The Establishment Is Not What You Think It Is

Why the modern Establishment is a worldview, not a class – and why that makes it so hard to escape.

Introduction – The Establishment Is Not What People Think It Is

Everyone claims to know what “the Establishment” is. Politicians campaign against it. Commentators blame it. Voters distrust it. Reformers promise to dismantle it. Yet when pressed to define it, most people reach for different answers – government, elites, the civil service, the media, finance, the judiciary, universities, “the blob”, or some hidden network of insiders.

All of these interpretations contain fragments of truth – but none of them capture the whole.

The Establishment is also the “they” that appears in countless political conversations. When people say “they won’t allow it”, “they don’t understand”, “they’ve already decided”, or “they’ll never let that happen”, they are usually trying to describe a force that feels real but is difficult to identify.

When challenged to explain who “they” are, many people struggle – not because they are foolish, irrational or imagining things, but because they are trying to describe a worldview as if it were a group of people. They can see the effects. They simply lack the language to explain the mechanism.

That is what the word “they” often signifies: an awareness of power without a clear map of how that power works. It is a tell. People know, at some level, that something larger than any one minister, party, company or institution is shaping outcomes. The mistake is not sensing it. The mistake is assuming it must be a single hidden group rather than a shared operating system.

The real Establishment is a worldview. A way of thinking. A mental operating system.

It is not a group of people. It is not a secret bunker. It is not a coordinated conspiracy.

It is a belief system that has become so dominant, so embedded, and so pervasive that it shapes everything – including many of the people who think they’re fighting it.

The Old Establishment: A Visible Hierarchy

Historically, the Establishment was simple:

aristocracy
inherited power
the Church
the military
the judiciary
Whitehall mandarins
elite universities
old boys’ networks

It was a visible hierarchy. You could point at it. You could name it. You could see who was in and who was out.

This is the Establishment people still imagine – even though it no longer exists in that form.

The Modern Perception: A Spectrum, Not a Consensus

Today, people see the Establishment through very different lenses.

1. Those who benefit from the system

They see the Establishment as:

competent
stabilising
necessary
expert
responsible

They trust it because it works for them.

2. Those harmed or excluded

They see it as:

distant
unaccountable
elitist
opaque
indifferent

They experience its decisions as disconnected from real life.

3. Those who see conspiracy

They imagine:

puppet‑masters
hidden committees
coordinated elites

This is understandable – the system behaves in ways that look coordinated – but it is not accurate.

4. Those who think they’re outside but are actually inside

This includes:

anti‑establishment politicians
populists
disruptors
commentators

They believe they are fighting the Establishment. But their actions, not their words, reveal that they operate fully within its worldview.

This is not unique to one party, faction or ideology. A politician can denounce “the elites” while still judging success by market confidence. A newspaper can attack bureaucrats while still treating financial credibility as the final test of seriousness. A reformer can call for renewal while still assuming that centralised management, competitive funding, external consultancy and measurable outputs are the only acceptable forms of action.

The important point is not the behaviour of one individual, but the wider pattern: much of what presents itself as anti‑establishment politics is actually a more intense expression of the same underlying worldview.

5. Those who see clearly but cannot escape

Analysts, academics, journalists and reformers may understand parts of the system, but still live inside it.

Because unless you become an off‑grid hermit, you cannot avoid interacting with the Establishment.

It is not something you leave. It is something you wake up inside.

The Real Establishment: A Worldview That Saturates Everything

The modern Establishment is not a group. It is a belief system.

By “worldview”, I do not mean a formal doctrine or a book of rules. I mean a shared set of assumptions about what is realistic, responsible, credible, modern and possible.

A worldview is powerful precisely because it usually does not feel ideological to those inside it. It feels like common sense.

It is a worldview built around:

market primacy
financial credibility
growth as the unquestioned good
competition as the organising principle
state restraint
technocratic management
institutional self‑protection
distance from consequences

This worldview has become the centre of gravity for anyone who wants to succeed in politics, media, finance, business, or public institutions.

It is not enforced by conspiracy. It is enforced by incentives.

How the Establishment Was Captured: The Slow, Invisible Drift

The capture was not deliberate. It was not planned. It was not coordinated.

