A common theme in most of the pieces rallying to Michael Martin’s defence is that there’s a snobbish element in the Tory party who’ve never been comfortable with his working class Scots background and broad Paisley accent. I’ve no idea if this is true but I wouldn’t be surprised if it was – any pressure on Martin rooted in such attitudes should be roundly resisted.
A thought occurs though – how many of those on the left who’ve cried foul over this agenda were happy to poke fun at David Cameron over that infamous Bullingdon photo, regularly call attention to his expensive education and remind people that he’s descended from William IV? More than a few I’m willing to bet.
Neither Martin nor Cameron’s social background should have the slightest impact on how we judge them – that should be on merit alone. I’m not sure those rallying to the Speakers defence have always stood by that line of thinking….
A thought occurs though – how many of those on the left who’ve cried foul over this agenda were happy to poke fun at David Cameron over that infamous Bullingdon photo, regularly call attention to his expensive education and remind people that he’s descended from William IV? More than a few I’m willing to bet.
Neither Martin nor Cameron’s social background should have the slightest impact on how we judge them – that should be on merit alone. I’m not sure those rallying to the Speakers defence have always stood by that line of thinking….
4 Comments:
I'd say that cam's background makes him less fit for purpose as a potential national leader than mick's does as an extra turned bit player.
In an increasingly converged general population Martin remains within the broad mass - working class made good, quite a big category - while Cam remains an outrider.
There are Martins on my street but no Cams.
It is the unspeakable in pursuit of the inedible (or unpalatable) but if we weigh Conway's sins and Martin's I think we find the Tories way out ahead on sleaze here.
Martin must be saved, assuming there's nothing non-trivial. And yes, I will continue to sneer at Cam, Goo and Boz as toffs and also incidentally as not fit for purpose.
Acceptable if they were lining up to represent the class as back benchers for 20 years. Less so IMO if they're making a dash for the reins of government.
Chris, I think Liam's point still holds good though.
I've had a go at Cameron and the Bullingdon crew, and I don't think we're in a position to moan when the toffs party have a go at Gorbals Mick. Nor do I see why we should care, either. I'm proud of my working class origins, and I'm sure Mick Martin is of his, and equally, Cameron is probably proud of his lofty background.
As long as Cameron doesn't try to pretend he's anything other than he is, and the same goes for Mick, I've got no concerns either way.
Chris Paul of course never raised a squeak about Blair`s equally privileged background or indeed the many seriously well connected Labourites. I have looked into this and judged by nepotism the labour Party are vastly less meritocratic than the Conservatives . Jeremy Paxman has a hilarious chapter charting the intricate familial relations of the Labour Party usually linked with the aristocracy by one remove and the Liberals are the only ones with , for the most part, new blood.
However whilst CP can be dismissed as a zombie partisan slogan spouter I hardly think the class of David Cameron is the same thing as the class of that of Martin . His use of class to defend himself is Wilsonian in its lack of principle and he is an odious biased and detested man who embarrasses the Labour Party and , in truth , amuses the Conservatives but he cannot be said to have benefited from his class.
It is no surprise that the educationally and financially well endowed would arrive at the top of the political profession and I will admit that the Labour Party is ahead in being open to a wider social spectrum . Sadly this wide spectrum has enacted policies that have caused class immobility to entirely ossify especially near the top cementing over the glass ceiling For the Grammar school boys of the Conservative party this is a hateful sight to behold .
To a Conservative Party the idea you are going to wake up tomorrow and the world will be fair is a childish and dangerous delusion and the man who runs the country has an efficient rather than sacramental role . For Labour these symbols are terribly important because as a party they have long slipped into confusing symbol and reality , like the pre literate peasants of the medieval period icons have become the truth. I con…. Sums them up.
Neither CP or BP are anything like stupid enough to seriously think on the level they pretend to and I imagine this sort of gloop just arrives by force of habit .
Do not underestimate the importance of class though C .It is not a good thing that the Conservative party is not open to a social spectrum. It is not impressive that labour MP`s habitually send their children to Public school. Politicians must understand the concerns of the people they govern and class is certainly one component if not the only one. It is entirely reasonable to point at the background and roots of Nick Clegg when he supports mass immigration but send his children to all white schools ( as he ahs promised…in so many words).
I will continue to point at the hypocrisy and cant of well connected upper middleclass socialists pulling up the ladder behind them and prattling on about their social conscience as they inflict sacrifices on their ‘inferiors’ they are not obliged to suffer themselves . This is especially irritating when the working classes are spoon fed a patronising brew of progressive luxury politics they despise by the well connected class manipulators of the damned Labour Party and its establishment fellow travellers.
One Party has a vested interest in maintaining the class system. Labour. Without it they have no purpose at all.
that should be on merit alone
In an ideal world - yes.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home