Rayner cleared.

Labour is definitely the party of the affluent 'middle classes,' however much to claims its support lies in the 'working classes'

That says much the same as the article I linked to, M0nica, except that I don't think the LP does claim its support lies in the working class. It wants equality. Arguably, as this is a very unequal country, equality would benefit the poor more than the rich, but it is perfectly possible for people who don't stand to gain financially from it to want to live in a fairer society.

Political allegiance is not divided simply on class lines, as if it were the LP would have been in power far more often than it has. The phenomenon of the 'working class Tory' is well known. There are various theories to explain them. The Marxist view is that they have 'false class consciousness' ie they are people who feel a cut above their neighbours and think that voting Labour would somehow align them with those they look down on, so vote against their interests (measured objectively) in order to feed their sense of superiority. That point of view is summed up by the spoof Red Flag song, that starts 'The working class can kiss my ass/I've got the foreman's job at last'.

A psychological perspective is that they are people who prefer to see society as hierarchical with those 'at the top' being natural leaders 'born to rule', or that w/c Tory voters are those who like life to have rules with 'just because' explanations, so are less likely to question unfairness because 'that's just the way things are'. The 'deferential' working class, in other words.

I'm not sure what I think about those explanations, but to come back to the thread, a classic example of the first group would be (many of) those who bought council houses in the 80s. Thatcher knew that this would buy her support, and she was right. People immediately painted their front doors to show the world that their house was privately owned, and many shifted allegiance to the Tory party, as though having a mortgage instead of a rent book had changed their social class, even though their wages and work situation was exactly the same.

These days we have groups such as 'Mondeo Man', 'Disillusioned Suburbans' 'Red Wall Brexiteers' or the 'Patriotic Left', who cross outdated class lines and are categorised according to priorities and concerns.

But Wyllow You shouldn't claim constantly that you are the representatives of a certain demographic group when most of that group vote for the opposition and when many of your policies are aimed at those who support you.

Plenty of middle class voters who are not affluent. My constituency has nurses, teacher, OT's, low level civil servants, in one part and in the other low paid class jobs in industry, retail, etc. In the whole area, some doctors. (Northern Town, not red wall)

I also get fed up if L party people have to out-prove their "creds" but it seems an obsession here.

I recommend this link for seeing how party alliegance lies by social class yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/26925-how-britain-voted-2019-general-election

I quote
The highest level of education someone has achieved remains an important dividing line in how people vote. Labour did much better than the Conservatives amongst those who have a degree or higher, by 43% to 29%.

The Conservatives won amongst the much larger group of voters who do not hold a degree, however. They outperformed Labour by more than two to one (58% to 25%) amongst those whose highest level of education is GCSE or lower.

Labour is definitely the party of the affluent 'middle classes,' however much to claims its support lies in the 'working classes'

The Labour Party in 2015 was so different to 1997 when Labour went on to win 3 consecutive general elections

I think your post sums up my thoughts on those who don’t practice what they preach Doodledog - and it’s the preaching that gets me every time! At least with the Tories you know they’re out for themselves!

Those who need the most help Anniebach, for whatever reason.

I’m not a believer in “the deserving poor” or defining anyone as “feckless”!

Pantglas2 who or what is the lowest level of society ?

Pantglas2

“My question was whether those who think that it was immoral of AR to buy her house years before she was even an MP would be willing to sell their own houses at a rate that fairly reflects what they paid for them, allowing for improvements, changes in average salaries and so on, so that the next generation has the same chances as we did? I can't say I'd be keen to do that, unless it became law, as it would be to the detriment of my family, but then I don't blame people who also did what was best for their own families.”

And that’s the point isn’t it…she was always a Labour supporter, never mind being an MP, who would’ve been anti anything Tory…except when it fitted her pocket!

This is the hypocritical thing for me, people doing what is ‘best for their own families’ whilst professing to be for the lowest level of society - Tories in other words!

If I'm reading your post correctly, I don't agree. When AR bought her house she was in no way obligated to abide by LP policies (which, AFAIK, don't include repealing the right to buy). She was an 'ordinary woman' - a single parent, trying to do the best she could for herself and her family.

