This is a study but anyone who thinks that this is not the same, or even worse, as the situ in is in deep denial imo. GBS said: “It is impossible for an Englishman to open his mouth without making some other Englishman hate or despise him." That was true then & its true now. https://twitter.com/Will_Tanner/status/1308681310970556417

Your accent doesn't just tell someone where you are from it also provides to information to indicate what social-class you belong to also. In a society that has been as class-ridden as the UK has been, its always going to be linked with people’s snobberies.

Its a sad state of affairs but if Boris Johnson had a very strong Cornish accent, lets say for instance, I very much doubt that he would currently be PM. He wouldnt be taken seriously by enough ppl in that role. Now thats ridiculous obviously but thats the way things are atm.

Accents are linked to SE class. Old-Europe still has the residue of their old class system with all its old snobberies. It speaks volumes that in m/class ppl often identify as w/class, even when theyre not, whereas, in , its the other way rd. Why do we think that might be?

I will tell you why: its bc in the old-world of Europe class was seen as something that was largely static, in the new world of America it was seen as more dynamic.

Therefore, when a Brit says that he is w/class when he is actually m/class he is telling you where he thinks he has come from & when an American tells you that he is m/class when he is actually w/class he is telling you where he thinks he is going.

In more meritocratic societies in which class is seen as more fluid/dynamic I don't think accents will matter *as much* (it will still matter to some degree Im sure) as in societies, such as the UK & Germany, in which class has been seen as more static https://twitter.com/robkhenderson/status/1308708968097869824?s=20

Sidebar: this is why I think socialism has never took off in America. No ‘class consciousness,’ no socialism. If class is seen as something that is more fluid/dynamic than static this will inhibit the appeal of socialism, as it has in America, & promote individualism in its stead

Alexander Baratta of Manchester University coined the term ‘accentism’ to describe the discrimination that occurs based on someone’s accent but, imo, its an aspect of ‘classism’ really.

Its notable that in the more fluid class system of America, George ‘Dubya’ Bush junior plays up his ‘Texas-ness’ - he was the scion of an East-Coast Brahmin! - whereas in the historically static class system of the UK political leaders take elocution lessons & try to sound posher

The equivalent of George Bush jnr emphasising his Texas-ness would be a guy from Birmingham, Liverpool or Newcastle hamming up his Brummie/Scouse/Geordie-ness & trying to be PM. It would be seen as laughable by the Brits. Therein lies the difference between the 2 countries.

Tony Blair’s whole schtick was to gentrify & make more palatable a *Labour* party (i.e the politcal wing of the trade union movement) to the middle-classes of the home counties. His relative poshness was part of his appeal. John Prescott he was not. https://twitter.com/jfwduffield/status/1308789883004223489?s=20

As for Jess Phillips, she ran for the position of leader of the Labour Party & lost to the poshest dude in the race.

You can cite examples contrary to this trend either side of the Atlantic but in general I think that political leaders in the UK are seen as more credible if they have a posher accent. When we finally have a Cornish PM I might change my mind.

None of this is new. We judge ppl by the way they look (Nixon polled better apparently amongst people who listened to his 1960 debate with JFK on the radio than amongst ppl who watched him on the TV) & the way they sound, even though that tells us little about their competencies.

People, in general, prefer taller leaders to shorter ones. Attractive leaders to ugly leaders. & Brits prefer their leaders to have posh, plummy accents rather than regional ones.

If Tony Blair ‘dumbed-down’ the way he spoke, as has been cited in my mentions, he must have been very posh to begin with, bc his ‘dumbed-down’ (a telling turn of phrase) way of speaking always sounded very posh to my ears. Certainly more so than previous Labour leader.