Crewe by-election and the 'Tory Toff' campaign

Mike Ion Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:19:12 PM GMT Print-friendly version Facebook



Above is one of the leaflets being used by Labour in the Crewe by-election. Personally I think it is OK and let me tell you why...


David Cameron’s Tory party (and particularly his parliamentary party) is increasingly becoming populated by the ‘right kind of people’, his people – ex-public school and from a background of immense wealth and privilege. Under Cameron the Tories still believe that the role of government is to concentrate wealth and power in the hands of their friends and backers - i.e. those who embrace their political, their economic, and their social views.

Politics can be a bruising affair at times but the reality is that you cannot govern if you don't win.





tags: (all tags)

Display: Sort:
Crewe by-election and the 'Tory Toff' campaign | 60 comments (60 topical)

Re: Crewe by-election and the 'Tory Toff' campaign (#1)

by madasafish on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:22:53 PM GMT

Hilary Benn
Charles Purnell
Tony Blair
Ed Balls.
Lord Sainsbury
Mark Fisher


Re: Crewe by-election and the 'Tory Toff' campaign (#4)

by alexhilton on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:05:21 PM GMT

Benn went to a London comprehensive.  :)


[ Parent ]

Re: Crewe by-election and the 'Tory Toff' campaign (#2)

by scampi on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:33:40 PM GMT

Most of the cabinet were educated at top public schools:
Balls, Kelly, Harman.....


Re: Crewe by-election and the 'Tory Toff' campaign (#3)

by Al on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:54:28 PM GMT

I don't agree with the 'Tory Toff' approach as it just sounds silly, however, I see nothing wrong with highlighting the sheer numbers of, say, Etonians in Camerons bench at the moment. It's quite high, historically so (I think?).

Plus, they could try level some cronyism charges, a nod and a wink system etc, I mean, Boris as London Mayor, Cameron's best friend just taking over in one of the top positions in the entire party.

To me, that looks more damning, and hypocritical given the Tories constant accusations of croniysm at Ken Livingstone, than just shouting out 'Tory Toff' as if its an in-depth analysis of their current set up.
 


Re: Crewe by-election and the 'Tory Toff' campaign (#7)

by BritishAsian on Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:26:37 AM GMT

This does not add up. The Tories had great trouble finding any candidate so it cannot be said to be any sort of favour. Johnson was elected because our candidate was seen as a lazy and deceitful drunk surrounded by cronies. It is Ken's fault he let that happen, that is not to say it is true but unquestionably he let it be seen as true. 

All our leaders went to public school or grammar school too. My children went to comprehensives in Harlesden and I tell you that compared to this Mr Brown's background as Scottish gentry at selective school is also immense wealth and privilege.
 
This is no fruitful attack.


[ Parent ]

Re: Crewe by-election and the 'Tory Toff' campaign (#10)

by CitizenAndreas on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:37:50 AM GMT

"our candidate was seen as a lazy and deceitful drunk surrounded by cronies"

That it is an unacceptable smear on Ken Livingstone, take it back.


[ Parent ]

Re: Crewe by-election and the 'Tory Toff' campaign (#13)

by Al on Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:03:36 PM GMT

Fair point about them having trouble finding a candidate but I didn't say Boris was elected because of his shared background (Eton and Bullingdon) with Cameron.

I said I'd rather see a line of attack (if theres going to be one) on the Tories along the lines of their top ranks being dominated by people Cameron/Boris et al have known for decades than for the simple fact they're 'posh'.

Your point about our leaders all going to private and grammar is exactly my point though, they didn't all go to the same one and it isn't a network of people who've known each other years. At least as far as I'm aware.

My point was now there's an unprecedented amount of Etonian influence in the top ranks of the Tories, as well as Cameron's friends and so on. So if they want to attack something about the Tories 'privelege' attack this impression that developing that it's all an old-tie network based around Eton and Cameron.


[ Parent ]

Re: Crewe by-election and the 'Tory Toff' campaign (#35)

by BritishAsian on Thu May 15, 2008 at 07:04:01 AM GMT

Well there is equally a large amount of trade union influence in the Labour party, so I do not see that is any better or worse than this. 

I have never heard this argument before that public schools are OK as long as it is different public schools not the same one! 

Public schools these days have a very high Asian content due to meritocratic admissions, I wonder if we will have a problem in the future with Asian prime minister who went to public school? 


