Does he?

The Conservatives have a lead of 9-17% over Labour. Would you be rattled if you had such a lead over the Conservatives?

Does Cameron really have such an assailable lead?
http://www.liberalconspiracy.org/2009/12/27/study-shows-hung-parliament-likely-result/

Opinion polls are a better guide than local by-election results.

Rallings and Thrasher came unstuck in the run up to the 2001 election, when they forecast a far closer result than actually happened, on the back of very good local by-elections for the Conservatives.

You don’t have to credit cameron with that much intelligence to realise he might not be pre-disposed to signal exactly what is and isn’t rattling him in a public speech. It sounds
more like he is rehearsing his smear for when the class war strategy gets announced.

Great article.

Labour’s position is debatable nowadays, but one thing is for sure; the Tories are the party of the rich, we know it, they know it, everyone knows it.

Opinion polls are a better guide than local by-election results.

Even going by opinion polls, Labour’s (understated) class war rhetoric is vastly popular.
The problem with broad opinion polls is they assume voting swings will be uniform, and that marginal seats matter as much as safe seats.

Does seem rather late for New Labour to discover its love for the working class.

I feel like the only Lib Dem who despises class warfare.

I have yet to see a single convincing argument to explain:-
a) why the whole thing matters? and
b) how it’s any more than “the politics of envy”?

Tell me, if we take a child from a very wealthy family, send him/her to a top boarding school like eton, and then oxford etc… should an adult of that privilaged upbringing be barred from public service? Does it in some way prevent him/her from being any good at it? Worse than say, Dawn Butler?

If it’s about experience, then shouldn’t a postman like Alun Johnson at least be barred from senior government roles, and roles involving dealing with the economy or big business’s?

My answer would be “don’t be so stupid!” on both counts. For one, most of the Labour front bench had just as privilaged an upbringing as their conservative counterparts, so the whole thing stinks of hypocrisy.

I’m just fed up with it to be honest. The sooner we get back to policy the better. The Liberals have never been light on policy, whereas if you direct the Tories in that direction you’ll see just how lacking they really are.

In what way is it popular?

By giving them the same sort of vote that Labour had in 1982/1983?

The Conservative share is ranging from 38-43%. The Labour share is ranging from 24-31%.

“both to talk down the currency and to talk up the prospect of a reduction in the sovereign credit rating and consequent worsened credit terms.”

You honestly think our credit wouldn’t be rated down among the likes of Italy had the Tories not mentioned it? The point about warning about currency devaluations and reduction in credit ratings is that without those, national debt wouldn’t matter. In fact, the only argument for reducing the deficit is exactly that – if we don’t reduce the deficit, we risk our credit rating. If doing so didn’t risk our credit rating then there’d be no point ever taxing anyone because we could just borrow as much as we ever wanted without ever paying it back. There’s a difference between talking down the currency and pointing out the consequences of Labour’s economic decisions.

On class-warfare, I’ve never quite understood the argument. “They’re posh and well-educated so don’t have them run your country”….. errrrr, ok, because “posh and well-educated” people are just unemployable in the real world aren’t they?

I think Cameron looks across the sea too much. Something he is not alone in. He is attracted to the allegedly classless US model. It will take years, if ever, for that failed model of government to pass across the Atlantic.

Their exclusivity extends to a people, US citizens, but they have contempt for the rest of us. That is no way to run a planet.

Mark M is half right and half wrong when he says:

errrrr, ok, because “posh and well-educated” people are just unemployable in the real world aren’t they?

For they should enjoy neither advantage or detriment. It is when they become a murder of crows that we should be concerned.

Bankers, anyone?

“On class-warfare, I’ve never quite understood the argument, ‘They’re posh and well-educated so don’t have them . . ‘”

It’s quite straight forward, really. The basic issue is simply whether the ‘posh and well-educated’ begin to really comprehend the daily problems facing the less well-off.

An extreme example – from outside Britain just to highlight the difference – is made by the Republican Party in the US where they evidently consider running up bigger budget deficits to fund tax cuts to mainly benefit the rich is fine and where they see no reason for reforming a healthcare system in a country where 46 million Americans have no insurance cover for personal healthcare costs.

