Keir Starmer and the Labour Party

[XAM2175]

... woke metropolitan views ...

Out of curiosity, what do you personally mean when you say this?

 

[NorthKent1989]

Out of curiosity, what do you personally mean when you say this?

That white people today should apologise for past sins, I’m mixed race and I don’t need any one to apologise for the past, it’s what goes on today is what matters.

That being proud of being English or British means you’re a racist.

This is one of many reasons why they have lost four elections and it’s not getting better for them

 

[WelshBluebird]

That white people today should apologise for past sins, I’m mixed race and I don’t need any one to apologise for the past, it’s what goes on today is what matters.

That being proud of being English or British means you’re a racist.

This is one of many reasons why they have lost four elections and it’s not getting better for them

And when have Labour as a party specifically said those exact things?

 

[Gloster]

If I might interject. The Labour Party may never have said those things, but it has allowed others to infer that that is their attitude. They have been repeatedly beaten over the end with this and have failed to even start fighting back.

 

[NorthKent1989]

And when have Labour as a party specifically said those exact things?

Look up Emily Thornberry and her views on those who fly the flag, their supporters certainly have a disdain for anything patriotic, Labour isn’t the party of national pride, and they certainly don’t do much for those who mock the people who hold patriotic views also you may want to take a look at the red I mean blue wall if you need further clues.

They don’t have to say anything specific either but their actions speak louder than their words.

 

[edwin_m]

I don't see Starmer standing down if Labour lose the by-election, but the pressure will really be on to start turning things around. In any event, I'd rather he was given another year to see if things improve rather than look to replace him after less than eighteen months.

As for his eventual successor, Lisa Nandy would be my choice. I genuinely can't understand the Burnham love-in.

I don't see anyone else doing any better than Starmer at the moment, with Labour's doings being so overshadowed by the response to Covid. I think Starmer should be given a chance to prove himself in more normal times.

 

[NorthKent1989]

I don't see anyone else doing any better than Starmer at the moment, with Labour's doings being so overshadowed by the response to Covid. I think Starmer should be given a chance to prove himself in more normal times.

I have to disagree with you, Starmer’s chance is now at this very moment, and he’s blown it, from backing every Lockdown and restrictions to the hilt to saying to concerned small business owners that “he didn’t need to listen to people like them” he’s shown his true colours and he needs to be replaced.

I have always said lockdown one was needed and lockdown two before the vaccines, but he’s clearly taken a zero covid approach which is impossible, and backed further restrictions which hurt the poorest in society

 

[TheBigD]

Labour are f**ked and Starmer ain't going to turn it around.

Whoever is the leader has got to bring fundamentally different wings of the party together who's views are in direct contrast to other sections.

The values of the LGBTetc are unlikely to appeal to conservative islam voters, indeed are in stark contrast.
Appealing to the muslim vote in places like Batley and Spen will not appeal to the large number of Indian voters in Leicester East and vv.
What appeals to Woke Newington doesn't appeal to working class communities in places like Hartlepool.
The hard/extrem left Vs the moderate left.

The identity politics that Labour adopted and promoted (and the inevitable division that it creates) has now come back to haunt them.

Looking at the Labour front bench do you see anyone capable of bridging those divides?
Their front bench doesn't look like a government in waiting in the way Tony Blair's did in the mid 1990's.

Regardless of your political stance, a government needs an opposition to hold them to account, and Labour are clearly failing on that front.

 

[NorthKent1989]

Labour are f**ked and Starmer ain't going to turn it around.

Whoever is the leader has got to bring fundamentally different wings of the party together who's views are in direct contrast to other sections.

The values of the LGBTetc are unlikely to appeal to conservative islam voters, indeed are in stark contrast.
Appealing to the muslim vote in places like Batley and Spen will not appeal to the large number of Indian voters in Leicester East and vv.
What appeals to Woke Newington doesn't appeal to working class communities in places like Hartlepool.
The hard/extrem left Vs the moderate left.

The identity politics that Labour adopted and promoted (and the inevitable division that it creates) has now come back to haunt them.

Looking at the Labour front bench do you see anyone capable of bridging those divides?
Their front bench doesn't look like a government in waiting in the way Tony Blair's did in the mid 1990's.

Regardless of your political stance, a government needs an opposition to hold them to account, and Labour are clearly failing on that front.

Spot on! Couldn’t put it better myself.

The Labour Party now looks like several smaller parties in one forced to work together and don’t really want to.

The party is too splintered now to ever win another election, and as you say, the Woke and Urban middle classes from Islington, Bristol or Manchester and the traditional northern working class labourites have nothing in common and have different values and concerns to ever come together, Conservative Muslims aren’t exactly tolerant of the LGBT community and EU Rejoiners are out of touch

The Lib Dem’s however are slowly creeping up by taking some seats in the Tory heartlands, and are stealing the some Shire Tory lot who won’t ever vote for Labour and would probably ordinarily vote for the Reform Party (like they did in the 2019 European elections) the Lib Dems have been a bit better in opposing the Tories, for instance making a loud and vocal stand against domestic vaccine passports but not by a great margin, but they seem to be more concerned with matters aside from Covid which is better than nothing.

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

Being possibly more connected than some on this forum to communities with a significant Muslim demographic, I can assure you that Labour is either finished or on life support, which is about to be switched off.

