstrates that the British Establishment is not too concerned about such information being released. Given how little it has been reported or impacted on policy-making (since they also control most of the levers), I guess they are right.

In any case, this fascinating report makes two further points worth noting. The first is that a lack of diversity in the people who are running the country is a problem in and of itself since certain professions should be representative of the public for reasons of legitimacy. This includes politicians, the media and judiciary.

Secondly, a narrow elite implies serious limits on adult social mobility and the sheer scale of the dominance of certain backgrounds raises questions about the degree to which the composition of the elite really reflects merit, as opposed to know-how combined with know-who.

These are serious concerns but the point that really caught my attention concerns the risk of “group think”:

“Where institutions rely on too narrow a range of people from too narrow a range of backgrounds with too narrow a range of experiences they risk behaving in ways and focussing on issues that are of salience only to a minority but not the majority in society. Our research shows it is entirely possible for politicians to rely on advisors to advise, civil servants to devise policy solutions and journalists to report on their actions having all studied the same courses at the same universities, having read the same books, heard the same lectures and even being taught by the same tutors.

The penny drops. I finally understand the reason why so many British politicians and journalists are so consistently and systematically (with some exceptions) pro-leaving “Europe” by which they mean the European Union (EU). Their entrenched group think has blinded them to the benefits of being part of the EU and they systematically underestimate the disadvantages of going it alone, thereby risking the country becoming an increasingly isolated Little Britain.

 

 

 


Elitism in Britain and Germany

© Ricardo Pinto, 2015, AngloDeutsch™ Blog, www.AngloDeutsch.EU

There has been a lot of discussion about elitism, the Establishment, the 1%, etc., partly driven by the seminal work on wealth and income inequality by the French economist Thomas Piketty (see Capital in the Twenty-First Century). This has been exacerbated recently by the on-going discussion about David Cameron and his Oxford days, including allegations about some of the initiation rituals involved (see #piggate). This post examines elitism in Britain and Germany by analysing the people who make-up the Cabinets in both governments, as a means of establishing the extent to which they form part of elite or not.

First it is important to be clear what we are referring to when we talk about the elite or the Establishment, as illustrated in the box below.

Elite

1. The choice or best of anything considered collectively, as of a group or class of persons.

2. Persons of the highest class: only the elite were there.

3. A group of persons exercising the major share of authority or influence within a larger group: the power elite of a major political party.

4. Representing the most choice or select; best: an elite group of authors.

(the) Establishment

1. The existing power structure in society; the dominant groups in society and their customs or institutions; institutional authority (usually preceded by the): the Establishment believes exploring outer space is worth any tax money spent.

2. The dominant group in a field of endeavour, organisation, etc.: the literary Establishment.

Source: Dictionary.com

 

The elite is thus a small group of people who control a disproportionate amount of wealth and/or power. It is not easy to ascertain people´s wealth but there are surrogates that can be used for privilege and power. The Prime Minister and the rest of the Cabinet are generally considered to be the single most powerful group of people in any nation. Therefore, in assessing the elites and the Establishment, it makes sense to begin with this particular group of people.

In assessing the issue of whether the people concerned are part of the elite / the Establishment / the 1%, I look at two indicators for which information is relatively objective and easily available:

  • Whether they were privately/independently educated in the form of a fee paying school education or not: Britain has a well-established tradition of independent, fee paying schools. Germany too has such schools though their origins and emphasis are different. In both countries the state school system is free but some choose to educate their children privately. Since these involve significant costs compared with state schools, it is generally the privileged that tend to attend such schools. In the case of the UK, 7% of the students go to such schools compared with 6% in Germany;
  • Whether they attended the elite (two top) universities in their respective country or not: in the case of Britain, this would be Oxford University and Cambridge University, often conflated as “Oxbridge.” In the case of Germany, only a couple of universities make it into the top 50 universities in the world, namely Heidelberg’s Ruprecht-Karls-University and Munich’s Ludwig-Maximilians-University. The barriers to attending the elite universities are normally much higher than the rest but the rewards associated with graduating from the top two universities are also disproportionate (the subject of the next post).

It goes without saying that those lucky enough to have both attended a private school and graduated from the top two universities of their respective country are bound to be rewarded with disproportionately higher life-chances compared with their fellow citizen without the benefit of such privileges.

In this post, I explore the issue using official information provided by the respective governments, supplemented with research on cabinet members who are coy about their educational background. The results of the analysis for Britain and Germany are presented in the Table below.

Table 1. Educational Background of the Cabinet in the UK and Germany (2015)

Cabinet_table

Note: the private/independent schools are as easy to identify in Germany as in Britain. Furthermore, it is not always possible to match-up government ministries / departments in the two countries. Sources: www.gov.ukwww.bundesregierung.eu and Wikipedia

So what does the above table tell us about the UK and Germany, based on the educational background of their respective cabinets?