“Warren Buffett, the third-richest man in the world, has criticised the US tax system for allowing him to pay a lower rate than his secretary and his cleaner.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/tax/article1996735.ece

As for Britain, according to a recent ONS survey:

“In 2006/08, the least wealthy half of households in Great Britain had 9 per cent of total wealth (including private pension wealth), while the wealthiest half of households had 91 per cent of the total.”
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_economy/wealth-assets-2006-2008/Exec_Sum_Wealth_in_GB_2006_2008.pdf

You mean there might be a chance that the next intake of MPs are ones who got a decent education?

Blimey, how awful.

“In 2006/08, the least wealthy half of households in Great Britain had 9 per cent of total wealth (including private pension wealth), while the wealthiest half of households had 91 per cent of the total.”
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_economy/wealth-assets-2006-2008/Exec_Sum_Wealth_in_GB_2006_2008.pdf

Such a credit to Labour isn’t it!

The only class war stratergy which is likely to change the conditions of the working-class, and to end the inept and greedy money markets, (gambling casinos according to William Morris), is to return to the path of socialism. Capitalism is a system of production which requires that inequaility exists and the power balance enables the few to exploit the many. Conseqently, any party, which is pro-capitalist, and is elected, will exactly repeat what their predecessors did. Over time the inequalities will increase, as we have seen.
It’s no good turning to Labour because the only indicator that they were,slowly, moving towards socialism was Clause 4 and Tony Blair repealed that.

The basic issue is simply whether the ‘posh and well-educated’ begin to really comprehend the daily problems facing the less well-off.

And who, on the Labour benches, really comprehends the daily problems facing the less well-off?

Front-benchers on both sides are very well off, with their top decile salaries supplemented by a generous expenses system and gold-plated pensions backed up by taxpayer money. When Gordon, son of the manse, brought in his tax on pension dividends he accelerated an already worrying trend among UK employers to close their secure final salary schemes (which are a godsend to those ‘less well-off’ families in order to provide extra security for retirement) and move to defined contribution schemes (in which the value of your annuity depends on how the roulette wheel of the stock market is doing at the time you retire).

These are the sorts of struggles that less well-off families have and you cannot point to MPs on either side of the house and say “these guys know my problems”. That’s why I don’t get class war tactics. All sides of the house are detached from the issues facing ‘the common man’.

“It’s quite straight forward, really. The basic issue is simply whether the ‘posh and well-educated’ begin to really comprehend the daily problems facing the less well-off.”

Those who are intelligent and imaginitive would do.

You might just as well ask (and it would be equally unfair to do so) “can MPs from poor backgrounds really understand foreign affairs, and the workings of the economy?”

Jowell (who used to be my local Camden councillor in the ’80s & was left wing back then) is a member of the New Labour meritocrats, like the unlamented Alan Milburn who claimed he was “part of the most socially mobile generation this country has ever seen”. Tory David Davis has said “Bring back grammar schools to help the poor.” and “”rescue the next generation of the underprivileged’. All this is balls.

Social mobilty and grammar schools: MYTH.

http://www.historyandpolicy.org/badhistory/badhistory_05.html

I went to a secondary modern, and left at 15 in 1970, universty was not even on our radar. I didn’t even have any O levels. Only one kid from our year went on to university and he had to be whisked off to the local grammar schools to do his A-levels. The rest of us wanted jobs, mainly so we’d have money in our pocket and could buy a bike or car. My first job was apprentice lathe operator in an engineering factory on £8-10 shillings a week (£8:50p).My dears! The cooling fluid got *everywhere*.

Do you know how many secondary modern kids (where more than 70 per cent of children in England & Wales were educated) got to university in 1963?

ONE.

And it wasn’t the working class that brought about comprehensive education; it was middle class parents whose kids had failed the 11 plus.

It was not till I was 30 that I realised I had any intelligence, and went on to get two degrees (still got no O levels), but by the time I had got them it was too late to make any sort of ‘career’.

This may appear ‘off topic’ but I believe education is one of the principal components of any class politics. Faith schools are selection by stealth and any Tory government will only increase selective education.

As for the there’s ‘no class war’ merchants, look at Warren Buffett the investor, businessman 2006 quote:

“There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.”

