Westminster Politics

Brexit: Johnson condemned for dropping pledge to replace family reunion law
Lawyers warn loss of reunion rights for unaccompanied refugee children will put them in danger
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...dropping-pledge-to-replace-family-reunion-law

"The ideal election outcome is a large Tory majority since Boris would then be able to govern from the middle, without pressure from the extremes of the party."
 
We've been over this before






Again I can only recommend you go back and look at the New Labour years - Anti immigration speeches on the white cliffs of dover, British Jobs for British People, opening of immigration detention centres, prevent, Blunkett accusing asylum seekers’ of swamping British schools, The BNP winning two seats in the european elections, etc etc.

Britain was a racist shit hole long before 2016.



The great myth of the british working class
https://www.huckmag.com/perspective.../the-great-myth-of-the-british-working-class/

Jeremy Corbyn And The Working Class
https://averypublicsociologist.blogspot.com/2017/07/jeremy-corbyn-and-working-class.html

plus how we measure class in Britain is pretty awful - https://www.patreon.com/posts/your-incorrect-12895193

Also good article on the working class conservatism



I've literally said labour failure with over 65 is a massive problem and that I'm not sure what to do about it(Other than blade runner cities). But the usual conservative swing isn't happening(Turn out in the last election was shite)for the reasons I always bang on about. Plus we haven't got another 25 years to wait because well everything is on fire but I don't think being a bit racist proud of Britain is going to solve the issue.


The articles that you posted just seem like desperate rationalisations as to why the project Corbyn should continue. The fact is that Nigel Farage started the culture wars we're talking about to grow UKIP, Dominic Cummings exploited these cultures wars to win Brexit and then to win power for Boris. These culture wars are not going to go away, in fact I'll predict now that Cummings and The Tories are going to seek to deepen them and make them a defining feature of the political landscape in order to win power as they continue to disenfranchise disadvantaged communities economically.

I guess my perception is partly coloured by my own life experience. One of the former northern Labour safe seats that went Tory, Heywood & Middleton is a constituency I know very well. Middleton and Heywood are working class to lower middle class areas, some of the towns there were created for the slum clearances in Manchester, such as Langley where Paul Scholes is from. My first house was a terraced in Middleton and I worked there in my younger days and know many people there still. I'm also in Heywood on a semi-regular basis. In 2014 there was a by-election after Jim Dobbin died (someone my dad worked with for a decade in the NHS). Nigel Farage saw this as an opportunity to advance the Brexit cause and was in the town centre in pubs and standing on top of tanks stating.

“We are parking our tanks on Labour’s lawn – that’s the message ”

UKIP came close to winning that by-election but Labour hung on in the end. You can look at this as a pivotal moment in this whole process of the culture wars that brought us Brexit and nearly destroyed the Labour party under Corbyn's leadership. The constituency was 62% Leave. I know the people and the character of these two towns and they are socially conservative and Corbyn's labour doesn't speak to them at all and I'll include many of the younger generation in that. I'd be amazed if any of the other similar towns that have gone Tory are any different. No amount of middle class Corbynistas trying redefine what the working class actually is will change the fact that these people were Labour's traditional base, if you want to understand who they are, its the people that you've created a derogatory term for - the gammon! They have to be won back for Labour to get into power.

I know that you keep saying that you accept the older white working class voters are a problem but you shrug your shoulders and say 'I dunno' i.e. we must continue project Corbyn at all costs. And no, I'm not suggesting that we simply become a more nationalist party as you keep trying to use as a slur, I'm saying that we need to accept the profound rejection of Corbynism and re-calibrate the party entirely, leave Corbynism behind completely.

I guess this is the impasse though because no matter what we say to each other our opinions are not going to change on this point. I accept though, that given the way the party is now structured that we'll likely see your vision realised but my perception is that this faction is incapable of taking on a more competent Tory leadership than May's with Cummings pulling the strings for Boris.
 
I know that you keep saying that you accept the older white working class voters are a problem but you shrug your shoulders and say 'I dunno' i.e. we must continue project Corbyn at all costs. And no, I'm not suggesting that we simply become a more nationalist party as you keep trying to use as a slur, I'm saying that we need to accept the profound rejection of Corbynism and re-calibrate the party entirely, leave Corbynism behind completely.

I guess this is the impasse though because no matter what we say to each other our opinions are not going to change on this point. I accept though, that given the way the party is now structured that we'll likely see your vision realised but my perception is that this faction is incapable of taking on a more competent Tory leadership than May's with Cummings pulling the strings for Boris.
Yeah we never going to agree(We have fundamentally a different way of viewing class).

The working class our "blue collar Tories" and their Blue Labour analogues get into a lather about is the working class of the past. The contemporary working class, the socialised worker is disproportionately young, more likely to be disengaged from official politics, but also largely spontaneously anti-Tory thanks to how the Tories are barriers to getting on and have vested interests in keeping this state of affairs so their voter coalition can hold together.

Why the old and the retired then. Why are they prepared to return governments who actively make life tougher for their children and grand children. Well, obviously, they don't see it like that. At its most conscious it's going to be articulated as tough love but ultimately, as a group of voters and a segment within the wider class structure there are certain structural characteristics conditioning their choices. The first is property. After a life time of work under a more benign economic and political settlement than now, they are more likely to own a home and have a decent pension. A decent number hold small quantities of shares. As modest as this property ownership is, you want to keep hold of it. And so suggestions Labour are going to tax the rich is code for 'they want to nationalise my bungalow'. Property, therefore, is something to be jealously guarded.

