Keir Starmer and the Labour Party

[nw1]

They absolutely do describe people on the left that way.

Use of patronising language is also very common by right-wingers IMO, particularly on matters such as public spending, which I do realise is not really the issue between left and right at the moment - though I suspect it will become so before too long.

And refusing to listen is another, I have given up writing to my (Tory) MP because they simply do not listen and generally reply in a pompous and condescending tone. Another reason why we need to reform the electoral system, and have larger seats with multiple-party MPs because you might get one which actually listens to you.

Yes, if that opinion leads to policies that actively make poorer people poorer - the "bedroom tax", for example. Putting people who are already in a precarious situation into a much worse situation is fairly toxic. Requiring people who have been assessed as unfit for work by medical professionals to undergo "work capability assessments" is toxic.

Quite. More examples of how the Tories do not care about ordinary people.

Add to that the likes of Lilley (#3 worst non-PM politician of my lifetime) perpetuating the attitude that unemployed people are workshy scroungers rather than people that would actually like a job but are treated like criminals by sanctimonious politicians.

I think it would be fair to say the at the moment, the Tories tend to be culturally on the right. Economically they are somewhat on the right to the extent of supporting private enterprise. But they have moved strongly to the left on issues related to the Government intervention and 'big Government'.

And that (the state interfering with personal freedoms) is the worst aspect of the supposed left, though with the likes of Pinochet and Franco, to take two examples, it's been equally popular on the right.

Exactly why this Government are the worst of all worlds. Culturally right-wing, and also anti-individual-freedom. Patel, probably the only government minister of my lifetime who I would classify as genuinely far-right, is the very personification of this: hard-right economically (as a co-author of 'Britannia Unchained'), rabidly anti-immigration, and an authoritarian statist (witness the way she wanted people to report their neighbours for meeting in groups of 7+; whatever you think of the social-distancing rules, that sort of grassing-up your neighbours is reprehensible behaviour).

Left-wing libertarianism is my bag, but sadly it's probably the least-fashionable ideology right now.

Really? Look at this very thread: A couple of people (including you) have openly described the Tories as the enemy. Yet, despite there being a number of contributors who are very obviously strongly against the Labour Party, as far as I can see, no-one has described Labour in anything like those terms.

For the record when I used the term 'enemy' ('[Labour and the Lib Dems] should focus on fighting the real enemy, the Tories'; I assume this was one of the posts) I meant that the Tories should be the political enemy of Labour and Lib Dems - rather than Labour and the Lib Dems being enemies of each other, which happens too often.

It's common political parlance, just like 'fighting' an election or 'fighting' your political opponents. It does not mean those on the left want violence or revolution!

But also, an objective reason why the left might tend to use stronger, more emotive terms is that the right have been in power for so much of the past 40 years (I'd certainly argue from 1979-1990 and since 2010, which is more than half that time) while the left have had scarcely any influence. Given Blair (who I don't mind, certainly in comparison to the majority of leaders since) was pretty centrist, we haven't had true left-wing influence in this country for a long, long time. So the right have less cause to get emotive, because things have gone their way in one shape or form for the majority of the period since 1979.

 

[daodao]

To my mind, one of the scariest things about UK politics is the way it has become completely normalised on the right to use this kind of language to dismiss and diminish people on the left.

See, it works both ways.

The most influential internal public enemy from a unionist perspective is neither Tory nor Labour, but Nicola Sturgeon. What will stop Labour gaining power to rule the UK at the next GE is even the merest suspicion that Labour would attempt to govern the UK with the support of the SNP. Please note that I am not personally hostile to the SNP/Nicola Sturgeon and am not opposed to Scottish independence.

 

[nr758123]

The converse of that is that the Tories are the party of private-sector workers.

The strongest support for the Tories comes not from workers in either public or private sector, but from the retired.

 

[RT4038]

Use of patronising language is also very common by right-wingers IMO, particularly on matters such as public spending, which I do realise is not really the issue between left and right at the moment - though I suspect it will become so before too long.

And refusing to listen is another, I have given up writing to my (Tory) MP because they simply do not listen and generally reply in a pompous and condescending tone. Another reason why we need to reform the electoral system, and have larger seats with multiple-party MPs because you might get one which actually listens to you.

In my experience, if you write to your MP (of the ruling party) about some kind of maladministration etc to you individually, they will usually try to help. If you write to them hoping to engage in some kind of political debate, particularly in subjects with a view that runs contrary to the party line, then you will get a reply in a pompous and condescending tone. From one of their staff. Whichever party is in power. What else would you expect?

Quite. More examples of how the Tories do not care about ordinary people.

Add to that the likes of Lilley (#3 worst non-PM politician of my lifetime) perpetuating the attitude that unemployed people are workshy scroungers rather than people that would actually like a job but are treated like criminals by sanctimonious politicians.

