ANYBODY would think that a pop star or a modern-day Prince Hal had landed in town, such was the level of hyperventilation and frenzied excitement of Labour MPs in Westminster Hall last Wednesday. Yes, he of the eyelashes and black T-shirts had galloped down from his soon-to-be-ex-fiefdom of Manchester and was now granting his assembled fandom a selfie. As with most fans, few of them would have met the man, but he might delay their ejection from their constituency seats, so hurrah! Never mind that neither they nor the British public knew anything much about his policies, he was going to save them and he was jollier and cuter than Starmer, so that would do.
Andy – as I presume he likes to be known – had previously swept into the House of Commons in an overtight suit and sworn his oath of allegiance to the Crown with gusto. He then nimbly fielded a heckle with a ‘naughty boy’ response – presumably a reference to Monty Python’s Four Yorkshiremen sketch. Unfortunately it brought to my mind Dover’s ex-Conservative MP Charlie Elphicke, who supposedly chanted ‘I’m a naughty Tory’ as he chased some hapless female round the room. Poor Dover, they now have an over-ambitious Labour MP, Mike Tapp. He is in trouble with his boss Shabana Mahmood over a perceived breach of the ministerial code. One of the dangers of desperately seeking to curry instant favour with Andy.
Whatever, Burnham is clearly committed to mimicking the style of US politics. He responded to the ‘black T-shirt’ meme with a five-second fact check video in which, staring down at his T-shirt, he says ‘It’s a blue T-shirt.’ Perky and humorous as this may be – in extreme contrast to his predecessor – who is he appealing to? Sixteen-year-old voters, maybe.
He is also persisting with his ‘I’m from oop North’ schtick to the extent of saying that he would like to move bits of government up to Manchester. Somebody should advise him that, in addition to the various government departments already outside London, there are existing plans to move a further 13 government offices to other areas, one of them being to a Digital and AI campus in Manchester which will bring together multiple government departments.
He might also take a look at a map of the UK which will tell him that – running north to south – Manchester is not even halfway up the landmass. ‘North’ of London Manchester may be, but it’s south if you live north of it. Goodness knows where it is if you live in Cornwall or East Anglia. In any case Andy has spent a good portion of his adult life in Cambridge and London and he should go easy on the ‘I’m a jolly northern chappie’ act.
He has indeed maintained a ‘northern’ accent but given that there are hundreds of regional accents in the UK, his is not all-purpose and it’s certainly not a mark of authenticity. Nor is claiming to be from a working-class background.
As evidenced by Kemi Badenoch’s full-frontal assault on some of Labour’s helmeted (hairstyle) front bench, class warfare is hotting up nicely with Kemi calling Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson a ‘spiteful class warrior’. It was somewhat predictable that the son of a toolmaker leapt to her defence and droned that she is ‘an incredible story of social mobility’.
It’s true that Phillipson had a single mother (who happened to run a charity} but so do more than three million children in this country. She went to a good Catholic school, got an extra part in Byker Grove, got into Oxford University, worked for her mother’s charity and was elected as an MP in 2010 while still in her twenties. Swift progress indeed. Once rooted in this government she happily accepted £14k from Lord Alli. There seems to be some confusion as to whether this was a work event or a birthday – or both.
Point is, Phillipson was lucky – very lucky – and clearly got some help along the way. Scant work experience, no political experience, but into Parliament she popped and has since climbed the greasy political pole. Unfortunate, therefore, that according to a recent poll of the largest education union in the country, the NEU, 72 per cent of teachers and support staff believe Labour has performed badly on education, while 74 per cent believe Phillipson is doing a bad job as education secretary.
Phillipson’s VAT raid on private schools has been the subject of fierce criticism from numerous sectors, not least because the money she acquired has not resulted in any positive outcome for the education sector. On the contrary, the number of teachers has fallen by 2,000 and hundreds of independent schools have closed, thus increasing the burden on state schools and disadvantaging SEND children.
So what is the inference of the constant assertion that somebody has working-class roots? Does it mean that person is better or more deserving or better at their job? Does it mean that Starmer’s really OK because his father was a toolmaker? Does it mean that Phillipson must be treated with kid gloves and exempt from criticism because she had a single mother? Neither of them has been ‘working-class’ for many years. In Phillipson’s case she had scant work experience prior to being parachuted into Parliament, Starmer was making his way round legal positions and Burnham hardly worked outside the political/public sector.
In fact Starmer spent a good proportion of his disastrous stint as PM harassing and abusing the working class of this country. Right from the off – and with the support of his mate Lord Hermer – he demonstrated a deeply unpleasant authoritarian bent, whenever possible abusing and even imprisoning those who criticised or protested against awful things that happened. His choice of language was certainly not subject to any form of restraint. He displayed a total disdain for the voices of ‘the lower classes’ and ‘bringing to bear the full weight of the law’ seemed to be his favourite activity. Was this someone who empathised with the man or woman in the street? Not at all. He despised them.
I suspect the same is broadly true of Phillipson, so bleating about being working-class serves up a dose of hypocrisy on a grand scale.
This government has bandied around the term ‘the working class’ while brutally betraying all those people who do work. Taxing them to the hilt and using their money to squander on projects nobody voted for and to support those who don’t work is not being kind or helpful. It is indeed vicious – not to mention economically disastrous. Just ask the unions who represent working people.
So, Andy, we don’t care where you’re from or what accent you’ve got or what you wear. What we really, really want is a politically astute person who will make all political decisions with the genuine welfare of the whole country – including every class – at heart. Please don’t give us another dose of class warfare under the guise of protecting the working class. We’ve had enough of it.
