I suspect there will be little mileage in further flogging the dead horse of class and social background.

35% of Conservative ministers and 52% of LibDem ones in the Coalition government went to state schools, so non-Etonian voices are not entirely drowned out.

If you draw the “inner circle” around Cameron, Clegg and Osborne, it may seem all rather posh. Expand the circumference to accommodate Eric Pickles or William Hague and your theory falls flat.

The new Tory intake is much more diverse than ever before. Women, gays, ethnic minorities and Muslims may not be represented in line with their proportion in the general population – but they are there in sufficient force to make today’s Tory party rather different from the bad old days.

Cameron himself is regarded as surprisingly “normal” according to focus groups. More “normal” indeed than yer man Miliband. Cameron may be rich and posh, but at least he’s not from Planet Zog seems to be what folks think.

Ed Balls, of course, comes across more clearly a “man-of-the-people” than his leader – despite his minor public school/Oxford/ Financial Times background. Just goes to show you can’t always judge from the packaging.

Funny thing is that if you were looking for someone instinctively attuned to the attitudes of aspirational voters, you’d be hard pressed to find better than posh-boy Osborne. He just gets it.

Apart from being economically illiterate they appear to enjoy crushing the lower classes. I suspect that this coalition will end up a diabolical mess !

I presume that the following…

…’35% of Conservative ministers and 52% of LibDem ones in the Coalition government went to state schools, so non-Etonian voices are not entirely drowned out…’

…was intended as some form of parody?

“Cameron himself is regarded as surprisingly “normal” according to focus groups. ”

Wongly, as he has a £30million fortune, more houses than he can remember, and is a relative of Queen Liz herself – but don’t let facts get in the way, eh.

The only problem I can see with this approach is they do such a bloody good job of spinning things so they look like the champion of the people. Their courting of the red-tops/tabloids being a case in point. during the election they worked very hard – and did very well – to both make Labour/the left look elitest and give themselves the common touch.

“I suspect there will be little mileage in further flogging the dead horse of class and social background.”

I don’t. Provided it is done properly, links it with their current actions, and avoids it becoming too personal. For example the recent white paper on giving to charity expressed the view that the government wanted to explore ways of increasing legacy giving. The obvious response would be to demand that the wealthy members of the cabinet state publically how much they intended to give away (particularly as the white paper also argued that donations should be made publically to encourage a social norm of giving).

@ 2. Mr Tomne

The only logical outcome and I’m not complaining – bring it on.

Mr S Pill @ 4

Wongly, as he has a £30million fortune, more houses than he can remember, and is a relative of Queen Liz herself – but don’t let facts get in the way, eh.

Facts eh? Well for starters, Cameron doesn’t have a fortune of anything like that size. His two main assetts are a London house and an Oxfordshire house. The London one is worth £3m or so and the Oxon one still has a mortgage.

The thirty million figure was an estimate of what his net worth would be if his parents and his wife’s parents died leaving Dave & Sam as the sole beneficiaries. Also added in was a somewhat inflated estimate of what Sam’s shares in a private company she so-owns might be worth.

Don’t let the fact that David Cameron has an elder brother and two sisters, or that Sam’s family situation is….er…”complicated” get in the way, eh?

And as for Queen Liz….. ancestry nuts found the same to be true of Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan. Obama seems to have defeated them so far, but they’ve managed to link me as a descendant of Charlemagne (and I’m Jewish!)

This is what the outgoing boss of the CBI had to say on the coalition

The outgoing boss of the business body CBI has accused the coalition of failing to come up with policies that support economic growth.

“It’s failed to articulate in big picture terms its vision of what the UK economy might become under its stewardship,” Sir Richard Lambert said in a speech.

Sir Richard said business supported the government’s spending cuts.

But some politically motivated initiatives were damaging, he said.

The government has “taken a series of policy initiatives for political reasons, apparently careless of the damage they might do to business and to job creation”, Sir Richard said in his last major speech before his departure on Friday.

Full report on the BBC website.

So why would a Tory led governmemnt take ” a series of policy initialtives for political reasons” if it was so attuned to the ordinary mortgage paying, VAT paying. family tax credit claiming, low paid, comprehensively educated classes of this country?

“Facts eh? Well for starters, Cameron doesn’t have a fortune of anything like that size. ”

Even with the caveats explained above, his wealth is still way beyond the majority of the population, and his background of eton, oxford etc hardly screams working class boy made good.

