Stereotypes can linger even when long debunked. The “Red Wall” is still — to some tired parts of Westminster — a synonym for depleted industrial towns and a working class “left behind” by politics. But that is only half the story. Those areas of the North and Midlands that flipped Tory in 2019 also contain sleek middle-class suburbs. These seats have a greater share of homeowners, and in them people tend to own cars. In recent years pollsters have started to suspect that these areas might, in fact, have voted Tory in 2019 not because life was bad but because it was good.
So it is with the other stereotype that dogs us — Londoners as out-of-touch metropolitan elites. That is not the whole story either. There is, of course, great wealth in the capital but alongside Islington’s townhouses and Westminster’s ancient architecture there is also great poverty. In fact, the typical neighbourhood in 24 of 32 boroughs is more deprived than England’s average. Homelessness is a major problem.
London’s working-class population is sizable, too. The ONS scores social class in four groups: the highest group — managers and professionals — was in the latest census well-represented in London, but so was the lowest — those in semi-skilled and unskilled manual occupations — far more so than in lush surrounding counties.
These groups make up more than 30 per cent of Brent, Enfield, Newham, and Barking and Dagenham, and more than 25 per cent of Hackney, Haringey, Tower Hamlets, Ealing and Hounslow.
London has become a punch bag for politicians looking to shore up support from those they label ‘ordinary’ voters
In this respect London’s population has more in common with that of a deprived coastal region than a southern home county. But these facts have little political salience. So little, in fact, that London has become something of a punch bag for politicians looking to shore up support from people they label “ordinary” voters.
The former prime minister Liz Truss identified a shadowy “anti-growth” coalition of enemies taking black cabs from “north London townhouses to the BBC studios”.
Rishi Sunak meanwhile attacks Sir Keir Starmer for “rarely leaving north London”. A prejudice against London may partly account this week for the Tory party’s lukewarm condemnation of Lee Anderson when he outrageously described Sadiq Khan as being under the influence of “Islamists”.
There’s a group that in the last few years’ psephologists and pollsters have tended to forget about — call them non-posh Londoners. In populist-tinged narratives, London votes Labour because it is “out of touch” or in hock to luxury beliefs. But could it be that many Londoners are voting Labour because it is in their economic interest?
Non-posh Londoners deserve greater recognition in politics. One problem is that — unlike in some other cities — there has been no catch-all term for this group. London is huge, and diverse. Politicians and commentators love an anthropological term — Waitrose Woman, Mondeo Man. What name should we put to this group of Londoners?
One heritage group has made a recent attempt at solving the problem. Cockney Cultures, a community partnership, has taken a quip from the comedian Arthur Smith, pictured, as inspiration for their idea that non-posh Londoners can be redefined as Cockneys.
Cockneys are famously born “within the sound of the Bow Bells” — but they argue it should be expanded to include a “Cockney Diaspora” and those from a variety of racial backgrounds. “We believe Bow Bells is heard not through the ears but through the heart,” the group has said.
Their redefinition includes Bengali Cockneys, Black Cockneys, Essex Cockneys, Jewish Cockneys — arguing that what was once a strictly defined community language and social identity is evolving through exposure to new cultures and languages.
In a report they set this against a history of prejudice and stereotype, which they say needs challenging. Traditionally, they say, the term Cockney applied to all Londoners.
This is all noble work. But the trouble with Cockney as a general term for Londoners is that, as the heritage group notes, its stereotypes and associations with east London are just too strong. It’s also too white. What we have long thought of as the cockney accent is on its way out — replaced by Estuary English and Multicultural London English — terms which usefully capture emerging trends.
Perhaps after all the term “non-posh Londoner” — half coined by Smith — captures it best. This political tribe has been left out of the conversation. Time to give it some respect.