I don't see a conflict between not liking a policy (whether that is the sale of council houses, private education/medicine or whatever) and recognising that as long as it is in place it is the best thing for your family. If the houses around you are too expensive and the only one you can afford is a discounted council house, you might support policies aimed at building more affordable housing, but realise that until they are in place the only house you are going to be able to buy is that one. It's the same as wanting all schools to be good, with nobody able to buy advantage for their children, but living somewhere where the school would be bad for your children's education, so opting to go private. You can still campaign for the abolition of private schools, and still believe that they perpetuate unfairness, but not want to disadvantage your children. If people couldn't do that, there would only be MPs in 'good' areas with high-performing schools/good housing they could afford/decent hospitals and so on.

The Labour Party is not 'for the lowest level in society' either (whatever that means) . The membership is predominantly from the educated middle classes (or was at the last election), and I think the same is true of supporters, although to a lesser degree*. What it stands for is fairness for all - 'the many, not the few', and it has never wanted to drag everyone down in order to achieve that.

*there is a chart here to verify that. My screenshot shortcut isn't working for some reason, or I would post it, but you can easily scroll down to find it.

labourlist.org/2017/04/tim-bale-twenty-first-century-campaigning-just-what-did-labours-members-and-its-supporters-do-for-the-party-at-the-2015-general-election/

“My question was whether those who think that it was immoral of AR to buy her house years before she was even an MP would be willing to sell their own houses at a rate that fairly reflects what they paid for them, allowing for improvements, changes in average salaries and so on, so that the next generation has the same chances as we did? I can't say I'd be keen to do that, unless it became law, as it would be to the detriment of my family, but then I don't blame people who also did what was best for their own families.”

And that’s the point isn’t it…she was always a Labour supporter, never mind being an MP, who would’ve been anti anything Tory…except when it fitted her pocket!

This is the hypocritical thing for me, people doing what is ‘best for their own families’ whilst professing to be for the lowest level of society - Tories in other words!

Good question Doodledog

Germanshepherdsmum

*Doodledog*, how can you compare the purchase of a council house - a property provided and maintained with taxpayers’ money - at a discount and its subsequent resale at a profit with the purchase of a privately provided, maintained and owned house for 100% of market value and its subsequent sale for a profit?

I don't approve of the sale of council houses. I never did. However, I don't think that taking advantage of the scheme that allowed it is immoral, which is what I said in my post.

The fact that house prices are so high that many young people can't afford to buy them, when many older people have made a fortune simply by living in them is, however, morally dubious, surely? House prices (ie 'market values') are high because of the scarcity of options, one of the reasons for which is the sale of council houses, which used to be lived in by a significant percentage of people in the UK. This (amongst other things) has meant that many people have made a profit by doing nothing, and many other people are unable to afford somewhere to live, and I am questioning the morality of that.

My question was whether those who think that it was immoral of AR to buy her house years before she was even an MP would be willing to sell their own houses at a rate that fairly reflects what they paid for them, allowing for improvements, changes in average salaries and so on, so that the next generation has the same chances as we did? I can't say I'd be keen to do that, unless it became law, as it would be to the detriment of my family, but then I don't blame people who also did what was best for their own families.

Yes, exactly!
I resent the flats in my block ending up in the hands of people who live 40 odd miles away, who own a collection of them around here.

MissAdventure

So, she either agreed with the concept, or pushed it through knowing it was morally corrupt.

Neither option sounds great.

Was it morally corrupt or was she giving many people the chance to own (& maintain) their own homes?

What was entirely wrong was not to ringfence the proceeds and built more new stock and not to tighten he rules around reselling at vast profits.

So, she either agreed with the concept, or pushed it through knowing it was morally corrupt.

Neither option sounds great.

So?

She made the buying and selling legal

As far as I know she didn’t buy one.

A prime minister approved of buying and selling council houses, morally corrupt ?

