Are the Tories now the party of the working class?

Theresa May vows to expand workers’ rights:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/pa/...-election.html

Excuse the DM link. I couldn't find this story in the Guardian, for some reason, and FT is paywalled.

The Graun did have this, though.
Are Tories the workers' party? Labour polling figures suggest they are.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics...ggest-they-are

Significantly, May seemingly pledges to retain worker protection legislation from the EU, which was basically Dear Old Jorge's favourite thing about the EU. Come back Jorge!

btw, I don't blame Corbyn for Labour's collapse in working class support, it goes back a lot further.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ash

Theresa May vows to expand workers’ rights:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/pa/...-election.html

Excuse the DM link. I couldn't find this story in the Guardian, for some reason, and FT is paywalled.

The Graun did have this, though.
Are Tories the workers' party? Labour polling figures suggest they are.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics...ggest-they-are

Significantly, May seemingly pledges to retain worker protection legislation from the EU, which was basically Dear Old Jorge's favourite thing about the EU. Come back Jorge!

btw, I don't blame Corbyn for Labour's collapse in working class support, it goes back a lot further.

---

That 'pledge', of course, simply means not changing an existing law that no-one has been suggesting we change and that it would be quite difficult to shift. As vote-winning moves go, it's an open goal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ash

Theresa May vows to expand workers’ rights:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/pa/...-election.html

Excuse the DM link. I couldn't find this story in the Guardian, for some reason, and FT is paywalled.

The Graun did have this, though.
Are Tories the workers' party? Labour polling figures suggest they are.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics...ggest-they-are

Significantly, May seemingly pledges to retain worker protection legislation from the EU, which was basically Dear Old Jorge's favourite thing about the EU. Come back Jorge!

btw, I don't blame Corbyn for Labour's collapse in working class support, it goes back a lot further.

---

That's a bit weird - the first article on the Guardian when I searched for it was an editorial on the subject yet the link to the story is from the BBC -

Fair bit on their live blog tbf
https://www.theguardian.com/politics...log-navigation

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ash

Theresa May vows to expand workers’ rights:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/pa/...-election.html

Excuse the DM link. I couldn't find this story in the Guardian, for some reason, and FT is paywalled.

The Graun did have this, though.
Are Tories the workers' party? Labour polling figures suggest they are.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics...ggest-they-are

Significantly, May seemingly pledges to retain worker protection legislation from the EU, which was basically Dear Old Jorge's favourite thing about the EU. Come back Jorge!

btw, I don't blame Corbyn for Labour's collapse in working class support, it goes back a lot further.

---

but as for the main point of your post - weren't they always to a some extent. Whenever the harridan/archangel Thatch is discussed there are always a load of salt of the earth working class treasures dragged out to say what a wonderful woman she was

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Luis Anaconda

but as for the main point of your post - weren't they always to a some extent. Whenever the harridan/archangel Thatch is discussed there are always a load of salt of the earth working class treasures dragged out to say what a wonderful woman she was

---

I expect that many former miners would not agree, but yes, there was an appeal for some on the aspirational side of things. That was one decade, though. Over a longer period of history it would be safer to say that Labour were the workers' party.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ash

I expect that many former miners would not agree, but yes, there was an appeal for some on the aspirational side of things. That was one decade, though. Over a longer period of history it would be safer to say that Labour were the workers' party.

---

They (Labour) were certainly successful in getting everyone to ignore the 10th Commandment. And also in presuming miners wished to remain miners forever and not go off and become tech billionaires or Hollywood film directors or something.

Perhaps it's actually more complicated than that. It's certainly interesting that in nowadays' politics, the world's most prominent fat cat tycoon describes miners and steelworkers as *our* miners and steelworkers, whereas his modern progressive opponent depicted them as "a basket of deplorables".

What did that man say years ago? The soft bigotry of low expectations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redgunamo

They (Labour) were certainly successful in getting everyone to ignore the 10th Commandment. And also in presuming miners wished to remain miners forever and not go off and become tech billionaires or Hollywood film directors or something.

Perhaps it's actually more complicated than that. It's certainly interesting that in nowadays' politics, the world's most prominent fat cat tycoon describes miners and steelworkers as *our* miners and steelworkers, whereas his modern progressive opponent depicted them as "a basket of deplorables".

What did that man say years ago? The soft bigotry of low expectations.

