Is Johnson right about Labour not attacking “Tory Toffs”?
March 15th, 2007
Will the “politics of envy” really lose votes for Labour?
With several leading Labour figures urging that the party should make David Cameron’s privileged background a key differentiator at the next election there’s been a warning against this strategy by the only Cabinet member not to go to university, Alan Johnson.
According to the Independent the education secretary made a speech yesterday that “will be seen as a warning to Labour not to make personal attacks on David Cameron and other Tory “toffs” central to their next election campaign.”
Johnson is said to be arguing that “someone’s class should neither provide a platinum card into the VIP lounge of life, nor a heavy burden weighing down on their back”.
-
But is this right - surely an area where Cameron is highly exposed is not that he himself is an Etonian but the fact that he surrounds himself by many who are?
For all that Cameron has sought to present himself as an “ordinary person” the reliance on people with the same social background as his closest advisers is something that those opposed to the party can get their teeth into.
Cameron clearly realises this too - hence the huge sensitivity over that famous picture that we cannot see any more of the the Tory leader when he was a student and a member of the Bullingdon club.
-
At the very least such an approach by Labour could help keep its core vote on side. It will certainly fire up the activists.
For all the lofty talk about “not going negative” there is little doubt that this should be a key strategy for all the the main parties. You find something bad about your opponents that resonates with target voters and then you go for it.
Clearly Johnson is looking at the issue with his education secretary hat on. In the frenzy of a general election the only thing that matters are things that swing key votes. It may not be very nice but then being out of power for five years is even worse.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
It would be totally out of character for Labour not to try it, and I’d be pretty surprised if it doesn’t work to some extent.
It’s been suggested many times on this site that people tend to vote for candidates/parties with whom they have something in common - though often in the context of race or religion - but I reckon it applies to social background too.
the reason Cam surrounds himself with people of a similar background is simple…there are, unfortunately, very few people in the tory party who are NOT from that background.
that’s not something that can change overnight, nor is it something that is his fault per se.
It’s not often I agree with Alan Johnson, but he’s got this one right.
Mike says “For all the lofty talk about “not going negative” there is little doubt that this should be a key strategy for all the the main parties.”
No, no, no.
Negative campaigning may have a short term effect, but it simply serves to alienate the electorate even further from the political and democratic process in the longer run.
I have no doubt that Labour will try this negative personal approach, but it merely underlines their desperation and exposes that they are bereft of serious policy-laden arguments if the school of their opponent is a major plank of their campaign.
By all means make an issue of your opponent’s record “analogue Chancellor in a digital age”, or “Policy-lite”, etc. But please do not confirm you are still entrenched in the days of class-war by centreing your campaign aroud personal irrelevance like school - it’s not like the candidate made an active choice at the age of 11.
Actually I think (and hope) such personal and negative campaigning will backfire badly on whichever party tries it. I tried it once as a last minute candidate; it failed and I was roundly criticised for it.
What’s the difference between campaigning on Cameron’s school today, Ming’s age tomorrow, or the BNP tactics over ethnicity the day after? Devalue respect in campaigning and it’s a slippery slope from one to the next.
If I were Gordon (and I’m not!), I would be preparing to unleash a 3-pronged (a “trident” perhaps?) attack on Cameron:
1) He’s soft on yobs (hoodies etc)
2) He’s soft on drugs (say no more)
3) He’s an Etonian toff, not like you or me
I think several of us spotted that the damaging thing about the cannabis revelations were actually that it kept reminding people he went to Eton.
I’m sure Brown’s people will go for it (they’d be mad not to).
As far as I can see, Blair’s people only haven’t tried it as their far too busy trying to screw over Brown
2 Pure piffle.
No psrty is 100% represnetative of society, and that is simply a function of it’s social, historical, and cultural roots
However it is simply wrong to try and say there are few non-Eton educated members in either the parliamentary or wider party. It’s just not true.
It would be equally absurd for me to say that there are few in the Labour Party who weren’t educated at secondary modern comprehensives in the 70s, or on the union shop floor.
4)
What about campaigning that Gordon is:
1) Fat (soft on overeating)
2) Scottish (need I say more)
3) Got one eye (not like us)
It just devalues the political process and alienates the rmaining 60% who are fortunately still engaged enough to at least vote once every five years.
I despair.
The Americans are a prime example of why negative campaigning should be resisted at all costs.
Macbeth learnt that if you win the crown through underhand tactics, it is tarnished for ever.
I doubt it would work.
Negative campaigning can be highly effective when done right - “Labour isn’t working” - 1979, “Labour’s tax bombshell” - 1992, “No return to Tory boom and bust” - 2001. These all worked because they resonated with the public on an issue they cared about (the economy in each case, though it doesn’t have to be).
Attacking an opponent personally nearly always backfires unless there’s a serious charge about their current or very recent conduct. The fact that Cameron had a privileged upbringing doesn’t fit that bill and if Labour tries that tactic, it may well sure up the core vote but it will turn of those who regard it as ‘unfair’.
And while ‘B’, posting at [2], is very far from the mark when he says that a large proportion of the party is old-Etonian, that doesn’t mean it’s not representative of a more widely held view that Tories are posh. So the response to that line of attack will be “so what - aren’t all their leaders?” For all Major, Hague and Howard’s attempts to show them as having an ordinary background, I don’t think it really sank in because I don’t think the public really wanted it to. The Tory Toff was a nice stereotype, and now there is one, it just confirms what they always knew.
The easiest, and possibly most effective answer to the swing voters in the centre is surely: “wouldn’t you also want the best for your children?” What’s vital is that by election time there are policies in place to allow much greater social mobility; otherwise the charge of hypocrisy might stick.
