Ever since its inception, New Labour has preferred resort to ever more tendentious circumlocution rather than mention of the basic and unchanged realities of Britain’s social structure.
Listen to a standard speech from a Labour politician these days and you will hear references to ‘the heartland vote’ or ‘families that play by the rules’ or ‘the many not the few’. They will bemoan ‘social exclusion’ and hint at the need for ‘fairness’.
But strip away all the delicate affectations of refined language; translate the rhetoric into everyday English, and what they are actually talking about is class, poverty, and inequality.
The Daily Mail certainly isn’t so prissy; it likes nothing better than to use hot button words like ‘middle class’ in its splash headlines. That is because it knows exactly who its readers are, how they identify themselves and how to make them feel good. Labour cannot bring itself to be so focused.
The problem is that failing to call things by their real names doesn’t make them go away. You can’t help suspecting that one factor in all this political periphrasis is the recognition of this government’s poor performance in the very terms that have historically been the yardsticks of the entire tradition of Labourism, in its socialist and social democratic variants alike.
Now Harriet Harman has shockingly used the C word, something a well brought-up daughter of a Harley Street physician – and the niece of Countess Longford, incidentally – should never, never do. In remarks to be published in a magazine shortly, Labour’s deputy leader will aver:
We have made great progress on tackling inequality but we know that inequality doesn't just come from your gender, race, sexual orientation or disability.
What overarches all of these is where you live, your family background, your wealth and social class.
It’s only the first half of that statement that is open to debate. No sensible observer of contemporary Britain could possibly question the second part. We know, for instance, that two-thirds of a pupil’s educational attainment can be attributed to social class.
We know, too, that social class can make a difference of up to three decades to life expectancy, and that the longevity gap is increasing. On average, there is a 40% wage premium simply for having a middle class mum and dad.
So Theresa May’s efforts to paint Harman a ‘returning to the class warfare rhetoric of 20 years ago’ is indicative of a staggering degree of Tory hypocrisy in defence of privilege.
As a senior member of a political party dominated by the products of top public schools, May knows the reality of social class rather more than she is letting on for public consumption. If she has any doubt on the question, perhaps she should ask for a briefing from Paul Dacre.
Ms Harman has announced – in a speech to the TUC today which did not actually mention class once – that a National Equalities Panel, headed by a prominent academic, will be established to look into some of these issues.
This exercise is utterly pointless, and just maybe utterly cynical, too; by the time the findings are ready for publication, we will be far too close to the next general election for such aperçus as they may generate to be enacted.
It’s not as if a wealth of empirical evidence on such topics is not readily available. Pick up the dog and bone to the Rowntree Trust or the Child Poverty Action Group, Ms Harman. They’ll soon set you straight, and save you a few bob on meeting room expenses as well.
What Labour supporters want to see is not yet another glossy report on social exclusion, whatever that is; we want to see a government actually reverses the continuing redistribution of wealth from the poor to the rich.
Posted at 14:07, 10 September 2008
Comments (21)
"Ms Harman has announced – in a speech to the TUC today which did not actually mention class once – that a National Equalities Panel, headed by a prominent academic, will be established to look into some of these issues."
Sounds like identical to the speech she made at Compass conference. And she spoke about issues of inequalities and class in the abstract. But hey, what do we expect from an apparatchik like Harman who, lets not forget, abolished the lone parent rate of Child Benefit. So much for equality and for women.
Careful what you say. This blog was blocked by Google.
http://harrietharmansucks.blogspot.com/
I don't like Harman, infact I think she is archetype useless Labour politician, but reading the opinions of cunts such as those at 'Harrietharmansucks' blog makes me more sympathetic to ol'Hattie.
Un-freaking-believable.
What, has New Labour forgotten how it came to power? By correctly assessing the intelectual bankruptcy of Marxism and its obsession with so-called "class" struggles.
Really, Marx was a bore. He invented the whole concept of division in society. No political thinker before him ever thought of society as ontologically divided.
And now, even after the fall of the Berlin Wall and some 200 million dead at the hands of bloody Communism, some inbred hick from Wales starts talking about class.