The pressing concerns I hear about Labour are:

1) The LGBT "agenda" - essentially Labour is promoting values which are still not widely accepted within certain communities. I should comment that for the most part, UK Muslims are tolerant of others, and probably take the live and let live approach. However, rightly or wrongly, certain communities (and especially worried about their children) feel as though they are expected to promote or actively accept these views, which remain highly controversial. A lot of people are still genuinely confused and are absolutely baffled by some of the alien concepts in this area, like headlines of men giving birth. Labour is associated with not only supporting that, but encouraging it. Most Muslims know what persecution and discrimination is, but they do not recognise the similarities with other minority groups. People have to understand, these views will simply not change, they are fundamental religious beliefs. The more people tell these communities that they are wrong or ignorant, the more divisive it becomes.

2) Years of neglect under Labour controlled councils and local MPs. Speaks for itself really. Simply time for a change, and who knows, a new Tory MP winning creates headlines and a spotlight on the area, perhaps some new funding is suddenly made available.

 

[Butts]

The next Election could well be a 1992 job - Labour expected to win and Boris does a John Major.

Your time will come the Election after that probably a landslide aka Blair - we will have been in for too long by then.

Only potential fly in the ointment is the seemingly permanent loss of your "Scottish Cannon Fodder Contingent" - 40 odd seats you miss badly.

 

[brad465]

Spot on! Couldn’t put it better myself.

The Labour Party now looks like several smaller parties in one forced to work together and don’t really want to.

The party is too splintered now to ever win another election, and as you say, the Woke and Urban middle classes from Islington, Bristol or Manchester and the traditional northern working class labourites have nothing in common and have different values and concerns to ever come together, Conservative Muslims aren’t exactly tolerant of the LGBT community and EU Rejoiners are out of touch

The Lib Dem’s however are slowly creeping up by taking some seats in the Tory heartlands, and are stealing the some Shire Tory lot who won’t ever vote for Labour and would probably ordinarily vote for the Reform Party (like they did in the 2019 European elections) the Lib Dems have been a bit better in opposing the Tories, for instance making a loud and vocal stand against domestic vaccine passports but not by a great margin, but they seem to be more concerned with matters aside from Covid which is better than nothing.

What this country really needs is a new party (or multiple for sake of accountability/choice) that is not bound to the behaviour/influence of either corporate donors (Tories) or Unions (Labour) and is prepared to act on issues/policies that neither of the main parties have the guts or interest to do. Pre-2010 that might have been the Lib Dems, before the coalition fallout. We're reaching the point that the best thing for politics in this country is an actual revolution.

The problem is our voting system would never allow it, and at the moment, even with talks of a progressive alliance, it's hard to see that happening because Labour need to acknowledge they will not have a majority come the next election from their current position, while all those "splinters" would rather have their views front and centre than focus on the common anti-Tory views they have. I imagine at least one, probably multiple of those groups, while perhaps in favour of PR (PR seems to be a more unifying view in the party right now), will not like the concept of some constituencies not having a Labour candidate standing there.

 

[317 forever]

Labour are f**ked and Starmer ain't going to turn it around.

Whoever is the leader has got to bring fundamentally different wings of the party together who's views are in direct contrast to other sections.

The values of the LGBTetc are unlikely to appeal to conservative islam voters, indeed are in stark contrast.
Appealing to the muslim vote in places like Batley and Spen will not appeal to the large number of Indian voters in Leicester East and vv.
What appeals to Woke Newington doesn't appeal to working class communities in places like Hartlepool.
The hard/extrem left Vs the moderate left.

The identity politics that Labour adopted and promoted (and the inevitable division that it creates) has now come back to haunt them.

Looking at the Labour front bench do you see anyone capable of bridging those divides?
Their front bench doesn't look like a government in waiting in the way Tony Blair's did in the mid 1990's.

Regardless of your political stance, a government needs an opposition to hold them to account, and Labour are clearly failing on that front.

Even in 1992 we had a better known shadow cabinet than we do now. It was only a different leader they needed at the time.

 

[tbtc]

If I might interject. The Labour Party may never have said those things, but it has allowed others to infer that that is their attitude. They have been repeatedly beaten over the end with this and have failed to even start fighting back.

This is a serious problem for Labour

Starmer's pronouncements have been pretty bland, middle of the road, reasonable without being inspiring... but Labour have allowed a noisy Corbynite wing to represent them (or stayed silent whilst a noisy Corbynite wing claim to represent them), and therefore allowed the right wing to use that to define what Labour actually want/ stand for

So you get the Novara Media types appearing as "talking heads" in the media because they have punchy views that can generate some rage... they come out with rhetoric like "Defund The Police" - now the right wing get to tar all of the Labour party with wanting to defund the police, and the Labour leader looks weak because he seems caught up in a crossfire

(the "Defund The Police" idea makes sense in a US-sense, where police budgets mean that local forces have some pretty expensive "weapons" - some of the "Defund The Police" arguments in the US were more along the lines of "at the moment the police budget includes a lot of spending on things like education/ rehabilitation/ addiction/ tackling root causes that would be better allocated to things like social workers or healthcare budgets" which sounds fairly sensible but you know that any Daily Mail reader will just read Defund The Police as meaning "we want to abolish the police" - which may be true of some of the provocative "Literally A Communist" Novara types but has never been mainstream Labour policy)

Starmer would do well to make it clear that the likes of them have nothing to do with the Labour party but he seems scared to tackle the "loony" wing, which allows them to flourish, and allows other people to portray all of Labour as being the same - really he should know that there are some MPs in the party and some media types who really do the Labour party no favours at all - Kinnock and Blair relished being strong against the far-left - they knew that it was the only way of attracting more moderate voters - but Starmer isn't doing much about the influx of such folk inherited from the Milliband/ Corbyn years

Look up Emily Thornberry and her views on those who fly the flag

They don’t have to say anything specific either but their actions speak louder than their words.