Spartacus is right - Brown will go negative; it’s in his nature and it’s easy to do. But Johnson might just have a point about its effectiveness.
re 4. Were the cannabis revelations about Cameron really that damaging? The last poll before stories came out had the Tories with a 3% lead. Since then it has soared to 11% and in that period we have had all the Bullingdon club stuff.
What this has done is keep Cameron in the news and that’s just about all the Tory leader needs.
“the reason Cam surrounds himself with people of a similar background is simple…there are, unfortunately, very few people in the tory party who are NOT from that background.”
Even if that were true, which I don’t believe it is, what does that say about the Conservative Party and what it stands for? Why do so many people from priveleged backgrounds feel that they need to join the party?
Cameron’s coterie includes non-MPs who were, presumably hand-picked not “selected for him”.
Our host’s point about DC surrounding himself with too many people from the same background as his own, is a sound one.
How electorally damaging can GB make that? If he can say ‘look at this array of talent in my govt—don’t risk the narrowly based, untested tories’, it may have some legs.
But GB’s ministers are unlikely to be ‘on the pace’ (judging by the last 10 years). I would guess that the ‘my team is better than yours’ card couldn’t be played by either party leader. Shame really, when the capability of ministers is the key to good govt.
I agree with you Mike on your comment that its not Cameron’s Eton background that is damaging, but that his front bench seems to lack so much balance and that he surrounds himself with other OEs. It makes trying to sell the message “Conservatives allow you to reach your potential” that much harder when the subliminal message is “Its not what you know but who you know (and where you iknow them from)”.
Labour should leave Cam’s background alone. If he is out of touch, he will slip up. Labour should be egging him on the road to reform. He should be going further, faster taking on his nutty right wing if he wants the keys to no 10.
As alarmingly often happens, I agree with most of what David Herdson writes (and, for once, with most of what Robin Wiggs says too). It’s essentially unfair to blame anyone for what they were in their childhood or even early adulthood (since that’s shaped by childhood). It’s unreasonable to blame Cameron for going to Eton in the same way that it’s unfair when Tories are snobbish about John Prescott and pretend to order gins off him as he was once a steward. It plays childish class games in the way that so baffles foreigners about Britain, and on the whole the electorate has got past that sort of thing. It is definitely not a useful factor for activists in my constituency.
That doesn’t mean that personal attributes are irrelevant. A more reasonable criticism of DC is that, having lived a very comfortable life, he is unusually preoccupied by minor matters unrealted to the worries of ordinary people. “Labour is focused on the economy, education, crime and health care, Cameron only cares about restoring fox-hunting, stopping you flying and scrapping ID cards” is an argument that has a certain resonance because, although personal, it has policy implications - ‘is this fellow interested in my problems?’ (I know that Tories here will argue that Tories are very concerned with all these things and Labour is rubbish about them, but we’re talking about what floating voters think.) This has already had some effect without any Labour effort at all - people have independently developed these doubts about the New Tories, and it’s one reason why Labour’s problems haven’t yet produced a larger Tory breakthrough.
isn’t saying “don’t attack Tory toffs” a way to underline they’re toffs?
14 - Nick, your comments echo these from James of Inner West:
14 - Nick @ 14 - must be something in the water today!
You’ve hit the nail on the head - campaigning that is grounded is policy substance and seeks to examine the record of politicians and their decisions when faced with choices is part of democratic scrutiny. Campaigning that focuses on personality, background or other quirks of fate demans all of us.
There is a fine balance at times to be struck, but thankfully I think most people still recognise when it has been crossed. As a result personal negative campaigning wil;l backfire on anyone foolish enough to try it at the next election.
As a result, I’ll stop calling the Chancellor “The Dour One” in future postings!
Attack Cameron’s background as much as you want - I reckon it’ll add another 2 points to his poll lead and remind people what a disturbed, vindictive and essentially old fashioned person Broon is.
it might add a few votes for Labour MPs in the centre of Sunderland but as a tactic it’ll backfire.
*demeans*
2 - what absolute rubbish from someone who clearly has no idea!
Eton and Coke will of course be mentioned.
Whether he can be trusted to run the economy will be Labours main card.
Snorting on Black Wednesday is not a qualification.
O/T French elections
2 new polls :
CSA for “Le Parisien”
Sarkozy 27(+1)
Royal 26(+1)
Bayrou 21(-3)
Le Pen 14 (=)
second round sarkozy 53 / royal 47
Ipsos tracking poll
sarkozy 28.5(+0.5)
royal 24(-1)
bayrou 23(-1)
le pen 13.5 (+0.5)
second round sarkozy 53 royal 47
poll of polls (last of all 6 pollsters)
sarkozy 27.91
royal 24.75
bayrou 22.17
le pen 13.17
second round sarkozy 52.5 royal 47.5
Those 2 polls are the first to show a decrease of bayrou’s score.
As shown in my average of pollsters he is still quite near Royal but the CSA poll, in particular, will be met by sighs of relief by the Royal and Sarkozy camp.
Royal is on TV tonight and could pick up some support. Another factor is the very agresisve attitude towards Bayrou adopted by Royal’s lieutenants and herself (despite former promises against negative campaigning). They try to energize their base by portraying Bayrou as a right-wing liar trying to pretend being a centrist. This message could be well received by a part of the socialist core vote.
However, Bayrou still continues to try to lure the centrist wing of the socialists, especially supporters of Mr Strauss-Kahn (opponent of Royal in the socialist primary).