That depends on who you consider as 'ordinary people'? There are plenty of 'ordinary people' who will vote for a party that is going to be tough on scroungers of social security in one way or another. Everybody knows of the unemployed who would actually like a job, but only in their chosen field and on their conditions. Everybody of a certain age and above knows of someone whose Doctor had signed them as unfit to work as a favour because they didn't want to work. Everybody knows someone who would give up their job if unemployment benefit was a bit better. Everyone knows of someone living in social housing much bigger than they need.
Now many of these 'everyone' (ordinary people) are working hard (or are retired, but did work hard), paying their taxes, and don't trust Labour not to spend their taxes to make things easier for the work shy. Therein lies part of Labour's problem.

You may well think it is terrible for the Government to (financially) force people out to work, but I suggest that there are a lot who don't.

 

[nw1]

In my experience, if you write to your MP (of the ruling party) about some kind of maladministration etc to you individually, they will usually try to help. If you write to them hoping to engage in some kind of political debate, particularly in subjects with a view that runs contrary to the party line, then you will get a reply in a pompous and condescending tone. From one of their staff. Whichever party is in power. What else would you expect?

The aim was to try and infliuence policy (on the grounds that if a thousand people in the constituency wrote on the same matter, the MP might actually listen), but I have learnt that this was a rather naive approach to take and is a futile exercise. Does make you feel rather voiceless though, which is not good in a democracy and why we need coalitions rather than majority governments (of any colour). If we had a cabinet right now which had approximately 43% of ministers from the Tory party, or a parliament with approximately 43% Tory MPs, that would actually be representative of the 'will of the people'. But we have 100% of the former and over 50% of the latter. Only coalitions have the range of views necessary to represent a range of people.

 

[RT4038]

The aim was to try and infliuence policy (on the grounds that if a thousand people in the constituency wrote on the same matter, the MP might actually listen), but I have learnt that this was a rather naive approach to take and is a futile exercise. Does make you feel rather voiceless though, which is not good in a democracy and why we need coalitions rather than majority governments (of any colour). If we had a cabinet right now which had approximately 43% of ministers from the Tory party, or a parliament with approximately 43% Tory MPs, that would actually be representative of the 'will of the people'. But we have 100% of the former and over 50% of the latter. Only coalitions have the range of views necessary to represent a range of people.

I think you have to put yourself in the position of the MP, of whichever political hue. They are elected to represent a particular constituency, but on the ticket of a particular party manifesto and ethos. Writing a thousand letters hoping to change the mind of the MP is all very well, but the MP will also have their own methods of gauging the mood of the electorate in their constituency, and particularly those who voted for them. That isn't to say that the letters would have no effect, but it will likely only be in a subtle and indirect way. I do not know the subject of your letters, but with the boot on the other foot, so to speak, would a Labour MP, at a time of a Labour Government, take much notice of a thousand letters from individual constituents (out of perhaps 100,000 constituents) asking for employment laws to be relaxed?

The current electoral system may not seem entirely 'democratic' (whatever that may mean to an individual), but it is the one we have got and know. Changing the system may well cause unintended consequences - there is no real way of gauging how voting patterns might change. It is dangerous to make the assumption that people would vote in the way they do now. It seems that everyone who favours a different system is hoping that their party will hold the balance of power - don't be so sure of that. If that is not your party, you could feel equally as disenfranchised as you feel now. Plus MPs no longer have the same concern about constituencies and local matters - it becomes who compiles the party lists is the most important.
Be careful what you wish for.

In this country, the party that people can trust to least threaten their economic position, their financial pile, their lifestyle, is going to win through most of the time. The Tories. Or (new) Labour sometimes. Read up the history of the causes of the Spanish Civil War when you start threatening that.

 

[NorthKent1989]

We can do whataboutisms all day long, but that’s not going to solve anything, I don’t see how Labour right now has any answers to combat the Tories.

We need to look as to why despite what the Tories have done these past 11 years, why have they won the last four elections? I can’t see them losing in 2024 if Starmer is still leader by then.

Whether you like it or not Labour have alienated a large portion of the working classes, just like the Tories have alienated a large portion of the Home Counties middle class set, Labour whether it’s under Corbynism or Blairism has put off their former core voters now that probably in part is down to the media, but it’s also how Labour have treated working class people in recent years in regards to woke identity politics or how they patronised them during Brexit.

I found something yesterday that a friend sent me from Twitter and it sums up why the working classes won’t be voting anything on the left anytime soon.

This was done by people off the street still disgruntled at Brexit, telling people to leave a store and calling them thick t*ats isn’t exactly endearing, and sadly this was done probably by some urban middle class Islingtonite who refers to working class people as lumps of meat just because they have a different viewpoint.