It was a slow drift driven by:

globalisation
financialisation
deregulation
privatisation
market‑centric policy design
media consolidation
think‑tank influence
political professionalisation
legislative entrenchment

Over decades, the worldview became:

normal
sensible
realistic
responsible
inevitable

This is cognitive capture – not a personal failing, but a structural condition.

Here, “capture” should not be read as a claim that one group seized control of everything. It is more subtle than that.

It is the process by which institutions, careers, policy choices and public language gradually align around the same underlying assumptions until alternatives appear naive, dangerous or unserious.

People didn’t choose the worldview. They inherited it. They were rewarded for it. They were insulated by it. They were promoted for it. They were praised for it.

It became the mental furniture of their lives.

Cognitive Capture – The Human Mechanism Behind the System

This is the part many of us may find hardest to accept. Not because it is an accusation, but because it asks us to recognise something uncomfortable: if we live and work inside today’s version of normal life, then we have almost certainly been shaped by the Establishment worldview in some way.

That does not make us foolish, corrupt or guilty. It makes us human. But it does mean that real change cannot begin while we continue to tell ourselves that everything is basically fine, or that the system is only temporarily out of sync, or that the problem is simply the wrong government, the wrong leader, or the wrong party.

Deep down, many people already know this is no longer enough. The unease is not just political disappointment. It is the recognition that something more fundamental has stopped working.

Cognitive capture does not mean people are:

stupid
corrupt
malicious
incompetent

It means:

The system shapes how people think, and they don’t realise it because it feels like reality.

Anyone can be shaped by a system this pervasive.

This worldview becomes:

familiar
rewarded
reinforced
socially validated
professionally required

This is why even intelligent, well‑intentioned people struggle to imagine alternatives.

And this is why telling people “you’re captured” feels insulting – because it sounds like saying they don’t understand their own world.

But the truth is gentler:

Everyone is shaped by the systems they inhabit. Some systems are just more pervasive than others.

The Anti-Establishment Paradox: Why Rebels Reinforce the System

This is one of the most important dynamics.

Many “anti‑establishment” actors:

use establishment logic
reinforce establishment incentives
pursue establishment definitions of success
rely on establishment structures
defend establishment assumptions

They think they’re outside. But they’re inside.

The paradox can be seen repeatedly in modern politics.

Many figures present themselves as insurgents, outsiders or challengers of the Establishment. They speak the language of disruption, renewal and rebellion. Yet when examined more closely, their proposed solutions often rely upon the same assumptions, incentives and measures of success that define the existing system.

In some cases, they are not challenging the Establishment worldview at all. They are intensifying it. They push its logic further, pursue its assumptions more aggressively, and then interpret the resulting resistance as evidence of conspiracy or institutional sabotage.

This is why anti‑establishment rhetoric is not the same thing as anti‑establishment thinking. Some of the people waiting in line to inherit power may be more deeply embedded in the worldview than many of the people who currently hold it.

This is the paradox:

People who think they’re outside are often the ones most deeply inside.

And the most chilling part:

Even those who can see the system clearly are still inside it, because the Establishment exists in the assumptions, incentives and institutions that shape ordinary life.

Unless you become a literal hermit, you cannot avoid interacting with it.

How the Establishment Works: The Operating System of Society

The Establishment operates through:

incentives
norms
legislation
finance
institutional culture

professional pathways
institutional memory
risk aversion
narrative control

This creates a self‑reinforcing loop:

The worldview shapes institutions.
Institutions reward conformity.
Conformity strengthens the worldview.
The worldview becomes invisible.
The system becomes fragile but self‑protecting.
Attempts to challenge it are absorbed or neutralised.
Anti‑establishment actors end up reinforcing it.
The worldview becomes even more entrenched.

It behaves like a deep state even though it isn’t one.

How the Establishment Shapes Everyday Life

The worldview defines:

housing
healthcare
education
wages
taxation
public services
infrastructure
media narratives
political debate
what counts as “affordable”
what counts as “possible”
what counts as “responsible”

People feel the consequences:

rising costs
stagnant wages
degraded services
insecure work
unaffordable housing
shrinking local government
political cynicism
social fragmentation

But they rarely see the worldview behind it.