Of course, Britain might still be unreconstructed enough that people might actually like the idea of being ruled by a toff. It was said that Ramsay MacDonald was especially deferential towards titled women. I once heard a wondeful story about the 1959 General Election in North Dorset; an old rustic explained that he was going to vote for the Tories because they were rich, and could therefore be relied upon to dip into their wallerts and bail the country out if the economy got difficult.
That said, I agre with Alan Johnson and Robin Wiggs.
23. Good point. I think there was an element amoungst the working class that Tories were their ‘betters’ and therefore should be in government or other positions of power. This went out with the Ark, even more so when the old-fashioned paternalist one-nation Tories were replaced by the ‘f-you’ money-grabbing Thatcherite sort.
O/T Yet another French poll
BVA for Orange
Sarkozy 29(=)
Royal 23(-1)
Bayrou 21(=)
Le Pen 13(=)
second round sarkozy 51(-2) royal 49(+2)
poll of polls (last of all 6 pollsters)
sarkozy 27.91
royal 24.58
bayrou 22.17
le pen 13.17
second round sarkozy 52.17 royal 47.83
24. Not that there aren’t any old-fashioned Tories left. Not making any sweeping generalisations
The vast bulk of the Conservative membership I have met are normal middle class people, levened with a good element of ‘working class’ types. There are one or two ‘toffs’ but they are the tiny minority and even Labour has some of them!
26 - well you’re certainly living proof that smug hypocrisy is alive and well on the left - making no sweeping generalisations
16 - “Were it not for the misfortune of failing to win a seat at the 1997 election and the tragic circumstances of his first child there would have in fact been no test or exposure of his character to any ordinary hardship at all.”
This is really heartless rubbish. How many people have any real idea what it’s like to have, and to care for, a severely disabled child? Anyone who imagines that Dave and Sam Cameron insulate themselves from the impact with an army of staff obviously has absolulutely no understanding of their actual circumstances.
Look at the facts. Both of them are from well-to-do (but not super-wealthy) backgrounds with minor aristocratic connections. Both of them had good educations and have never experienced real poverty. Both them have also experienced the kinds of problems within their broader families that are pretty common these days. However, nothing can prepare anyone for the kind of trauma that they have had to deal with since Ivan was born. To treat it as a minor blip in otherwise ‘perfect’ lives shows a profound lack of either insight or compassion.
The Camerons are decent people and they cope pretty well but, personally, I wouldn’t swap places with them for all the money in the world.
“‘working class’ types” - priceless.
30 - can u not appreciate wry humour?!
Well, Mike, It is jolly nice of Johnson to say that, but he wil not be running the election campaign so will any one listen to him?
“Both of them are from well-to-do (but not super-wealthy) backgrounds with minor aristocratic connections. Both of them had good educations and have never experienced real poverty. Both them have also experienced the kinds of problems within their broader families that are pretty common these days.”
With the exception of minor aristocratic connections, I would suggest that this is a good profile of many people in Britain today.
‘At the very least such an approach by Labour could help keep its core vote on side’
If Labour is indeed now trying to shore up its core vote - and there seems to be growing evidence this is so - then this implies the general election is already lost and we are into damage limitation territory.
WARNING - Rant alert from a lurker.
The claim that “toffs” are over-represented in the Conservative Party is a Red Herring. The real problem is that in ALL parties, there are not enough people who come from outside of the political bubble. By that I mean people who have worked in the real world in real jobs, as opposed to spending their entire lives in the Westminster Village.
For example, take David Miliband, as a typical example of the new wave of politicians. (Clever chap. Nice fellow. I am certainly not picking on him, just using him as an example.) But check out this extract from his biography on his own website:
“David’s first job was in the voluntary sector, working for the National Council for Voluntary Organisations. He was then Research Fellow at the Institute for Public Policy Research, and from 1992-94 Secretary of the Commission on Social Justice, set up by the then Leader of the Labour Party, John Smith, to work out new approaches to welfare policy.
From 1994 to 1997 David worked as Head of Policy for Tony Blair, working on the policies that would help Labour into government. He was then Head of the Prime Minister’s Policy Unit in Downing Street during Labour’s first term inoffice from 1997 to 2001. He helped found the Centre for European Reform, and has edited two books, Reinventing the Left, and Paying for Inequality.”
( Full David Milliband biography can be found here: http://www.davidmiliband.info/biography.htm )
It may seem rich coming from a political anorak writing to this website, but I don’t feel comfortable that the up-and-coming generation of leaders are quite so steeped in politics - politics - and yet more politics. Having to earn a living in the private sector, or in front-line service in the NHS (for example) does wonders for your sense of what is going on in the real world.
Here endeth the rant.
A fine rant, Gladstone! Spot on, and worthy of the Midlothian Campaign.
Milliband comes from a well-heeled, North London academic background with almost no grounding in the real world. His father was a Marxist professor and the family home was (still is) in a Primrose Hill square where Robert Plant (of Led Zeppelin) also resides.
Let me ask our class warriors a question: how many of Cameron’s core staff are Etonions and how many went to comprehensive schools? Come on, all their names are known. Do an audit - I bet you’ve got no idea. It’s just lazy prejudice.
French elections
Le monde this morning leads on PSF panic and splits on how to stop Bayrou. I think this is quite good for Bayrou if it is the general media line. OTOH I remember that at this stage in the process in (?) 1981 there was a lot of specualtion that Mitterand would not make the play-offs.
Tory toffs
“born to rule” is the jibe that works, I think. Largely becuase Cameron gives every sign of believing it himself.
I’m with Gladstone on the idea that politicians ought to have a life before politics (and hopefully outside politics).
To think that someone who cames from what may be called the, ‘patrician class’ can not be concerned about those who don’t is preposterous. Far better if you wish to attack them, to point out that those who do come from that class have a tendency to be, ‘unworldly’ Harold Macmillan being the prime example. Many of the economic problems that the UK suffered during the 60’s were a result of Macmillan’s guilt complex, particularly his desire to make amends to the working class for the failure of people like him to prevent two world wars. This led him and others like him, ‘To throw money around like a drunken sailor’ as (?) Enoch Powell put it. Cameron will probably go down the same road, so concerned is he to wipe out the memory of Thatcherism, stand by for electoral bribes a plenty, followed by raging inflation and then high interest rates!
France: A couple of observations based on today’s polls.
- Ipsos: Support is firming for all four candidates, especially Sarkozy, since 71% of his supporters now are in the firm camp (highest in March). This must however be seen in light of him losing some of his uncertain supporters over the last days.
- BVA: A huge increase in the number who think Bayrou can actually win (Sarko 49%, Royal 17%, Bayrou 15%). Reflects his newfound position as a serious contender.
Bayrou has lost some momentum - we were all waiting for the first poll bypassing Royal - but is still in the game.
For those of us that think Bayrou will not make it in the end, there are a couple of attractive betting possibilities at Nordic bookmaker Unibet. First round victory for Sarkozy is 1.60. Sarkozy and Royal advancing to 2nd round is 1.75. Pinnaclesports has Sarkozy beating Royal at 1.50. If Bayrou advances to second round and win it doesn’t matter, as long as Sarkozy advances too.
37 - I very much doubt there is a single person in Cameron’s staff of advisors, administrators, researchers, etc who went to a comprehensive school. They’re all posh.
38 - Peter
A small (and pedantic) correction : the French socialist party is the PS (parti socialiste). The PSF (Parti social français) was a far-right party of the 1930ies of which some elements ended up in the collaborationnist regime.
Beware of “Le Monde”: it has turned itself in the most pro-Bayrou paper and is not very objective in its recent coverage.
One example : all the press underlined Bayrou’s loss of 3 points in the CSA poll this morning, except “Le Monde” which linked this poll to the BVA one in the same article and titled it “Stabilization of the three main candidates”. This, two days after having titled an article “Sarkozy loses 3 points in the first round”, even if the article (as all the others since january, predicted a sarkozy victory).
This biased position is quite understandable as “Le Monde” has been for the last 30 years the centrist paper in France, supporting both social-democrats and christian-democrats. Its heroes were of the centre-right and centre-left : Simone Veil, Pierre Mendès France, Michel Rocard, Jacques Delors, Edouard Balladur,…
Nick Paalmer aren’t you simply proposing the standard election line for most parties when describing their opponents. We are good they are irrelevant.
In Scotland won’t it be “SNP is focused on the economy, education, crime and health care, Brown only cares about the World Cup in England and power at Westminster”
8: ‘Negative campaigning can be highly effective when done right’
But only when it reinforces a negative opinion people already have something I suspect will be easier to do with Brown than Cameron.
Spartacus @ 4 — the reason Blair’s people don’t attack toffs is that Blair is one, and so are many of his apparatchiks. “New Labour, old school tie,” — John Major.
8″Brown will go negative; it’s in his nature and it’s easy to do.”
He has been going negative since David Cameron was elected as the “chameleon” adverts showed, and just remember the Youtube effort from a couple of Brownite MP’s.
As someone has already pointed out attacking Cameron on his schooling sounds desperate, and combined with a comparison with Brown’s “son of the manse” up bringing just screams old Labour class wars. I just think the electorate has moved on and it has already backfired if the polls are anything to go by.
34. To say that the next GE is already lost by Labour is pure nonsense! We are 2-3 years away from the next one - ANYTHING might happen in that time. But to say that Labour should just give up because we’ve already lost is rubbish.
40- Jan
It was always predictable that the common firing at Bayrou from left and right would eventually damage him a bit (or at least take away some of his softest supporters). his challenge is to stay above 20% and at striking distance of Royal.
Another element : the last candidates qualified for the first round (with 500 signings of mayors) will be known officially on monday but probably unofficially before (the constitutional council has to recive the signings before tomorrow night). The number of candidates will go down a lot compared to 2002, 10 or 11 should run, compared to 16 in 2002. This is the main explanation (apart from the weakness of the far-left) of the over-20% scores of the main candidates.
46. And DC and his cohort have thrown the most personal and spite filled attacks at Brown - so much for ‘no more Punch & Judy’, eh?
Gladstone spb @ 35 — the rise of the political classes is perhaps the most frightening thing about proportional representation systems based on party lists.
42 oh for the good old days of the SFIO…
thanks for the info on Le Monde. It tends to be the only French paper I look at. What is the Ouest-France line?
(I tried to find out for myself and came across this article on English punters on the presidental elections. Sadly it fails to mention politicalbetting
http://www.ouest-france.fr/dossiers/presidentielle2007_actu_detail.asp?idDOC=385213&idCLA=8833
[29] Hear, hear - living with disability is definitely a character-forming experience. I’ve no doubt DC wouldn’t want it to swing a single vote one way or the other, but it will, both ways. To people with disabilities and their families it may act as a flag that their interests are safe with the Tories, but others may well practice magical thinking (there’s still a lot of it about) & decide that they only want to vote for a leader whose family is - as far as they know - in perfect health.
Quite right, RedFlump. People will soon see through the Tories. They are posher than at any point during the Thatcher/Major years. Cameron, Osborne and co are a regression back to the days of the 14th Earl of Home and the Magic Circle.
