UK Labour Party Watch

Emmeline · **#4021** by **Emmeline** » Oct 09, 2015 11:38 am

Re: Kinnock's article & the working class, which he says is shrinking.

Corbyn says Labour needs to win back the 5 million predominantly working class voters that Labour has lost since 1997.
Labour 1997 - 13.5 million votes
Labour 2015 - 9.3 million votes

Does the working class still exist in those numbers or are those missing voters now predominantly middle class?

mattthomas · **#4022** by **mattthomas** » Oct 09, 2015 11:40 am

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -1983.html

Sendraks · **#4023** by **Sendraks** » Oct 09, 2015 11:46 am

Emmeline wrote:
Does the working class still exist in those numbers or are those missing voters now predominantly middle class?

Those 5million people won't all have ceased to exist since 1997. They may still identify as "working class" even though economically or employment wise, they are otherwise identified as "middle class."

How do you define "working class" now?
Is Labour defining the "working class" correctly, in light how you would define them now?
Is that definition something those 5million voters identify with?

If Labour are defining "working class" on the basis of activity, rather than earnings, they're not doing themselves any favours. I think there are probably a lot of people who could be defined as "middle class" for various reasons, but do not feel that way because of how much they earn, their social situation and family history. At the same time, you don't want offend people who think of themselves as "middle class" (because that bullshit still matters to some people) by presenting a definition that badges them in the "working class" bracket.

Sendraks · **#4024** by **Sendraks** » Oct 09, 2015 11:46 am

mattthomas wrote:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2417031/Middle-class-Not-60-say-working-class--1983.html

Good timing! :thumbup:

Emmeline · **#4025** by **Emmeline** » Oct 09, 2015 11:49 am

mattthomas wrote:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2417031/Middle-class-Not-60-say-working-class--1983.html

Thanks, that's an interesting survey.

Emmeline · **#4026** by **Emmeline** » Oct 09, 2015 11:56 am

Sendraks wrote:
Emmeline wrote:
Does the working class still exist in those numbers or are those missing voters now predominantly middle class?

Those 5million people won't all have ceased to exist since 1997. They may still identify as "working class" even though economically or employment wise, they are otherwise identified as "middle class."

How do you define "working class" now?
Is Labour defining the "working class" correctly, in light how you would define them now?
Is that definition something those 5million voters identify with?

If Labour are defining "working class" on the basis of activity, rather than earnings, they're not doing themselves any favours. I think there are probably a lot of people who could be defined as "middle class" for various reasons, but do not feel that way because of how much they earn, their social situation and family history. At the same time, you don't want offend people who think of themselves as "middle class" (because that bullshit still matters to some people) by presenting a definition that badges them in the "working class" bracket.

I don't know how Labour are defining working class, only that they apparently are most of the 5 million lost voters. (Is it 5 million - looks more like 4 million to me?)

I think 1.4 million of them could be explained by the rise of the SNP. Quite a lot have gone over to UKIP (not sure of numbers but 3.8 million voted for them).

Sendraks · **#4027** by **Sendraks** » Oct 09, 2015 12:11 pm

Emmeline wrote:I think 1.4 million of them could be explained by the rise of the SNP.

They could be, although unless the Scot's broadly identify with being a "working class" people, branding all 1.4 million SNP voters as "working class" is probably less than helpful for bringing that demographic back to Labour. Its probably more helpful than just blindly branding SNP voters as "nationalists" and blithely ignoring the myriad of other reasons they've voted SNP.

Emmeline wrote:Quite a lot have gone over to UKIP (not sure of numbers but 3.8 million voted for them).

UKIP is a trickier one - untangling the disenfranchised working class who think Nigels "beer in pub" appeal is about them, from the slathering mass of xenophobes at all levels of society, is a challenge and a half.

The challenge for Labour here is setting out a strong argument about how they will create job opportunities, employment security and so forth, whilst making clear that this is all compatible with immigration.

