Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Is it wrong for a working-class person to vote Conservatives (Personal Story) watch

    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    I'm not a Tory but I think that's wrong.

    The problem is, the Tories and Labour have dominated british politics for a hundred years.

    Now in these two parties, factions have emerged where you have the likes of Ken Clarke and Dan Hanaan in the same party. Just like labour has people like Chucka Ummuma and Denis Skinner.

    Two party politics doesn't work when we live in a free society where informed (and uninformed) people have very different ideas of how to run a society that don't necessarily fit between a red box or a blue box.

    Rees Mogg is a corrupt first class P***k though.
    Yes, to some extent 'genuine' politics has been subsumed by the two big parties, the so-called 'internal coalitions', which actually have mainly served to keep the powerful elites of British aristocratic and monied power firmly in place, with some minor ameliorations handed out when the working class gets too threatening. In the case of Labour, this seems to be what is happening now - they are paying increased lip service to the crisis of inequality and to taxing the crushing untaxed wealth of the super-rich and the corporations (as our the Tories), but that's all it is - lip service. Balls is a right-winger, a neoliberal psuedo-Keynsian like his boss Brown was. There is no real prospect of Labour carrying forward radical policies and the purpose of Labour, as always, is to maintain the status quo whilst appearing to side with the have-nots. It's just that the crisis is so deep at the moment that the Tories are having to pretend to do that a bit as well.

    What really annoys me about Rees-Mogg (one of the many things) is the way he keeps blathering on about the marvellous people of Somerset and his esteemed constituency, in a sort of sub-ironic manner - he's really sneering at them publicly, using the joke to say "oh well, we all know that chaps like me don't really give a flying **** for our horrible constituents" and doing it in such a brazen way.

    I always think with a lot of MPs that if many of their constituents actually saw them in the House, they would never vote for them again. Sadly, very few people watch Parliament Channel. :sad:
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    Yes, to some extent 'genuine' politics has been subsumed by the two big parties, the so-called 'internal coalitions', which actually have mainly served to keep the powerful elites of British aristocratic and monied power firmly in place, with some minor ameliorations handed out when the working class gets too threatening. In the case of Labour, this seems to be what is happening now - they are paying increased lip service to the crisis of inequality and to taxing the crushing untaxed wealth of the super-rich and the corporations (as our the Tories), but that's all it is - lip service. Balls is a right-winger, a neoliberal psuedo-Keynsian like his boss Brown was. There is no real prospect of Labour carrying forward radical policies and the purpose of Labour, as always, is to maintain the status quo whilst appearing to side with the have-nots. It's just that the crisis is so deep at the moment that the Tories are having to pretend to do that a bit as well.

    What really annoys me about Rees-Mogg (one of the many things) is the way he keeps blathering on about the marvellous people of Somerset and his esteemed constituency, in a sort of sub-ironic manner - he's really sneering at them publicly, using the joke to say "oh well, we all know that chaps like me don't really give a flying **** for our horrible constituents" and doing it in such a brazen way.

    I always think with a lot of MPs that if many of their constituents actually saw them in the House, they would never vote for them again. Sadly, very few people watch Parliament Channel. :sad:
    I personally vote for my MP based on how risible and demeaning they are in the house actually. Got to play it dangerous sometimes eh.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by c_al)
    1) Labour are always going on about how there are no opportunities for the poorest in this country, implying that it's near impossible to achieve success if you come from a poor background.

    2) "Success is just a well paid job" in this society, success tends to be defined by how much you earn, whether rightly or wrongly. Also, i would say getting 50k for a first job is better than just well paid. As to the last part, I think it's a bit childish to talk about being "immune" from parties since at the end of the day all parties will have some policies which affect you positively, and some that will affect you negatively. It is clear though that anyone currently earning 50k would be best off voting tory.

    3) That is unfortunate, but people shouldn't really base their perception of the Conservatives on decades old policies. Most of the OPs life will have been sent under a Labour government, and it evidently hasn't done much to remove his fear.
    1) Labour say there aren't enough opportunities for poor working class people which is true. If you want to base the validity of your statement by referring to this one example of a person that escaped traumatic surroundings by focusing on studying and managing to get a better than average job then you're a pillock and suitable for the tories. They love decontextualised arguments like the one you are presenting.