34
Whenever a political party wins three elections in a row, the elastic of democracy starts to stretch. The voters become bored with you, the memory of the previous government starts to dim. All the decisions you have either made, or haven’t, come back to haunt you, your chances of winning a fourth start to decrease.
But we haven’t been here before, we have never had a third term Labour government, we have never had a PM who announced his retirement in advance, so we are all in the dark. People who start at this point to make predictions about the outcome of the next GE, could in a few years time, be removing large amounts of egg from their faces.
15 - Exactly! Labour don’t need to attack Cameron because he’s an Eton toff. They just need to mention from time to time that they are not attacking him because he’s an Eton toff. I think some posters here are a little naive.
On the subject of reputations UK plc seems in danger of being classified as a banana republic, with the O.E.C.D’s corruption committee in Paris coming down 35 to 1 against this government’s stance (or lack of it) over the halting of the SFO BAE investigation.
First our postal voting system and now our corporate governance.
French elections. Interesting front pages today, I have on line the Times e paper which features on the full front page the detox guide, but my husband bought the Times in the village this morning and the front page is ‘Royal’s slide in the polls divides left, ‘and ‘Socialists panic over rise of outsider Bayrou’. Big picture of her son canvassing in Lyon. I don’t recollect seeing different front pages before, since they are both meant to be the ‘real’ thing.
Would that there were more “Tory Toffs” within the Conservative Party.
I regret to say that most of the parliamentary party are no longer allumni of either Eton or Harrow. Sadly the rot sat in when old boys from Stowe, Rugby and Charterhouse started to pop up. Most of course were not part of the nobility, indeed the nearest any of them got to the aristocracy was when they paid their five shillings at the gate like the rest of the oiks !!
Even the military types seem to come from the bryl cream boys of the RAF rather than the Guards or Hussars. Lord help us there’s even someone from the ranks. And then of course their wives … most of them called Samantha or Abagail !!!!!!!!!
There’s even a chap from up North whose had to buy his own furniture and went to something called a comprehensive school … altough he did come from an estate … sadly a council one !! …. and the nearest he came to a butler was a sink !!
Colonel Sir Jack W Cameron Dun-Spliffing (Late 18/25 Boil Lancers)
51- Peter
Ouest France (regional, but with the biggest readership of all French dailies) is always cautious to avoid annoying its readers by supporting to much a party or a candidate.
The management of Ouest france has always been christian-democrat and some editorial pieces regularly attack both sides.
They seem natural supporters of Bayrou but they will try to keep a balanced coverage (however some of the articles in the page you linked are somewhat criticizing sarkozy).
Anyone see Masterchef last night? I’m surprised Tony is so trim if he has to eat meals like that all the time.
A member of the aristocracy was once asked why toffs don’t join the RAF, he said, ‘Well you can’t get your bloody horse in a plane, can you!’
57 Fascinating, Gwendolyn. My copy of the Times leads on “Tesco Jails” and a new leopard in Borneo!
35 - A rant rather undermined by your handle, what did Gladstone do apart from politics (elected at 23 from memory)?
63. Didn’t he go around trying to ’save’ fallen women? Imagine trying that today!
63 what did Gladstone go apart from politics? Go to Eton…
it’s odd that Lord Snooty thinks the right is infested with some kind of class disease where posh people rule but ignores the Ben Elton intelligentsia on the left - even more remote from ‘ordinary’ people than toffs.
Would Gordon Brown describe himself as ‘working class’ - probably, but he isn’t. I can’t think of a single MP who is genuinely working class - some from working class backgrounds and don’t we hear about it all the time.
Being posh is an advantage when you’re PM - take Blair on Masterchef, he is a master politician and wins you over with his easy charm - chippy class warriors like Prescott can never do that.
“Negative campaigning works”
Well, perhaps. I heard Lynton Crosby articulate precisely this idea before the 2005 GE. Didn’t seem to work too well as a strategy then.
Probably closer to the truth is “The right kind of negative campaigning works”.
So “Labour’s Tax Bombshell” worked because people were prepared to believe it, and they didn’t feel bad about themselves for believing it. Also, it didn’t unduly raise negative issues about the people making the claim.
Start banging on with negative campaigning about immigration, for instance, and you’re into different territory. People may believe it, but it could cause feelings of guilt for believing it, and also raises questions about the motives (founded or unfounded) and personalities involved in making the claim.
“Same old socialist Labour” against Blair, and “Same old nasty Tory” against Cameron don’t work - people see someone who is patently different from what has gone before and the message is not believable. Besides, both cause their old guard to froth at the mouth so, the thought process goes, it can’t be true, can it?
So for negative campaigning to work, I suspect it needs to pass a few tests - it has to be believable, it should not raise feelings of guilt, and it should not raise negative thoughts about the campaigner. If it does not pass all three of these then (in today’s politics) I think it won’t work - you’re appealing to your core vote, sure, but turning off centre-ground/floating voters.
One other thought strikes me about negative campaigning on Cameron’s background. Apart from giving him extra media exposure, doesn’t this just draw attention to the fact that he’s had a damned good education? If, as some would have you believe, he spent his entire time at Oxford and Eton either stoned out of his gourd, smashing up restaurants, or both, then how come he came out of Oxford with a 1st? Something doesn’t sit right.
What I think that idealogical campaigners against any private education miss is that if money were absolutely no object, how many ordinary people out there would pay to give their children absolutely the best education they could get? I suspect many more than they realise.
“Would Gordon Brown describe himself as ‘working class’ - probably”
I don’t know where you get this from. If even Johnny Prescott thinks he’s middle class, I doubt Gordon would think he was working class.