Or

‘Black man got a lot of problems,
But he don’t mind throwing a brick.
White people go to school
Where they teach you how to be thick’

Same today as it was over 30 years ago. If you got the money and the right background you get the education. If you haven’t you don’t. And it affects the rest of your life.

Can somebody please explain why while race warfare is unacceptable, class warfare is perfectly fine? One can no more help being born with a silver spoon in their mouth than they can help being born with white or black skin.

Should we start a war on white people because they dominate Parliament, the media etc?

Targeting groups based on their skin colour is wrong. Similarly, targeting groups based on their wealth or income is wrong. The politics of hatred (which is what war implies) can only go horribly wrong.

20
Class is changable, race is not, I think most people are aware that being born with a silver spoon in your mouth is everything and merit comes a poor second, despite the accepted ideology. And please do not quote John Major, you need to look at probablility not possibility, but sadly most people tend to look at the latter.
Class encompasses many races, genders, age, religious beliefs ect. class is a social construct not a biological given. Exploitation within capitalism does not see race, gender or age, it is only the working-class per se which is explolited
18
Our democracy is a representative one, our politicians are surrounded by experts eg economists, world systems analysts, social policy researchers, whether you come from a poor or posh background, it is unlikely that your knowledge extends to all relevent areas when policy is being created. The only single guiding factor is the economic system in relations to the world order.

Beardie Fisher didn’t get the train set he was hoping for this Xmas and it’s the rest of the world’s fault.

Vinny – You are talking oiut of yoiur arse –
I went to grammar school, have had an ok , if averagely paid career, and still at the age of 40+ have opportunities open to me. My brother, 3 years younger than me, couldn’t go to grammar school because the lab govt of the day abolished the 11+. He went to a (well regarded) comp, where he learned something called “citizenship” (not in huge demand by employers even then) and to call the teacher “Dave” and left at 16 with no qualifications.
He was given no direction, no aspirations and no education worthy of the name, he has been an itinerant unskilled manual worker for the whole of his working life. To me what’s worse than the knowldge-free education he was given, is the complete lack of confidence in his own ability, the absence of any desire for self improvement, just a burning sense of entitlement/resentment. He seems to have been taught that it would all fall into his lap, but not equipped with the means to make that happen.
It’s very easy to slag off grammar schools, but what’s the alternative – meadiocrity for all under the comprehensive system – or try and put everyone, no matter how thick through university and then call them a professional ?
Yes, the middle class do benefit from grammar schools more than the working class (I would say about 70% of my school were middle class in the proper sense of the word) but so what ? The middle class also “monpolise” the best comprehensives, they monpolise higher education and they monpolise the professions, but that isn’t an argument for doing away with universities and the professions. That logic only works if you think the point of education is to make everyone the same.

23
Why do you think that the 11plus system worked? I went to a grammar school and became a miner. The simple fact is, education is only one factor involved in determining outcomes, class is more important.
Going to Eton is about being born to wealthy parents, an Eton education opens many more doors than going to my local grammar school.
Your brother may not have been motivated or capable of higher education, unlike my wife, who attended an average comprehensive school and went on to obtain a good bachelors and a masters degree from a Russell group university. Unlike those who went to Eton, she also had to work hard to gain a further professional qualification in order to obtain an averagely paid job.

“Why do you think that the 11plus system worked?”

In general and for its time, the 11+ was a very powerful route for social mobility for many but it’s application was uneven in several respects. Firstly, the local success rate depended partly on the number of local grammar school places available. Secondly, success also depended on all sorts of personal and neighbourhood factors such as family aspirations and the influence of peer group values on youngsters.

Famously, some academically very able youngsters failed their 11+ exams – eg Nobel laureate Sir Peter Mansfield FRS.

The then high-Tory Leicestershire County Council made a (pioneering) decision to change over to comprehensive schools in 1957, the first of which – Oadby Beauchamp College – opened in 1958. In part, this Leicestershire Plan for Comprehensive Schools was probably motivated by political necessity: the county’s population was growing relatively fast at the time and the increasingly middle class electorate would not have tolerated 11+ selection for the limited number of grammar school places available.

The City of Leicester – where the council was often Labour controlled – retained its selective grammar schools through to local government reform in 1974. By the early 1970s, about half of all the maintained secondary schools in the country had gone comprehensive.