[ Parent ]

Re: Crewe by-election and the 'Tory Toff' campaign (#39)

by Group51 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:35:30 PM GMT

"Public schools these days have a very high Asian content due to meritocratic admissions"

Could you please point out the private schools which have 'very high' content of meritocratic full scholarships?  If you can't perhaps you can explain what 'very high' means.


[ Parent ]

Re: Crewe by-election and the 'Tory Toff' campaign (#8)

by John Pickworth on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:21:17 AM GMT

Didn't Blair and friends spend the early years preaching the benefits of meritocracy, don't they still sell us the ideal of sending ever greater numbers of our young to university?

For why? What good is it if the best reach the top and are then slammed for it? Shouldn't we be proud that the best educated are running the show?

As for Boris and the cronyism charge... be careful here. He was elected (by the people of London) as Mayor, fair and square, not so the man who took the ultimate top job, the unelected Gordon Brown.

The problem for Labour generally and particularly in Crewe and Nantwich is that they are coming across as a bunch of school-yard bullies. Instead of trying to flush the rich kids' head down the toilet maybe they would be better served coming up with some solutions? 


As it is, these antics have eroded and invalidated any claim that Dunwoody is a principled and moral choice for Crewe and Nantwich. I simply cannot believe that the late Gwyneth Dunwoody would have approved and I suspect, ultimately, neither will the voters in this by-election.
 


[ Parent ]

Re: Crewe by-election and the 'Tory Toff' campaign (#9)

by Just Labour on Tue May 13, 2008 at 08:16:38 AM GMT

John - I don't think you are in a better position than Tamsin Dunwoody to know what her mother would or would not have approved of in the by election caused by her death.


[ Parent ]

Re: Crewe by-election and the 'Tory Toff' campaign (#15)

by John Pickworth on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:30:07 PM GMT

I didn't say I knew... I said I 'didn't believe' she would have approved.

While the late Gwyneth Dunwoody could certainly muster up a caustic phrase or two for her opponants, she certainly had little respect for the silly sods who dressed up as The Monster Raving Loony Party for example and distracted from the serious business of politics.  So yes, I don't believe she would have approved of these stunts and certainly not in her name.


[ Parent ]

Re: Crewe by-election and the 'Tory Toff' campaign (#19)

by doctordunc on Tue May 13, 2008 at 08:05:38 PM GMT

Surely there is a difference between 'the best' and the most expensively educated?


[ Parent ]

Re: Crewe by-election and the 'Tory Toff' campaign (#5)

by NB on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:25:12 PM GMT

This just makes Labour look silly and desperate. None of the Conservative Front Bench is as rich as David Sainsbury, David Milliband lives is a house worth a lot more that "toff" Timpson, and the Billionaires who bankroll(ed) Labour are much richer than their counterparts supporting the Tories.  Why not tell them they are unwelcome and can have their money back -- oops Labour is Bankrupt and can't repay it.

The Electorate wants competent politicians and doesn't care where they went to school. Also what is your evidence that "Under Cameron the Tories still believe that the role of government is to concentrate wealth and power in the hands of their friends and backers."   Know your enemy is a vital maxim.


Re: Crewe by-election and the 'Tory Toff' campaign (#6)

by doctordunc on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:44:41 PM GMT

I've no real objection to the 'toff' charges - it is an interesting aspect of the new Conservative Party that it has returned to type after the Thatcher, middle-class era.  It's now well-and-truly an Old Etonian club again.  I always say 'it's not who you are, it's who you're for', but there doesn't seem to be much evidence that Cameron and his old dorm buddies are for anybody but themselves.

What I dislike about the leaflet is the line about ID cards.  I find it a strange thing to include and, if I understand the implication correctly, an offensive and dangerous thing to include.

Attack the Tories for being rich and elitist - by all means - but don't attack them for not being sufficiently fascistic!


Re: Crewe by-election and the 'Tory Toff' campaign (#11)

by Prbo on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:41:07 AM GMT

I've no real objection to the 'toff' charges

Do you believe that be in Government in this country you have to come from the working or lower-middle classes?


[ Parent ]

Re: Crewe by-election and the 'Tory Toff' campaign (#12)

by CitizenAndreas on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:16:15 AM GMT

I can't speak for Duncan, but personally I object to hearing a message about self reliance and getting by without help from people who have never needed help because their daddies paid their way.


[ Parent ]

Re: Crewe by-election and the 'Tory Toff' campaign (#14)

by Prbo on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:25:41 PM GMT

So, what it boils down to is that if you've experienced something in your upbringing which you didn't have any control over (i.e. your parents' wealth & choice of education for you) you are automatically denied the right to talk about other people's upbringing?  Is that right?