This is interesting

My understanding was that Thornberry posted a number of pictures from a by-election campaign in Kent (Rochester?), one of which was an image of a house with an England flag and a white van parked outside - I don't think that she said anything positive or negative about it - I don't remember any actually comments that were made by her - but Labour allowed the right wing to have the narrative that "Labour are mocking the patriotic working class" (the fact that no such mocking took place is irrelevant, people believe what they want to believe)

The Labour Party now looks like several smaller parties in one forced to work together and don’t really want to

The same is true of the Tory party - always has been - you have the traditionalist "conservative" types who want things like Green Belt, old fashioned values... you have the aspirational "C2" types who are more interested in their own finances than "class struggle"... you have the properly rich (who see things like the Green Belt as an obstacle to building)...

...but these different Tory voters all seem united in believing that a Tory government is better than any alternative

So we saw lots of Tory splits during the Brexit referendum (the rich understand the benefits of the common market, the "C2" types are more interested in patriotism and independence), but they soon came together afterwards because staying in power is what matters more

Whereas the left seems full of people who expect others to pass purity tests and would rather remain unsullied in opposition than get their hands dirty by compromising their way to power

The left wing contains a lot of people for whom that phrase about "letting the perfect be the enemy of the good" applies (whereas people on the right are happy to accept Johnson's foibles because he's still a Tory in the driving seat and that's better than any alternative)

2) Years of neglect under Labour controlled councils and local MPs. Speaks for itself really. Simply time for a change, and who knows, a new Tory MP winning creates headlines and a spotlight on the area, perhaps some new funding is suddenly made available.

There was a very telling interview during the Hartlepool by-election, where a couple of people told the interviewer that they were long term Labour voters who were going to vote Tory because Labour had neglected the town - the maternity ward had closed, the local hospital was neglected, the council had made spending cuts... it didn't seem to register with them that we've had a decade of Conservative rule in Westminster, which is where these decisions were from... weirdly, George Osbourn slashing the money given to local councils has meant that large numbers of people now blame Labour for imposing those cuts and they vote Tory as a result... it's not exactly Stockholm Syndrome, but I'm sure there's a phrase for it - you are responsible for hurting people so much that they abandon their previous party and start voting for you instead... amazing!

 

[A0wen]

This is a serious problem for Labour

Starmer's pronouncements have been pretty bland, middle of the road, reasonable without being inspiring... but Labour have allowed a noisy Corbynite wing to represent them (or stayed silent whilst a noisy Corbynite wing claim to represent them), and therefore allowed the right wing to use that to define what Labour actually want/ stand for

So you get the Novara Media types appearing as "talking heads" in the media because they have punchy views that can generate some rage... they come out with rhetoric like "Defund The Police" - now the right wing get to tar all of the Labour party with wanting to defund the police, and the Labour leader looks weak because he seems caught up in a crossfire

(the "Defund The Police" idea makes sense in a US-sense, where police budgets mean that local forces have some pretty expensive "weapons" - some of the "Defund The Police" arguments in the US were more along the lines of "at the moment the police budget includes a lot of spending on things like education/ rehabilitation/ addiction/ tackling root causes that would be better allocated to things like social workers or healthcare budgets" which sounds fairly sensible but you know that any Daily Mail reader will just read Defund The Police as meaning "we want to abolish the police" - which may be true of some of the provocative "Literally A Communist" Novara types but has never been mainstream Labour policy)

Starmer would do well to make it clear that the likes of them have nothing to do with the Labour party but he seems scared to tackle the "loony" wing, which allows them to flourish, and allows other people to portray all of Labour as being the same - really he should know that there are some MPs in the party and some media types who really do the Labour party no favours at all - Kinnock and Blair relished being strong against the far-left - they knew that it was the only way of attracting more moderate voters - but Starmer isn't doing much about the influx of such folk inherited from the Milliband/ Corbyn years

Disclosure - I'm not a member of any political party, but I have never voted Labour. My sympathies are generally with the Conservatives, however:

Labour's problem is its membership - and more particularly the element that expect that they can dictate the policies the party offers at elections and can dictate to MPs how they vote and more importantly their demand for an ideological purity of their leader.

The late Denis Healey summed it up on an excellent documentary about Labour's travails made in the 90's after John Smith's death - 'Your average Labour member or activist is not representative of your average Labour vote in the same way the 'blue rinse matrons' in the Tory party aren't representative of the average Tory voter'.

The responsibility for much of the current state of affairs in Labour actually goes back to 1980 - when Tony Benn led the charge to "give the members more power" - which lead to the electoral college to elect the leader, which ironically gave the biggest say to the trade unions at the time, it lead to the split by the gang of 4 who could see no practical way back for the Labour party and to this day gives members of Labour an expectation that they will dictate the party's policy whilst not really understanding many of them hold a worldview far to the left of most normal people.

The documentary I refer to is here and I can strongly recommend watching it - the parallels with Labour's current travails are noticeable.

Their problem now is two fold - firstly they lack any experienced senior MPs - Blair had worked alongside the likes of John Smith, Roy Hattersley and Gerald Kaufman all of whom had been ministers in the Callaghan government. He'd also been advised by Roy Jenkins, by then a Lib Dem peer, but again a senior and experienced politician. Starmer doesn't have that - any association with Blair or Mandelson will be thrown back in his face by the activists and members who still regard Blair as a traitor.