 

[edwin_m]

The current electoral system may not seem entirely 'democratic' (whatever that may mean to an individual), but it is the one we have got and know. Changing the system may well cause unintended consequences - there is no real way of gauging how voting patterns might change. It is dangerous to make the assumption that people would vote in the way they do now. It seems that everyone who favours a different system is hoping that their party will hold the balance of power - don't be so sure of that. If that is not your party, you could feel equally as disenfranchised as you feel now. Plus MPs no longer have the same concern about constituencies and local matters - it becomes who compiles the party lists is the most important.
Be careful what you wish for.

It's true that introducing a system that doesn't require tactical voting will change support for different parties, but in a way that will make the balance of members elected more in line with the balance of views among voters. It's more likely to move support from large to small parties, because in the current system supporters of small parties are more likely to have to vote for a non-preferred party in the hope of keeping out the one they like even less. Most countries that have a proportional system have more than two parties with significant representation, and it's probable that in the UK both Labour and the Tories would have less representation. Rather than party leadership trying to satisfy a broad church of membership and balance what the members want against what might get them elected, voters could choose between more or less extreme options on both the left and the right.

Proportional systems don't have to have the party lists that allow apparatchiks to get into power without having a personal vote. Multi-member constituencies for example ensure that everyone elected has a reasonable amount of public support.

 

[nw1]

I found something yesterday that a friend sent me from Twitter and it sums up why the working classes won’t be voting anything on the left anytime soon.

This was done by people off the street still disgruntled at Brexit, telling people to leave a store and calling them thick t*ats isn’t exactly endearing, and sadly this was done probably by some urban middle class Islingtonite who refers to working class people as lumps of meat just because they have a different viewpoint.

While I don't agree with this sort of extreme behaviour, and you should always be civil to people you disagree with rather than hurling insults at them, the only concrete thing about it is targeted at Brexiters. Nothing to do with the working class.

I think it is wrong to assume that most, or even a majority of, working class people support Brexit. The two are often conflated by pro-Brexit media and politicians, in my view because it shores up and gives legitimacy to Brexit. I suspect at least as many Brexit supporters are 'I'm all right jack' members of the middle class living in affluent areas and who resent EU interference in Tory-initiated British laws that benefit them personally. Away from the London-Thames Valley-Oxford corridor and southwest Surrey, a lot of places down here supported Brexit. Take Fareham for example: very affluent constituency, and more Brexit voters than Remainers. Contrast that to Liverpool, which went for Remain and by all accounts is a working-class city.

And the left have always traditionally been the political movement of the working class, because one of their central policies is protecting workers' employment rights and financial position. What party are the unions associated with? What have the Tories actually, really, done for the working class which will genuinely help their lot? I know Labour are not ideal in this respect, either - but at least they are a party which does have a sizeable contingent concerned about workers' rights.

But anyway maybe it's best to agree to disagree on this and move on

 

[RT4038]

What have the Tories actually, really, done for the working class which will genuinely help their lot? I know Labour are not ideal in this respect, either - but at least they are a party which does have a sizeable contingent concerned about workers' rights.

But anyway maybe it's best to agree to disagree on this and move on

What they have done, in the last 42 years, is to move a formidable chunk of the 'working class' into the 'middle class', with owned homes, own businesses and the finances to go with it. This is not to be under estimated. Those who are in the 'working class' now may not have been helped much, but as a proportion of the population they are much smaller. I use these class definitions quite loosely, as there are many different views as to what they cover.

 

[Senex]

Multi-member constituencies for example ensure that everyone elected has a reasonable amount of public support.

And the other side to that coin: multi-member constituencies mean that more — possibly many more — of the electorate feel that they have a representative and so may be more inclined buy in to the system. (Rather than feel that no-one represents them and politics is just a game that "they" play and "we" suffer under.)

 

[RT4038]

It's true that introducing a system that doesn't require tactical voting will change support for different parties, but in a way that will make the balance of members elected more in line with the balance of views among voters. It's more likely to move support from large to small parties, because in the current system supporters of small parties are more likely to have to vote for a non-preferred party in the hope of keeping out the one they like even less. Most countries that have a proportional system have more than two parties with significant representation, and it's probable that in the UK both Labour and the Tories would have less representation. Rather than party leadership trying to satisfy a broad church of membership and balance what the members want against what might get them elected, voters could choose between more or less extreme options on both the left and the right.

Proportional systems don't have to have the party lists that allow apparatchiks to get into power without having a personal vote. Multi-member constituencies for example ensure that everyone elected has a reasonable amount of public support.

What makes you think there won't be tactical voting under a PR system? An assumption that voters will vote for the party they like best, rather than one than like less but may get enough votes for power, is a bit far fetched. I am not convinced that changing the current system will not have unintended consequences that are not desirable at all. Bit like Brexit really!

