Why should Eton boys be discriminated against because they have been over-represented in top jobs? We need the best person for the job, whether it is a man, a woman or a hermaphrodite, from a slum or a mansion, married or single, hetero or homo, Christian, Jew, Muslim, Sikh, Buddhist, agnostic, atheist, so long as they can understand the job and do the work better than the competition, who gives a flying frog whether they are from a deprived or a priviliged background?
I personally have never criticised Corbyn or Ed Millband for being not the right sort for being PM because of how he talks or looks. sWhy criticise someone for talking posh or rough if that is how they talk naturally? If they put on pseudo-posh criticise that but not natural posh. Or pseudo-rough - just as bad.
I haven't criticised anyone at all because of how they talk or look, or where they went to school, whether it was a city-centre comprehensive or an expensive fee-paying school - and there are plenty of those with names that are not Eton or Harrow.
(I think this has been mentioned before on GN, and there were not as many "posh Eton boys" in government as you seem to think. They are not under every bed, as reds used to be said to be. Sorry, I don't have any statistics to quote and it is too late at night to go looking for them.)
I never criticised Michael Foot for his lack of dress sense either, or Maggie Thatcher for her rigidly lacquered hairstyle, or Edward Heath for his "elitist" love of classical music, or John Major for tucking his shirt into his underpants, or even Cherie Blair for any of her foibles.
These are irrelevancies, accidents of birth or of early influences. Nothing to do with their abilities. Heaven preserve us from prejudice, whoever it is against.