This is why “they” is such a revealing word. People feel decisions arriving from somewhere, but the source is dispersed across policy, finance, professional norms, media narratives, institutional habits and inherited assumptions. The power is real, but it is distributed. It speaks through many mouths while often belonging to no single person.

This is where abstract language becomes concrete. Housing is not simply a market outcome; it is the result of land policy, credit conditions, planning rules, investment incentives and political tolerance for scarcity. Public services are not merely “inefficient”; they reflect choices about taxation, outsourcing, central control, workforce morale and what forms of care are valued. Local government does not shrink by accident; it shrinks when national systems treat local capacity as a cost rather than as democratic infrastructure.

Why the Establishment’s Belief System Has Reached Its Limit

The worldview appears to have reached its limit because:

the economic model is fragile
the social contract is fraying
public trust has weakened sharply
inequality has widened
services have degraded
infrastructure is under visible strain
markets are volatile
the worldview struggles to solve the problems it helped create
each crisis leaves the system with less room for manoeuvre

This is not merely a mood. Recent UK evidence points in the same direction: official statistics show that homes remain unaffordable for many households; public attitude research has recorded deep dissatisfaction with major services and low trust in governing arrangements; and income research has shown weak living‑standards growth across the period since the financial crisis and through the cost‑of‑living shock.

The system increasingly appears to be defending a model that is struggling to meet the challenges it claims to solve.

None of this proves that every institution is failing, or that every person inside those institutions is acting badly. That would be too crude. The point is narrower and more important: a worldview that promised efficiency, prosperity and competent management now struggles to explain why so many people experience the system as expensive, remote, fragile and unresponsive.

The Strongest Objection

The strongest objection to this argument is that what I am calling an Establishment worldview may simply be the unavoidable logic of a complex modern society. Perhaps advanced economies need expertise, central institutions, financial discipline, legal continuity and professional management. Perhaps markets, whatever their failures, remain the least bad way of coordinating activity at scale. Perhaps the alternative to the current system is not renewal, but chaos.

That objection deserves to be taken seriously. Expertise matters. Institutions matter. Stability matters. The answer is not to romanticise disorder or imagine that sincerity can replace competence.

But this objection only goes so far. The issue is not whether societies need institutions. They do. The issue is what assumptions those institutions are built around, who they are accountable to, what outcomes they privilege, and whether they remain capable of learning from failure. When expertise becomes detached from consequence, when stability protects dysfunction, and when “responsibility” means preserving a failing model, the language of competence becomes part of the problem.

Why Change Requires Awakening, Not Rebellion

Even if a crisis creates the conditions for paradigm change, nothing will change unless enough people:

see the worldview clearly
recognise its limits
recognise its harms
recognise their own participation in it

Otherwise they will:

circle back
rebuild the same logic
re‑establish the same hierarchy
re‑entrench the same worldview

People rebuild the cage from the inside.

Conclusion – The Establishment Is Not Something You Overthrow, It’s Something You Wake Up From

The Establishment is not a deep state. It is a worldview that saturates the entire system. People who think they’re outside are often deeply inside. Even those who see it clearly still have to interact with it. And this is why change is so hard – because the Establishment is not something you defeat, it’s something you outgrow.

Its belief system has reached its limit. The question now is whether enough people can see it clearly enough to imagine something better – not merely a different leader, party or slogan, but a different set of assumptions about how economies, institutions and communities should function.

That is why the direction of travel matters. If the Establishment is a worldview, then meaningful change has to be practical as well as intellectual. It has to ask how value is created locally, how decisions are made, how communities govern themselves, how money circulates, how public capacity is rebuilt, and how institutions become answerable to lived reality rather than insulated from it.

Whether that alternative succeeds is a separate question. But no alternative can emerge until the limitations of the existing worldview are recognised. Before systems can change, assumptions must change. Before new institutions can be built, people must first stop mistaking the existing model for reality itself.

Next Step

For a more practical exploration of the direction implied by this argument, see the following text on local economy and governance:

The Local Economy & Governance System | Online Text

The Establishment Is Not What You Think It Is PDF_Vers1_15Jul26 Download

The Split in Britain That Millions Feel – and Millions Fear

Most people can feel that something in Britain isn’t working anymore. Life feels harder, more stressful, more insecure. People are tired, worried, and stretched thin. But when they try to explain why, the answers they’re given never quite fit.