Paul,

So your suggestion is that you attack the Conservatives as a bunch of out-of-touch rich kids.

Mr Osbourne is, for all he is rich, not out-of-touch enough not to happily strategise a response of talking about the issues affecting people and how the left-wing have nothing to offer but outdated negative-snobbery (he would probably put it a lot better as well…).

Considering that Labour’s front bench is almost entirely career politicians, with many coming through public schools and Oxbridge, this is a ridiculous line of attack – ask yourself, if you are going to attack on these lines, since clearly people were prepared to vote for the ‘rich’ Conservatives before, what will change whilst you alienate people from the public school edcuated (perhaps a reasonable decision, but since this is someone else’s decision it seems discriminatory) and those educated at our best universities (because we clearly don’t want intelligent and well educated politicians…)? Well, if you campaign succeeds, parties without that sort of leadership will benefit – BNP perhaps?

To be honest, I can’t see such a campaign working. It is too easy to attack and bluntly people don’t care – most people are more concerned about their jobs and taxes than the background of the government. Basically, your argument is that John Prescott would be more popular than David Cameron…

I’m not sure how well this would play. There would be the obvious accusations of the return of class war or the politics of envy, which for some reason stops the attacks in their tracks. However the biggest problems come when you start to dig into the backgrounds of many of the Opposition. Just how “in touch” can any of our professional politicians be these days?

It seems to me that MPs can be in touch and wave byebye to any career prosepcts, or sacrifice principles for career prospects leaving the rest of us behind.

@ 10

Why should every prime minister’s background scream “working class boy made good”?

The working class is shrinking so fast it will soon disappear up its own arse. The middle class is the biggest and still expanding.

Neither Tony Blair nor Gordon Brown came from working class backgrounds. Thatcher and Major came from something rather closer. So what? Fact is that most people who are still working class don’t really want to stay that way and Labour always banging on about how wonderful it is to be working class, and how one ought to celebrate it, shows how completely out of touch they are with people’s aspirations for themselves and their children.

“Well, if you campaign succeeds, parties without that sort of leadership will benefit – BNP perhaps?”

Griffin went to cambridge.

@11

Clearly it in an issue of concern for the Tories which is precisely why Andy Coulson was hired, to get the “poor man done good in touch with the common people who read the NoW and Sun” (who dont forget it was them that done it) view. David Davies is making the point that now with Coulson not around to give that view their policy thinking will suffer because of it.

To say no one cares about the class issue is frankly self denial!

Planeshift,

Even with the caveats explained above, his wealth is still way beyond the majority of the population, and his background of eton, oxford etc hardly screams working class boy made good.

Is this not a form of discrimination – because Mr Cameron was not born ‘working class’ you want to use this as a political attack?

How does that differ from attacking President Obama because he was not born with ‘white’ skin? It is simply a value judgement about something over which Mr Cameron or President Obama has no control.

You might be able to attack Mr Cameron over the Bullingdon Club membership – that was his choice remember (as with Mr Milliband’s failure to register himself as his child’s father or even Mr Clegg’s decision to marry a Spaniard if anyone really thinks that is an issue) – but that doesn’t seem to have had much traction so far. Attacking him over his circumstances of birth though just seems to be as discriminatory as attacking someone over their skin colour or the like.

“Why should every prime minister’s background scream “working class boy made good”?”

It shouldn’t, but you’ve focussed on a throwaway comment rather than deal with the substance, which is that Cameron’s background – despite your caveats – is privillaged and his wealth is beyond what most people could expect to have in their lifetimes.

14 – It’s hardly a proper university :p.

Watchman, it isn’t about attacking them for their background, it is about pointing out that their background means they don’t and cannot understand ordinary people who have to scrape the pennies together. And before you point it out – yes this applies to many of the shadow cabinet as well.

Planeshift,

“Well, if you campaign succeeds, parties without that sort of leadership will benefit – BNP perhaps?”

Griffin went to cambridge.

Fair enough (actually, I knew that!) – but it is wierdly enough that that noted (or believable). And I doubt many of the rest of the leadership did.

Skooter,

I am not sure on this – David Davis has good political instincts about right and wrong, but as far as I can tell from his bid for the leadership and spectacular resignation stunt he has very little political judgement. And if you believe the Sun wins elections, it might be worth asking why do they change sides to the most popular party each time? (and indeed, why don’t the Conservatives have a majority now?)