Secondly current shadow cabinet is a disaster zone of non-entities and dead beats. Anyone who seriously thinks Angela Rayner has even the basic skills to be an effective party leader is not inhabiting planet earth. Just about the only current member of the Shadow Cabinet I think could make a half-decent leader is Jonathan Ashworth, but I don't think he'll get a look in for 3 reasons:

Firstly, he's a white male means that those obsessed with ticking certain diversity boxes won't support him
Secondly, he's not tribal enough - though from a point of view through this pandemic of shadowing the health brief, for most people not trying to score cheap political points is probably to his credit, but some Labour members will regard him as a traitor for not 'opposing the Tories'.
Lastly, he represents a seat in a Midlands city - not one of Labour's 'northern city heartlands', nor a trendy area of London.

So whilst I think he would probably appeal to quite alot of people, notably swing voters, the current mentality of Labour's membership will prevent them selecting somebody who the country views as electable.

 

[JamesT]

This is interesting

My understanding was that Thornberry posted a number of pictures from a by-election campaign in Kent (Rochester?), one of which was an image of a house with an England flag and a white van parked outside - I don't think that she said anything positive or negative about it - I don't remember any actually comments that were made by her - but Labour allowed the right wing to have the narrative that "Labour are mocking the patriotic working class" (the fact that no such mocking took place is irrelevant, people believe what they want to believe)

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...resigns-rochester-tweet-labour-shadow-cabinet is a news story from the time.
I don't know if she or the Labour Party could have tried harder to dispel the notion that she was sneering at the working classes with the tweet, but she ended up having to resign over it.

 

[A0wen]

The next Election could well be a 1992 job - Labour expected to win and Boris does a John Major.

Your time will come the Election after that probably a landslide aka Blair - we will have been in for too long by then.

Only potential fly in the ointment is the seemingly permanent loss of your "Scottish Cannon Fodder Contingent" - 40 odd seats you miss badly.

There are some fundamental differences - at the next election (assuming Boris Johnson is still Conservative party leader) - the Conservatives won't have just changed their leader. Also at 1992, Kinnock had already lost one election but *had* changed the Labour party - his reforming of the Labour party started shortly after his election in 1983.

For Labour to win a landslide, they firstly need to find a credible leader - and by credible I mean viewed by the electorate as credible and the electorate seem to have a different view to Labour's members and activists who choose the leader. As I said upthread, the current shadow cabinet doesn't inspire confidence - I think Jon Ashworth could be good, but beyond that ? And their back benchers are no better - Richard Burgon ? Clive Lewis ? really ?

Labour have only had 3 leaders since WW2 that have actually won them elections - none were particularly left wing, particularly when they became PM.

Attlee - very much of the 'Fabian' wing of the Labour party.

Wilson - described by Denis Healey as "Vaguely Liberal at Oxford, and a civil servant during the war, Harold Wilson had won fame as Attlee's President of the Board of Trade, by promising 'a bonfire of controls'. He applied himself seriously to Labour Party politics for the first time when he threw in his lot with Bevanism in 1951, as 'Nye's little dog', to use Dalton's words. Then, as Bevan's star faded, he moved far enough towards the centre to be elected leader of the Labour Party when Gaitskell died in 1962. " - and the alternative candidate was George Brown, who had something of a drink problem, as Tony Crosland put it the Labour party's choice was between a crook (Wilson) or a drunk (Brown). - it's fair to say Wilson was probably a careerist rather and moved to wherever the centre of the political gravity was.

Blair - very much on the centre right of the Labour party.

Of Labour's other leaders since the war:

Gaitskell - of the centre-right.
Callaghan - of the centre - probably the last 'Old Labour' leader of the party coming from the Trade Union background.
Foot - a socialist left winger.
Kinnock - Foot's protege, like Wilson he moved to the centre following the political centre of gravity.
John Smith - of the right, but his premature death means we'll never know if he would have won or lost an election.
Gordon Brown - more centrist that Blair.
Ed Miliband - centre-left.
Corbyn - hard left.
Starmer - probably somewhere between Brown and Miliband.

 

[colchesterken]

How did we, the majority allow themselves to be convinced to vote for first past the post in the referendum, what was on offer was not the real thing but could have been a stepping stone, again the lib dems allowed their policy to be over run by the Conservatives
Same as Scotland they believed Cameron when he said the only way to stay in EU was to stay in UK, look where that got them
I repeat to myself never believe ANY politician they will say anything that suits them.
Ops forgot the Lib Dem in Amersham she promised to fight HS2 when her party voted for it

 

[WelshBluebird]

1) The LGBT "agenda" - essentially Labour is promoting values which are still not widely accepted within certain communities. I should comment that for the most part, UK Muslims are tolerant of others, and probably take the live and let live approach. However, rightly or wrongly, certain communities (and especially worried about their children) feel as though they are expected to promote or actively accept these views, which remain highly controversial. A lot of people are still genuinely confused and are absolutely baffled by some of the alien concepts in this area, like headlines of men giving birth. Labour is associated with not only supporting that, but encouraging it. Most Muslims know what persecution and discrimination is, but they do not recognise the similarities with other minority groups. People have to understand, these views will simply not change, they are fundamental religious beliefs. The more people tell these communities that they are wrong or ignorant, the more divisive it becomes.

