This is my favourite so far
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
A class battle
So the Tories are losing the ‘battle’ over class. Apparently over a third of voters see the Conservatives as the party of the upper classes. So what. Does class matter anymore? Can it really influence the way people vote? The simple answer to both questions is yes.
Back in 2008 Labour’s shambolic 'Tory toff' campaign prompted a plethora of articles and comment about whether class was still a major issue in British politics. The truth is that Britain remains a nation that is still dominated by class division. In 2007 in an ICM poll for the Guardian 89% of those surveyed thought that people are still judged by their class - with almost half saying that it still counts for "a lot". Over 50% of people said that class, not ability, greatly affects the way they are seen. Despite more than a decade of Labour in power social mobility in Britain has decreased, in fact the British middle classes are operating what is, in effect, a closed shop. For example our top universities are still, in the main, the preserve of a rich, well-connected elite. You may well remember the furore a few years ago when Bristol University was accused of gross discrimination and unfairness - spurred on by several influential columnists and leader writers - for introducing a 'fairer' criterion for admissions that would benefit pupils from poorer backgrounds. Often the real reasons why many left leaning journalists and politicians end up sending their sons and daughters to fee-paying schools are not based on the raw results of the local state schools but on a desire to ensure that their child has access to what the local comprehensive cannot provide: privilege, advantage and the opportunity to network. British public schools have always been a production line of the class system. They employ some of the best-qualified teachers, can raise their fees steadily, select their pupils, enjoy a growing endowment income from their benefactors and offer some of the most impressive sporting and extracurricular activities in the country. What's more they now recruit from a middle-class obsessed by perceived educational and social advantage. Parents who are willing to take the bold decision to become part of the problem, rather than seeking to be part of the solution. I often hear some of my friends and fellow "comrades" attempting to ease their conscience by announcing that the local comprehensive school is simply not good enough and justify their decision to go private in the name of parental responsibility.
Sometimes I cannot help but feel that the perpetuation of class divisions in Britain really is part of a 'liberal conspiracy.' It seems clear to me that those who do have influence, those who really do have a "voice" in our society have such a high stake in the current order that they will seek to mobilise and organise in order protect it. It must surely be true for example that when middle-class parents abandon the state sector in favour of the private, it is conservative and not progressive politics that triumphs.
Suspicion of the wealthy, the privileged and of the 'upper classes' is hardwired into the DNA of those who espouse left-leaning ideas and policies. Why? Because most believe that the inevitable consequence of a politics that espouses equity and fairness is that it will give comfort to the afflicted and end up afflicting the comfortable. For example the majority of ordinary people watch on in disbelief when Bankers attempt to paint themselves as noble and public spirited by limiting their annual bonus to ‘only’ a million pounds. What people want, demand almost, is that the ‘super rich’ should pay more and that those that got us into this mess should shoulder the responsibility for getting us out of it. The subtext behind the polling is that many people associate class with wealth and see the Tories as the party of the rich, the party that will help the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
In the coming months Labour will seek to portray the Tories as the party of the elite, a party that is out of touch with High St Britain, out of touch with the needs and aspirations of hard working families on low or moderate incomes. Is this class war? No, just end to political cross-dressing that has for too long blurred the political landscape.
Back in 2008 Labour’s shambolic 'Tory toff' campaign prompted a plethora of articles and comment about whether class was still a major issue in British politics. The truth is that Britain remains a nation that is still dominated by class division. In 2007 in an ICM poll for the Guardian 89% of those surveyed thought that people are still judged by their class - with almost half saying that it still counts for "a lot". Over 50% of people said that class, not ability, greatly affects the way they are seen. Despite more than a decade of Labour in power social mobility in Britain has decreased, in fact the British middle classes are operating what is, in effect, a closed shop. For example our top universities are still, in the main, the preserve of a rich, well-connected elite. You may well remember the furore a few years ago when Bristol University was accused of gross discrimination and unfairness - spurred on by several influential columnists and leader writers - for introducing a 'fairer' criterion for admissions that would benefit pupils from poorer backgrounds. Often the real reasons why many left leaning journalists and politicians end up sending their sons and daughters to fee-paying schools are not based on the raw results of the local state schools but on a desire to ensure that their child has access to what the local comprehensive cannot provide: privilege, advantage and the opportunity to network. British public schools have always been a production line of the class system. They employ some of the best-qualified teachers, can raise their fees steadily, select their pupils, enjoy a growing endowment income from their benefactors and offer some of the most impressive sporting and extracurricular activities in the country. What's more they now recruit from a middle-class obsessed by perceived educational and social advantage. Parents who are willing to take the bold decision to become part of the problem, rather than seeking to be part of the solution. I often hear some of my friends and fellow "comrades" attempting to ease their conscience by announcing that the local comprehensive school is simply not good enough and justify their decision to go private in the name of parental responsibility.
