The traditional upper class was always closely associated with the aristoc-racy. They lived in stately homes and had their character shaped on the playing fields of Eton. They were an hereditary elite whose wealth and position were based on property and title. These were both used to gain substantial political privileges. For example, the House of Lords, an unelected second chamber, had a veto over House of Commons legislation until 1911. However, during much of the twentieth century the power and position of the aristocracy were steadily weakened. As long ago as the 1930s Noël Coward commented that the ‘stately homes of England’ were
1111 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10111 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 3011 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 4011 1 2 3111 C l a s s a n d p o l i t i c s 1 7 9
‘rather in the lurch.’ By the 1960s the aristocracy were lampooned by Harold Wilson, the Labour Leader, as the ‘Grouse Moor tendency’. The House of Lords was further slimmed down by the Blair government. Peers were invited to choose from among their number, who were to continue in office. Other ‘life peers’ were appointed, and effectively the Upper House became an advisory body to the Commons rather than its master. Hence, over time the aristocracy have been gradually replaced by a new upper class of businessmen who emerged with ‘gentlemanly characteristics’ and settled in London and the south-east. These ‘gentlemanly capitalists’ have come to dominate the financial and political heart of British society. By the 1980s Denis Healey, a leading Labour politician, was able to suggest that Margaret Thatcher had transferred power from the ‘aristocracy to estate agents’. This shift in power was bemoaned by many of the old guard, including Alan Clark, son of art historian Lord Clark, who in his Diaries famously accused Tory minister Michael Heseltine of having ‘bought his own furniture’.
Wealth however can never replace ‘breeding’. The Sunday Times publishes an annual ‘Rich List’ showing whose wealth is rising, falling, or static. This gives a snapshot of both how rich the country is (the thou-sandth richest person on the list was worth £400 million) and how wealth and power are shifting. Most of the 2001 top ten have family wealth (Duke of Westminster, Lord Sainsbury, Sir Adrian and John Swire). The remainder are mostly self-made business people. Sports personalities, pop stars, and other ‘mavericks’ appear further down the list. Millionaires such as the footballer David Beckham and the singer Posh Spice will eventually become part of Britain’s elite, but not yet.
1111 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10111 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 3011 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 4011 1 2 3111
T A B L E 5 . 1 The Sunday Times rich list, 2001 (million pounds)
1 Duke of Westminster 4,400
2 Hans Rausing 4,200
3 Bernie & Slavica Ecclestone 3,000
4 Lord Sainsbury 2,900
5 Joseph Lewis 2,200
6 Bruno Schroder 1,750
7= Nadhmi Auchi 1,700
7= Terry Matthews 1,700
9 Philippe Foriel-Destezet 1,600
10= Mark Dixon 1,400
10= Sir Adrian and John Swire 1,400
Source: The Sunday Times, 22 April 2001
Hence, most writers would put wealthy families involved in the control of major banks, insurance companies, pension funds, and stocks in the City of London at the core of the modern upper class. These families still pass on wealth from generation to generation and enjoy a dominant position in society. But the nature of the modern upper class is very complex. Most vast family businesses are becoming increasingly global and are run by a highly paid managerial elite, often dubbed ‘City Fat Cats’. The modern upper class is not as visible as the former owners of the stately homes of England who sought to impose standards and demanded defer-ence. The new upper class is much more culturally invisible. Highly paid managers, PR people, and the Conservative Party now represent their interests. It has been shown that a numerically small number of powerful families wield enormous power over the business life of the City of London.
The Conservative Party has increasingly become the party of this City busi-ness elite, and downplays its past association with the monarchy, the Church of England, and aristocracy. Many of Margaret Thatcher’s reforms in the 1980s, including sharp reductions in the highest rates of personal and company tax, the removal of exchange controls, City deregulation, the expansion of the private sector through privatisation, and the weakening of trade unions, have clearly benefited the business elite. The result is an upper class which has never been more wealthy. A recent study, for example, showed the top 1 per cent of wealth owners possessing 33 per cent of the nation’s total wealth. Tony Blair’s Labour government, with its
‘Third Way’, unlike previous Labour administrations, is at least as friendly to business and the upper class as was its Tory predecessor.
