Being Blunt about classism

Several weeks ago saw James Blunt hitting the headlines after penning an open letter to Chris Bryant, Labour MP and Shadow Minister for the Arts. Bryant had spoken openly about the dominance of an elite, privileged class within the arts, naming Blunt (real name James Hillier Blount) and his Harrow background as an illustration. Blunt’s reply, a vitriolic open letter, slammed what he dubbed the ‘politics of envy’, referring to Bryant himself as a ‘classist gimp.’ A large part of the letter focused on how Blunt feels his boarding school education not only failed to help him find success in the music industry, but actually held him back. He stated that ‘every step of the way, my background has been AGAINST me succeeding in the music business’. This view has been echoed on Twitter by various journalists, writers and artists, arguing that they have occasionally been turned down for jobs for being too posh, or having a ‘plummy’ accent. Ironically, the reason I read those tweets is that all of these people were speaking from a platform they had reached by becoming successful in their field. Their views could be heard by a lot of people because they had made it. Perhaps yes, along the way there were rejections, but they had made it. A privately educated journalist living comfortably in London trying to argue that she had been hard done by because of her accent, jars on me when such a small amount of working class people manage to break into her profession.

This failure to recognise privilege is mirrored in Blunt’s letter. Perhaps nobody at Harrow (which this year is charging fees of £34,590 ) walked up to Blunt on the last day of term to offer him a contract with Syco, but it is ridiculous to claim that his class and background were of no help to him at all. The music lessons he had as a child, early exposure to different music, the financial freedom to pursue a career in the arts, the confidence to take a risk and know that if it went badly he wouldn’t face the bailiffs, or have to choose between food and heating. Perhaps to Blunt these things don’t seem like much; despite being invaluable, they are only truly noticed in their absence. In his letter Blunt spoke of how he saved up money from a holiday job to buy a guitar as if expecting a pat on the back; apparently the fact that this would be simply impossible for some seems not to have occurred to him. Young people forced to plough every penny they earn into rent, or back into the family, is a concept so alien he just refuses to acknowledge it. His detachment from reality coupled with his unwillingness to acknowledge his own privilege is infuriating, especially in his argument that to level the playing field would be to ‘remove the G from GB’.

Julie Walters added her voice to the debate by stating that she wouldn’t have been able to become an actress if she was trying to break into the industry today, criticising the lack of opportunity for working class actors and how rarely working class life is depicted in written drama. Steve McQueen, Oscar winning director of 12 Years a Slave, was told at school that his best option was to train to become a plumber. He had already been ‘marked for labour’ as a teenager, told what his place was. It is chilling to think about the talent we could have lost and the talent that we are still losing every day that we fail to change the system. Students are routinely told that undertaking a degree in an arts subject such as history, English literature and drama, will leave them jobless- oh, unless they have the connections and the money to make a name for themselves, in which case, they’re actively encouraged. We are very much becoming part of a culture that is steadily equating the arts with unemployment; a culture where excited, creative students try to convince themselves that, no, a job in the arts doesn’t matter that much, they’ll settle for something else.

One of the issues about privilege is that often, it’s invisible to those who possess it, prompting claims such as ‘anyone can make it if they work hard enough.’ Privilege gives you the ability not to shrink away to a corner at a networking event. It gives you the time and space to be truly creative without worrying about having too much month left at the end of your money. The confidence to jump head first and know you’ll survive anyway. The chance to follow a career path that doesn’t have a clear, regular income set out from the beginning. Whether James Blunt knows it or not, he has been lucky enough to have this behind him. Although I don’t dispute that he worked hard for his success, there are so many people who never get a fraction of the chance that he did. How much talent are we losing in this country because we’re sitting back and allowing a career in the arts to become the preserve of those with the right contacts, the right circumstances and the right amount of money? How contemptible is it that someone’s wide-eyed, childlike, irrepressible passion is stripped away by their early twenties because they realise ‘people like them’ can’t have that sort of career? I am constantly told that an English degree will leave me unemployable. I am constantly told that journalism won’t work for someone like me. But James, you’re wrong about the ‘politics of envy.’  I’m not jealous. I’m searing white hot angry.

