The United Kingdom Elections 2010

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

This is an excellent point, and one that would bear its own discussion. Norman "otherness" was a significant factor in the much wider gulf between the classes in the United Kingdom that exists even today, and one reason why class continues to divide the country. However, the anti-German prejudices are more recent, derived from the little matter of some world wars (the factor concerning the working class) and the fact that the Windsors are so resolutely and insufferably so middle class (the aristocracy's gripe).

Which brings me to:

Well, once again this is two seperate kinds of prejudice, which is the point. Though, anti-Monarchistic sentiment among the Lower Class has always had an ethnic slant; ever since William the Bastard.

Not at all, old friend. My somewhat obtuse point was that the higher the rank of breeding, the less concerned one is with convention. The middle classes (and oiks like Cameron, to make a tenuous grasp at the thread) obsess about cutlery. A duke however, will eat his kedgeree with anything he likes, and be damned. Ribbentrop came a cropper because he tried so hard to be aristocratic in company.

I seem to recall something about Sheffielf cutlers playing a trick on Victorian Middle Classers.

[Whitey]

Just popping my head in...The quality of debate on this forum was never bad, but just glancing through this thread it seems it has got even better over the years.

It's a bit silly to give a 'thumbs-up', what would that count for? At the same time, good stuff.

And yes, I've always tought it rather daft that the middle classes (of which I am certainly a member) are so obsessed with the form and order of an event rather than the actual substance. It comes from a reasonable place, however. The duke can do what the hell he likes because he doesn't need anyone for anything. We may, so we follow the rules.

[Banquo's Ghost]

It probably seems to many overseas members that we have strayed from the topic of the thread, but as Louis' posts touched on, the United Kingdom is still riven by class. Both New Labour and the current Conservative party are completely devoid of principles or political philosophy, so they are each grasping at ephemera from the past. This is particularly true of Cameron's Conservatives. They don't want to be the "nasty" party anymore, but have no real idea what they do want to be.

Cameron came to lead them because no-one else was quite as vacuous whilst reminding the old school that they had once been conservatives - ie reactionary, cautious and aristocratic, with an expectation of power to rule underpinned by an advanced sense of divine paternalism. Thatcher's revolution had destroyed the old Tory in favour of monetarist individualism with no obligations save to themselves. In the nineties, the brutality that world view inflicts was rejected for Blair's fantasy Third Way which continued the theme of individualism but added a fiction that the country didn't need the "nasty" fiscal responsibilities and could party forever. The Conservatives (now more than ever a loose coalition of philosophies in direct conflict with each other) failed and failed to overcome the public's enthusiastic embrace of jam forever. Just as Blair provided Thatcher-lite-but-cuddly, Cameron provided a suitably vapid Blair-clone and provided a thin appeal to the wings of the party that still cling to the old paternalism because of his alleged breeding.

As long as he held big poll leads, he stayed out of trouble - though had Brown been less of a coward, Cameron would have been less than a footnote in 2007. In the face of a substantial crisis, he and his shadow chancellor are being exposed as shallow, devoid of ideas and principles. Brown is probably the most stubborn, vicious, bloody-minded political fighter of his generation, and despite their general loathing of the man, it seems many Brits are beginning to consider that maybe that's the chap to have in charge when the going is so unbearably tough. A working class tough seems preferable in a fight to a fey, air-brushed public schoolboy.

(Had the Tories elected a similarly charmless but hard-principled working class man like David Davies, one suspects this election would have already been over. Had they elected a real aristocrat, I suspect they would be announcing 15% public sector pay cuts like Ireland in their manifesto and challenging the public to face reality. Neither type wants to be loved, like little David does).

[InsaneApache]

Cameron made himself look a right wally when he was interviewed by channel 4 about gays. He made The Great Leader look nimble and sure footed. Indeed the mask is beginning to slip, as I said a week or so ago. I wonder why Cameron joined to Tories as he seems more like a social democrat than a conservative. Davies would have made a better fist of the election campaign for sure. A working class lad made good, who talks more sense in one minute that the three party leaders do in a month.

I still say the Tories missed a trick with El Portillo.

[Furunculus]

BG - i certainly agree that cameron has done nothing to recommend himself to me, his only claim to my vote is that the tories would be less destructive than labour, but i am not sure that is enough as i am pretty firm on the idea of electing someone who represents my aims and expectations.

IA - agreed about portillo, i always liked him. almost as much as i like john redwood, now there is an old school tory of first-principles.....

