This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/05/me-first-parents-james-caan-inequality

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Me-first parents do the rest of us an injustice Me-first parents do the rest of us an injustice
(4 months later)
My honest advice, if you missed James Caan on the Today programme is to do yourself a favour and leave it that way. The entrepreneur and former Dragons' Den panellist was explaining to the world why it was fine for him to employ his own daughters, when just the day before he had explained to the world that, as the government's new social mobility tsar, he doesn't "think it's good to create a society where people get jobs based on who you know rather than what you can do". Did his daughters have any special qualities? Was there anything in particular that they could do? Or did they simply know someone?My honest advice, if you missed James Caan on the Today programme is to do yourself a favour and leave it that way. The entrepreneur and former Dragons' Den panellist was explaining to the world why it was fine for him to employ his own daughters, when just the day before he had explained to the world that, as the government's new social mobility tsar, he doesn't "think it's good to create a society where people get jobs based on who you know rather than what you can do". Did his daughters have any special qualities? Was there anything in particular that they could do? Or did they simply know someone?
It's meant to be enjoyable, listening to a hypocrite wriggling on a hook, but the arguments parents use for having one rule for their own children, and another, harsher, more difficult rule for everybody else's, always fill me with a sour, acrid, unproductive rage. They turn me into the kind of lefty that people on the right accuse us all of being, whenever we deviate from the script of self-interest: bitter and envious, always with a jealous eye on other people's good fortune rather than making our own. It isn't envy, but I don't want to be that person. I don't want to care what James Caan's daughters get up to. I'm forced to by the starkness of his double standards; not to choke on his rhetoric is, de facto, to swallow it.It's meant to be enjoyable, listening to a hypocrite wriggling on a hook, but the arguments parents use for having one rule for their own children, and another, harsher, more difficult rule for everybody else's, always fill me with a sour, acrid, unproductive rage. They turn me into the kind of lefty that people on the right accuse us all of being, whenever we deviate from the script of self-interest: bitter and envious, always with a jealous eye on other people's good fortune rather than making our own. It isn't envy, but I don't want to be that person. I don't want to care what James Caan's daughters get up to. I'm forced to by the starkness of his double standards; not to choke on his rhetoric is, de facto, to swallow it.
Self-defence in a case like this takes one of three forms, and Caan chose the politician's fudge: unformed sentences, conveying nothing, at great length ("My journey, my parents gave me the opportunity to carve my own career forward and I wanted my own children to have the opportunity to identify the right situation for themselves …"); and bridging techniques, where a question about the inequality created by nepotism was hamfistedly turned into a question about the coalition's on-the-hoof policy on apprenticeship.Self-defence in a case like this takes one of three forms, and Caan chose the politician's fudge: unformed sentences, conveying nothing, at great length ("My journey, my parents gave me the opportunity to carve my own career forward and I wanted my own children to have the opportunity to identify the right situation for themselves …"); and bridging techniques, where a question about the inequality created by nepotism was hamfistedly turned into a question about the coalition's on-the-hoof policy on apprenticeship.
As clumsy, shameless and anti-intellectual as it is, I marginally prefer this approach to the "Diane Abbott", where you ascribe your parental hypocrisy to either some special quality of yours (she had to send her son to a private school, because "West Indian mums will go to the wall for their children") or, more usually, some special quality of your child's (where they have to be privately educated, or you have to give them a job in your company, because they are too talented or too sensitive for the rough and tumble of normal life. An amusing side effect of this argument is that private schools are now routinely portrayed as places where everybody is always nice and bullying doesn't exist.)As clumsy, shameless and anti-intellectual as it is, I marginally prefer this approach to the "Diane Abbott", where you ascribe your parental hypocrisy to either some special quality of yours (she had to send her son to a private school, because "West Indian mums will go to the wall for their children") or, more usually, some special quality of your child's (where they have to be privately educated, or you have to give them a job in your company, because they are too talented or too sensitive for the rough and tumble of normal life. An amusing side effect of this argument is that private schools are now routinely portrayed as places where everybody is always nice and bullying doesn't exist.)