  • Independent school: 9/21 UK vs 1/16 Germany: 42.8% of the UK cabinet attended independent schools compared with only 6.2% in Germany. There is an incredibly high level of concentration in the UK, given that only 7% of the adult population attends independent schools. The German cabinet simply reflects the national trend of 6% of pupils attending such schools;
  • Top 2 universities: 13/21 UK vs 1/16 Germany: an even greater proportion (61.9%) of the UK cabinet attended Britain´s top two universities. To put this in context, only 1% of the adult population of Britain attended Oxbridge. This also contrasts with only 6.2% of the cabinet in Germany attending its top two universities. An astounding 38% of the British cabinet attended Oxford alone. If you think this is something new or specific to the Conservative party, you’d be wrong; it is merely a matter of degree. Ed Miliband, Gordon Brown and Tony Blair are all Oxbridge educated, as were 12 of Ed Miliband’s shadow cabinet. Jeremy Corbyn, the new leader of the Labour party, was educated in an independent school but did not complete his higher education;
  • Independent school and top 2 universities: 9/21 UK : 0/16 Germany: whereas none of the German cabinet were privately educated and went to the country’s top two universities, a staggering 42.8% of their British counterparts did, David Cameron and George Osborne included, thus being doubly privileged.

Based on the indicators of private / independent education and/or attending Oxbridge, as well as being a member of the Cabinet, the elite or the Establishment is very much alive and in rude health in Britain. Independently educated pupils, especially those from the elite schools, disproportionately go to Oxbridge (taking 44% of the places at Oxford and 38% at Cambridge) and end-up in the Cabinet. Coincidence is not the main factor at play; layer upon layer of privilege and entitlement piled upon each other is closer to the truth.

By contrast, the German cabinet is positively plebeian. I shall leave it to the reader to determine which they prefer and why.

The recent and totally unexpected election of Jeremy Corbyn as the Leader of the Labour Party (who has not exactly grown-up in the proverbial social housing estate or attended an inner city state school) appears to be partly a reaction to the “more of the same” politics by the ruling elites. No such trend is evident in Germany.


The Queen of the Referendum: Elizabeth II in Germany

© Ricardo Pinto, 2015, AngloDeutsch™ Blog, www.AngloDeutsch.EU

Queen Elizabeth II has just completed a four-day state visit to Germany, included a visit to the Bergen-Belsen prisoner of war and concentration camps (where Anne Frank wrote her famous diary and died shortly before liberation), met the President Joachim Gauk and the Chancellor Angela Merkel, and visited Berlin and Frankfurt. The German people went bananas about the state visit – it was almost as if Germany had become the 54th member of the Commonwealth!

The Royal Family is very popular among ordinary Germans despite the recent history of two World Wars. Royal marriages, divorces and births are followed closely and there is an obvious affection for the Queen. The pomp and ceremony, including the flag waving, are just not part of the culture in modern Germany, though it is noticeable that they have become a lot more at ease about waving the German flag since the football World Cup was staged in Germany in 2006. Partly because the Germans are much more buttoned-up about the whole concept of patriotism, the Royal visit was an occasion to dress up, go mad and just enjoy the state visit. English flags were still a lot more visible than German ones.

Queen Elizabeth in Germany 2015

Picture: John MacDougall/Pool Photo via Associated Press

Of course, there are strong connections between the British Royal Family and Germany, going back quite some time. But even in terms of the present, few realise that Prince Philip is a member of the House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg and that he was partly educated in Germany. But at the end of the day what matters is quite simply that Germans admire the Queen’s charm and sheer will-power; it is a rare sight for an 89 going 90 year-old to perform her role so competently. A rapidly ageing nation such as Germany certainly knows how to appreciate this.

The royal couple’s first visit to Germany was actually back in 1965. It was an important state occasion, involving a marathon 11 cities and it is a generally acknowledged that it helped heal the wounds of World War II. As in the case of the first visit, the fifth and quite possibly last one, also drew large, enthusiastic crowds and generated significant media coverage.

Rex

Rex

Picture: Rex

Neither Mr David Cameron nor Mrs Angela Merkel would have had one-tenth of the pulling power of the Queen, let alone one-hundredth of her influence in terms of building positive international relations between the people of Germany and the UK citizens. And, let us face it, after the on-going centrifugal forces generated by a possible Grexit, not to mention a possible Brexit, as well as the austerity drive which, rightly or wrongly, is associated with the EU and Germany, Europe can certainly do with a lot more of this sort of thing – it is a precious glue binding two nations together.