Sometimes I cannot help but feel that the perpetuation of class divisions in Britain really is part of a 'liberal conspiracy.' It seems clear to me that those who do have influence, those who really do have a "voice" in our society have such a high stake in the current order that they will seek to mobilise and organise in order protect it. It must surely be true for example that when middle-class parents abandon the state sector in favour of the private, it is conservative and not progressive politics that triumphs.
Suspicion of the wealthy, the privileged and of the 'upper classes' is hardwired into the DNA of those who espouse left-leaning ideas and policies. Why? Because most believe that the inevitable consequence of a politics that espouses equity and fairness is that it will give comfort to the afflicted and end up afflicting the comfortable. For example the majority of ordinary people watch on in disbelief when Bankers attempt to paint themselves as noble and public spirited by limiting their annual bonus to ‘only’ a million pounds. What people want, demand almost, is that the ‘super rich’ should pay more and that those that got us into this mess should shoulder the responsibility for getting us out of it. The subtext behind the polling is that many people associate class with wealth and see the Tories as the party of the rich, the party that will help the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
In the coming months Labour will seek to portray the Tories as the party of the elite, a party that is out of touch with High St Britain, out of touch with the needs and aspirations of hard working families on low or moderate incomes. Is this class war? No, just end to political cross-dressing that has for too long blurred the political landscape.
Saturday, January 16, 2010
Vote BNP and hate crime in your area will increase
Today's Guardian has a rather disturbing piece linking the election of BNP councillors and a rise in the the number reports of hate crime. For example in Essex, complaints of race crime rose after the election of BNP councillors in parts of Epping Forest, while in Chelmsley Wood, a suburb of Birmingham, the average annual incidence of race crime almost doubled after George Morgan won a seat for the BNP in May 2006.
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Gordon needs to lead Team Bold
"At our best when at our boldest": the words of one T Blair to Labour's party conference in 2002 – whatever happened to him? Labour is – despite the cynics who may argue otherwise – a centre-left party, not a centre-right one. Labour's centre-left credentials since 1997 have been impressive: the introduction of the minimum wage, the abolition of the assisted places scheme, more help for pensioners, removal of the hereditary principle in the Lords, huge investment in the NHS, debt cancellation etc, etc. The problem is that many of these radical and socially progressive initiatives were carried out during the first term. Since 2001 Labour has been, on the whole, competent but not radical, managerial but not inspirational.
As Labour gears up for the next election it is clear that Gordon will need to emphasise his and his party's centre-left credentials and spell out exactly what his ‘fairness’ agenda will mean in terms of outcomes for the British people. If he is to have any chance of turning Labour's (and his own) fortunes around then he will need to be 'bold' not 'timid' Gordon. Strangely I am more optimistic about Labour's future today than I was a week ago. Why? Firstly, last week’s ‘snowstorm in a tea cup’ coup has ended up uniting the party and should embolden Brown in his resolve to go after the Tories. Secondly, the tumultuous events in the world's financial markets in the past few months have offered Labour a unique opportunity to stage a fight back and to put some clear red water between themselves and the City-friendly Tories. Conservativehome is today gleefully reporting on Boris Johnson’s challenge to George Osborne to abolish Labour’s supertax on bankers’ bonuses, stating that many of the capital’s leading financial institutions have intimated to him (Johnson) that significant numbers of their highest paid staff are considering relocating from London as a direct consequence of Darling’s ‘super-penalising’ measure.