We’re told the country is divided – north vs south, young vs old, graduates vs non‑graduates, public sector vs private sector. But none of these really explain what people are living through.

The truth is simpler, and more uncomfortable:

Britain is already split into two groups – those the system works for, and those it doesn’t.

And most people don’t realise which side they’re actually on.

Why the Real Divide Is Hard to See

The divide isn’t obvious because it’s not about what people look like.

It’s not about identity, background, or culture.

It’s not even about politics.

It’s about security.

Some people have it.

Most people don’t.

And the gap between the two groups is growing.

But because everyone mixes together – at work, in shops, on the school run – it’s easy to assume we’re all living the same kind of life.

We’re not.

Why People Argue About the Wrong Things

A lot of public debate focuses on visible differences – race, gender, culture, lifestyle, opinions.

These topics stir emotion, so they dominate the headlines. But they distract from the thing that shapes people’s lives far more than any identity label:

Money.

Not in a greedy sense – in a survival sense.

Money decides:

whether you sleep at night
whether you can cope with a shock
whether you can plan for the future
whether you feel safe
whether you feel judged
whether you feel like you’re failing

And because money is the value system society runs on, it quietly sorts people into two groups long before anyone realises it’s happening.

The System Only Works by Squeezing People

Here’s the part nobody likes to say out loud:

The system can only make some people wealthy by making everyone else poorer.

That doesn’t mean rich people are bad.

It means the system is built in a way that pushes pressure downward.

Prices rise.

Wages don’t.

Bills go up.

Security goes down.

People work harder.

Life gets tighter.

And the people at the bottom feel it first.

But the pressure doesn’t stop there – it moves upward, squeezing each layer in turn.

Why People Who Look “Fine” Still Feel Terrified

This is where the misunderstanding happens.

Take small business owners.

They often look like they’re doing okay.

But many are barely holding things together.

So when someone says, “The minimum wage isn’t enough to live on,” they don’t think about the worker who can’t pay rent. They think:

“If wages go up, I’ll go under.”

That reaction isn’t selfish.

It’s fear.

They feel the threat immediately and emotionally because they know how close they are to the edge. And that fear blinds them to the reality that millions of people have already been pushed over it.

This is the uncomfortable truth:

Everyone’s problems are connected.

Everyone is being squeezed – just at different stages.

Why So Many People Are Struggling Even When They Work

Most people on benefits are working.

They’re doing everything society told them to do.

But the numbers simply don’t add up.

The minimum wage doesn’t cover the cost of living.

Rent, food, transport, energy – everything costs more than people earn.

So people end up relying on:

benefits
debt
charity
family support
or going without

And instead of asking why the system produces this outcome, society blames the people trapped in it.

They’re judged.

They’re shamed.

They’re treated as if they’ve failed.

But they haven’t failed.

The system has.

The Myth That Keeps People Blaming Themselves

We’re told that life works like this:

Get qualifications → get a career → earn money → build a life → be happy

But this only works for some people.

Many are vocational, not academic.

Many never had the stability to study.

Many grew up in chaos, poverty, or caring roles.

Many simply weren’t given the same chances.

Yet the system values what can be measured – certificates, grades, titles – not the real skills people have.

So whole groups of people get left behind, not because they lack ability, but because they lack paperwork.

And then they’re told it’s their fault.

Why Mental Health Is Collapsing

When you live in a system where:

you can’t keep up
you can’t get ahead
you can’t rest
you can’t plan
you can’t afford a mistake
you can’t escape judgement

…it breaks something inside you.

People think they’re failing personally.

But they’re not.

They’re living in a system that demands more than human beings can give.

That’s why anxiety, depression, burnout, and hopelessness are everywhere.

It’s not an epidemic of weakness.

It’s an epidemic of pressure.

The Future People Fear Is Already Here

A lot of people worry about a future where technology creates a world for the “haves” and leaves the “have‑nots” behind.

But the truth is:

That divide already exists.

AI didn’t create it.

Automation didn’t create it.

The system did.

