Display:
Also, IdiotSavant complained recently:
I didn't think the middle classes (which most UKanians don't identify themselves as anyway) were who a labour party was supposed to fight for
I think you, Nomad, doth protest too much that Social Democrats should stand for the middle class and they are wrong to have moved on to upper class.

En un viejo país ineficiente, algo así como España entre dos guerras civiles, poseer una casa y poca hacienda y memoria ninguna. -- Gil de Biedma
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Oct 1st, 2009 at 06:05:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I don't understand what you mean to say. Re-phrase?
by Nomad on Thu Oct 1st, 2009 at 06:26:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You identify as middle class, and progressive. So you think it's natural for the Social Democratic parties to defend the Middle Class. But it's not. The Social Democrats are supposed to defend the working class though there's in principle nothing wrong with them having middle-class sympathisers or cadres. The party of the Middle Class are the Liberals.

Now, lately the Social Liberals and the Social Democrats are nearly indistinguishable in policy though they remain distinguishable in which social network (or "base") they represent.

En un viejo país ineficiente, algo así como España entre dos guerras civiles, poseer una casa y poca hacienda y memoria ninguna. -- Gil de Biedma

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Oct 1st, 2009 at 06:51:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]
With medium income, a progressive mindset and belonging to the <1% of Dutch population with a MSc degree, I find myself identifying most frequently as an elitist, arrogance included.

Labourers have become lower (middle) class, but the Labour party has already moved on to upper class...?

Note the parentheses. I wanted the focus on the lower class and with bits of lower middle class. I meant the same thing what you're writing.

When policies of Social Democrats shift closer to that of the Liberals, the Overton Window is at work. It only means Social Democrats represent their base in name only.

by Nomad on Thu Oct 1st, 2009 at 07:37:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]
...and I note I read you that way.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Thu Oct 1st, 2009 at 07:47:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Swedish social democracy became hugely succesful by transcending the class struggle (in the 50's) and incorporating the middle class, becoming its party as well. The soc dem weakening can almost exclusively be explained through its alienation of the middle class, which started around 1968 and intensified during the 70's.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
by Starvid (arvid.hallen at gmail.com) on Wed Oct 7th, 2009 at 12:40:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]
By the way. What's the origin of the notion that was long prevalent in the British media (before he became PM that is) that Brown is "Old Labour"? Was it vily preemptive spin from Bliar?

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Thu Oct 1st, 2009 at 07:50:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]
He was "Old" in that he wasn't media-savvy. He glowered and retreated to his bunker to sulk. NuLab wasn't really an ideological position, the neoliberalism of watered-down Thatcherism was simply the easiest cloth to wear. And while the City boomed, it didn't matter it was all bs. There were wars to fight and directorships to secure.

Brown wasn't interested in any of that. He didn't smile for the camera. He wasn't policy-lite, bobbling along on a froth of publicity. He wouldn't co-operate.

So his very stodginess made him a problem to be derided. And no insult was worse than "Old Labour". Even Prescott, who really was old labour, had to be protected from that slur.

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Thu Oct 1st, 2009 at 09:39:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series