Current Affairs The Labour Party

[tsubaki]

It's the social bit where conservatism is strong I think. Economically I suspect there's a significant number of people who see the benefits of left leaning social welfare policies and economics. Corbyn however just had so much baggage in terms of being seen as too progressive and socially liberal for many.

The so called 'blue labour' voters. It gets a bit uncomfortably close to BNP territory.

Unfortunately all we're getting is retrogressive mean spirited socially Conservative policies and flannel. Nothing genuinely substantial and of benefit to many economically.

TBF "blue Labour" was a myth put about by various centrists in a vain attempt to sleep with Rowenna Davis

 

[Bruce Wayne]

TBF "blue Labour" was a myth put about by various centrists in a vain attempt to sleep with Rowenna Davis

Really?

Blue Labour - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

So many of those who switched from Labour to Conservative didn't do so for socially conservative reasons and rejections of the "metropolitan/globalist urban middle classes" and in favour of the nationalism espoused by Brexit?

 

[tsubaki]

Really?

Blue Labour - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

So many of those who switched from Labour to Conservative didn't do so for socially conservative reasons and rejections of the "metropolitan/globalist urban middle classes" and in favour of the nationalism espoused by Brexit?

They didn't - to suggest that they did that for political reasons requires three big things to be ignored; firstly the effort that was put into backing the Tories / demonizing Labour - record amounts donated to the Tories, widespread media, social media and prominente campaigns against Labour running from 2018 onwards. I mean ffs at one stage the Archbishop of Canterbury was effectively telling people not to vote Corbs.

Secondly the fact that Labour were not at that time under the control of the "metropolitan/globalist urban middle classes" - in fact it was precisely those people in Labour who hated Corbyn the most, the ones who fought most bitterly against him and who ended up sabotaging the party for their own enrichment. Labour in 2019 were not calling for more globalization, not talking about all the Blairite things that so wound up the traditional w/c communities butwere talking about things (more social housing, more investment in those communities, cheaper education) that traditional w/c communities would benefit from. Corbyn was even repeatedly portrayed as a "secret Brexiteer" remember, which is something cited repeatedly as something those communities allegedly wanted!

Thirdly there is what record the Tories were running on, which was a record pretty much diametrically opposed to "social conservatism" of the British style - reducing the military, more diversity programmes, increased rights for LGBTQ+ people (including gender recognition), foreign donations and honours, a leader whose record in terms of shagging females not his wife needs no exaggeration etc.

The switch from Labour to Tory during the 2019 election happened because those people chose to believe what they were told, no matter how obviously false ("high wage economy") or Kafkaesque it was.

 

[roydo]

The switch from Labour to Tory during the 2019 election happened because those people chose to believe what they were told, no matter how obviously false ("high wage economy") or Kafkaesque it was.

They believed what they wanted to hear. As did millions of others. But it was 95% Brexit moonshine they drank in.

 

[tsubaki]

They believed what they wanted to hear. As did millions of others. But it was 95% Brexit moonshine they drank in.

All of it was hooch though - the Brexit stuff, the "levelling-up", Johnson being great, what Labour would do to the economy, and huge clouds of anti-Corbyn smears (do you remember when Pete and Joey had a pop at him because his wife was exploiting* Latin American coffee farmers?).

The point I was trying to make is that vast (unprecedented) amount of moonshine served up was what won that election, not an in-depth assessment of Labour's position vis-a-vis globalisation, traditional values etc and the parties impact on communities that traditionally voted Labour. If it had been that, Labour would have done far better than they did (because the pro-globalisation crowd had been mostly consigned to the fringes / were directly opposing Corbyn and his faction).

* by paying them above the market rate

 

[roydo]

All of it was hooch though - the Brexit stuff, the "levelling-up", Johnson being great, what Labour would do to the economy, and huge clouds of anti-Corbyn smears (do you remember when Pete and Joey had a pop at him because his wife was exploiting* Latin American coffee farmers?).

