Westminster Politics

Brwned said:
This idea that being less relatable to the working class will count against a candidate is pretty amusing. That’s such a weird conception of the national identity and the values represented in the political system. British institutions ooze elitism, classism is baked into the nation’s identity over a long history, and leaders are regularly elected that would cringe at being associated with the working class, never mind being any way relatable to them. I know all nations have their myths but the chasm between that perception and the reality is indescribably big…
Click to expand...
I don’t know, I’m pretty sure I’ve seen Jess Phillips being thrown out of a few clubs at 3am with one shoe missing, screaming that the bouncer’s a cnut. It’s certainly plausible
 
jojojo said:
There's an interesting problem for the Tories if this research from a couple of years ago (it's about the 2019 intake) is accurate. The MPs are to the right of their membership and far too the right of their voters on broad economic policy.

Obviously that won't stop them pushing all the usual "tax cuts" "public waste" "incentives" "creating wealth so we can afford the NHS" etc buttons, but it does make it more difficult to find the right salesmen.



FXIStgzWYAAxqi6


Incidentally, the second image that looks at social issues shows that the MPs are way to the left of their voters. Hence all the culture wars stuff we'll be hearing - it's part of the sales pitch that they can give away for free.
Click to expand...

Together they form a cock!
 
Brwned said:
This idea that being less relatable to the working class will count against a candidate is pretty amusing. That’s such a weird conception of the national identity and the values represented in the political system. British institutions ooze elitism, classism is baked into the nation’s identity over a long history, and leaders are regularly elected that would cringe at being associated with the working class, never mind being any way relatable to them. I know all nations have their myths but the chasm between that perception and the reality is indescribably big…
Click to expand...
You really think the idea that people (working class or otherwise) are more likely to vote for someone they feel they can relate to is weird? Wasn't it exactly this quality or at least the perception of it, i.e. being the Heineken Tory, that won Boris the leadership contest to succeed May?
 
RedChip said:
You really think the idea that people (working class or otherwise) are more likely to vote for someone they feel they can relate to is weird? Wasn't it exactly this quality or at least the perception of it, i.e. being the Heineken Tory, that won Boris the leadership contest to succeed May?
Click to expand...

I think the fact that Boris is considered to be in any way like the “working man” says enough on its own. Or the fact it was a choice between him and May. Or the fact they were chosen from a group of people who, like themselves, have absolutely nothing in common with the average person. Whether an arisocrat with a lackadaisical attitude is closer to the working class than Theresa May is neither here nor there, in the grand scheme of things.
 
Brwned said:
I think the fact that Boris is considered to be in any way like the “working man” says enough on its own. Or the fact it was a choice between him and May. Or the fact they were chosen from a group of people who, like themselves, have absolutely nothing in common with the average person. Whether an arisocrat with a lackadaisical attitude is closer to the working class than Theresa May is neither here nor there, in the grand scheme of things.
Click to expand...
Seems to a bit of snobbery involved to me when people (not you) declare what 'the working man' thinks. It's not what they think themselves of course, because they're cleverer than that, obviously.

Same goes for the 'red wall'. You don't tend to hear people say 'I'm from the red wall', the red wall is always other, lesser, folk.
 
711 said:
Seems to a bit of snobbery involved to me when people (not you) declare what 'the working man' thinks. It's not what they think themselves of course, because they're cleverer than that, obviously.

Same goes for the 'red wall'. You don't tend to hear people say 'I'm from the red wall', the red wall is always other, lesser, folk.
Click to expand...

Yeah I largely agree.

Just to clarify my perspective, I’m not making any comment about what the ‘working man’ thinks. I’m drawing my own opinion about the similarity between the average person and the leaders that get elected, or even make it to the final stages. They aren’t remotely like the average person. They’re elites. It’s an elitist system.

I have no idea whether the average person thinks they’re electing someone that’s like them. That’s never been my impression, and I’ve lived in the North, South and was born on the other side of the Irish Sea. I wouldn’t say I’ve got a good read on the average person’s thoughts on politics but I’ve met enough people from enough walks of life to draw a comparison between them and Boris. To me, the comparison’s ridiculous.