[Furunculus]

an interesting article that takes the tory's to task for not spelling out their vision, and examines why they are afraid to reveal that vision:

The Conservatives have the vision but not the nerve
David Cameron's Conservatives have a compelling plan for government, but they are too fearful to spell out what it is

By Janet Daley
Published: 9:00PM GMT 27 Mar 2010

Believe it or not, the Conservatives actually have quite a compelling vision for government, in which spending cuts could be made to play a constructive role, public services would be more responsive to the real needs of the people who use them, and the state would be an enabling force rather than an oppressive one. Honestly. The reason that you are almost entirely unaware of this philosophy is because the party thinks that you will either be frightened by it or that it will be too difficult for you to understand.

Very occasionally, they allow you a glimpse of an aspect of their programme: Michael Gove's plan for "free schools", or the "co-operative" model in which public agencies would be run by their own staff. But then some television interviewer starts to ask wider questions, or a Labour frontbencher tosses out some predictable, brain-dead jibe, and the shutters come down.

Related Articles

*
David Cameron can be a great PM - or a footnote
*
Britain may need IMF bail-out, warns David Cameron
*
David Cameron could scrap final salary public sector pensions
*
Tory party conference: Labour's poll rebound sets David Cameron a challenge
*
If you add it all up, MPs are paid handsomely
*
Dominic Grieve loses plum

The Tory spokesman who had, ever so cautiously, begun to hint at what could be a genuinely progressive new relationship between the state and the people, scurries away into the darkness again, like a small animal terrified of being caught in the open. The result? The Tories look vacuous: like a party with half-hearted convictions, half-baked policies and with no overarching theme to distinguish it in any fundamental way from Labour. And so, ironically, a leadership that is so afraid of damaging questions leaves itself wide open to the most dangerous ones of all: what real difference is there between you and your opponents, and why should anyone be inspired to vote for you?

You may be asking yourself at this point whether the patronising assumption that you are either too timid or too dumb to grasp the potential of this message is actually justified. Who are the real cowards here? Is the Conservative leadership like some cartoon character who runs away from his own reflection in the mirror because he mistakes it for a bogeyman? Is the story that the Tories could be telling – their "narrative", in fashionable terms – really so terrifying or awesomely incomprehensible? Let's try putting the argument in simple terms and see how many of you run for cover.

First, governments run things very badly. They presume to know more about delivering services than the expert professionals they employ, they waste money on bureaucratic oversight and they play party-political games with vital areas such as education and health. So by cutting back the power of central government and making the agencies that deliver services accountable to the people who use them rather than to politicians, we would get better, cheaper and more productive results. Everybody still here? Good.

Second, the more power and authority that the state seizes, the less people feel the need to take responsibility for themselves and for each other. Many of the problems that now corrode the quality of life in Britain – anti-social behaviour, irresponsible parenting and the feckless refusal to accept any idea of civic duty – have their roots in the emergence of government as the only source of moral authority and the only provider of social protection.

Communities, families and individuals, whose ethical judgments are likely to be more sound and more effective, have been dwarfed by the gargantuan intrusiveness of this expensive, impersonal monster which, as often as not, interferes without understanding and meddles without sensitivity. So by pulling central government's tentacles off the most personal and local areas of people's lives – by giving them the power to run their neighbourhoods, schools, health services and benefits agencies according to their own priorities – we can restore self-determination and pride while improving public services.

Do you find this concept so difficult to grasp? Does it not, in fact, seem consistent with your own experience of real life? You know that you are likely to get much better and more attentive service from a small local business which is eager to please you as an individual than from a huge corporate outfit which sees you as nothing more than one tiny digit in its annual turnover. When it comes to public services, the independent local outlet could offer a relationship of trust, familiarity and understanding to the consumer, and greater efficiency and productivity to the taxpayer.

What's not to like? Why is the party so timorous about pitching this solution proudly and robustly? Because it is afraid of Labour (and its media friends) shrieking "postcode lottery", "pushy parents", "middle-class privilege" – of any suggestion that its programme would endanger what Labour calls "fairness". If services become accountable to communities then by definition they may vary, and so the informed, the conscientious, the "privileged" may get a better deal. Only central government, the Left argues, can enforce uniformity and prevent disadvantage.

This is normally the point in the argument when the Tory spokesman loses his nerve. Unable to assent to anything that would repudiate "fairness", the party retreats on to Labour's ground instead of standing its own. What it could be saying is, "Let's look at how successful Labour's approach has been. Has central government, with all its determination to deliver social equality, actually reduced deprivation and increased opportunity for the poor?" No, it hasn't – and the figures exist to prove it. Inequalities of educational achievement, health outcomes and earnings have not diminished under Labour. So maybe the overweening, overspending, over-intrusive state isn't the answer. Perhaps, contrary to paternalistic, Left-wing myth, it is poorer communities that would benefit most from local self-determination. Perhaps deprivation is as much linked to passivity, defeatism and despair as it is to material poverty, and giving people more responsibility and power over their own lives would enable them to see a future for themselves that was not hopeless.

