The Strange Belief in a Liberal England

Andreas Whittam-Smith ponders the dangers of believing England to be a liberal place.
| Categories:

In today's Independent, Andreas Whittam Smith explores the conclusions of Julian Baggini's new book, "Welcome to Everytown: A journey into the English Mind." Mr Baggini, a philosopher, went to live on the outskirts of Rotherham in order to understand the way Middle England thinks.

Whittam Smith notes that:

Mr Baggini's key insight is that England's culture remains predominantly working class. By paying too much attention to growing wealth, we have made the mistake of believing that everyone is gradually becoming middle class.

But in reality, writes Mr Baggini, the majority of those who deck out their houses with en suite bathrooms and drive bigger and better cars are also, in their values and beliefs, as resolutely working class as they ever were. The most popular television shows are either soaps about working class life or quizzes and entertainment that spring directly from the traditions of working men's clubs. And the greatest symbol of the centrality of working class culture to English life is football.

So far so what? Being Working Class does not of itself preclude someone from being liberal. But Baggini offers this insight into the limits of English toleration:

"the English are not classical liberals, but communitarians". A typical communitarian slogan is "No rights without responsibilities". In this way of thinking, rights are not absolute, as they are in the European and United Nations declarations of rights, but conditional. In English working-class culture, they depend upon the circumstances in which they are claimed. "Unless we recognise the fact that England is not liberal," writes Mr Baggini, "we will be going against the grain of popular thinking every time we try to implement policies that rest on the assumption that it is."

The same goes for fair play as in everyone plays by the same rules and no one cheats. But in practice, the English sense of fair play is considerably looser than this. After all, if we are paid in cash for some job, we probably won't declare it to the tax authorities.

No, on close examination our famous fair play is very similar to other country's. Playing fair does not mean playing by the rules, it means each person getting his or her due. And this, in turn, depends upon one's place in society. You might not cheat the neighbour next door, but you would rip off someone richer than you if you thought you could get away with it.

Reflect on that the next time you are out leafletting.


On 20 March 2007 - 9:17am, Joe Otten wrote:

Rotherham? Middle England? Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ho ho ho splutter.


On 20 March 2007 - 9:25am, Peter Welch wrote:

Isn't that one of the points he is making though? Our idea of "typical" England is probably much more southern and middleclass. But we are wrong.

The David Lipsey article from the First Post on the links page makes a similar point in terms of median earnings.

Peter


On 20 March 2007 - 10:35am, Tabman wrote:

Is this the one? http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/index.php?menuID=1&subID=1199

"It seems that Cameron has not seen or heard the last of that Bullingdon Club photograph. Good: he must not be allowed to sell himself, Blair-like, as just an ordinary (if vaguely upper-middle-class) husband and father in early middle age. He is not. "

Very perceptive.

________________________________________________
"Think big thoughts but relish small pleasures."
H. Jackson Brown, Jr.


On 20 March 2007 - 3:49pm, Joe Otten wrote:

I think it is a little pointless to argue whether middle classes areas or deprived areas are more 'typical'. Both exist, and their importance doesn't derive from whether they are representative of a larger whole.

(Not that I am saying Rotherham is all deprived, much of it is probably doing fine, like anywhere else. I worked there for a while and, well, I was glad to get back to Sheffield in the evenings.)

But 'middle England' surely means middle class if it means anything.

The Cameron problem needs to be handled carefully. I'm sure many toffs are perfectly good people, and many may make good politicians. But other things being equal, it is good to have somebody with experience of normal life, ideally both middle and working class, and certainly someone who purports to have the common touch - as David Webcameron does - but hasn't should be treated with some suspicion.


On 20 March 2007 - 5:31pm, James. (not verified) wrote:

I am not sure "Middle England" means "middle class".

It describes a set of values which, if you subscribe to them, puts you in line with the national centre of gravity. People may disagree with you here and there depending on their own personal eccentricities and hobby horses (which may not be wrong but are personal rather than cultural). But ultimately if you have those values you are "mainstream".

There are probably quite a few middle class, broadly liberal views which aren't particularly mainstream "Middle England". Liberalisation of drug laws might be one example.


On 20 March 2007 - 5:53pm, Peter Welch wrote:

Yup.

My point is that Rotherham is typical in the sense that its housing make up is close to the overall national average.

Of course this makes it untypical in the sense that most places are not close to the national average. But a lot of politics at present seems to focus on messages that affect a rather special group of voters.

Peter