[ Parent ]

Re: Crewe by-election and the 'Tory Toff' campaign (#17)

by CitizenAndreas on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:08:55 PM GMT

No, it's not about denying rights and never was. It's about the message the Tories are putting across and whether people should be listening to it.

To me, it looks like the Tory party is still the party that represents the interests of the rich and privileged.


[ Parent ]

Re: Crewe by-election and the 'Tory Toff' campaign (#32)

by George08 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:28:33 PM GMT

"To me, it looks like the Tory party is still the party that represents the interests of the rich and privileged."

This is a common charge against the Tories made by left-leaning parties, not least by senior Labour figures such as Brown and Ed Balls (see the latter's speech from last year's conference).

The chief fallacy of the charge, it seems to me, is that if the Tories represent the interests of the rich and privileged - who compose a relatively small minority of the electorate - then how are they attracting swathes of supporters from the C1 and C2 social groups?

The reason Thatcher did so well electorally was because she attracted those very groups, that Cameron is now also wooing from Labour, and so it seems non-sensical to call it the party of the rich because the vast majority who vote for the party are not rich, comparatively speaking (at least in terms of the number of Tory voters who went to public school). It is simply not in most voters' interests to vote for a party that only represents the rich.


[ Parent ]

Re: Crewe by-election and the 'Tory Toff' campaign (#36)

by BritishAsian on Thu May 15, 2008 at 07:09:41 AM GMT

Well I think how we make the charge stick is we must redefine occasionally what is "rich and privileged".

It used to mean Etonians sure. These days we can think of as rich anybody who earns more than average wage. By definition such people are richer than most.

Then there are people who have a house. In this property bubble there are many "millionaires" though perhaps not for much longer. If we call everyone on a pension who owns an inflated house a millionaire then there are more rich.
 
The council house sales in the 80s those also benefited the rich. A poor man buys his housel it inflates, he is now rich. So it is OK to stir up against such people.

This is how we show conservatives are the party of the rich.

Mind, I am not keen on this word "toff". This is not a word you ever hear except from Labour party. I think posh would be better. Conservatives are party of posh, those people who bought their council houses and so on.


[ Parent ]

Re: Crewe by-election and the 'Tory Toff' campaign (#57)

by AngryVoter on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:59:26 PM GMT

What and utterly cynical approach to the Council House selloff that is!

 Our family never owned a single property until Maggie let my Grandmother and Grandfather buy their Council Home and make it their own. She's not rich either, she lives on the basic state pension and one that amounts to just £20 a month from the Brewery where my Grandfather worked for a short time.


[ Parent ]

Re: Crewe by-election and the 'Tory Toff' campaign (#41)

by CitizenAndreas on Thu May 15, 2008 at 06:15:04 PM GMT

As far as I'm concerned, we in the Labour party know better. The Tories presided over a huge increase in inequality in the 80's and I think many people forget just how broken the country was after their 18 years in power.

The Tories have a few areas where they hold the advantage, generally on crime, immigration, tax and regulation but as far as I'm concerned Cameron's true colours show when he talks about marriage and the family.

Blaming family breakdown for his so called "broken society" demonstrates, to me at least, his contempt for the less well off.


[ Parent ]

Re: Crewe by-election and the 'Tory Toff' campaign (#43)

by Prbo on Thu May 15, 2008 at 07:08:59 PM GMT

Blaming family breakdown for his so called "broken society" demonstrates, to me at least, his contempt for the less well off.

Could you explain what you mean please, Andreas?

On inequality, I've heard on a number of occasions that the gap between rich and poor under Labour has grown wider, not smaller. 


[ Parent ]

Re: Crewe by-election and the 'Tory Toff' campaign (#49)

by CitizenAndreas on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:37:21 PM GMT

The pro family rhetoric and policies Cameron's putting forward suggests that family breakdown is a cause of poverty. I don't accept this and (like most of the Labour Party I'd guess) actually view it as a symptom of poverty.

The problem with viewing family breakdown as a cause of poverty is that it is essentially blaming people for their situation and this is something I find distasteful.


[ Parent ]

Re: Crewe by-election and the 'Tory Toff' campaign (#50)

by Prbo on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:59:52 PM GMT

I understand and applaud your concern, but would you at least acknowledge the negative impact that family breakdown has on poverty?  Having more single mums unable to go out to work is surely worse than having two parents where at least one parent can go out and earn a wage?

