One ‘stroke of genius’ that Margaret Thatcher pulled off was to engage ‘Essex Man’ and win an election with ‘his’ support. And this mythical figure, who came also to be known as ‘White Van Man’, (much as the Abominable Snowman was also known as a Yetti), bought into to her policies, to her direction, to her values. He was a working man, builder, policeman, factory worker, who was convinced by her that under Conservative ideology and government, the nation, and in particular HIM, would fare well and prosper. And thus that nasty old woman regained power to inflict misery for another five years. The moral of the story being that you don’t have to be a rich, Eton-educated minor aristocrat with an Oxbridge degree to vote conservative. ITS AN IDEOLOGY.

So why, oh why, oh why, oh why, is there an automatic assumption that to have anything whatsoever to do with the Labour Party, you simply MUST be working class? And if you’re not, if you’re a professional, or heaven forbid, quite well off, or live in a nice house in Islington, and support Labour, then YOU ARE A FUCKING HYPOCRITE!!!!! As if being left of centre in your views is only allowable for those of limited means and some housing benefits. Surely, the Labourite brand of Socialism-lite is an ideology too?

The mass outrage at Emily Thornberry’s misguided tweet on Thursday has brought this ridiculous dichotomy to a head. Today’s Mail on Sunday (no fucking surprise there) leads the way with pictures of labour MPs with their houses and house prices and loads of exclamation marks!!!!!! to stress this point of how a ‘working class party’ has now moved into gentrified housing in trendy boroughs.

Political stance is an ideology. Its a view on relative values. The Conservatives (very very broadly speaking) tax less to encourage industry, both in individuals and in, errr, industry, so that money can be reinvested or spent, to enrich all as they pay for their goods and services, employing more people and with money trickling down to all. Labour are more concerned with the less well off and those who, even with every opportunity of free education, free health care, free housing, won’t be able to cope. So they tax more to fund those extra services. And the wealthy would pay more under Labour in taxes because they earn more. Simple.

Therefore, a Labour supporter who is ‘rich’, not by Daily Mail standards of ‘owning’ a house worth 1.2 million quid that has a 750,000 mortgage on it, but a real, fuck-off wealthy entrepreneur, is not a ‘hypocrite’ but someone to be revered. Someone who is backing a system which will take more of his money in order to help those less fortunate. Someone willing to sacrifice personal gains for the good of others. In the same way that a working man who votes Conservative is not ‘selling out to the bosses’ but is hoping that aligning his lot with a financial meritocracy will eventually enrich his and his (scummy, working class, boiler-suited, beer-swilling) mates’ lives.

The only hypocrisy in the political system is when parties seize on one issue, like, errrr, immigration, peutetre, as ‘the vote changer’ and realign their own stance about that issue in a cynical attempt to woo a few voters. That’s when the whole political system turns into a farce. And ‘farce’ is almost part of an anagram of Farage, almost. So for everyone else to suddenly try to encorporate hard-right immigration policy into their bigger picture is sad, tragic and woefully cynical.

This is not a ‘class war’. Its not a few Labourites living in nice houses that is the problem with our politics. Its the ever-shifting values to just try and gain votes, even if they are contrary to the party’s fundamental ideology.

Happy wet, rainy, dreary Sunday

A xxxx