---

When the mines closed I'm not sure how many felt that they were in a realistic position to become tech billionaires and Hollywood film producers, tbh. Disagreeing with the policy of shutting down that industry isn't the same as wishing to condemn those miners to a lifetime of that job. Overall most probably would have preferred the option of keeping their old jobs for a while at least, until they could land the job as Microsoft CEO.

As for the despicable Hillary - yes, she is that. Reinforces my point in fact that a so-called progressive openly despises the workers while a capitalist is at least able to portary a PR front which respects them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ash

When the mines closed I'm not sure how many felt that they were in a realistic position to become tech billionaires and Hollywood film producers, tbh. Disagreeing with the policy of shutting down that industry isn't the same as wishing to condemn those miners to a lifetime of that job. Overall most probably would have preferred the option of keeping their old jobs for a while at least, until they could land the job as Microsoft CEO.

As for the despicable Hillary - yes, she is that. Reinforces my point in fact that a so-called progressive openly despises the workers while a capitalist is at least able to portary a PR front which respects them.

---

Actually, while I obviously think Hillary is a cancer-deserving ****, the "deplorables" line was heavily manipulated to damage her (and it may very well have lost her the election).

In fact, all she said was that a certain demographic of Trump supporter was "deplorable" whereas the rest consisted simply of those “who feel that the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures, and they’re just desperate for change."

Which is basically a fair assessment, right?

Oddly enough, Mrs Thatch, I think we can say, seemed to share Hillary's innate lack of sympathy with workers in heavy industry so maybe background trumps politics here? They both come from business/entrepreneurial families,
don't they. Understandably they'd take a dim view of generations of sheeple trudging down coal pits to get lung cancer or whatever.

On the other hand, many traditional Labour supporters liked her, as you say, and she in return seemed to appreciate the Home Counties wideboy, cash-in-hand painter and decorator types just as much as she appeared to cherish the various chavs and spivs filling up the City. In the United States, Hillary's solid urban support would, I guess, be their expensively-educated sons and daughters.

As I used to enjoy telling Jaguar George, before he moved on, it wasn't Labour that deserted the workers; the workers themselves deserted the workers. Backing globalisation has simply meant moving the working class poor and their jobs "offshore" so at least nobody has to look at them anymore. As you suggest though, they may not have been brilliant jobs in the first place, not lucrative like playing professional football or being a 24-hour fast food delivery service racketeer or anything, but at least they were our jobs.

Over time though, it was bound to leave them somewhat vulnerable at the ballot box, certainly to anyone who was actually able to display a gut-level respect or admiration for "our" workers, whichever side of the political spectrum they were from. Anyway, at least until mass immigration from the third world really kicks in again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ash

When the mines closed I'm not sure how many felt that they were in a realistic position to become tech billionaires and Hollywood film producers, tbh. Disagreeing with the policy of shutting down that industry isn't the same as wishing to condemn those miners to a lifetime of that job. Overall most probably would have preferred the option of keeping their old jobs for a while at least, until they could land the job as Microsoft CEO.

As for the despicable Hillary - yes, she is that. Reinforces my point in fact that a so-called progressive openly despises the workers while a capitalist is at least able to portary a PR front which respects them.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Monty92

Actually, while I obviously think Hillary is a cancer-deserving ****, the "deplorables" line was heavily manipulated to damage her (and it may very well have lost her the election).

In fact, all she said was that a certain demographic of Trump supporter was "deplorable" whereas the rest consisted simply of those “who feel that the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures, and they’re just desperate for change."

Which is basically a fair assessment, right?

---

He says, heavily manipulating her remarks :rolleyes:

Anyway, "fair" has nothing to do with it. She was caught out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Monty92

Actually, while I obviously think Hillary is a cancer-deserving ****, the "deplorables" line was heavily manipulated to damage her (and it may very well have lost her the election).

In fact, all she said was that a certain demographic of Trump supporter was "deplorable" whereas the rest consisted simply of those “who feel that the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures, and they’re just desperate for change."

Which is basically a fair assessment, right?

---

She said that half - HALF - of Trump's supporters could be put in a 'basket of deplorables'. That's approximately 32 million voters for whom she expressed utter contempt.

She got what she deserved.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burney

She said that half - HALF - of Trump's supporters could be put in a 'basket of deplorables'. That's approximately 32 million voters for whom she expressed utter contempt.

She got what she deserved.

