What does Cameron want? More inequality, of course

Posted on October 11 2012

I borrow this, shamelessly and with his permission, from Alex Andreou in the New Statesman:

“I'm not here to defend privilege. I'm here to spread it”, says Cameron. The delegates cheer ecstatically. But what is the reality behind the one-liner? Privilege is by definition what one has above what others have. The very core of privilege is inequality. In short, the prime minister of a country in which less than 10 per cent of the population control more that 50 per cent of the wealth, wants more inequality. Of course he does, he is part of that 10 per cent.

Spot on.

Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:

You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.

And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:

7

7 Responses

  1. stephen says:
    October 11 2012 at 11:55 am

    So he wants to spread privilege but not so much as to destroy it! What criteria will be used to join the ranks of the privileged?

  2. anrigaut says:
    October 11 2012 at 2:09 pm

    Quite so. My thoughts exactly.

    Not less privilege but more! Can only assume he feels the need to extend the ranks of the privileged just enough to ensure his party’s re-election.

  3. Andrew Dickie says:
    October 11 2012 at 3:36 pm

    I repeat a point I’ve made before with reference to the old selective and twin-track (as in Apartheid) Grammar School/Secondary Modern education system, now receiving a fantastic resurgence under the Cameroonies: the twin-track education system is one in which the success of the few is DEFINED by the failure of the many.

    This nonsense about privilege is the old education system argument writ large – privilege implies, demand, exclusivity and winners and losers. It really is hard to understand how a man who allegedly got a 1st Class Honours Degree in Politics, Philosophy and Economics managed it, given that Cameron couldn’t decisively beat one of the most unpopular Prime Ministers of recent years (Politics = 4/10); appears not to understand the meaning of words (Philosophy 1/10); and clearly has no idea how to run an economy (Economics -5/10 – yes, that is a negative mark).