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

Theresa May's conference speech is a political earthquake Watch

Announcements
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Reality Check)
    Precisely. 'Aspirational' is very much a motherhood-and-apple-pie sentiment. Show me someone who doesn't want to be more economically secure, more keen to make the most of their life. The manifestation of aspiration may be different, but the destination is the same.
    That's the problem with many left-wing political constructs; they don't take into account that ordinary people do want to better themselves financially. They do want to enjoy the fruits of their labour, to be able to have a few luxuries here and there, to be able to pass on some money to their kids without being taxed to buggery

    This is not some exclusively middle-class trait; people who would traditionally be considered working-class want this too. When Labour fixates on things like the welfare cap (which, frankly, is pretty much indisputable politically; the idea that someone should be able to get more than 26k in benefits is absurd) and issues that only affect people on benefits, they are completely failing to appeal to the people for whom their interest in politics primarily relates to whether taxes are going to go up or down, how provision for education or healthcare will be improved (or otherwise) and the degree to which they can own and live in decent housing.

    "Aspiration" isn't a tory conspiracy, it's a natural human compulsion
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    Fair enough. In fairness to your view, a family friend of mine is a city solicitor; his father is an ennobled former Conservative minister (not senior, he was something like Minister of State for Health in Wales or something like that). He is the sort of person who should be core Tory votes, but he voted Labour last year. His reason being that inequality has gotten completely out of control, that it's becoming ever more difficult for young people from decent families to buy a house in a decent area in London. When reasonably prosperous people with good, professional jobs are finding they can't give their children a leg up on the housing market (at least, in a decent area) because it's too expensive, something is out of whack

    Maybe the loyal, reliable activists in the shires are looking at this differently to the more metropolitan Cameroonian ones?
    That is exactly the point - it is indeed the patrician wing of the Tories in the shires who feel that the wide boys in the City have rather run away with the ball. And I speak unashamedly from a background of patrician Tories from a shire. Tories in my experience have always been about social justice, and the fractures in society we are now witnessing in terms of cohesiveness and a vulgar chasm between rich and poor is very unTory. Laissez-faire is totally out of the question here - intervention is required because it's all got a little bit too out of hand and in large part facilitated by Osbourne.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    That's the problem with many left-wing political constructs; they don't take into account that ordinary people do want to better themselves financially. They do want to enjoy the fruits of their labour, to be able to have a few luxuries here and there, to be able to pass on some money to their kids without being taxed to buggery

    This is not some exclusively middle-class trait; people who would traditionally be considered working-class want this too. When Labour fixates on things like the welfare cap (which, frankly, is pretty much indisputable politically; the idea that someone should be able to get more than 26k in benefits is absurd) and issues that only affect people on benefits, they are completely failing to appeal to the people for whom their interest in politics primarily relates to whether taxes are going to go up or down, how provision for education or healthcare will be improved (or otherwise) and the degree to which they can own and live in decent housing.

    "Aspiration" isn't a tory conspiracy, it's a natural human compulsion
    Exactly so.
    • Community Assistant
    Online

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    That's the problem with many left-wing political constructs; they don't take into account that ordinary people do want to better themselves financially. They do want to enjoy the fruits of their labour, to be able to have a few luxuries here and there, to be able to pass on some money to their kids without being taxed to buggery

    This is not some exclusively middle-class trait; people who would traditionally be considered working-class want this too. When Labour fixates on things like the welfare cap (which, frankly, is pretty much indisputable politically; the idea that someone should be able to get more than 26k in benefits is absurd) and issues that only affect people on benefits, they are completely failing to appeal to the people for whom their interest in politics primarily relates to whether taxes are going to go up or down, how provision for education or healthcare will be improved (or otherwise) and the degree to which they can own and live in decent housing.

    "Aspiration" isn't a tory conspiracy, it's a natural human compulsion
    Most people want to better themselves financially, most people want to enjoy the fruits of their labour, most people want to own a house.