The London borough where I live regularly ranks at or near the top of the local educational authority league table for England, based on average attainment in the GCSE exams at 16, because the borough is fortunate in having a cluster of outstanding maintained selective grammar schools. Entry is by competitive entrance exams at 11 but there is a choice for parents as to whether their children – boys and girls – take the exam or elect instead to go to a local comprehensive school.

The fact is that this arrangement produces the best average attainment in the GCSE exams in England across borough schools year after year – which is why the borough ranks at the top of the LEA league table. Also, at least three of the schools in the cluster – two boys’ schools and a girls’ school – regularly chalk up better average A-level results than Eton – while another three schools are almost as good.

25
I don’t dispute anything you have said only to reiterate that class is by far the determining factor more so than education. I am sure that you live in a far more affluent area than many others (including myself). Those boys who went to grammar schools in my area (a mining area) went on to become miners, and the girls didn’t do much better, even girls from middle-class backgrounds, who generally got married soon after leaving school, so culture is also important. When I left school, around 6 percent of the population held first degrees compared to, around 36 percent currently. This suggests to me that the 11plus system is less likely to produce students for higher education than the comprehensive system
But there is also another factor with regard to the increased number of graduates – the creation of a more technological society requiring that more people receive higher education, the 11plus system acted as a good gate-keeper ensuring supply equalled demand at that time..
There is also an unsavoury history behind the implementation of the 11plus – the evidence used to justify it was actually fraudulant. This was discovered aftter the death of its’ founder (Cyril Burt) an educational psychologist, his knighthood (given for this research) was posthumously withdrawn.

@ Matt Munro

It’s you whose talking out of yer arse you drooling imbecile & the figures in the ‘History & Policy’ link demonstrate it.

You went to a grammar school so I’d expect you to defend them,what do you expect from a pig but a grunt?

You brother couldn’t go cos “the lab govt of the day abolished the 11+”,do you actually know who created the most comprehensives? Margaret Bloody Thatcher as Education Secretary.

We didn’t have ‘citizenship’ classes at my school and even though it was the 1960s there were no cliched “trendy ’60s teaching ideas”.What we did have was a bunch of old fashioned, disinterested & bored teachers many of whom were sadists. Some taught us by rote, we just copied down what they said.

Pupils were quite regularly physically assaulted by teachers and many of them had their own idiosyncractic punishments; e.g, the woodwork teacher had the ‘Bacon Slicer’ where instead of whacking you on the arse with a blackboard ruler he’d bring it down hard in a chopping motion. Canings were frequent and on once occasion three lads were publically caned in front of the whole school, and even in the ’60s canings in ‘public’ were outlawed.

These ‘good old fashioned teaching methods’ that Tories look back so fondly on gave us “no direction, no aspirations and no education worthy of the name”, it was made abdundantly clear that manual labour, or low-grade office work was our future, the girls could do office work and maybe eventually settle down as a housewife. Oh yeah, we did have one other option: we could join the bloody army.

I too realised quickly realised I’d be a “manual worker for the whole of (my) working life.” So after a series of bloody awful jobs I, to use the vernacular of the day, ‘dropped out’, I moved to London, squatted and it was sex and drugs and rock ‘n roll for me (with added politics, we thought we could change the world in the ’70s).

My “knowldge-free education” also left me with a “complete lack of confidence in his own ability” and “a burning sense of resentment.” But I had no illusion it would “all fall into (my) lap”. I’m from north Manchester, very few people from there have any “sense of entitlement”.

I eventually got out of this when during a stint in a drug treatment service, they discovered I had a high IQ (I think IQ tests are bollocks but that’s another argument). I did an “Access Return to Education” course, went on to get a History degree and then a Masters. Then I got some decent jobs.

Yes it is “very easy to slag off grammar schools” it’s very easy cos they are so divisive promoters of inequality that’s why so few remain (around 130).

The alternative is to get rid of the remaining grammar schools, withdraw state funding for faith schools (the faiths can pay for them themselves), abolish the ludicrous academies and withdraw the charity status and other breaks of private schools. And, as David Blanchflower said last week, rich private school pupils can pay the full whack for any university education, it is after all their families ‘choice’ to pay for a better education, this principle can be extended to universities too.

