Why should left-wing politics be left to the poor and the powerless alone?
A popular insurgency is afoot on the comment page of the Daily Mail. Columnist and ‘sketch writer’ Quentin Letts has published his revolutionary manifesto today, ‘Why I hate Hampstead hypocrites!’, in which he picks up the dear leader David Cameron’s rallying cry about Ed Miliband’s Labour party, which the prime minister said has:
“The same old condescending, bossy, interfering, we-know-best attitude of the Hampstead socialist down the ages.”
Comrade Quentin writes that Miliband’s “whole approach to the general election has been moulded by prosperous Hampstead and its privileged, hypocritical faux egalitarians”. He names names:
“The Milibands, the (Eric, Marxist historian) Hobsbawms, the (Michael) Foots, the (Neil and Glenys) Kinnocks — these were and remain the essence of Hampstead Leftishness, although the Milibands managed it from nearby Primrose Hill and the Kinnocks now from neighbouring Tufnell Park.”
Already we see some geographical cracks in the grand theory, but Letts is undeterred:
“Their particular brand of nannying interference has crocked our state schools, our social services and an NHS which no one is allowed to criticise.
“The Hampstead-ish adherence to politically correct shibboleths that dictate contempt for anyone who questions mass immigration, global warming or gay marriage, has created a dangerous distance between working-class voters and the political class.”
Regular readers of the Daily Mail may be surprised to learn that criticism of the NHS, immigration or global warming are off limits in Britain, though perhaps Letts means the second-best-selling newspaper in the country has made a brave stand against these pieties. (What ‘questions’ he has about gay marriage, he doesn’t specify.)
“Sadly, the Hampstead Left remains amazingly powerful. […]
“If Mr Miliband’s Labour gets in, he will try to Hampsteadise the whole of Britain — except don’t expect the great unwashed to live in such spacious houses.”
Of the many chinks in the armour of the Letts analysis – his grouping of Miliband, Hobsbawm, Foot, Kinnock and others together despite big differences in their politics, for example – I’m struck most by the scolding tone of the piece, as if there was something shameful about being wealthy and left-wing. Isn’t half the Tory attack on Miliband in this election about his supposed failure to do right by business and the rich?
I also had no idea until now that Tories like Mr Letts were opposed to home ownership or high house prices. And isn’t this phoney class war pose a bit rich coming from a paper whose proprietor, Paul Dacre, owns three properties: a house in West Sussex nicknamed Dacre Towers, with a mile-long drive, a home in pricey Belgravia, west London, and a seven-bedroom house in Scotland, with a 17,000-acre shooting estate?
A paper which inserts property prices into stories where they have no relevance, such as the death of a British woman in Thailand in 2011?
This Letts piece further proves a point I’ve made before, that conservatives don’t understand the ABC of class politics. A central Left criticism of middle or upper-class liberals and left-wingers is their tendency to hit the brakes when their own interests are threatened. This obviously would not apply to actor Martin Freeman, who says he supports Labour because he’s in favour of their Mansion Tax on £2million homes, and their tax rises on well off people such as himself.
This isn’t hypocrisy, unless you think rich people need to give away their money and power before they can advocate greater equality. Which, for a conservative position, would be very convenient.
To be clear, this would be the case however big a person’s house, whatever the state of their wife’s finances, wherever their children go to school. They may be ripe for criticism for any of the above, but such criticism should not be used to restrict ‘non-hypocritical’ left-wing politics to the poor and the powerless alone.
Because a joining of hands between working class people and better off people to the benefit of all workers is what gave rise to the Labour party itself over a century ago, to the eternal resentment of Tories ever since. Letts is right to say the middle-class Fabian Society helped found the party, but its main support and raison d’etre were the Trade Unions, (most of whose members do not live in Hampstead).
The most famous Labour politician of that time, and one of its first MPs, was Keir Hardie, who worked on shipyards as a child, and died of sickness and a broken heart over the First World War. Probably the best-known Labour politicians of the 20th century were Clement Atlee and Aneurin Bevan, Bevan the Welsh son of a coal-miner, who set up the National Health Service Mr Letts is keen to criticise – both leading lights of the most left-wing ‘socialist’ government in British history.
Leaving out the Trade Unions and politicians of this kind while jeering at well-off people on the Left betrays a contempt for working class representation that lays naked and sprawling the pathetic phoney class war of the likes of Letts and Paul Dacre.
Adam Barnett is a staff writer at Left Foot Forward. Follow MediaWatch on Twitter
To reach hundreds of thousands of new readers and to make the biggest impact we can in the next general election, we need to grow our donor base substantially.
That's why in 2024, we are seeking to generate 150 additional regular donors to support Left Foot Forward's work.
We still need another 124 people to donate to hit the target. You can help. Donate today.
32 Responses to “Quentin Letts’s class war on ‘Hampstead Left’ hides the Mail’s real hypocrisy”
Mike B
I have not read the Letts article so of course it is always risky criticising second hand but here goes. The Mail feels the need to reenforce many of its readers existing beliefs. In this example it is the ‘North London elite’ they so dislike. I have to say given the Mails curious history I wonder if a submerged antisemitism is part of this (not Letts himself, just the general mood of the paper). The result of this is to commit the adhominim falicy – that is attack the person rather than the ideas. This all comes after the ridiculous attack on Ralph Miliband in the Mail last year. The Mail has a slightly nutty tendency. I prefer my politics to be about policies not people.
TN
There’s nothing wrong for wanting to be tough on welfare. Labour was formed to represent working people (though it’s debatable now) not people who make a lifestyle choice to scrounge off system (most claimants aren’t, but it would be naive to argue that it has helped everyone). Think you’ll find that plenty of striving working and lower middle class people resent what they see as underclass troughing their tax money.
The sooner those to the left of Labour realise this the better.
AlanGiles
I doubt that any benefit of any sort has NEVER been exploited and even illegally abused (the MPs expenses scandal proves that), but I was merely highlighting the hypocrisy of opposing, or pretending to oppose, the Coalition welfare cuts on the one hand, then pretending or saying you will be tougher. It is just not credible, but then with ageing drag queen Eddie Izzard, mincing round in full slap yesterday in Hove, perhaps it is becoming incredible to believe that Labour is credible about anything. And that thing hopes he will become London Mayor in 5 years time, when his seedy career as a male woman is over. It’s an insult to credibility.
bod
as can be seen from todays news from rochdale -a vote for labour is also a vote for isis
Guest
Ah yes, attack only the Other for you, never your own, as you as usual claim that your leeches, your non-working rich who pay little tax and benefit massively from corporate welfare are the “backbone”, when you’re actually a spineless sponger who keeps calling for more deaths among the poor, if they don’t beg you hard enough for scraps.
Britain, of course, has low tax for a developed country, per things like OECD.