Inside Britain's Secretive Bullingdon Club
spiegel.de
spiegel.de
Of course, you have to ask the same question about US voters. And in a bit of irony, this topic and another discussion [1] of the government elites in the US vis-a-vis the Lawrence Lessig campaign are in the #2 and #1 spots on the HN front page.
We don't. We elect a (one) Member of Parliament for the constituency we live in. Following the election, the leader of the largest party attempts to form a government (thereby making them Prime Minister), and they then appoint cabinet ministers.
Most elections end up with people voting in favour of a party, regardless of who the party has nominated to stand in the election, and those viewed as "senior" members of the party are typically asked to stand in safe seats (regardless of where the seat is and whether they have any ties there!).
In theory, the Prime Minister can be in the House of Lords, though since 1902 this hasn't occurred—in principle, the Prime Minister merely has to be capable of commanding confidence of the House of Commons (i.e., must be able to win any motion of confidence, and to be able to ensure supply). It seems highly unlikely for this to occur in future, however.
Not sure why these guys doing it is that bad or different.
Perhaps my own concern about modern MPs is they often lack "real world" experience before working in politics - but that's a criticism I could make of both sides of the political spectrum.
Something something lizards something.
Consider a middle aged non-partisan couple who are part of the middle income bracket. They are extremely risk averse. They do not want any drastic changes that could jeopardize their livelihood and their family. They vote for the incumbent except when the incumbent has begun abusing their position of power a bit too much and have been involved in too many blunders. Then they vote for the other solid option.
They know that the elite do not represent their interests but they also do not trust any newcomers to do a better job of keeping things more or less the same.
We should assess the properties of the current political system as emergent, not as some sort of top-down planned thing.
Life in Britain if you've got a decent salary and disposable income, have a stable marriage/family, have a stable job, have a mortgage or outright own a property, and have citizenship is pretty sweet. Meaningful political change for people in this situation might have a theoretical upside, at least in the abstract (you might want a fairer society, less poverty, less unemployment because you're a decent person and care about others) but it has a very personal, practical and massive potential downside.
Change for these people is indeed very risky. I don't have figures, but my impression is that a large slice of the regularly voting population are in more or less this situation. They might want laws or policies in one or two of the areas changed or tweaked, but not enough that they'd risk stability in the other areas. Besides, the main parties' policies are generally so averaged over what their votership want in the aggregate, that their manifesto matching precisely the tweaks you want (which bear in mind somebody else won't want, because it'll impact them negatively) is nigh on impossible, statistically speaking.
So, you end up with a stable political institution where change is disincentivised, and where the status quo has evolved its own culture and structure over decades, centuries even. That culture is that our 'elites', via a wonderful private education, the encouragement of parents, teachers, and other mentors, connections etc, end up in the profession of politics and end up doing quite well in it, because they've been trained and shaped for it pretty much their whole lives. It's the same reason why top software people were once 10 year old kids fiddling with computers and games and hacking in their bedroom. The current political elites probably at least had the concept and ideas of politics and leadership and power in mind at that age, even if they weren't actively being trained towards it at that young age.
Anyway my analysis is obviously very naive and a full one could fill several books, but regardless of the reasons, we shouldn't be surprised to see patterns emerge in a very stable system which resists change in the short term. The pattern in this case being that 'elites' rise to the top of the current system. We also shouldn't be surprised to see people accept this system, even despite its flaws, when it results in a pretty great quality of life for them, personally. Remember that the people worst affected by the things wrong with the political system are also those least likely to, or unable to, vote. This too is an emergent property of the system and is just a mathematical inevitability, however unfair it appears to be. If suddenly the tables flipped and everyone who previously voted stopped, and everyone who never voted started, the system too would flip on its head within the space of one or two election cycles. But that will obviously never happen.