On top of this has to be considered the atomising effects of retirement. From the discipline of the working day to a modest but real enough freedom, retirement opens up the vistas of free time (conditioned by income, naturally) not available to those in work. As such it is a relative estrangement from the social and, therefore, the interests articulating and clashing within it. Further, whether a pensioner has property or not - about a third don't - the bulk of retirees are on fixed and modest incomes without the means, and in some cases the capacity, to make good shortfalls if, for whatever reason, something goes wrong. This means pensioners are prey to the sorts of ontological anxieties. In this case, a suspicion of change, a bewilderment tinged with fear about the state of the world, and a propensity to soak up stories that feed these anxieties. See The Mail, for example. Within this imaginary Corbyn was a danger because he cavorted with Britain's enemies, and condensed all their fears around tolerance, multiculturalism, softness, and big spending. He epitomised all that was wrong, now and in the immediate future. And so their votes for "change", be it Brexit or Boris, is a vote against a world that scares them, do not understand, and do not want to understand. This is pensioner as petit bourgeois.

Social being conditions consciousness, and the Tory gains demonstrate this better than anything else. In Bed Bradley's Mansfield, over the last three decades (according to Centre for Towns research), the number of over 65s are up 30%. Bolsover 35%. Scunthorpe 40%. Younger people, the socialised workers, have tended to mover where the jobs are - hence the massive Labour majorities in the big cities - and those left are more likely to be stuck in the more precarious, low paid end of the labour market and not be as likely to vote as their pensionable neighbours. Therefore Labour's collapse in these seats has been a long time coming - but could have been headed off. The Tory victory then was brought by attracting older voters by patriotism, their attachment to the eternal solidity of Britain/England in an uncertain world and their outrage at London elites disregarding their leave votes. After all, Brexit for them is not about Singapore-on-Thames but asserting independence, putting the Great back into GB and sparking off national renewal.
 
Two in three voters want Boris Johnson's government to ban zero-hours contracts, poll finds

Survey shows public wants workers' rights guaranteed after Brexit and backs tax rises to pay for public services

Two-thirds of voters want Boris Johnson‘s government to ban zero-hours contracts, a poll has found.

The public also wants workers’ rights protected after Brexit and tax rises for higher earners, according to the survey for the Trade Union Congress (TUC).

Trade union leaders said the poll meant Mr Johnson had “no more excuses” for not ensuring that rights are protected after Brexit.

The prime minister has said he is aware that many former Labour voters lent the Tories their vote at the general election and expect the government to now deliver for them.

However, he faced immediate criticism this week after ditching workers’ rights guarantees from the bill ratifying his Brexit deal.

A guarantee that current rights would not be weakened was included in a draft of the bill published in October but has been dropped from the latest version, prompting criticism from Labour MPs and campaigners.

The government insists that workers’ rights will be protected in separate legislation.

According to the survey, conducted by GQR for the TUC, 73 per cent of voters want the government to maintain and enhance current workers’ rights guaranteed by the EU. At 79 per cent, the proportion is even higher among voters who switched from Labour to the Conservatives at the general election.

Sixty-eight per cent of voters want the minimum wage to be raised to £10 an hour immediately, rising to 76 per cent among Labour-Tory switches, while 66 per cent of voters also want to see zero-hours contracts banned.

Labour had vowed to scrap zero-hours contracts but the Tories have argued that they give workers flexibility and should be properly regulated but not banned.

The poll also revealed widespread support for tax rises on high earners. Sixty-eight per cent of voters, including 56 per cent of Conservatives voters, want taxes on people earning over £80,000 a year to go up.

Fifty-nine per cent of voters said they would personally be willing to pay more tax to ensure public services are properly funded, while 31 per cent would not.

Commenting on the poll, Frances O’Grady, general secretary of the TUC, said: “We know many in Boris Johnson’s cabinet who want to drive down labour standards, but there is little appetite in Britain for de-regulation and further tax cuts for the rich – including among Conservative voters.

“The prime minister has no more excuses. Voters expect him to protect and strengthen rights at work. And they want him to get on with investing in our public services and boosting wages.”

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...t-zero-hour-contract-ban-latest-a9257281.html

Further proof that Corbyn's policies were popular ,even if Corbyn himself wasn't.
 
Oh right so you do believe this shite.

''Blue Labour you saw me standing alone, Without a dream in my heart, Without a love of my own. Blue Labour, You knew just what I was there for........''. Just to get it out of the way, most of the people we are talking aren't working class but old pensioners who own property.

Now can you please tell me 1)What identity politics is for you, is it simply things you don't like(Which at the moment seems to be the case) ? 2)Why is teaching British history a form of ''identity politics'' ?


We are talking about a policy to teach millions of school children about British history, with your view we've effectively ruled people of colour from the history books, teaching the history of the first indian mp(Dadabhai Naoroji) or first black mp(Bernie Grant)never materialises. If the labour party is simply going to dismiss such history(Due to racist pressure)then why have any black mp or candidates.

Also google Stewart Hall.





:lol:

You are literally telling BAME labour members and MP's(who have worked incredibly hard to get this policy through), whats in their best interest. Have you got anything to back this up with ? I suggest you look at New Labour history on racism to see that simply having a electable labour party doesn't automatically mean anti racist politics.


Yeah and this was a bad decision. Just other reason why we need a democratic members lead labour party.


We've already been here before.






:rolleyes:

Typical left wing identity politics. Anyway someone dress Keir Starmer up as a giant poppy and make him feck the union jack, so labour can win the North.

Do you think the way you engage the issues will endear people to your view of politics? Or do you have no interest in persuading people that your political view is worth considering?
 
The articles that you posted just seem like desperate rationalisations as to why the project Corbyn should continue. The fact is that Nigel Farage started the culture wars we're talking about to grow UKIP, Dominic Cummings exploited these cultures wars to win Brexit and then to win power for Boris. These culture wars are not going to go away, in fact I'll predict now that Cummings and The Tories are going to seek to deepen them and make them a defining feature of the political landscape in order to win power as they continue to disenfranchise disadvantaged communities economically.