Recently, I’ve witnessed a few different instances of hard working, talented, incredible people losing out on something because of game playing and the way the system works. It’s gutting to see, because it sends out a message of bleakness, a message of ‘what’s the point?’ What’s the point in pouring your heart and soul into something if the result is inevitable from the start? Why work your arse off day after day when the system will never change? It’s a hard knock to take, a difficult truth to stomach. However, also recently, I was lucky enough to listen to Nicola Sturgeon, Scotland’s First Minister, talk at my university. She left a clear message: you will have knocks. They will hurt. But you have to pick yourself up and carry on, because the alternative is much less palatable. She spoke of how, currently, we don’t have a meritocracy- but that doesn’t mean we can’t keep striving for one. Giving up will only allow classism to reproduce itself, protecting those and the top and condemning those at the bottom. Over the past few years I’ve learned how it feels to throw away what you really want. I’m not willing to make those choices anymore. For some people at the top, striving for equality is synonymous with giving up their privilege, a fear that they disguise with rhetoric about ‘positive discrimination.’ The past few weeks have taught me that giving up is exactly what people like this would like to happen. So I won’t. And I will carry on hoping for change.

Benefits Street: who we should really feel disgusted by.

‘Benefits Street’, the latest ‘documentary’ to be aired by Channel 4, claims to give an insight into ‘the reality of life on benefits’ for people in Britain. Unfortunately, the authentic insight the audience is treated to is not into what life is like for those dependent on benefits, but instead, into the exploitative motivations of a production team, whose sole aim is to incite hatred towards the poor. Instead of seizing the opportunity to depict the rarely seen day-to-day struggles of people below the poverty line, the producers of ‘Benefits Street’ chose to create a twisted, one-sided caricature of what it means to be a benefits recipient. And oh, did it go all-out. Through purposeful manipulation and editing, it managed to include every characteristic of the ‘chav’ stereotype; loudmouthed swearing, excessive drinking and smoking, drug dependency and criminal activity to name just a few. What could have been a balanced, genuine portrayal of life on benefits instead became a carefully crafted piece of propaganda.

The response after the first episode was unbelievable. Social media exploded with disgust at the ‘scrounger lifestyle’ those on James Turner Street seemed to be enjoying. Those unlucky enough to have been featured on the show were bombarded with abuse and death threats. People blamed the welfare state for giving too many ‘hand-outs’. Shouts of ‘scum’ and ‘get a job!’ filled Facebook and Twitter. All of this was on the very day that George Osborne announced his plans to cut £10million from the budget for welfare spending. All very convenient; let’s just nicely cover up this horrific news with a poisonous programme that at worst will merely justify the need for cuts.

What ‘Benefits Street’ neglected to show is the thousands upon thousands of people who rely on benefits simply to survive. The single mother who is faced with skipping meals so her child can eat, the man who spends all day, every day pitting his job application forms against hundreds of others, the pensioner who faces choosing between heating or eating, the family wondering how the hell they’re going to afford to pay the Bedroom Tax- for these people, benefits are crucial for them just to make it through another week. This is the reality for so many in Britain. If ‘Benefits Street’ was ever serious about producing a truthful account, the demographics included would have been entirely different. By far the largest proportion of welfare spending in Britain goes on pensions, to people who have paid in to the system for all of their lives. 20% goes on supporting those who are already in work, but earning so little that they are well below the poverty line. Why was this not represented? Because ‘Benefits Street’ would prefer to show a distorted version that riles the general public as opposed to a hard, unpalatable truth.

The most damaging thing about ‘Benefits Street’ and its parody of life in working-class communities is the way it is designed to turn people against the poor. Shortly after the first episode aired, some of those who were filmed spoke out about the lies the production team had fed them. They had agreed to take part in a show about community spirit and togetherness. There are rumours that the cans of beer and cigarettes seen in the hands of those on the show were provided by the production team, which, if true, is a disgusting way to enforce the stereotypes it was seeking to portray. But that’s the whole point; the producers of ‘Benefits Street’ had the opportunity to put across any message they wanted to. When faced with false promises, skilled editors and no voice of their own, the residents of James Turner Street never stood a chance. So many of them have spoken out about how their lives have been ruined by the show, with abuse being hurled at them in the street and family members disowning them. It’s all too easy for people to blame those on the programme for their situation- one tweet I saw said that, as we all receive an education in this country, there’s no excuse for not being able to read or write, and thus get a job. However, if at twelve years old, you’re going to school hungry with an unwashed uniform, worrying about whether your parents will be sober enough to function when you return, doing your homework probably isn’t at the forefront of your mind. Everyone is where they are in life due to a huge range of different circumstances. To judge, or to tar everyone with the same brush is more than unfair, it’s dangerous.

