The NHS on the verge of being carved up by privateers. Cameron avowing that everything is up for grabs apart form the military, judiciary and police. The refusal to tax big business and the wealthy effectively. The attack on the welfare state. Privatising the education system etc. A blind man on a wooden horse doesn’t have to be told that this is right wing ideology in the extreme and if the labour party are still mulling over how to counter this, then they have learnt nothing and do not deserve the trust of the British people, who did not give a mandate for these quack policies. Ultimately, this is about the redistribution of wealth upwards and a move from political democracy to economic “democracy” whereby the more wealth you have the “freer” you are and the more choices you have. In reverse, the poorer you are the less “free” you are and the less choices you have. Labour should say it as it is and stop pussyfooting about.

I can see this, Labour attacks the Tories for going to the right, because labour are already there, it would be annoying if the Tories actually went down the road and passed labour on the battle for right wing politics.

Well Robert, the attack on the disabled and welfare of course comes from Labour, Miliband has stated if he was in power now he would without doubt go further with welfare, how much further could you go, or are we heading for tattoos on our arms.

Articles like this just remind peoole how cynical and opportunistic New Labour is, and not a party based on principles.

All the issues you want to attack Cameron on are virtually identical to those of Milliband.

Of course, there will be the inevitable kickback from the unreconstructed Blairites.

These people – and I don’t think all of them are Blairites as such – make more sense when you realise they’ve got David Cameron mixed up with David Xanatos.

Clearly Richards is unable to grasp the nuance that attacking Cameron for his class-based traditional Conservatism might be different from attacking Thatcher for her very non-traditional approach to Conservative government.

Of course, the electorate will grasp this nuance immediately, because they are all so class conscious.

Herein lies the problem with Paul’s analysis – it assumes politics is about attacking and undermining support, not principles and policies. It seems to think that there is a ‘truth’ that people will realise if it is pointed out to them which, as it always does, happens to coincide with the writer’s (Paul’s) own beliefs. Above all, it seems to believe that the failure of a party with no obvious current purpose and a recurrent failure to take and hold the agenda can be rectified not by addressing the issues, but by attacking the opponents more effectively.

Give voters a choice between a party attacking their opponents for being posh, and a party not playing games with class but concentrating on changing society for the better (or so they will say) – which will attract support. Just remember, no-one has ever even shown that being posh is a bad thing for politicians in most peoples’ eyes – this in itself is an assumption from left-wing thinking, which in Britain has never been borne out by election results. It might work in the heartlands, but Labour has to hold on to a lot more than its own heartlands, and the attack policy on a class basis seems an odd way to go about that.

Just remember, no-one has ever even shown that being posh is a bad thing for politicians in most peoples’ eyes – this in itself is an assumption from left-wing thinking,

Would you please tell Cameron this then, so he can stop swanning about on EasyJet and talking about himself as a member of the middle class?

Just remember, no-one has ever even shown that being posh is a bad thing for politicians in most peoples’ eyes – this in itself is an assumption from left-wing thinking, which in Britain has never been borne out by election results.

An interesting challenge!

Cameron vs Brown – the posher one won
Blair vs Howard – the posher one won
Blair vs Hague – the posher one won
Blair vs Major – the posher one won
Major vs Kinnock – close but on balance the posher one won
Thatcher vs Kinnock – the posher one won
Thatcher vs Foot – the posher one won
Thatcher vs Callaghan – the posher one won
Wilson vs Heath – tied on overall poshness
Heath vs Wilson – tied on overall poshness
Wilson vs Douglas-Home – the posher won lost

So you’re going back to the 14th Earl – and even then D-H did a lot better than expected.

@8 Grocer’s daughter and grammar school girl Thatcher posher than public school educated MP’s son, brother of Sir Dingle Foot MP and Baron Cordern, Governer of Cyprus, Michael Foot? I think you’re confusing posher with more right wing. Which is, actually, kind of ironic.

9 – On balance I think you’re probably right, and might amend the (inevitably pretty sketchy) list above. But provincial solicitors don’t rank all that much higher on the posh list than mayors (and Leighton Park isn’t a proper Public School anyway).