    Also, blaming Labour is a stretch when his parents were probably affected by Thatcher in a negative way. lol this supposes there was a positive way in which Thatcher could affect the working class.

    Labour carry on the misery since they basically agreed with the tories on the fundamentals of this nation.

    2) No it isn't. This is a myth. Also, this money = success business is all about perspective. The OP didn't have any money now he/she has some...he/she is a success apparently. A rich kid has loads of money he gets the same income as the OP and he/she is a failure.

    If he votes tory he will be affected via house prices, reduction in social welfare which means he will have to look after his parents out of his own pocket, deteriorating health care on the nhs, deteriorating education system etc etc. If he think voting for tories will benefit him, he is dumb. Also, as I originally said, he will condemn those that are in the same position as he was as a child to a life of waywardness and psychological dysfunction.

    3) Did I say vote Labour? No. Were his parents under Tory rule? Yes. Does her legacy affect his parents up until this day? Yes. Did Labour do anything to remedy these problems? No.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    It is wrong for anyone to vote Conservative, or Labour, or Lib Dem, to continue to vote for them is to conspire in the destruction of this nation.

    UKIP is the only party worth voting for.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Ed Balls secretly meets Tony Blair in the US.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...g-US-trip.html

    Interesting news for Labour voters who thought that Miliband/Balls had put New Labour behind them.
    • Section Leader
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Section Leader
    There's a weird kind of alliance that exists between the Tories and (a section of) the working class. The Tories can't rely on the votes of only the privileged, as they're too proportionally few in number.

    So they have values that appeal to the working class, e.g., being tough on crime, that one is responsible for oneself, support for the royal family, etc. But of course, none of these actually help the working class.

    Fair enough if you're earning a lot of money, then it makes sense in a self-interested way to vote for the Tories, but not if you and the majority of the people you care about aren't going to benefit. I think people who hold values that exist in conflict with the well-being of themselves and those important to them are simply misguided.

    Stated another way, I think the Tories manipulate the uneducated into supporting things against their best interests by appealing to their emotions, in preference of the wealthy.

    Not that Labour's much better.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    Ed Balls secretly meets Tony Blair in the US.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...g-US-trip.html

    Interesting news for Labour voters who thought that Miliband/Balls had put New Labour behind them.
    I can see why dislike that but actually he's rated highly still in polling. It's mainly the left that assault him for Iraq and earning money.

    Personally i think that if Labour had a pro-business leader who took a very soft-right approach like Blair did then Cameron would be slaughtered. As it is, Ed may not be true left but he gives on an 'us and them' image and his wider image is in tatters anyway from the union election and his gaffes.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by miser)
    There's a weird kind of alliance that exists between the Tories and (a section of) the working class. The Tories can't rely on the votes of only the privileged, as they're too proportionally few in number.

    So they have values that appeal to the working class, e.g., being tough on crime, that one is responsible for oneself, support for the royal family, etc. But of course, none of these actually help the working class.

    Fair enough if you're earning a lot of money, then it makes sense in a self-interested way to vote for the Tories, but not if you and the majority of the people you care about aren't going to benefit. I think people who hold values that exist in conflict with the well-being of themselves and those important to them are simply misguided.

    Stated another way, I think the Tories manipulate the uneducated into supporting things against their best interests by appealing to their emotions, in preference of the wealthy.

    Not that Labour's much better.
    When the Tories raise the personal allowance and strengthen the right to buy.. does not help the working class?

    I do agree that there's a set of people who vote on social issues (i.e. how Labour supporters may vote Ukip at the next election) but i think people are too cynical about the working classes who support the Tories because they look at what they've done at the top, not the bottom. And this really is why some people on the left don't understand the mentality of such a voter.. a change from 50% to 45% for example makes not a jot of difference to the lives of any poor person in this country.

    Clearly this coalition with its welfare policies is not the best advertisement and i expect that Miliband will get the C2 vote back but if you think back to Thatcher then she was elected at a time when most non-union members were sick of them (i'm sure there were plenty of working classes not allied with unions) and in the second and third terms she created policies like the right to buy which made the aspirational poor much better off.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    I can see why dislike that but actually he's rated highly still in polling. It's mainly the left that assault him for Iraq and earning money.

