So, apart from a few communist microparties, there is no party to choose in the field, any more, that stands for sticking it to big business?
The Greens have one MP, but that’s probably the most they’ll ever have under FPTP.
Sorry. I don’t think I did too bad on past political history of what’s to me a foreign country, though, considering.
But if Michael were still leading Labour, and made Ed Shadow Minister of Munitions, could the Sun headline that “Foot Hands Balls Arms Head Seat” ?
Eh? LibDems have been pretty pro-Europe in the 21st Century. In fact, until the current coalition, they were attracting a lot of former Labour supporters dissatisfied with Labour’s swing to the right.
True, I guess, but I’m not sure ‘sticking it to big business’ is a voting issue in the UK.
How does one “betray their class”? What loyalty should one have to their class, anyway? I’ve seen the effects of class loyalty: it leads to people who could get ahead choosing not to do so in case they’re seen as “class traitors”, “posh”, “too good for us, now”, etc. It’s a stupid concept that does more to harm the working classes than any government policy ever will.
Exactly, what class am I? how should I vote?
Mother from lowly Durham dales farmer stock, Father ex-miner and lorry driver,
Working class upbringing. One brother working for the council the other a phd from Cambridge and a university lecturer, My sister and I are fairly high up in Pharmaceuticals.
All of us are comfortable but all us are in different positions regarding political beliefs.
And quite right. We are all individuals and each makes a judgement as to which political party best represents us in the areas we now live and work.
To suggest that one should always vote a particular way because of your “class” is ridiculous. That stops you having to think and and that way madness and prejudice lies.
I have heard people say “I’ll always vote labour/Tory, my family always have” and I despair, I mentally mark them down. What basis is that to come to a political decision?
My aunt and her partner are Tory voters, and they’re (originally - she lives in London now) rural poor. Their rationale was typically that the Tories had let them buy their own house under the Right to Buy scheme (which allowed council tenants to buy the houses they were in at ridiculously low rates, thereby helping to lead to the scarcity of social housing we have now) and that the Tories don’t put up taxes.
The latter point is, of course, demonstrably false, otherwise there wouldn’t have been a poll tax riot in the early 1990s. The idea that taxes go up under Labour and down under the Tories is one that I’ve yet to see backed up by any evidence.
Actually, you’re incorrect WRT the poll tax. It was substantially less for singletons. If she were living on her own at the time - as I was - she would have seen her taxes go down.
Further, the Tories did reduce taxes. Thatcher chopped the top rate, for instance. But she’s unlikely to have benefited from that.
Whence Pterry’s phrase “crab bucket”, used in Unseen Academicals. You can’t keep one crab in a bucket - it will climb out - but you can keep a dozen crabs in a bucket, because as soon as one tries to climb out the others will drag it back down.
The early works of Dennis Potter dwell on this theme, particularly Stand Up, Nigel Barton, and Vote, Vote, Vote, For Nigel Barton - the feeling (by the character and his relatives) that, in going to Oxford and getting an education he has disowned his roots and his family’s interests, while his new ‘comrades’ in the Labour party despise him for it . Based on the author’s experiences as the son of a coal miner, and as a Labour candidate in the 1964 election
Guess which government taxed the most, as a proportion of GDP? That’s right, the Thatcher government. Now, some of that was due to high unemployment in the early 80s, but even in the boom years it was over 42% of GDP. Since then it’s wavered between 39% and 42%, generally slightly higher under Labour.
Must be annoying when people go on about “Tory cuts”, because they can’t say “hey, we spend more than anybody!”
The tendency of Conservative administrations in the 80s was to shift taxation to point-of-sale taxes rather than income tax. They could say, ‘yes, you’ve got more money in your pocket’ (even if it didn’t stay there for long).
That’s where a lot of the protest arose from… multiple occupancy houses (students, crusty activitists etc) used to pay the same rate per property as a couple in the same size house.
I was too young to appreciate the arguments at the time, but it does seem strange to tax a property regardless of how many people live in it. The size of the buliding has much less impact on the public services required than the number of individuals living in it.
You appear to be reaching towards an absurd conclusion. If an approach to voting has harmed the working classes then it seems necessary that there is the possibility of voting effectively to promote your class interests. For instance, if these foolish people had just voted for the opposite party?
Perhaps some posters are reading to much into the ‘class interests’ remark. If we are content that voters may vote in their own self-interest, and if we accept that there are classes of voters in Britain today who might be affected in different ways by policies, then it is practical to consider which classes you belong to, and to vote for the party which is most likely in aggregate to promote the interests of those classes, thus directly serving your own self interest.
Really? Does your council collect the rubbish more often from multiple occupancy houses? Does it provide more street lights to them? Does it provide them with more streets?
Ah yes, the joys of 15% VAT and the fuel tax escalator.
Yes, pretty much, when you look at the list of service paid for by Council Tax.
A Band C property with two people in it is likely to use fewer council resources than a Band C property with 8 people in it. This is self-evident, no?
e.g. The shared house down the road from us creates much more rubbish than us. Yet per person they pay less for the services they receive than we do.
The suggestion is that instead of just voting for Labour, or whatever party your parents and neighbours vote for you actually make an attempt to evaluate the policies of the parties and make an informed choice. You know, take part in democracy rather than acting like an idiot drone. After all if you always vote for a certain party and always will they don’t actually have any reason to serve your interests, since they can always count on your vote. That is exactly why New Labour were able to give the shaft to their normal core vote so effectively, they new they’d never vote for anyone else.
I also find it amazing that the only people that seem intent on preserving the horendous, outdated class system these days are the ‘working classes’. Almost everybody else has moved on.
More on topic, an interesting difference between the US and the UK is that in the US the Democrats are seen as the elitists, but in the UK it is pretty undeniable that the Conservatives are the elitists. Especially at the moment, practically all of the top men went to Oxford or Cambridge for higher education and Eton and other private schools before that.
My perception is that most less-well off Tory voters are of the Daily Mail sort, borderline racists who rant about immigrants stealing their hair and such bollocks. My aunt is one of those.
The major difference was that people who rented didn’t pay rates - they were a tax on the property owner. Single people and those who shared homes were more likely to be in rented accomodation, as were the poor. While the theory was that rents would fall, it didn’t happen - trust me, I was living in rental accomodation at the time, as were all of my friends, and none of us saw a drop in rent. It was a transfer of income from the poor to the rich, and from the renters to the property owners.