But telling this story takes nerve, and unblinking fidelity to core beliefs. That means having the confidence to reject Labour's language and its shibboleths: the word "fairness" must be reclaimed to mean that people who work hard to improve their own lives and those of their families should not be treated as if their efforts were a form of social theft; "equality of opportunity", which means that everyone gets a fair chance, must not be confounded with "equality of outcome", in which everyone gets the same whatever his merits. This is a truly liberating solution to the country's problems that could make Gordon Brown's class war look as reactionary and vindictive as it is. The Tories have a week or so in which to decide whether they are proud of it.

i would happily support both this and DC's six EU pledges, but as long as they remain so nebulous i lack the trust that he really intends to implement them, this is serious change that needs to be on an election manifesto.

twelve months down the line when the unions start to object to this plan and cause national strikes, cameron needs to be able to turn around and say i have the backing of the people for this, because otherwise he won't be able to crush union resistance.

[CountArach]

As long as he held big poll leads, he stayed out of trouble - though had Brown been less of a coward, Cameron would have been less than a footnote in 2007. In the face of a substantial crisis, he and his shadow chancellor are being exposed as shallow, devoid of ideas and principles. Brown is probably the most stubborn, vicious, bloody-minded political fighter of his generation, and despite their general loathing of the man, it seems many Brits are beginning to consider that maybe that's the chap to have in charge when the going is so unbearably tough. A working class tough seems preferable in a fight to a fey, air-brushed public schoolboy. .

Gah, the poll I read is eluding me now, but I do seem to recall Brown being seen as better in a crisis than Cameron about a month ago.

[Louis VI the Fat]

It probably seems to many overseas members that we have strayed from the topic of the thread, but as Louis' posts touched on, the United Kingdom is still riven by class.

And a fascinating debate it has been!

A few pages back I expressed dissapointment at the lack of British slang in this thread. Louis, not really up to speed with slang, threw in 'class', as if he somehow expected that the mere mentioning of the subject was bound to stir passion and give us overseas readers a taste of British peculiarities.

Endlessly fascinating, the extent to which class is still present in British thought. All the more so for me, since as ya'll know, Texas itself does not have any class at all.

[Subotan]

Texas doesn't have a class because it knows that it is above everyone else regardless.

[Strike For The South]

And a fascinating debate it has been!

A few pages back I expressed dissapointment at the lack of British slang in this thread. Louis, not really up to speed with slang, threw in 'class', as if he somehow expected that the mere mentioning of the subject was bound to stir passion and give us overseas readers a taste of British peculiarities.

Endlessly fascinating, the extent to which class is still present in British thought. All the more so for me, since as ya'll know, Texas itself does not have any class at all.

And no one has deilivered. The UK needs to realzie its sole purpose in life is provide us with the cheeky and adorable slang, and to provide us with the power of the understatement.

Like when someone gets a whole blow in his gut, the cheeky Brit says "don't fret gubna just a little nick we'll have you ready for tea time"

That Brit has done his job and he deserves all the fish and chips he can handle.

[al Roumi]

Pretty much got me down to a tee!

Liberal Democrats: 66%
Labour Party: 60%
Green Party: 55%
UK Independence Party: 46%
Conservative Party: 39%

How amusing that I might vote UKIP before Tory, even my bone marrow must hate the Blues...

And no one has deilivered. The UK needs to realzie its sole purpose in life is provide us with the cheeky and adorable slang, and to provide us with the power of the understatement.

Steady on now old bean, no need to blow your top, shouldn't you be eradicating native peoples and wildlife?

[Furunculus]

the wealth generators of the UK take a stand against the worst offender of the wealth eaters:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle7084502.ece

[Strike For The South]

Pretty much got me down to a tee!

Liberal Democrats: 66%
Labour Party: 60%
Green Party: 55%
UK Independence Party: 46%
Conservative Party: 39%

How amusing that I might vote UKIP before Tory, even my bone marrow must hate the Blues...



Steady on now old bean, no need to blow your top,?

Ugh, Americans use 2 of those 3 phrases and we all know old bean means

shouldn't you be eradicating native peoples and wildlife

From time to time a man must put his hobbies aside