Hartlepool?

[WalkedUp]

Tightchoke auditioning well for promotion to PW’s North East correspondent. 

[TIGHTCHOKE]

Oh no!

[Mungler]

👍

[udderlyoffroad]

14 hours ago, 12gauge82 said:

There hasn't been a proper working class party for decades,

As others and myself have pointed out, there hasn't been a 'working class' in the traditional sense, for decades either.

[ditchman]

im waiting for GB news to start......................if it ever does

[Mice!]

1 hour ago, udderlyoffroad said:

As others and myself have pointed out, there hasn't been a 'working class' in the traditional sense, for decades either.

There's a non working class, and they likely vote Labour. 

[12gauge82]

1 hour ago, udderlyoffroad said:

As others and myself have pointed out, there hasn't been a 'working class' in the traditional sense, for decades either.

Not a traditional working class no, but there's certainly a working class and I don't think any party out there can currently claim to stand for them. 

[Newbie to this]

2 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

Not a traditional working class no, but there's certainly a working class and I don't think any party out there can currently claim to stand for them. 

Spot on

[Vince Green]

1 hour ago, udderlyoffroad said:

As others and myself have pointed out, there hasn't been a 'working class' in the traditional sense, for decades either.

Labour relied on a gullable working underclass, poorly educated with little or no access or contact with the world beyond the boundaries of their own mining community or mill town. Into whose heads they could put ideas, playing off their fears and very real insecurities.

There is no doubt they were treated appallingly by their employers, but the people who said they had come to save them were actually doing them no favours.  

The Chartists (fore runner of Labour) preached to the crowds like one of those table thumping  fire and brimstone religious preachers you see in the Southern States of America today. To an ignorant mine worker or mill worker it must have had an  hugely impressive effect on their difficult and harsh life. Here was somebody offering me a dream. 

But they were putting dangerous ideas into otherwise empty heads. If we can band together we can take over the mills and the mines and we can become the bosses. Little wonder people fell for it, it was attractive, but it was a con. 

Socialism has always been a con, it projects an image of utopia that looks like it could be achievable but in reality (like a mirage) it just shimmers in the distance 

People were urged to pledge a penny a week, to attend meetings, to fight for "the cause" but in the end it turned into the Labour party but its supporters got very little back for their pennies. 

[clangerman]

very little in return sums all of them up while we have the homeless and food banks none of them can claim to represent anyone but the greedy 

[London Best]

Don’t vote, it only encourages them.

[TRINITY]

13 hours ago, clangerman said:

very little in return sums all of them up while we have the homeless and food banks none of them can claim to represent anyone but the greedy 

The city where I live has it's fair share of homeless and has had a labour local authority throughout it's time. The ones I see on the street all bar non seem to be alcoholics or drug addicts. So thinking it's the problem of the greedy may be too simplistic.

However the same local authority have commandeered a large 4 star hotel to house immigrants on full board . The so called working man would have to pay around £150 a day to live in a simillar manner. So this tells me the money could be there to help some of these sad homeless individuals but more local politicians seem to have different priorities

[udderlyoffroad]

14 hours ago, 12gauge82 said:

Not a traditional working class no, but there's certainly a working class

Go on then, what constitutes working class in your eyes?

 

14 hours ago, 12gauge82 said:

I don't think any party out there can currently claim to stand for them. 

Even if you could nail it down - what party would deliberately set out to appeal only to a narrow slice of the electorate to the exclusion of everyone else?

See also: Lib Dems being the party of the 'chattering classes' and their recent election results.

This 'working class/middle class' thinking belongs in the 20th century, as society has changed.

[Yellow Bear]

As I see it the problem is that the lib/dems are trying to be more left wing than labour and greener than the green who already seem to be trying to be to the left of momentum and the snp.  This rather limits their vote pool.

[TRINITY]

I have seen quite a few labour party supporters ,politicians,councillors,journalists etc. Everyone has said we have spoken to our voters and they tell us this,that and the other etc.