It's true that every system we have was just invented by humans, nothing is written in stone and we don't have to run society the way we do. However it's also true that (assuming actual democracy exists) political systems generally emerge and then stabilise from the aggregate of what most people truly want. The problem with aggregates over populations is that they're incredibly difficult to change and can result in undesirable artefacts, but these are generally artefacts that are just palatable enough that they can just be ignored. Such as elites always being at the top of a government (regardless of party) that provides a stable, good life for most of the people that tend to vote.
"Remember that the people worst affected by the things wrong with the political system are also those least likely to, or unable to, vote. This too is an emergent property of the system and is just a mathematical inevitability, however unfair it appears to be."
It's not emergent, the elites have fought to prevent democracy for a long, long time. See the Peterloo massacre for example, and the current conservative party is actively trying to disenfranchise voters by making it a hassle to register. This from a government with a "nudge" unit to take advantage of the power of defaults.
Which is probably a positive thing, we should want the people running our government to come from the top of the pile even if the reason they are at the top is an unfair leg-up early in life.
But beware, some of the photos appear to have had people airbrushed out[1].
[0] https://iconicphotos.wordpress.com/2010/03/14/the-bullingdon...
[1] http://www.theguardian.com/news/blog/2008/oct/26/george-osbo...
As someone who worked at Goldman and is college-aged, I think this says quite a lot about the piece in general. Working at Goldman is not some kind of prestigious, difficult to obtain position. If you're in investment banking, that's laughable. If you're in the SSG, then that's only more mildly impressive. I did two-weeks in London where a few of the interns were part of the Pitt club at Cambridge (albeit, not quite as storied a group, but Cambridge's version of the Bullingdon Club) and seemed to revel in this prestige despite having decidedly worse placements in every way than myself. Only one of the three members were hired back full-time.
If these kids went to work at interesting hedge funds in Mayfair then I'm inclined to suggest they have some powerful connections. But, by in large, these are 18-21 year olds with all the insecurities and lack of knowledge you'd expect. In the world of finance perhaps this club helps getting you an interview at an investment bank, that's about it. Once you see how these things work you become cognizant of the fact that stories like this are more based in what the members of the clubs want you to believe secretively, or rather a writer would like to suggest is some vast conspiracy to pontificate on his or her moral outrage, then having even the slightest basis in reality.
Now, I would grant that having this kind of network gives opportunities to become more involved in politics (similar to what Cameron himself did) at an early age. That's fair, I suppose, however this notion of these secretive groups, with members who have intellects and connections that the average chap can only dream of ever obtaining is laughable. I'd encourage folks not to be drawn into articles like this, similar to the film The Riot Club, that seek to create heroic tragedies and spark mock outrage. Things are always more dull then they appear and most things aren't intricate conspiracy theories, which unfortunately HN seems to have a predisposition towards chatting about.
The merits of those candidates is debatable, but the prestige of those positions really isn't.
You should also be cognizant of the makeup of the SSG and how it's needing to, unfortunately, evolve. It's far from a homogeneous group. The trading arm has needed to be completely restructured after Volcker came into full effect in July. Trading distressed debt is hard enough when you can take quasi-prop positions, now it's a fundamentally different business and many top traders have fled to the buy-side. I believe the only area that's truly insulated and routinely profitable is MSI, which, yes, I'd be inclined to suggest is a prestigious role. However, that's a small segment of the SSG.
I'd reverse your final sentiment. In my experience, the merits of those in the SSG are usually top notch (just pick the best of the S&T/IB pool), the prestige is debatably if your broaden the discussion. One of the best young members of the SSG just left to go back to school to learn how to code.
Also note that by context for impressiveness in the OP was, for example, to go work at a hedge fund in Mayfair right out of Oxford (perhaps, for example, at Chris Rokos' new fund as he's a maths Oxford alum).
Reading about this group is just surreal.
On this page
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/08/10/zionist-brownshirts-...
"adeUK" wrote:
adeUK August 11, 2011 at 3:01 am
The Bullingdon Club :- Such a Riot !