So if there are multi member constituencies, and my chosen party doesn't get enough votes to get one of those multi members, how am I represented on a local level then? Is my vote not counted?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Proportional systems don't have to have the party lists that allow apparatchiks to get into power without having a personal vote. Multi-member constituencies for example ensure that everyone elected has a reasonable amount of public support.

Perhaps worth pointing out that multi-member constituencies are unlikely to be truly proportional. If - say - you have 5-member constituencies, then you'll probably give fair-ish representation to a party that sits on around 20% support, but a party with less than about 10% support will still struggle to get many MPs, if its support is evenly spread. That could be seen as an advantage since you don't potentially de-stabilize the system by giving representation to parties that have - say - 1% support, but you still make the results massively fairer compared to what you see today. (Depending of course what the method of electing each multi-member constituency is).

And the left have always traditionally been the political movement of the working class, because one of their central policies is protecting workers' employment rights and financial position. What party are the unions associated with? What have the Tories actually, really, done for the working class which will genuinely help their lot? I know Labour are not ideal in this respect, either - but at least they are a party which does have a sizeable contingent concerned about workers' rights.

I think that's historically true. But one of Labour's problems (aside from the diminishing proportion of the population who work in traditionally-unionized industries and self-identify as working class) is that they try to protect the 'working class' by exclusively focusing on so-called rights without thinking about the wider economic impact. Go too far in protecting employment rights or setting high minimum wages and you end up causing inflation or preventing jobs from being created in the first place. Mrs. Thatcher won several election victories in large part by (quite correctly, IMO) pointing out those kinds of problems, and judging from Labour's most recent policy pronouncements, I don't think Labour has learned the economic/political lessons it needs to learn in that regard.

 

[edwin_m]

What makes you think there won't be tactical voting under a PR system? An assumption that voters will vote for the party they like best, rather than one than like less but may get enough votes for power, is a bit far fetched. I am not convinced that changing the current system will not have unintended consequences that are not desirable at all. Bit like Brexit really!

So if there are multi member constituencies, and my chosen party doesn't get enough votes to get one of those multi members, how am I represented on a local level then? Is my vote not counted?

There are only a handful of constituencies today that are genuine three-way marginals. In all the others a supporter of the third party has to vote for whichever of the other two they dislike less, or their vote is "wasted".

There would be much less need for tactical voting under a more proportional system. For example in a multi-member system as described above, only those supporting a party with less than 20% of the vote in that constituency need to consider voting tactically.

 

[nw1]

And the other side to that coin: multi-member constituencies mean that more — possibly many more — of the electorate feel that they have a representative and so may be more inclined buy in to the system. (Rather than feel that no-one represents them and politics is just a game that "they" play and "we" suffer under.)

Exactly. The current system basically means that if your MP is from a party which you perceive does not care about people who think the way you do, you feel like you may as well not have an MP at all.

Particularly if it is (as has been pointed out above) a member of the governing party.

Have super-constituencies covering 5 times the geographical area of what we have now, with 5 MPs, and unless you are on the political fringes you will have someone who is reasonably sympathetic to your views. And probably nowhere would have 5 MPs of the same party.

I think that's historically true. But one of Labour's problems (aside from the diminishing proportion of the population who work in traditionally-unionized industries and self-identify as working class) is that they try to protect the 'working class' by exclusively focusing on so-called rights without thinking about the wider economic impact. Go too far in protecting employment rights or setting high minimum wages and you end up causing inflation or preventing jobs from being created in the first place. Mrs. Thatcher won several election victories in large part by (quite correctly, IMO) pointing out those kinds of problems, and judging from Labour's most recent policy pronouncements, I don't think Labour has learned the economic/political lessons it needs to learn in that regard.

That may be true about some recent Tory governments, such as Major and (much as I dislike him) Cameron - but this one does not appear to care about economics either. I'm not sure whether it cares about anything other than staying in power. That is certainly the only reason I can see to explain why it was so hell-bent on pursuing a hard, no-customs-union, no-free-movement Brexit: such things don't make much economic sense to me, but appeal to sections of the electorate (essentially, small-C social conservatives) which it wants to keep in its camp.

The only hope (other than Labour winning in 2024, either on its own or through coalition, which I still think is possible, given the likely social and economic difficulties of the next 2 or 3 years) is that the current nationalist fad will fade in the coming years and if power is the only thing it cares about, the party will adjust its policies. And replace Johnson with someone with integrity.

But as I said above, 1990 was not like 1987; if a 1990 election had somehow been forced before Thatcher resigned, I suspect the Tories would have performed disastrously. And October 1992 was not like April 1992, Major, the hero of the press months earlier, was a laughing-stock by the autumn thanks to the recession and Black Wednesday. Many thought Trump would get the full eight years. So why should 2024 be like 2021 in terms of which party is in favour and which is not?