It’s only when the middle class and the working class are all in the same boat that we will get a decent state school education system for all.

@26: “I am sure that you live in a far more affluent area than many others (including myself).”

The official figures on income distributions in London boroughs shows that the borough in which I live has a distribution which matches the incomes distribution for all London boroughs – in other words, the borough is no better in affluence than the average for London. Besides that, the percentage of residents with graduate qualifications is above the national average but below the average for London boroughs. A lively local grievance is that only 38% of the pupils at the local cluster of outstanding grammar schools actually live in the borough – the other 62% live in other boroughs. I can post the supporting links.

And btw, in comparison with other London boroughs, the borough is a relatively low spender on education.

There is much enduring mythology about the “poor” north and the affluent “south”. Try this:

“The richest people in England live in the north, not the south-east, once house prices are taken into account, a study has calculated. The study, from Barclays Private Clients, looked at people’s wealth in England and Wales after the cost of living – including house prices – were taken out. It found that eight of the 10 wealthiest places were in northern English counties.

“Tatton in Cheshire, home to David and Victoria Beckham, as well as ex-Tory MP Neil Hamilton and his wife Christine, topped the league.

“The study found the actual average wage in Tatton was £29,303. But that was worth a ‘real’ average income of £41,506 once the cost of living was taken into account, it said.

“Hallam in Sheffield came a close second with an average ‘real’ income of £41,289.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3025321.stm

28
Your figures are very interesting and I’m sure your comparative study of London is accurate but I don’t see what this has got to do with the merit of the 11plus. There are ‘rich’ areas in the north and ‘poor’ areas in the south, I am talking about class which overides area, age. gender, race ect. I think you have mis-read my post or chose to ignore my points
But to expand upon the 11plus argument, firstly there is more geographical mobility since the mandatory 11plus was abolished so it is difficult to compare areas now against areas then As the comprehensive system expanded so did the number of university places, as another contributor has pointed out, this was care of Thatcher. Do you really believe that the countrry’s 11 to 16 year olds have suddenly become more intelligent than the previous generation? Of course not, the 11plus acted as a good gate-keeper for the economic and social conditions of the fifties which are quite different from the 21st cerntury,
And. as I’ve pointed-out, the evidence base supporting the 11plus has since been proved to be fraudulant.

@28: “Your figures are very interesting and I’m sure your comparative study of London is accurate but I don’t see what this has got to do with the merit of the 11plus.”

Sheffield Hallam and other places in Yorkshire feature on this Daily Mail list from 2007 of the 100 most affluent constituencies in England which takes no account of differences in local housing costs:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-477325/League-Wealth-Tables.html

The London borough where I live doesn’t even get a mention in that list of affluent constituencies even though it regularly ranks at or near the top of the Local Education Authorities (LEA) league table for England.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7827275.stm

The sensible conclusion to draw is that what matters is the cluster of outstanding selective grammar schools in the borough, not how affluent the two Parliamentary constituencies in the borough rate. Many, far more affluent constituencies rank poorly on the LEA league table. How come if affluence is the explanation for good schools?

Btw as I learned after my son had gone to uni, Chris Woodhead – the infamous chief inspector of schools when Blunkett was education secretary – went to the same school down the road. Woodhead often makes the point that schools with broadly similar socio-economic catchment areas achieve very different exam results.

30
But what has this got to do with the 11plus? Am I missing something or what?

BTW
I keep saying that it is class not education which is the main determining factor. I do not live in any of the areas you mention, the grammar school I attended had mixed results (see post 26) I really am at a loss to understand your points.

“Am I missing something or what?”

In short – yes. A cluster of outstanding selective grammar schools in the London borough where I live – which demonstrably isn’t relatively affluent – results the borough regularly ranking at or near the top of the league table for Local Education Authorities in England based on average attainment of candidates sitting the GCSE exams.

On the evidence, the presence of the grammar schools in the borough raises average achievement in the GCSE exams across all schools in the borough. Far more affluent parliamentary constituencies rank poorly in the LEA league table. As the borough is not a high spender on education, the explanation for the borough’s ranking at the top of the LEA league table must be attributable to the quality of its cluster of selective schools and not its affluence or high spending on schools.