Yeah, people will say they’d have a pint with him. Especially vs Theresa May. I wouldn’t equate that to saying “he’s like me”. But then I wouldn’t know, like you say. I definitely wouldn’t self-impose my thoughts on a diverse group of folks. My parents would consider themselves working class and they had vastly different upbringings before they met, and lived a completely different lifestyle to the ones they were born into after they got married. No doubt there’s a lot hidden under the surface, and applying labels to people hides that even further.
 
Brwned said:
I think the fact that Boris is considered to be in any way like the “working man” says enough on its own. Or the fact it was a choice between him and May. Or the fact they were chosen from a group of people who, like themselves, have absolutely nothing in common with the average person. Whether an arisocrat with a lackadaisical attitude is closer to the working class than Theresa May is neither here nor there, in the grand scheme of things.
Click to expand...
Sounds like you could very easily overlook the power of feelings just because they do not make sense to you from the outside looking in. People of all sorts clearly related to Johnson, more so than most politicians. Maybe it isn’t logically fathomable, but it is real enough. Even now you can see palpable anger that the Tories have got rid of him.
 
RedChip said:
Sounds like you could very easily overlook the power of feelings just because they do not make sense to you from the outside looking in. People of all sorts clearly related to Johnson, more so than most politicians. Maybe it isn’t logically fathomable, but it is real enough. Even now you can see palpable anger that the Tories have got rid of him.
Click to expand...

I think we’re talking about two different things. A lot of people like their leaders. A lot of them get attached to them. Boris was more likeable than Theresa May, in the views of the nation. I’m not saying “likability” doesn’t count in elections; it clearly does. I was just following on from the comments in the last few pages. People might not vote for Rishi Sunak because he’s not likeable. Not because he’s an elitist toff with no connection to the working class. The country votes for them decade after decade. It’s not a hurdle he needs to overcome.
 
For me, it’s not really about how people relate to candidates in respect of whether they think they are “like” then in terms of class and background. Perhaps an element of it, but I really think it’s a small part of it. Ultimately, I think it boils down to how they connect not based on similarity, but personality and ability to deliver their message in a simple way that is easy to follow and ultimately be convinced by. Boris is a classic example here. The reason such an elitist person, from such a wealthy background, and with such a history of scandal, was able to convince millions to support him stemmed from this ability. And when you are able to do that, “facts” sometime become blurry. Which is also why his lies didn’t carry the same impact. With people like Sunak or Starmer, who don’t quite make that simple connection with people, things which are “wrong” hit home so much harder than for people like Boris.
 
I think the Boris phenomenon is relatively easy to explain. In an era of unprecedented pace of change where people don’t understand what’s going on, he provided easy reassurance with his clown act (and delivered in plummy tones - a Northern stand up comedian delivery would not have worked). He was also unburdened with any conventional sense of responsibility like Starmer, May, Corbyn etc and could deliver without any shame a line (on Brexit) like “I’m in favour of having cake and eating it”. A total charlatan but one skilled at exploiting his marks.
 
I see the mainstream media is rejoicing in isolating him as the worst PM or a danger to democracy etc. etc. when in reality, as with Trump and all other leaders, he is a symptom of society and not least its institutions.
 
Frosty said:
With a codified constitution and more powers for the courts, then yes, I am with you.
Click to expand...

I've always wondered why Britain hasn't written a single constitution, a single document. Are there tangible benefits to having such a nebulous constitution, or is this one of those "we're Britain, this is how we've always done it and by God that's how it's supposed to be done!" kind of things?
 
nimic said:
I've always wondered why Britain hasn't written a single constitution, a single document. Are there tangible benefits to having such a nebulous constitution, or is this one of those "we're Britain, this is how we've always done it and by God that's how it's supposed to be done!" kind of things?
Click to expand...

The latter, mostly. But a lot of that belief is based on a mythic understanding of this island's history.

The UK is only 100 years old but we act as though it is ancient. Parliamentary sovereignty was an English tradition, not a Scottish or an Irish one, but because England was the dominant nation in the Union the other countries had to suck it up. The Union between England and Scotland was brought about through rampant bribery and corruption. And we celebrate our stability whilst ignoring the English relationship with Ireland.

There's no good reason not to have one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.