tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8212152.post-16071166774414027322008-05-11T21:06:00.000+01:002008-05-11T21:06:00.000+01:002008-05-11T21:06:00.000+01:00anon 7.25<BR/><BR/>glasgow is not 100% numpty, there are some english up here :)<BR/><BR/><BR/>as regard to 'class', having attended various educational estabishments, ranging from public, private, grammer, state, partially funded, i can say with some certainty; class is not a product of wealth or social privilege, but rather, a mindset that seems to be, in 21st century britain, a product of egalitarians vs. libertarians. <BR/><BR/>for example, kate moss would be regarded as 'posh' (or upperclass, aristocracy etc.) whereas bob geldoff would be regarded as being 'good'(or spiritual, a man of the people etc.). financially, there is little difference between the two types, but what differs is their use of social privilege that is afforded to them by their position. the 'toffs' are seen as using privilege for their own personal gain whereas 'labour' (don't know the synonym for toff..) are seen as utilizing it to help mankind, to save the planet. boris is seen as a bumbling egotist in power due to his eton connections, whereas ken is seen as a champion of downtrodden peoples from lewisham to venezuela. you can make this comparison for most lab/con frontbenchers. this is why conway is a byword for scandalous corruption and fraud, and livingston is a great working class hero, regardless of jasper.<BR/><BR/>the imagery is outdated, but the idea remains that upper middle class intellectuals can and should use their privilege to help (**biased remark** and control) society in order to benefit the least well off. the irony is that in order to do so they demand to be adequately compensated. libertarians (ie. people who believe people can, for the most part, look after themselves) are seen as bad and egalitarians are good. read the independent for the doublethought mentality of egalitarians (as this is a comment not a dissertation).toungeincheeknoreply@blogger.com