The Clegg line is the straightforward "I just want the best for my child, and that's exactly what I think most people want for their children as well". He's right, goddamn him, me too! I just want what's best for my child. I would love to see my children pass through life on a completely frictionless path, from one joyous, successful event to the next. I would love to set up a free school that specialised only in the things my children were good at, and allowed in other children simply as playtoys for my own. If someone killed one of my children, I would murder that person. I'm sure Nick Clegg and James Caan would do the same.The Clegg line is the straightforward "I just want the best for my child, and that's exactly what I think most people want for their children as well". He's right, goddamn him, me too! I just want what's best for my child. I would love to see my children pass through life on a completely frictionless path, from one joyous, successful event to the next. I would love to set up a free school that specialised only in the things my children were good at, and allowed in other children simply as playtoys for my own. If someone killed one of my children, I would murder that person. I'm sure Nick Clegg and James Caan would do the same.
This is what we call the "human condition". If we accept that civilisation is by far the most pleasant way to live, we have to accept that the white heat of parental passion should be tempered into something that improves things for all of our children. We have the rule of law, in place of vigilante parents going round killing criminals; we pool our resources to build education and health systems, rather than consign our children to the perilous, atavistic world they'd have to live in if only the rich ones could go to school and have medicine. We control our self-interest in order to build systems, and then we put our faith in those systems.This is what we call the "human condition". If we accept that civilisation is by far the most pleasant way to live, we have to accept that the white heat of parental passion should be tempered into something that improves things for all of our children. We have the rule of law, in place of vigilante parents going round killing criminals; we pool our resources to build education and health systems, rather than consign our children to the perilous, atavistic world they'd have to live in if only the rich ones could go to school and have medicine. We control our self-interest in order to build systems, and then we put our faith in those systems.
It is absolutely true that inequalities will grow if the connected kids get all the best jobs; but it's also true that the more unequal the world looks, the more parents will fight to get their kids into the top tier. The solution that suits politicians is to maintain that the systems would all work if only individual parents would behave more altruistically. But if you're asking for behaviour from parents that you can't exhibit yourself (even with, presumably, a number of friends who could provide intern opportunities so that your daughters could "identify the right situation"), you must, unavoidably, reach the conclusion that there is something wrong with the system.It is absolutely true that inequalities will grow if the connected kids get all the best jobs; but it's also true that the more unequal the world looks, the more parents will fight to get their kids into the top tier. The solution that suits politicians is to maintain that the systems would all work if only individual parents would behave more altruistically. But if you're asking for behaviour from parents that you can't exhibit yourself (even with, presumably, a number of friends who could provide intern opportunities so that your daughters could "identify the right situation"), you must, unavoidably, reach the conclusion that there is something wrong with the system.
And lo, there is. Internships shouldn't exist at all. Nobody should have to work for free. Nobody should be expected to bear the cost of their training at the start of their career. It's perfectly plain that this will rake society in favour of the rich, as if things weren't raked steeply enough in their favour already.And lo, there is. Internships shouldn't exist at all. Nobody should have to work for free. Nobody should be expected to bear the cost of their training at the start of their career. It's perfectly plain that this will rake society in favour of the rich, as if things weren't raked steeply enough in their favour already.
This is why me-first behaviour from political insiders is so enraging; not for the hypocrisy, since what do I care about their natures? It is enraging because they're in charge of the system; they preside over these situations that create great chasms between one child and another. Rather than advance change, they merely do what they have to do for the good of their own, quietly.This is why me-first behaviour from political insiders is so enraging; not for the hypocrisy, since what do I care about their natures? It is enraging because they're in charge of the system; they preside over these situations that create great chasms between one child and another. Rather than advance change, they merely do what they have to do for the good of their own, quietly.
Twitter: @zoesqwilliamsTwitter: @zoesqwilliams
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.