The point I was trying to make is that vast (unprecedented) amount of moonshine served up was what won that election, not an in-depth assessment of Labour's position vis-a-vis globalisation, traditional values etc and the parties impact on communities that traditionally voted Labour. If it had been that, Labour would have done far better than they did (because the pro-globalisation crowd had been mostly consigned to the fringes / were directly opposing Corbyn and his faction).

* by paying them above the market rate

Yeah, I know it was. Been saying it for years. Hooch that is. The leveling up might be going on, no idea me. But my default position now is that maybe it will dawn on folk that they were sold a pup. Somehow I doubt it though.

But either way, its done. And there is zero we can do about it.

 

[Daveysgingerlovechild]

They didn't - to suggest that they did that for political reasons requires three big things to be ignored; firstly the effort that was put into backing the Tories / demonizing Labour - record amounts donated to the Tories, widespread media, social media and prominente campaigns against Labour running from 2018 onwards. I mean ffs at one stage the Archbishop of Canterbury was effectively telling people not to vote Corbs.

Secondly the fact that Labour were not at that time under the control of the "metropolitan/globalist urban middle classes" - in fact it was precisely those people in Labour who hated Corbyn the most, the ones who fought most bitterly against him and who ended up sabotaging the party for their own enrichment. Labour in 2019 were not calling for more globalization, not talking about all the Blairite things that so wound up the traditional w/c communities butwere talking about things (more social housing, more investment in those communities, cheaper education) that traditional w/c communities would benefit from. Corbyn was even repeatedly portrayed as a "secret Brexiteer" remember, which is something cited repeatedly as something those communities allegedly wanted!

Thirdly there is what record the Tories were running on, which was a record pretty much diametrically opposed to "social conservatism" of the British style - reducing the military, more diversity programmes, increased rights for LGBTQ+ people (including gender recognition), foreign donations and honours, a leader whose record in terms of shagging females not his wife needs no exaggeration etc.

The switch from Labour to Tory during the 2019 election happened because those people chose to believe what they were told, no matter how obviously false ("high wage economy") or Kafkaesque it was.

An election of contradictions arguably. And you're correct, it's extremely conplex. My take is you're right about some Tory policy, particularly during the Cameron years, being very socially Liberal with regards to stuff like lgbqt.

However, under Cameron we had less Liberal things like hostile environments towards migration. Which arguably deepened and came to the fore post referendum. Both May and particularly Johnson campaigned very much under a national pride sort of campaign centred (for different reasons) around Brexit.

Corbyn was just blighted by how people perceived him. Again you're right the neo-liberal wing of Labour either left or shrank back, but in the lead up to the 2019 election I knew he was stuffed. Folk I spoke to, radio phone ins, in depth journalism for radio and newspaper all indicated that people did not view him as being 'for them' but being for students and certain middle class professions. If you recall though, blind Polling on his policies got broad support.

Johnson's blag levelling up shtick with getting Brexit done, was seemingly, as @roydo suggests, what folk wanted to hear.

I've got friends aligned with momentum and they hated me for suggesting there was trouble for Corbyn. A bit of a 'what should be' attitude rather than trying to evaluate 'what is'.

Truly complex stuff to properly understand.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

They didn't - to suggest that they did that for political reasons requires three big things to be ignored; firstly the effort that was put into backing the Tories / demonizing Labour - record amounts donated to the Tories, widespread media, social media and prominente campaigns against Labour running from 2018 onwards. I mean ffs at one stage the Archbishop of Canterbury was effectively telling people not to vote Corbs.

Secondly the fact that Labour were not at that time under the control of the "metropolitan/globalist urban middle classes" - in fact it was precisely those people in Labour who hated Corbyn the most, the ones who fought most bitterly against him and who ended up sabotaging the party for their own enrichment. Labour in 2019 were not calling for more globalization, not talking about all the Blairite things that so wound up the traditional w/c communities butwere talking about things (more social housing, more investment in those communities, cheaper education) that traditional w/c communities would benefit from. Corbyn was even repeatedly portrayed as a "secret Brexiteer" remember, which is something cited repeatedly as something those communities allegedly wanted!

