UKC

Colour me surprised.

I have said here for many long months, that the reason I, who should be a classic working class labour voter, has abandoned the party is that following the rule of the "Son's of Thatcher”, (Blair, Brown, Milliband,) supporting it is no longer an option. A party which was built on the blood and sweat of ordinary working working-class people, abandoned its core voters, and became the party of the dole claiming, disabled, single-parent, Muslim, lesbian immigrant, staffed and supported by the hand-wringing middle-class-guilt brigade.

Nice to see it being recognised.

In reply to stroppygob:


You seem to be dividing people into 3 categories here:

1. ordinary working working-class people, who you associate with "blood and sweat", i.e. a positive image of honest hard work

2. disabled, single-parent, Muslim, lesbian immigrants, i.e. minorities, who you associate with "dole claiming"

3. hand-wringing middle-class-guilt brigade.

You choose not to mention right wing middle classes whom I assume are not part of 3.

Do you think that there's anything inherently disgusting, pathetic and asinine about associating ordinary working class people as hard working and minorities as dole-claiming?

In reply to Jon Stewart:


No I was using broad categories as shorthand, it’s a well know method of simplifying debate.



I would assume not.


Not really, unless you were applying it to individuals, rather than using generalities.


But you seem to have missed, (I'm guessing deliberately,) the thrust of the speaker in the OP's comments, that is that The Labour Party have lost touch with, and the support of, its original base, and that there are real and understandable reasons for that.

In reply to stroppygob:


I've got no problem with using generalisations if they reflect trends in reality. What I've got a problem with is the completely false and horribly offensive generalisations you're making about ordinary working class people being hard working and minorities being dole claimants. It's repulsive and based entirely on prejudice against minorities.

Do you think it's possible that if you analysed the social characteristics of dole claimants that a higher proportion of "ordinary working class people" would be on the dole than the proportion of immigrants and lesbians?


I've not commented on the speaker's comments because I was more interested in the attitude towards minorities that your post reflected.

In reply to stroppygob:


Lord Glasman Milliband's "guru."

In reply to Jon Stewart:
In reply to Jon Stewart:

Did I say that minorities were dole claimants? I think not. What i gave were the groupings I see the labour party as fixated on, rather than their base support of working working-class people.


Yes, of course they would, you idiot.

Maybe if you were able to treat cliché for what it was, rather than immediately leaping on your pseudo-moralistic high horse of "Ooh someone said something which may been taken as not entirely positive about a minority, Jon to the rescue, High Ho Milliband away!!!," you would have realised I would know that? Just a thought



Obviously you were. A classic example of why the left and the Labour party are in the problems they are in. Rather than address the issues, they focus on the personal and defending "minorities” against imaginary slurs.

In reply to Jon Stewart:


I saw his post as a list.

The dole claiming + the disabled + etc.

I don't believe he was describing a... unemployed disabled single-parent muslim lesbian immigrant. Apologies if he was describing such a group of people.

In reply to FreshSlate:
Exactly, we all know that there are far too many ; "unemployed disabled single-parent muslim lesbian immigrants" about these days, don't we?

The cliché of; "Labour, all their interested is making sure that Somali immigrants get houses in Kensington, and that doleys get more money than working people, and that lesbian single mothers have free art space crèches" is why the labour party is losing its core vote.

In reply to stroppygob:


"dole claiming, disabled, single-parent, Muslim, lesbian immigrant"
"the blood and sweat of ordinary working working-class people"

What I said was that you associated "ordinary working class people" with being hard working, and minorities with being dole claimants. Which you did, as I have quoted above.



I don't think you've understood the point, which is not that a higher proportion of dole claimants are "ordinary working class" vs. minorities which is obvious, but that a higher proportion of "ordinary working class" are dole claimants vs. the proportion of minorities who are on the dole.


The nub of my objection, as I've explained, is that you've chosen to associated "ordinary working class people" with "blood and sweat" and minorities with being dole claimants, which is precisely what you did.

In reply to Jon Stewart:


Oh give it a break Jon. You looked to take offense against what I said, on behalf of someone else. Fine, well done you.


I know that. Jesus, you're either thick, or just plain mendacious.



Ok, look, if I put my hand up and say; " Yes I did that as I hate all disabled, single parental, lesbian, Muslim, dole claimants" will you please just give the actual topic a chance now? Then you can ride off into the sunset on your white horse of morality, having tried to show that someone once said something you took as not entirely complimentary about a minority, and you were there to take offense on their behalf and save the day.

Will you? Pretty please?

I hate them, hate them all you know...

Now, about the labour party and its core vote....

In reply to stroppygob:

I'm not accusing you of hating minorities, I'm accusing you of having a distorted idea about what's going on in the world, i.e. that there exists this bunch of people who are immigrants and lesbians and so on who get preferential treatment from the state due to left-wing policies.

As usual, you post something that's phrased in such a way that it expresses a view of the world that I think is a massive pile of crap, and then you get all shirty when I point out what's implied (because you didn't fully intend to imply it, it just came through with the tone).

In reply to Jon Stewart:
You're having what I am going to call, a logic fail.

Take this statement:

"The NHS is defending the administrators when they should be defending the needs of their patients".

This doesn't mean that administrators can't be patients, and patients can't be administrators. A single parent can also be hardworking, and a worker can also be a single parent...