I was born and bought up working class, but I suppose I’m pretty middle class by any objective standard. The whole ‘class’ thing doesn’t really bother me - there are sods in all classes.
67.RichardS, I think you nailed down the argument about negative campaigning with some excellent points. I think that you have highlighted why the negative attacks on Cameron’s education and background have not resonated with the voters.
Pandora in the Independent reported a couple of days ago on a new line of attack that Labour may take on David Cameron
details here
68 oh come off it, you make comments about class constantly. Brown drones on about being a son of the manse. If you believe your own last sentence then why go about Cameron being a toff all the time (or even a ‘red faced ninny’).
any attempt to secure votes by talking about Cameron’s background will misfire badly. I think the left should worry much more about why they’ve abandoned the working class so comprehensively and left so many thousands of people thinking they need to vote for the fascists to get some attention.
“But is this right - surely an area where Cameron is highly exposed is not that he himself is an Etonian but the fact that he surrounds himself by many who are?”
Just because Tony Blair didn’t go to Eton doesn’t mean he wasn’t posh. The guy had every privilege as he grew up, yet Labour loved him to bits. To now have a go at Cameron because he wasn’t the son of a greengrocer would see very hypocritical - I see exactly where Johnson is coming from. It would also give Davo ammunition - “lookie-lookie, Labour have no way to attack my Party or policies so they attack me”.
If Labour go down the route of personal attacks, they might as well not contest the next GE.
71. You seem to think you know me personally, ‘kingbongo’. Well, I don’t think I have really attacked Camron for being a Toff. Even if I have, I certainly don’t “make comments about class constantly”. Red-faced ninny is exactly what he is - he could be a working-class red-faced ninny, or a royal red-faced ninny.
You say that “Brown drones on about being a son of the manse”. He doesn’t actually (everyone else does!), but it only shows how much a part of the middle-class establishment his family was in his local area.
O/T: Just came out of the committee deciding on the Sexual Orientation Regulations (adoption agencies not barring gays, gay couples allowed to stay in boarding houses, and all that). Mass turnout by Tory backwoodsmen to oppose and nearly half the time was taken up by points of order demanding more time, but it eventually became clear that the Conservatives had agreed not to ask for a full debate (essentially their front bench disagrees with many of their backbenches and they didn’t want that highlighted), and the regulations passed with all-party support (9-2 to be precise). (Technical note: any MP can attend a committee of this type and try to speak, but only MPs selected by the parties as members can vote, so many anti-regulation Tories were present but hadn’t been nominated by their front bench to the committee.)
74. Typical Nick, just peel back the fresh paint and you find the same old Tory attitudes.
Why can no one name a single core Cameroon who ain’t Etonion or public school?
No such creature!
[52] Innocent abroad predicts that some people will be put off from voting for DC because he has a handicapped son—ie he does not represent a ‘perfect family’.
Those of us with a son with cerebral palsy are used to both to unintentional and unthinking slights.
But that suggestion is one of the mre offensive I have seen. And I don’t think it is true—-why should one of his son’s limitations make DC a poorer PM in anybody’s opinion?
Nick Palmer Please define ‘mass’ .
Are you sure you are not trying to cover the dust from the really mass rebellion of half the Labour backbenchers last night?
Nul point.
77-One of Tony Blair’s children had a big big problem, but was not mentioned in the press at his request. Had it been, does Innocent abroad think people would have been less keen to vote for him.
77. Quite right. If that ‘perfect family’ nonsense were true, people would also be put off from voting Labour because Gordon’s son has CF.
77. It SHOULDN’T make any difference and I don’t think Innocent Abroad was suggesting it should. He was however suggesting that it COULD because of the unintentional and unthinking prejudices you refer to, which we all regrettably probably hold to some degree.
49. RedFlump
In the public mind the “end of Punch & Judy” has largely held true though. I don’t think the public have an impression of Cameron or the Tory leadership in general of Brown-bashing or Blair-bashing. This is not to say that hasn’t occured but I don’t think people think it has. Similarly Labour has (largely) kept its powder dry too, with the short-lived and apparently back-firing “Chameleon” attack the closest they have come to dipping their toes into negative campaigning. Clearly Johnson for one has learnt the lessons from that ill-fated sorty.
Hope that PtP has been enjoying the Cheltenham races and returns a wee bit richer.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/main.jhtml;jsessionid=3JVCOCVAFZRWPQFIQMGCFFOAVCBQUIV0?xml=/sport/2007/03/15/shfron15.xml
Surely, it would be in Labour’s interest then to insist on a debate.
shows how desparate the labour cabinet is becoming that after 10 years of mainly incompetent governance including lieing about going to war all they can come up with is to say ‘don’t vote for the consrervatives’ as it is full of ‘toffs’. Honestly is this what politics is in 21st century Britain? Heard they want to DNA non seat belt wearers today!! Incredible
i also notice that Brown and Blair suck up to ‘toffs’ when it suits them what with that horrendous ass licking of Shilpa Shetty or whatever her name was
66. Re. Ben Elton - his uncle was Regius Professor of History at Cambridge and a Knight of the realm. His father is also a distinguished academic. His stage persona is a fraud.
74. ‘Boarding house’ Nick? how quaint.
85. Labour should just say “Don’t vote Tory - they haven’t got any real policies. And the policies they DO have fall apart after five minutes scrutiny. They are not a serious government in waiting. We live in dangerous times - we need strength, security and continued prosperity under a continuing Labour government.”
88. Yep a tissue of tired cliches like that would be guaranteed to bring success. Shouldn’t you have been fast tracked to Millbank by now?