 

[yorksrob]

If you believe that the current Conservatives are hard-right then I'm sorry, you are deluded. They are liberals in the traditional sense, centre left. They have a liberal/wet leader and are very metropolitan in outlook. On things like immigration they talk hard but play very soft for example.

If you are wondering why they are doing so well in the polls etc, it's not that they are a good party or a good Govt, it's because Labour are unelectable and will continue to be until they stop pandering to minority woke causes that sit well inside the cities but not in that huge mass of blue outside of them. The only successful Labour leader in the past 3 decades in Tony Blair and even he went rogue at the end. England isn't a socialist nation and never will be. If the Labour party are serious about getting into power they will have to adopt policies that many of the Labour faithful will abhor, move very much to the centre of politics, abandon the coloured hair brigade and get serious about the economy, immigration, education, employment etc and start sticking up for the 'people' and not the rights of individual groups.

Finally, this bull about the Tories being enemy has to stop. The Tories represent a lot of ordinary people, so by claiming the Tories are the enemy immediately puts that support base on alert. Labour has to convince a significant chunk of the electorate in traditional Tory areas to vote for them and calling then an enemy won't cut it.

And if Labour do all that and get a credible leader, not a knight of the realm with a dubious background on prosecuting certain groups or celebrities, they might become a credible option to enough people to vote for them. But at the moment, to many outside of the movement, they just don't have the policies nor enough credible people in position to form a Govt.

But then, the Tories do have a soft underbelly - in the form of the global free market. I've seen mentioned on radio 4 that as many British companies have been subject to foreign takeovers this year as in the past five years.

I can't believe that there is a consensus for the selling off of the economy, so maybe that's something where a socialist/patriotic symbiotic policy could be formed. TBH any party could do it, but the Tories seem unwilling at the moment.

 

[brad465]

I found something yesterday that a friend sent me from Twitter and it sums up why the working classes won’t be voting anything on the left anytime soon.

This was done by people off the street still disgruntled at Brexit, telling people to leave a store and calling them thick t*ats isn’t exactly endearing, and sadly this was done probably by some urban middle class Islingtonite who refers to working class people as lumps of meat just because they have a different viewpoint.

I do not agree with this extreme behaviour, but it is not limited to one side. Insults like "lefty remoaner" and "wokeist" are equally extreme.

All this is the result of media outlets and a political system that wants and needs division in society for those involved in the systems to benefit at our expense. They talk extreme and do extreme stuff that leads to very divisive behaviour on all political sides.

If we want to stamp out this behaviour regarding political issues the systemic problems need routing out big time. The Tories won't allow it, whether Labour manage to improve things I don't know. What I'm more confident of is any attempts to improve society in this way will not happen quickly; at best two average length Parliaments, at worst a generation.

 

[nw1]

I do not agree with this extreme behaviour, but it is not limited to one side. Insults like "lefty remoaner" and "wokeist" are equally extreme.

All this is the result of media outlets and a political system that wants and needs division in society for those involved in the systems to benefit at our expense. They talk extreme and do extreme stuff that leads to very divisive behaviour on all political sides.

If we want to stamp out this behaviour regarding political issues the systemic problems need routing out big time. The Tories won't allow it, whether Labour manage to improve things I don't know. What I'm more confident of is any attempts to improve society in this way will not happen quickly; at best two average length Parliaments, at worst a generation.

Agree 100%, another one is "cry-baby loser" against people who voiced unhappiness about the outcome of the referendum or the 2019 election, for example. The right have definitely come up with some really nasty stuff of late.

Society, both here and in the USA, is more divided than I have ever known it, though to my mind it is the right who are less willing to compromise. For example, as a remainer I'd be quite happy to accept a freedom-of-movement, customs-union version of Brexit.

 

[NorthKent1989]

I do not agree with this extreme behaviour, but it is not limited to one side. Insults like "lefty remoaner" and "wokeist" are equally extreme.

All this is the result of media outlets and a political system that wants and needs division in society for those involved in the systems to benefit at our expense. They talk extreme and do extreme stuff that leads to very divisive behaviour on all political sides.

If we want to stamp out this behaviour regarding political issues the systemic problems need routing out big time. The Tories won't allow it, whether Labour manage to improve things I don't know. What I'm more confident of is any attempts to improve society in this way will not happen quickly; at best two average length Parliaments, at worst a generation.

Not sure you can compare being referred to a lump of meat (gammon), being called thick and stupid to being called woke or lefty, remoaner is pretty extreme.

The media is definitely to blame for creating divisions, even now with Covid, those who are lockdown sceptic or questioning the vaccines are called “Covidiot or antivax” one thing I will say about Covid it’s that it finally removed the left/right paradigm and made it more into a libertarian/authoritarian paradigm.

While I don't agree with this sort of extreme behaviour, and you should always be civil to people you disagree with rather than hurling insults at them, the only concrete thing about it is targeted at Brexiters. Nothing to do with the working class.