You can have a policy to give an extra 50 quid a week to single parent families, although many/most of the single parent families will also be 'working class', the focus is on the single parents and not the working class. There's nothing complicated in stating that, it takes a pretty cynical view to see that as, whatever the term for discriminating against single parents is.

In reply to Jon Stewart:


You really are quite dense aren't you? Have I not stated clearly now twice; that there is an understandable cliché that this is who the Labour party are perceived as supporting and representing? It matters not one whit what I think of them, or how I see what's going on in the world. We are not discussing my view, but how the labour party are percived. (Have you been examined for potential Aspergers BTW?)



As usual, you take something posted, and chose to impose your own interpretation on it in order to take offence about it on behalf of others.

Jon, I hate these people, I hate them deeply, ok? So now I've said that, can you please f*ck off and let us debate the actual topic?

Please? Pretty please?


.

In reply to FreshSlate:

I think we're banging our heads against a brick wall here mate.

In reply to FreshSlate:
I'm quite aware that the hard workers and lesbians/dole claimants don't form two mutually exclusive groups.

What I'm objecting to is the idea, pedalled by Cameron et al, and believed by Stroppy, that there exists a sector of society who get given preferential treatment under left-wing policies because they're lazy, or a lesbian, or an immigrant, or disabled, or something else that is set against the good, hard working, honest working class people. It's a totally false view of society and it's been trotted out by the Tories for political reasons and sucked up by the likes of Stroppy.

Labour abandoned their core voters when they sucked up to the banks and the right wing US govt. Bringing the issue of minorities in as a group for whom the working class have been abandoned is quite nauseating.

In reply to Jon Stewart:


No, I do not believe that is true, you really are quite stupid aren't you?

However, I do believe it is a brush that the labour party has been tarred with, and it is part of the reason, along with the perception of Labour, admitted by their own front bench, that they are now a seen as a 'middle-Class' party.

Stop lying about what I believe Jon, or I'll start replying in kind.

Hello? F8ck me pink, an on topic comment, will wonders never cease!!!

Here Jon, I agree with you.

In reply to stroppygob:


Re-read your OP.

You've added the bit about the working class being abandoned in favour of minorities, it's not a part of the quotation.

It's the same as ever, you post a view and then say "what's my view got to do with it?"

In reply to Jon Stewart:



As the groups are not exclusive, one cannot really be set against the other, there is only greater or lesser focus on certain sub-groups which I believe that stroppygob is trying to say. I thinks he's saying that a lot of working class people are neglected for they do not fall into one of the sub-groups he lists.

Okay, there's the seeds of debate, bankers vs immigrants, .

In reply to Jon Stewart:

That is MY perception of why the labour party has lost it's core vote, they are now seen as that.

No, not at all. I post my view, and then when people chose to fix on what they percieve as my veiew rather than my views, I challenge them

In reply to Jon Stewart:

Jon, I'll apologise here. I‘ve made a massive cock up, and took you to task over something I was wrong about.

I have just re read my OP and, to my shame, realised that I was replying in error.

You are right, and I was wrong

My apologies, especially for the insults.

I wrote my OP personal comment badly, and omitted certain very necessary words.

I am totally culpable for the misunderstanding

In reply to stroppygob:

OK, ta. Glad you can see how I read your OP!

In reply to Jon Stewart:
Thank you, that's good of you.

Yes, I do, and as I say, I am totally culpable for that missunderstanding.

Would you accept a rehashed version?

In reply to stroppygob:



Just post it, I'll read a reworded version . I'm sure Jon will too. I must say, I am generally more charitable to someone's argument, I won't read something negative into a argument unless it is explicit. If I expect someone has made a hash of things, I'd probably simply ask them to clarify rather than argue a non-existent point. That's my view of things.

In reply to FreshSlate:

Don't know if I have the guts now!!

In reply to FreshSlate:

Thanks to you too.

I think I'll leave this one be now, a salutary reminder to me to reread what I post before shooting my mouth off.

In reply to stroppygob:

I understand your OP but to be honest it's about 20 years late. At least since 1995, and the whole clause IV debate, it's been well publicised, accepted and criticised that Labour is more middle class and less socialist than it was at the outset. That was why Blair called them New Labour and indeed a big part of why they won in 1997. The electoral calculation behind the change of policy was based on the fact that, post Thatcher, the old union labour power base could no longer deliver the votes because the unions had been broken and a significant majority of honest-to-goodness working class folk were now voting Conservative either because they aspired to be richer than they were (and good on them) or because they sympathised with the Tories on crime, defence and social values - or a combination of the two.

But this is all history.

In reply to stroppygob:

It's not just the Labour Party that have lost it - the other two have as well.
Clegg keeps on spouting utter drivel and Cameron reneges on manifesto promises and then introduces social-engineering legislation that wasn't even IN the manifesto.
None of the three main parties offer a choice on the EU either.
Nobody under the age of 57 has EVER been able to make a voting choice about the EEC/EC/EU.

In reply to stroppygob:

Totally agree with you, apart from the dole bit.
Labour has lost touch but I think that it is also due to swings in the electorate. During the Thatcher "greed is good" era the electorate did not want traditional labour policies, fearing also no doubt, a return to the strike plagued 70's. Blair rode to power by emulating the Tories with new labour and have stuck with it ever since.
UKIP plays on people's fears. Fears which none of the main parties really address. Which is not to say those fears are justified but also they should not be ignored