Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Is David Cameron middle class?

ska invita

back on the other side
Pkay, its 6am, so forgive the mistakes to follow >

just been talking with a mate of mine whose into history who says that Cameron is not upperclass. He says the real upper class (aristocracy + hangers on) are increasingly marginalised and people like Blair and Cameron are middle class types who have been able to rise to power.

his basic point is that the middle classes have never had so much power (in britain), and have infiltrated the upper classes like never before.

Something else he pointed out is that the whole yacht-gate bollocks is about foreign commoners (aka Russian oligarchs) having an ever-increasing influence on british politics - pissing off the 'true' upperclass no end (as it happens, Thatcher opened up the door for this eventuality).

Are we in the midst of some upper class v upper-middle class revolution? Or is it just the same old bollocks? I'm tempted to think its the same old bollocks - but maybe there is something of interest happening in post-thatcher britain, in regards to an erosion of the grip of the 'pure' upper classes.

its easy to reduce it to archetype class war bulk groupings, but i wonder if something more subtle is going on... [for the record i drunkenly argued my mate was talking bollocks, but maybe he was on to something...] wdurekon?
 
Cameron happens to be aristocracy, dont know how major or if his family is truly ancient etc. His Mrs is daughter of a baronet as well.

Blair is a nasty brand of middle class. Certainly your mate is right, many aristos are more marginalised. Being an aristo is purely a matter of family line not money or power and plenty of aristos live in bedsits.

Lots of jumped up middle class people think money and power could make them upper class in some way, but this would only go to show how ignorant and essentially vulgar they are :)

The MCs do increasingly run the show and can easily be more reactionary than the aristos. Its complicated, but the notion of "one nation toryism" has roots in the noblesse oblige idea that the aristos may run the show but should make sure everyone is looked after.

One might conflict with that strand of toryism, but the nasty brand of Thatcherism that Blair built upon is even more offensive IMO.

Global neoliberal fundementalism has surpassed even that and made a lot of the distinctions I refer to somewhat obselete in practical terms, but there remain aristo bloodlines within the global elite.
 
Cameron is an old school upper class Tory grandee in the Harold Macmillan mold. The middle classes have never been able to send their children to Eton, do not live in very expensive town houses in Notting Hill, are not married to nobility and do not flit from city PR job to Tory party.
 
plenty of aristos live in bedsits.

I suspect thats absolute bollocks. Aristos are always pleading poverty, when what they mean is they're having to sell of a Vermeer or two.

Theres nothing new in the upper classes accepting new money into their ranks, look at all the toffs who married American heiresses in the 19th century.
 
Cameron is an old school upper class Tory grandee in the Harold Macmillan mold. The middle classes have never been able to send their children to Eton, do not live in very expensive town houses in Notting Hill, are not married to nobility and do not flit from city PR job to Tory party.

Spot on, wasnt it Macmillan who was related to half his cabinet?
 
Cameron is an old school upper class Tory grandee in the Harold Macmillan mold. The middle classes have never been able to send their children to Eton, do not live in very expensive town houses in Notting Hill, are not married to nobility and do not flit from city PR job to Tory party.

Agreed.

He appears like he's not a 'proper Tory toff' because he's young-ish and handsome-ish, not like the creaky white-haired old bastards left over from Thatcher. He's a nu-Toff.
 
Agreed.

He appears like he's not a 'proper Tory toff' because he's young-ish and handsome-ish, not like the creaky white-haired old bastards left over from Thatcher. He's a nu-Toff.

Thatchers cabinets werent stuffed with Toffs (Jews and Welshmen instead) Cameron is more a throwback to the pre-Thatcher era.
 
Cameron and Osborne are near enough the real thing to make the Thatcherites uneasy I think. Cameron's grandad was a 2nd Baronet; Osborne will be 18th Baronet or something when his dad dies.
 
I would love to kill him.

I'd set my dog upon him.

He would provide an excellent (if not especially lean) source of protein.

This would allow my mutt to repair damaged muscle tissue.

And replenish his glycogen stores.

And give him the strength and energy he requires to set about other posh, vile, tory vermin.
 
Bloodlines eh? Do you think that's the important bit?

The important bit is that I tried to answer the question as truthfully as I could from what I know. If you have a disagreement then fine. If all you are going to do is snipe on the basis not liking what you consider to be my world view then you are just being vapid and sneery. Perhaps you'd like to register at the Guardian talkboards.
 
but seriously folks... it all depends where you stand. From the viewpoint of 1835 or so cameron is in fact a big Liberal, and not a conservative at all. And the real aristos were those formed by blood waaaay back and not through being educated in certain 'public' institutions like eton and oxbridge.
 
The important bit is that I tried to answer the question as truthfully as I could from what I know. If you have a disagreement then fine. If all you are going to do is snipe on the basis not liking what you consider to be my world view then you are just being vapid and sneery. Perhaps you'd like to register at the Guardian talkboards.

Well, i actually asked you a question about your answer. Do you consider the bloodline to the important bit - presumably you do as you brought it up. I'm asking you how much importance you attach to the bloodline.
 
Well, i actually asked you a question about your answer. Do you consider the bloodline to the important bit - presumably you do as you brought it up. I'm asking you how much importance you attach to the bloodline.

OK and sorry if I over-reacted but you do seem to be making quite a lot of what you percieve to be my world view.

I think the bloodlines are important to the people of those blood lines but not essential to the elite structure per se. The bloodlines are be just one strand of many who, rightly or wrongly, consider themselves to be world movers and shakers. Arch conspiracists say about 13 families run the show. I dont really buy that, but I bet those 13 families feature strongly.

A reasonable example is that squalid meeting in corfu that came to light recently. Osborne, Mandellson, a Rothschild, a shady Russian oligarch and Elizabeth Murdoch. a blood line banker, some "opposing" politicians, a media magnate and a corrupt Ruskie meeting in private to stitch up god knows what.
 
To stitch up what they've always stitched up, no doubt.

Does where these thirteen families live throughout the universe form the figure of the constellation of a winged heretic?
 
... A reasonable example is that squalid meeting in corfu that came to light recently. Osborne, Mandellson, a Rothschild, a shady Russian oligarch and Elizabeth Murdoch. a blood line banker, some "opposing" politicians, a media magnate and a corrupt Ruskie meeting in private to stitch up god knows what.

People of power and influence have long enjoyed the company of their own ilk. It is called "networking".
 
As to is David Cameron middle class, undoubtedly he is upper middle class, not many in the middle middle classes can count Eton and Oxbridge for their education.
 
As to is David Cameron middle class, undoubtedly he is upper middle class, not many in the middle middle classes can count Eton and Oxbridge for their education.

He's not Upper-middle, he's some derivation of upper, as demonstrated by the family lineage linked to in the Times piece near the start of the thread.
 
Back
Top Bottom