88 The problem is that Labour have reached that point in a government’s decline where decreasing numbers of people are willing to listen to them, give them the benefit of the doubt, or believe them. The Conservatives were there by about 1993.
89. If you think having the strongest economy in the developed world is a ‘cliche’, you should put in for a training course at Central Office.
Privelege is damaging with regard to hypocrisy.
Id say this view tends to be attractive to a fair amount of people who do not see themselves as conservatives.
Many people are attracted to the message that thrift,hard work and sheer effort brings rewards and the Cons have always been good at selling this as a core value.
However they are also historically the party of property and privelege so will always be open to attacks that this mantra is less than honest.
I think its a matter of how much they push that agenda and whether their leader can ‘embody’ that message - The Cameroons are clearly limited in how far they can push meritocracy so until they do why sledgehammer them over it ?
I wonder if this is what Johnson may have been hinting at - give him some rope,theres no point attacking his background until he’s said enough to be hypocritical.
Johnson is already aware of this with regard to Cameron’s
“family and carer friendly ” image.
The ” He has a disabled son,he cares you know ” webcameron image has its weakness’s as Johnson himself said..
“I know that the right hon. Member for Witney, together with his hon. Friends on the Conservative Benches, voted against every single family-friendly measure that this Government have introduced, from extending maternity leave, maternity pay and paternity leave to the right to request flexible working. They also voted against giving adoptive parents help for the very first time in dealing with the difficult task of taking children into their homes. We genuinely hoped that there had been a change of heart, and that there would be a progressive consensus behind the Bill.”
To illustrate an article on David Cameron’s pot smoking at Eton Melanie Phillips used the now famous Bullington photo of Cameron at Oxford. She knew exactly what she was doing and she knew exactly what the value of that photo was. It had no connection with pot smoking or indeed Eton and the copy didn’t refer to the photo. It didn’t need to be.
For negative advertising to work-as many posters have already said-it needs to plug into existing prejudices. No one resents Beckhams millions but most resented those made by the ‘fat cat’ nationalized industry bosses who the press characterized with cartoons of fat cats with elongated tongues licking the cream. They were not seen as earning their money but stealing it from the rest of us.
Advertising has become very sophisticated. Far too sophisticated to believe that pointing out that Cameron was sent to Eton at 13 will affect his ratings at all. In fact it could even do him good. There are still those deferential voters that saw the Tories win election after election from the fifties onwards.
The way to use his background is to associate it with negatives. The dilettante interested in windmills on his roof while much of Africa dies of Aids. The man who cycles to work because he has a chauffeur carrying his bags. Cameron will be walking on eggshells from the moment Blair leaves and Labour regroup. If Cameron can avoid being seen as a privileged dilettante for that length of time then he really has got talent!
63, 65. You are missing the point . . .
My handle is in honour of Fred Gladstone. Dim distant relative, and a humble carpenter & joiner. (Not the Prime Minister of the 19th Century)
[81] Thanks, stjohn, you read my post the way I meant it.
93 Oddly enough, I think people in this country are more resentful of people who have earned their money (bar footballers or pop stars) than those who have inherited it. That was one attitude that Margaret Thatcher never succeeded in changing. So going on at length about Cameron being privileged won’t get Labour anywhere (if Cameron had actually earned his millions, Labour could stir up much more hostility to him).
But there could be mileage in Labour saying his privileged background makes him clueless about how most people live their lives - portraying him as a kind of Prince Charles figure.
I think that the issue of background is one that Cameron does feel vulnerable about- hence the picture of him the Bullingdon club being taken out of circulation.
However, I think that it is the middle class that are the most resentful of Cameron’s kind of background- people with Alan Johnson’s “working class” background have traditionally got on well with the posh folks (and vice versa).
Cameron can not really help having gone to Eton, but he might not have joined the Bullingdon, might not have joined the Old Berkshire Hunt, might not have joined Whites and might not have surrounded himself with people largely drawn from the same background as himself. However, he did: and this really gets up the noses of the “middle classes”. A Public School Socialist is one thing, but an unrepentantly posh Tory is on much shakier ground.
Why so much discussion on GE? Wont happen for another two years.
Immediate elections needing discussion are in Wales, Scotland and English locals - also Tony Blurs & 2-Jags replacement contests.
But what will happend in 2 years time is pretty pointless at the moment (IMHO)
“surrounded himself with people largely drawn from the same background as himself.”
Proof, please.
Re. 14, yes, and the pre-occupation with removing stamp duty from share dealings. A far more pressing concern should be the ridiculously high marginal rates of tax (for which Labour, alas, has to take some of the blame) paid by those on low incomes. There are those within the Conservative Party, such as John Bercow and Lord Saatchi, who recognise this, but they’ve been sidelined.
Plus, while I think Alan Johnson is right (and I don’t like inverted snobbery in general), the Cameroons seem to be rather snobbish and precious. They certainly are if it’s true that they regard David Davis as a ‘frightful oik’.
99- I am sure Andrea can give you the schools of the Shadow Cabinet- not to mention the advisors like Zac Goldsmith, but the clear majority are drawn from a very narrow section of public schools.
93 - Welcome back Woger. Have you been discussing politics with the manager of your favourite restaurant in the South of France? A Millfield reunion? Telling your Guradian friends about how you dislike the accents of Jon Cruddas and Jack Dromey?
Is Patricia Hewitt (the Judge’s wife)who is one of the poshest people in Parliament a close friend?
Those of us away from the privileged background that you come from and share can smell hypocrisy. It is actually quite nasty. That is why you are such a totally useless pundit about anything except possibly the best dishes in expensive restaurants.
