Welcome to the chumocracy. Credit: Luke MacGregor/Bloomberg via Getty

Good God, I thought as the news broke yesterday morning, is there nothing the man can’t do? George Osborne, one-time Chancellor of the Exchequer and architect of the austerity programme little loved by the nation’s cultural institutions, has added to his portfolio of part-time jobs by becoming the Chairman of the British Museum.
What is it, you might wonder, that makes Mr Osborne the best qualified person to do this job? Does he spend his idle hours thinking about the best way to facilitate the curation of valuable collections and the ethics of repatriating plundered antiquities? Is he a scholar of archaeology and an expert on the way museums are run around the world? Does he have outstanding contacts in the arts world? Or is he, rather, The Right Sort Of Chap?
This appointment reminds us that the economy in this country is essentially divided in two. There’s a very big bit of it, involving most people, where you are expected to develop skills in a particular job. You train as a doctor or a lawyer, or you apprentice as a stacker of shelves or a maker of widgets. If things go well, you steadily ascend the ladder of your chosen career, becoming more senior and better paid. If things go badly — say, they invent a robot that can do the same job more cheaply, or people cease to want coal dug out of the ground — you are stuffed. You have to “retrain”, to move into another sector.
Then there’s this small other part of the economy — which is, incidentally, the part in charge — where you need no specific skills at all. It is about being, like George, The Right Sort Of Chap. You have ascended to a level of seniority by sucking up to the right people and getting in the right gang — and once you’ve made it, you’ve made it. Being The Right Sort Of Chap trumps any domain-specific knowledge or experience. You will swan into one board-level job or consulting gig after another. What they want is your contacts in the corridors of power and your name on the letterhead.
The Right Sort of Chap is a part of the nepotistic, private-school-dominated establishment, in which your path is eased by knowing the right people and projecting the right front (as a public-school educated brat myself I check my privilege in that department); but they’re what you might think of as the god-tier version. Public school chutzpah can help get you to the top of a profession; Right Sort Of Chapness, once you’ve got there, renders your specific profession irrelevant. You can run companies, newspapers, universities, cultural institutions or countries with equal confidence.
Sometimes people make it to this stage by toiling up through the first section of the economy and reaching escape velocity: they are at board level in their chosen industry and find themselves, in the silver back end of their career, accumulating seats in the Lords, directorships and chairs here there and everywhere. There’s the assumption, perhaps not always wrong, that corporate governance is a transferable skill. And there’s the agreeable sense that if you sit on each other’s remuneration committees everyone can be accommodated in a civilised way.
But some, like our George, get there with no very concrete sign of prior achievement at all. Having struggled to get anywhere in journalism (turned down for this trainee scheme; turned down for that job; reduced to freelance shifts on the Telegraph diary — and some of us know what that’s like) he plunged into Conservative Central Office as a young thing and ended up scooting up the political ladder with the Notting Hill Tory chumocracy. Right place, right time, right pals. He was now The Right Sort Of Chap.
He had a golden few years in Cabinet and then, having bished up the Brexit campaign and seen his main patron throw in the towel, he started rampaging through the private sector, where former Chancellors of the Exchequer command a premium. Adviser to a handful of venture capital outfits; chair of a think-tank; honorary professor here; visiting fellow there. Why wouldn’t he end up editing the Evening Standard or chairing the BM as a sideline?
Propriety requires me to make a declaration of interest here: George fired me as a columnist from the Evening Standard. I don’t spend a lot of time plotting his downfall, but I can’t pretend I wouldn’t smirk if I read that he’d fallen down an open manhole. Still, the evidence that he was a poor editor of that paper is abundant even if, in firing me, he showed he was capable of making the odd sensible decision.
Having never been a proper journalist, he didn’t seem to get the idea that you’re not supposed to compromise editorial independence to suck up to friends, political allies and other employers of the editor. The coverage of Uber and Google and various other concerns was, we can say, suboptimal. But the Standard’s editorship, for George, was not so much a job as an influence-peddling sideline in any case; the main gig was a £650,000, three-day a week consultancy for the fund manager BlackRock, along with a by then uncountable number of other jobs whose highish salaries and lowish actual-work requirements were the main thing they had in common. And in this, he was not an outlier but a representative.
The Right Sort Of Chap principle runs through British public life like the lettering through a stick of Brighton rock. It starts early: once you’ve finagled your way into one of the great universities, you can often make a quick change of course. I remember watching contemporaries do so with something like awe. You got into Oxford to do, say, Theology against less than stiff competition — but now you’ve decided you’d prefer to study PPE, so you switch. Tough luck on the suckers who applied to that vastly oversubscribed course in the first place and didn’t get in.