I think it is wrong to assume that most, or even a majority of, working class people support Brexit. The two are often conflated by pro-Brexit media and politicians, in my view because it shores up and gives legitimacy to Brexit. I suspect at least as many Brexit supporters are 'I'm all right jack' members of the middle class living in affluent areas and who resent EU interference in Tory-initiated British laws that benefit them personally. Away from the London-Thames Valley-Oxford corridor and southwest Surrey, a lot of places down here supported Brexit. Take Fareham for example: very affluent constituency, and more Brexit voters than Remainers. Contrast that to Liverpool, which went for Remain and by all accounts is a working-class city.

And the left have always traditionally been the political movement of the working class, because one of their central policies is protecting workers' employment rights and financial position. What party are the unions associated with? What have the Tories actually, really, done for the working class which will genuinely help their lot? I know Labour are not ideal in this respect, either - but at least they are a party which does have a sizeable contingent concerned about workers' rights.

But anyway maybe it's best to agree to disagree on this and move on

A sizeable portion of the working classes voted brexit, it’s worth noting that Liverpool is also a university city with a large student population and also a growing middle class population too, this could be a factor as to why they voted remain.

But yes you do have a point and I see you’re saying that Brexit wasn’t a class binary issue.

A middle class professional from Camden and a working class student in Manchester would have both likely voted remain.

While a upper middle class person from Guildford and a working class person from Kent would have most likely voted leave.

The idea that Brexit is a class war is utterly ridiculous as well.

 

[nw1]

Not sure you can compare being referred to a lump of meat (gammon), being called thick and stupid to being called woke or lefty, remoaner is pretty extreme.

This is just one incident though, and I don't think it's typical of remainers and/or Labour voters. Certainly on social media, the Tory/Brexit supporters seem to be more insulting and aggressive than the Labour/Lib Dem/Remain camp.

Look at the anti-Brexit protests, of which I attended three. No violence, no insults of Brexit voters (but a few non-extreme jabs at the likes of Johnson, May, Cameron etc) and everyone very well behaved. Contrast that to what I have heard about pro-Brexit protests which by all accounts turned into quite a slanging match at Remainers, Labour politicians, and so on.

That said I don't deny that there are occasional extreme views on the left - around 2017/2018 I had a discussion with a group of people on the internet who appeared to deny that men can be sexually harrassed, for example - but these are much rarer than the extreme views on the right. And certainly such extreme views need to be moderated as, despite being rare, they do give the left a bad name.

The media is definitely to blame for creating divisions, even now with Covid, those who are lockdown sceptic or questioning the vaccines are called “Covidiot or antivax” one thing I will say about Covid it’s that it finally removed the left/right paradigm and made it more into a libertarian/authoritarian paradigm.

I think libertarian/authoritarian is definitely a rift opening up. I would place myself in the former camp - and to be honest I believe that true libertarians would not support the Government's version of Brexit (though they may support a softer one), because of the anti-libertarian restrictions on immigration, either continent to UK or UK to continent. I strongly view this as an imposition on, and interference with, personal freedom. Doubly so given that we have been used to such rights since the early nineties - it is a real retrogressive, backwards step.

Priti Patel is a perfect example of someone who is economically right-wing, pro-Brexit, anti-immigration and authoritarian - dispelling the myth that authoritarians have to come from the left, which is perpetuated by some. One thing is for sure, we need more libertarian politicians in power right now, they are a very rare species.

And that hypocrite Hancock was the real covidiot.

 

[swt_passenger]

So Len McCluskey still believes they need to be more like Corbyn to succeed, according to the BBC here:

Starmer lacks election-winning vision, says Len McCluskey

The outgoing Unite leader tells the BBC he is pessimistic about Labour's chances at the next election.

www.bbc.co.uk

Is McCluskey completely delusiona?

 

[NorthKent1989]

So Len McCluskey still believes they need to be more like Corbyn to succeed, according to the BBC here:

Starmer lacks election-winning vision, says Len McCluskey

The outgoing Unite leader tells the BBC he is pessimistic about Labour's chances at the next election.

www.bbc.co.uk

Is McCluskey completely delusiona?

Maybe under this climate Corbyn might have a chance at regaining some seats now the Brexit issue has gone and Covid has created a whole new set of divisions, but I don’t think Labour can ever win a general election again, no matter which way they go, the Blair way or the Corbyn way, both have proven to be repellent to voters in some form.

 

[birchesgreen]

Is McCluskey completely delusiona?

Yes

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Keir Starmer has written his 'vision', The Road Ahead, available here.