Call me Dave Cameron, Boris Johnson and George Osbourne were all members of the infamous Bullingdon Club whilst at Oxford. The club is renowned for two things the wealth of its members and getting absolutely blotto and smashing up the property. Apparently this is just high jinks and acceptable if one pays for the damage. Any landlord or restaurateur who wont be bought off and reports this activity to the police is seen as a bad sport.
“Boris Johnson himself was seen fleeing down the highstreet & crawling on his hands and knees through the undergrowth after the window of an upmarket venue was shattered. ….of course back then there was no CCTV & boris Johnson face wasn’t plastered all over the internet.” [1]
Andrew Gimson, who wrote a biography of Boris Johnson, said about the Bullingdon Club in the 1980s: “I don’t think an evening would have ended without a restaurant being trashed and being paid for in full, very often in cash. […] A night in the cells would be regarded as being par for a Buller man and so would debagging (An act of removal of the trousers) anyone who really attracted the irritation of the Buller men”.
In recent years, dinners have been more low key but in 2004 a 15th century pub in Oxfordshire suffered considerable damage during a dinner, and four members were arrested. – BBC.[3]
“A number of episodes over many decades have become anecdotal evidence of the Club’s behaviour. Famously, on 12 May 1894[11][12] and again on 20 February 1927,[13] after dinner, Bullingdon members smashed almost all the glass of the lights and 468 windows in Peckwater Quad of Christ Church, along with the blinds and doors of the building. As a result, the Club was banned from meeting within 15 miles of Oxford.[2]
While still Prince of Wales, Edward VIII had a certain amount of difficulty in getting his parents’ permission to join the Bullingdon on account of the Club’s reputation. He eventually obtained it only on the understanding that he never join in what was then known as a “Bullingdon blind”, a euphemistic phrase for an evening of drink and song. On hearing of his eventual attendance at one such evening, Queen Mary sent him a telegram requesting that he remove his name from the Club.[9][14]
Andrew Gimson, biographer of Boris Johnson, reported about the club in the 1980s: “I don’t think an evening would have ended without a restaurant being trashed and being paid for in full, very often in cash. […] A night in the cells would be regarded as being par for a Buller man and so would debagging anyone who really attracted the irritation of the Buller men.”[15]
Dinners in recent years, being relatively low key, have not attracted press attention, though in 2005, following damage to a 15th century pub in Oxfordshire during a dinner, four members of the party were arrested; the incident was widely reported.[16] A further dinner was reported in 2010 after damage to a country house. [17] [18]
In the last few years the Bullingdon has been mentioned in the debates of the House of Commons in order to draw attention to excessive behaviour across the British class spectrum,[19] and to embarrass those increasingly prominent MPs who are former members of the Bullingdon. These most notably include David Cameron (UK Prime Minister), George Osborne (UK Chancellor of the Exchequer) and Boris Johnson (Mayor of London).[20][21] Hansard records eight references to the Bullingdon between 2001 and 2008.[22] [2]
Photos of the Bullingdon Club Members
http://iconicphotos.wordpress.com/2010/03/14/the-bullingdon-...
MUST SEE
An exploration of the shared past at Eton and Oxford of the two most powerful Conservative politicians in Britain: London Mayor Boris Johnson and party leader David Cameron
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/when-boris-met-dave
[1] http://www.kurzweilai.net/forums/topic/the-bullingdon-club [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullingdon_Club [3] http://singularinvestor.hubpages.com/hub/The-Bullingdon-Club Log in to Reply
We are at the verge of a new area of aristocracy. The new aristocrats are building their relationships and are shielding themselves from the plebs -- just the same as in the Roman empire: The "best" people of the world, don't need morals or standards, that belong to the outsiders.
That is also the reason, we need more and more surveillance -- to protect the "best" people from the terrorists -- all people, that oppose this world-order.
(And it's probably not true, even though it was widely reported).