I dread to think what you made of Prescott’s efforts to define class, Dave.

For me, it is more galling that the likes of Harman, Mandelson and the Millibands play the class card. It’s not the class issue I disagree with, it’s the hypocrisy of those making the issue.

Does anyone think any of them would win an Open Primary in Peckham, Hartlepool or South Shields?

You’re right of course.

Still I’m looking forward to the show tonight.

Hmmm, I’ve been thinking about this. I’m not entirely convinced this is a bad electoral strategy.

I know that you see everything in stark class terms Dave – but there is a big difference in the middle classes as well, as well as further above them.

The likes of Harman, Mandelson Blair etc may be comfortable, but they’re not Bullingdon club members. They weren’t necessarily born with a silver spoon in their mouths the way today’s Tories were.

And I think the public sees that. Most of the public see themselves as middle class, not working class. And in that – it isn’t that difficult to see you can aspire to being upper middle class rich, but you’re not going to be worth 30million in the way Cameron is. That is a big difference, one of the reasons why Cameron wants to play down his worth.

Is it good electoral strategy? Actually, it might be. It won’t convince the socialists – but I can imagine large swathes of people who see the Tories as toffs nevertheless.

And the polls support that.

The likes of Harman, Mandelson Blair etc may be comfortable, but they’re not Bullingdon club members. They weren’t necessarily born with a silver spoon in their mouths the way today’s Tories were.

I see the point you’re making, but Harriet Harman is actually a bit posher than David Cameron – she’s the niece of the Countess of Longford.

If you’re going to attack people for their class then don’t be so predictable and crass as to do it purely on class. The fear people have is not that a person from a privileged background is going to rule them…it’s that a person of privileged background will be in power and keep their privileged buddies well off.

The reason why I disagree with Sunny about Labour using this as a strategy is that unlike the differentiation in where both parties politicians have come from, they both seem intent on keeping the rich rich and the poor poor (12 years of absolutely no change in social equality goes to prove this).

If the party doing the accusing is no better at helping the working class person out, which is ultimately why Labour have lost so much support, then they will be seen as hypocrites…regardless of what type of utensil was in their mouth when they were born.

Harman is probably not the best example to use… but then she’s rather more interested in equality than any other Labour minister.

The fear people have is not that a person from a privileged background is going to rule them…it’s that a person of privileged background will be in power and keep their privileged buddies well off.

But that is precisely what the Tories are doing and planning. No move on financial regulation, raising inheritance tax. Reducing the top tax band for the rich… nothing on tax havens…

If the party doing the accusing is no better at helping the working class person out, which is ultimately why Labour have lost so much suppor

I think the Libdems are marginally better on redistribution, but there is a difference between Labour and Tories on this. Not that much… not as much as I’d like – but their policies are not exactly the same.

Labourites like Blair and Mandy might not have been born with silver spoons but they have spent a lot of time accumulating them since.

You know Dave might even be able to appeal to the idea that his wealth puts him above the fray – though his mortgage claims might make that a bit tricky!

Hi Sunny,

“Most of the public see themselves as middle class, not working class”

Not so! According to a survey of social attitudes, 57% of adults in the UK claim to be working class:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6295743.stm

A majority of people see themselves as ‘working class’, but as ‘in the middle’ rather than rich or poor.

Can someone explain how Toffism is different from Racism?

My Jamaican friend Thomas, like David Cameron, had no control over who his parents were. He was simply born to them.

Thomas, like David Cameron, went to the schools his parents chose for him. Is DC fated to be cursed for ever because of a decision made by someone else?

If you can say that DC can’t be an MP because he was born rich and went to Eton, why can’t I say that Thomas can’t be an MP because he was born poor and went to Montego Bay Junior?

I’m all for using class attacks in national campaigns; the Tories usual strategy is to employ them themselves then cry foul when Labour does it (and although I only spent a couple of days volunteering in the Crewe campaign, it was obvious from conversations on the doorstep that the tactic was effective – we would’ve lost by more votes without it).

But far better to do it by pointing out how Cameron’s life experience is so narrowly that he has no basis for understanding the lives most people lead. Unity’s article the other day was a good example, if a little technical for direct application to general election campaigns. The interview where Cameron couldn’t remember how many houses he owned and said he had met “poor people” during his childhood in his house but wasn’t sure who and when was priceless.

#11

“Can someone explain how Toffism is different from Racism?”

As far as I know, Toffs were never enslaved. Still, we live in hope.

“But that is precisely what the Tories are doing and planning. No move on financial regulation, raising inheritance tax. Reducing the top tax band for the rich… nothing on tax havens…”

I think you’ll have a hard time convincing the electorate that Labour are a million miles away from this. The Tories have even stated they’re keeping the 50p top rate for now…and let’s remember the 50p top rate was a Lib Dem old policy that Labour begrudgingly took up as a way to appease the working classes…knowing full well that they’re not doing anything to close loopholes that will keep the rich from needing to pay that rate anyway.

13 – Emperor Valerian? He was pretty toffy…

Lee @ 15 writes:

‘The reason why I disagree with Sunny about Labour using this as a strategy is that unlike the differentiation in where both parties politicians have come from, they both seem intent on keeping the rich rich and the poor poor (12 years of absolutely no change in social equality goes to prove this).’

Well, yes and no. To assess the effect Labour has had on the distribution of income (to focus just on income for the moment), you have to look not only at where inequality is now compared to 12 years ago but also at where inequality today would be if we had simply continued Conservative tax-benefit policies for the past 12 years. The IFS calculates that income inequality would be even higher today.