I guess my perception is partly coloured by my own life experience. One of the former northern Labour safe seats that went Tory, Heywood & Middleton is a constituency I know very well. Middleton and Heywood are working class to lower middle class areas, some of the towns there were created for the slum clearances in Manchester, such as Langley where Paul Scholes is from. My first house was a terraced in Middleton and I worked there in my younger days and know many people there still. I'm also in Heywood on a semi-regular basis. In 2014 there was a by-election after Jim Dobbin died (someone my dad worked with for a decade in the NHS). Nigel Farage saw this as an opportunity to advance the Brexit cause and was in the town centre in pubs and standing on top of tanks stating.

“We are parking our tanks on Labour’s lawn – that’s the message ”

UKIP came close to winning that by-election but Labour hung on in the end. You can look at this as a pivotal moment in this whole process of the culture wars that brought us Brexit and nearly destroyed the Labour party under Corbyn's leadership. The constituency was 62% Leave. I know the people and the character of these two towns and they are socially conservative and Corbyn's labour doesn't speak to them at all and I'll include many of the younger generation in that. I'd be amazed if any of the other similar towns that have gone Tory are any different. No amount of middle class Corbynistas trying redefine what the working class actually is will change the fact that these people were Labour's traditional base, if you want to understand who they are, its the people that you've created a derogatory term for - the gammon! They have to be won back for Labour to get into power.

I know that you keep saying that you accept the older white working class voters are a problem but you shrug your shoulders and say 'I dunno' i.e. we must continue project Corbyn at all costs. And no, I'm not suggesting that we simply become a more nationalist party as you keep trying to use as a slur, I'm saying that we need to accept the profound rejection of Corbynism and re-calibrate the party entirely, leave Corbynism behind completely.

I guess this is the impasse though because no matter what we say to each other our opinions are not going to change on this point. I accept though, that given the way the party is now structured that we'll likely see your vision realised but my perception is that this faction is incapable of taking on a more competent Tory leadership than May's with Cummings pulling the strings for Boris.
Good post.

Incidently, My family are from Middleton - Bowlee in actual fact. I lived there as a toddler in the early 60's when we lived with my Nan in Heywood Old Road.
 
Do you think the way you engage the issues will endear people to your view of politics? Or do you have no interest in persuading people that your political view is worth considering?
I don't really care about that, at least not on here tbh.

I asked throughout the conversation, what should Labour do after this election defeat as I'm somewhat interested in what other labour voters think and honestly I was sort of expecting both more of a critique from a self described Blairite, e.g. If the economy is so shite when didn't Labour push harder to get the backing of papers like the FT, did Labour favour more typical middle class students, the did party promise too much and fail on marketing. The usual shtick that while I disagree with almost of it, at least its grounded. And also more of drumming over the politics people like myself have.

But no the first answer given to fixing the issues Britain faces(mass inequality, food banks, housing, homelessness, rising far right, climate change)is to blame BAME Labour members and MP's for organising and putting forward policy, e.g. educational policy with regards to teaching school children about the British empire and oddly enough the labour party having a more humane foreign policy outlook.

Edit - Sorry I meant the answer is to ''abandon left identity politics'' and to be proud of Britain(Again its pretty clear that ''abandon left identity politics'' is just a very polite and somewhat embarrassed way of saying, can we get water down anti racist politics in the party).

When this is the answer given, it clear we aren't having any sort of serious discussion on politics.
 
Last edited:
is just a very polite and somewhat embarrassed way of saying, can we get water down anti racist politics in the party).
I don't want to water down the antisemitism... I want to get rid of it and the people associated with it... Scorched fecking earth policy... all of them out ...Hopefully in prison when the ehrc report comes out but at the very least named shamed prosecuted fined and out of politics for good
I'm not embarrassed about wanting the antisemites out and i don't feel a need to be polite about it
 
Last edited:
Why has it not been put forward to ban zero hours contracts for, say, anyone over the age of 25?
Probably because it will lead to a lot of people over 25 loosing the only work they have as people recruit younger people to retain the flexibility in their workforce would be my guess

Not that legistlation around zero hours isn't a good idea... Just it need to be more nuanced to stop it's implementation causing other issues
 
Last edited:
I don't really care about that, at least not on here tbh.

I asked throughout the conversation, what should Labour do after this election defeat as I'm somewhat interested in what other labour voters think and honestly I was sort of expecting both more of a critique from a self described Blairite, e.g. If the economy is so shite when didn't Labour push harder to get the backing of papers like the FT, did Labour favour more typical middle class students, the did party promise too much and fail on marketing. The usual shtick that while I disagree with almost of it, at least its grounded. And also more of drumming over the politics people like myself have.

But no the first answer given to fixing the issues Britain faces(mass inequality, food banks, housing, homelessness, rising far right, climate change)is to blame BAME Labour members and MP's for organising and putting forward policy, e.g. educational policy with regards to teaching school children about the British empire and oddly enough the labour party having a more humane foreign policy outlook.

Edit - Sorry I meant the answer is to ''abandon left identity politics'' and to be proud of Britain(Again its pretty clear that ''abandon left identity politics'' is just a very polite and somewhat embarrassed way of saying, can we get water down anti racist politics in the party).

When this is the answer given, it clear we aren't having any sort of serious discussion on politics.

That’s bullshit, I linked to a post from @MikeUpNorth (which you dismissed as bullshit out of hand) that included a number of ideas but you want to focus on that particular issue so you can try to frame those wanting reforms to the party to appeal to a broad voter base as racists. I never blamed BAME politicians for losing the election. The election was lost because of the gross incompetence Corbyn and the likes of Seamus Milne.

But, what I will say is that if that issue was especially important to the BAME community and I didn’t quite appreciate that enough then I would concede to that. The broader point was to make the party more positive about Britain and patriotic because that is what an important faction of Labours traditional base identify with.

I remember quite clearly that you were one of the few Labour voters on here committed to Brexit and ending FoM when it was Jezza’s party line so it’s interesting how you‘re up for appeasing the ‘gammon’ with some anti-immigration sentiment when it’s about keeping the Jez show on the road.

Surely you realise what an utterly pointless idea getting the FT onside is, have you thought for one second how many people actually read the paper and the demographics that they come from? You have to get popular media onside but they’ll never be onside of a party of like Corbyn’s Labour. So I do apologise for not thinking of some of your daft ideas.
 
Last edited:
That’s bullshit, I linked to a post from @MikeUpNorth (which you dismissed as bullshit out of hand) that included a number of ideas but you want to focus on that particular issue so you can try to frame those wanting reforms to the party to appeal to a broad voter base as racists. I never blamed BAME politicians for losing the election. The election was lost because of the gross incompetence Corbyn and the likes of Seamus Milne.

Again to quote Stuart Hall

“I talked to Cruddas about this . . . I think I understand his preoccupations rather more than Maurice Glasman’s. In a constituency like Cruddas’s, where you’re fighting the far right, you have to think about those things [English identity, immigration]. But you have to be careful about how you recruit them. He came to talk to me about the New Left, which, of course, was interested in the popular language of the nation. But I had the feeling he was raiding the past, out of context, in a way. I do think Englishness is something we need to talk about, but it’s contested terrain that is structured powerfully against a contemporary radical appropriation

''Embracing Britain’s culture, national identity and pride'', ''Reassure people on immigration, multiculturalism and crime'' or ''Abandoning Identity politics'' isn't thinking carefully about this topic at all.

Two great articles here

Mad Dogs and Englishmen: Stuart Hall on Englishness

https://jacobinmag.com/2012/09/mad-dogs-and-englishmen-stuart-hall-on-englishness/

Labour must resist those who say nationalism is the way to gain power

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...king-class-support?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Tweet

I remember quite clearly that you were one of the few Labour voters on here committed to Brexit and ending FoM when it was Jezza’s party line so it’s interesting how you‘re up for appeasing the gammon with some anti-immigration sentiment when it’s about keeping the Jez show on the road.
What are you on about ?

Labour line after the referendum result was needed(Basically a soft brexit, we would dream of having now), the party couldn't just back another referendum straight away(It would have literally destroy labour chances in 2017), the longer the crisis went on and the more clear labour members wanted a second referendum, then yeah I was happy to move. I wanted Remain to win in 2016.

Surely you realise what an utterly pointless idea getting the FT onside is, have you thought for one second how many people actually read the paper and the demographics that they come from? You have to get popular media onside but they’ll never be onside of a party of like Corbyn’s Labour. So I do apologise for not thinking of some of your daft ideas.
You've misunderstood/I've put it across badly. I gave labour wining over the FT as an examples of the argument I've heard from more centrist labour voters that Labour should have toned down the economic platform. Of course I think its a load of shite but I just using it as an example.
 
Last edited:
Good post.

Incidently, My family are from Middleton - Bowlee in actual fact. I lived there as a toddler in the early 60's when we lived with my Nan in Heywood Old Road.

That’s the more rural end of the place and where some of the old settlements were, it’s quite nice down there. The fields will go in time though, they have proposed a massive industrial estate nearby in the recent spacial framework. Very controversial because it’s doubling an existing industrial estate that has 50% occupancy! You know if the new Tory MP ripped those plans up that would help cement his position there
 
Whoever could've seen this coming. Certainly not the Labour MPs who voted for the deal and gave him a massive win.
Look at the replies. The complete lack of understanding of what the EU is and what minimum standards being set means and no awareness that because the UK exceeds those minimum standards undermines the whole fecking Brexit argument in the first place. The belief that somehow there's no way workers will be exploited in the future based on feck all and a spectacular misunderstanding of the last 150 years of industrial relations.
 
''Embracing Britain’s culture, national identity and pride'', ''Reassure people on immigration, multiculturalism and crime'' or ''Abandoning Identity politics'' isn't thinking carefully about this topic at all.
I'm going to jump back in here (reluctantly) as you appear to be selectively quoting me, albeit I think you have good intentions. I can assure you I'm not arguing for 'pandering to racists'.

I'll quickly go point by point...
  • Embrace British culture - a good thing in and of itself. Not sure if it needs much explaining but British culture is largely positive and something I would hope people in Britain can appreciate without too much controversy.
  • Embrace British national identity and pride - find a unifying vision for the country, where we continue to broaden what it means to be British and forge a collective ambition for us all. I would say it's a very good thing, if done right by a skilled politician.
  • Reassure people on immigration, multiculturalism and crime - Reassuring people about the things that worry or scare them is surely a good thing? 'Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime' was clever framing by New Labour, which appealed across the political spectrum and largely neutralised the issue. I'm sure a similar 'tackle the symptom and the cause' thing can be found for immigration.
  • Abandon identity politics - Ok, I accept this is a controversial one, and I have heard it said that if you aren't in the straight, white, male majority, 'identity politics' is just politics. However, I do think making niche issues overly prominent in a campaign is going to be a negative, in general. Identity politics often seems to highlight the things that divide us, rather than the many, many things we have in common. The problems facing the poor and the middle class are largely unifying, across racial, gender and geographic lines. I often worry that identity politics is what has divided the working class and turned us on each other.
The final point I want to make is that my post was primarily a discussion on how to frame the Labour Party and present it to the public. It was not really about the policies we might implement. I'm up for a nerdy policy discussion at some point, as I think we're missing loads of uncontroversial ways to help improve people's lives and their economic situation, without being seen as the 'scary socialists' by advocating for waves of nationalisations.
 
I don't really care about that, at least not on here tbh.

I asked throughout the conversation, what should Labour do after this election defeat as I'm somewhat interested in what other labour voters think and honestly I was sort of expecting both more of a critique from a self described Blairite, e.g. If the economy is so shite when didn't Labour push harder to get the backing of papers like the FT, did Labour favour more typical middle class students, the did party promise too much and fail on marketing. The usual shtick that while I disagree with almost of it, at least its grounded. And also more of drumming over the politics people like myself have.

But no the first answer given to fixing the issues Britain faces(mass inequality, food banks, housing, homelessness, rising far right, climate change)is to blame BAME Labour members and MP's for organising and putting forward policy, e.g. educational policy with regards to teaching school children about the British empire and oddly enough the labour party having a more humane foreign policy outlook.

Edit - Sorry I meant the answer is to ''abandon left identity politics'' and to be proud of Britain(Again its pretty clear that ''abandon left identity politics'' is just a very polite and somewhat embarrassed way of saying, can we get water down anti racist politics in the party).

When this is the answer given, it clear we aren't having any sort of serious discussion on politics.

I think quite a lot of people could demonstrate that your interpretation of abandoning left identity politics is not their interpretation of it, if you were willing to listen. But you seem more intent on talking down to people than acknowledging that your perception of the world isn't the only valid one, and gaining insight into others.

Which is all well and good as a self serving exercise to place yourself on a moral high ground, but seems quite misplaced in a political discussion. Isn't the point of political discussions to persuade people of the merits of your political views, and the ways they can improve the world? Isn't the fuel of your political engagement a desire to solve society's problems, rather than letting everyone know that you understand the solutions better than them and their motivations are immoral?

I can't see how they can successfully co-exist. Do you think your political idols succeeded by convincing the majority they were morally bankrupt while energising the minority?
 
I don't really care about that, at least not on here tbh.

I asked throughout the conversation, what should Labour do after this election defeat as I'm somewhat interested in what other labour voters think and honestly I was sort of expecting both more of a critique from a self described Blairite, e.g. If the economy is so shite when didn't Labour push harder to get the backing of papers like the FT, did Labour favour more typical middle class students, the did party promise too much and fail on marketing. The usual shtick that while I disagree with almost of it, at least its grounded. And also more of drumming over the politics people like myself have.

But no the first answer given to fixing the issues Britain faces(mass inequality, food banks, housing, homelessness, rising far right, climate change)is to blame BAME Labour members and MP's for organising and putting forward policy, e.g. educational policy with regards to teaching school children about the British empire and oddly enough the labour party having a more humane foreign policy outlook.

Edit - Sorry I meant the answer is to ''abandon left identity politics'' and to be proud of Britain(Again its pretty clear that ''abandon left identity politics'' is just a very polite and somewhat embarrassed way of saying, can we get water down anti racist politics in the party).

When this is the answer given, it clear we aren't having any sort of serious discussion on politics.



If you want to know the answer to a problem you can't understand yourself the best thing to do is go to someone who did understand the problem and had the answer right.This guy makes a lot of sense to me. He predicted what has just happened and is talking a about solutions for Labour, you won't like them though.
 


If you want to know the answer to a problem you can't understand yourself the best thing to do is go to someone who did understand the problem and had the answer right.This guy makes a lot of sense to me. He predicted what has just happened and is talking a about solutions for Labour, you won't like them though.


What an excellent link and a telling contribution. Such a shame that it is likely to fall on deaf ears To those who should take heed of it. Mind you what do I know given that I am obviously one of those unintelligent racists who was unable to agree with the views of the Labour Party evangelists.
 


If you want to know the answer to a problem you can't understand yourself the best thing to do is go to someone who did understand the problem and had the answer right.This guy makes a lot of sense to me. He predicted what has just happened and is talking a about solutions for Labour, you won't like them though.

Good watch, thanks for posting
 


If you want to know the answer to a problem you can't understand yourself the best thing to do is go to someone who did understand the problem and had the answer right.This guy makes a lot of sense to me. He predicted what has just happened and is talking a about solutions for Labour, you won't like them though.


Naturally I enjoyed that as his conclusions are pretty much exactly where I have arrived since 2016! I never thought that Leave would win from the outset so I was disconnected from the reality on the ground, even where I lived, but I think that you have to accept a slap in the face and reassess. One thing that struck me was the reaction of Miliband's team to his presentation compared with Lynton Crosby. The hard left faction of the Labour just doesn't have good enough talent in it at any level. Politicians like Blair and Johnson see clearly and surround themselves with the best people whilst the hard left surround themselves with sycophants and try to superimpose a political ideology onto the electorate instead of forming one that fits round it enough to win an election.

I saw this on the Triggernometry website and found it interesting. The initial voting demographic breakdown on the election stated that Corbyn lost minority voters at the same rate as white voters, although starting from a higher percentage total. I wonder if this was part of the reason why.

 
Naturally I enjoyed that as his conclusions are pretty much exactly where I have arrived since 2016! I never thought that Leave would win from the outset so I was disconnected from the reality on the ground, even where I lived, but I think that you have to accept a slap in the face and reassess. One thing that struck me was the reaction of Miliband's team to his presentation compared with Lynton Crosby. The hard left faction of the Labour just doesn't have good enough talent in it at any level. Politicians like Blair and Johnson see clearly and surround themselves with the best people whilst the hard left surround themselves with sycophants and try to superimpose a political ideology onto the electorate instead of forming one that fits round it enough to win an election.

I saw this on the Triggernometry website and found it interesting. The initial voting demographic breakdown on the election stated that Corbyn lost minority voters at the same rate as white voters, although starting from a higher percentage total. I wonder if this was part of the reason why.



I agree and thought that part was telling also. The scary part is when they discuss what the conservatives will do with their majority and what is at stake. I can see Labour doubling down on this loss. There is a lot of casual analysis on this board and its nice to see the superficiality of it exposed. Boris is Trump, lets wait for the old people to die, patriot equals racist etc etc.

The point at which people are more likely to vote conservative than Labour is 34 years old. Labour lose 6 percent of their vote and the conservatives grow 8 percent for each decade people are older from 34 up. What are Labour going to do about that? if they are so intelligent and everyone else is so thick why are they being shown up election after election by idiots?
 
I agree and thought that part was telling also. The scary part is when they discuss what the conservatives will do with their majority and what is at stake. I can see Labour doubling down on this loss. There is a lot of casual analysis on this board and its nice to see the superficiality of it exposed. Boris is Trump, lets wait for the old people to die, patriot equals racist etc etc.

The point at which people are more likely to vote conservative than Labour is 34 years old. Labour lose 6 percent of their vote and the conservatives grow 8 percent for each decade people are older from 34 up. What are Labour going to do about that? if they are so intelligent and everyone else is so thick why are they being shown up election after election by idiots?

It's not 34 at all. It was 39 in the last GE and 47 prior to that but you have to go much higher towards age 50 up for the tipping point of more likely to vote right wing over left wing.
 
34 came from a poll in the new statesmen 2017, it stuck in my mind as an illustration of the problem. Either way, talking about 65 year olds when the problem starts at 39 is missing the point. You can't wait for them all to die and the cross over age is dropping.
 
  • Embrace British culture - a good thing in and of itself. Not sure if it needs much explaining but British culture is largely positive and something I would hope people in Britain can appreciate without too much controversy.
  • Embrace British national identity and pride - find a unifying vision for the country, where we continue to broaden what it means to be British and forge a collective ambition for us all. I would say it's a very good thing, if done right by a skilled politician.
But who's identity and pride is being embraced(Soz but there going to be lots of this) ? Because its seems when the identity of anyone who isn't a white British person, its ''dividing the working class'' or when Britain history of colonialism is up for discussion suddenly its ''identity politics''. If embracing national identity excludes history white British people find embarrassing to talk about(Or really the history that white liberals think will scare people away)then its certainly not a unifying vision.

As for getting a skilled politician, Obama was the best political orator in my life time, he's whole schtick was about creating a new image of America -
"Americans who sent a message to the world that we have never been just a collection of individuals or a collection of red states and blue states. We are, and always will be, the United States of America.".

Now what followed this, not a new progressive form of what it means to be an American but Donald Trump. People respond to changes in their material conditions, simply pumping out empty nationalistic talking points is useless. And to really get to point Britain is still a capitalist country, a collective ambition is nothing more than fantasy. How can the worker at Amazon trying to organise a union and the middle management trying their best to make sure this doesn't happen, unite ? How can both find a unifying vision for the country when they have different material interest in the way the British economy is structured ?

  • Reassure people on immigration, multiculturalism and crime - Reassuring people about the things that worry or scare them is surely a good thing? 'Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime' was clever framing by New Labour, which appealed across the political spectrum and largely neutralised the issue. I'm sure a similar 'tackle the symptom and the cause' thing can be found for immigration.
But again who are we reassuring ?

While yes it could be argue that it was clever political framing by New Labour, the end result had real effects - Opening of detention centres, Prevent(Labour overall embrace of war on terror), attacks on Roma people, Windrush scandal was also under New Labour watch, anti immigration speeches on the white cliffs of dover, ''British Jobs For British People'', Asbos, it was under a New Labour government that the BNP won 2 eu election seats.

Here's a old New Labour leaflet -
''I know that people here are worried about fraudulent asylum claims and illegal immigration. Yet the Lib Dems ignore what people say. They ignore what local people really want. The Lib Dems want to keep giving welfare benefits to failed asylum seekers. They voted for this in parliament on 1 March 2004. They want your money, and mine, to go to failed asylum seekers.”

To quote Hall again -
For Hall, it was during the New Labour years that neoliberal, free-market fundamentalism finally became “common sense”. “I would say that New Labour come closer to institutionalising neoliberalism as a social and political form than Thatcher did. She destroyed everything in order to have a flat plane on which to build, but there was serious opposition and struggle. Thatcherism was a slash-and-burn strategy. With Blair, the language became more adaptive; it found ways of presenting itself to Labour supporters as well.”

https://jacobinmag.com/2012/09/mad-dogs-and-englishmen-stuart-hall-on-englishness/

There will be now push from the labour right(And the ‘’centre left’', sadly) for something similar after seeing what Boris has achieved but the end result will be to make the anti immigration, racist and xenophobia arguments of today, the ''common sense'' of tomorrow.

  • Abandon identity politics - Ok, I accept this is a controversial one, and I have heard it said that if you aren't in the straight, white, male majority, 'identity politics' is just politics. However, I do think making niche issues overly prominent in a campaign is going to be a negative, in general. Identity politics often seems to highlight the things that divide us, rather than the many, many things we have in common. The problems facing the poor and the middle class are largely unifying, across racial, gender and geographic lines. I often worry that identity politics is what has divided the working class and turned us on each other.
I'm still have no idea what you by identity politics. Since you've talked about diving people, I'm just going to guess you mean intersectionality, which from the very basic stuff I know, it's another form of analysis, it ‘’divides'' people in an attempt to see how society functions. The issues a black working class straight women faces are going to be different than a white gay working class man faces. Intersectionality isn't a political program but a tool to understand society.

Now having said of all this, the labour policy of teaching school children about the British Empire(Which seems be the focus in this thread)isn't intersection politics rather simple educational policy, the party doesn’t put forward any type of intersectionality politics(Sadly), Labour wanted 10,000 more police officers on the streets and there wasn’t a discussion about how this would effect parts of the working class.

As for the divided in the working class I would put that down to

.Neoliberalism destroying the unions and turning financial capital into the dominate form in Britain(Working Class people being able to buy their council houses was a genius move by Thatcher).

.Globalisation moving production to the global south

.The long term changes in class(The 70 year white former miner who owns his home, isn’t the working class of the 21st century).

.The effects of capitalist realism.

. Mass alienation in these small towns causing them to fall behind.

The final point I want to make is that my post was primarily a discussion on how to frame the Labour Party and present it to the public. It was not really about the policies we might implement. I'm up for a nerdy policy discussion at some point, as I think we're missing loads of uncontroversial ways to help improve people's lives and their economic situation, without being seen as the 'scary socialists' by advocating for waves of nationalisations.
This will happened to any left leader. Unless the next Labour leader is the godfather to the Murdochs, then the press will always present the party as a bunch of ''scary socialists''. And for me this sums up the issue with the centre left, they just want some flag waving in the hopes it will trick a few northerns to vote Labour.

Btw you don't have to reply back to any of this.
 
Last edited:


If you want to know the answer to a problem you can't understand yourself the best thing to do is go to someone who did understand the problem and had the answer right.This guy makes a lot of sense to me. He predicted what has just happened and is talking a about solutions for Labour, you won't like them though.


Bit difficult to watch with how annoying the hosts are. They just snicker, giggle and facepalm their way through this interview.

Their guest has some excellent points though. The so called culture war seems more important to the majority of the electorate than economics. Not just in the minds of British voters alone, but everywhere else in the West too based on recent evidence. And conservative, right-wing parties are winning that war. We might hate that (me included here), but it is what it is.

The Labour heartlands have proven to be more socially conservative than economically socialist, when faced with choosing between the two. Not sure what Labour can do, it's not an easy decision for them either way. Do they go the "Blue Labour" way of becoming more socially conservative but economically socialist in hope of recupturing the seats lost? That would be abandoning voters who weigh social liberalism higher than economic socialism to the Lib Dems. And were that even possible for them to do, would it deliver in the FPTP system or just hand the Tories another win come next election? Can they continue to straddle both and hope a more inspired leader would make all the difference?
 


If you want to know the answer to a problem you can't understand yourself the best thing to do is go to someone who did understand the problem and had the answer right.This guy makes a lot of sense to me. He predicted what has just happened and is talking a about solutions for Labour, you won't like them though.


Can someone explain the difference between 'culturally insecure' and 'racist as feck'? As someone who lives in a Brexit voting area and doesn't share their 'cultural insecurity' I know the vocuabulary of cultural insecurity and racism are pretty much indistinguishable, so what are the actual differences?
 
Bit difficult to watch with how annoying the hosts are. They just snicker, giggle and facepalm their way through this interview.

Their guest has some excellent points though. The so called culture war seems more important to the majority of the electorate than economics. Not just in the minds of British voters alone, but everywhere else in the West too based on recent evidence. And conservative, right-wing parties are winning that war. We might hate that (me included here), but it is what it is.

The Labour heartlands have proven to be more socially conservative than economically socialist, when faced with choosing between the two. Not sure what Labour can do, it's not an easy decision for them either way. Do they go the "Blue Labour" way of becoming more socially conservative but economically socialist in hope of recupturing the seats lost? That would be abandoning voters who weigh social liberalism higher than economic socialism to the Lib Dems. And were that even possible for them to do, would it deliver in the FPTP system or just hand the Tories another win come next election? Can they continue to straddle both and hope a more inspired leader would make all the difference?
You would think that the opportunity would come in the aftermath of brexit, which we all assume will bring economic stagnation with it, if they can get their own house in order. It’s going to depend on the leader though, if it’s another momentum candidate then no.
 
Can someone explain the difference between 'culturally insecure' and 'racist as feck'? As someone who lives in a Brexit voting area and doesn't share their 'cultural insecurity' I know the vocuabulary of cultural insecurity and racism are pretty much indistinguishable, so what are the actual differences?
There is another video with the same guy on that channel from a year or so ago where he is posed that question.
 
There is another video with the same guy on that channel from a year or so ago where he is posed that question.

Have you got a link?

I mean racism is essentially an intolerance to difference and I don't see how 'cultural insecurity' is any different, apart from having a more palatable label.
 
Have you got a link?

I mean racism is essentially an intolerance to difference and I don't see how 'cultural insecurity' is any different, apart from having a more palatable label.
 
Can someone explain the difference between 'culturally insecure' and 'racist as feck'? As someone who lives in a Brexit voting area and doesn't share their 'cultural insecurity' I know the vocuabulary of cultural insecurity and racism are pretty much indistinguishable, so what are the actual differences?
I mean racism is essentially an intolerance to difference and I don't see how 'cultural insecurity' is any different, apart from having a more palatable label.

As a liberal myself, I'm always amazed that people are ready to throw the racist card at anyone that dares suggest that integration, assimilation and societal cohesion might be stretched by unprecedented levels of immigration. It's not a good look and it only ends up stiffening the back of those you throw the accusation to.

To get to your question, are there racists among those socially conservative traditionalists? Sure plenty. In fact, racists come almost exclusively from that group. Are they all racist by default? No. And racism is indeed a form of intolerance to difference, but not all intolerance to difference is racism. Much like every Ford Focus is a car but not every car is a Ford Focus.

In the broader sense I see it as a spectrum of intolerance to change. Traditionalists can get upset by religious change, demographic change, linguistic change, feminism, political correctness, having to call people by their preferred pronouns etc. etc. Or, to be it bluntly, anything that has changed from the time they were kids. It can be any or all of things. But generally, to borrow a financial/engineering term, the bigger the delta (rate of change) the bigger the backlash, and it's never been greater. The more things rapidly change, the more out-of-place some people feel. The information/social media age compounded by mass immigration has brought about a lot of rapid change for a lot of people.

And those (conservativism, traditionalism and resistance to change) are not privileges of white men alone. Most ethnic minorities are even more conservative and traditionalist in a lot of the aforementioned issues. And exhibit similar traits in the countries where they form the majority.
 
Last edited:
As a liberal myself, I'm always amazed that people are ready to throw the racist card at anyone that dares suggest that integration, assimilation and societal cohesion might be stretched by unprecedented levels of immigration. It's not a good look and it only ends up stiffening the back of those you throw the accusation to.

To get to your question, are there racists among those socially conservative traditionalists? Sure plenty. In fact, racists come almost exclusively from that group. Are they all racist by default? No. And racism is indeed a form of intolerance to difference, but not all intolerance to difference is racism. Much like every Ford Focus is a car but not every car is a Ford Focus.

In the broader sense I see it as a spectrum of intolerance to change. Traditionalists can be get upset by religious change, demographic change, linguistic change, feminism, political correctness, having to call people by their preferred pronouns etc. etc. Or, to be it bluntly, anything that has changed from the time they were kids. It can be any or all of things. But generally, to borrow a financial/engineering term, the bigger the delta (rate of change) the bigger the backlash and it's never been greater. The more things rapidly change, the more out-of-place some people feel. The information/social media age compounded by mass immigration has brought about a lot of rapid change for a lot of people.

And those (conservativism, traditionalism and resistance to change) are not privileges of white men alone. Most ethnic minorities are even more conservative and traditionalist in a lot of the aforementioned issues. And exhibit similar traits in the countries where they form the majority.

I don't think 'socially conservative traditionalist' and 'culturally insecure' are interchangable terms.

Socially conservative traditionalists means valuing heritage and history, believing in a traditional family, believing in law and order etc, these don't imply a fear of difference or of change. Like you say, these values are shared by many immigrants and I think you can be a socially conservative traditionalist and support immigration. Culturally insecure on the other hand does mean a fear of change and difference. I'm aware that there is a spectrum of intolerance to difference and change, and that racism is not the sole preserve of white males, but where does 'culturally insecure' become racist. If foreign people make them uncomfortable then maybe they are racist, no matter how much the label stiffens their backs.
 
I don't think 'socially conservative traditionalist' and 'culturally insecure' are interchangable terms.

Socially conservative traditionalists means valuing heritage and history, believing in a traditional family, believing in law and order etc, these don't imply a fear of difference or of change. Like you say, these values are shared by many immigrants and I think you can be a socially conservative traditionalist and support immigration. Culturally insecure on the other hand does mean a fear of change and difference. I'm aware that there is a spectrum of intolerance to difference and change, and that racism is not the sole preserve of white males, but where does 'culturally insecure' become racist. If foreign people make them uncomfortable then maybe they are racist, no matter how much the label stiffens their backs.

Yes it does? Or to be precise, no more ore less than culturally insecure implies racist. How does a "socially conservative traditionalist who believes in traditional family", deal with same sex marriage and adoptions by same sex couples, or with LGBT representation in family TV shows, or with the change in family power structure due to women's near equal earning power or with sex education at school etc. etc. You know, change that has happened. The answer is too often, not very well. The people who are outside schools complaining about the sex ed curriculum describe themselves as family traditionalists. Whereas an outsider would call them culturally insecure. Sometimes it's just a difference of perspective.

If foreign people make them uncomfortable they are xenophobes not racists. There is a backlash against liberalism in general and the backlash against the multi-cultural, open-border society is part of it but not all of it.
 
Yes it does? Or to be precise, no more ore less than culturally insecure implies racist. How does a "socially conservative traditionalist who believes in traditional family", deal with same sex marriage and adoptions by same sex couples, or with LGBT representation in family TV shows, or with the change in family power structure due to women's near equal earning power or with sex education at school etc. etc. You know, change that has happened. The answer is too often, not very well. The people who are outside schools complaining about the sex ed curriculum describe themselves as family traditionalists. Whereas an outsider would call them culturally insecure. Sometimes it's just a difference of perspective.

If foreign people make them uncomfortable they are xenophobes not racists. There is a backlash against liberalism in general and the backlash against the multi-cultural, open-border society is part of it but not all of it.

I think you can value things without being scared of change, I certainly do. Taking your example of believing in a traditional family, I meant it as believing that society works best when children are raised by two parents in a loving relationship rather than by single parents etc, I don't think that neccessarily means being uncomfortable with same sex marriage etc, which is usually people using 'belief in a traditional family' as cover for their prejudice. I also don't agree that believing in a traditional family means believing that a woman's role is or should be subservient to a man's, or that a woman earning the same or more is a bad thing.

People who are uncomfortable with same sex marriage or equality for women might like to be called a socially conservative traditionalist and prefer this label as it legitimises their prejudice, but what they are is homophobic and misogynist. It's the same with a person who is uncomfortable with foreigners, they may prefer to be called socially conservative or culturally insecure as it is a more comfortable label, but what they are is racist (although I understand the difference between racism and xenophobia I tend to use the term racist as there is a large overlap and I don't think it's possible to be xenophobic without being racist).