I've just read it. It's interesting and does seem to give some idea of where he's planning to take Labour. My own (very subjective) impression is that he seems to have ditched a lot of the anti-business, anti-market, language that Labour used in the Corbyn era, but without really changing any policies to match. For example, he writes, "new, commonsense, practical approach: one in which we don’t treat the economy as a battle for supremacy between public sector and private sector, but a joint effort", which sounds great - but when you look for something specific that might give some indication of how this joint effort would work, there's nothing except lots of stuff about how companies have to give workers more rights and higher pay. It's not much of a joint effort if all you're doing is demanding that 'the other side' does more and gives more!

There's also a lot of (rightly IMO) attacking the Tories' record on crime, social deprivation, health, etc. and warm words on how Labour will make it all better - which actually do sound good - but there's no indication of how he'd raise the money to pay for all the nice things he's promising. He also totally puts me off by repeatedly talking about the culture wars, but always in a one-sided way, pushing the usual daft trope about how the culture wars are a Tory invention designed to divide us, while completely failing to acknowledge the hurt that is being caused by people (usually on the left) repeatedly demonising the UK and UK history etc.

Not sure whether this will do anything to revive Labour's fortunes. The language he's using definitely seems more voter-friendly and inclusive than what we got in the Corbyn era, which could help them. But for my part, I'm afraid it's not going to do anything to attract me back to Labour unless he starts changing the approach and the policies to match the language.

 

[brad465]

Keir Starmer has written his 'vision', The Road Ahead, available here.

I've just read it. It's interesting and does seem to give some idea of where he's planning to take Labour. My own (very subjective) impression is that he seems to have ditched a lot of the anti-business, anti-market, language that Labour used in the Corbyn era, but without really changing any policies to match. For example, he writes, "new, commonsense, practical approach: one in which we don’t treat the economy as a battle for supremacy between public sector and private sector, but a joint effort", which sounds great - but when you look for something specific that might give some indication of how this joint effort would work, there's nothing except lots of stuff about how companies have to give workers more rights and higher pay. It's not much of a joint effort if all you're doing is demanding that 'the other side' does more and gives more!

There's also a lot of (rightly IMO) attacking the Tories' record on crime, social deprivation, health, etc. and warm words on how Labour will make it all better - which actually do sound good - but there's no indication of how he'd raise the money to pay for all the nice things he's promising. He also totally puts me off by repeatedly talking about the culture wars, but always in a one-sided way, pushing the usual daft trope about how the culture wars are a Tory invention designed to divide us, while completely failing to acknowledge the hurt that is being caused by people (usually on the left) repeatedly demonising the UK and UK history etc.

Not sure whether this will do anything to revive Labour's fortunes. The language he's using definitely seems more voter-friendly and inclusive than what we got in the Corbyn era, which could help them. But for my part, I'm afraid it's not going to do anything to attract me back to Labour unless he starts changing the approach and the policies to match the language.

We'll probably have to see if any policies are presented at the upcoming party conference on a number of these matters. They did suggest scrapping the (not-so Royal) Yacht and using the money from its construction and life maintenance costs to go into tackling crime, particularly anti-social behaviour, as a policy idea a while back. We'll have to see if this is repeated along with other ideas.

I don't know if this will be brought forward, but if Labour were to propose nationalising utilities I think this would go down well broadly, both with all sides of the Labour party and maybe some outsiders, who've seen the recent energy crisis behaviour and "privatising profits, socialising losses", which is the worst of both worlds. I certainly believe critical infrastructure/services should not be in private hands, and in particular those of other countries (like EDF being French state owned).

 

[DynamicSpirit]

We'll probably have to see if any policies are presented at the upcoming party conference on a number of these matters. They did suggest scrapping the (not-so Royal) Yacht and using the money from its construction and life maintenance costs to go into tackling crime, particularly anti-social behaviour, as a policy idea a while back. We'll have to see if this is repeated along with other ideas.

Yes that's a good point. The Road Ahead does mention scrapping the yacht and spending the money on tackling anti-social behaviour, so that policy is still there. And it's an exception to my comment about no indication about how money would be raised, although in the big scheme of things, the sum is so small - and it's largely a one-off thing, that it's hardly going to make much difference. And Keir Starmer is also assuming the yacht would have no benefits, which is arguably not correct - you're looking at both construction jobs, and possible benefits in terms of raising the profile of the UK (hard to ascribe a monetary value to, I know) if the yacht is used as intended for trade and diplomatic meetings etc.

 

[edwin_m]

Yes that's a good point. The Road Ahead does mention scrapping the yacht and spending the money on tackling anti-social behaviour, so that policy is still there. And it's an exception to my comment about no indication about how money would be raised, although in the big scheme of things, the sum is so small - and it's largely a one-off thing, that it's hardly going to make much difference. And Keir Starmer is also assuming the yacht would have no benefits, which is arguably not correct - you're looking at both construction jobs, and possible benefits in terms of raising the profile of the UK (hard to ascribe a monetary value to, I know) if the yacht is used as intended for trade and diplomatic meetings etc.

