Current Affairs The Labour Party

[zzr45]

Just because you pretend otherwise, class is still a very VERY real issue.

Nonsense. The problem is that 'the plight of the working class' as it was classical framed isn't just the plight of the working class anymore. The traditionally 'working class' framed problems such as access to affordable homing, financial security, prospects of improving ones lot in life, access to quality healthcare and educational services etc. are being seen in areas outside of where 10, 20 years ago we'd expect them to be seen. It's completely myopic to frame these as just working class problems.

Going back to the 2017 election I remember seeing a Labour video laying out their promises. It was set in a typical 'northern' working class town with plenty of actors with sterotypical 'ee by gum' style accents. There was plenty of chat about how 30-40 years ago things were so different in these towns and that how Labour's manifesto would transform these towns. Wonderful. The problem was, imagine you're a newly qualified teacher from the home counties who has come from a fairly modest middle class background - you've been to university but you're struggling on a low wage, can't afford a place of your own etc - does the vision that put forward by Labour actually talk to you? What Blair did was actually layout a vision that would speak to both elements, something I don't think that Corbyn is actually capable of.

The left have massively fetishized the problems of the working class to the point of condescension and to a point where examples of similar patterns happening elsewhere in society are dismissed because it doesn't fit the classist outlook.

 

[tsubaki]

Nonsense. The problem is that 'the plight of the working class' as it was classical framed isn't just the plight of the working class anymore. The traditionally 'working class' framed problems such as access to affordable homing, financial security, prospects of improving ones lot in life, access to quality healthcare and educational services etc. are being seen in areas outside of where 10, 20 years ago we'd expect them to be seen. It's completely myopic to frame these as just working class problems.

Going back to the 2017 election I remember seeing a Labour video laying out their promises. It was set in a typical 'northern' working class town with plenty of actors with sterotypical 'ee by gum' style accents. There was plenty of chat about how 30-40 years ago things were so different in these towns and that how Labour's manifesto would transform these towns. Wonderful. The problem was, imagine you're a newly qualified teacher from the home counties who has come from a fairly modest middle class background - you've been to university but you're struggling on a low wage, can't afford a place of your own etc - does the vision that put forward by Labour actually talk to you? What Blair did was actually layout a vision that would speak to both elements, something I don't think that Corbyn is actually capable of.

The left have massively fetishized the problems of the working class to the point of condescension and to a point where examples of similar patterns happening elsewhere in society are dismissed because it doesn't fit the classist outlook.

The problem with that analysis is that its Blair's reforms that are largely to blame for the working class - and the middle-class newly qualified teacher - being economically in distress at present.

 

[zzr45]

The problem with that analysis is that its Blair's reforms that are largely to blame for the working class - and the middle-class newly qualified teacher - being economically in distress at present.

Wasn't claiming that it was good, bad or indifferent in what Blair did. Merely that he was able to appeal to those that fall out of the traditional 'Labour' remit.

 

[orchard]

Nonsense. The problem is that 'the plight of the working class' as it was classical framed isn't just the plight of the working class anymore. The traditionally 'working class' framed problems such as access to affordable homing, financial security, prospects of improving ones lot in life, access to quality healthcare and educational services etc. are being seen in areas outside of where 10, 20 years ago we'd expect them to be seen. It's completely myopic to frame these as just working class problems.

Going back to the 2017 election I remember seeing a Labour video laying out their promises. It was set in a typical 'northern' working class town with plenty of actors with sterotypical 'ee by gum' style accents. There was plenty of chat about how 30-40 years ago things were so different in these towns and that how Labour's manifesto would transform these towns. Wonderful. The problem was, imagine you're a newly qualified teacher from the home counties who has come from a fairly modest middle class background - you've been to university but you're struggling on a low wage, can't afford a place of your own etc - does the vision that put forward by Labour actually talk to you? What Blair did was actually layout a vision that would speak to both elements, something I don't think that Corbyn is actually capable of.