At the end of it you get a milk-round job in a big five consultancy where — nice suit, middling degree from a good university — you’re sent out to advise professional businesspeople on how to run businesses. Consultancy, as a burgeoning profession in public and business life, more or less enshrines the principle that Right-Sort-Of-Chapness trumps actual knowledge or experience. By then, you’re on your way — set up for a sideways jump into politics.
After all, the principle continues at the most senior levels of governance — and is, on the face of it, an extremely odd one. Once you’re in the cabinet (and don’t let’s get started on the track records that gave us the likes of Gavin Williamson, Matt Hancock and Priti Patel in their current seniority), you can be reshuffled to any portfolio at all. The quite absurd assumption is that the skills that outfit you to get in with the right gang in politics will outfit you to take any role in government. There will be first-year undergraduates who have a better grasp of economics than you — but the PM owes you one and you didn’t shit the bed as minister for fun, so boom: you’re Chancellor of the Exchequer.
These moves are not made on the basis of the candidate’s suitability for a given role but for reasons of Prime Ministerial patronage (it was a happy accident that when he became Chancellor, Gordon Brown was the sort of fellow who read books about post-neoclassical endogenous growth theory). And it’s for the same reasons that, rather than keep cabinet ministers in one department for many years so they actually learn something, they’re often as not bounced into a new one after a couple of years. That’s why we get Welsh Secretaries who don’t know the Welsh national anthem, trade ministers who haven’t grasped the importance of the Dover to Calais route and Northern Ireland ministers who haven’t quite got round to reading the Good Friday Agreement.
This government has been even keener than most on the Right Sort Of Chap principle, even extending it to the awarding of public contracts during the pandemic. Companies with no experience of making PPE, or in some cases no experience of making anything at all, were awarded multi-million pound contracts to have a bash at it on the apparent basis that they drank in the same pub as a cabinet minister, or were mates with Dominic Cummings, or had the PM’s mobile number. And failure — as everyone from Serco or G4S to Matt (“totally fucking hopeless”) Hancock knows — is no obstacle to continuing in post.
Dido Harding is perhaps the outstanding example of the Right Sort Of Chap. She, too, made the right friends at university. She did her apprenticeship in consultancy, and there followed a merry-go-round of board-level appointments at which she was, mostly, heroically useless (notoriously presiding over the TalkTalk data loss fiasco). She failed upwards to become a Tory peer and, again with no domain-specific experience, was put in charge of Test and Trace — which had the distinction of being one of the most spectacular failures in the long catalogue of governmental failures during the pandemic. Not, apparently, troubled by self-reflection, she’s now campaigning to be put in charge of the whole NHS. She’ll probably get the job. And if she doesn’t, perhaps George will see her right with a senior role at the British Museum.
After all, he is part of an establishment that operates on the blithe assumption that all skills are transferable, that an aptitude for political schmoozing magically confers any number of lesser competences on its owner — and that the Right Sort of Chap is the right person for the job, even if they’ve proved otherwise, time and again.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeIt’s not just Holly. The entire British state does this. Every time I go back to England I’m always amazed and disheartened by the amount of scolding and proselytizing I see on TV and big billboards. It’s quite pervasive, but I wonder if the general public is either affected by it or just ignores it. A lot of it is overly sentimental and maudlin in a way that is peculiar to Britain.
Yep. It seems as if, ever since the “wrong” vote was made by so many (obviously uninformed) people, we have been bombarded with infantilising messages. Turbo-charged by the pandemic response (where to stand, which way to walk, how to wash your hands, how to sneeze safely, etc), the public is given no credit for being able to think, rationalise and respond. We are treated, as the author says, “as a passive vessel, a lump of clay moulded and shaped by everything that has happened to you”. Personally, I like to think I have a little more conscious control over my life.
Consider yourself fortunate that you apparently don’t have the BBC on your doorstep. Non-stop WokeWashing, anti-Brexit propaganda and decolonising agenda inserted into every possible subject area.
Yep. It seems as if, ever since the “wrong” vote was made by so many (obviously uninformed) people, we have been bombarded with infantilising messages. Turbo-charged by the pandemic response (where to stand, which way to walk, how to wash your hands, how to sneeze safely, etc), the public is given no credit for being able to think, rationalise and respond. We are treated, as the author says, “as a passive vessel, a lump of clay moulded and shaped by everything that has happened to you”. Personally, I like to think I have a little more conscious control over my life.
Consider yourself fortunate that you apparently don’t have the BBC on your doorstep. Non-stop WokeWashing, anti-Brexit propaganda and decolonising agenda inserted into every possible subject area.