There are many areas where we do seem to have a broken society.  I have a friend from university who works as a youth worker in Gateshead.  She sees girl after girl on her local estate fall pregnant in their teens, in full knowledge that they will be granted preferential treatment in accessing social housing.  I know it's a complex situation, of course, but the fact that behaviour like this appears to not be isolated indicates to me that there is something seriously wrong with this society. 

I think family breakdown can be both a cause and symptom of poverty.  Is what you're saying that if we eradicated poverty that family breakdown would decrease concurrently?  if so, I think you're badly mistaken.


[ Parent ]

Re: Crewe by-election and the 'Tory Toff' campaign (#51)

by jkitleft on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:44:04 PM GMT

I agree that many don't appreciate the importance of families, on the left. This is not to say they're anti-family. I personally believe that strong families can be linked to strong communities. However, I am raised by my single mum, and I do better at school say, than some kids who live with both parents.

Cameron's Wisconsin welfare proposals are anti-family, not pro-family. Think about it. A woman has to get up at 5 o' clock for a job across the other side of town. She gets home between 12 and 14 hours later. She cannot spend time with her little kids. Isn't that going to be more damaging for the family than her not having a husband? Couldn't that be a cause of family breakdown?


[ Parent ]

Re: Crewe by-election and the 'Tory Toff' campaign (#58)

by AngryVoter on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:03:09 PM GMT

Conversly I was the exact opposite when my family fell apart, that basic family structure was keeping me focussed and strong on my education, allowing me to take a French GCSE at just 11. When my family broke up that same year my education went into free fall and I barely scraped by the 5 A-C GCSEs at 16 that the government aims for. Personally I do find myself, as a voter "resonating" more with the Tory Party lines, because I have seen both sides of the coin, and to me the family is key to a stable childhood, regardless of parental makeup [Gay, Straight etc]


[ Parent ]

Re: Crewe by-election and the 'Tory Toff' campaign (#20)

by doctordunc on Tue May 13, 2008 at 08:08:54 PM GMT

No - I just think it is interesting the Tories have reverted to having Etonians in the leading roles.  It is a harder position from which to argue that people shouldn't expect handouts, etc.  I think the Tories have been more comfortable with people who could at least pretend to have an element of the 'self made' about them.  In many ways David Davies would have made the perfect Thatcherite Tory leader.  Cameron's great privelage could almost be seen, in that context, as a disadvantage.


[ Parent ]

Re: Crewe by-election and the 'Tory Toff' campaign (#23)

by Prbo on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:29:30 AM GMT

Tories have reverted to having Etonians in the leading roles
 
This is exactly the point though!  Noone is chosen on the basis of where they went to school - Cameron was elected leader of the Tory party on the basis of his merits, not his background.

What it boils down to is that, from my observations, the Labour party is still unable to embrace the idea of meritocracy.  It's an obsession with having the right people of the right colour of the right background in the right jobs.  We see this with All-women and all-BME shortlists.  People appear to be valued in the Labour Party for what they look like and where they come from, rather than for what their capabilities actually are.


[ Parent ]

Re: Crewe by-election and the 'Tory Toff' campaign (#25)

by doctordunc on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:50:20 AM GMT

I didn't want to bang on about this, because - as I've said elsewhere - generally I think it's 'who you're for' not 'who you are' that matters.  But I hardly think 'Eton' and 'meritocracy' can sensibly be mentioned in the same sentence without a lot of expletives.


[ Parent ]

Re: Crewe by-election and the 'Tory Toff' campaign (#26)

by Prbo on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:35:08 PM GMT

Thanks for this Dunc, but you've just contradicted yourself in those two sentences.  F

irstly, do you think that Cameron, Johnson et all should be criticised over a decision that was made by their parents?  Should they, as 11-year olds or whatever, have said "no, I reject this elitist education you want for me, I'm going to go to the local comp instead?"

Secondly, if I may put it like this, your contradiction shows that people in the Labour party seem to be more concerned about outdated prejudices than about judging people on their merits.  It shows how out of touch with the rest of the country the party is at the grassroots level.  In the London Mayoral election, everyone knew Boris went to Eton, but that didn't stop them voting for him in droves.  Thank goodness for the common sense of the electorate!


[ Parent ]

Re: Crewe by-election and the 'Tory Toff' campaign (#28)

by NorthernMonkey on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:35:46 PM GMT

Prbo, it's all very well for you to talk of a meritocracy, but when we have a monarch in her position because of the family she was born in, 92 hereditary peers given votes on our legislation because of the families they were born in, an Old Etonian Mayor of London, a likely future PM who is an Old Etonian and nearly 2/3 of the Tory cabinet full of former private school pupils, it's clear that this country is certainly not meritocratic and therefore it's no surprise that class wars continue.