Thirdly there is what record the Tories were running on, which was a record pretty much diametrically opposed to "social conservatism" of the British style - reducing the military, more diversity programmes, increased rights for LGBTQ+ people (including gender recognition), foreign donations and honours, a leader whose record in terms of shagging females not his wife needs no exaggeration etc.

The switch from Labour to Tory during the 2019 election happened because those people chose to believe what they were told, no matter how obviously false ("high wage economy") or Kafkaesque it was.

I'd add a couple of things to that. On the Tory side, the Brexit referendum quite clearly saw a break from the brand of Conservativism under Cameron that was more socially liberal and it became much more UKIP lite afterwards, firstly in relation to immigration and globalism and then subsequently in the "culture wars" rubbish they've gone down. Throw in the campaign pledge around levelling up and there was a clear sense that the Tories under Johnson would stick it to the cities in favour of the places that voted both for them and more importantly for Brexit.

On the Labour side, it's impossible to ignore the fact that Corbyn himself and those closest to him (particularly McDonnel and Abbott) were from the same patch of London. The fact that he was cheered at Glastonbury tells you the kind of people who backed him, and it wasn't middle-aged working-class people.

As this article explains

Brexit also represented something deeper: a collision between Remain-voting civic-minded social liberals and Leave-voting ethno-nationalist social conservatives. This cut across left-right divisions and had been losing Labour votes in its heartlands for years. For many working-class social conservatives, Corbyn and his inner circle embodied the “metropolitan liberal elite”.

How Labour failed to connect with the British working class

What lay behind Team Corbyn’s woeful campaign.

theconversation.com

 

[tsubaki]

I'd add a couple of things to that. On the Tory side, the Brexit referendum quite clearly saw a break from the brand of Conservativism under Cameron that was more socially liberal and it became much more UKIP lite afterwards, firstly in relation to immigration and globalism and then subsequently in the "culture wars" rubbish they've gone down. Throw in the campaign pledge around levelling up and there was a clear sense that the Tories under Johnson would stick it to the cities in favour of the places that voted both for them and more importantly for Brexit.

On the Labour side, it's impossible to ignore the fact that Corbyn himself and those closest to him (particularly McDonnel and Abbott) were from the same patch of London. The fact that he was cheered at Glastonbury tells you the kind of people who backed him, and it wasn't middle-aged working-class people.

As this article explains

How Labour failed to connect with the British working class

What lay behind Team Corbyn’s woeful campaign.

theconversation.com

That is another of those myths though - Corbyn is from Shropshire, McDonnell from Liverpool and Abbott from Paddington.

They do represent London seats, but it would take a lot of ignorance of where those seats are to describe them as "the same patch" and one wonders why they represent the "metropolitan elite" whilst career journalist and toff Johnson (who lived in Islington for years and who represents a seat closer to London than McDonnell's) isn't.

 

[Rita_Poon]

They believed what they wanted to hear. As did millions of others. But it was 95% Brexit moonshine they drank in.

Some gave up, "end brexit whichever way you want, I dont care, I simply want to hear no more, enoughs enough". Unfortunately this capitulation has been exploited since..."if we bang on about something long enough, these turkeys will have christmas everyday to make the pain stop!". modern day thumb screws.

 

[tsubaki]

An election of contradictions arguably. And you're correct, it's extremely conplex. My take is you're right about some Tory policy, particularly during the Cameron years, being very socially Liberal with regards to stuff like lgbqt.

However, under Cameron we had less Liberal things like hostile environments towards migration. Which arguably deepened and came to the fore post referendum. Both May and particularly Johnson campaigned very much under a national pride sort of campaign centred (for different reasons) around Brexit.

Corbyn was just blighted by how people perceived him. Again you're right the neo-liberal wing of Labour either left or shrank back, but in the lead up to the 2019 election I knew he was stuffed. Folk I spoke to, radio phone ins, in depth journalism for radio and newspaper all indicated that people did not view him as being 'for them' but being for students and certain middle class professions. If you recall though, blind Polling on his policies got broad support.

Johnson's blag levelling up shtick with getting Brexit done, was seemingly, as @roydo suggests, what folk wanted to hear.