So Labour hasn’t done much to address the underlying forces pushing the economy towards greater income inequality. What it has done is make the tax-benefit system more redistributive relative to 1997 so that this underlying upward pressure on inequality has been held in check. (If you want evidence of the redistributive direction of Labour’s budgets, take a look at the IFS charts showing gains/losses from these budgets by income decile. The last time I looked they showed a clear gradient with biggest gains at the bottom and least at the top.)

The Conservatives can be expected to reduce the redistributive impact of the tax-benefit system. They will thereby weaken one of the key checks on rising inequality, and so – barring any other changes – inequality can be expected to increase relative to where it is now and what it would probably be in the future under Labour.

Labour might not be doing as much as it should on reversing income inequality (let alone wealth inequality), but there is, nevertheless, a clear difference between them and the Conservatives on this.

The problem is that if Labour point out Cameron’s background then it is easy for the Tories to point out Harman’s and Ball’s backgrounds. If Labour points out Cameron’s narrow life experience then many of it’s MPs fall into the the same category. It may be best to point out the Tories are dominated by the “City” and anyone living more than 1.5 hrs commute from London has little to gain from them.

13- St. Patrick was definitely a toff.

@ SunnyH

The likes of Harman, Mandelson Blair etc may be comfortable, but they’re not Bullingdon club members. They weren’t necessarily born with a silver spoon in their mouths the way today’s Tories were.

Bad choice citing those three, Sunny. Okay, they weren’t Bullingdon-ers, but all three are from highly privileged backgrounds. In terms of privilege, there’s precious little to separate the bulk of New lab and the Tories: some are a little more nouveau riche, but a damning proportion of both come from insulated cliques.

“The IFS calculates that income inequality would be even higher today. ”

Indeed, and if aliens came and gifted only those with big estates the power of telekinesis then inequality would be higher still.

I personally deal on the attributable facts. Inequality was X when Labour started, they said they’d make it better, it is now less than X. That is not making it better, even if it’s not making it as bad as the Tories MAY have done.

But, once again, I think you display a (very informed) opinion that the electorate won’t generally have. I feel that the argument you and Sunny put forward is too much based on some very fine details and hypothesis. The reality is things aren’t better, the visible factors are things like the 10p tax rate and retrospective car taxation that hit the poor hardest. Even the supposed “good” policies like tax credits aren’t welcomed as being useful in practice.

To me this is the reality of the electorate, I respect those that think differently…I know that the Tories and Labour are not identical on this subject as well…but this is why it is dangerous to try and claim the higher ground on such issues, especially when that ground’s lawn was recently sown with the seeds of increased taxation and reduced benefits for those most needing of financial aid and stability.

tim f – right, while Gordon and Mandy are just like ordinary people, aren’t they?

Well you carry on with your class attacks – good luck!

And only people whose ancestors may have been enslaved can be subject to racism?

The Tories and are the real class warriors. Always have been and always will be.

They fight for their class. The wealthy middle classes.

Look at their policies…..Abolish inheritance tax for up to £2 million and allow the better off to pay a one off payment of £8000 and then they can have free old people care for the rest of their life.( Oh goody, we can hand all our wealth on to our children and the state will fund our old peoples home bill.)

Abolish tax on share dealing because those nice rich hedge fund owners who donate millions to the Tory party don’t like having to pay any tax.

And how are the tories going to pay for this? Take away tax credits and benefits for the sick and the poorest people in the UK.

Now that is class war.

#20 Do you think “toffism” is comparable to racism, then?

I never said Brown was “just an ordinary bloke”, but I bet he knows how many homes he owns.

Sally, Labour are already taking away money and benefits from the poor, Tories can hardly be blamed for carrying on what this government has started.

Lee – you’re probably right in saying that the electorate won’t care for the semantics, but then Labour has also spent a lot of money trying to regenerate northern cities in a way the Tories never will. Which is why they still don’t have votes in northern England.

I think Stuart is right in that the intent was there. It wasn’t as successful as New Labour hoped – but they talked about equality more than the Tories ever will. I wonder if that will have an impact on voting patterns after. One thing is for certain – the Tories are talking about helping the poor much more than Thatcher did.

Sunny: Quite, the actual fallout of some of Labour’s more disastrous choices is what will make this election very interesting. When it comes to the big day, will some of those Northern constituencies, and the likes of Wales, abandon Labour as they’re threatening or not…whether that is to apathy laden non-voting or another party. We’ll have to wait and see.

24. Sunny H. Regeneration often measn constructing overpriced flats and selling them to people with self certified mortgages, mortgages of 5-6x salary , buy to let mortgages and mortgages of 125% of the value of the property. Many of these regeneration areas suffer the largest decline in property prices: up to 40%. Labour has not increased the number employed in manufacturing which has significantly declined.Much construction work has been undertaken by immigrants.

Many working class people employed in industrial work do not see Labour have shown any respect towards them. In addition, Labour sending the British armed forces to war and not providing adequate equipment has had the biggest impact on traditional working class people who are the backbone of our armed forces.
Labour need to re-connect to the traditionally minded working class who have the option of not voting , voting for the BNP, UKIP, LD, Green or Conservative.

The inability of Labour to appoint competent people to Defence can only reduce Labour vote. Most regiments have a tradition of recruiting locally going back , sometimes 300 years; there is strong family tradition. The innability of Brown to attend the 100th anniversary of the TA in Scotland, which was attended by Salmond, just shows how out of touch he is.

Why should a self employed tradesman who has family or friends serving in the armed forces vote Labour ? Harman is not more touch with this type of voter than Cameron.