Do you remember the class war?
You're a better man than I if you do - because, outside of the media and a small group of politically motivated individuals in the Labour Party and various unions, it didn't exist. All the "class war" really was was a Marxist slogan designed to drum up support for a political doctrine that otherwise had very little to commend itself to people.
The reality was that the vast majority of people it was supposedly trying to help - the working class - had absolutely no interest in being anything other than working class. The only reason they signed up to the class struggle cause was because of promises of better pay and conditions - they had no interest in changing the class structure of Britain. They just wanted an "honest days pays for an honest days work" and the dignity of employment.
Dignity being the operative word - because the working class used to be a very dignified class. Just take a look at old footage of 1950's and 1960's football matches and you'll see the crowd consisting of young and old men alike dressed in suits, jackets and ties. There were more suits and ties on display at a 1958 football match between Blackburn Rovers and Preston North End than you'll find at Microsoft's corporate headquarters - but they were nearly all "working class" men. Men who dressed with dignity.
Working class men didn't swear much either and if they did it was done quietly, privately and out of earshot of others - particularly women and children. They invariably had strong, often impenetrable accents - but they didn't swear in public. Swearing was undignified.
And, contrary to the modern myth that domestic violence was rife amongst the working class before the feminist movement (it's actually far more prevalent since that movement than it was before), the working man didn't routinely indulge in fighting and brawling. Again, I point you to the evidence of pre-progressive era football matches where rival supporters mixed freely, travelled to matches on the same trains and buses and drank pints in the same pubs. Fighting and violence was undignified. Working class men had class in abundance.
The working man was a man of dignity. The dignity of work, dress, speech and behaviour were of paramount importance to the working man before the progressives got their hands on him. Fifty years later and millions of working class men do not have the dignity of labour - hundreds of thousands of "working class" people have never ever worked and have no interest in doing so. They dress for "comfort" which invariably means wandering around in adult versions of baby clothes - a baggy t shirt and shorts - and they swear profusely, loudly and publicly .... and seem proud to do it. They laugh at comedians whose "punchlines" consist of expletives.
And yet, after fifty years of progressive victory Labour is still using the class war as its election theme. All that fifty years of "class struggle" has brought is the removal of dignity from the working class. What started off as an attempt to build a classless society has actually produced a no class society.
Showing posts with label Class War. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Class War. Show all posts
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
A touch of class
Around the blogosphere and in various newspapers there are still quite a few people who seem to think that the introduction of the 50p tax rate had something to do with raising revenue. It won't and it wasn't. It was about Labour doing something - anything - that would win them favour with the Old Labour class warriors and, to be fair, from what I've seen and heard it has mostly worked.
Over the last few years, Labour has kind of abandoned their traditional cause of sticking up for the working man - which, at least in part, has allowed the British National Party to flourish - and moved on to pastures new such as discrimination, immigration, multiculturalism, sexual orientation and so on.
There are a couple of reasons for this, in my opinion. First of all, let me say that it wasn't because the class system had been erased and was therefore no longer appropriate for the Labour Party to fight for the working man. The class system is alive and well - just slightly restructured with considerably less movement between social groups. The social mobility that characterised the forties and fifties has not only been frozen - it's been largely reversed and people find themselves entrenched in a social class with little opportunity to move on.
We have also lost the slow improvement in meritocracy that was, gradually, taking place in Britain before the advent of progressive dogma. Although it is true to say that it is less now about having the right school tie, it is now - as much as ever - necessary to belong to the right "club". It's not so much who you know, anymore - it's what you think that opens doors to the institutions of power.
Anyway - the first reason that Labour abandoned their traditional working class roots is that they realised that achieving their aims would effectively mean the end of their raison d'etre. The Labour Party was formed to support the working class man - but once the socialist model had achieved hegemony then working class man no longer mattered. So they had to find other reasons for being and other causes to support - hence the branching out into the areas above.
The other reason is that the Labour Party could not foresee any circumstance whereby their core voter base would vote any other way. Who else was white working man going to vote for? Yes, there were a fair few who switched to supporting Thatcher in 1979 - but given the mess Labour had made of things, who could blame them?