As with many David Davis incidents, I think this is a storm in a teacup.

Etonians in government is a throwback to the times of solely upper class votes. Now there are working/middle class voters able to participate in democracy we should have a wider selection of backgrounds in cabinet to vote for.

Btw I don’t understand why your finish your post with a call to end the class war when you have spent the time beforehand arguing for us to question the backgrounds of the people in government.

On some different points:

It’s odd that spinners are usually from lower backgrounds than MPs as they arguably have the greater power.

It also tells you that journalism is more open to people from state schools than politics.

@ 17

Pretty well every GP, every barrister, every accountant and the head teachers of many schools now have “wealth beyond what most people can expect in their lifetimes.” It would also be true of senior staff at the BBC (true in spades of the director general), the editor and many staff on the Guardian, and of every medium-sized business owner.

Are you seriously saying that politics should be barred to anyone who comes from a professional, managerial or business background? Or that people from such backgrounds are somehow unable to connect with the ordinary voter?

Planeshift,

Watchman, it isn’t about attacking them for their background, it is about pointing out that their background means they don’t and cannot understand ordinary people who have to scrape the pennies together.

I call bullsh*t.

Try this. It isn’t about attacking them for their skin colour, it is about pointing out their skin colour means they don’t and cannot understand ordinary white people who do not have the same experiences.

Exactly the same crap argument – they are different and can therefore be discounted as the ‘other’. Discrimination is discrimination regardless of who it is about – if you pick on things about people over which they have no control (skin colour, gender, social situation of parents, hair colour etc) you are discriminating whatever fautous excuse you come up with. It worries me that I have to point this out on this site of all sites.

Nice to see one of the comrades attacking people because of their class instead of their race for a change.

The question is, are your sneering posh people as dangerous as those sex crazed pakistanis Jack Straw warned us about?

Think about it another way Watchman,

I don’t know what it is like to have a serious disability. I can empathise, try to put myself in that situation, and try to understand it. But because I don’t have one myself, my understanding of the issues faced by people with serious disabilities is going to be limited. If I then found myself in a position of power over people in such a position, and adopted policies that they claimed were harmful, then I think it would be reasonable for the people effected to point out that I didn’t have a serious disability and question my understanding of the issues.

Watchman @ 16

Attacking him over his circumstances of birth though just seems to be as discriminatory as attacking someone over their skin colour or the like.

If we were merely attacking him because of how rich his parents were, you might have a point, but surely attacking him because comes from a rich household means that he is completely insulated from the policies he is ruthlessly foisting onto the poorest members of society is perfectly legitimate?

If he and Clegg ‘believe’ that VAT increases do not hit hard as tax income because they ‘personally’ suffer if income tax raises, then he assertion that VAT is not regressive is flawed, through lack of experience. If his ‘lack of experience’ is down the fact he was born with a silver straw up a nostril, then we are entitled to point that out that, aren’t we?

If they truly understand that VAT hurts the poor hardest, but increase it anyway, then we are entitled to come to the conclusion that they are doing so because they favour the rich?

Either way, the fact that he is very rich means he will never suffer from ‘the pain’ is a perfectly legitimate political point to make. Not only that, it is at least arguable that his actions are driven through his personal circumstances, isn’t it?

Julian Dobson’s report of a community meeting in Doncaster was interesting on this point:

“Most significantly, I thought, the antipathy towards politicians was open and contemptuous. David Cameron was repeatedly described by members of the audience as out of touch, a millionaire without an inkling of the difficulties ordinary people faced. MPs generally were clearly still tarnished by last year’s expenses scandal. There were few kind words even for local councillors.”

http://livingwithrats.blogspot.com/2011/01/big-society-message-that-wont-sell-and.html

Flowerpower @ 22

Pretty well every GP, every barrister, every accountant and the head teachers of many schools now have “wealth beyond what most people can expect in their lifetimes.” It would also be true of senior staff at the BBC (true in spades of the director general), the editor and many staff on the Guardian, and of every medium-sized business owner.

None of that matters because the Doctor et al is not being hired for his working class knowledge’, he is being hired for his medical knowledge. I agree that a doctor may have to understand ‘working class’ culture to help him, what constitutes ‘a couple of pints’ for example, but surely any good doctor would and could learn that?