In any event, determining poshness by reference to titles awarded for political/administrative work is even more glaring a conceptual error than mine. Because that way you’re left arguing that Lord Kinnock of Bedwelty is posher than plain old Mr David Cameron.

@10 – Poshness not being a binary concept, having multiple titles in the family, even if only gained in such a sordid way as being in parliament or the civil service, surely adds points, and the only way a plain Mr. can outposh is by gaining points in some other way, such as having owned half of Lancashire for a very long time.

At any rate, getting away from the point that if poshness is so great, why do politicans feel the need to renounce theirs (going so far as to wear jeans and a tshirt, or whatever it was, to a Royal Wedding). And even further away, of course, from the point about portraying people as extremists and out-of-touch with the centre, which I’m pretty sure is never a bad thing.

even further away, of course, from the point about portraying people as extremists and out-of-touch with the centre, which I’m pretty sure is never a bad thing.

That’s absolutely true of course, but I think there’s an argument that going on about upper-class, over privileged parasites, whose daily bread was wrung from the bleeding lips of the poor may actually be more out of touch, cf. Crewe & Nantwich.

The fact is, as some chap wrote on Labour List, most people don’t care very much about politics, and the best way to make yourself look weird and out of touch is to take a vociferous position on more or less any political issue. Look at the Tories in the late 90s (if you can bear it). Their policy on the European Union was far closer to the general publics’ position, but they looked weird and obsessive and it put people off. Running a good old-fashioned class-based campaign runs the risk of falling into just this trap.

@3: In what way is class-based analysis of Cameronism “New Labour”?

@6: “Above all, it [my analysis] seems to believe that the failure of a party with no obvious current purpose and a recurrent failure to take and hold the agenda can be rectified not by addressing the issues, but by attacking the opponents more effectively.”

No it doesn’t. Effective attack on the opposition is only one part of the task that faces Labour, albeit an important one. It happens to be the one I’m addressing in this blogpost.

“Give voters a choice between a party attacking their opponents for being posh, and a party not playing games with class but concentrating on changing society for the better (or so they will say) – which will attract support.”

But I’m not suggesting that Labour attack Cameron for being posh. I’m suggesting he should be more effectively attacked for being incompetent at modern government. That’s precisely why I say that I think Martin Bright is half right in his analysis, though I then say it’s vital to analyse and bring forth to wider attention why he is so incompetent, and this is because of the traditional upper-class attitude to government that he displays.

I’m suggesting he should be more effectively attacked for being incompetent at modern government.

It’s a tough line for a Labour opposition to run with though, given their record in government. The Government itself was poorly run (how many transport secretaries were there? What was the average length of a ministerial position?), reshuffles were routinely botched, and departments were chaotic (cf Defra and the Rural Payments fiasco), procurement was generally disastrous (IT in particular, but also the MoD in general).

Add to that the disfunctional relationship between No 10 and the Treasury, and there really are few avenues left for Labour to be convincing in attacking the Coalition on competence.

How many transport secretaries were there? What was the average length of a ministerial position?

As you rightly pointed out, most people aren’t interested in politics. So, these are meant to be viable defences of incompetence?

That said, while I don’t hear the echoes of Crewe & Nantwich (Remember Crewe & Nantwich! No. The Alamo is still better) I do admit I don’t see how it makes it that much easier to tie it to Cameron’s class rather than working background or personal qualities, or indeed why explaining why he doesn’t seem interested in details is important as making sure he can’t use his ejector seat to escape the many car crashes he’s getting involved in.

@14

“……and there really are few avenues left for Labour to be convincing in attacking the Coalition on competence.”

Doesn’t it all come back to what “Labour” we are talking about?

In fact many of the “snafu’s” you refer to above are nothing new, nor indeed are they a uniquely (New) Labour fault. MoD and IT procurement have been a festering sore for decades under governments of both left and right (Strategic Defence Review 2010 anyone…?).

Obviously given my oft repeated hostility to the whole nauseating New Labour project, I come not to praise them, but honestly…it’s been what 15 months since the election?

Are we really convinced New Labour is dead? Has Ed come up with a convincing alternative…. does it even look likely?