It almost feels like you are suggesting that Labour need to pander to homophobic views in order to get elected. I don't believe that for one minute. You talk about Labour "encouraging the LGBT agenda" (what on earth that is who knows) but it was the Conservatives who legalised gay marriage, yet someone I don't see you claiming that had a negative impact on them in those communities.

2) Years of neglect under Labour controlled councils and local MPs. Speaks for itself really. Simply time for a change, and who knows, a new Tory MP winning creates headlines and a spotlight on the area, perhaps some new funding is suddenly made available.

Which of course is pretty ironic considering the last ten years of "neglect" has been directly caused by Tory governments cutting council budgets.

A corrupt Tory government being willing to give extra funding to an area that has just switched to a Tory MP or council shouldn't be a reason to support the Tories - it should be a reason to oppose their blatant corruption and attempts to essentially blackmail the people in those areas (e.g. Vote for us else you won't get the funding you need - which is basically what they tried in both the recent local elections and the Chesham and Amersham byelection).

If I might interject. The Labour Party may never have said those things, but it has allowed others to infer that that is their attitude. They have been repeatedly beaten over the end with this and have failed to even start fighting back.

This is where I do think they have a problem, and to be fair despite the fact I disagree with a lot of what I've quoted Tazi Huypefi above about, it is something they kind of touch on that I think has merit. A lot of the groups who vote for Labour have fairly specific viewpoints that sometimes conflict with each other quite a bit, whereas a lot of the groups who vote Tory are much more likely to accept something they see as "bad" if it means they can push their own agenda too. I worry that if Labour fought back against that story, then the other Labour supporting groups would take it as an attack against them.

Look up Emily Thornberry and her views on those who fly the flag, their supporters certainly have a disdain for anything patriotic, Labour isn’t the party of national pride, and they certainly don’t do much for those who mock the people who hold patriotic views also you may want to take a look at the red I mean blue wall if you need further clues.

They don’t have to say anything specific either but their actions speak louder than their words.

You mean the person who was sacked and publicly condemned by pretty much every major figure in the party at the time? Kind of felt to me that the parties actions should have spoken louder than their words there - but you just remember the words from one person.

In terms of the red / blue wall - that's a whole lot more complicated than just patriotism and has a lot to do with originally the Tories throwing those areas under the bus decades ago and successive governments of both colours letting those areas to essentially rot.

Do I think there are issues with how some people in that Labour party have treated voters in such areas? Yes. But that isn't about national price or patriotism specifically. It is a much wider issue, one that has blame on both sides. I really don't have a problem with Labour calling out bigotry from certain groups of people and given I am from a "working class" Labour heartland, I know a fair number of Labour voters who are homophobic and racist bigots - but of course a politician can't say that (in a way Gordon Brown was right, his fault was saying it when he still had a mic on!).

It's also worth saying that the Tories and the right in general are quite clever about this, as some of the posts above have nodded towards - in that they roll out things to specifically get a reaction from the left / Labour (e.g. some of the more ridiculous flag waving rubbish), and then based on that reaction the Tories shout about how the left hate Britain. The Tories do this with Wales and Scotland too - rolling out ludicrous things just to antagonise and get a reaction (the latest one for Wales is an 8 story Union Flag on the side of the new HMRC building in central Cardiff).

 

[brad465]

Disclosure - I'm not a member of any political party, but I have never voted Labour. My sympathies are generally with the Conservatives, however:

Labour's problem is its membership - and more particularly the element that expect that they can dictate the policies the party offers at elections and can dictate to MPs how they vote and more importantly their demand for an ideological purity of their leader.

The late Denis Healey summed it up on an excellent documentary about Labour's travails made in the 90's after John Smith's death - 'Your average Labour member or activist is not representative of your average Labour vote in the same way the 'blue rinse matrons' in the Tory party aren't representative of the average Tory voter'.

The responsibility for much of the current state of affairs in Labour actually goes back to 1980 - when Tony Benn led the charge to "give the members more power" - which lead to the electoral college to elect the leader, which ironically gave the biggest say to the trade unions at the time, it lead to the split by the gang of 4 who could see no practical way back for the Labour party and to this day gives members of Labour an expectation that they will dictate the party's policy whilst not really understanding many of them hold a worldview far to the left of most normal people.
Their problem now is two fold - firstly they lack any experienced senior MPs - Blair had worked alongside the likes of John Smith, Roy Hattersley and Gerald Kaufman all of whom had been ministers in the Callaghan government. He'd also been advised by Roy Jenkins, by then a Lib Dem peer, but again a senior and experienced politician. Starmer doesn't have that - any association with Blair or Mandelson will be thrown back in his face by the activists and members who still regard Blair as a traitor.

Based on this I wonder how on earth Starmer managed to get in given what you say about the membership that supposedly elected him. There are many on the far left of the party who think Starmer is "Tory-lite" just because he's to the right of them, even though he's still left of centre.

The major problem in politics and the economy though is the political spectrum we think of realistically relates to pre-2008, when centrist views worked on the basis that neoliberalism was working. Until 2008, when neoliberalism catastrophically failed, but nobody in politics, either here, in the US or abroad was able to propose a new narrative/solution to it, and certainly not anything like FDR's solution to the Great Depression, or Thatcher/Reagan's solution to the 1970s economic problems. This failure to find a new system created a vacuum that has allowed both extreme left and right views to prevail. As New Labour was in charge in 2008, they weren't voted back in in pursuit of change, but the coalition brought in austerity and economic mismanagement from the Bank of England's QE and low interest rates made things worse for ordinary folk. It just so happens Labour haven't really been able to come up with something that appeals as a new narrative/vision, and what the Tories (masking as UKIP) have come up with is appealing but often lies.

