Default Sidebar

[endless psych]

Originally Posted by metallideth

You might be correct in stating that the majority over-estimates the amount of 'time' afforded to any given minority, but by the same token I wouldn't imagine the indigenous working-class to be representative of the majority. Like I suggested in the previous post, there's a number of reasons for that, among them:

Well the working class is the majority (if you class the class in financial terms) and nigh on always has been. Hope lies in the proles and all that.

- the removal of traditional 'working-class' jobs from Britain resulted in the removal of traditional working-class culture, something that was particularly centered on place of employment
- the reduction of secure, permanent employment in certain trades, in favour of temporary/casual employment, which has subsequently meant that a lot of people who are otherwise not working-class (read: most students) end up performing jobs that could be defined as such
- the promotion of the idea, from the Thatcher years through to the present, that we're all bourgeois now. It's wrought in everything from the idea that people on benefits are all closet work-shy cheats, to the exponential increase in property (and other 'lifestyle') TV shows

I think you'll find that the idea of people on benefits being "work shy" cheats is more a hangover from "traditional" working class values.

Basically, what I'm suggesting is that the working-class 'experience' in present-day Britain is a fractured one, so it'd hard to consider the working-class as a viable 'majority'. Whether the organised left have got to grips with this or not is up for debate - in my opinion, they haven't - but even if they do, they still have to dance to the tune of the mainstream media piper. People hear much more about SSP/Solidarity/Respect opinion on racism, prison reform, sexual equality etc. than they do on issues of class because that's the one subject that doesn't get discussed.

Being "working class" has become a fashion statement in terms of being a viable majority - well they probably only were that when they could call general strikes.

The BNP, by contrast, rarely have their opinion broadcast anywhere except when one of their mob is going on trial for being an absolute hateful clown. Their campaign, then, is going grassroots through neccesity - so while people see all the other parties offering distant comment on immigration from a fancy TV studio, they'll be aware that the BNP are out and about in their own area. This creates the facade that the BNP are somehow more 'real' or 'honest' than the other parties, or are more concerned with the so-called "big issues" as they relate to everyday life. A good standpoint from which to shore up disaffected voters.

I agree with that biut.