Those are presumably the exact reasons given by the yacht boosters.

The construction cost would probably create just as many jobs if spent in a wide range of other ways. I'd say the problem isn't raising Britain's profile, everyone knows about Britain but a lot of people have a lower opinion of us because of the behaviour of our government and certain factions that support it. Threatening to tear up international treaties doesn't do much for trustworthiness and general reputation, and steaming in on a shiny yacht could just remind people of that rather than giving any positive impression. And using a vessel that takes weeks to get to any of the "global partners" that we're supposed to be pivoting towards doesn't strike me as a very efficient way of promoting Britain anyway.

 

[brad465]

Apparently Labour plan to bring in a cap on foreign sales of new homes, among a draft of proposals to help first time buyers:

Labour conference: Party pledges to cap foreign sales of new homes

The party will set out the plan at its annual conference, arguing it will help first-time buyers.

www.bbc.co.uk

Labour says it would cap the amount of property overseas investors can purchase in new developments, in a bid to help first-time buyers.
Under plans to be outlined at its annual conference, the party would also give first-time buyers "first dibs" on new builds for six months.
It will also pledge to reform rules governing how developers contribute towards affordable housing.
And it will pledge to give councils new powers to buy land for homes.
The conference, starting in Brighton on Saturday, will give party leader Sir Keir Starmer his first chance to set out his stall to members in person.
It comes amid an ongoing policy review, where the party will decide how much of its policy offering it should change from the Jeremy Corbyn era.

In a speech on Sunday, Labour's shadow housing secretary Lucy Powell will set out the party's plans to build "more truly affordable homes".
"Our country is facing a housing crisis with the link between hard work and getting on the housing ladder broken for many," she will say.
She is expected to accuse the Conservatives of becoming the "party of speculators and developers", treating property "as a commodity, not the bedrock of stable lives and life chances."
And in a move to occupy traditional Tory territory, she will call Labour the "party of home ownership".
She will pledge to change England's planning rules, so that half of the homes in new developments cannot be sold to foreign investors.
The party says this will help first-time buyers by preventing properties being sold off-plan to developers before local residents can buy them.
The policy is an evolution of the party's position at the 2019 election under Jeremy Corbyn, when it proposed a new tax on foreign buyers.
In its 2019 manifesto, the party also promised first-time buyers "first dibs" on new housing - but did not specify for how long.

Some more detail would be welcome (and I'd expect will come at the conference), but I think there's no question that foreign property ownership in this country, with emphasis on vacant property that exists purely for investment or to hide money laundering, is unacceptably high and exacerbating the housing crisis, so anything done to address this will be welcome.

 

[yorksrob]

Apparently Labour plan to bring in a cap on foreign sales of new homes, among a draft of proposals to help first time buyers:

Labour conference: Party pledges to cap foreign sales of new homes

The party will set out the plan at its annual conference, arguing it will help first-time buyers.

www.bbc.co.uk

Some more detail would be welcome (and I'd expect will come at the conference), but I think there's no question that foreign property ownership in this country, with emphasis on vacant property that exists purely for investment or to hide money laundering, is unacceptably high and exacerbating the housing crisis, so anything done to address this will be welcome.

That's definitely something that should have been done some time ago. Countries such as Denmark and Australia have already taken this measure.

 

[brad465]

I don't think this was a particularly smart move by Rayner, and both Starmer and Nandy have been at least mildly critical of the choice of language involved:

Labour conference: Angela Rayner stands by calling Boris Johnson 'scum'

Labour's deputy leader says she will say sorry when the PM apologises for past "racist" comments.

www.bbc.co.uk

Angela Rayner says she will apologise for calling Boris Johnson "scum" when he retracts past comments she described as homophobic, racist and misogynistic.
Labour's deputy leader was reported to have called Tory ministers "a bunch of scum" at a Labour conference event.
One Conservative minister accused Ms Rayner of "talking crap", while another urged her to apologise.
But, asked if she would retract the remarks, she called the prime minister a "racist, homophobic misogynist".
"I think he needs to apologise for comments he has made in the past," Ms Rayner told the BBC, adding: "I will apologise when Boris apologises for saying the comments he has made. I will retract that he is scum."

The prime minister has often faced criticism from his opponents over his comments on race and sexuality while working as a journalist.

There are benefits to being controversial to getting the attention needed in the headlines, something Trump deployed almost constantly in his election campaign, but I don't think the same logic will apply here as a largely right wing media won't side with Rayner like they would with Trump/Johnson.

By coincidence I was watching a political live stream yesterday in which two commentators I watch got together, and one of them highlighted how Starmer is too cautious, and Rayner is too reckless (which she seems to have just demonstrated), and while it's better to be the former than the latter, an ideal approach is to be in the middle of the two positions.