Who is responsible for the Conservatives becoming seen as the party of the rich? Disraeli created One Nation conservatism, emphasising the support of the poor by the wealthy. Following in the same tradition, David Cameron's goal is clearly to be seen as the "party of working people" of all classes and backgrounds, cast in contrast to Labour as the party of NEETs and profligates. Somewhere between the two the Conservatives developed an image of being in opposition to the interests of the working class. Who did that? Was it Thatcher, or was it earlier than that?
Maybe because the only credible opposition theyve had for the last century have explicitly defined themselves as working for the poor, so its natural for the tories to be seen as for the rich. They also seem to be less representative of society than they used to be, osbourne cameron bojo etc are easy to stereotype as posh out of touch southerners, whereas someone like macmillan, even if he was from london, at least had a northern constituency
It was when Conservative became attached to defending the capitalist mode of production, and defending the bourgeois class's power in society.
This was in contrast to the notions of Burke, and even the limited (though fading) influence of the aristocracy, and the aristocratic mindset on Disraeli.
The Bourgeois spirit has no sense of noble obliges, and no sense of relationship between the classes, or the need to pass on a legacy to the future.
The lack of all these things are necessary to thrive in the capitalist mode of production. And so Conservativism became wedded to defending a class that eat's it's own children, and the poor can see that.
They are the most rabid defenders of the neo-liberal, free market fundamentalist doctrine in Europe.
Any sensible person could not disagree that
> These policies rip the heart out of communities.
> They condemn large portions of the working class to becoming an underclass.
> It demands that a government must slap down any arguement that human needs should slow down the pace of de-regulation and the freedom of capital and labour.
> Neo-liberal narratives shift the blame of policy failure onto individuals - "get on your bike and find work." Where as there is an argument for less state coddling, this is absurd for particular sections of the population (the disabled, people with no skills and poor education.)
No matter how you sugar coat this, the fundamental fact that the Conservatives are happy to flush large parts of the population down the toilet to fit this country into a neo-liberal Procrustean bed is pretty divisive stuff as it is mostly the poor who suffer.
Why do they succeed? We have a mostly pliant media that does not discuss the wider context and systemic issues - e.g.
Housing crisis - "look at all those immigrants getting council houses."
ISIS - "Evil terrorist sickos! Help us Government!"
Is it possible for marxist historians to view even a single event or trend in history as not being 100% the result of class conflict and tension? Plenty of "working class" people still vote conservative, lots of people in the bourgeois vote labour, are they all just misinformed and ignorant?
And yet they will comfortably defeat the most socialist candidate the Labour party have fielded since Michael Foot in the next election, presumably the plebs just need a good dose of re-education so they see whats best for them?
It's a poor moral victory when achieved through such blatant distortion, much like you're parroting in this post. I am not a Corbyn fan, I believe he is the wrong person with the right message though. The policies he touted in the leadership election were broadly social-democratic - the central investment bank, reversing austerity in favour of Keynsian style economic management, beefing up the unions (after decades of emasculation.) The only thing that makes him distinctive is that he insists on us giving up our insanely expensive and globally destabilising foreign policy, in favour of something rather more sensible, multi-lateralism, moving away from oil dependency, stepping away from the US Empire.
Gee, I think the question of how one political party came to be seen as representing a peculiar naked class interest, and a disinterest in another class, is a question that pertains a bit to class conflict, don't you think?
Also, the fact that you can't tell a Tory from a Marxist, and have a phobia of class even being mentioned, tells me you have more in common with 'le perfect free society' Jacobins than the party of Jacobites.
You know the Tories were the party of the working class through most of the early 20th century, though, right? Labour didn't manage to sell socialism to the working class until it successfully appropriated Tory patriotism and social conservatism.
If these policies were as popular as the left seems to think miliband would have done much better in the last election and corbyn would be doing much better in the polls. Politics in this country has moved on from simple class warfare arguments, it just seems the left hasn't realised this.
My argument is that claiming the tories are just seen as the party of the rich is flawed and that it is an example of marxists projecting class into areas it doesnt have that much importance in- millions of working class people vote conservative, millions of members of the bourgeois vote labour, so clearly seeing everything through the lense of class conflict is a flawed interpretation of history and of modern politics
Yes. But these causes are deep and long term.
The conflict with labor is relatively new. Before that is was the Conservatives versus the Liberals, with the Liberals taking up the cause of the Bourgeois without shame. Before that, the Conservatives represented an alliance between the Aristocracy and the lower classes, united in social issues, and cooperating in an economic coalition.
But as the Aristocracy faded away, the Conservatives, rather than doubling down on their working class base, moved to incorporate the old Liberals.
This only makes political sense, because Labour was not going to reach out to them, and electoral politics abhors a vacuum.
But it's what set in motion the eventual shift in the conservative party.
Then your problem is with OP, not with me.
Miliband was not promoting those policies, he was promoting a cuddly form of austerity that he, and nobody else, believed in. He shied away from rent controls, promoted a gimmicky prize freeze to appeal to shore up the left of the party. It was gesture politics and everyone who were not dumb enough to believe the "Labour rekt the economy" meme could see that.