However, what has been the most significant aspect of the official state visit is actually the speech she gave, which is not normally reported (other than the Opening of Parliament Speech). The Queen’s speech was widely discussed and reported in the British media. What she said was:

“The United Kingdom has always been closely involved in its continent… Even when our main focus was elsewhere in the world, our people played a key part in Europe.”

Blink and you would have missed what all the fuss is about, not least because the crucial word uttered only contained three letters, namely the reference to the UK and “its” continent. The Queen could easily have chosen the word which would normally have been used in the sentence, namely “the” rather than “its”, but for whatever reason chose to do otherwise.

It is very easy, indeed dangerous, to over- or mis-interpret the supposed meaning of a single word. Nevertheless, given the febrile discussions in the UK about the forthcoming referendum on whether to remain or exit the EU, the Queen’s speech is being widely regarded as an indication that the Queen favours continuing UK membership of the EU.

But the greater controversy concerned the speech delivered in Berlin on Wednesday, where she warned of the “dangers” of division in Europe and the need to “guard against it”. What she said was:

“We have witnessed how quickly things can change for the better. But we know that we must work hard to maintain the benefits of the postwar world… We know that division in Europe is dangerous and that we must guard against it in the west as well as in the east of our continent.”

This part of the speech, which could be read at different levels, is what has caused consternation among Eurosceptics in the Conservative Party as well as UKIP. The main reason is that it could be interpreted as being for the EU status quo and such speeches are normally done in conjunction with government officials. In other words, the suggestion is that the Queen is uttering that which Mr Cameron shirks saying himself.

Despite the protestations emanating from Buckingham Palace and Downing Street that the Queen was not setting out a position in favour of the UK remaining in the EU, the speech resonates. The sentences chosen by the Queen made it clear that Britain is part of the European continent, that it is not a matter of “us and them”, as some would wish to portray things and that Europe (EU?) should remain united (though the Greeks appear to be doing their best to do the opposite).

The Queen is supposed to be above politics but this is clearly nonsense. After all, she opens parliament. She appoints the Prime Minister and meets with him or her on a weekly basis. Not only does the Queen have a mostly ceremonial role in the Parliament of the whole of the UK, she also has formal responsibilities within the devolved assemblies of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. It is therefore naive to maintain that she is a neutral observer and that and the Royal Family is above politics.

Yet this is precisely what Buckingham Palace maintains and the average Brit is happy to believe, despite the recent “Black Spider” memo letters written by Charles, Prince of Wales, to the British government ministers and politicians over the years. Despite the British monarchy being supposedly politically neutral, the letters sent by Charles may be interpreted as an attempt to exert influence over British government ministers on a wide-ranging set of issues including farming, genetic modification, global warming, social deprivation, planning and architecture. If this is the case with Charles’ private letters, surely the Queen is able to influence politics, not to mention her subjects.

If she is really trying to influence British voters to vote in favour of remaining in the EU in the forthcoming referendum on the matter, I would agree fully with her instincts. But the fact remains that she would not be politically neutral and neither should Bucking Palace, Downing Street nor anyone else pretend otherwise.

Besides, this would not be the first time that the Queen has waded into referendums and possibly influenced their outcome. The most recent example of this was in September 2014. Shortly before the voting day on the Scottish referendum, the English Establishment, not least Downing Street, was panicked by the exit polls suggesting that there would be a majority in favour of Scotland becoming independent, into using every means possible to sway the vote in favour of Union.

By all accounts, the Queen was encouraged by Downing Street to speak out on the issue. Her views on the matter had been made clear in her silver jubilee address to a joint session of parliament in 1977, when she said:

“I cannot forget that I was crowned Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Perhaps this jubilee is a time to remind ourselves of the benefits which union has conferred, at home and in our international dealings, on the inhabitants of all parts of this United Kingdom.”

In the end, the plea issued by Buckingham Palace, with perfect timing, was to urge voters in Scotland to “think very carefully” about the referendum in an apparently spontaneous response to someone in the crowd. Needless-to-say, this too was widely reported by the media shortly before the vote.

Like the words “its continent,” dangers of “division in Europe” and the need to “guard against it”, small things can make a significant difference in a country where her subjects revere the Queen. It is widely assumed that the urge to “think very carefully” was sufficient to influence swing voters during the Scottish referendum, resulting in a last-minute surge in favour of retaining the Union. That said, it is far from clear that the outcome of that particular referendum in favour of of retaining the Union will be the last word on the matter, as far as the Scottish National Party and the Scottish people are concerned.

When it comes to the most profound issues facing the UK and its future, I believe that the Queen is not quite as politically impartial and Buckingham Palace would suggest. I suspect that Elizabeth II may well turn out to be, among other things, the Queen of the Referendum.