    What difffers is how we want to achieve that. Miliband had a different way than Cameron but it was no less 'aspirational'.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Reality Check)
    That is exactly the point - it is indeed the patrician wing of the Tories in the shires who feel that the wide boys in the City have rather run away with the ball. And I speak unashamedly from a background of patrician Tories from a shire. Tories in my experience have always been about social justice, and the fractures in society we are now witnessing in terms of cohesiveness and a vulgar chasm between rich and poor is very unTory. Laissez-faire is totally out of the question here - intervention is required because it's all got a little bit too out of hand and in large part facilitated by Osbourne.
    It's quite funny that you should mention the views of the more patrician, wet Tories (MacMillanite, even). My ex-boyfriend is the son of a baronet, Eton and Oxford-educated, great-great-great-grandson of a Tory Prime Minister, grandson of an earl etc etc. His family seem to be still very much in the traditional way of life for a county family; rural, involved in local government, involved in the CLA. Again, should be core Tory supporter. He actually voted Labour last year too. He wasn't happy about the mansion tax but he felt that capitalism doesn't work anymore; that the people running it are too mercenary, and often it's not even capitalism at all (in the sense that many companies now seem to be run for the benefit of management, with all the bonuses and so on, and not shareholders).

    I actually feel some sympathy for this view, I'm from the country (back home.. in another commonwealth realm) so I feel... sympatico... with these people. Riding, hunting, the simple pleasures. It's hard to make a buck in agriculture now, it's a real high-wire act to keep the estate in one piece and also ensure each of the kids is set up after university. It isn't helped by government policy to rural landowners, and these days so much of the "trading" for rural commodities like beef exists in the ether; derivatives and futures for beef massively effects the price in completely unpredictable (not wholly tethered to weather, drought, supply and demand) and so it makes it even harder to plan ahead. The problem is that the preponderance of wealth isn't in the productive economy anymore. Having said all that, I am sensitive to the flipside; the conservatives back home are an alliance between the Liberal Party and the Nationalists, the latter being a country party. The nats often get accused of being "agrarian socialists" and that they want unreasonable tariff protections. But I don't think that's it; farmers are happy to sell a good product at a fair price. What they don't want is volatile price fluctuations for beef etc based on nothing but electronic trading of assets that don't really exist.

    Perhaps we need to return to a 19th century political coalition; Lord Derby and Disraeli felt that common cause should be made between the landowners and the urban working-class against the mercantile interests, the Whig capitalists.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    It's quite funny that you should mention the views of the more patrician, wet Tories (MacMillanite, even). My ex-boyfriend is the son of a baronet, Eton and Oxford-educated, great-great-great-grandson of a Tory Prime Minister, grandson of an earl etc etc. His family seem to be still very much in the traditional way of life for a county family; rural, involved in local government, involved in the CLA. Again, should be core Tory supporter. He actually voted Labour last year too. He wasn't happy about the mansion tax but he felt that capitalism doesn't work anymore; that the people running it are too mercenary, and often it's not even capitalism at all (in the sense that many companies now seem to be run for the benefit of management, with all the bonuses and so on, and not shareholders).

    I actually feel some sympathy for this view, I'm from the country (back home.. in another commonwealth realm) so I feel... sympatico... with these people. Riding, hunting, the simple pleasures. It's hard to make a buck in agriculture now, it's a real high-wire act to keep the estate in one piece and also ensure each of the kids is set up after university. It isn't helped by government policy to rural landowners, and these days so much of the "trading" for rural commodities like beef exists in the ether; derivatives and futures for beef massively effects the price in completely unpredictable (not wholly tethered to weather, drought, supply and demand) and so it makes it even harder to plan ahead. The problem is that the preponderance of wealth isn't in the productive economy anymore. Having said all that, I am sensitive to the flipside; the conservatives back home are an alliance between the Liberal Party and the Nationalists, the latter being a country party. The nats often get accused of being "agrarian socialists" and that they want unreasonable tariff protections. But I don't think that's it; farmers are happy to sell a good product at a fair price. What they don't want is volatile price fluctuations for beef etc based on nothing but electronic trading of assets that don't really exist.