The charge against Cameron and Clegg is not simply that they have no idea how many peple live their life and no idea the problems they suffer, although that would be bad enough. The REAL problem for the Country is that Cameron and Clegg are designing policies around the needs of their own class of people witout a single regard to people they have no contact with.

Planeshift,

I don’t know what it is like to have a serious disability. I can empathise, try to put myself in that situation, and try to understand it. But because I don’t have one myself, my understanding of the issues faced by people with serious disabilities is going to be limited. If I then found myself in a position of power over people in such a position, and adopted policies that they claimed were harmful, then I think it would be reasonable for the people effected to point out that I didn’t have a serious disability and question my understanding of the issues.

Since no politician knows what it is like to be me, there is no way they can understand my issues and rule over me…

What you have proposed there is that we cannot have politicians enacting policies that are harmful to people other than those like them. So if Labour came to power with a working-class leader (stop laughing at the back there!) they obviously couldn’t raise taxes on the very rich because they would have no udnerstanding of the harm they were causing. Exactly the same petty logic. It comes from assuming that we can label people and then hold up the label (here ‘poor’ or ‘working class’ as more important than the people). Do you think all the hypothetically seriously disabled people you introduce above want to be treated as ‘seriously disabled’ and effectively told they have to be looked after as a special case – how insulting and demeaning is that?

Effectively, in order to claim you are not discriminating against the rulers, you are discriminating against the ruled by grouping them together by one common characteristic and saying that they are all the same. Clearly this is perfectly acceptable – ignore the individuality and treat the common folk as an undifferentiated mass.

Oh, and many people with serious disabilities (or their carers and doctors) can communicate. You could always learn about their concerns and needs you know – we are not born with fixed knowledge (for instance, I learnt where Grantham actually is at the weekend – about 150 miles from where I thought…).

Jim,

Either way, the fact that he is very rich means he will never suffer from ‘the pain’ is a perfectly legitimate political point to make. Not only that, it is at least arguable that his actions are driven through his personal circumstances, isn’t it?

Since all Prime Ministers are well-paid, I can’t see how this argument stands up – none of them suffer ‘the pain’. But if you are correct, it also means that no prime minister can hope to help any poor person anywhere, because they cannot understand what they need as they themselves are not poor…

As to saying his actions are the result of his personal circumstances, maybe. But he can deny that, and it is worth remembering that whilst he is seen as trustworthy (as Mr Cameron still is) that he will be believed by most (and those who don’t are likely to be of a similiar mind to you anyway).

David Davies – the friend of the poor and the champion of the underprivileged classes? Come off it – Davies champions an unreconstructed Thatcherite Free Market. The Thatcherites are but one ugly and unacceptable face of Toryism. The so called ‘One Nation’ Tories – represented by the Macmillan ‘don’t sell of the family silver’ brigade – are equally unattractive for all their surface manners and class ridden smarm. Cameron and Osborne are “Thatcherite – One Nationers – all things to all Lib Dem men” opportunists trying to convince those they intend to condescend to consult strictly every five years, that there is something new about their approach. Clegg fell for it with dire consequences yet to be fully realised. But Davies is only positioning himself to realise his leadership ambitions when the coalition finally and inevitably hits the buffers. That said – it must give old Clegg a bit of a headache; – which humbug to support in the long term? Does he have a long term?

I have no objection to the Prime Minister or Chancellor of the Exchequer being multimillionaires.

I would not necessarily object to policies which afflict the poorest most, if they were genuinely necessary. (There’ not, but anyway…) If it was unavoidable, I wouldn’t like it, but I would understand.

I have no objection per-se to a multimillionaire Prime Minister and a multimillionaire Chancellor of the Exchequer introducing such policies if they were unavoidable.

What I really really can’t stand, is for the same multimillionaires, with a completely straight face to state, repeatedly:

We’re all in this together.

Of course it is going to be harder for a Cameron or an Osborne with their backgrounds to intuitively understand the concerns of ordinary people (even the relatively well off in our society are a league or two below their level of wealth).

However the “All in this together” nonsense is patronising, insulting and deceitful.

Attacking the government on the basis of their personal backgrounds alone will never have much traction with the public beyond a very small group who would never vote for them (and might not vote Labour either). And nor should it. Attacking them for being completely out-of-touch – when they so clearly are – will likely connect with the public. It is particularly telling that Davies made these comments.