Besides, that disaffection was also driven by the Labour abandonment of social conservatism - pretty soon the electorate would realise that the Tories had also abandoned social conservatism as well and they'd all come back to the fold. They had to - there was no alternative - except not to vote which many many people are increasingly choosing to do.
But the Labour Party didn't reckon with the BNP or the Internet. They thought they could just continually smear the BNP as racist extremists and, with the support of the MSM and various other groups, that would be enough to ensure the BNP would always be seen as "right wing extremists".
Unfortunately for Labour, the BNP publish their views and their policies on the Internet and anyone can go and take a look for themselves what they really say and what their policies are - and when they do, as many thousands are doing every week by all accounts, they find that the policies of the "far right extremists" are actually fairly socialist Old Labour policies which, not that long ago, would have been quite at home in a Labour Party Manifesto.
Unsurprisingly, this has found favour with a considerable number of white working class people who feel abandoned by their traditional party of choice and led to a trickling of support away from Labour and to the BNP - but the trickle keeps getting bigger and soon it may be a stream and then a flood - and that worries Labour.
They've found that continually shouting down the BNP as far-right racist nutters isn't actually putting people off the BNP. Instead, all it is doing is alienating and offending those people who have taken a look for themselves and found themselves in considerable agreement with much of what the BNP say. Labour may have been able to win those people back with reasoned argument - but calling them racist scum isn't going to do it.
So Labour have reverted to their old ways - bash the rich. They would have liked to have done far more than they did, but they realise that too much would scare off many of the floating voters who, now more than ever, are essential to their chances of securing any future role in government.
Hence the 50p tax rate - nothing to do with raising revenue and everything to do with trying to stem the loss of support from the white working class. To be honest, I don't think it will work. Any kudos they regain from the white working class isn't going to be enough to sway the balance in their favour unless they can come up with other ways and means of showing that they mean it without alienating the floating voter into believing that Labour are back to their old tax and spend ways (which they never actually abandoned).
The next General Election isn't winnable for Labour - instead they will have to rely on the Tories to lose it. And I still don't believe that that is beyond the realms of possibility.
Over the last few years, Labour has kind of abandoned their traditional cause of sticking up for the working man - which, at least in part, has allowed the British National Party to flourish - and moved on to pastures new such as discrimination, immigration, multiculturalism, sexual orientation and so on.
There are a couple of reasons for this, in my opinion. First of all, let me say that it wasn't because the class system had been erased and was therefore no longer appropriate for the Labour Party to fight for the working man. The class system is alive and well - just slightly restructured with considerably less movement between social groups. The social mobility that characterised the forties and fifties has not only been frozen - it's been largely reversed and people find themselves entrenched in a social class with little opportunity to move on.
We have also lost the slow improvement in meritocracy that was, gradually, taking place in Britain before the advent of progressive dogma. Although it is true to say that it is less now about having the right school tie, it is now - as much as ever - necessary to belong to the right "club". It's not so much who you know, anymore - it's what you think that opens doors to the institutions of power.
Anyway - the first reason that Labour abandoned their traditional working class roots is that they realised that achieving their aims would effectively mean the end of their raison d'etre. The Labour Party was formed to support the working class man - but once the socialist model had achieved hegemony then working class man no longer mattered. So they had to find other reasons for being and other causes to support - hence the branching out into the areas above.
The other reason is that the Labour Party could not foresee any circumstance whereby their core voter base would vote any other way. Who else was white working man going to vote for? Yes, there were a fair few who switched to supporting Thatcher in 1979 - but given the mess Labour had made of things, who could blame them?
Besides, that disaffection was also driven by the Labour abandonment of social conservatism - pretty soon the electorate would realise that the Tories had also abandoned social conservatism as well and they'd all come back to the fold. They had to - there was no alternative - except not to vote which many many people are increasingly choosing to do.