    Perhaps we need to return to a 19th century political coalition; Lord Derby and Disraeli felt that common cause should be made between the landowners and the urban working-class against the mercantile interests, the Whig capitalists.
    I couldn't agree with this more. There is very much a feeling in the country that Flashman Cameron and his sidekick Osborne were, frankly, a bit infra dig. They saw their traditional view of the community in which they lived, which in many ways harked back to outdoor relief, systematically being eroded by some city wideboys with an agenda for gay marriage and Chinese investment. And they didn't like it. Not one bit. And its not just the upper-middle and lowly-titled classes I'm talking about here. I had an interesting conversation with an former banker for Hoare & Co. His opinion was that the main problem with the city now was the 'group' capitalism of old had been overtaken by the 'individual' capitalism of hefty bonuses and sharp practices. In many ways, it's a snobbery between 'good' old money and dangerously divisive new money, but I will not bite the hand that feeds me.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Reality Check)
    I couldn't agree with this more. There is very much a feeling in the country that Flashman Cameron and his sidekick Osborne were, frankly, a bit infra dig. They saw their traditional view of the community in which they lived, which in many ways harked back to outdoor relief, systematically being eroded by some city wideboys with an agenda for gay marriage and Chinese investment. And they didn't like it. Not one bit. In many ways, it's a snobbery between 'good' old money and dangerously divisive new money, but I will not bite the hand that feeds me.
    My own view (naturally) is that gay marriage was inevitable and desirable. But I understand that core Tory voters were not happy about it and it symbolised how Cameron and Osborne (in very comfortable company with the Orange Bookers) were willing to prioritise their liberal (economically and socially) political approach over fundamental Tory principles and red-lines of their supporters.

    I'm more sympathetic to the view on Chinese investment (and in fact the boom in land purchases by corporations; it is not conducive to the most efficient and sustainable use of the land). In terms of the old money / new money distinction, I don't know any old family who hasn't had new money marrying in, which means everyone is descended from a bit of both. In fact my ex comes from a mix on the maternal side of one of the most prominent 19th century banking peerages on the one hand and the most prominent Tory political family (period) on the other.

    I don't see how anyone can have any snobbery about new money at this point given most rural families need a cash injection at some point and acquire it through marriage. Though quite hilariously I do remember a conversation with a guy whose uncle possesses one of the oldest "pure" baronies in the peerage, and he made a really snobbish comment about the family of one of the Charles II ******* dukedoms (the ones he gave to his illegitimate sons). Apparently even 300 years later a duke's family can't live that down There's still a hierarchy in these things, it seems, and it's not automatically based on the peerage rank (baron, viscount, earl etc etc) but on other considerations

    But yes, on the broad political point I think that common cause could be made between the rural landowning class (who by definition have a very long-term, sustainable interest in the country and its well-being) and ordinary working people in the cities.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I think she is an alright PM and not very out of touch like the previous PM.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    I think that May's grand strategy goes far beyond the considerations of Corbyn. This involves both her own ambitions for the country and political ideas that differ quite dramatically from the Bullingdon Boys and the Orange Bookers of the Lib Dems. Second, she is considering the interests of the Conservatives long-term; how can they appeal to voters who are just ordinary, non-political types? I think she knows that in the aftermath of 2008, people are less willing to simply accept classical liberal economics and I don't think she accepts it herself.

    The thing is, Corbyn's utter incompetence and lack of appeal means she could pretty much follow any strategy she likes. She could just sit back and support the status quo. But that's not her style and she wants more for this country and for the Conservative Party
    Sounds like you want to marry her m8. All this after a conference speech :rofl:
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Having actually listened to it on its entirety, I concur with OP - this is a game changer. There were definite mikibandite moments (and dare I say Brownite) with at times a tinge of Farageism and a brutal but warranted attack on Labour, particularly on the NHS. I noted that IDS's policies were rightly condemned to.

    All in all it was a gutsy speech which if delivered on should be relatively popular form of essentially Christian democrat statism.
    • Community Assistant
    Online

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    Having actually listened to it on its entirety, I concur with OP - this is a game changer. There were definite mikibandite moments (and dare I say Brownite) with at times a tinge of Farageism and a brutal but warranted attack on Labour, particularly on the NHS. I noted that IDS's policies were rightly condemned to.

    All in all it was a gutsy speech which if delivered on should be relatively popular form of essentially Christian democrat statism.
    Words are empty.
    It won't be a game changer until she actually does something to back them up. But she won't. She'll be David Cameron with harsher policies towards immigrants.

    Today it was announced that Ebay online pays less than 0.01% tax, will she go after them like she promised to go after tax dodgers? I somehow doubt it.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    They do want to enjoy the fruits of their labour, to be able to have a few luxuries here and there, to be able to pass on some money to their kids without being taxed to buggery
    The anti-capitalist left wing critique of capitalism is that it steels the fruits of the workers labour.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: October 8, 2016
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    How are your GCSEs going so far?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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

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