THE DAILY TELEGRAPH: The party appears to have returned to the old model of gentry-led Conservatism , says Janet Daley.There is an election coming. So the Prime Minister is touring the country trying to persuade Conservative voters in various states of disgruntlement and suspicion that they should support the party. He is hitting a number of refrains that are calculated to have that effect: we are doing what you know in your hearts needs to be done to the economy. We are bravely reforming welfare, education and health (whoops, no – maybe not health). And, rather startlingly, we are cracking down on immigration – or at least we are prepared to acknowledge that you have legitimate concerns about immigration.
But even in the midst of these various strands of more-or-less persuasive appeal there is an odd kind of vacuum – a hole where the central theme should be. The Conservatives may be doing quite a few things of which their supporters approve, most notably taking on what had seemed the intractable problems of welfare dependency and collapsing educational standards. But if people choose to vote Tory now it will be more a consequence of what the party seems to be getting done from one day to the next, than of what it is in itself. There is no longer a clear sense of basic common purpose – of fundamental driving principle – at the heart of Conservatism. Who the party speaks for, and what it stands for, is a matter of confusion and contradiction. This is not, as some apologists might claim, a simple re-assertion of pragmatism over ideology. Pragmatism is the doctrine of do-what-works but what counts as working is established on the basis of values: governments can only know when they have achieved something worthwhile if they have an idea of what is worth achieving.
If you are between the ages of, say, 30 and 45, you probably thought you had a fairly clear conception of what you were supporting when you voted for the Tories (or of what you hated when you voted against them). Since the 1980s, Conservatism had stood for free-market economics and self-improvement: the party had come to represent the striving, sometimes vulgar but always determined and hard-working, upwardly mobile classes. This provoked a revulsion on both the Left and the more traditional Right which was as much to do with snobbery as it was with political beliefs. Margaret Thatcher was dismissed as a “greengrocer’s daughter”, and her philosophy derided as “bourgeois triumphalism”. The Tory party had cast itself as the voice of the most productive, creative, energetic – and unfashionable – people in the country. Read on and comment » | Janet Daley | Saturday, April 16, 2011
My comment:
Nothing will ever change in this country, since snobbery is written in the Brits’ DNA. The class system is perpetuated by the monarchy, which, while its pageantry is charming and delightful to watch, its effect on society is toxic. Little people who think they are big simply because daddy was very rich and mummy was a lady-in-waiting! It’s a case of the best ‘jobs for the boys,’ and university places in the best universities, especially Oxbridge, are reserved for the aristocracy.
I used to feel very pro-monarchy and pro-establishment until I had a rude awakening and discovered what the establishment of this country was truly like.
To call this country a democracy is a joke indeed. This country is a plutocratic aristocracy. Closed to all that weren’t born in the right circles, scornful of achievement, and distrustful of true academic success. (The aristocracy, traditionally, never had to work for doctorates and higher degrees, because they had their status from birth.)
Until this country can be turned into a true meritocracy, there will never be true advancement, and the country will always be held back and chained to its feudal past.
Other successful countries in Europe cast off the spell of aristocracy long ago, and they embarked on the bourgeoisification of their countries, thereby shrinking the lower class and upper class, and giving everyone a fair chance in life by including them in the middle class. Not so, this country. In this country, successive governments have deliberately not embarked on bourgeoisification: the Labour Party wanted to keep the working classes down so as to keep them all in power; the Conservative Party wanted to keep the working classes down, too. That way they could hold on to the reins of power, and maintain a good, solid supply of cheap labour for the overlords.
This Coalition government, headed by the Caminicks, is run by the snobs for the snobs. They couldn’t give a damn about the ‘little people.’ If one hasn’t got gazillions, preferably inherited gazillions of course, then one doesn’t belong in their midst. It’s a public school, old-boy network. They’ll get ever richer, despite the austere times, but God help the rest of us! – © Mark
This comment also appears here