33
Still missing it. and didn’t you say in a previous post that about 36percent of attenders at said grammar schools are not from within the catchment area, surely this must throw doubt upon what you are asserting. Unless,of course, you have researched where each individual of this 36percent comes from.
I am pleased that your son has the chance to gain a first degree in line with the current 35 to 40 percent of the population. Perhaps his chances were increased by the abolition of the mandatory 11plus, when only 6 percent of the population gained a first degree. You can thank Thatcher for this expansion, unfortunately, the introduction of tuition fees (NL) has made it difficult for working-class children to take advantage of those places. Sorry Bob B, but it’s class,class,class not location,location,location.

Looks like those figures are even more inaccurate, I checked your post and you state that it is.,in fact, 62 percent attenders who come from outside the borough.

The relevant issue is that the cluster of outstanding selective grammar schools in the borough produces the best average performance of candidiates across borough schools in the GCSE exams in England almost year after every year.

The affluence of the borough is not a relevant factor because the borough is not relatively affluent and the borough is not a relatively high spender on education either. It’s the quality of the schools that matter: the entrance exams for the grammar schools in the borough are to cope with what would otherwise be a problem of over-subscription.

I went through (a Russell group) uni in the late 1950s when only 4+% of the relevant age group went into high education – and before all the current concerns about degree class inflation developed. My home background certainly wasn’t affluent – we had no car or TV – and my father died while I was at uni so I completed on a full grant. The father of my ex was a guard on the railways and they lived in an old mining village in Derbyshire so there’s much nonsense talked about the insuperable difficulties encountered by the working classes going into higher education. Curiously, there’s very much less talk about affording the costly entry tickets for football matches or buying pints in the local pub. It’s a matter of spending priorities and aspirations rather than social class which matter.

About a third of George Orwell’s account of poverty in the north of England during the 1930s in his book: The Road to Wigan Pier (1937) relates to his experience of South Yorkshire. Try this section:

“The time was when I used to lament over quite imaginary pictures of lads of fourteen dragged protesting from their lessons and set to work at dismal jobs. It seemed to me dreadful that the doom of a ‘job’ should descend upon anyone at fourteen. Of course I know now that there is not one working-class boy in a thousand who does not pine for the day when he will leave school. He wants to be doing real work, not wasting his time on ridiculous rubbish like history and geography. To the working class, the notion of staying at school till you are nearly grown-up seems merely contemptible and unmanly.”
http://www.george-orwell.org/The_Road_to_Wigan_Pier/6.html

And this is from a fairly recent news report:

“Government figures show only 15% of white working class boys in England got five good GCSEs including maths and English last year. . . Poorer pupils from Indian and Chinese backgrounds fared much better – with 36% and 52% making that grade respectively.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7220683.stm

I am shocked ,shocked……… that the leader of the tory party wants everyone else to play by The Queensbury rules, while he and his brownshirt friends will do what they normally do…..,,,,,,,,,Rat fuck everybody else…… that stands in their way.

I will vote for the Conservatives (cue hissing) but I do think the class warfare argument makes a lot of sense for Labour. Ironically, the greatest benefit is probably not that it will mobilise the working class to “return” to Labour – my parents and their friends who still live on the council estate I grew up on do not really care about Cameron’s / Osborne’s educational background. Where the strategy will probably be effective is with swing, aspirational middle-class voters who have suddenly seen all their hopes come crashing down for the forseeable future – they cannot get a mortgage to trade their home up, their cannot re-mortgage to buy the new car they want and, as state spending will have to be cut, their children are likely to see their educational standards decline. Meanwhile, if you at the higher end of society (where you probably do not have a mortgage and your children will continue to go to the finest public schools regardless), things look rosy as ever. It is a very easy argument to make that a government with a disproportionate weighting of OEs is unlikely to have these voters interests at heart.

One area the Conservatives could be particularly vulnerable is in the selection of their Parliamentary candidates. The new candidates seem to be disproportionately weighted to those from upper middle / upper class backgrounds. While that was not a problem pre-credit crunch (when most of these candidates would have been selected), I think it will be an issue now when they are trying to persuade their potential constituents that they truly understand their problems…