Emmeline · **#4028** by **Emmeline** » Oct 09, 2015 12:18 pm

Yes re: SNP I didn't mean all of them are working class. A sizeable chunk could be explained though as the Labour vote collapsed in Scotland.

chairman bill · **#4029** by **chairman bill** » Oct 09, 2015 12:27 pm

It's also worth remembering that not all middle class people act on a simple-minded self-interest. Some of them care about other people, care about things like equality & fairness, dislike entrenched privilege, and are in favour of a decent society. Their votes are probably shared between the Greens, Labour, LibDems, SNP etc. Labour can expect to take voters off all of them, if they can convince the electorate that they have a credible vision for the future.

Scot Dutchy · **#4030** by **Scot Dutchy** » Oct 09, 2015 1:04 pm

chairman bill wrote:
Emmeline wrote:... Scot has been told to shut up and leave the discussion to others on the grounds that his posts aren't up to some arbitrary standard that doesn't apply to everyone else.

No. Scot has been asked why, if he's not interested in discussion, and he's already made up his mind about Corbyn, and if he's just going to post the same old bollocks about pipedreams, 1983, Foot & talking shops, why does he even bother? What is the point of his posting? He's not convicing anyone, he's not bringing enlightenment, he's not adding anything of worth, so why bother? Why continue to post here, if he's not going to engage? That is absolutely not telling him to shut up. Would some of us like it if he did? Yes. Equally, if he actually engaged in a discussion, that would be fine too. But while he keeps on & on about bloody talking shops, we'll carry on not being impressed & wondering when he'll piss off somewhere else.

Why should I piss off? Piss off yourself. I am sick of the repetitive moans and groans. Just what do you bring into the discussion?
The Corbyn line of pipe dreams? They are pipe dreams because they are not policy or maybe you have not noticed.
I would like some of the blinkered Corbynites to shut up and start thinking.
Why is there such a delay in any action? Nothing is happening and this delay is damaging Labour and you know why because Corbyn cant lead.

Sendraks · **#4031** by **Sendraks** » Oct 09, 2015 1:08 pm

Scot Dutchy wrote:Why is there such a delay in any action?

There isn't a delay - they're consulting on policies. Admitedly in a weird a wooly way. Tom Watson's speech made quite clear that they think the old "command and control" days of Labour under Blair were not very democratic and they want to make the party democractic again.

I agree with the principle of their approach - even if the process is lacking.

Scot Dutchy wrote:Nothing is happening and this delay is damaging Labour and you know why because Corbyn cant lead.

We know you think that, but stop trying to assume what it is we should be thinking.

Scot Dutchy · **#4032** by **Scot Dutchy** » Oct 09, 2015 1:11 pm

Sendraks wrote:
Scot Dutchy wrote:Why is there such a delay in any action?

There isn't a delay - they're consulting on policies. Admitedly in a weird a wooly way. Tom Watson's speech made quite clear that they think the old "command and control" days of Labour under Blair were not very democratic and they want to make the party democractic again.

I agree with the principle of their approach - even if the process is lacking.

Scot Dutchy wrote:Nothing is happening and this delay is damaging Labour and you know why because Corbyn cant lead.

We know you think that, but stop trying to assume what it is we should be thinking.

Where did I say that?
Another misrepresentation. Delay means democracy? Delay means problems.

Sendraks · **#4033** by **Sendraks** » Oct 09, 2015 1:22 pm

Scot Dutchy wrote:Where did I say that?

In the content of your post that I just posted.

Scot Dutchy wrote:Another misrepresentation.

I quoted exactly what you said!!! How is it a misrepsentation? If you didn't mean what you said, you should've written it differently!
No one to blame but yourself here Scot.

Scot Dutchy wrote: Delay means democracy? Delay means problems.

Democracy apparently means delay. Not the other way round.

As for delay meaning problems, I suspect you're probably right.