But the Labour Party didn't reckon with the BNP or the Internet. They thought they could just continually smear the BNP as racist extremists and, with the support of the MSM and various other groups, that would be enough to ensure the BNP would always be seen as "right wing extremists".
Unfortunately for Labour, the BNP publish their views and their policies on the Internet and anyone can go and take a look for themselves what they really say and what their policies are - and when they do, as many thousands are doing every week by all accounts, they find that the policies of the "far right extremists" are actually fairly socialist Old Labour policies which, not that long ago, would have been quite at home in a Labour Party Manifesto.
Unsurprisingly, this has found favour with a considerable number of white working class people who feel abandoned by their traditional party of choice and led to a trickling of support away from Labour and to the BNP - but the trickle keeps getting bigger and soon it may be a stream and then a flood - and that worries Labour.
They've found that continually shouting down the BNP as far-right racist nutters isn't actually putting people off the BNP. Instead, all it is doing is alienating and offending those people who have taken a look for themselves and found themselves in considerable agreement with much of what the BNP say. Labour may have been able to win those people back with reasoned argument - but calling them racist scum isn't going to do it.
So Labour have reverted to their old ways - bash the rich. They would have liked to have done far more than they did, but they realise that too much would scare off many of the floating voters who, now more than ever, are essential to their chances of securing any future role in government.
Hence the 50p tax rate - nothing to do with raising revenue and everything to do with trying to stem the loss of support from the white working class. To be honest, I don't think it will work. Any kudos they regain from the white working class isn't going to be enough to sway the balance in their favour unless they can come up with other ways and means of showing that they mean it without alienating the floating voter into believing that Labour are back to their old tax and spend ways (which they never actually abandoned).
The next General Election isn't winnable for Labour - instead they will have to rely on the Tories to lose it. And I still don't believe that that is beyond the realms of possibility.
Friday, March 20, 2009
Bring back rationing!
Frank Skinner (yes - that Frank Skinner) is having a go at fatties in The Times comment section.
We bullied and nagged smokers, made adverts that said they smelt so awful they were unkissable and finally, with the smoking ban, we literally turned them into shivering outsiders - all because we knew it was for their own good.
Speak for yourself, Frank. I've never bullied anyone and I'm not about to start now. I don't smoke (except for the very occasional and increasingly rare cigar), but never had a problem with those that do. I'm not fat either and I wasn't one of those kids who used to call other kids "fatso" at school. Then again, I'm not a progressive and was brought up by socially conservative parents who taught me that it was wrong to mock others and rude to point and stare.
Actually, Mrs Stan may take exception to me claiming not to be fat. It's true that I've put on a little weight recently and have had to buy some new trousers with a 36" waist - just for comfort, though - but if Skinner really wants to help fatties why doesn't he come up with some practical measure rather than just bullying and nagging? How about bringing back rationing?
There aren't any food shortages (yet), but the hedonistic lifestyle which the progressives have spent 50 years promoting has virtually eradicated the idea of self-restraint. So it we can not be relied upon to restrict our food intake ourselves perhaps the government should do it for us.
I know there are a lot of people who read this blog who, like me, grew up in traditional working class families. They remember the days when the cupboards weren't full of snacks and treats even though we spent a far larger proportion of our income on food than we do today. We relied on our basic three meals a day for our calorific intake - if we were really lucky we'd maybe get a chocolate digestive to dunk in our Ovaltine before bedtime - but remarkably enough we survived quite happily and even had the energy to be outside playing for most of the time when we weren't in school.
So, in the absence of self-restraint, which the progressives were so keen to abolish - why don't they bring back rationing and force people to eat less? Of course I'm joking, but Skinner started it.
We bullied and nagged smokers, made adverts that said they smelt so awful they were unkissable and finally, with the smoking ban, we literally turned them into shivering outsiders - all because we knew it was for their own good.
Speak for yourself, Frank. I've never bullied anyone and I'm not about to start now. I don't smoke (except for the very occasional and increasingly rare cigar), but never had a problem with those that do. I'm not fat either and I wasn't one of those kids who used to call other kids "fatso" at school. Then again, I'm not a progressive and was brought up by socially conservative parents who taught me that it was wrong to mock others and rude to point and stare.
