"William Morris’ ideas were all confused with the ‘dignity of labour’ and so on. The whole thing got mixed up with the world’s yearning after ‘integrity’ which will one day be seen, perhaps, as the distinguishing characteristic of this century, leading to Divorce law reform, general education, women’s suffrage, a reverence for the Windsor chair and lord knows how many other results of questionable value. Honesty in most contexts is all very well, but surely in art it is neither here nor there." Robin Darwin, head of the Royal College of Art, 1951.

I could be convinced by his final sentence, if he'd bothered to give reasons, but the preamble is so wrong, and expressed in such a Wodehouseian manner, it overwhelms any such possibility. The last time I remember anyone making a similar kind of public statement was during the "Lady Chatterly Trial" in 1960, when the prosecutor asked whether it was a book "you would wish your wife or servants to read?" Is there anything more recent?

I remember an editorial in The Times by William Rees-Mogg at some point in the mid-90s, in which he bemoaned the standard of dress of the "working class" folk he encountered on the street. In particular he commented on the presence of "corduroy trousers".

Yes. Yet Rees-Mogg also wrote the famous “Who Breaks a Butterfly on a Wheel” editorial in support of Mick Jagger at the time of his drug bust. On some level, like Darwin, he was progressively antiquated — or something.

Then again, he did spawn this throwback:

I have no idea what is going on in this thread.

Yeah, sorry. I guess, once again, it comes down to an exclusively British rumination on the nature and manifestation of class.

I thought DR had cracked your login and password.

Yeah, I know, I've done this a couple of times lately. It's a bit worrying.

Not to worry.

He never uses multiple paragraphs.

I find the continued existence (let alone relevance) of these people to be quite amazing.

Sits With Remote wrote:


He sounds like my Ma.

His son was on QT the other week. Expect his even more rarified daughter (Annunciazion Poshly-Posh, IIRC) to follow him into a safe Tory seat soon. Their voters still love Toffs really.

Which William Morris is this referring to? There are several important historical people by that name.

This one.

The one you would expect the president of the RCA to have a view on.

I find the continued existence (let alone relevance) of these people to be quite amazing.

Yes. I think it has something to do with the upper class absorption of laissez faire as a foundational principle. Which, given the other views they tend to hold, is probably a good thing on the whole.

That's true, but Dunc also has a point with his assertion that the Tory "base" still loves toffs.

It's a viable political persona in (certain parts of) the UK to an extent that is hard to imagine in other Western democracies.

I thought laissez faire was a rejection of toffdom - making money by investing and shrewd deals vs making money by sitting on one's ass in a big manor.

The American right loves toffs too, they just don't know that they do. Many of the "job creators" and "entrepreneurs" they worship were, as Molly Ivins said, born on third base, thinking they hit a triple. Americans' class and economic status isn't as rigid as it was in Medieval Europe, but the stats suggest it is more stuck in the US than in most of modern Europe.

Reed, there's no way in hell that Rees Mogg could win a Congressional seat over here.

It's a very different set of circumstances.

I thought laissez faire was a rejection of toffdom - making money by investing and shrewd deals vs making money by sitting on one's ass in a big manor.

No, in it's broadest meaning, it means non-interference, or permissiveness, when comes to the affairs of others. It's something that distinguishes today's American right, from traditional British conservatism.

ursus arctos wrote:


I gather from his wiki page that he's a ponce that acts like an 18th century ponce.

At least he has the decency not to hide what he is.

That's my point. In America, we have wealthy people who are every bit as indifferent - if not downright contemptuous - of The People as these toffs in their tweed shooting jackets, but when they run for office, they can hide all of that by faking a accent or maybe just by wearing a patterned shirt and pushing the sleeves up a bit.

Maybe that's your point. In Britain, that unlike Republicans who brag that some of their best friends own NASCAR teams, the Tories don't even have to pretend to be one of us because enough people are still deferential to the aristocracy. We got rid of that in the US, but replaced it with myths about "job creators" and bootstraps and so forth.

Amor de Cosmos wrote:



I see. That is what it means literally. But we usually use it in reference to Adam Smith etc. Nowadays, it's used in contrast to Socialism (real or imagined) but my understanding is that it was originally used to mean a competitive market system in contrast to merchantilism, which was a system of government-sanctioned monopolies run by and for the sort of people who you'd expect to run a crap system like that.


I don't really see what you're getting at then.

That is my point.

I find it remarkable that there is still genuine support for that kind of behaviour.

I completely agree that the underlying attitudes are more widely shared, though I'd say that money is a more important marker over here as opposed to "breeding"

Perhaps we would have clowns of this sort if the South had won the war.