It’s not just Holly. The entire British state does this. Every time I go back to England I’m always amazed and disheartened by the amount of scolding and proselytizing I see on TV and big billboards. It’s quite pervasive, but I wonder if the general public is either affected by it or just ignores it. A lot of it is overly sentimental and maudlin in a way that is peculiar to Britain.
I’ve actually had PTSD, having suddenly been left trapped and surrounded, out of the blue, by wreckage and dead people – I was the only one left alive.
It does put this sort of rubbish into its correct perspective (which is trivial and self-indulgent). But it can be slightly irritating to read. It also inclines me towards a somewhat acerbic response to these pathetic milquetoasts, I’m afraid.
I’m really sorry to hear about what happened to you and hope you are now fully recovered.
milquetoasts
Never heard of it and have looked it up. When we were sick as kids we got a thing called Goody – warm milk with torn up pieces of white bread and sugar. Yummy!
I’m really sorry to hear about what happened to you and hope you are now fully recovered.
milquetoasts
Never heard of it and have looked it up. When we were sick as kids we got a thing called Goody – warm milk with torn up pieces of white bread and sugar. Yummy!
I’ve actually had PTSD, having suddenly been left trapped and surrounded, out of the blue, by wreckage and dead people – I was the only one left alive.
It does put this sort of rubbish into its correct perspective (which is trivial and self-indulgent). But it can be slightly irritating to read. It also inclines me towards a somewhat acerbic response to these pathetic milquetoasts, I’m afraid.
She’s not trying to be your – or anyone else’s – therapist. She is pretending to care about stuff that nobody in their right mind would really bother about. And she’s doing that because the general public seem to like that sort of thing, and will therefore increase her company’s viewing figures. She acts as if she is hurt because viewers prefer emotion more than dispassionate analysis. She’s there because women want to see a woman of a certain age who brushes up nice, and men can develop a mild sexual fantasy around her. From what I can see of it (and that’s all from BBC and other outlets reporting from the sidelines) it’s nothing more than a big soap-opera story.
She’s not trying to be your – or anyone else’s – therapist. She is pretending to care about stuff that nobody in their right mind would really bother about. And she’s doing that because the general public seem to like that sort of thing, and will therefore increase her company’s viewing figures. She acts as if she is hurt because viewers prefer emotion more than dispassionate analysis. She’s there because women want to see a woman of a certain age who brushes up nice, and men can develop a mild sexual fantasy around her. From what I can see of it (and that’s all from BBC and other outlets reporting from the sidelines) it’s nothing more than a big soap-opera story.
I cannot read about this story. Headlines and questions and discussions for weeks. Can the UK please move on.
I know what you mean – the gut reaction is “frankly, who cares ?”.
But the article is really quite good. And hopefully enough to conclude reporting on this sideshow. But we all know it won’t be. Talking endlessly about stuff like this is so much easier than actually solving real problems. We might start talking about “displacement activity” – but then we’d be going full-on amateur therapy speak and lining ourselves up to replace Schofield on the sofa.
Exactly. In Shakespearean terms, “Much ado about Nothing”.
I know what you mean – the gut reaction is “frankly, who cares ?”.
But the article is really quite good. And hopefully enough to conclude reporting on this sideshow. But we all know it won’t be. Talking endlessly about stuff like this is so much easier than actually solving real problems. We might start talking about “displacement activity” – but then we’d be going full-on amateur therapy speak and lining ourselves up to replace Schofield on the sofa.
Exactly. In Shakespearean terms, “Much ado about Nothing”.
I cannot read about this story. Headlines and questions and discussions for weeks. Can the UK please move on.
Rather than “Why is Holly Willoughby trying to be my therapist?”, may I suggest the more pertinent question of “Why are you all still talking about Holly Willoughby?”
Watching this whole drama from the outside has been nothing short of bizarre. For days, this non-issue has been all over the news. As if there’s nothing else going on – like a war, inflation, a housing crisis, a collapsed health service…I’m guessing that the reporting is not a reflection of how the majority of people feel (I’m guessing most are as uninterested as I am), but it is very odd to watch.
(And, before you ask, I will not be needing counselling for PTSD due to this. I just would like news that contains actual NEWS.)
It’s another reveal of how we got into such ridiculous hysterics over covid. What everyone needs is a universal “ignore this story” button that simply removes it from your view permanently,
Think of the quiet you’d have enjoyed from 2020 not hearing about a certain low-threat, flu-adjacent bug that was knocking off a few olds; the joy of not hearing about the troubles of countries you can’t even identify on a map.
