Conrod Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 so what is a doctor working in a supermarket:hihi:?As I said: "Class has far less to do with employment than it has to do with family background, education and social skills". Class and employment/money are not siretly connected. there are plenty of wealthy people who remian very working class depsite having cash, and there are people short of a few quid who remian middle class. Giving a chav a lottery win doesn't make him middle class - it takes 20 years of social development, education and cultural polish to get there. It may be something the lottery-winning chav, like many footballers, can never achieve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conrod Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 Not at all Im saying that whilst these labels are rubbish the majority of this country is middle class. They aren't doing manual jobs, they have disposable income (wildly varying in amounts but they have it), they are well educated.You think everybody who works in an office is well educated? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
llamatron Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 You think everybody who works in an office is well educated? no and I didn't say or even hint that, generally the population of britain is well educated, generally they have a disposable income, generally they don't do manual jobs. Didn't think I needed to be that patronising Whats rooney? Whats that x-factor bird from girls allowed/aloud? (I dont read enough hello!) by my reckoning they have little or no education, no social skills and I have no idea about their backgrounds but I suspect neither are from middle class backgrounds There is no way I would class either as working class! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 because you can't win an election when only a small minority vote for you. Ermmm... European elections turnout less than 30% Tories got the largest number of seats with a less than 30% share of the vote... in other words they won with the votes of around 10% of those eligible to vote. General Election Turnout 65% Tories got 36% of the vote... So Cameron is Prime Minister based on about 22% of the voting public supporting him. Also not sure what your point is... Where did the small minority come in to it? The Bankers support for the Tories? You may note that the support being discussed is financial not of the vote. No one is claiming 22% of the electorate are bankers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 Ohh you are talking about the IMF being called in after the disasterous economic situation left by Edward Heath?... I think you will find that the IMF bail out happened well into Labour's watch. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4553464.stm When the Labour Chancellor Dennis Healey went cap in hand for a humiliating bail out Labour was on its second term in power. I976 was just 2 years after the 1974 election the Tories lost. It was the Barber Boom, deregulation and big tax cuts for banks and business creating unsustainable growth, inflation and resultant workers demands for pay rises in line with inflation, that were the primary causes of the IMF bailout. Anthony Barber's term in office so disasterous he never stood for election again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister M Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 surely the banks, financiers, big and small businesses are representing the people that work in those areas and want the banks and businesses to remain in this country? Probably therefore also representing millions. The unions are only representing the people that actually vote on things-isn't that actually a relatively small number? I am not claiming knowledge here I am wondering? People are not either working class or rich, most people are in the middle and are probably therefore more represented by business leaders than bob "the idiot" crow. You claim that banks, financiers and those who work for them want to remain in this country - yet whenever the discussion of their profits, salaries and bonuses and their role in the banking crisis they spit their dummy out and threaten to go offshore. Not very democratic - or patriotic Millions of working people choose to be in a trade union, choose to make a party donation and vote to elect leaders who they want to represent them. You also assume that the interests of the financial elite are the same as the vast majority of other people in this country. I don't think they are at all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 Not at all Im saying that whilst these labels are rubbish the majority of this country is middle class. They aren't doing manual jobs, they have disposable income (wildly varying in amounts but they have it), they are well educated. You can define yourself as middle class if you want because you eat olives and drink chateau La feet, but it is irrelevant to the sense and context it is being used here. Trade unions represent all workers. Anyone that works is in that sense working class. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigthumb Posted February 9, 2011 Author Share Posted February 9, 2011 I976 was just 2 years after the 1974 election the Tories lost. It was the Barber Boom, deregulation and big tax cuts for banks and business creating unsustainable growth, inflation and resultant workers demands for pay rises in line with inflation, that were the primary causes of the IMF bailout. Anthony Barber's term in office so disasterous he never stood for election again. How odd that no one seems to mention a looming financial meltdown being handed over by the Tories in 1974, but they do mention the Labour meltdown and bail out by the IMF in 1976. Similarly they mention the financial crisis and Winter of Discontent before Thatcher came to power, but she managed to clear up that mess. Similarly there was plently of mention of the financial disaster that Labour handed over in May last year. But oddly all those who were trying to make excuses for the meltdown this time are now trying to deny it happened as the Tories once again have to clear up the mess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 How odd that no one seems to mention a looming financial meltdown being handed over by the Tories in 1974, but they do mention the Labour meltdown and bail out by the IMF in 1976. Similarly they mention the financial crisis and Winter of Discontent before Thatcher came to power, but she managed to clear up that mess. I suppose by everyone you mean the Tory press? Similarly there was plently of mention of the financial disaster that Labour handed over in May last year. But oddly all those who were trying to make excuses for the meltdown this time are now trying to deny it happened as the Tories once again have to clear up the mess. Can you point out anyone who has denied the financial crisis that occurred because of the housing bubble in the US, Sub-Prime lending, systemic weak and fraudulent underwriting by banks and the collapse of the shadow banking system? Mmm the only people that I have noticed denying it are the Tories on here that seem to think Gordon Brown was responsible for a global crisis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retrogo Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 50%+ of Labour Party funding comes from trade unions. Even Lord Levi thinks that is unhealthy. http://www.onenewspage.co.uk/news/UK/20110127/19133384/Lord-Levy-urges-Labour-to-cut-funding-ties.htm Lord Levy urges Labour to cut funding ties to unions Labour's chief fundraiser under Tony Blair calls for cleanup of system including public funding for parties and cap on donations The man who ran Tony Blair's fundraising operation has urged Labour to cut its "umbilical cord" with the trade unions.. The labour party was started by the unions so the working class had a voice in parliment. So, it's no suprise that the party gets its funding from union members. However, not all union members vote labour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.