The truth is, talking about such issues could well be fertile ground for Labour and make life distinctly uncomfortable for David Cameron and his front bench. Cameron's Conservatives are made up of the "right kind of people", his people – privately educated and from backgrounds of immense wealth and privilege. Under Cameron, the Tories still believe that the role of government is to concentrate wealth and power in the hands of those who embrace their political, economic, and social views. For these reasons, Cameron would be reluctant to get into a debate about the super-rich and what they should or should not contribute via the tax system. According to a study by the Institute for Fiscal Studies the highest-earning 0.1% of the UK population enjoy an average annual income of £780,043. This is around 31 times higher than the national average income of £24,000. Given the present context, and given Gordon's commitment to fairness and equity, surely a national debate (led by Brown) about whether the very wealthy should contribute a bit more through the tax system would be most welcome. These past few years the public has watched on in horror and disgust at the City traders who deliberately bid down bank shares, bet on the failure of key stock and companies and even – it is suggested – spread false rumours in order to line their own already very deep and very full pockets. If the Tories wish to seek to defend these excesses – in the manner in which, at the opposite end of the scale they opposed the minimum wage and defended poverty pay – then they will find themselves on the wrong side of the argument and, as today’s latest poll findings indicate, further confirm the public’s view that Mr Cameron is on the side of the rich and not the ordinary ‘hard working’ families that he talks about so frequently.
As Gordon and his handpicked ‘A Team’ begin to further define the dividing lines for the coming election he should not be afraid of taking a bold approach. He has little to lose either personally or politically but both he and the nation have, potentially, a good deal to gain.
As Labour gears up for the next election it is clear that Gordon will need to emphasise his and his party's centre-left credentials and spell out exactly what his ‘fairness’ agenda will mean in terms of outcomes for the British people. If he is to have any chance of turning Labour's (and his own) fortunes around then he will need to be 'bold' not 'timid' Gordon. Strangely I am more optimistic about Labour's future today than I was a week ago. Why? Firstly, last week’s ‘snowstorm in a tea cup’ coup has ended up uniting the party and should embolden Brown in his resolve to go after the Tories. Secondly, the tumultuous events in the world's financial markets in the past few months have offered Labour a unique opportunity to stage a fight back and to put some clear red water between themselves and the City-friendly Tories. Conservativehome is today gleefully reporting on Boris Johnson’s challenge to George Osborne to abolish Labour’s supertax on bankers’ bonuses, stating that many of the capital’s leading financial institutions have intimated to him (Johnson) that significant numbers of their highest paid staff are considering relocating from London as a direct consequence of Darling’s ‘super-penalising’ measure.
The truth is, talking about such issues could well be fertile ground for Labour and make life distinctly uncomfortable for David Cameron and his front bench. Cameron's Conservatives are made up of the "right kind of people", his people – privately educated and from backgrounds of immense wealth and privilege. Under Cameron, the Tories still believe that the role of government is to concentrate wealth and power in the hands of those who embrace their political, economic, and social views. For these reasons, Cameron would be reluctant to get into a debate about the super-rich and what they should or should not contribute via the tax system. According to a study by the Institute for Fiscal Studies the highest-earning 0.1% of the UK population enjoy an average annual income of £780,043. This is around 31 times higher than the national average income of £24,000. Given the present context, and given Gordon's commitment to fairness and equity, surely a national debate (led by Brown) about whether the very wealthy should contribute a bit more through the tax system would be most welcome. These past few years the public has watched on in horror and disgust at the City traders who deliberately bid down bank shares, bet on the failure of key stock and companies and even – it is suggested – spread false rumours in order to line their own already very deep and very full pockets. If the Tories wish to seek to defend these excesses – in the manner in which, at the opposite end of the scale they opposed the minimum wage and defended poverty pay – then they will find themselves on the wrong side of the argument and, as today’s latest poll findings indicate, further confirm the public’s view that Mr Cameron is on the side of the rich and not the ordinary ‘hard working’ families that he talks about so frequently.
As Gordon and his handpicked ‘A Team’ begin to further define the dividing lines for the coming election he should not be afraid of taking a bold approach. He has little to lose either personally or politically but both he and the nation have, potentially, a good deal to gain.
Thursday, January 07, 2010
Come home to Labour?
Come home to Labour?
Now that the ‘snowstorm in tea cup’ coup is over Gordon Brown can use the coming weeks and months to more clearly define the dividing lines between Labour and the Tories. In politics expectations are everything: keep them low and most people stay reasonably content but raise them too high, and you run the risk of disappointing everyone. Gordon Brown learnt this – to his cost – when he teased the public with the promise of an early election in the autumn of 2007 and then cancelled it when he realised that it was too big – and unnecessary – a gamble.