Actually, Mrs Stan may take exception to me claiming not to be fat. It's true that I've put on a little weight recently and have had to buy some new trousers with a 36" waist - just for comfort, though - but if Skinner really wants to help fatties why doesn't he come up with some practical measure rather than just bullying and nagging? How about bringing back rationing?
There aren't any food shortages (yet), but the hedonistic lifestyle which the progressives have spent 50 years promoting has virtually eradicated the idea of self-restraint. So it we can not be relied upon to restrict our food intake ourselves perhaps the government should do it for us.
I know there are a lot of people who read this blog who, like me, grew up in traditional working class families. They remember the days when the cupboards weren't full of snacks and treats even though we spent a far larger proportion of our income on food than we do today. We relied on our basic three meals a day for our calorific intake - if we were really lucky we'd maybe get a chocolate digestive to dunk in our Ovaltine before bedtime - but remarkably enough we survived quite happily and even had the energy to be outside playing for most of the time when we weren't in school.
So, in the absence of self-restraint, which the progressives were so keen to abolish - why don't they bring back rationing and force people to eat less? Of course I'm joking, but Skinner started it.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Fiiiiiiiiigggggghhhhhhhttttttttt!!!!!!!!
From The Times by Magnus Linklater.
Drink is the cause of nearly half of all violent incidents; in nearly a million assaults last year, the aggressors were believed to be drunk.
I expect the "cause" behind the violence was actually a disagreement of sorts - and as for the "aggressors believed to be drunk" - believed by whom and by what measure? Regardless of all that, the question remains that if almost half of violent incidents had drink as a factor that means that more than half of violent incidents involved sobriety.
So which is better - drinking or not drinking? Only one way to find out .......
Drink is the cause of nearly half of all violent incidents; in nearly a million assaults last year, the aggressors were believed to be drunk.
I expect the "cause" behind the violence was actually a disagreement of sorts - and as for the "aggressors believed to be drunk" - believed by whom and by what measure? Regardless of all that, the question remains that if almost half of violent incidents had drink as a factor that means that more than half of violent incidents involved sobriety.
So which is better - drinking or not drinking? Only one way to find out .......
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
The new privileged class
Remember the class war? Does anyone remember what it was about? Something to do with removing privileges that a certain class of people enjoyed which the average person didn't, wasn't it?
Civil servants have clocked up £4.5 billion of extra pension entitlements in the past year, the Conservatives have revealed.
£4.5 billion in one year, eh? Certainly puts the "bail out" of the car industry into perspective doesn't it.
Total liabilities for the civil service pension scheme, which has more than half a million members, now stand at £119 billion, the equivalent of £4,700 for every household in the country.
Except, of course, that not every household in the country contributes to the pot. No, just us in the cash cow of the private sector who are being milked dry by a new breed of privileged classes - the public sector. No, public sector employees do not contribute to it at all - all their money comes from the private sector as all state cash does. If you take £20 off the church collection plate and put £5 back in you've not contributed.
I've stated before that the class structure in Britain never went away - it just changed - and we have a new breed of over-privileged people who enjoy benefits, concessions and opportunities which are denied to the rest of us.
Civil servants have clocked up £4.5 billion of extra pension entitlements in the past year, the Conservatives have revealed.
£4.5 billion in one year, eh? Certainly puts the "bail out" of the car industry into perspective doesn't it.
Total liabilities for the civil service pension scheme, which has more than half a million members, now stand at £119 billion, the equivalent of £4,700 for every household in the country.
Except, of course, that not every household in the country contributes to the pot. No, just us in the cash cow of the private sector who are being milked dry by a new breed of privileged classes - the public sector. No, public sector employees do not contribute to it at all - all their money comes from the private sector as all state cash does. If you take £20 off the church collection plate and put £5 back in you've not contributed.
I've stated before that the class structure in Britain never went away - it just changed - and we have a new breed of over-privileged people who enjoy benefits, concessions and opportunities which are denied to the rest of us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)