If every working class child of every skin colour, sexuality etc. knew he/she had a realistic and fair chance of reaching the top, then we wouldn't have any need for class wars or positive discrimination.


[ Parent ]

Re: Crewe by-election and the 'Tory Toff' campaign (#30)

by Prbo on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:24:30 PM GMT

NM, I greatly admire your commitment to equality of opportunity - I fully support that as well.  But I really must take exception to this bizarre obsession with Eton and public schools you and your party.  Can you explain what is unmeritocratic about having been to a public school?


[ Parent ]

Re: Crewe by-election and the 'Tory Toff' campaign (#33)

by doctordunc on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:09:38 PM GMT

Well there are two seperate points.  There is nothing unmeritocratic about having been to one - as you say, it isn't Cameron or Johnson's FAULT that their parents paid tens of thousands of pounds on their schooling.

But clearly public schools themselves represent the very opposite of meritocracy; and top places in any walk of life going to those who attended such schools is the antithesis of meritocracy too (however blameless the individuals may be!)  Now, if those people then make it their mission to ensure that future generations are unable to buy their children power and influence in that way, then all power to them.  But if they say, 'you shouldn't expect handouts from the state and you should stand on your own two feet' then I think it only fair that people point out their detachment from the realities they refer to. 


[ Parent ]

Re: Crewe by-election and the 'Tory Toff' campaign (#34)

by George08 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:01:53 AM GMT

"...those people then make it their mission to ensure that future generations are unable to buy their children power and influence..."

Why do you suppose that this is their mission? What evidence or indications are there that there is any mission of such kind?


[ Parent ]

Re: Crewe by-election and the 'Tory Toff' campaign (#52)

by doctordunc on Fri May 16, 2008 at 06:08:21 PM GMT

I'm assuming it isn't their mission but that it should be.


[ Parent ]

Re: Crewe by-election and the 'Tory Toff' campaign (#37)

by Prbo on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:59:39 AM GMT

Thanks dunc, that's helpful.  I see your point, but I still think there's an important distinction here.  You seem to be suggesting that it's only politicians who've experienced something in life who are qualified to speak to other people about it.  If people had a privileged upbringing, then they can't call for other people to try and be self-sufficient etc, as you've said.

Why should this be the case?  Does this mean that politicians who have been brought up on a healthy diet can't criticise families who are feeding their kids junk food?  Do you see my point?  You claim that these politicians are detached from reality, but there's nothing they could have done to have made their upbringing different!  Just as people who were brought up in difficult circumstances couldn't either.  The essence of meritocracy is to do with completely judging people on their merits and ability to do the job, totally disregarding their background. 

If I was being unkind, I'd point out that the number of Labour MPs who went to public school is pretty large, but that doesn't stop them from talking about poverty etc.


[ Parent ]

Re: Crewe by-election and the 'Tory Toff' campaign (#45)

by Group51 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:06:21 PM GMT

"But clearly public schools themselves represent the very opposite of meritocracy; and top places in any walk of life going to those who attended such schools is the antithesis of meritocracy too (however blameless the individuals may be!)"

No.  All-women shortlists are the opposite of meritocracy.  Prejudice (racism/sexism etc.) is the opposite of Meritocracy.  Old boy networks and favouritism are the opposite of Meritocracy.  

Deep breath...comprehensive schools are the opposite of Meritocracy.  Grammar schools are meritocratic.  Grammar schools are selective based on ability, and statistically those with money are able to provide the level of support/pressure/expectation that make poor children in Grammar the exception.  Those are the same people who may be able to afford a private education for their children, affording them smaller class sizes, and additional tuition.

Private schools don't dominate Oxbridge just because they speak proper.  Their kids pass the exams...meritocratic-ally.

The issue is wealth buying privilege and advantage.  New Labour has nothing negative to say about this.


[ Parent ]

Re: Crewe by-election and the 'Tory Toff' campaign (#53)

by doctordunc on Fri May 16, 2008 at 06:19:00 PM GMT

Private schools don't dominate Oxbridge just because they speak proper.  Their kids pass the exams...meritocratic-ally.

That's MUCH to simplistic.  There are all sorts of reasons why the public school kids dominate, to suggest it's just exam results is simply incorrect.  I've taught kids on degree courses at other institutions who got the highest A Level grades in the country and were turned down for their interviews at Oxbridge for a whole range of reasons (some of them legitimate in a skewed sort of way - a sort of way that has nothing to do with meritocracy - and some totally illegitimate).