100 As so often, I largely agree with you Richard.
87- There have been discussions as to how much much Ben Elton, born and bought up in Guildford, paid to get that accent.
104 Oh yes, rich well-connected leftists (like Michael Wharton’s Dutt-Parkers) are also wholly out of touch with the population at large. They are, unfortunately, rather more influential than their right wing counterparts.
Meanwhile …. yesterday whilst the krankies over at ConHome were despatching the body of Ted Heath to the Tower of London for treason …. I suppose for the same treatment of Cromwell in 1660, up popped that other well regarded ConHome figure of hate, Francis Maude.
Apparently in the Q&A that followed Maude stated that he still regarded the GOP as the sister party of the Tories. Hopefully he meant the fiscal conservatives and moderate liberals and not the swivvled eyed evangelical gun totting neocon loonies ?!?! …or did he ??
Good article from Anthony Giddens in the Guardian today re Brown and how he can win the 4th Term.
Wonder what we’ll be talking about this time next year?
Pot & Kettle - do you predictable nasty personal attacks on Roger make you feel better about yourself?
106 I’m sure he meant the latter.
Oh, as an aside, I quizzed my Plaid-supporting brother at the weekend. I asked him about the likelyhood of a Plaid-Tory coalitionin the Assembly. He said Plaid would never do it, but that if they did he would NEVER vote Plaid again. Plaid must realise this or they are finished in the South for the next 25 years.
BTW I did find that thread on Edward Heath distinctly entertaining.
Are there any by-elections this week?
109/111 Sean. Gallows humour !!
107: ‘Good article from Anthony Giddens in the Guardian today re Brown and how he can win the 4th Term.’
But he also says that Australia’s John Howard is a good model for Gord. (Hope Labour aren’t going to start dog whistling about immigration.)
35. In a fine rant about the rise of the professional politicians without much life experience outside parliament, I’m suprised that no-one has pointed out the irony of the posters name.
After all WE Gladstone became an MP a year after leaving Oxford and a cabinet minster in his early thirties..
114 - Isn;t that exactly what John Reid was doing with his comments about foreigners stealing benefits?
115 wasn’t that the joke?
the swivvled eyed evangelical gun totting neocon loonies
I don’t think Maude is a supporter of the Blair Ultras.
112 There are none.
118. Thanks. Any MPs on their last legs - i.e. is there a HoC bye in the offing?
119,A rather macabre enquiry:)
I did the same code for the smiley as Red Flump,but my computer does’nt seem to like all emoticons-hmmm..
120. Just curious - there’s always someone ill. The Lib Dems must be on permanent alert with their fiddled bar graphs and notorious local techniques!
Class war isn’t really going to win elections, since the days of Heath and Wilson it seems that parties no longer bother appealing to their core vote - it lses elections.
The other point is that Labour need to stop focusing on Cameron. He is the Tory Party’s biggest asset. All the polls suggest he is more popular than tey are. Instead Labour should fcus on the Party as a whole - how it hasn’t really changed, just had a lick of paint and a Blair inspired makeover.
123. Totally agree with that Frank.
Re 76 Lord Snooty - Dougie Smith Cameron’s speechwriter went to an Edinburgh comprehensive school - I know I was there too. Still it was a long time after TB left the Eton of the north
123 Frank - you mean that the Tories have more than two assets?
Cameron (and perhaps Iain Dale) seem to have been caught spinning too hard.
http://www.liberalreview.com/content/2007/03/dale-and-cameron-spinning-out-of-control
94 sorry, I should have guessed!
125 - Ah yes, isn’t he the one who once organized ’swingers’ parties (and not of the psephological variety ;))?
Dougie Smith doesn’t
Dougie Smith doesn’t
Dougie Smith doesn’t count (contrary to appearances I don’t have a stutter, despite my inbred lineage).
He’s an Cameroon insider but as the former boss of Britain’s biggest orgy club, he’s hardly your average working class Scot, is he?
Can someone precis 127?
Who is Dougie Smith? Does he really write speeches for Cameron? I doubt it.
Not because he ran sex parties but because he went to a comprehensive school. Dear David would never allow THAT kind of person into his inner counsels.
Cameron hates oiks. It’s a fact.
For the record, fourteen members of the cabinet went to state schools and nine members of the shadow of the cabinet.
133-134. The joke is wearing pretty thin now, old chap.
134. Gordon Brown dreams of Marxist revolution. It’s a fact.
127. Peter, when was the last Conservative leader welcomed at the White House?
Dave Cameron is a red-faced ninny. It’s a fact.
That one’s for you, kingbongo
131.”as the former boss of Britain’s biggest orgy club, he’s hardly your average working class Scot, is he? ”
well, SSP and Solidarity can argue about it and its working class route….
New thread - Who wins - who loses from the party funding report?
Leave Dougie Smith alone. He’s one of the few Tories I know who has any genuine sense of humour - or understanding of popular culture. Unlike that posh smarmbag, Hon. Edward Vaizey.
137
Funny to see the clip on Newsnight last night of Gordon Brown in the 90’s campaigning so vigorously for the scrapping of Trident.
He really is a man of conviction!
140.
127: ‘One leading State Department appointee said that “it would be a cold day in hell” before Cameron received an invitation to the Bush White House.’
Oh dear, I’m sure Dave’s crying in his pillow every night at the denial of that particular photo op. Seriously, many Tories are having their allegiance to the GOP pushed to the very limits by George W’s lot - surely the worst Republican administration in living memory - and their bad attitudes. I suggest Dave steer well clear for the time being lest he tar British conservatism with the Neo-cons’ dirty brush.
145. They do seem to be maki