So, when I consider who I’m really disgusted by in the ‘Benefits Street’ controversy, it is the vile, immoral production team who are at the receiving end. To create such a harmful, prejudiced account requires a lack of a conscience and a vindictiveness that turns my stomach. In my opinion, there is no better place to be than in the middle of a working-class community. And it is heartbreaking that one twisted, distorted representation can shape so many opinions of what it means to depend on benefits.

Why Katie Hopkins shouldn't just be laughed at...

Anyone who knows me at all will know that I tend to have very strong opinions about most things and usually I don't keep them to myself. In the past, this trait has been known to get me into trouble but I can't stand the thought of keeping quiet about things that make my blood boil or my heart lurch. I spend so much of my time launching into arguments about, well, anything that matters, I thought I might as well turn it into something productive. So here it is- my first ever blog post and a chance for me to blow off some steam about something that has really, really got to me.

Katie Hopkins. The name alone seems to be enough to provoke a reaction in most people. After her infamous appearance on This Morning, the video of the former Apprentice contestant being slammed by Holly Willoughby went viral, gaining over 3 million views in two days. Hopkins herself gained thousands of Twitter followers and used the opportunity to publish a book on baby names. Whether she truly believes in the vile message she is portraying or whether, as some suggest, the whole thing is merely a desperate publicity stunt (she did have a stint in the jungle for I'm a Celeb, don't forget) it is undeniable that Katie Hopkins has caught Britain's attention.

However, although for the most part people seem to agree that Hopkins is an 'insufferable snob' (as fellow This Morning guest Anna May Mangan branded her), for me this isn't enough. I think she's more dangerous than that, and I really don't think we can simply laugh and ignore her. The message she is promoting is too powerful for that. The crux of the matter is that Hopkins is telling children that they are bound by their names, or essentially, their class. According to Hopkins, if you are called Tyler or Chantelle or one of any number of names she expressed distaste for, your future is already mapped out for you. After all, 'there's a whole set of things that go with children like that', including being late, disruptive and never doing homework.

As a Jodie, I fall well within the category Hopkins has established. She undoubtedly wouldn't want her children to associate with me, I have no prospects and I am probably part of a 'quagmire of underachieving children' that may drag her own precious children down. A quick Google search of my name revealed shockingly similar attitudes, the first article to appear listing Jodie as a ''Chav' name feared by teachers'. So there we have it. I should probably disregard my ambition of securing a university place in August, then.

In an article written for the Daily Mail, Hopkins wrote of how she is 'acutely aware of the benefits of meeting children from like-minded, high achieving families.' Of course, it would be utterly ridiculous to suggest that a child with a name like Tyler could be from a 'high achieving family'. Nor could he possibly be bright or ambitious, or even well-behaved.

It would be incredibly easy to laugh at Hopkins' deluded, old-fashioned ideas and even easier to brand her a snob and be done. But I am angrier than that. Angry that she can promote such a belittling, discouraging and frankly humiliating attitude with such a smug expression plastered across her face. Because if Hopkins believes that children's names and class dictate their prospects, and is willing to share this with millions, what on earth is there to stop a child from believing it too? The problem of self-fulfilling prophecies is not made up and surely attitudes like Hopkins' can only serve to exacerbate it.

I am fiercely proud to be a Jodie and I wouldn't even contemplate letting Katie Hopkins' dated ideas hold me back from doing what I want and achieving what I want. But if there's a chance that somewhere, even one single child could miss out on reaching their potential or fulfilling their ambition because of an ignorant, restrictive set of views, then Hopkins shouldn't even be allowed air-time.