The only time Cameron has looked even remotely dicsomfited has been in relation to the response to the riots… and I doubt many of us think Labour would be doing much differently, or indeed that they are lilly white when it comes to attributing “blame” for the origins thereof.

We appear to have the worst of all possible worlds: Labour and the Tories not that far apart in the polls, or indeed in terms of “most” policies; a rump LD party reduced to a core support of around 10%, which is unlikely to win back the 50% of centre left support who have ditched them since the GE; and finally a Labour party which has failed to reinvent itself or stake Blairism thru the heart.

the attack memo isn’t important because there isn’t enough perceived difference between the Coalition and “Newer” Labour for people to get excited about, or even care enough about…. it’s like watching two bald men fight over a comb.

As you rightly pointed out, most people aren’t interested in politics. So, these are meant to be viable defences of incompetence?

I just think it’s going to be tough for Labour to run an election campaign on ‘the Government is incompetent, we should be in charge’ when it invites the obvious response of ‘last time they were in charge, they bankrupted the country’. That’s the populist message.

The underlying point is that the Coalition isn’t in fact notably incompetent, by either relative or absolute standards – or at the least that it’s far too early to make such a charge stick. That’s why the principal charge seems to be that David Cameron came home on Sunday night rather than Saturday morning.

Paul,

“Above all, it [my analysis] seems to believe that the failure of a party with no obvious current purpose and a recurrent failure to take and hold the agenda can be rectified not by addressing the issues, but by attacking the opponents more effectively.”

No it doesn’t. Effective attack on the opposition is only one part of the task that faces Labour, albeit an important one. It happens to be the one I’m addressing in this blogpost.

Fair enough. It seems to be the first bit that comes up in everyone’s suggested analysis though, and attacking for the sake of it without having a position to attack from is not only a bad idea (it makes you look opportunistic rather than serious) but also leads to the question of whether you think the attack more important than the position. For all the talk of converstations and renewal, I cannot yet say what Labour claim to stand for – if Peter Mandelson was the last person to define a party’s soul and purpose, it may have problems…

“Give voters a choice between a party attacking their opponents for being posh, and a party not playing games with class but concentrating on changing society for the better (or so they will say) – which will attract support.”

But I’m not suggesting that Labour attack Cameron for being posh. I’m suggesting he should be more effectively attacked for being incompetent at modern government. That’s precisely why I say that I think Martin Bright is half right in his analysis, though I then say it’s vital to analyse and bring forth to wider attention why he is so incompetent, and this is because of the traditional upper-class attitude to government that he displays.

Incompetent at modern government? Against which comparators are you planning on comparing him then? Assuming the last Labour government are out for obvious reasons (and clearly the similarity of Mr Cameron’s government to the Blairite part of previous Labour administrations would be a problem anyway…) you would have to look abroad. Where are you going to find the evidence that Mr Cameron is incompetent in a way that favours Labour, rather than suggesting Mr Cameron is not cutting hard enough or whatever? The few western economies doing well are doing as Mr Cameron has done, but more so…

Of course, you could try and create an impression, a media image, of incompetence, because this sort of manipulative spin is in no way obvious, and in no way likely to backfire…

I would agree though that attacking on issues might work – but only if there is some sort of joined up thinking, not opportunistic stupidity. Whilst you might never be able to stop the Ken Livingstone’s of the party opening their mouths and letting out stupid statements, you could get the majority of the party signed up to a set of ideas that would allow you to attack clearly. Even pure socialism would be an improvement on the quasi-capitalist big statism that the Labour party seems to stand for.

“Assuming the last Labour government are out for obvious reasons”

Why would you assume that? I’m perfectly happy to argue that Cameron as PM as markedly less able than his two immediate predecessors.

The trouble with attacking Cameron on ideology is that he doesn’t appear to have any really noticeable political views at all, although it may be a more productive line of attack against more political colleagues such as Lansley or Gove. The case against Cameron remains what it has always been, that he is a lightweight who relies on gimmickry and who together with Osborne is running the economy off the road.

Cameron is a master user of the vacuous platitude and cliche.

The case against Cameron remains what it has always been…

And it’s as effective as it’s always been.