DaveD · **#4034** by **DaveD** » Oct 09, 2015 1:25 pm

On the other hand, "Fools rush in......"

Scot Dutchy · **#4035** by **Scot Dutchy** » Oct 09, 2015 1:27 pm

Sendraks wrote:
Scot Dutchy wrote:Where did I say that?

In the content of your post that I just posted.

Scot Dutchy wrote:Another misrepresentation.

I quoted exactly what you said!!! How is it a misrepsentation? If you didn't mean what you said, you should've written it differently!
No one to blame but yourself here Scot.

Scot Dutchy wrote: Delay means democracy? Delay means problems.

Democracy apparently means delay. Not the other way round.

As for delay meaning problems, I suspect you're probably right.

You cant stop it can you!

This is the bit I was talking about:

We know you think that, but stop trying to assume what it is we should be thinking.

Where did I say that? I am assuming anything. Why would I. I did not include that in my original post because I thought you would have the savvy to realise that but I was wrong.

Scot Dutchy · **#4036** by **Scot Dutchy** » Oct 09, 2015 1:29 pm

DaveD wrote:On the other hand, "Fools rush in......"

I bet there are huge problems inside the party at the moment. Building a church broad enough must be quite a headache.

Fallible · **#4037** by **Fallible** » Oct 09, 2015 1:33 pm

I am assuming anything

Scot Dutchy · **#4038** by **Scot Dutchy** » Oct 09, 2015 1:35 pm

Fallible wrote:
I am assuming anything

I missed a NOT. OK

Fallible · **#4039** by **Fallible** » Oct 09, 2015 1:40 pm

Sendraks · **#4040** by **Sendraks** » Oct 09, 2015 1:40 pm

Scot Dutchy wrote:You cant stop it can you!

Stop what? I'm not misrepresenting you by quoting exactly what you wrote and saying exactly what it means.

Scot Dutchy wrote:This is the bit I was talking about:
We know you think that, but stop trying to assume what it is we should be thinking.

And what you wrote was an assumption as to what we should be thinking.

Scot Dutchy wrote:Nothing is happening and this delay is damaging Labour and you know why because Corbyn cant lead.

That's right there. In your post. The line in bold is you telling us what we should think!
In no way am I misrepresenting you by quoting what you wrote and being very clear on what it means.Again, if you didn't mean that, you should have written it diferently.

Scot Dutchy wrote:Where did I say that?

You did say that. Right there in the text I quoted! That I've now bolded for emphasis.

Scot Dutchy wrote:Where did I say that? I am not assuming anything. Why would I. I did not include that in my original post because I thought you would have the savvy to realise that but I was wrong.

F.I.F.Y

If you meant something different, fair enough. I suggest in future you more clearly articulate what it is you do mean. But as drafted, your post is clearly making an assumption about what we should think.

A far better way of drafting it would be...

Scot Dutchy wrote:Nothing is happening and this delay is damaging Labour and this is because Corbyn can't lead.

This removes any and all suggestion about what we should be thinking. It still reads too much like an asserted fact, so perhaps an even better drafting would be.

Scot Dutchy wrote:Nothing is happening and this delay is damaging Labour and this is because I think Corbyn can't lead.

How about that?

UK Labour Party Watch

Re: UK Labour Party Watch

Re: UK Labour Party Watch

Re: UK Labour Party Watch

Re: UK Labour Party Watch

Re: UK Labour Party Watch

Re: UK Labour Party Watch

Re: UK Labour Party Watch

Re: UK Labour Party Watch

Re: UK Labour Party Watch

Re: UK Labour Party Watch

Re: UK Labour Party Watch

Re: UK Labour Party Watch

Re: UK Labour Party Watch

Re: UK Labour Party Watch

Re: UK Labour Party Watch

Re: UK Labour Party Watch

Re: UK Labour Party Watch

Re: UK Labour Party Watch

Re: UK Labour Party Watch

Re: UK Labour Party Watch

Who is online