Skip to main content

Tory leaders intellectual lightweights and student yobs?

Wikileaks: We discover Obama sees the Tory team as "lightweights" and that Mervyn King said about Cameron and Osborne that they had a "lack of experience and tendency to see issues only in terms of politics".

Osborne had also been identified by Labour as the "weak link" in a supposedly already intellectually dubious team.

Incidentally, George Osborne did not just change his name from Gideon. It's a very little know fact that Osborne also changed degree part way through. He switched to Modern History while at Oxford (from PPE, I believe - Politics, Philosophy and Economics). Switching degrees after the first year is a fairly unusual thing to do, usually prevented or at least strongly discouraged by colleges and universities unless there are very good reasons for doing so. But who knows the actual reason for George's switch? So far I have only heard a very interesting as yet unsubstantiated report from a contemporary of his that he switched because he found the economics too hard. Be very interested to hear from anyone else who knows more about George's reasons for switching degree after a year....

Perhaps, as is widely suspected, Osborne is not the sharpest pencil in the box. But student yob? Before pointing a finger at students who broke windows in the recent tuition fee protests, indignant Tories should note that Osborne was a member of the notorious Bullingdon Club while at Oxford. Here's wiki:

The Bullingdon Club is a socially exclusive student dining club at Oxford University. The club has no permanent rooms and is notorious for its members' wealth and destructive binges. [1] Membership is by invitation only, and prohibitively expensive for most, given the need to pay for the uniform, dinners and damages.[2]

Yes, damages:

Today, the Bullingdon is primarily a dining club, though a vestige of the Club's sporting links exists in the support of an annual point to point race. The Club President, known as the General, presents the winner's cup and the Club members meet there for a champagne breakfast. The Club also meets for an annual Club dinner. Guests may be invited to either of these events. There may also be smaller dinners during the year to mark the initiation of new members. Membership elections are held twice a year, when successful new members are visited in their rooms, which are then 'trashed' as a symbol of their election. The Club's modus operandi has often been to book a private dining room under an assumed name, as most restaurateurs are wary of the Club's reputation for causing considerable drunken damage during the course of the dinners.

Andrew Gimson, biographer of Boris Johnson [also a member], reported about the club in the 1980s [when George Osborne was a member S.L.]: "I don't think an evening would have ended without a restaurant being trashed and being paid for in full, very often in cash. [...]

The difference between these toffs and the recently protesting students who broke some windows is, I suppose, that the latter didn't brandish a wad of notes afterwards and say, "There you are my good man - that should take care of it. Now fuck off."

Photo is of Osborne in his Bullingdon club outfit. Cameron was a member too.

The New York Times told its readers in 1913 that "The Bullingdon represents the acme of exclusiveness at Oxford; it is the club of the sons of nobility, the sons of great wealth; its membership represents the 'young bloods' of the university".[9]

The acme of exclusiveness indeed.


Anonymous said…
I switched degrees after a year of Psychology at Bristol University. I went on to do two years of Philosophy Does that make me a lightweight? Possibly.

best wishes,
Nigel (Warburton) aka Virtual Philosopher
Stephen Law said…
Depends on why you did it. I have been given an explanation by a contemporary of his, but it has yet to be confirmed.
Joe Otten said…
I thought it was a widely spread rumour that Osborne changed from economics to history because economics was too hard.

Luckily Danny Alexander, David Laws and Vince Cable are there to do all the hard thinking.

I met Vince once, before the election and asked him if Osborne was only there as Cameron's mini-me. He disagreed saying Osborne was actually very bright.

Oh well. What to believe? Maybe I'll just have to focus on the politics instead.
Anonymous said…
I changed from Electronics Engineering to Computer Science, and studied some Psychology and Eastern Philosophy.

Reality is a system, mind is a system.Information is a system, even a system is a system.

Andre Gares, former UnB student.
Rob said…
who cares? Get a life would you?
Chris Horner said…
I switched from English to Philosophy. Not sure of my weight status -but I never regretted the change.

Popular posts from this blog


(Published in Faith and Philosophy 2011. Volume 28, Issue 2, April 2011. Stephen Law. Pages 129-151) EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS Stephen Law Abstract The vast majority of Biblical historians believe there is evidence sufficient to place Jesus’ existence beyond reasonable doubt. Many believe the New Testament documents alone suffice firmly to establish Jesus as an actual, historical figure. I question these views. In particular, I argue (i) that the three most popular criteria by which various non-miraculous New Testament claims made about Jesus are supposedly corroborated are not sufficient, either singly or jointly, to place his existence beyond reasonable doubt, and (ii) that a prima facie plausible principle concerning how evidence should be assessed – a principle I call the contamination principle – entails that, given the large proportion of uncorroborated miracle claims made about Jesus in the New Testament documents, we should, in the absence of indepen

What is Humanism?

What is Humanism? “Humanism” is a word that has had and continues to have a number of meanings. The focus here is on kind of atheistic world-view espoused by those who organize and campaign under that banner in the UK and abroad. We should acknowledge that there remain other uses of term. In one of the loosest senses of the expression, a “Humanist” is someone whose world-view gives special importance to human concerns, values and dignity. If that is what a Humanist is, then of course most of us qualify as Humanists, including many religious theists. But the fact remains that, around the world, those who organize under the label “Humanism” tend to sign up to a narrower, atheistic view. What does Humanism, understood in this narrower way, involve? The boundaries of the concept remain somewhat vague and ambiguous. However, most of those who organize under the banner of Humanism would accept the following minimal seven-point characterization of their world-view.

Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism refuted

Here's my central criticism of Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (EAAN). It's novel and was published in Analysis last year. Here's the gist. Plantinga argues that if naturalism and evolution are true, then semantic epiphenomenalism is very probably true - that's to say, the content of our beliefs does not causally impinge on our behaviour. And if semantic properties such as having such-and-such content or being true cannot causally impinge on behaviour, then they cannot be selected for by unguided evolution. Plantinga's argument requires, crucially, that there be no conceptual links between belief content and behaviour of a sort that it's actually very plausible to suppose exist (note that to suppose there are such conceptual links is not necessarily to suppose that content can be exhaustively captured in terms of behaviour or functional role, etc. in the way logical behaviourists or functionalists suppose). It turns o