Technology will widen the gap – but it won’t start it.

And here’s the twist:

The people who think they’re safe – the professionals, the knowledge workers, the middle layers – may soon find themselves on the wrong side of the divide they never noticed.

Not because they changed.

But because the system did.

So What Is the Real Divide?

It’s not left vs right.

It’s not identity vs identity.

It’s not culture vs culture.

The real divide is:

Those the system protects

and

Those the system exposes.

Some people have security.

Most people don’t.

And the line between the two is moving fast.

Why We Need to See It

People suffer alone because they think their struggle is personal.

They think they’re the only ones falling behind.

They think everyone else is coping.

But the truth is:

Millions of people are living the same story.

The only difference is where they are on the slope.

If we don’t see the real divide, we can’t fix it.

If we keep fighting over the wrong differences, the system will keep squeezing everyone.

Recognising the split isn’t about blame.

It’s about clarity.

It’s about dignity.

It’s about rebuilding a society where people can breathe again.

Because the split isn’t coming.

It’s already here.

And it affects far more people than they realise.

The Split in Britain PDF_Vers1_22May26 Download

The Real Two‑Tier Britain: The Split We Still Refuse to See

We like to believe that if something is real, we would see it. That a divide in society would be obvious, visible, tangible.

But the most profound changes in a nation rarely announce themselves. They creep in quietly, shaping lives long before anyone realises what has happened.

Today, Britain is already a split society – not becoming one, not drifting toward one, but living fully inside one. And the reason most people cannot see it is simple: we have been conditioned to look at the wrong differences.

The real divide is structural, economic, and existential. It is the difference between those the system rewards and those it punishes. And the split is widening every day.

The Blindfold of Visible Differences

We live in a culture obsessed with what can be seen. Identity, labels, categories, tribes – the system elevates these differences because they are emotional, dramatic, and endlessly distracting.

Diversity, in its current institutionalised form, has become a paradox. It celebrates difference while deepening division. It elevates identity markers that have no bearing on power, security, or opportunity, while ignoring the structural forces that determine all three.

These visible differences become the battlegrounds of public life. They stir emotion. They create polarity. They keep people fighting each other instead of questioning the system that shapes them both.

Meanwhile, the real difference – the one that defines who thrives and who suffers -remains invisible.

The Narrative That Keeps Us Looking the Wrong Way

We have reached a point where people believe only the stories told by the “right” voices.

Narratives have become truth, and truth has become whatever fits the narrative.

“Two‑tier Britain” is a perfect example. It is used as a political weapon, usually to attack public services or to frame cultural grievances.

But this version of the divide is superficial. It points at symptoms, not causes. It directs attention toward institutions and away from the system that governs them all.

Partial truths are accepted because they feel familiar. But they stop people from seeing the bigger picture – the one that explains why life feels harder, more insecure, and more exhausting for almost everyone.

The Emotional Logic of Those Who Still Think They’re Safe

What makes the real divide even harder to see is the way people who appear to be “doing fine” respond when the conversation turns to money.

For example, mention that the minimum wage is not enough to live on, and many small business owners – themselves squeezed by rising costs, falling margins, and relentless pressure – immediately reframe the issue in terms of what a higher wage would do to them.

Their fear is real. Their anxiety is justified. But it also reveals something deeper: they sense, at an emotional level, how close they are to the edge. And that fear blinds them to the lived reality of those who have already been pushed across the divide.

Instead of seeing a system that is failing everyone, they see a threat to their own fragile stability.

Their reaction is not selfishness; it is survival. But it illustrates the wider truth: the problems faced by those on the “wrong side” of the divide are directly connected to the pressures felt by those who still believe they are on the right side.

Everyone is being squeezed – just at different stages of the same process.

This is the interdependence nobody talks about: the suffering of one group is the shadow cast by the insecurity of another.

The Money System: The Quiet Engine of the Real Divide

Here is the truth that sits beneath everything else:

The system can only make some wealthy by progressively making everyone else poor.

This is not ideology. It is mechanics.

The modern economic model is not a rising tide. It is an extraction machine.

Wealth does not trickle down; it is pulled upward. Gains at the top require losses at the bottom. The system rewards accumulation, not contribution.