AFZ

P.S. The same Radio 5 program had a ‘debate’ on the NHS which was essentially a government press statement. How disappointing.

Watchman @ 30

Since all Prime Ministers are well-paid, I can’t see how this argument stands up – none of them suffer ‘the pain’. But if you are correct, it also means that no prime minister can hope to help any poor person anywhere, because they cannot understand what they need as they themselves are not poor…

No, that is not the point being made here. No-one is suggesting that Cameron cannot help the poor because he is merely ‘rich’, I think that is a straw man build up to deflect the thrust of the argument. Cameron is ‘rich’, that is not the problem.

The fact that Cameron was born rich and lived his entire life bestowed with endless privileges, means he is unable to grasp how the other, say, eighty percent live, is part of the issue. However, the crux of the matter is not that doesn’t understand their lives, the fact is, he doesn’t care about how they live their lives and their experiences.

We are not talking about cringe-making photoshoots with ‘youth’, or some kind of ‘secret millionaire’ type of undercover ‘experience’. We are talking about having a grasp of the central issues that govern millions of people’s lives in this Country. I would not necessarily expect the Minister for defence to be a squaddie and all that jazz down to you get to the minister of health HAS to be a GP or the minister at DEFA needs to be a farmer. This is about what knowledge the PM has of living on the dole or with a long term debilitating illness. We know he had a severely disabled son, but that does not give him an insight into what people on average incomes go through with severely disabled children. Cameron never once had to struggle in on the bus with his child or face complete finical breakdown because of his son.

Cameron does not merely have ‘no personal experience’ of ‘ordinary life’ it appears he cannot conceive what an ordinary life would be like. To take the VAT rise as an example:

Why did he come to the conclusion that a VAT rise would be less regressive than an income tax rise? Did he examine the data, or just plump for the former because the latter would hit the rich? My guess is that he baulk the income tax hike because the rich would have squealed like stuck pigs anf coming from a very rich family that was ‘real pain’ he could envisage’, but a VAT rise would cause abstract damage, damage he could not give a fuck about because he despises those people.

If that is true, then his upbringing has shaped the World we live in and therefore his upbringing is relevant.

Watchman @ 29

So if Labour came to power with a working-class leader (stop laughing at the back there!) they obviously couldn’t raise taxes on the very rich because they would have no udnerstanding of the harm they were causing.

Of course, IF an urban working class PM or chancellor attempted to raise income tax on the rich or scale back subsidy to the landed gentry and/or tennent farmers, you would never hear the end of it. In fact during the fox hunting debate, the parasite farming ‘community’ did indeed squeal about ‘not knowing our ways’, that seemed a fair comment to make to me, although it was a charge that I rejected, I could easily accept that the farmers wanted to have a PM who was on their side, if not an actual farmer.

Though I agree that Cameron and Osbourne are out of touch I don’t necessarily agree that it’s their wealth and education that is to blame. As several posters have pointed-out, you don’t have to be working-class to be a socialist, similarly you don’t need to come from an aflfuent background to suport the tories.
13
Where is your evidence to support the claim that the working-class is shrinking, I would say that it’s expanding, unless you are referring to socio-economic status which isn’t the same as class.

I think there’s an important distinction that needs to be made between value judgements and factual judgements.

It’s wrong to make value judgements about things people didn’t choose. On the other hand, things people didn’t choose are often relevant to factual judgements and should not be ignored.

What the original post is advocating isn’t ‘attacking’ anyone. It’s about emphasising a particular important fact: compared to Labour, the set of people Conservative politicians spend time around is far less representative of the general population.

It’s a fact about human nature that the company you keep affects your opinions and sympathies. This is why, for example, weird cults shut their members off from the outside world. If the company you keep is skewed compared to the general population, your ability to understand peoples’ concerns will probably be skewed in the same direction.

It’s ok to make psychological inferences about people on the basis of the company they keep: it’s factually relevant. It’s also ok to prefer politicians with particular (perhaps not chosen) psychological features, such as understanding ordinary people, as these can be useful things to know.

People on the whole don’t know quite how skewed Conservative politicians’ social environments are, so they can’t make the factual ‘do they understand ordinary people?’ judgement as well as they could if Labour did more to publicise them.

