What left-wing voices show us about enduring prejudices

Emma Clarke, The Independent

As much as it has been championed, the annual Labour Party conference has also been criticised by certain sections of the media. Plus ca change — but in one particularly scathing review, Keir Starmer, Rachel Reeves and co were called out for something a little more personal: their “left-wing voices”. If you’re wondering what exactly constitutes a “left-wing voice”, here’s how it has been described: as having “moany, pessimistic, adenoidal” tones; that — in addition to the doom and gloom messages about the state of our country — the “superior” and “nagging” cadence of their voices (and even their regional accents) are inherently grating and fail to engage an audience. I know. It’s left me wondering — do I also have a “left-wing voice”? Do you?

Of course, we’ve seen this kind of personal jibe before — just a few years ago, columnist Charles Moore sparked outrage when he suggested that actress Olivia Colman wasn’t right to play the late Queen Elizabeth in Netflix hit The Crown because of her “distinctly left-wing face”. First, left-wing face — now left-wing voice. It’s farcical.

It’s also, as someone who has written before about being proudly working class, an example of an uptick in what I view as dangerously sneery and entitled behaviour. Call it “punching down”, if you like, but it seems to me as though every other week the right-wing press finds a new way to undermine and deride the lower classes. And, look, it’s one thing to disagree on politics and scrutinise policies, but another thing entirely to trash people for something they have very little or no control over (need I really point to the personal attacks on Angela Rayner for being “a gobby northerner”?). To me, it’s obvious: there’s no way this kind of tirade can be viewed as anything other than a swipe at working-class people.

For those who are from that background, like me, it is a particularly demeaning battle. It’s not enough that we come from a place of disadvantage and have to work 10 times harder than our wealthier counterparts to succeed — we are constantly told that we are not enough as we are; in order to truly get ahead, we must abandon everything about ourselves and mould the way we look, act and speak to fit in. Even Starmer himself has suggested that kids would do better in life with “confident speaking” lessons in schools. But I find that a disappointing and regressive take. It only feeds into the idea that we need to change who we are to be accepted.

As someone who has reminded us all that he is the working-class son of a toolmaker (and who has a regional accent himself), I find it sad that Starmer feels he needs to tell young people that their voice (and by extension their upbringing) is “the difference between getting that job and not getting that job”. Our voices and accents are part of the fabric of who we are — they’re something to be proud of. Instead of denying where we’re from and how we sound, shouldn’t more be done to prevent exactly these kinds of biases in workplaces and hiring processes in the first place?

Shouldn’t companies do more to improve diversity across the board — including social class? And isn’t a way of doing that making it clear that our accents don’t matter; that we’re not going to be looked down on because we don’t use RP; and that this is an outdated and reductive way to assess someone’s capabilities? The issue is not how palatable we make ourselves. No My Fair Lady treatment is ever enough. The real issue is that social snobbery is still seen as valid. The rain in Spain may stay mainly in the plain, but this country’s prejudices can be found everywhere. As for me: I am tired of trying to conform. I am who I am and my background has helped shape me. Why should I deny that and try to poshen up?