I do agree with this distinction but think it is more appropriately made between status gained and status gifted: had Boris been an average student, he would never have got into Balliol - where he may well have studied alongside nascent professors of epidemiology (some of whom have been stunningly wrong in their modelling efforts).
What has disappointed me is many people's faith in the meritocratic elite stratum: the assumption that the best are actually that good, given that there are many more ways to be wrong than to be right, and that even if they are able, that they are beyond manipulation or not subject to the flaws (psychological, moral) inherent to all of us.
In tandem with this unreasonable faith in individual human character and reason comes unwarranted confidence in the institutions composed of these people, whether prestigious media, apex institutions or Science itself (the latter manifesting as 'scientism')
Well there's authority and then there's authority, isn't there? And "the establishment" is not monolithic. The authority of a professor of epidemiology derives from expertise and many years of hard work, while the authority of Boris Johnson derives from unearned privilege and the ability to act the part of a ruddy good chap.
Millions of people in this country are, to be blunt, anti-intellectual cap-doffers and forelock-tuggers who despise the former sort of authority and worship the latter sort. People who think "the elite" comprises anyone who's ever voluntarily read a book but who also adore toffs and royals.