    Personally i think that if Labour had a pro-business leader who took a very soft-right approach like Blair did then Cameron would be slaughtered. As it is, Ed may not be true left but he gives on an 'us and them' image and his wider image is in tatters anyway from the union election and his gaffes.
    Sorry, but I think you're somewhat (you share this with Blair) behind the times and talking about a pre-collapse agenda. The public have shifted decisively towards anti-politics and radicalism of different kinds (sadly, mostly extreme right wing kinds - hence UKIP) and the centre has become sharply compressed. The same effect that swept Obama in (even though he later turned out to be rather less than radical in reality) is working through the UK. Hence why even the Tories are trying to claim the left wing ground (on corporate tax avoidance for example) and (confusingly) the extreme right. (Hence their ghastly 'letter to Muslims', an obvious sop to the UKIP voter.)

    We're in the politics of 2014 now, not 1997.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    When the Tories raise the personal allowance and strengthen the right to buy.. does not help the working class?

    I do agree that there's a set of people who vote on social issues (i.e. how Labour supporters may vote Ukip at the next election) but i think people are too cynical about the working classes who support the Tories because they look at what they've done at the top, not the bottom. And this really is why some people on the left don't understand the mentality of such a voter.. a change from 50% to 45% for example makes not a jot of difference to the lives of any poor person in this country.

    Clearly this coalition with its welfare policies is not the best advertisement and i expect that Miliband will get the C2 vote back but if you think back to Thatcher then she was elected at a time when most non-union members were sick of them (i'm sure there were plenty of working classes not allied with unions) and in the second and third terms she created policies like the right to buy which made the aspirational poor much better off.
    Agree that Labour lost ground when it became over-identified with welfare claimants and the collapsed industrial areas.

    However, the notion that (for example) council house sales truly helped the working class, whilst there may have been some initial truth to it, ignores all the long term damage the policy has done since then - the sharp decline in social house build has led to the current situation where house prices are wildly out of reach of millions and the rentier class is becoming wealthier by the day. A cynic might argue that the latter is why the policy was really introduced.

    We could also go on to the other great Thatcherite policy, the alleged rise of mass share ownership, which also never really happened, as the vast majority of the shares were quickly sold and the corporations that went into private ownership were generally massively undervalued at sale.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    Sorry, but I think you're somewhat (you share this with Blair) behind the times and talking about a pre-collapse agenda. The public have shifted decisively towards anti-politics and radicalism of different kinds (sadly, mostly extreme right wing kinds - hence UKIP) and the centre has become sharply compressed. The same effect that swept Obama in (even though he later turned out to be rather less than radical in reality) is working through the UK. Hence why even the Tories are trying to claim the left wing ground (on corporate tax avoidance for example) and (confusingly) the extreme right. (Hence their ghastly 'letter to Muslims', an obvious sop to the UKIP voter.)

    We're in the politics of 2014 now, not 1997.
    Not to the degree you think. While there has been a peal to the fringes the overall anti-politics vote is not significantly larger today than it was 2010, it's just more noticeable because the main parties are a bit weaker. In 2010 the anti-politics vote was probably around 15% (another 10% being genuine liberals or fringe supporters). Today that 15% has scattered largely to Ukip and a little to the Greens while the main two parties still hold 60-65% of the vote which is just a few percent down on 2010.

    A soft right party i maintain could still breach 40% with a thumping majority. The Tories are largely too far right and Labour seems unable to decide whether they want to be pro-business or whether corporations are predators.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Not to the degree you think. While there has been a peal to the fringes the overall anti-politics vote is not significantly larger today than it was 2010, it's just more noticeable because the main parties are a bit weaker. In 2010 the anti-politics vote was probably around 15% (another 10% being genuine liberals or fringe supporters). Today that 15% has scattered largely to Ukip and a little to the Greens while the main two parties still hold 60-65% of the vote which is just a few percent down on 2010.

    A soft right party i maintain could still breach 40% with a thumping majority. The Tories are largely too far right and Labour seems unable to decide whether they want to be pro-business or whether corporations are predators.
    Supporting UKIP or the Greens is not the only evidence of a shift to more radical opinion. A good deal of that % supporting Labour or Conservative in polls has shifted too. The old 'pro-business and kind on welfare' message that Blair won with would no longer work, because people don't side any more with a pro-business agenda, for example. That's why the Tories keep engaging in very un-Tory like behaviour, such as bashing tax avoiders.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Latest ICM poll is out in the Grauniad. Greens up to 9, UKIP down, Tories up slightly, Lab down slightly.
    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/...e-lib-dem-ukip

    It's interesting to see that, when offered possible permutations of future coalition governments, the biggest percentage of those responding were in favour of a Lab/Green/SNP coalition.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Margaret Thatcher's family were working class Tories.