I've got friends aligned with momentum and they hated me for suggesting there was trouble for Corbyn. A bit of a 'what should be' attitude rather than trying to evaluate 'what is'.

Truly complex stuff to properly understand.

That was the thing with Corbyn though - the vast majority of the "criticisms" that the public came out with were things they'd read / heard rather than developed themselves. He (and Labour) did face huge problems in that respect, but anyone seeking to reverse the course that the country was on - which has led us to this dark place - would have faced that. Hell, even the diet / sugar free reform that Starmer represents is facing many of the same problems despite the fraud and ineptitude of this regime being even more obvious.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

That is another of those myths though - Corbyn is from Shropshire, McDonnell from Liverpool and Abbott from Paddington.

They do represent London seats, but it would take a lot of ignorance of where those seats are to describe them as "the same patch" and one wonders why they represent the "metropolitan elite" whilst career journalist and toff Johnson (who lived in Islington for years and who represents a seat closer to London than McDonnell's) isn't.

Oh for sure, it baffles me why Johnson, Rees Mogg, Farage et al are deemed "men of the people" when they wouldn't know an ordinary life if it bit them on the backside. I'm just suggesting that I'm not sure the Labour voters who left the party in 2019 felt that Corbyn, McDonnell and Abbott were "one of them".

Incidentally, Corbyn may well be from Shropshire but he's represented Islington North for 40 years. McDonnell has represented Hays & Harlington for over 20 years and was on the Greater London Council before that. They're Londoners.

 

[tsubaki]

Oh for sure, it baffles me why Johnson, Rees Mogg, Farage et al are deemed "men of the people" when they wouldn't know an ordinary life if it bit them on the backside. I'm just suggesting that I'm not sure the Labour voters who left the party in 2019 felt that Corbyn, McDonnell and Abbott were "one of them".

Incidentally, Corbyn may well be from Shropshire but he's represented Islington North for 40 years. McDonnell has represented Hays & Harlington for over 20 years and was on the Greater London Council before that. They're Londoners.

Indeed, but why did they think that? I mean Corbyn lives in a normal persons house, didn't cheat on his expenses, doesn't have a second job, genuinely supports a local football team, has consistent opinions that he doesn't focus group and in his spare time he helps out local charities and works on his allotment. He is basically Mr Corbyn Goes to London.

I don't think its baffling that "the common man" thinks that he as an MP doesn't represent them whilst JRM, Johnson and the rest do - lets face it hundreds of millions and the full-time effort of many very clever people are devoted to making sure the plebs think that.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Indeed, but why did they think that? I mean Corbyn lives in a normal persons house, didn't cheat on his expenses, doesn't have a second job, genuinely supports a local football team, has consistent opinions that he doesn't focus group and in his spare time he helps out local charities and works on his allotment. He is basically Mr Corbyn Goes to London.

I don't think its baffling that "the common man" thinks that he as an MP doesn't represent them whilst JRM, Johnson and the rest do - lets face it hundreds of millions and the full-time effort of many very clever people are devoted to making sure the plebs think that.

That's not "all" he does though, is it? He's also rubbing shoulders with the likes of Audrey White



I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that I suspect "most" people find that extreme, off-putting, and not something they can relate to. I'm inclined to think that most people are probably more like that lady in Bristol and they generally can't be bothered with it all. I wonder if those who live and breathe politics really get that (and I suspect calling them plebs probably doesn't help either).

 

[tsubaki]

That's not "all" he does though, is it? He's also rubbing shoulders with the likes of Audrey White



I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that I suspect "most" people find that extreme, off-putting, and not something they can relate to. I'm inclined to think that most people are probably more like that lady in Bristol and they generally can't be bothered with it all. I wonder if those who live and breathe politics really get that (and I suspect calling them plebs probably doesn't help either).

That is another of those Corbyn critiques - that because he appears on stage at / in the vicinity of / is somehow associated with a person (that "most" people will almost certainly never have heard of) he is somehow the same as the worst things you can say about some other people who associate with that person. Why is it that no other political or media figure is treated like that?

Also "the execrable Ken Loach"? ffs