---

Yes, she was obviously trying to exaggerate the extent to which the racist red-neck demographic made up Trump's supporter base in order to taint those considering voting for him by association.

It massively, massively back-fired, but this was at a time where all of us - you and I included - felt that the Trump brand was too toxic for him to be elected. And all she was trying to do was capitalise on that same instinct by dialling up the "you can't vote for him - lots of his supporters are bigots" sentiment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Monty92

Yes, she was obviously trying to exaggerate the extent to which the racist red-neck demographic made up Trump's supporter base in order to taint those considering voting for him by association.

It massively, massively back-fired, but this was at a time where all of us - you and I included - felt that the Trump brand was too toxic for him to be elected. And all she was trying to do was capitalise on that same instinct by dialling up the "you can't vote for him - lots of his supporters are bigots" sentiment.

---

As ever, her tin ear for public sentiment and lack of self-awareness is what did for her. She failed to grasp that, in a competition with a populist who is railing against Washington insiders and their separation from real people, the ultimate Washington insider being seen sneering contemptuously at a quarter of the voting public was never going to be a good look. Also, she never seemed to understand how unpopular she was personally, which meant that pointing at the other guy and demanding the election by default was never going to be good enough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Monty92

Yes, she was obviously trying to exaggerate the extent to which the racist red-neck demographic made up Trump's supporter base in order to taint those considering voting for him by association.

It massively, massively back-fired, but this was at a time where all of us - you and I included - felt that the Trump brand was too toxic for him to be elected. And all she was trying to do was capitalise on that same instinct by dialling up the "you can't vote for him - lots of his supporters are bigots" sentiment.

---

By describing them, and presumably even her own husband, as racist rednecks? Rubbish strategery, imo. And worse instincts.

The whole Tea Party thing from a year or two back showed that the Donald wouldn't really be considered "toxic" at all, only to urban trendies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redgunamo

By describing them, and presumably even her own husband, as racist rednecks? Rubbish strategery, imo. And worse instincts.

The whole Tea Party thing from a year or two back showed that the Donald wouldn't really be considered "toxic" at all, only to urban trendies.

---

But it's hard to know its effectiveness as a strategy. It may well be that had she not chosen that method of attack, she would have lost by a bigger margin. It seems entirely plausible to me that many people were dissuaded from voting for Trump because they didn't want to be tainted by association with the more "deplorable" factions of his supporter base.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Monty92

But it's hard to know its effectiveness as a strategy. It may well be that had she not chosen that method of attack, she would have lost by a bigger margin. It seems entirely plausible to me that many people were dissuaded from voting for Trump because they didn't want to be tainted by association with the more "deplorable" factions of his supporter base.

---

OK. But this husband of hers is a fairly popular former president so to think of him, his sort and, by extension, his supporters that way is madness whichever way you spin it. And it also helped to explain why she didn't really campaign much amongst them; she obviously felt they were all racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobes.

As I tried to tell you people during the campaign, it's always dangerous to depict activists as truly representative of the demographic group to which they belong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redgunamo

Oddly enough, Mrs Thatch, I think we can say, seemed to share Hillary's innate lack of sympathy with workers in heavy industry so maybe background trumps politics here? They both come from business/entrepreneurial families,
don't they. Understandably they'd take a dim view of generations of sheeple trudging down coal pits to get lung cancer or whatever.

On the other hand, many traditional Labour supporters liked her, as you say, and she in return seemed to appreciate the Home Counties wideboy, cash-in-hand painter and decorator types just as much as she appeared to cherish the various chavs and spivs filling up the City. In the United States, Hillary's solid urban support would, I guess, be their expensively-educated sons and daughters.

As I used to enjoy telling Jaguar George, before he moved on, it wasn't Labour that deserted the workers; the workers themselves deserted the workers. Backing globalisation has simply meant moving the working class poor and their jobs "offshore" so at least nobody has to look at them anymore. As you suggest though, they may not have been brilliant jobs in the first place, not lucrative like playing professional football or being a 24-hour fast food delivery service racketeer or anything, but at least they were our jobs.

Over time though, it was bound to leave them somewhat vulnerable at the ballot box, certainly to anyone who was actually able to display a gut-level respect or admiration for "our" workers, whichever side of the political spectrum they were from. Anyway, at least until mass immigration from the third world really kicks in again.

