Was Chartism simply a "knife and fork question"?

I've been... erm... 'wrestling' with this question for a couple of days now, and to be honest I don't think I quite understand it at all.

I assume that what it is asking is "was Chartism primarily an economic or a political movement?"

I just don't get it... I have done a lot of preliminary reading on the subject, and so many historians seem to argue that the "knife and fork" interpretation is a massive oversimplification.

What confuses me is that the economic and political things seem so inextricably bound up together. The working classes were being screwed over in economic terms- what with the Corn Laws, indirect taxation, industrialisation, problems of depression, high prices, unemployment- and they (I hate saying 'they' as though every member of an entire group is part of some giant hivemind, but you know what I mean...) believed that the problems they faced could only ever get any better if political reform was to take place.

They needed political reform to redress their economic grievances.

But that seems to be such an obvious point to make. Obviously Chartism was going for parliamentary reform: I can't just say 'Ha! It's not just a knife and fork question because they wanted political reform!!' because that is just stating the obvious.

This is where I get confused...

Should I be aruing along the lines of "Chartism was not a knee-jerk response to the immediate economic hardships of the times; it was a movement born from a lon-running radical tradition, influenced by the American and French Revolutions and the writings of Thomas Paine and so on, and the economic troubles of the time simply made the issue of democracy particularly urgent"... or... something like that...

...



I'm really sorry if nothing I am saying makes any sense. It's just all so confusing!

Any help would be much appreciated.

Thank you!