Corbyn at least challenges the free market hegemonic narrative - this is why everyone in the establishment is trying to make him look bad. If he is able to make his narratives fly at the same time as the economy tanks badly, I do believe, that class will once again become an important issue (more and more of us will join the precariat.)
>Miliband didn't win because he wasn't left wing enough
Foot got annihilated in the 80s with a much stronger union movement behind him, an economy in a much worse state than it is now, a generally more left wing society and a conservative party explicitly driven by right-wing ideology more than they are now, I really don't understand how people expect corbyn to be any better. Oh well, as long as labour continue to tell themselves its the electorate who are wrong and eventually they'll see the error of their ways I suppose we'll never see what jezza could do in power
>Ideological purity is more important than actually being in a position to implement policy
Hard-left labourites are as bad as the tories who are happy to see the party collapse and become unelectable as long as theres a "correct" policy onm europe
>Principled members of the Labour Party are as bad as Principled members of the Conservative party.
The important thing is for politicians not to say what they believe, so that they can get elected.
I'd haver thought the important thing is for politicians to act like grown-ups and be willing to compromise so that at least some of their policies are enacted, blair and brown did more for the working class than an angry sixth-form student protest even if they were less ideologically "correct"
> blair and brown did more for the working class than an angry sixth-form student protest even if they were less ideologically "correct"
Those social-democratic policies were John Smith's policies. The light touch regulation, no reverse of regressive union laws and insane infrastructure funding policies were all their's though (damaging the working class still and for many years to come.)
>Labour as the party of NEETs and profligates.
Why in upper case? Daily reminger: after inventing AI >90% of mankind would be neets because humans can't rival with AI.
Benjamin Disraeli was a subversive Jew who created "One Nation conservatism" to destroy the landed gentry based of Toryism.
Mission accomplished, now the "Conservative Party" is basically a social liberal party, the only conservative parties still standind in the U.K. are the Ulster loyalist parties.
Because Labour has the word labour in the name, which is enough to convince braindead northerners that they're somehow the party for normal, working people.
Disregarding their current leader went to school in a castle and has never had a job that wasn't directly related to politics.
>this is why everyone in the establishment is trying to make him look bad
>trying to make him look bad
>needing anyone to help make him look bad
>nuclear submarines without any nukes on them just so the union leaders dont rip his testicles off
>firing people for voting with their conscience after declaring a free vote
>comparing apples and oranges in order to make your retarded point fly
>regressive union laws
had the unions not acted in a ludicrously corrupt and democracy destroying fashion in the seventies they wouldnt have provoked the Thatcherite backlash that followed
need I remind you
the MASSIVELY popular Thatcherite backlash that followed which was overwhelmingly endorsed by the electorate in 79, 83 and 87. And the Tory government only left office once the brightest Labour mind of his generation (not saying much) realised that
>we cannot make policy without being in power
and with this stunning leap forward in the intellectual climate of the Labour party they took office for thirteen years
unlucky for them they have now jumped right back into the cave dwelling days of the Militant Tendency. Unlucky for all of us actually since a shitty opposition more or less guarantees a shitty government
>the only conservative parties in the UK are a bunch of shaved apes led by murderers who are squatting on someone elses land
heaven save us if that is true
>heaven save us if that is true
Don't worry, they will lose, just like conservatives always lose in the long term.
On a similar note to this, has anyone else noticed that lefties were crying that the media were giving Nigel Farage too much positive attention by asking his opinion about everything in the run up to the election, while now they're screaming that the media are giving Jeremy Corbyn negative attention by asking his opinion about everything?
But they aren't asking him.
What they are doing, in the case of this Falklands nonsense, is dragging up a passing comment he made years ago whilst he was still a backbencher and spinning it to make it seem as if giving up sovereignty of the Falklands is a major policy point for him now.
>The media attention on Farage wasn't exactly complimentary.
True, but that wasn't down to particular media bias and more down to people simply hearing what Farage had to say and disagreeing. At least, that's how it was as far as the BBC goes, I couldn't really say for the tabloids, but I'm under the impression that most would generally approve.
Meanwhile, the press is genuinely and incredibly hostile towards Corbyn, and all too willing to misrepresent him.
>Any attention is good attention except when it's not?
Cultural Marxism is literally a propaganda point created to paint liberals as being the root of all societal ills.
Neoliberalism is what modern economics with roots in the thought put forward by the Chicago and Austrian school has been called. Does it get painted as being the cause of all modern economic problems? Yes, but it has a sizable group of mainstream economists behind it and has had a profound influence on the fiscal policy of the past 30-40 years.
Comparing the two is like comparing the Illuminati to the WTO
Rent control isn't only rent ceilings dummy
Rent ceilings dry up investment in real estate and ultimately hurt renters more than they help because of the shortage in housing that occurs. However more sophisticated regulations that included built in mechanisms for increasing rent in the case of things like inflation or wage increases were effective at making sure people got affordable housing without wrecking the housing market. The reason it works is because the housing market is one that involves a large inequality in the bargaining power of the property owner and the renter, and in order to bargain down rents intervention by some kind of renter group (like the government) is necessary. When the government enacts policy that is meant to punish one group and reward another it almost never works, but that does not preclude the government from being capable of intervening without damaging the economy.