I don’t think any of this is goes far beyond common sense. Assuming that it is a personal thing and using phrases like ‘class war’ is just buying into the Conservatives’ distraction tactics.

Let’s face it, all of our politicians are out of touch with us plebs. See http://dizzythinks.net/2011/01/worldly-experience-of-actual-cabinet.html and for the shadow cabinet http://dizzythinks.net/2011/01/worldly-experience-of-shadow-cabinet.html. Basically most of our masters, or potential masters, are professional politicians with no real life experience and many (on all sides) have a pretty penny in the bank.

“The working class is shrinking so fast it will soon disappear up its own arse. The middle class is the biggest and still expanding.”

A fallacy based on crude assumptions about the link between occupation and class. I’ve never really understood how low-order service sector occupations could be a mark of being middle class, but then I’ve never really understood popular sociology.

The reality is more complicated; the fragmentation of the relatively cohesive classes that used to exist* mostly as a consequence of the transition from a proper economy to one dependent on services.

“Neither Tony Blair nor Gordon Brown came from working class backgrounds.”

This is true, though the latter was from a far more ‘ordinary’ background (at least in terms of class) than the former.

“Thatcher and Major came from something rather closer.”

But that is utter nonsense. If you want to bring up a Tory PM from an arguably working class background the correct name to utter is ‘Heath’.

To focus on the background of party leaders is an error, in any case. Or, indeed, to focus on individuals in general. There have always been bourgeois Socialists and working class Tories, and there always will be. The thing that matters is the overall picture.
Or: a couple of ministers being privately educated is fine. A higher percentage than the national average is as well, at least for now (it’s an inevitable consequence of the society we live in and won’t change until that society does). But when the numbers start to get really high, when we can even think of majorities, that’s a little disturbing.

Of course you’re basically just trolling people here, so I wasted my time writing that.

*Well, maybe. Because it’s not certain that a halfway cohesive middle class has ever existed in Britain. But that particular pattern is observable within working class communities of all types.

Relevant news item from last May about the number of millionaires in the Cabinet:

The coalition of millionaires: 23 of the 29 member of the new cabinet are worth more than £1m… and the Lib Dems are just as wealthy as the Tories
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/election/article-1280554/The-coalition-millionaires-23-29-member-new-cabinet-worth-1m–Lib-Dems-just-wealthy-Tories.html

@38 Alun

Most of your post is silly nonsense.

Mrs Thatcher’s father ran a local pharmacy shop in Grantham, Lincolnshire. The parents of John Major – who was born in St Helier’s Hospital, Carshalton – were small-time music-hall artists who lived in a flat in Brixton, Lambeth. He left school with just one O-level.

THE working classes are in rapid decline, with the middle class poised to become the majority of the population by 2020, according to a report from the Future Foundation think-tank.

In the past 40 years the proportion of Britons who regard themselves as middle class has risen from 30 to 43 per cent.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article713386.ece

One powerful reason for the declining importance of the white working class is their relatively low attainment in school leaving exams at a time when the service industries have come to dominate the economy – manufacturing is now only about 12% of Britain’s GDP.

“Though white children in general do better than most minorities at school, poor ones come bottom of the league (see chart). Even black Caribbean boys, the subject of any number of initiatives, do better at GCSEs”
http://www.economist.com/world/britain/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14700670

‘Most of your post is silly nonsense’

Diolch.

‘Mrs Thatcher’s father ran a local pharmacy shop in Grantham, Lincolnshire.’

No, he owned a small chain of grocery shops and was a pillar of the Grantham’s political and social elite for decades.

‘The parents of John Major – who was born in St Helier’s Hospital, Carshalton – were small-time music-hall artists who lived in a flat in Brixton, Lambeth.’

Tom Major-Ball was an interesting person in his own right and difficult to catagorise, but during the post-war years he was a failing garden gnomes manufacturer.

I’m sure Cameron and co. are rather out of touch.

But it’s debatable if they are any more out of touch than a blogger who calls for winning the class war.

From a peak of over 13 million in 1979, trade union membership is little more than half than 7 millions nowadays:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/apr/30/union-membership-data

There are any number of important and worrying political and social issues at stake about stalled social mobility, rising joblessness – especially of young people, the inequality of income distribution, the hacking away at the public services, the market power of the banks and bankers and the stability of the financial system, improving the quality of training and education opportunities, the breaking of election pledges . . . and more. But these issues affect the so-called middle classes as well as those who like to flaunt their attachment to what they deem their working class origins. Focusing debates on the issues will have greater resonance with the electorate than vainly attempting to stoke up class warfare.