After a week you’d open a newspaper and see absolutely nothing on the page, which would end up saving you a few bob in subscriptions…
An “ignore this story” button would be great. I’d also love an “Accept/reject all cookies, FOREVER” button. Those banners annoy me so badly.
reject all non-essential cookies forever and get rid of the banners
for Chrome: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/ninja-cookie/jifeafcpcjjgnlcnkffmeegehmnmkefl
for Firefox: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/ninja-cookie/
You’re welcome.
Do these features also mean you have to log in every time to sites like Unherd?
I don’t.
I don’t.
Or use Brave browser which is, so I hear, the most secure and privacy focused browser.
https://brave.com/
Can it block all articles on Schofield and Willoughby?
They are actually working on something like that. Figuring out ‘is this an article on Schofield’ rather than something that just mentions the name Schofield (and possibly is about a completely different person, or the resting metabolic rate of human beings (the Schofield equation) or a brand of revolver) is something that could be done in the same way that spam has been detected. But I don’t know anything that is accomplishing this now.
They are actually working on something like that. Figuring out ‘is this an article on Schofield’ rather than something that just mentions the name Schofield (and possibly is about a completely different person, or the resting metabolic rate of human beings (the Schofield equation) or a brand of revolver) is something that could be done in the same way that spam has been detected. But I don’t know anything that is accomplishing this now.
But doesn’t deal with this automatically, (at least it didn’t last time I looked which was more than a year ago) unless you installed an addon. Brave works with most chrome addons, so the cookie-ninja addon should work — but I have not tested this.
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/search/cookie%20ninja
Can it block all articles on Schofield and Willoughby?
But doesn’t deal with this automatically, (at least it didn’t last time I looked which was more than a year ago) unless you installed an addon. Brave works with most chrome addons, so the cookie-ninja addon should work — but I have not tested this.
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/search/cookie%20ninja
Do these features also mean you have to log in every time to sites like Unherd?
Or use Brave browser which is, so I hear, the most secure and privacy focused browser.
https://brave.com/
reject all non-essential cookies forever and get rid of the banners
for Chrome: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/ninja-cookie/jifeafcpcjjgnlcnkffmeegehmnmkefl
for Firefox: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/ninja-cookie/
You’re welcome.
Knocking off a few olds?
You are not a nice person.
An “ignore this story” button would be great. I’d also love an “Accept/reject all cookies, FOREVER” button. Those banners annoy me so badly.
Knocking off a few olds?
You are not a nice person.
It’s another reveal of how we got into such ridiculous hysterics over covid. What everyone needs is a universal “ignore this story” button that simply removes it from your view permanently,
Think of the quiet you’d have enjoyed from 2020 not hearing about a certain low-threat, flu-adjacent bug that was knocking off a few olds; the joy of not hearing about the troubles of countries you can’t even identify on a map.
After a week you’d open a newspaper and see absolutely nothing on the page, which would end up saving you a few bob in subscriptions…
Rather than “Why is Holly Willoughby trying to be my therapist?”, may I suggest the more pertinent question of “Why are you all still talking about Holly Willoughby?”
Watching this whole drama from the outside has been nothing short of bizarre. For days, this non-issue has been all over the news. As if there’s nothing else going on – like a war, inflation, a housing crisis, a collapsed health service…I’m guessing that the reporting is not a reflection of how the majority of people feel (I’m guessing most are as uninterested as I am), but it is very odd to watch.
(And, before you ask, I will not be needing counselling for PTSD due to this. I just would like news that contains actual NEWS.)
Theodore Dalrymple has been writing along similar lines for years: “I am not responsible for my actions and so cannot be held accountable for them”. It has become a popular line of defence as it works.
“the knife went in”
“the knife went in”
Theodore Dalrymple has been writing along similar lines for years: “I am not responsible for my actions and so cannot be held accountable for them”. It has become a popular line of defence as it works.
What is actually the issue anyway? PS had apparently an affair with a consenting adult. Haven’t we got past that?
Actually a number of things, including the fact that the consenting adult was promoted within an organisation in which Philip Schofield had enormous power and influence which suggests at least the possibility of nepotism (and who would possibly have suspected that about the media ?). I’m fairly sure that an organisation of ITV’s size and ethical standards (at least the ones they claim to have) had guidelines and employment rules which were not followed.
A lot of the – entirely justified – schadenfreude here is due to the fact that these media organisations have been preaching to us for years about how we should be behaving and why we’ve all been doing it wrong all our lives. It’s the hypocrisy and double standards.
So it runs much wider than Schofield’s relationships.
Note also how all participants are currently claiming to be “victims”.
TBH I heard Phillip Schofield being interviewed last weekend and he sounded pretty devastated by the whole thing.
