Curious choice of words Gordon Brown used to describe himself when firing the starting gun for the general election. ‘I come from an ordinary middle-class family,’ he said. Until recently, ‘ordinary’ was used by Labour politicians as a euphemism for ‘working class’ and was often a way of differentiating themselves from their Conservative opponents who were, by implication, upper class. That was the tribal divide in British politics — never an accurate reflection of where each party drew its support, obviously, but a convenient social stereotype nonetheless. But here was Gordon Brown appealing to this stereotype while, at the same time, muddying the waters by claiming to be ‘middle class’. What’s going on?
The pundits reacted to Brown’s use of the words ‘middle class’ by pretending he hadn’t said them. In their parsing of his statement on the airwaves, they responded as if he’d described himself as coming from an ‘ordinary family’ and said this was a coded reference to David Cameron’s privileged background. They were right, of course, but the code in question was more subtle than they were willing to acknowledge. The battle line he was drawing wasn’t the traditional one between the ruling class and the proletariat, but between the ruling class and the bourgeoisie. It was, in some ways, a return to the politics of the 19th century. It was the difference between the Whigs and the Tories, between Melbourne and Peel.
Or perhaps Gladstone and Disraeli would be more accurate. To a great extent, the election will turn on which leader can persuade Britain’s middle class that he has their best interests at heart. To that end, Brown will try to depict Cameron as a servant of the privileged elite, while Cameron will try to depict Brown as a creature of the unions. Cameron may not stoop to actually saying it out loud, but a good part of the Tory campaign will be designed to convince the electorate that he, too, is an ‘ordinary middle-class’ bloke.
Why are Brown and Cameron so desperate to appear middle class? It must be quite a wrench for both given that it’s the last thing either of them would want to be thought of privately. One reason is that the ‘undecideds’ — those feckless flibbertigibbets on whom the nation’s fate depends — are predominantly middle class, a point Peter Mandelson has been anxious to drum into Brown’s skull. But more importantly, it’s because almost half the British population now defines itself as ‘middle class’. In this respect, Britain is becoming more like America. For a presidential candidate to be seen as anything other than middle class is the kiss of death.
The difficulty for Brown and Cameron is that it isn’t clear what most members of the public mean when they describe themselves as ‘middle class’. In my experience, almost everyone who self-reports as middle class has their own, rather eccentric definition. For instance, I remember asking a school friend who lived on a council estate what class he thought he belonged to. ‘Middle class,’ he said, ‘because we’ve got a colour TV.’ For this reason, don’t expect to see either Brown or Cameron posing for a photo op outside Marks & Spencer. One man’s idea of ‘middle class’ is another’s idea of ‘posh’.
Their strategy will be to play on the fears of ‘ordinary middle-class’ voters about losing their tenuous foothold on the status ladder. Thus, a central message of the Labour campaign will be not to jeopardise the recovery by voting Tory — with the implication that if we do enter the ‘double-dip recession’, the hard-won status symbols of the newly enfranchised middle class — houses, Range Rovers, children at private school — will have to be sacrificed. The Conservatives, by contrast, will frighten middle-class voters by telling them their taxes will go up if Labour are re-elected, thus making all of the above less affordable.
Beyond these bread-and-butter issues, it will be a question of who is better at sleight of hand — of which leader can discard the symbolic baggage they carry around with them without seeming too opportunistic. For Brown, his Scottish accent, his close ties with Unite and his identification with the left of the Labour party make his description of himself as ‘middle class’ slightly implausible. For Cameron, it’s Eton and the Bullingdon, not to mention his aristocratic wife. We could call this ‘the Gatsby election’. The winner will be the leader who reinvents himself most successfully.
Comments