If Labour don't come up with an appealing new vision off the back of Covid (so realistically they've got until the end of this year) then they'll have blown their chances, unless they or someone else sensible can find a new vision when neoliberalism does fail once and for all, as the market bubbles in house prices, markets and whatnot can't inflate forever.

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

Regarding the above post about Labour "pandering" to homophobic views - if Labour continues to be perceived as though that they are not only supportive, but actively encouraging the furtherance and promotion of LGBT etc rights, this is going to cause Northern communities who are more religiously conservative than others, to view Labour critically, and will simply cost votes. I have to say though, that I'm not sure Labour as a political party is especially LGBT minded, but somehow they've ended up as the party seen as "woke".

It's not about pandering, it's binary. Support LGBT = Less votes from some religious communities.

However, I do find it intriguing how Labour still enjoys a fair amount of support in London amongst Muslim communities, so, in time, Northern communities may soften on this aspect, especially as the younger generations have more influence.

I find it totally bizarre that in 2021 this is even a factor for people, and a significant one at that, but that's religious philosophy for you.

 

[A0wen]

Based on this I wonder how on earth Starmer managed to get in given what you say about the membership that supposedly elected him. There are many on the far left of the party who think Starmer is "Tory-lite" just because he's to the right of them, even though he's still left of centre.

The major problem in politics and the economy though is the political spectrum we think of realistically relates to pre-2008, when centrist views worked on the basis that neoliberalism was working. Until 2008, when neoliberalism catastrophically failed, but nobody in politics, either here, in the US or abroad was able to propose a new narrative/solution to it, and certainly not anything like FDR's solution to the Great Depression, or Thatcher/Reagan's solution to the 1970s economic problems. This failure to find a new system created a vacuum that has allowed both extreme left and right views to prevail. As New Labour was in charge in 2008, they weren't voted back in in pursuit of change, but the coalition brought in austerity and economic mismanagement from the Bank of England's QE and low interest rates made things worse for ordinary folk. It just so happens Labour haven't really been able to come up with something that appeals as a new narrative/vision, and what the Tories (masking as UKIP) have come up with is appealing but often lies.

If Labour don't come up with an appealing new vision off the back of Covid (so realistically they've got until the end of this year) then they'll have blown their chances, unless they or someone else sensible can find a new vision when neoliberalism does fail once and for all, as the market bubbles in house prices, markets and whatnot can't inflate forever.

Your post is clearly using "neo-liberalism" in a pejorative way.

The fact you think any political party dictates how economies are run globally suggests you will continue to be disappointed. The changes in the 80s were global - and countries which didn't follow the trend fell behind - even China has followed neo liberal economics to a greater or lesser extent.

Labour can try and argue for a new world economic order, but the voters will ask who's going to pay for it - and when you tell them they will and that means not getting a new car, not flying off on a nice holiday etc and the trade offs are things they don't want or don't value, they will be rejected at the ballot box. It's why those on the hard left believe in insurrection or revolution, because they know full well people won't vote for what they propose or will want it changed before the "glorious revolution" is complete.

 

[brad465]

Your post is clearly using "neo-liberalism" in a pejorative way.

The fact you think any political party dictates how economies are run globally suggests you will continue to be disappointed. The changes in the 80s were global - and countries which didn't follow the trend fell behind - even China has followed neo liberal economics to a greater or lesser extent.

Labour can try and argue for a new world economic order, but the voters will ask who's going to pay for it - and when you tell them they will and that means not getting a new car, not flying off on a nice holiday etc and the trade offs are things they don't want or don't value, they will be rejected at the ballot box. It's why those on the hard left believe in insurrection or revolution, because they know full well people won't vote for what they propose or will want it changed before the "glorious revolution" is complete.

Well one thing is clear, and no political party dares mention it for reasons you allude to, our obsession with GDP growth will be the death of us unless we change, because infinite growth on a finite planet is impossible (and in some ways behind covid's origins through our environmental destruction), there's no hiding from that. So something will have to change, whatever our current way of doing things can be described as.

As for your point about the hard left, chances are many of those you describe, especially the youngsters, are already deprived of those sorts of assets a new world economic order would deprive them of; certainly not being able to buy a house but seeing one's ancestors being able to with perceived ease will be driving their beliefs. Therefore I suggest if you or anyone else of similar views believes change isn't needed, try and make the current system work for them, because right now it either isn't or at the very least making them believe it isn't.

Oh, and while they might believe in insurrection or revolution, the events in Washington on January 6th 2021 show such action is far from limited to one side.

 

[A0wen]

Well one thing is clear, and no political party dares mention it for reasons you allude to, our obsession with GDP growth will be the death of us unless we change, because infinite growth on a finite planet is impossible (and in some ways behind covid's origins through our environmental destruction), there's no hiding from that. So something will have to change, whatever our current way of doing things can be described as.

As for your point about the hard left, chances are many of those you describe, especially the youngsters, are already deprived of those sorts of assets a new world economic order would deprive them of; certainly not being able to buy a house but seeing one's ancestors being able to with perceived ease will be driving their beliefs. Therefore I suggest if you or anyone else of similar views believes change isn't needed, try and make the current system work for them, because right now it either isn't or at the very least making them believe it isn't.

Oh, and while they might believe in insurrection or revolution, the events in Washington on January 6th 2021 show such action is far from limited to one side.