And because of this, financial dependence is not a personal failure – it is a structural inevitability.

People are not poor because they made bad choices. They are poor because the system needs them to be.

The national minimum wage for a standard working week is not enough to live independently. That is not an accident. It is a design.

Most people receiving benefits are working. They are contributing. They are doing everything society told them to do. And yet they cannot survive without support, charity, or debt.

Instead of questioning why the system produces this outcome, society blames the people trapped inside it. They are ostracised, shamed, and treated as morally defective – all while the system quietly ensures they can never escape dependence.

This is not a bug. It is a feature.

The Myth of Meritocracy: The System’s Favourite Lie

We are told that life follows a simple formula:

Qualifications → career → money → status → happiness

This story is comforting. It suggests fairness. It suggests control. It suggests that success is earned and failure is deserved.

But it is a myth.

Many people are vocational, not academic. Many never had the stability, support, or freedom to pursue qualifications. Many grew up in environments where survival came before study.

Yet the system values what is measurable, not what is meaningful.

Experience is devalued because it cannot be quantified.

Human ability is replaced by credentialism.

Entire generations are left behind not because they lack talent, but because they lack paperwork.

And then they are blamed for it.

Keeping Up: The New Survival Game

Even those who appear to be “doing well” are trapped.

The system moves the ground beneath everyone’s feet. Standing still means falling behind.

People who earn good salaries must run faster each year just to maintain the same life.

Mortgages, rents, bills, childcare, transport – everything rises except the sense of security.

Values shift.

Money becomes the only measure of worth.

Success becomes survival.

And survival becomes a full‑time job.

This is not living. It is coping.

The Psychological Toll of a System That Never Stops Taking

The mental health crisis is not a mystery. It is the emotional footprint of an economic system that demands more than human beings can give.

Chronic insecurity becomes normal.

People internalise systemic failure as personal failure.

Shame becomes a constant companion.

Those who fall behind are blamed.

Those who keep up are exhausted.

Those who succeed are anxious about losing everything.

Peace of mind becomes a luxury good.

The Tech Future People Fear Is Already Here – Just Not in the Way They Think

Many people worry that society is drifting toward a tech‑driven future where the “haves” accelerate into a world of automation, AI, and abundance, while the “have‑nots” are left behind in a wasteland of low‑paid work and shrinking opportunity.

But the irony is stark:

The split they fear tomorrow is the split they are already living inside today.

The future people dread – a world divided by access, opportunity, and agency – is not waiting for us. It is here. It has simply been hidden behind distraction, narrative, and the comforting illusion that the playing field still exists.

Lift the stone, shine a light beneath it, and the truth is there in black and white:

A society already divided by a system that sorts people long before technology ever gets the chance.

And the most striking part is how little those on the “right side” of the divide understand the consequences of their own beliefs and actions.

Many genuinely cannot see the damage being done to those already on the wrong side – not because they are cruel, but because the system has insulated them from the realities it creates.

They believe the rules are fair because the rules have worked for them. They believe effort determines outcome because effort has always been rewarded in their world. They believe the system is meritocratic because they have never had to live in the parts of it that are not.

But the ground is shifting.

The split is moving.

And the very people who defend the system most fiercely may soon find themselves on the wrong side of it.

The AI revolution – designed, championed, and accelerated by those currently insulated from harm – is already reshaping the labour market in ways that will not spare them.

Be it through the AI Revolution or as a result of other events, same extractive logic that has hollowed out the lives of the most vulnerable will, in time, turn its attention to the middle layers of society: the professionals, the knowledge workers, the people who once believed they were safe.

They may discover, too late, that they have become part of the same “left behind” Britain they once viewed from a distance.

Not because they changed, but because the system did – and because they never saw the split that was already there, hidden in plain sight.

Why We Don’t See It – And Why We Must

The system hides the real divide behind a theatre of false differences.

It keeps people fighting over identity while it quietly determines their destiny.

It rewards a few by extracting from the many.

It blames the victims and protects the structure.

And because the split is invisible, people suffer alone, believing their struggle is personal rather than systemic.

But the truth is simple:

This divide affects almost everyone.

It is widening.

And it will not close on its own.