---

Agreed with all that about The Iron Handbag, though I'd add my take that what she promised the aspirational was the individual solution, which is going to look faster and more glamourous than the old collective solutions offered by the labour movement that she was busily dismantling. Rise out of your class rather than with it. Which is fine, but it's not going to work for everyone. There was a load of other stuff around community that was bound up with the old labour movement which tends to get forgotten about now. Social values of a traditional and conservative nature. She smashed them up too.

As for globalisation, it's literally a race for the bottom where the winner is the one who can do the job for the lowest amount of money, in the worst possible conditions, and the losers get even less than that. And trendy liberals love this because the word 'global' makes them sound thrillingly internationalist, cosmoplitan and all that stuff, unlike those ghastly racist plebs who hate foreigners. Of course, it's never the jobs of the trendy liberals that come under threat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ash

Agreed with all that about The Iron Handbag, though I'd add my take that what she promised the aspirational was the individual solution, which is going to look faster and more glamourous than the old collective solutions offered by the labour movement that she was busily dismantling. Rise out of your class rather than with it. Which is fine, but it's not going to work for everyone. There was a load of other stuff around community that was bound up with the old labour movement which tends to get forgotten about now. Social values of a traditional and conservative nature. She smashed them up too.

As for globalisation, it's literally a race for the bottom where the winner is the one who can do the job for the lowest amount of money, in the worst possible conditions, and the losers get even less than that. And trendy liberals love this because the word 'global' makes them sound thrillingly internationalist, cosmoplitan and all that stuff, unlike those ghastly racist plebs who hate foreigners. Of course, it's never the jobs of the trendy liberals that come under threat.

---

The labour movement was grounded in an industrial culture that created those communities, though. The erosion of that industrial culture was inevitable longer term - although unions hastened the process by making industrial success more difficult, thus killing the goose that laid the golden egg. What seems clear to me is that that culture was a product of a very specific time and place between the start of the industrial revolution and the advent of the post-industrial society. That 100-odd years was the sweet spot for the labour movement and in a society without that culture, it no longer has a clear purpose.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ash

Agreed with all that about The Iron Handbag, though I'd add my take that what she promised the aspirational was the individual solution, which is going to look faster and more glamourous than the old collective solutions offered by the labour movement that she was busily dismantling. Rise out of your class rather than with it. Which is fine, but it's not going to work for everyone. There was a load of other stuff around community that was bound up with the old labour movement which tends to get forgotten about now. Social values of a traditional and conservative nature. She smashed them up too.

As for globalisation, it's literally a race for the bottom where the winner is the one who can do the job for the lowest amount of money, in the worst possible conditions, and the losers get even less than that. And trendy liberals love this because the word 'global' makes them sound thrillingly internationalist, cosmoplitan and all that stuff, unlike those ghastly racist plebs who hate foreigners. Of course, it's never the jobs of the trendy liberals that come under threat.

---

Necessary though. Maggie felt that the family (as the individual) was the only collective community solution that really mattered and, of course, lefties prefer the impersonal, corporate boot heel, whether government, business or whateverhaveyou; they've no real time for the family at all. This phenomenon is particularly visible if you're able to study French society, for example, or Germany.

She was right, of course, and the consequences are there for all to see, but she seriously, if understandably, misunderestimated the power and ubiquity of the contraceptive pill.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burney

The labour movement was grounded in an industrial culture that created those communities, though. The erosion of that industrial culture was inevitable longer term - although unions hastened the process by making industrial success more difficult, thus killing the goose that laid the golden egg. What seems clear to me is that that culture was a product of a very specific time and place between the start of the industrial revolution and the advent of the post-industrial society. That 100-odd years was the sweet spot for the labour movement and in a society without that culture, it no longer has a clear purpose.

---

Right. And somewhat inevitably the thing has become enormously corrupted.

"Work" always partly implied noble sacrifice, putting in more than you take out. But when even average full backs earning eighty grand per week constantly bang on about how hard they work and indeed how Working Class they are, and with a straight face too, something went badly awry somewhere.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redgunamo

"Work" always partly implied noble sacrifice, putting in more than you take out. But when even average full backs earning eighty grand per week constantly bang on about how hard they work and indeed how Working Class they are, and with a straight face too, something went badly awry somewhere.

---

tfb they do have to run up and down the wing a bit rather than just standing around the six yard box waiting for the tap-in #olliegee #statueoflimitations