Over two years later and Gordon Brown and the Labour party are bruised, battered but, and it is an important but, not yet out for the count. The past two years have seen the government stumble between one bad news story after another – be it the loss of the income tax details of 25 million people, the 10p tax fiasco the loss of the ‘safe’ seat of Crewe or the awful ‘McBride’ affair. Yet the financial downturn, which could have been catastrophic for the British economy, presented Brown with the opportunity to lead from the front and to set the perimeters for the next election.
Labour strategists should use the election ‘phoney war’ period to portray Brown as a man of strong convictions and will attempt to shape the election debate around the virtues of fairness, strength and trust. They should seek to paint Gordon as the man who still wants to make poverty history, the politician who is ‘not flash, just Gordon.’ The question is: will it make any difference? Well it just might because the truth is that no matter how they try to re-package themselves, the Tories see inequality as natural and inevitable and Labour sees it as abhorrent and avoidable. I have no doubt that Gordon’s appeal for ‘fairness’ will strike a chord with many former Labour voters who may now feel that they have been given the green light to ‘come home’ to Labour.
The surge of support for Brown from Cabinet Ministers and MPs following the failed Hoon/Hewitt putsch will give him some well needed breathing space. He should therefore take the opportunity he has been given to rethink the direction and the very purpose of new Labour. For example he should reconsider the arguments for the windfall tax on the energy companies, act to end the anomalies in NHS provision between England, Wales and Scotland and make clear the government’s preferential option for the poor. History shows that the public trusts leaders who have the courage to lead. It is surely no coincidence that, in recent history, when the government has acted boldly on issues as varied as debt cancellation, the introduction of the congestion charge or smoking bans, public support has quickly crystallised behind it. If Labour is to achieve a fourth term then its best prospects lie not in appealing to what it has done, not in defending the status quo but rather in campaigning against ugly realities of health and education inequalities and showing why these warrant further state action.
So come on Gordon, seize the moment and put end to the era of fuzzy politics and show the nation that what divides Labour from the Tories is far greater than any of the marginal policies on which the parties are united.
Now that the ‘snowstorm in tea cup’ coup is over Gordon Brown can use the coming weeks and months to more clearly define the dividing lines between Labour and the Tories. In politics expectations are everything: keep them low and most people stay reasonably content but raise them too high, and you run the risk of disappointing everyone. Gordon Brown learnt this – to his cost – when he teased the public with the promise of an early election in the autumn of 2007 and then cancelled it when he realised that it was too big – and unnecessary – a gamble.
Over two years later and Gordon Brown and the Labour party are bruised, battered but, and it is an important but, not yet out for the count. The past two years have seen the government stumble between one bad news story after another – be it the loss of the income tax details of 25 million people, the 10p tax fiasco the loss of the ‘safe’ seat of Crewe or the awful ‘McBride’ affair. Yet the financial downturn, which could have been catastrophic for the British economy, presented Brown with the opportunity to lead from the front and to set the perimeters for the next election.
Labour strategists should use the election ‘phoney war’ period to portray Brown as a man of strong convictions and will attempt to shape the election debate around the virtues of fairness, strength and trust. They should seek to paint Gordon as the man who still wants to make poverty history, the politician who is ‘not flash, just Gordon.’ The question is: will it make any difference? Well it just might because the truth is that no matter how they try to re-package themselves, the Tories see inequality as natural and inevitable and Labour sees it as abhorrent and avoidable. I have no doubt that Gordon’s appeal for ‘fairness’ will strike a chord with many former Labour voters who may now feel that they have been given the green light to ‘come home’ to Labour.
The surge of support for Brown from Cabinet Ministers and MPs following the failed Hoon/Hewitt putsch will give him some well needed breathing space. He should therefore take the opportunity he has been given to rethink the direction and the very purpose of new Labour. For example he should reconsider the arguments for the windfall tax on the energy companies, act to end the anomalies in NHS provision between England, Wales and Scotland and make clear the government’s preferential option for the poor. History shows that the public trusts leaders who have the courage to lead. It is surely no coincidence that, in recent history, when the government has acted boldly on issues as varied as debt cancellation, the introduction of the congestion charge or smoking bans, public support has quickly crystallised behind it. If Labour is to achieve a fourth term then its best prospects lie not in appealing to what it has done, not in defending the status quo but rather in campaigning against ugly realities of health and education inequalities and showing why these warrant further state action.
So come on Gordon, seize the moment and put end to the era of fuzzy politics and show the nation that what divides Labour from the Tories is far greater than any of the marginal policies on which the parties are united.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)