To rebuild a society grounded in human values, we must first see the system for what it is – and recognise the split that has already taken hold.

Only then can we begin to close it.

The Real Two Tier Britain PDF_Vers1_22May26 Download

Qualified academically or not, we are all capable of greatness or of being complete and utter fools

Qualified academically or not, we are all capable of greatness or of being complete and utter fools

As humans, we love difference. We love it so much that we use it as a way to qualify other people by colour, gender, sexual orientation, financial and material wealth, social background, taste, appearance and in many other ways too.

Many of the benchmarks we carry within our own personal make‑up, as we attribute value to others, are unconscious or, to the world outside us, completely hidden.

The fact that we make these judgements behind closed doors means that no matter how hard do‑gooders attempt to legislate or control our behaviour, controlling other people’s thinking at a personal or private level is a battle that even the most politically correct amongst us will never win.

The obsession with qualifying others

We have become obsessed with legitimising our qualification of others when it suits us. Society provides markers intended to help, yet we use them to create differences that stand far outside their original purpose.

For a long time, academic qualification has increasingly been used as the preferred way to distinguish ability, attitude, application, intelligence and countless other traits. To the audience, these markers become a convenient way to judge whether someone is “qualified” or not.

By bypassing the cold, hard reality that academic qualifications – whether GCSEs, A Levels, Degrees, Masters or PhDs – are simply benchmarks created in someone’s (usually an academic’s) thoughts, the elephants of our society have fallen head over heels into the trap of believing that academic standards portray the genuine quality or value of every individual. They do not.

Angela Rayner and the cruelty of perception

Yesterday, we witnessed these maleficent social anchors at their worst, when Shadow Education Secretary Angela Rayner was ridiculed for having what are considered to be four very poor GCSEs and, academically speaking, no more.

Whilst Labour and their principal spokesperson for Education demonstrate little credibility in terms of the policies they have been putting forward with an eye on the upcoming General Election at their Party Conference this week, there are few of us outside Westminster who could list on one hand the number of politicians from any Party who we could hand‑on‑heart consider credible in fulfilling their roles properly and representing the people well.

Perception is everything – particularly when it comes to the influences on our thinking and lives played out on social media and TV.

Just because an MP or politician looks good on camera, comes across as confident, sounds competent or can boast an academic CV that includes Eton, Oxford or wherever it may be, the reality may be – and in many cases is – that they are not “qualified” by being any such thing.

The lost value of real‑world experience

We have learned, and increasingly been conditioned against, the value of life experience and the practical understanding of people, business, community, and the views that time in the real world brings.

We have reached a stage where we look for things that make high‑profile people stand out for all the wrong reasons, mistakenly thinking those reasons are right.

There is rich irony in the fact that it was the Labour Government of 1997–2010 that pushed qualification bias to its extreme by suggesting that everyone should have a degree.

This malignant and ill‑conceived step has contributed to the biggest shift in perception about what qualifies a person. It has pushed us further away from regarding each individual as equal and the same.

The consequences of commercialised Higher Education

The meddling of Angela Rayner’s political predecessors bears much responsibility for the commercialisation of Higher Education. The rancid truth is that many young people have been condemned to financial servitude by a past Labour Government, encouraged to take degrees that nobody in industry values.

Others are being left behind simply because they are excluded by a system that frowns upon anyone not academically inclined, or because they know that a lifetime of debt is not something they can realistically afford.

Education, in its real sense, is only partially academic. No matter how any person is educated, they are equally capable of greatness or of behaving like fools. The suggestion that people are only capable of anything great if they have good academic qualifications is fundamentally flawed.

A better way forward

When we finally have a Government led by politicians who are responsible and not so easily led, the hard decisions over how we educate and support our young people will be addressed properly.

The focus will return to the basic reality that as teenagers, we are pretty much all either “heads” or “hands”. Once we value the fact that not everyone in their early teens is ready or able to spend another seven years in books, we can get back to providing real parallel educational – not academic – pathways.

Developed properly with business, and with the opportunities that Leaving the EU will give us, rewarding lives for people – whatever their background or birth – will, for many more of them, be fully assured.

Qualified academically or not 24Sep19 PDF_Vers2_17Jul26 Download