The "young" Corbynite protestors are usually middle class, well educated. They are basically middle class Marxists, like the dear leader himself. They haven't a clue about the working class, how to relate to them or what motivates them. The "real" working class young are actually working, trying to get on in life and progress. The last thing they need is patronising by the out of touch middle class hard left who have rarely done a day's work.

Harold Wilson summed up such people in his memoirs when talking about the Oxford University Labour club "One meeting... was enough for me... What I felt I could not stomach was all those Marxist public school products rambling on about the exploited workers and the need for a socialist revolution.... I felt that the Oxford Labour Club wasn't for the likes of me... certainly I never had any common cause with the public school Marxist."

That perfectly describes the Foots, the Benns, the Corbyns of this world.

The proper working class hold Corbyn and his ilk in contempt - and a genuine working class guy, Alan Johnson summed it up on election night.

 

[brad465]

The "young" Corbynite protestors are usually middle class, well educated. They are basically middle class Marxists, like the dear leader himself. They haven't a clue about the working class, how to relate to them or what motivates them. The "real" working class young are actually working, trying to get on in life and progress. The last thing they need is patronising by the out of touch middle class hard left who have rarely done a day's work.

Harold Wilson summed up such people in his memoirs when talking about the Oxford University Labour club "One meeting... was enough for me... What I felt I could not stomach was all those Marxist public school products rambling on about the exploited workers and the need for a socialist revolution.... I felt that the Oxford Labour Club wasn't for the likes of me... certainly I never had any common cause with the public school Marxist."

That perfectly describes the Foots, the Benns, the Corbyns of this world.

The proper working class hold Corbyn and his ilk in contempt - and a genuine working class guy, Alan Johnson summed it up on election night.

Your first sentence appears to be an oxymoron, which if true would suggest the education system isn't teaching the right stuff. I do believe though the education system isn't fit for standard, in that we need more teaching of critical thinking, analysis, debating and proposing solutions to problems, which would go a long way to solving the divided nature of society and limit the behaviour of people like John Lansman, who in the video you quote does summarise a key problem with momentum, in that they think they're right and won't even take a bad election result as proof otherwise.

I have no idea how Corbyn actually gained in 2017, even though his approval ratings remained low, as that provided a false sense of security for him and the party. But at the same as I said further up I don't know how the same membership that twice voted for Corbyn also voted for Starmer, as they're very differently aligned but the membership hasn't changed all that much in that time.

I wouldn't be surprised if Corbyn stands down as an MP in the next election, which would reduce the perception of his ideology in the party (especially as most of his supporters are more focused on him in retrospect than finding a successor to continue his supposed mission): there's no sign he's getting the Labour whip back and he may decide to try and make impacts elsewhere, such as in this new Peace and Justice project he's started up.

I stand by my belief that society needs big reform as many aspects of it are unsustainable, but as many of the associated challenges are new, they will require new solutions. What Corbyn proposed was a lot of old stuff that didn't seem workable, but that doesn't mean Labour or another party shouldn't come up with radical change for the future.

 

[quantinghome]

But at the same as I said further up I don't know how the same membership that twice voted for Corbyn also voted for Starmer, as they're very differently aligned but the membership hasn't changed all that much in that time.

There was actually a pretty big turnover in membership. Lots of new members joined specifically to vote for Starmer and many former members who had quit over Corbyn rejoined. Meanwhile, exiting stage left were the more extreme left wing members, some quitting the day after the 2019 election, others immediately after Starmer was elected, still more after Starmer did something they disagreed with. They have either quit active politics (but not Twitter!) or joined the Greens or one of the many fringe socialist parties.

That said, there were many members who did vote for both Corbyn and Starmer. These actually represent the bulk of the Labour membership, the so-called 'soft left', who are not ideological fundamentalists but basically want to make the country 'nicer' (for want of a better word) - keeping the NHS public and properly fund it, high quality education for all, public services worthy of the name, address the problems of free market economics, make sure rich people and companies pay their fair share of tax, that sort of thing.

Judging from the votes for deputy leader in April 2020, the hard core left wing made up around 20% of the membership at the time, but that will have gone down considerably now. Corbyn of course had these members' votes, but he was able to become leader by persuading soft left members to vote for him on the basis that the status quo wasn't working and that things needed shaking up. He then got re-elected in 2016 because members felt he had been treated unfairly by the parliamentary party (and the challenger was poor), and the 2017 election result then secured his leadership. However through 2018 many soft left members who had voted for him became severely disenchanted. By early 2019 the 'Oh Jeremy Corbyn' days were long gone. After the 2019 election they were looking for a pair of safe hands which Starmer embodied.

As for the general accusations of wokery from Labour, this appears to be a rebadging of 'political correctness (gone mad)', 'the loony left' and further back 'do-goodery'. It's mostly nonsense, although there are always one or two incidents people can point to if they are so inclined. Most of the current accusations against Labour can be summed up by the following video:
Harry Enfield - 'L Is for Labour' - YouTube

But Labour are being hammered by it nonetheless, and it needs to be addressed head on - it requires something like the rapid rebuttal unit which worked well back in the 1990s. But that takes lots of money to do well and unfortunately Labour face a very well-resourced opponent.

 

[NorthKent1989]

It almost feels like you are suggesting that Labour need to pander to homophobic views in order to get elected. I don't believe that for one minute. You talk about Labour "encouraging the LGBT agenda" (what on earth that is who knows) but it was the Conservatives who legalised gay marriage, yet someone I don't see you claiming that had a negative impact on them in those communities.