Not one of them seems to have grasped, it's not their voters and party members they should be talking to. They should venture out into the wider world and speak to people who do not vote for them. They may learn a thing or two because after all its these folk they need to appeal to and not their loyal diehards. But perhaps they dont want to know the truth and prefer to live in their socialist utopia in the last century.

[12gauge82]

20 minutes ago, udderlyoffroad said:

Go on then, what constitutes working class in your eyes?

 

Even if you could nail it down - what party would deliberately set out to appeal only to a narrow slice of the electorate to the exclusion of everyone else?

See also: Lib Dems being the party of the 'chattering classes' and their recent election results.

This 'working class/middle class' thinking belongs in the 20th century, as society has changed.

The working class Is the vast majority of the UK population. My personal definition of them will almost certainly be incomplete as I'm not an expert on it, but anyone who relies on their job to exist and has few assets to sell would be working class. So the the head of amazon isn't, nore is someone born into wealth. The working class is now the working masses, it's the vast majority of the country because it includes their families who will be reliant on their work and the old who have retired. So you see it is far from a narrow slice of the country and actually includes the vast majority. Its virtually everyone who doesn't rely on benifits and who isn't extremely wealthy or rely on the working classes to toil and make their money. 

2 minutes ago, TRINITY said:

I have seen quite a few labour party supporters ,politicians,councillors,journalists etc. Everyone has said we have spoken to our voters and they tell us this,that and the other etc.

Not one of them seems to have grasped, it's not their voters and party members they should be talking to. They should venture out into the wider world and speak to people who do not vote for them. They may learn a thing or two because after all its these folk they need to appeal to and not their loyal diehards. But perhaps they dont want to know the truth and prefer to live in their socialist utopia in the last century.

Spot on. 

[udderlyoffroad]

7 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

The working class Is the vast majority of the UK population.

 

7 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

So you see it is far from a narrow slice of the country and actually includes the vast majority. Its virtually everyone who doesn't rely on benifits and who isn't extremely wealthy or rely on the working classes to toil and make their money. 

So...if by your definition, working class is such a big group...why would a party even bother to define itself by appealing to those?  Surely all parties should be appealing to that vast swathe of the electorate.

It just doesn't work anymore to use terms like 'working class' because it's unnecessarily divisive.  Dividing your electorate up into groups is going to down like a cup of cold sick for labour.

Or, to use US terms - basically you've divided the population into one-percenters and everyone else.  You don't even bother saying you're trying to appeal to everyone else, surely?

[12gauge82]

17 minutes ago, udderlyoffroad said:

 

So...if by your definition, working class is such a big group...why would a party even bother to define itself by appealing to those?  Surely all parties should be appealing to that vast swathe of the electorate.

It just doesn't work anymore to use terms like 'working class' because it's unnecessarily divisive.  Dividing your electorate up into groups is going to down like a cup of cold sick for labour.

Or, to use US terms - basically you've divided the population into one-percenters and everyone else.  You don't even bother saying you're trying to appeal to everyone else, surely?

And you've just highlighted the problem with current politics, without going into NI and Scotlands specific problems, in the left corner you have Labour the libs and greens who are all trying to out do each other appealing to minority issues and then there's the tories who I would argue are towards the centre but have too many connections with big business and the elite in society to stand up for the vast majority of the working masses. To go back to my original point, what party has the working class (ie the vast majority of the population) at the centre of its policys? 

[udderlyoffroad]

6 hours ago, 12gauge82 said:

And you've just highlighted the problem with current politics,

No, I've highlighted the problem with people who will insist on falling back on these terms, such as yourself.  And certain trade unionists.

'Working masses' is such inflammatory, dated language that no political party with any sense will touch it.

6 hours ago, 12gauge82 said:

To go back to my original point, what party has the working class (ie the vast majority of the population) at the centre of its policys? 

All of them!  Or at least they think they do.  It's just they're not going to be so daft as to couch in language like that, as 1) it dredges up the past. 2) it gives any aspiritational notions their voters might harbour a kick in the plums.

What party is actively not trying to appeal to this 99% of the population?