I am aware of workplace relationships elsewhere between staff members of very different seniority levels which have gone more or less unremarked.
TBH I heard Phillip Schofield being interviewed last weekend and he sounded pretty devastated by the whole thing.
I am aware of workplace relationships elsewhere between staff members of very different seniority levels which have gone more or less unremarked.
He had an affair with a ‘consenting adult’ if you believe that the fiftysomething Schofield did actually wait until the 18th birthday of the boy he’d known since he was 14/15, and got him his job at ITV. Arguably he was in a ‘trusted position’ over him.
Mainly, though, I think it’s to do with the brother being convicted of paedophilia, and then the long-kept secret about Schofield’s affair coming to light and prompting the settling of scores and vendettas.
Actually a number of things, including the fact that the consenting adult was promoted within an organisation in which Philip Schofield had enormous power and influence which suggests at least the possibility of nepotism (and who would possibly have suspected that about the media ?). I’m fairly sure that an organisation of ITV’s size and ethical standards (at least the ones they claim to have) had guidelines and employment rules which were not followed.
A lot of the – entirely justified – schadenfreude here is due to the fact that these media organisations have been preaching to us for years about how we should be behaving and why we’ve all been doing it wrong all our lives. It’s the hypocrisy and double standards.
So it runs much wider than Schofield’s relationships.
Note also how all participants are currently claiming to be “victims”.
He had an affair with a ‘consenting adult’ if you believe that the fiftysomething Schofield did actually wait until the 18th birthday of the boy he’d known since he was 14/15, and got him his job at ITV. Arguably he was in a ‘trusted position’ over him.
Mainly, though, I think it’s to do with the brother being convicted of paedophilia, and then the long-kept secret about Schofield’s affair coming to light and prompting the settling of scores and vendettas.
What is actually the issue anyway? PS had apparently an affair with a consenting adult. Haven’t we got past that?
Her and the other creature now binned , po faced, tedious, patronising, dull, central casting heome ceounties woke middle class from some Waitrose in Surrey: God help nu britn hew kay if this is what the ” ooh look at my new Tesla” social meountaineers aspire to being… They all need a night out in working man’s pub in The North to really put them in their place…
Her and the other creature now binned , po faced, tedious, patronising, dull, central casting heome ceounties woke middle class from some Waitrose in Surrey: God help nu britn hew kay if this is what the ” ooh look at my new Tesla” social meountaineers aspire to being… They all need a night out in working man’s pub in The North to really put them in their place…
Is that it then? Is that the storm in a tv tea cup done? Can we now return to things that really matter. Climate Ukraine. American China relationship. Energy resources. Housing. The NHS. Immigration. Inflation. education. unwoking woke etc PLEASE?
Is that it then? Is that the storm in a tv tea cup done? Can we now return to things that really matter. Climate Ukraine. American China relationship. Energy resources. Housing. The NHS. Immigration. Inflation. education. unwoking woke etc PLEASE?
But still we read, and then we comment.
But still we read, and then we comment.
I never watched This Morning, had only the vaguest idea what it was (I thought the ;presenters were married to each other, but I was thinking of another programme), and am, like some of the other commentators, utterly baffled by the amount of attention paid to these totally insignificant and uninteresting people. But do note it’s Phillip Schofield, not Philip!
I never watched This Morning, had only the vaguest idea what it was (I thought the ;presenters were married to each other, but I was thinking of another programme), and am, like some of the other commentators, utterly baffled by the amount of attention paid to these totally insignificant and uninteresting people. But do note it’s Phillip Schofield, not Philip!
Thanks Kristina.
Words of sanity.
I’m reasonably intelligent but I still don’t understand why the PS story has been ramped up so much.’ Man has affair at work’. OK. I suspect if he wasn’t gay it would be viewed rather differently, and this appalls me.
I don’t watch daytime TV and never will after this.
Ukrainians are suffering, migrants in boats and stranded in hell are suffering, Iranians and Afghans are suffering………a long list: just a start.
And HW sits there in white, prissy and self-obsessed, as if this is a major traumatising event. It really isn’t.
Thanks Kristina.
Words of sanity.
I’m reasonably intelligent but I still don’t understand why the PS story has been ramped up so much.’ Man has affair at work’. OK. I suspect if he wasn’t gay it would be viewed rather differently, and this appalls me.
I don’t watch daytime TV and never will after this.
Ukrainians are suffering, migrants in boats and stranded in hell are suffering, Iranians and Afghans are suffering………a long list: just a start.
And HW sits there in white, prissy and self-obsessed, as if this is a major traumatising event. It really isn’t.
Excellent!
Excellent!