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.Originally Posted by Luis Anaconda
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.
"Plenty of strikers can score goals," he said, gesturing to the famous old stands casting shadows around us.
"But a lot have found it difficult wearing the number 9 shirt for The Arsenal."
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?
He says, heavily manipulating her remarks
Anyway, "fair" has nothing to do with it. She was caught out.
"Plenty of strikers can score goals," he said, gesturing to the famous old stands casting shadows around us.
"But a lot have found it difficult wearing the number 9 shirt for The Arsenal."
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.
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.
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.
"Plenty of strikers can score goals," he said, gesturing to the famous old stands casting shadows around us.
"But a lot have found it difficult wearing the number 9 shirt for The Arsenal."
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.
"Plenty of strikers can score goals," he said, gesturing to the famous old stands casting shadows around us.
"But a lot have found it difficult wearing the number 9 shirt for The Arsenal."
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote