The Labour Party under Keir Starmer

[Cross City]

It only costs me fuel, maintenance, insurance and vehicle tax. If I can't afford one of those then I can just park it on the drive and SORN it until I can.

Not an option for many people who simply HAVE to have a car to get to work. Hoping a 15+ year old car carries on running is risky if your work life/commute depends on it.

It's not like most PCP deals are that expensive. You can get a very modern and reliable car for less than £200 a month, which of many is worth the money for peace of mind that they'll be able to get to work tomorrow barring some catastrophic failure rather than the age of their car catching up on them.

Also worth mentioning that the days of 500-2000 pound run-arounds are long gone. You're looking at 4 or 5k for anything remotely worth having. Most people simply don't have that kind of money lying around to be able to buy a car outright when their last one gives up on them.

I am in this situation, my car payment is just over £200 a month and in return for that I get a nice 3 year old car which is impeccably reliable and covered by the guarantee for the life for the deal for all major faults. I would not be able to afford to buy outright a car that is half as reliable, fuel efficient, and quite frankly, as nice to be in.

I believe I've made a sensible choice for my financial circumstances. I'll never 'own' the car but I also won't be stuck with a massive repair bill or have to find few grand (at least) to buy another car outright.

Indeed, there's a popularist view that we should have net zero immigration, however we have an aging population so if we do that there'll be fewer people of working age.

Effectively if we are going to reduce the ratio between the working population vs the retired population (by doing the above) then either pensioners will need to paid less, the retirement age increase or everyone will have to pay more taxes.

Or more sensibly a package of all three.

Arguably fewer people of working age would drive wages, and therefore money collected through taxation, up. Companies would have to compete more for employees.

 

[Yorkshire09876]

From what I gather, the practice is not to 'afford' the balloon payment but just enter into a new lease (for an even bigger/more expensive? car). Then they complain about the 'cost of living' crisis and the fact that they have no spare money in their pocket and how the country is going to the dogs......

A lot of people do seem to enter into unnecessarily expensive contracts for things. Through work I have seen people who I know won't earn large salaries, but they have top of the range iPhones - probably acquired as part of a contract which they will be paying a hefty monthly charge for (and buying phones as part of a contract always works out more expensive than buying up-front and getting a SIM only contract, when worked out over the life of the contract - but people tend not to do that calculation in many cases!).

As regards Labour, I no longer have any confidence in them at all. At the last election we had a good local Labour candidate, but for the first time in quite a few years I didn't vote Labour as that would be a vote for Starmer and his crew, who I expected to be poor and they've been even worse than I expected.

What is really needed to shake things up is a new centre-left party which isn't bogged down by an obsession with identity politics; i.e. a party on the left to challenge Labour in the same way that Reform are challenging the Tories on the right. The only reason Labour got a sizeable majority at the last election was because the opposition vote was split.

I don't see much likelihood of anything changing though, unfortunately.

 

[edwin_m]

Under FPTP a significant additional party on the left would leave an open door for the right, just at it did with the SDP in 1983. However, under a PR system, such a party could form coalitions with Labour or the LibDems.

 

[Yorkshire09876]

Under FPTP a significant additional party on the left would leave an open door for the right, just at it did with the SDP in 1983. However, under a PR system, such a party could form coalitions with Labour or the LibDems.

Not when there is a challenge on the right as well, as is currently the case - the votes on both sides would then be split and whoever ended up in government would be under pressure to be effective. We currently have the unhealthy situation where Labour have a massive majority with a fairly low share of the vote (compared to previous large majorities where the winners had a large section of the vote). The result is a poor government, which doesn't feel under any pressure to improve.

I do agree that a PR system would be preferable, but that also seems unlikely to happen in the near future.

 

[RT4038]

Not sure about "pensioners being paid less" though. It would make retirement a miserable experience for those without a good work or private pension - at that age you already have to potentially deal with ill health and loneliness, and you'd just be adding additional financial worries to that.

On the other hand, I can see justification for tax increases and making it easier for people to work into their 70s (which could include legislation to prevent employers trying to get rid of over-70s on the basis of claims that "they can't do the job") should they wish to (but it shouldn't be forced onto people with ill health).

There is already legislation preventing employers getting rid of over-70s without justification, however the longer people work it will be a truth that sooner or later 'they can't do the job' . If an employer can objectively show that the employee indeed 'can't do the job' than it is reasonable and right for them to get rid. In many instances this will be the highest paid employees faltering on the job, at a time when they least need that size of salary (no longer supporting children, mortgage paid off/repayments small). Of course there may be other, less onerous, lower paying, but nonetheless essential to society jobs still available that they are capable of in other sectors, but managing that transition and cultural issue will be a challenge.

People used to do productive work (in the main) from age 15 or 16 to 65 (49 or 50 years). Nowadays with so many going to University/College and gap years etc the starting to work is more likely to be 22 or 23; then 49 or 50 years of productive work would take them to 71-73 years of age. Perhaps this where the increased productivity to support the increased longevity needs to come from?

 

[nw1]

Not when there is a challenge on the right as well, as is currently the case - the votes on both sides would then be split and whoever ended up in government would be under pressure to be effective. We currently have the unhealthy situation where Labour have a massive majority with a fairly low share of the vote (compared to previous large majorities where the winners had a large section of the vote). The result is a poor government, which doesn't feel under any pressure to improve.

I do agree that a PR system would be preferable, but that also seems unlikely to happen in the near future.

Is it though? If Labour see Reform as a real threat, I can see them trying to introduce it (which should be easy given the size of their majority, and they'll get support from the Lib Dems, Greens and Nats, I suspect) in the coming years. I know they've not been pro-PR in the past, but I think in their best interests now to do so.

Under FPTP, there is the danger that Reform get, say, 52% of the seats on 30% of the vote and we end up with a Reform majority government, which would be hell-on-earth for many of us.
Under some kind of PR system we end up with Reform on 30% of the seats under such a situation, making them easily defeatable should they try to do anything too silly. (And it could block them from entering power if other parties refuse to do a coalition with them).

Labour would be wise to reflect on this. Changing the voting system is the most likely route to preventing a Reform-led government.

What is really needed to shake things up is a new centre-left party which isn't bogged down by an obsession with identity politics;

I'd say that the issue seems to be that it doesn't care enough about identity politics! It doesn't seem to be interested in lessening the impact of the recent anti-trans ruling by the Supreme Court, for example.

But I agree we need a new untainted centre-left party. Labour are too tainted (as are the Tories, though I suspect they will recover, as they have done so many times in the past).

 

[JamesT]

Is it though? If Labour see Reform as a real threat, I can see them trying to introduce it (which should be easy given the size of their majority, and they'll get support from the Lib Dems, Greens and Nats, I suspect) in the coming years. I know they've not been pro-PR in the past, but I think in their best interests now to do so.

Under FPTP, there is the danger that Reform get, say, 52% of the seats on 30% of the vote and we end up with a Reform majority government, which would be hell-on-earth for many of us.
Under some kind of PR system we end up with Reform on 30% of the seats under such a situation, making them easily defeatable should they try to do anything too silly. (And it could block them from entering power if other parties refuse to do a coalition with them).

Labour would be wise to reflect on this. Changing the voting system is the most likely route to preventing a Reform-led government.

Labour is intensely tribal, they would rather lose than work with other parties. FPTP has benefited them hugely in the past so they'll see no reason to change it.

The design of the voting system for the Scottish Parliament was expected to mean Labour would always be in power as the nationalists could never get a majority. You can see how well that went. PR is not a magic bullet to keep out parties you dislike.

 

[nw1]

Labour is intensely tribal, they would rather lose than work with other parties. FPTP has benefited them hugely in the past so they'll see no reason to change it.

The design of the voting system for the Scottish Parliament was expected to mean Labour would always be in power as the nationalists could never get a majority. You can see how well that went. PR is not a magic bullet to keep out parties you dislike.

Maybe but they must see the possibility of being completely shut out of power next time and looking down the barrel of a Reform majority government, which could happen unless action is taken.

If Labour won't do it, maybe it's time for influential people of the centre-left and liberal tendencies to organise a new party to properly enthuse people. Certainly I doubt many are particularly enthusiastic about Labour right now, merely seeing them as the "least worst option" in seats which the Lib Dems will not win.

If Labour will not act upon the threat of a Reform majority government, and risk leading the country into five years of hell from 2029 (perhaps longer if Reform completely trash things and whoever succeeds them then has to spend another 5 years picking up the pieces) maybe it is time for them to become extinct, to be honest, and replaced by a new party that isn't so up its own rear end, so to speak.

 

[JamesT]

Maybe but they must see the possibility of being completely shut out of power next time and looking down the barrel of a Reform majority government, which could happen unless action is taken.

If Labour won't do it, maybe it's time for influential people of the centre-left and liberal tendencies to organise a new party to properly enthuse people. Certainly I doubt many are particularly enthusiastic about Labour right now, merely seeing them as the "least worst option" in seats which the Lib Dems will not win.

If Labour will not act upon the threat of a Reform majority government, and risk leading the country into five years of hell from 2029 (perhaps longer if Reform completely trash things and whoever succeeds them then has to spend another 5 years picking up the pieces) maybe it is time for them to become extinct, to be honest, and replaced by a new party that isn't so up its own rear end, so to speak.

Could you remind me how well Change UK did when setting themselves up as a new party of the centre-left?

 

[Magdalia]

It should be noted that is assuming similar immigration numbers to what we had leading up to 2016 (the date of that publication).

Those migration assumptions will be out of date, in 2016 Brexit had only just happened!

My preferred source is the Office for Budget Responsibility Financial Risks and sustainability Report, which is less than a year old, see here:

OBR fiscal risks and sustainability report

Various recent discussions have touched upon the state of the UK public finances, in relation to matters such as pensioners' winter fuel allowance, public sector pay, and public funds available for investment in transport infrastructure. Today the Office for Budget Responsibility has published...

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[nw1]

Could you remind me how well Change UK did when setting themselves up as a new party of the centre-left?

Doesn't mean it can't be successful in the future. Change UK perhaps came at the wrong time, and was arguably to the right of the Labour Party of the time (a good number of its members were socially-liberal ex-Tories) so isn't really a like for like. You could equally well compare Reform with UKIP, which was much the same kind of hardline populist-right party: UKIP never did well in general elections.

To be honest it sounds rather fatalistic to suggest that new parties of the centre-left cannot succeed. If many of us are fed up of Labour and/or believe they are a liability when it comes to preventing a really bad government taking over in 2029, there's no reason why a new party, backed by influential people, could not succeed. Are you suggesting that we are likely destined to have a Reform majority government in 2029 and nothing anyone can do has a realistic chance of changing that?

I am sure I am not the only one absolutely dreading a Reform government, a government that would likely make Thatcher and Johnson look like bleeding-heart liberals: so much so that I would seriously consider investigating emigration possibilities were it still looking likely in two years' time. There must be enough of us to unite behind an anti-Reform movement, with the single aim of keeping them out of power.

 

[edwin_m]

Not when there is a challenge on the right as well, as is currently the case - the votes on both sides would then be split and whoever ended up in government would be under pressure to be effective. We currently have the unhealthy situation where Labour have a massive majority with a fairly low share of the vote (compared to previous large majorities where the winners had a large section of the vote). The result is a poor government, which doesn't feel under any pressure to improve.

I do agree that a PR system would be preferable, but that also seems unlikely to happen in the near future.

If there was a real prospect of it getting them into power, it's highly likely the parties on the right would come to a deal, as happened in 2019. The Left is much less likely to reach such a pragmatic arrangement - staying pure and achieving nothing seems to be more important for some of their membership than compromising and getting some of what they want.

Is it though? If Labour see Reform as a real threat, I can see them trying to introduce it (which should be easy given the size of their majority, and they'll get support from the Lib Dems, Greens and Nats, I suspect) in the coming years. I know they've not been pro-PR in the past, but I think in their best interests now to do so.

Under FPTP, there is the danger that Reform get, say, 52% of the seats on 30% of the vote and we end up with a Reform majority government, which would be hell-on-earth for many of us.
Under some kind of PR system we end up with Reform on 30% of the seats under such a situation, making them easily defeatable should they try to do anything too silly. (And it could block them from entering power if other parties refuse to do a coalition with them).

Labour would be wise to reflect on this. Changing the voting system is the most likely route to preventing a Reform-led government.

My comment above applies here too. Labour should do this but I doubt they will.

A Different Bias on YouTube commented yesterday that the all-party group for fair elections is the biggest such group in Parliament.

 

[nw1]

If there was a real prospect of it getting them into power, it's highly likely the parties on the right would come to a deal, as happened in 2019. The Left is much less likely to reach such a pragmatic arrangement - staying pure and achieving nothing seems to be more important for some of their membership than compromising and getting some of what they want.

My comment above applies here too. Labour should do this but I doubt they will.

Maybe they're still quite blasé about Reform and think they can beat them off through offering the electorate Reform-lite policies.
If we're still in the same position with Reform being a threat in one year's time and Labour still polling unimpressively, I suspect they'll get off their backsides and do something.

Labour must realise that if they don't, they risk letting Reform in, with possibly catastrophic consequences for the people they purport to support - the less well-off and minorities to name but two?
If they don't, then quite frankly, Labour don't deserve to exist and need to be replaced on the centre-left with someone else.

On this topic what do you think is the best realistic route to avoiding a Reform win in 4 years' time? Interested in what people's thoughts are about ways in which we can avoid that fate.
Right now, if Labour do not do something, the people most likely to stop a Reform victory are Reform. That's my one hope - in local government, they'll screw up one way or another.

 

[SargeNpton]

Could you remind me how well Change UK did when setting themselves up as a new party of the centre-left?

They fared even worse than the Social Democratic Party did when it tried to become a voice of "new" Labour in the 1980s.

 

[nw1]

They fared even worse than the Social Democratic Party did when it tried to become a voice of "new" Labour in the 1980s.

The SDP (as in the original 1981 version, not the socially-conservative modern version) actually did pretty well for a time. It was likely only the increase in Conservative support following the Falklands war that stopped the Alliance doing really quite well in 1983.
See https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/voting-intentions-great-britain-1976-1987 and note the Alliance figures for late 1981, early 1982.

 

[Yew]

On this topic what do you think is the best realistic route to avoiding a Reform win in 4 years' time? Interested in what people's thoughts are about ways in which we can avoid that fate.

I think it's to focus on the economy, not just growth, but actively bringing quality jobs to areas that have been deindustrialised.

However, I don't think it'll happen, I think that realistically we'll end up with more neoliberal economics, and a lot of 'anyone but reform' votes at the next election. Part of me wonders if Reform winning and making a mess inn 4 years, would be better than a more organised reform having a majority in 9?

 

[Sorcerer]

On this topic what do you think is the best realistic route to avoiding a Reform win in 4 years' time? Interested in what people's thoughts are about ways in which we can avoid that fate.

Basically get to the root of why Reform are popular and take a pragmatic approach to their flagship issues. This YouGov poll from January tells us that the primary reason that people are drawn to the party is the fact they are simply not one of the main two parties that people have failed to perceive their interests along with seemingly having a common sense approach as well as of course immigration. What we also see is that many don't have reservations about them, and the predominant reservations are simply that they will become like the other main parties. Very little care about their actual policies such as the NHS and lack of governing experience.



So with that in mind I think Labour should focus less on pointing out why you shouldn't vote for Reform, because in a lot of people's minds Labour have already shown us why we shouldn't vote for them or the Tories either. Instead, try to actually work towards improving the lives of everyday people and speak of your successes loudly and proudly. Implement electoral and institutional reforms. Invest in economic growth, infrastructure, education and our people by building a highly-skilled workforce and new domestic industries. Creating a sovereign wealth fund would help in the long term as well, funded initially by either a budget surplus or one time windfall tax on energy companies.

One more minor change for Labour themselves is to take a centre-left stance while distancing themselves from identity politics as suggested upthread. Most British people don't care about someone's race or religion, so let us not be so hung on things such as our institutions being predominantly white or certain industries being predominantly male, especially when it's always so blatantly one-sided. Let us also take pride in ourselves a bit more too. I know Britain has a dubious history but no country hasn't one either, and we have also done many great things for the world, so let us reclaim patriotism from the flag-waving nationalists while also acknowledging that we can still do better.

 

[nw1]

Basically get to the root of why Reform are popular and take a pragmatic approach to their flagship issues. This YouGov poll from January tells us that the primary reason that people are drawn to the party is the fact they are simply not one of the main two parties that people have failed to perceive their interests along with seemingly having a common sense approach as well as of course immigration. What we also see is that many don't have reservations about them, and the predominant reservations are simply that they will become like the other main parties. Very little care about their actual policies such as the NHS and lack of governing experience.

View attachment 180004 View attachment 180005

So with that in mind I think Labour should focus less on pointing out why you shouldn't vote for Reform, because in a lot of people's minds Labour have already shown us why we shouldn't vote for them or the Tories either. Instead, try to actually work towards improving the lives of everyday people and speak of your successes loudly and proudly. Implement electoral and institutional reforms. Invest in economic growth, infrastructure, education and our people by building a highly-skilled workforce and new domestic industries. Creating a sovereign wealth fund would help in the long term as well, funded initially by either a budget surplus or one time windfall tax on energy companies.

One more minor change for Labour themselves is to take a centre-left stance while distancing themselves from identity politics as suggested upthread. Most British people don't care about someone's race or religion, so let us not be so hung on things such as our institutions being predominantly white or certain industries being predominantly male, especially when it's always so blatantly one-sided. Let us also take pride in ourselves a bit more too. I know Britain has a dubious history but no country hasn't one either, and we have also done many great things for the world, so let us reclaim patriotism from the flag-waving nationalists while also acknowledging that we can still do better.

This all paints a rather grim of the UK of the 2020s it has to be said. Reform "common sense"? "Honest"? "Trustworthy"?
"Different from the other parties"? Doesn't mean good.

It just seems to indicate that, perhaps in common with much of the West, this country has veered markedly rightwards in the past 10-15 years or so.

Seems to be becoming plain that this is just a very depressing era the western world over, for all manner of reasons. Economically most countries are struggling, and people seem to think that right-wing parties will solve these economic problems when they won't.

 

[edwin_m]

Maybe they're still quite blasé about Reform and think they can beat them off through offering the electorate Reform-lite policies.
If we're still in the same position with Reform being a threat in one year's time and Labour still polling unimpressively, I suspect they'll get off their backsides and do something.

Labour must realise that if they don't, they risk letting Reform in, with possibly catastrophic consequences for the people they purport to support - the less well-off and minorities to name but two?
If they don't, then quite frankly, Labour don't deserve to exist and need to be replaced on the centre-left with someone else.

On this topic what do you think is the best realistic route to avoiding a Reform win in 4 years' time? Interested in what people's thoughts are about ways in which we can avoid that fate.
Right now, if Labour do not do something, the people most likely to stop a Reform victory are Reform. That's my one hope - in local government, they'll screw up one way or another.

I'd prefer that they approached electoral reform as a principled improvement to democracy, not as something they look like they are doing just to remain in power. Doing something sooner rather than later also makes it more likely people will remember that Farage was in favour, before his polling got to a level where he might win under FPTP. It also need time for some sort of process to agree what system to propose, otherwise we risk ending up in a Brexit situation where a majority are against FPTP but there's no majority for any alternative. There's already scope for opponents to make mischief on that front.

 

[Sorcerer]

This all paints a rather grim of the UK of the 2020s it has to be said. Reform "common sense"? "Honest"? "Trustworthy"?
"Different from the other parties"? Doesn't mean good.

It just seems to indicate that, perhaps in common with much of the West, this country has veered markedly rightwards in the past 10-15 years or so.

Seems to be becoming plain that this is just a very depressing era the western world over, for all manner of reasons. Economically most countries are struggling, and people seem to think that right-wing parties will solve these economic problems when they won't.

I don't think people are necessarily moving more right-wing but more just the fact that right-wing parties are much better at appealing to the emotion and are more Machiavellian in their means of winning votes. Additionally some of those on the prominent left have adopted attitudes that only serve to push moderates away. To the average person the system isn't serving them, and the populist right are just simply better at playing the game than the centre and left.

Nigel Farage in particular is also clever and knows how to adapt to the mood of the British public. While a left-leaning individual might want to ban or cancel Elon Musk from making comments on how we should run the UK out of fear of his influence, Farage simply said "the British people are not stupid" and just like that it seems like the leftie is looking down on you. He also has Trump's mistakes to learn from as well instead of being out there making them on his own.

 

[The Ham]

Those migration assumptions will be out of date, in 2016 Brexit had only just happened!

My preferred source is the Office for Budget Responsibility Financial Risks and sustainability Report, which is less than a year old, see here:

OBR fiscal risks and sustainability report

Various recent discussions have touched upon the state of the UK public finances, in relation to matters such as pensioners' winter fuel allowance, public sector pay, and public funds available for investment in transport infrastructure. Today the Office for Budget Responsibility has published...

www.railforums.co.uk

Thanks for the link so comparing the numbers.

From Chart 4.4: Young- and old-age dependency ratios, using the 2024 model.

If we look at the old-age dependency ratio for 2021 in that model (so UK pension is for all 66 year olds) there's 3.52 people supporting one person of pension age.

In the link it appears to be 30% (so to create a companion we divide that by 100) we get a figure of 3.33 people supporting one person of pension age, so not too different.

Fast forwards to 2039 (so 14 years from now) not only has the pension age increased to 67 but there's likely to be 2.74 people supporting one person of pension age.

2039 is about 36% or about 2.77 people supporting one person is pension age, so again not too different.

If anything the 2024 model (which keeps the ratio higher than the 2022 model) is likely to be based on a higher immigration numbers.

 

[AlterEgo]

One more minor change for Labour themselves is to take a centre-left stance while distancing themselves from identity politics as suggested upthread. Most British people don't care about someone's race or religion

They do, actually. There’s a lot of racism, antisemitism and Islamophobia around. Britain is a tolerant country in general but these things matter in the aggregate.

Let us also take pride in ourselves a bit more too. I know Britain has a dubious history but no country hasn't one either

To be fair, most countries didn’t have an empire. Britain shouldn’t allow itself to be guilted or bullied, but it should also be gracious in dealing with the past - which means talking about it and acknowledging it.

, and we have also done many great things for the world, so let us reclaim patriotism from the flag-waving nationalists while also acknowledging that we can still do better.

I can get on board with that.

 

[Yorkshire09876]

They do, actually. There’s a lot of racism, antisemitism and Islamophobia around. Britain is a tolerant country in general but these things matter in the aggregate.

No doubt there is some, but what is your evidence for there being 'a lot'?

The obsessive focus on identity politics is constantly categorizing people by one characteristic and assigning them to groups, which it then effectively sets in a hierarchy. Constantly highlighting difference like this is only going to increase hostility between groups and encourage an 'us and them' attitude. It is absolutely not an effective way to attain equality.

 

[Sorcerer]

They do, actually. There’s a lot of racism, antisemitism and Islamophobia around. Britain is a tolerant country in general but these things matter in the aggregate.

Of course such things still exist, and it is always something to be challenged, confronted, and if push comes to shove stamped out. But I think in many ways we are also a very inclusive country such as having a Muslim Mayor of London, a Pakistani-descended First Minister of Scotland, and just last year an ethnically South Asian Prime Minister. We're not perfect, but we are doing pretty good, and it's definitely something to take pride in. You could even go a step further and say that it's good reason to continue stamping out intolerance; a good way to take pride in your country and people without disregarding anyone's individual life experiences as an ethnic or religious minority.

To be fair, most countries didn’t have an empire. Britain shouldn’t allow itself to be guilted or bullied, but it should also be gracious in dealing with the past - which means talking about it and acknowledging it.

I completely agree, and I think approaching the past graciously is part of how we can do better. We can accept that we did bad things as a country and work towards not repeating some of our mistakes, and at the same time take pride in our greatest achievements, but we definitely knock ourselves too much and let others put us down too easily. Put it this this way, if you tried lecturing the Arab states about their historical slave trade in the same way some people did the UK for their part in the Transatlantic slave trade, I have a feeling they wouldn't be so graciously remorseful about it.

 

[AlterEgo]

No doubt there is some, but what is your evidence for there being 'a lot'?

I live in society and observe it. People in Britain do have racial prejudices even if our racism manifests in a different way to societies which talk about it more (America).

The obsessive focus on identity politics is constantly categorizing people by one characteristic and assigning them to groups, which it then effectively sets in a hierarchy.

I don’t think there’s an obsessive focus on identity politics, but rather the opposite is certainly now true in Britain.

Constantly highlighting difference like this is only going to increase hostility between groups and encourage an 'us and them' attitude. It is absolutely not an effective way to attain equality.

I wouldn’t treat all of my friends or family exactly equally; most people don’t. I value everyone’s humanity the same, but as a human being I respond differently according to everyone’s circumstances.

I don’t think equality is the goal, really, but rather equity. You do have to take account of difference and (dis)advantage in society; most people do in their own families or smaller communities, and giving the right people the right amount of equity is a much fairer, as well as an easier, way to a happier, productive society.

Labour is not going to deliver that or via that method; it’s not marketing itself like this and it is not acting like this either. You already have a Labour Party which isn’t “obsessed with identity politics”, but it doesn’t sit on the left any more. Starmer is an amoral NPC of a prime minister, at home as much on the right as he is on the left, whichever way the wind is blowing and whatever his solicitors’ instinct tells him.

 

[GusB]

No doubt there is some, but what is your evidence for there being 'a lot'?

I witness racism fairly regulary. Some people in my local pub often refer to "blecks" and the P*** word can often be heard. In most cases it's simply ignorance of other cultures and I don't think that there's any real malice behind the comments, but it's racism nonetheless. Islamophobia is also quite rife, probably because people latch on to what they hear/see/read in the media and because they likely haven't really engaged with a Muslim person in their lives.

 

[Tetchytyke]

But I think in many ways we are also a very inclusive country such as having a Muslim Mayor of London, a Pakistani-descended First Minister of Scotland, and just last year an ethnically South Asian Prime Minister

A brief look at the comments section of the Telegraph newspaper’s website whenever Sadiq Khan is mentioned is an enlightening but utterly depressing experience. Bear in mind that the comments are comments that a) people feel comfortable saying in public and b) the Telegraph feels comfortable in not moderating away. So what are these people saying in private?

You do have to take account of difference and (dis)advantage in society

This is where the issue is because the white men in places like Mansfield or Bishop Auckland are incredibly disadvantaged. So any efforts to help other communities and people from other backgrounds feels, to them, like a smack in the face. I can see their point.

From there it’s a short hop skip and jump to blaming those other communities for the malaise in places like Bishop Auckland.

It is to Labour’s shame that they have nothing positive to offer these people, just more austerity and more punching down.

Sadly Starmer and his key aide Morgan McSweeney are seemingly not able to understand that all their current pub tribute act version of Reform does is legitimise Farage. “Vote for me, I was right all along”.

 

[DoubleLemon]

Agreed - it is VERY hard to discuss immigration in this country though but I can see why Labour have to be seen to do something. Immigration ( or at least the FEAR of immigration) IS a big issue in the country. We can all complain that it has been whipped up by whoppers but the issue IS a real one in the minds of many people.
<SNIP>

Totally disagree - we never shut up about it. Its on the news, on social media, radio call ins, here.
To say we never have a discussion is just wrong. We don't have productive discussions but we sure as hell are not being silenced on the subject if people want to talk about it.

 

[ainsworth74]

This is where the issue is because the white men in places like Mansfield or Bishop Auckland are incredibly disadvantaged. So any efforts to help other communities and people from other backgrounds feels, to them, like a smack in the face. I can see their point.

Yes I think this is a difference from say imported American ideas of race and inequality. In the UK the main dividing line is much less to do with race (though it certainly plays a role) but economics. If you're a white fella (or lady) in Bishop Auckland you're automatically at a gargantuan disadvantage compared to someone in say St Albans or Basingstoke. Which isn't to say that there aren't areas of disadvantage in those places either but speaking general terms you're far more likely to be disadvantaged, poor and have a shorter and less fulfilling life than someone in those areas.

And it doesn't really matter what race you are, if you're in the North East that's much more likely to be true.

I work in central Middlesbrough and the thing that determines the prospects of the people I see has very little to do with their race but everything to do with the fact they're living in one of the most deprived areas of the country (8 of Middlesbrough's 20 wards are in the top 3% most deprived in England). Doesn't matter what race you are, if you live in one of those wards, you're almost certainly poorer on average, have fewer prospects, will live a shorter life, have a worse quality of life due to poor health and the same will likely apply to your children.

That's the real problem. If all the people that live here who are descendants of people who came from India or Pakistan, or have migrated themselves from the Middle East or Africa were to suddenly vanish all the underlying problems would still be here.

It is to Labour’s shame that they have nothing positive to offer these people, just more austerity and more punching down.

Absolutely, it goes back to my point that a lot of voting (in the North East and elsewhere), is more a scream into the void for someone, anyone, to make it better than it is an embrace of a particular ideology. And that's just the ones who voted. A lot of them just stayed home because the reaction they'll have had instead is that there's no point voting everything just gets worse anyway.

Sadly Starmer and his key aide Morgan McSweeney are seemingly not able to understand that all their current pub tribute act version of Reform does is legitimise Farage. “Vote for me, I was right all along”.

As well as miss that whilst there's a proportion of Reform voters that they might be able to peel off back to the Labour fold it isn't going to be all that many in the grand scheme (if they want Reform policies, why would they vote Labour when they could just vote Reform?) but it absolutely can splinter their electoral base by driving them off to the Lib Dems and Greens as well as keep more of them at home. They're basically doing to themselves what the Tories have done.

Honestly I can only assume Morgan McSweeney is either a blithering idiot or someone who is utterly high on his own supply. Because from outside of the Westminster bubble looking in their current strategy is deranged and only ever going to lead them to losing the next election.

 

[takno]

Totally disagree - we never shut up about it. Its on the news, on social media, radio call ins, here.
To say we never have a discussion is just wrong. We don't have productive discussions but we sure as hell are not being silenced on the subject if people want to talk about it.

The productive element is definitely missing.

It's too often painted as racist to have concerns about the sheer scale of current immigration, or concerns that it is happening at the behest of low-paying companies at a time of low employment.

Equally it's too often painted as uncaring liberal indifference to worry about whether we are doing our bit in the world, or about not breaking up families, or about future demographics.

For all the weird "hello common people, we're racists now, just like you" presentation, what Labour are actually proposing is a pretty sensible middle of the road policy, designed to reduce the numbers to something less extreme, like we had before Brexit, and push up UK recruitment in sectors which have tried nothing and are all out of ideas. If we can make that happen then a lot of heat goes out of the argument.

Immigration complaints used to a mix of left-behind areas and a spot of old fashioned racism. But, as with so many things, the Tories casually turbo-charged the problem through incompetence and an obsession with helping their rich friends. Now it's a mix of left-behind everywhere and nobody having any idea how this is even supposed to work logistically.