Thus, the modern upper class is still based on individuals with a common background and close social contacts. Power is still kept in the family. For example, 45 per cent of bank directors with a listing in Who’s Who could boast a father with a previous entry. Moreover, 75 per cent of bank directors had attended fee-paying public schools and 50 per cent had been to Oxford or Cambridge. Furthermore, a study of the top 250 com-panies in Britain recently revealed multiple directorships in the hands of a few wealthy families.
Hence, the upper class is largely made up of wealthy families. It is not exceptionally large. In 1986, for example, 43,500 people (less than 0.1 per cent of the population), held 7 per cent of the nation’s wealth – or
£740,000 each – while the wealthiest 10 per cent in Britain owned 50 per cent of all marketable property. Yet the numerical smallness of the upper class only serves to add to its exclusivity. It is a self-selecting elite, closed to outsiders – and money cannot buy someone into it. Networking is much more important. Contacts occur so frequently within the upper class because of their common background. The first point of entry is family background. The second is a public school education, privately
1111 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10111 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 3011 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 4011 1 2 3111 C l a s s a n d p o l i t i c s 1 8 1
funded by parents. The ethos of British fee-paying public schools such as Eton, Harrow, and Rugby is geared towards life long friendship. At boarding schools, pupils live with each other during school terms. This allows the development of extremely close social friendships between pupils and their families. This is followed by an Oxford or Cambridge education which expands the networking process still further. It is quite remarkable to note that, though public school pupils account for only 5 per cent of the total school population, they take over 50 per cent of Oxbridge places. A public school and Oxbridge education, therefore, moulds an integrated elite.
However, the question of whether the upper class acts in unison is extremely difficult to answer. There are clearly powerful families who wield power in the City of London, and have influence over both the Conservative and Labour Parties. Yet, the increasingly competitive nature of business suggests that conflicts of interest are likely to develop between elements within this ruling group. Equally, the close networking ethos of the upper-class business elite is able to make life difficult for the ‘new rich’ such as Richard Branson (owner of the Virgin group of record label, airline, radio station, cola), Alan Sugar (business tycoon behind Amstrad and chairman of Tottenham Hotspur), and Anita Roddick (creator of the Body Shop).
These brilliant entrepreneurs, who have truly gone from ‘rags to riches’, are still considered ‘outsiders’ within the upper class. This partly explains why Richard Branson decided to withdraw his Virgin group from the stock market because he feared its independence was being compromised by 1111
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10111 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 3011 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 4011 1 2 3111
F I G U R E 5 . 2 Houses of Parliament
powerful City groups. The turn of the new century spawned a rash of dotcom millionaires People such as Martha Lane-Fox and Brent Hoberman became rich overnight through the stock-market flotation of their company Lastminute.com. A year later they were relatively poor (£25 million) as the bubble burst and Lastminute.com joined ‘the 90 per cent club’ of those companies which lost most of their value.
For all the talk of an ‘enterprise culture’, much of British business is dominated by companies set up well over a hundred years ago. Upper-class families who own these companies have enormous power over investment, markets, companies, and shareholders. The fate of any ‘self-made’ business person ultimately lies in their hands. Hence, the upper class, such as the public schools, may be small in size but its members occupy positions of leadership in the major businesses in Britain. The upper class uses its wealth to confer social advantages and to retain a privileged position for its future generations. The closeness of the upper class ensures over-representation by this group in all the key positions in society. For example, 65 per cent of Conservative MPs in 1987 had been to a fee-paying public school.
Equally, many of its members have made accommodations with the ruling Labour administration. Thus, the upper class can be seen to be a relatively closed, coherent and self-recruiting elite. It may have become an invisible elite in cultural terms but its underlying power and influence have never been stronger.