We've improved things a little in that area, but not enough.

As for your point about Grammar schools, I really don't know where to start.  There is NOTHING meritocratic about the grammar school system.

You cannot, at 11, test for which students are the most academically-able on the basis of merit.  All you can do is see which ones are best at passing the type of test you put forward (for the most part, in modern grammar schools, that means which one's parents have spent the most on private tuition).  Your point about support, pressure, expectation is a huge part of the point - the fact a system was devised that enabled the wealthy to prosper and the less well-off to be mostly labelled as 'non-academic' and failures is the important material point about grammar schools. The truth is that grammar schools are middle-class insitutions, and always were.  Some working-class kids profited 'meritocratically' in the system, but it was in spite of the system that was ranged against them in every particular rather than because of it.

Comprehensive schools on the other hand allow for a much greater degree of meritocracy.  Of course, comprehensive schools with rigid banding or streaming can be just as problematic as a grammar school.

On another point, I agree with you to a certain extent.  In an unequal society, meritocracy is not really attainable, and therefore systems and institutions that claim to provide it are essentially ideological tools designed to lie to people.  In an unequal society you need to try to equalise outcomes; to do so you must reject the faux meritocracy of testing, selection and unproblematised equal opportunities.


[ Parent ]

Re: Crewe by-election and the 'Tory Toff' campaign (#44)

by Group51 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:51:41 PM GMT

If you think Cameron was elected leader because he went to Eton, then I must advise you to re-tune your political antennae tout-de-suite.

The toff campaign, I must say, I find a bit distasteful, especially given that Labour is stuffed with middle-class guilt.  

That thing about ID cards for Johhny foreginer: not in my name.  I feel ashamed for that.


[ Parent ]

Re: Crewe by-election and the 'Tory Toff' campaign (#16)

by hardmant on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:35:44 PM GMT

It's now well-and-truly an Old Etonian club again.

An Old Etonian club with fewer Old Etonians in the Shadow Cabinet than under Heath, Thatcher or Major? And with fewer privately educated members than under at least Major (and I imagine under Thatcher and Heath)?


It's always a danger to believe one's own propaganda. The Labour Party must resist from doing so.


[ Parent ]

Re: Crewe by-election and the 'Tory Toff' campaign (#21)

by doctordunc on Tue May 13, 2008 at 08:14:26 PM GMT

But you're talking about a different era really.  Being an Etonian was a definite disadvantage for Hurd.

I really don't care where people went to school if their heart is in the right place.  But we're talking about Tories, so they don't have hearts at all!


[ Parent ]

Re: Crewe by-election and the 'Tory Toff' campaign (#18)

by jkitleft on Tue May 13, 2008 at 05:34:13 PM GMT

I think the Eton attacks are warranted. Why don't Caermoons ask if the corollary is true? If all of Brown's cabinet had gone to Kirckaldy high school, wouldn't the right-wing commentators in conjunction with the Tories kick off?


Re: Crewe by-election and the 'Tory Toff' campaign (#24)

by Prbo on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:30:44 AM GMT

Would you be happy for the Tory party to portray Labour MPs as 'working-class scumbags who went to bog-standard comps?'


[ Parent ]

Re: Crewe by-election and the 'Tory Toff' campaign (#29)

by NorthernMonkey on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:36:46 PM GMT

Absolutely - we'd win every election by a landslide!


[ Parent ]

Re: Crewe by-election and the 'Tory Toff' campaign (#31)

by Prbo on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:25:57 PM GMT

So why is it ok to lampoon some Tories who happen to have been to a public school?


[ Parent ]

Re: Crewe by-election and the 'Tory Toff' campaign (#38)

by hardmant on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:14:59 AM GMT

But only two members of the Shadow Cabinet (Cameron and Letwin) went to Eton.


[ Parent ]

Re: Crewe by-election and the 'Tory Toff' campaign (#22)

by scampi on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:30:27 PM GMT

Hypocrites all - most of the current cabinet were educated at public schools!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Re: Crewe by-election and the 'Tory Toff' campaign (#27)

by Sensible Comrade on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:17:35 PM GMT

Using 'class' in political discourse is legitimate and I for one think the Labour Party should be doing it more often.

However, that does not mean simplisticly attacking individual opponents on class grounds during by-elections. 

As has been pointed out, there are plenty of posh Labourites around.