[12gauge82]

1 hour ago, udderlyoffroad said:

No, I've highlighted the problem with people who will insist on falling back on these terms, such as yourself.  And certain trade unionists.

'Working masses' is such inflammatory, dated language that no political party with any sense will touch it.

All of them!  Or at least they think they do.  It's just they're not going to be so daft as to couch in language like that, as 1) it dredges up the past. 2) it gives any aspiritational notions their voters might harbour a kick in the plums.

What party is actively not trying to appeal to this 99% of the population?

The terms I've used are irrelevant, it's the substance that counts and my point remains. 

The cons are the closest we've got to a centralist main stream politicial group, which is why theyve done so well because they have no one opposing them, other than ukip before farage left, it is why the Conservatives were so afraid of them, in fact its another situation that proves my point, the masses wanted brexit, the Conservatives would never have given is the vote had it not been for ukip, what this country needs is a political party that wants to improve life for the 99% and not their Eton mates. 

[figgy]

I think the working man is a bit more informed today and is not the typical labour voter. The demise of huge union workplaces have long gone, so have most of the workers from that era. The fall in working men's clubs shows how things change. Children are not going to vote labour because their parent do or did.

Hartlepool has had labour for a long time and they have done nothing for them.

Sometimes you need a change. It's less about what party these days and more about who you believe will do more of what's needed.

 

Edited May 9, 2021 by figgy

[oowee]

4 minutes ago, figgy said:

I think the working man is a bit more informed today and is not the typical labour voter. The demise of huge union workplaces have long gone, so have most of the workers from that era. The fall in working men's clubs shows how things change. Children are not going to vote labour because their parent do or did.

Hartlepool has had labour for a long time and they have done nothing for them.

Sometimes you need a change. It's less about what party these days and more about who you believe will do more of what's needed.

 

The population as a whole has changed in outlook and aspiration. Unfortunately none of the parties have adapted to reflect that change and perhaps least so is Labour.

The fpp system exacerbates the difficulties of engineering change. It results in a blunt selection process with a winner that is unlikley to reflect the demands of the population. 

[udderlyoffroad]

12 hours ago, 12gauge82 said:

The terms I've used are irrelevant, it's the substance that counts and my point remains. 

Absolutely not.  Labels are massively important in politics and only a fool would use 'working class' or similar.

 

12 hours ago, 12gauge82 said:

what this country needs is a political party that wants to improve life for the 99% and not their Eton mates. 

If you think cronyism only affects the conservatives and somehow isn't a problem for governments of other colours....well you're wrong.  And best not go down the road of the Labour shadow cabinet and their alma maters.

We'll have to agree to differ on this one.  I think all parties are pursuing the 99% - except for certain elements of labour/trade unions still mirred in class warfare from last century, and the LD's shameless pursuing of the chattering class vote to the exclusion of everyone else.

But again, no party will explicitly state they're for the 'working man' or whatever, because it's an unnecessary constraint which may make others feel excluded.  Which is just straightforward stupid.

 

 

[TRINITY]

For reasons too complex to explain , I was once encouraged to join the labour party in order to enter local politics. I went so far down the route but then hit a problem. I had never been a trade union member and I did not wish to join a union and had no need to do so. I was then told that unless I did join a union and could provide legitimate reasons why I had not done so in the past, I could not represent labour in local politics.

Suffice to say that was the end of the matter and only highlighted to me that labour is an exclusive trade union club and a myth that it represents the wider society.

[Vince Green]

3 minutes ago, TRINITY said:

For reasons too complex to explain , I was once encouraged to join the labour party in order to enter local politics. I went so far down the route but then hit a problem. I had never been a trade union member and I did not wish to join a union and had no need to do so. I was then told that unless I did join a union and could provide legitimate reasons why I had not done so in the past, I could not represent labour in local politics.

Suffice to say that was the end of the matter and only highlighted to me that labour is an exclusive trade union club and a myth that it represents the wider society.

Well the Labour Party is still technically owned by the Trade Union Movement and always has been. Its not an independent party, people don't realise that