Doodledog, how can you compare the purchase of a council house - a property provided and maintained with taxpayers’ money - at a discount and its subsequent resale at a profit with the purchase of a privately provided, maintained and owned house for 100% of market value and its subsequent sale for a profit?

We bought our house in Brixton in 1978/9 when the GLC was still in place. At that time mortgage lenders had strict criteria for lending, particularly on rundown houses. The GLC bought in a scheme where they would buy up old houses and then sell them on to people who had the ability to do them.

The house that we purchased was sold to us by a couple of developers who had hoped to benefit from that scheme but didn't and so they sold it on. We were only able to get a mortgage because I a former colleague was the accountant for a small building society.It cost us an arm and a leg.

I believe that such schemes have existed elsewhere and I think it would be better if young people, with some expertise, were able to do this now. Furthermore, there are warehouses, which could be purchased by local authorities, with govt funding, divided with wiring and plumbing installed and then sold on for young people to buy and fit out as and when they could afford to do so.

Our house was about to be condemned but the local council delayed the closing orders because of the change of ownership. My DH did most of the work (rewiring, plumbing, installing central heating etc etc). When we sold it was bought by the son of a Tory minister who set up what is now an influential contemporary art gallery. They were impressed by the fact that our little enclave was mentioned in Harpers and Queen and the Sunday Times as being an up and coming area.

I agree that it's not, and never has been ok to sell off council houses (or nationalised industries, but that's another thread), but it wasn't 'morally wrong' of those who took advantage of the chance to do so. For many people, it would have been their only chance to own a home, and a refusal to do so would have been a drop in the ocean, as so many people were doing it. That doesn't make it 'right', but at a time when house prices were rising so rapidly the chance to join the much-vaunted 'home owning democracy' will have seemed much better than continuing to pay rent, particularly as many estates fell into disrepair because of the lack of rents coming in as the housing was sold.

To those with socialist leanings it was clear at the time that it was wrong, and with hindsight, it became obvious even to many of those who voted for Thatcher that the scheme was responsible for the state of the housing market now. So many young people are unable to find an affordable home, partly because there were so few new council houses built with the proceeds of the sales, partly because many were bought up as buy-to-lets and rented out on insecure tenancies at high rents. Many people bought their parents' homes with the discounts, so they inherited them when the time came, and rent them out, continuing to profit from the fact that the social housing stock was so reduced in numbers, and reducing the availability of cheaper housing in many areas.

That situation would be remedied if people who have made £££ just by living in their houses (ex-council or not) decided that it would be morally wrong to accept sums significantly higher than they paid when they also take advantage of the way the housing market was skewed and sell their homes to the next generation. How is it morally right for someone who bought a house at (on average) three times the average salary for (again on average) eight times the average salary? It would be relatively easy to come up with a formula that would value a house for sale as equivalent in real terms to the price that was paid for it, and money spent on improvements could be set against rent-free years when the mortgage was paid off. Anomalies of other types could, I'm sure, be relatively easily ironed out, too.

Would anyone saying AR was 'immoral' vote for that? Thought not.

MissAdventure

So every person who bought a council place is morally corrupt? 😂

No, of course not. But she seems to run with the hares and hunt with the hounds.

Close
Robert Jenrick says the Conservatives are going to offer discounts and help with deposits to create a better housing market
Get our free View from Westminster email
Email

I would like to be emailed about offers, events and updates from The Independent. Read our privacy policy
Almost 200,000 council homes have been lost since the Tories came to power in 2010, new analysis has revealed - a number equivalent to all the homes in Bristol.

The latest government figures show that the number of homes rented from councils has dropped from 1,786,000 in 2010 to 1,592,000 by the end of 2018 - a fall of 194,000, or 11 per cent.

The number of council homes has dropped every year since 2010.

The fall is likely to be attributed in part to changes made under the Coalition Government, which drastically cut funding for council housing and diverted investment into "affordable housing". With "affordable" rents set at up to 80 per cent of market rates, this is typically much more expensive than council homes offered at social rents.

My idea of morally corrupt

So every person who bought a council place is morally corrupt? 😂