Such attacks makes the party seem daft and desperate. Especially when we have Cabinet members who urge us to celebrate millionaires, a former PM who had no problem with the super-rich, claimed the class war was over, and on leaving office has tried his best to join their ranks, and the government has presided over a society that remains tarnished by high levels of inequality.

The contradiction between Labour's occasional outbursts of crude class war and the standard government avoidance of class-based analysis is obvious.

Some coherence around Labour's relationship to class would be more welcome than delusional outpourings of self-righteous class hatred.


Re: Crewe by-election and the 'Tory Toff' campaign (#40)

by Prbo on Thu May 15, 2008 at 01:39:25 PM GMT

Using 'class' in political discourse is legitimate and I for one think the Labour Party should be doing it more often.

In what sense, SC?  If you mean using it as legitimate grounds for criticising someone's upbringing, then that's pretty low.  No-one has any control over the situation they were born into and grew up in.


[ Parent ]

Re: Crewe by-election and the 'Tory Toff' campaign (#42)

by Sensible Comrade on Thu May 15, 2008 at 07:01:07 PM GMT

Well, as I would have thought my post made clear, I am not in favour of personal class-based attacks.

What I'd like to see is more use of class in the Labour Party's analysis of society and in the way its policies are formulated.

I doubt any intelligent person can seriously claim we live in a meritocracy. Instead of refusing to mention class because of its associations with 'old Labour' we should be honest and pragmatic about the society we are living in, the people whose interests we best represent, and how we want to change Britain to try to rid it of class divisions. 

Labour currently has a very complex and confusing relationship with the concept of 'class' and I think it is in the interests of both the government and the party to re-think our attitude.


[ Parent ]

Re: Crewe by-election and the 'Tory Toff' campaign (#47)

by Prbo on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:38:12 PM GMT

Thanks for this, clears it up.  Very much agree.


[ Parent ]

Re: Crewe by-election and the 'Tory Toff' campaign (#46)

by William Roberts on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:25:23 PM GMT

I'm assuming the "Toff" campaign is a dog-whistle to get our core vote to trun out?

I don't like it - we can't campaign for equality and then ridicule people for their backgrounds.

But my bigger concern is that it just won't resonate. Voters support candidates who they think will stand up for their kind of people. Our biggest problem is the feeling that the Conservatives are more supportive of working people than Labour. This perception comes from policy not background - hopefully some of this week's announcements will begin to reverse that perception.


Re: Crewe by-election and the 'Tory Toff' campaign (#48)

by TonyHannon on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:41:34 PM GMT

'I'm assuming the "Toff" campaign is a dog-whistle to get our core vote to turn out?
 
'I don't like it - we can't campaign for equality and then ridicule people for their backgrounds.

Absolutely correct!

Not only does this disastrous, lowest common denominator campaign demean politics (such as it is!!!), its gobellian smearing will get us hammered. Again!

Whoever is responsible for this campaign really should be removed - or de-selected. There should be a disincentive to being this shortsighted and stupid.


[ Parent ]

Re: Crewe by-election and the 'Tory Toff' campaign (#59)

by AngryVoter on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:14:15 PM GMT

From the digging I did the Labour MP running this disasterous "Toff" campaign is Steve McCabe, a Birmingham MP who strikes me as never travelling outside of Brum and Westminster if his actions on his campaign are anything to go by. The fact is the Labour party in C&N seem to have no policies or local ideas to stand on, and are trying to run on the fact Tamsin is Dunwoody's daughter rather than some of the good the party has managed to bring about.

The main problem is the Tories have turned around from their old positions and disasterous "Are you thinking what we're thinking?" style campaign and instead are gunning for "We're thinking what you're thinking too, you know. Because we asked." This is largely stemming from their semi-independant think tanks and policy bureaus which attack a broad spectrum of society and the statistics published by the government. They're playing a strange mixture of positive and negative campaigning utilizing the government's own statistics against them, bring forth the underlying fears from society and then saying "We have a way to fix it." and publishing their AGENDA documents at their site while never fully publishing their own full policies.

Labour in 1997 also ran a similar campaign, this is why Major never managed to rally in time to stave off defeat. They couldn't tell what New Labour stood for. 