Which of course is pretty ironic considering the last ten years of "neglect" has been directly caused by Tory governments cutting council budgets.

A corrupt Tory government being willing to give extra funding to an area that has just switched to a Tory MP or council shouldn't be a reason to support the Tories - it should be a reason to oppose their blatant corruption and attempts to essentially blackmail the people in those areas (e.g. Vote for us else you won't get the funding you need - which is basically what they tried in both the recent local elections and the Chesham and Amersham byelection).

This is where I do think they have a problem, and to be fair despite the fact I disagree with a lot of what I've quoted Tazi Huypefi above about, it is something they kind of touch on that I think has merit. A lot of the groups who vote for Labour have fairly specific viewpoints that sometimes conflict with each other quite a bit, whereas a lot of the groups who vote Tory are much more likely to accept something they see as "bad" if it means they can push their own agenda too. I worry that if Labour fought back against that story, then the other Labour supporting groups would take it as an attack against them.

You mean the person who was sacked and publicly condemned by pretty much every major figure in the party at the time? Kind of felt to me that the parties actions should have spoken louder than their words there - but you just remember the words from one person.

In terms of the red / blue wall - that's a whole lot more complicated than just patriotism and has a lot to do with originally the Tories throwing those areas under the bus decades ago and successive governments of both colours letting those areas to essentially rot.

Do I think there are issues with how some people in that Labour party have treated voters in such areas? Yes. But that isn't about national price or patriotism specifically. It is a much wider issue, one that has blame on both sides. I really don't have a problem with Labour calling out bigotry from certain groups of people and given I am from a "working class" Labour heartland, I know a fair number of Labour voters who are homophobic and racist bigots - but of course a politician can't say that (in a way Gordon Brown was right, his fault was saying it when he still had a mic on!).

It's also worth saying that the Tories and the right in general are quite clever about this, as some of the posts above have nodded towards - in that they roll out things to specifically get a reaction from the left / Labour (e.g. some of the more ridiculous flag waving rubbish), and then based on that reaction the Tories shout about how the left hate Britain. The Tories do this with Wales and Scotland too - rolling out ludicrous things just to antagonise and get a reaction (the latest one for Wales is an 8 story Union Flag on the side of the new HMRC building in central Cardiff).

She resigned in 2014 and came back in 2016.

But she only said what most in the Islington Labour set think of those who are patriotic.

And let’s be honest has Labour done anything to reach out to its former core voters in the years since? No it’s gotten worse.

Things like gender pronouns are small fry, first world problems that aren’t actually problems and doesn’t exactly solve the issues facing working class people, pandering to BLM and taking the knee isn’t exactly going to win votes either.

No one is suggesting that Labour should be homophobic or racist to get voters back, because to say that people don’t vote Labour because they are is an ignorant statement in itself, but Labour have clearly chosen identity politics as a position which makes them off putting.

Labour is in a hard and rocky place, centrism doesn’t work and going hard left doesn’t work either, the Tories have cleverly packaged Brexit and the crackdown on wokeness as a “working class revolt” for free speech and against the much hated urban middle class left wingers who have done nothing but clutch at pearls around their necks, while Labour have been haemorrhaging voters.

 

[notlob.divad]

abour can try and argue for a new world economic order, but the voters will ask who's going to pay for it - and when you tell them they will and that means not getting a new car, not flying off on a nice holiday etc and the trade offs are things they don't want or don't value, they will be rejected at the ballot box. It's why those on the hard left believe in insurrection or revolution, because they know full well people won't vote for what they propose or will want it changed before the "glorious revolution" is complete

The 'simple' answer in modern politics is you don't tell them and then dismiss the warnings from the other side as scaremongering/project fear etc etc, claim you don't accept them, and that everyone will be more prosperous in the land of unicorns and rainbows.

Sadly the tory party and the right in general are far better at this level of dishonesty than the left which for some unknown reason seems to value honesty and reason over lies and bombast.

 

[A0wen]

The 'simple' answer in modern politics is you don't tell them and then dismiss the warnings from the other side as scaremongering/project fear etc etc, claim you don't accept them, and that everyone will be more prosperous in the land of unicorns and rainbows.

Sadly the tory party and the right in general are far better at this level of dishonesty than the left which for some unknown reason seems to value honesty and reason over lies and bombast.

The problem with your 'thesis' is that most people are better off than they were in 1979, 1997 or 2010, despite what you may think.

Whereas these "alternatives" absolutely will make the vast majority worse off and prevent them from doing things they may want to do. And all that will achieve is some people leaving to live in other, more economically liberal societies and unhappiness from those that remain.

Ask yourself why people were queueing up to leave the Soviet bloc, whereas those trying to go the other way were limited to the likes of Kim Philby, Guy Burgess and Donald Mclean. Or why people aren't exactly queuing up to go and live in Cuba or Venezuela, both of whom claim to be operating a different economic model.

 

[notlob.divad]

The problem with your 'thesis' is that most people are better off than they were in 1979, 1997 or 2010, despite what you may think.

Whereas these "alternatives" absolutely will make the vast majority worse off and prevent them from doing things they may want to do. And all that will achieve is some people leaving to live in other, more economically liberal societies and unhappiness from those that remain.

Ask yourself why people were queueing up to leave the Soviet bloc, whereas those trying to go the other way were limited to the likes of Kim Philby, Guy Burgess and Donald Mclean. Or why people aren't exactly queuing up to go and live in Cuba or Venezuela, both of whom claim to be operating a different economic model.

Oh you took it seriously.