The working classes had their chance to vote Labour in the 1983 election when the party’s manifesto would have committed an incoming Labour government to leaving the European Common Market, unilateral nuclear disarmament and public ownership of the commanding heights of the economy. The outcome was the return of Mrs Thatcher’s government with an increased majority of 140 seats..

Correction:

From a peak of over 13 million in 1979, trade union membership is little more than half at 7 millions nowadays:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/apr/30/union-membership-data

The point of the David Davis story is that a right wing Thatcherite feels uncomfortable that No. 10 is conspicuously privileged and patrician. It may be a value judgement on his part, or even just sour grapes, but it is a sign of an actual discomfort about class that modern conservatives can feel as well as the left. British democracy since 1960s has presented itself, however misleadingly, as the rise of the meritocrats, the socially mobile and/or (awful expression) ‘the lower middle class’ and Cameron seems to reverse that trend back to the playing fields of Eton. It cannot be simply left-wing ressentiment when the Thatcherite ultras are the ones grousing; it’s an unresolved problem in the UK about democratic accountability and representation that is especially tremulous because it is a sentiment or structure of feeling (“ideology”, if you must) as much as anything else. ConservativeHome will spin this as a tactical issue to replace Coulson, but it really runs deeper than that as they very well know from within their own ranks. Labour, in my opinion, should remember that crude class rhetorics preach to to the converted, but if they can develop the squeezed middle intelligently, then they can make serious arguments about the Coalition.

41 Alun:

Agree entirely with the content of your post but – at the risk of sounding smug and pedantic – what do failing garden gnomes do? Sit in your garden and fail to catch fish? Come to that what do successful garden gnomes do – become second-rate Prime Ministers whose dismally grey legacy is privatised railways? Let’s stick to the environmentally friendly failed ones eh?

David Davis’s discussion of class was prompted by the resignation of Andy Coulson.

We should remember what kind of advice Coulson gave his supposedly “out of touch” old-Etonian boss:

1. Stop hugging hoodies and get tough on crime

2. Ditch the green agenda – the common people are more worried about petrol prices than the planet.

So, basically the point is that Cameron is said to be out of touch by being too liberal/left wing/green. Coulson wanted him to be less of a flaky wuss and more RIGHT wing.

The problem the OP doesn’t confront is: how can the left paint Cameron as out of touch because of his class background without seeming to endorse populist sentiments of the law’n’order and climate-change-denial type?

Tricky.

@47: “The problem the OP doesn’t confront is: how can the left paint Cameron as out of touch because of his class background without seeming to endorse populist sentiments of the law’n’order and climate-change-denial type?”

How about the critical message from Richard Lambert, the departing head of the CBI?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/ministers-put-politics-before-growth-says-cbi-2193408.html

Or the proposals from Turner, chairman of the FSA, about the need for better consumer protection against being ripped off by financial institutions?

FSA seeks power to ban sale of risky financial policies
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12274837

Or the proposal for the sick to consult their GP by email?

Diagnosis by email is a deadly gamble
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1349935/NHS-reform-GPs-diagnosis-email-deadly-gamble.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

‘… the concerns of the working classes (in the plural, EP Thompson sense) are not there to be understood, but to be delegated.’

Hate to quibble, but shouldn’t that be the ‘concerns of the working class (in the singular, EP Thompson sense’? The title of the book might offer a mild hint, the text could even back this up.

…a pillar of the Grantham’s political and social elite…

George & Weedon Grossmith spring to mind.

Cameron seems to reverse that trend back to the playing fields of Eton

What happened to all that statistical rigour that used to be a feature of this blog?

One Etonian PM doesn’t reverse a trend.

@51: “One Etonian PM doesn’t reverse a trend.”

See the link @39 to the report in the Mail about the number of millionaires in Cameron’s cabinet. Only a very small minority of the cabinet aren’t millionaires.

With a cabinet of whom 19 of 23 are multi-millionaires I suspect that a lack of understanding of the mainstream public is besides the point. The government is committed to the improvement of the circumstances of the (very) rich are currently involved in an economic program doing just that.