    I come from a working class background and see nothing wrong with voting for a right of centre party. You want them to cut taxes, not increase them. Whilst I am not, nor have I ever been wealthy or even 'comfortable' financially I equally never understood the blame put on people who were successful and made something of their lives.

    The message we are taught in school is usually along the lines of 'work hard and achieve great things'. The message of the left always seems to be 'work hard and advance, and then we'll tax you heavily and insult you for it'.

    So yes, if you identify with the Tory party then there is absolutely no problem with voting for them. I'd encourage you to give Ukip a try though.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by stannis)
    Margaret Thatcher's family were working class Tories.

    I come from a working class background and see nothing wrong with voting for a right of centre party. You want them to cut taxes, not increase them. Whilst I am not, nor have I ever been wealthy or even 'comfortable' financially I equally never understood the blame put on people who were successful and made something of their lives.

    The message we are taught in school is usually along the lines of 'work hard and achieve great things'. The message of the left always seems to be 'work hard and advance, and then we'll tax you heavily and insult you for it'.

    So yes, if you identify with the Tory party then there is absolutely no problem with voting for them. I'd encourage you to give Ukip a try though.
    I'm afraid not. Her family were generally middle class with historically wealthy ties, somebody was a liberal MP.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by stannis)
    Margaret Thatcher's family were working class Tories.

    I come from a working class background and see nothing wrong with voting for a right of centre party. You want them to cut taxes, not increase them. Whilst I am not, nor have I ever been wealthy or even 'comfortable' financially I equally never understood the blame put on people who were successful and made something of their lives.

    The message we are taught in school is usually along the lines of 'work hard and achieve great things'. The message of the left always seems to be 'work hard and advance, and then we'll tax you heavily and insult you for it'.

    So yes, if you identify with the Tory party then there is absolutely no problem with voting for them. I'd encourage you to give Ukip a try though.
    :drool: i love watching poor and sick die too
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    I'm afraid not. Her family were generally middle class with historically wealthy ties, somebody was a liberal MP.
    Which are the wealthy ties, out of interest?

    Mrs T's dad (Alfred Roberts) was a former mayor, an alderman and a moderately successful businessman in a small way. He wasn't really 'working class', more like a sort of typical self-made lower-middle class provincial Tory. However, some of his background appears to have been very poor, including destitute Irish families.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Roberts

    Afaik, her mother was from a poor background as well.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    vote conservative/labour/lib dem/ ukip/ green / monster raving loony party

    they are all the same. Makes no difference whatsoever.
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    PS Reviewer
    You don't have to be upper class or lower class to vote one way or the other. I'm middle class but I will not be voting conservative - it's not about your perception of your own "class" it's about how you think society should run and what values you have. Vote on your conscience, not on the postcode you grew up in!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    I'm afraid not. Her family were generally middle class with historically wealthy ties, somebody was a liberal MP.
    Which brings us back to what is working class??. The OP came from a very tough dysfunctional background with gambling parents etc etc. Many from a traditional ''working class'' background will support their children's education encourage them etc etc. My mother (born 1926 died 2012) came from a northern working class background traditional but supportive (her father was a carpenter on local estate and steadfast labour). My mother went to grammar school then university (at a time when less than 5% of population went and then mostly men). My background was ''middle class'' I suppose. I went to independent girls school not socially smart academic and relatively cheap. Both parents were tory (father had come from small hill farming fiercely independent background in north of england). My children would be probably regarded by others as ''upper middle class'' by dint of their education. However, I see us as a family as a 21 century mix of backgrounds and social attitudes. I have voted tory, lib dem and labour in various elections so I suppose I am a floating voter.

    The OP had a tough time not because he was ''working class'' but because of his dysfunctional parents. He could equally have been brought up in an alcoholic ''upper middle class'' household with similar problems. He has done well because he has strived, been mentally resilient and able to learn socially from others around him. Those characteristics will persist and he will continue to do well because of those.

    Gone are the days when perceived social class linked to one particular political party. Although anecdotally tories support those who strive and make their own luck. I am sure during his working life he may change his views from time to time.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.