[ Parent ]

Re: Crewe by-election and the 'Tory Toff' campaign (#54)

by Rev Sebastian Firth on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:06:10 AM GMT

If the Tories represent the interests of the rich and privileged - who compose a relatively small minority of the electorate - then how are they attracting swathes of supporters from the C1 and C2 social groups?
The reason is simple, people who vote Conservative are either selfish or stupid.
The selfish Tories are those who can afford private education and private medicine and don’t give a damn if state schools and hospitals are neglected and starved of funds, as they were by the last Tory Government.  These Tories want cuts in the top rate of income tax, inheritance tax and capital gains tax, all funded by reductions in public expenditure.  Their attitude is encapsulated in the Thatcher antichrist’s infamous remark “no such thing as society, only individuals”.  If they contribute the odd fiver to a charity it will salve any semblance of a conscience which they might have.  These Tories explain why Kensington & Chelsea is the safest Tory seat in Britain and also has the highest average annual income (in excess of £100,000) in the country.  “It is much harder for a rich person to enter the Kingdom of God than for a camel to go through the eye of a needle.” (Luke 18:25)  These Tories are epitomised by television characters such as Alan B’Stard, Hyacinth Bucket, Margot in ‘The Good Life’ and David Horton in ‘The Vicar of Dibley’.
The stupid Tories are those who believe the incessant propaganda spewed out by naff right-wing tabloid newspapers.  The working class ones think that voting Tory somehow makes them superior to other people around them, some even feel that they have “dragged themselves out” of the working class.  They are subservient to the rich and powerful, fawn to monarchy and the aristocracy, and show exaggerated gratitude for any crumbs which their lords and masters throw their way.  These Tories are scabs who will support the bosses against their fellow workers in the hope of earning a few extra brownie points.  Such Tories are portrayed by television characters such as Basil Fawlty, Alf Garnett, Mr Hudson in ‘Upstairs, Downstairs’ and the verger in ‘Dad’s Army’.
Both the selfish and stupid Tories share one characteristic: they don’t really like anyone else - foreigners, immigrants, the rest of the working class, Scots, the poor, anyone who may need to claim benefits.  “We spent our lives in malice.“ (Titus 3:3)  Most of all, they hate paying taxes which might help others in society, always concerned that someone else (such as the Scots or the Welsh) might get a penny or two of their money.  “Pay the Emperor what belongs to the Emperor, and pay God what belongs to God.” (Mark 12:17)


Re: Crewe by-election (#56)

by John Pickworth on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:10:28 AM GMT

"These Tories are scabs who will support the bosses against their fellow workers"

What decade are you living in? The 1960's?




[ Parent ]

Re: Crewe by-election and the 'Tory Toff' campaign (#60)

by AngryVoter on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:27:03 PM GMT

If this is the case, why are a number of places, especially C&N reporting that British People admire folks who have made their own way, which a number of front benchers and indeed the C&N candidate, Timpson, has? From what I can see you're continuing to bang a very old dusty drum, it's not as if Labour can claim to not having a smattering of privaleged members. The 1980's saw people own their own homes under the "antichrist", including my own, which meant our family finally managed to break the shackles of constantly living out of state homes, even if I and my mother work for the state.

Also, forgive me if I am wrong, but was it not Labour who allowed the Private medical care companies to flourish in this country by ending the NHS monopoly properly in 2000 with the The National Care Standards Act 2000 and Private & Voluntary Healthcare Regulations as they have also done with end of the Royal Mail Monopoly in 2002?

Despite record investment into the NHS these past 10 years the Labour Government has done nothing to revert the "antichrist party"'s work since 1992?

Also, again, forgive me if I am wrong, but are not many of the benefit system things put in place since 1997 such as Tax Credits vaguely redundant, if I am entitled to have some of my money *back* off of the government, shouldn't you have not taken it in the first place?

Instead I am merely time wasting with form filling and what have you, and beleive it or not, there is a societal stigma to claiming benefits for every little thing when working class, left wing or not? People do indeed have a spirit and a soul and last I checked it was one that tried it's best to work in times of adversity.

There's no real "pride" for voting Tory, they have some good policies and seem to be veering towards the line of "common sense" which the electorate has been calling for for years.

I think Labour's struggling because of it. It has a lack of common sense often exhibited by it's activists. 


[ Parent ]

Re: Crewe by-election and the 'Tory Toff' campaign (#55)

by madasafish on Sat May 17, 2008 at 07:22:39 AM GMT

As a Scot who is not rich, the above article describing Tories  just shows the Labour Party are the Nasty Party. As evidenced by their leaflest in Crewe.

It is a bit rich (!:-) going on about the rich when the former Labour Prime Minister has just bought another house worth £4 million. And Lords Levy and Sainsbury are not paupers. Nor are the Millibands.

Typical hypocrisy and class hatred...fortunately most Labour supporters are normal nice human beings unlike how the writer portrays himself.


Crewe by-election and the 'Tory Toff' campaign | 60 comments (60 topical)