I was recently unfortunate enough to see some of the documentary series in which our dearly beloved (hint:irony overload) ex-Deputy Prime Minister got to be be driven about whilst pontificating on the class system. Purporting to be a serious investigation into the vestiges of the British Class system it was nothing of the sort. At best this was touched on superficially. What it was, was an excuse for Mister Prescott, who though from a working class background has a lifestyle and home that most of the middle classes would envy, to repeat endlessly that working class=good, upper class= bad with the fervour of Orwell's "four legs good, two legs bad" mantra.

However two things struck me linguistically amid this one man festival of class warfare.

The first was that he claimed to have never heard the word " chav ". Now while I am perfectly willing to believe that many here may be unfamiliar with it I find it extremely hard to believe that anyone living in England hasn't heard it. Give him the benefit of the doubt though. What amazed, and annoyed, me was that an off-screen researcher was then heard to explain it as meaning "council house and violent". This is a piece of, forgive my language, specious retroactive bollocks. The generally accepted source is that it is from the romany word for "boy" which has been borrowed into English and is akin to calling someone, offensively, a gypsy.

The other thing that struck me was that I was lacking a word. Almost everything Prescott said just sang of an emotion that I can't quite name and I wondered if anyone else could help. His whole attitude towards anyone with money, whether inherited or earned was one that wasn't precisely envy. Envy, as I understand it, is the feeling that someone else has something that you don't have and you think you should have it too. What John Prescott seemed to feel was rather more base, a feeling that someone else has something that you don't have and that it should therefore be taken away from them. I know it's a fine distinction but it is a distinction. Anyone got any idea of a better word than "envy" for this?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: BobHale,

I hope no one mentions "socialism."

I have avoided watching the programme on purpose. Prescott is virtually incapable of stringing a coherent sentence together and one of my least-favourite politicians. And that's saying something! I've read a couple of reviews, and by-and-large they agree with what you say.

One review mentioned that at one stage Prescott was talking to a bunch of youths hanging around a housing estate. One of them claimed to be middle class when asked and Prescott sternly said that she was really working class. He was apparently flummoxed by her reply: "But I don't do any work!"

I can't think of a better word than 'envy' but Tall Poppy Syndrome comes close.

quote:

Originally posted by arnie:


One review mentioned that at one stage Prescott was talking to a bunch of youths hanging around a housing estate. One of them claimed to be middle class when asked and Prescott sternly said that she was really working class. He was apparently flummoxed by her reply: "But I don't do any work!"

The whole exchange was quite interesting. When the girl revealed that she had been expelled from school Prescott took a while to catch up. At first he assumed it was for her academic performance, but she then revealed that it was for violence. He then assumed it was playground fighting until she revealed that it was for assaulting a teacher.
Bizarrely, as it sank in, this seemed to make him bond with her as if she had now established her working class credentials by punching a middle class authority figure.
She, and her two friends, absolutely underlined the failure of the current education system (and which party is that under?) when she replied, in perfect seriousness, to the question "So what do you think of Gordon Brown?" with "Who's he then?"

I've rarely seen anyone with such a total lack of self-awareness as he displayed throughout the part I saw. He appeared to have absolutely no notion that his views were completely a product of his own grudges and insecurities. In his anecdotes he remembered every slight, every put-down (real and imagined), every casual remark that anyone had ever made to him practically back to the womb. In a way I felt a little sorry for him but he's such an unlikable man that sympathy doesn't stick.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: BobHale,

quote:

Originally posted by Proofreader:
I hope no one mentions "socialism."

I did think of that but I was looking for a less loaded term.

And somewhat pertinent.

The Trees

I did watch the programme, intentionally, since I met John Prescott and his likeable wife earlier this year in Cyprus and then again at the House of Commons.

Those dysfuntional girls you refer to were certainly fortunate to take tea with Prescott on the H O C terrace; it is surely one of the finest places in London to see and be seen, watching the tourist boats sail by, full of rubber-neckers, filming away, thinking that you are someone important

I agree about Prescott's views, though, and in a way admire him for at least thinking that it might be possible to eliminate some of those inequalities that mean that some people have far less opportunity than others. Where he is wrong, though, is in thinking that it's something unique to class. In the UK, where class is an issue, it might seem that way but in truth it is simply that those who have priviledge, use priviledge. From the most capitalistic to the most communistic societies there are the haves and the have nots; the powerful and the weak; the rulers and the ruled.

Although modern society has eliminated a few of the more glaring inequalities - slavery is rare nowadays - the most cursory glance at the human condition in any country will see just how many inequalities there are. Back in the 19th century, Pareto calculated that 20% of the population of Italy owned 80% of the wealth. In the 100 years that have passed since then, this statistic is still about right for many countries - whether they be classless or not.

In the relatively egalitarian USA, 10% of the population owns 71% of the wealth - very close to Pareto's 80/20 rule. If $100 were divided among 100 people in the same proportions as the wealth in the United States, one person would get $38.10, while at the bottom, 40 people would receive 1/2 cent each (2001 statistics).

Prescott was right to point out the situation; he was wrong to suggest that it was simply a product of the British class system.