And people will still dare, DARE, to wonder why David Cameron will slaughter the Labour government when push comes to shove during the next elections!
There there Ronnie, just take your pills and sit still.
If HH had any brains, she'd be rooting for the poor to enjoy the benefits the middle class enjoy ... by becoming middle class.
But Labour don't believe in social mobility as they would lose all their core voters.
Hence the tax credits and other systems designed to stop social mobility.
It's great that you enjoy the luxury of not having to criticise the Tories, but sometimes it's worth stepping outside left-factionalism into campaigning for a party you at least have a shot of working with (Labour!), rather than one that neither knows nor cares a jot about what you think or who you are.
I suspect that however you define class or social structure, it will always be with us. The trick is to make it possible for people with ability to rise beyond their parents class, and people with social failings to fall.
We were approaching this ideal with Grammar Schools and Universities as a way out of the 'lower' classes in the 60s and 70s - it worked. I think we called it the Meritocracy. The elite (by class and or money) were pretty isolated from risk of falling in class though.
I'll know that we are back on track when merit is rewarded and the elite not permitted any favourable treatment under the law. Of course it will run counter to many people's predjudices, and NuLabour are at least as predjudiced as anyone else. No-one wants to risk their own position for the sake of unknown others - only for your own children. Which is one reason who NuLabour MPs send their kids to private schools.
Its not working is it?
B4L
In other words, it's all about the career.
How well B4L sums up NewLab.
James,
Probably not, actually. The blog you linked to was only set up on the 25th August so still doesn't have any Page Ranking. It is indexed by Google, but isn't going to feature high for keywords until the next Google Page Rank update. Always assuming that you have spent the time Google whoring for links that is. The good news is that you have a very nice Alexa Rank of nine, which means that you are almost top of the food chain with them.
You might want to stop leaving your URL as a piece of text, as you did here, and start writing it as a clickable link. The no-follows have been enabled on this blog, but Yahoo seems to ignore them, so you will rise on their backlinks count.
Right I'll leave you to your whoring...
Dave has it in one...A sop speech to 'The Left' wing of the party.
Seen and heard it before.- Please don't strike public sector workers, that makes us look bad.
"A National Equalities Panel, headed by a prominent academic, will be established to look into some of these issues."
As Harold Wilson was fond of saying "I love Royal commissions.Take minutes to set up and years to report."
Nancy - I do not need to take pills, and even if I did, that'd be no problem (see, lefties hate depressed people and gays - see Castro).
At least I can afford them, you poor miserable wretch!
Ronald doesn't need to take pills. He's been dead four years.
Ronald Reagan,
Its obvious you don't want to take part in serious debate, so go and rot with your heroes Pinochet and Reagan!
Can't you ban the tedious, witless and clueless little troll "Ronald Reagan" please Dave?
As for Harman, far too little, far too late certainly. But at least, perhaps, a sign-post at Cabinet level of a possible more progressive direction for Labour during its soon to arrive period of opposition.
Careful what you say. This blog was blocked by Google.
http://harrietharmansucks.blogspot.com/
Posted by james | 14:51, 10 September 2008
It's a funny thing - I posted an article on my blog yesterday which contained the words "Harriet Harman", and the indenticle comment got added to it within 15 minutes.
Beware - the trolls are out!
Harman and her Husband, Dromey, have a nice second home on the Deban Estuary near Woodbridge - the chocolate-box kind of Suffolk insulated form the likes of us in Ipswich. So she certainly knows about class privilege first-hand.
http://www.onesuffolk.co.uk/WaldringfieldPC/
Christ, looks like Harman's already been reigned in from the fiery excesses of that revolutionary language of hers.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/sep/11/harrietharman.speech
Truly pathetic.
Reagan is ever present in American and British (yuck) political life, whether your lefties or not. As for Pinochet, the commies were asking for it, and he modernized that hellhole into another hellhole - but a significantly richer hellhole.
I see the Korean post's gone down the memory hole...
Careful what you say about the Conservatives, Dave. Harriet Harman is niece of the Countess of Longford, sent her children to a grammar school and a grant-maintained school and went to St Pauls Girls School, one of the most prestigious private schools in the country.