The left have massively fetishized the problems of the working class to the point of condescension and to a point where examples of similar patterns happening elsewhere in society are dismissed because it doesn't fit the classist outlook.

Surely it does, they're always banging on about teachers' pay and conditions, nationalising utilities introduces collective bargaining and economic scale that will save money for individuals, their green ambitions would also possibly appeal, and a stronger nhs couldn't harm either.

 

[tsubaki]

Wasn't claiming that it was good, bad or indifferent in what Blair did. Merely that he was able to appeal to those that fall out of the traditional 'Labour' remit.

He did, but at the cost of making it that much harder for anyone - of whatever Labour faction (or all) - to do what he did. Blair's politics drove millions of people away from Labour.

 

[zzr45]

He did, but at the cost of making it that much harder for anyone - of whatever Labour faction (or all) - to do what he did. Blair's politics drove millions of people away from Labour.

I do wonder about that sometimes, for example the Iraq War gets brought up on here (and Twitter) a lot as almost this watershed moment. The thing is it feels like one of those cheap point scoring things that in the grand scheme of things don’t really bother voters.

 

[NilSatisOptimum]

What Blair did was actually layout a vision that would speak to both elements, something I don't think that Corbyn is actually capable of.

His vision was funded by deregulation of service sector, 'let them get rich' and on the never ever by extending PFIs to eye watering levels. Agreed far worse had Torys been in government, it's for record they would have gone much further in deregulating, . As often stated Blair was Thatcher's greatest legacy, he is the gift that keeps on giving, be that Iraq EU, or his and Browns financial ruin of the UK, that's his legacy.

 

[tsubaki]

I do wonder about that sometimes, for example the Iraq War gets brought up on here (and Twitter) a lot as almost this watershed moment. The thing is it feels like one of those cheap point scoring things that in the grand scheme of things don’t really bother voters.

I wasn't talking about Iraq - the people who left / stopped voting Labour because of that largely came back once Corbyn got in and Labour could genuinely say it had learnt its lesson on that.

I was talking about the long-term decline in the Labour vote in the Midlands, the North and (especially) Scotland, large numbers of whom backed Leave and stopped voting Labour 2001 and 2010, who left because they felt that they were being ignored (they were) and who feel their circumstances have either not improved or gotten worse since 1997 (which in many cases is true).

As an example, there is a good report on the Guardian website about Peterborough (not in the areas I listed admittedly, but still) - remember, all of the damage that was done to that community, those people, has happened under the rule of the two main parties and whilst we were part of the EU.

 

[catcherintherye]

Nonsense. The problem is that 'the plight of the working class' as it was classical framed isn't just the plight of the working class anymore. The traditionally 'working class' framed problems such as access to affordable homing, financial security, prospects of improving ones lot in life, access to quality healthcare and educational services etc. are being seen in areas outside of where 10, 20 years ago we'd expect them to be seen. It's completely myopic to frame these as just working class problems.

Going back to the 2017 election I remember seeing a Labour video laying out their promises. It was set in a typical 'northern' working class town with plenty of actors with sterotypical 'ee by gum' style accents. There was plenty of chat about how 30-40 years ago things were so different in these towns and that how Labour's manifesto would transform these towns. Wonderful. The problem was, imagine you're a newly qualified teacher from the home counties who has come from a fairly modest middle class background - you've been to university but you're struggling on a low wage, can't afford a place of your own etc - does the vision that put forward by Labour actually talk to you? What Blair did was actually layout a vision that would speak to both elements, something I don't think that Corbyn is actually capable of.

The left have massively fetishized the problems of the working class to the point of condescension and to a point where examples of similar patterns happening elsewhere in society are dismissed because it doesn't fit the classist outlook.

I think there's a lot of good points in that. The essence of the dilemma on class is that there is a clear generational divide between younger and older working class people and in many ways they take opposite positions on many things. I'm not sure Corbyn or to be frank Labour more broadly really know how to fully adapt to this.

Either by a stroke of genius (or in my view by chance) Corbyn stumbled across an approach that appealed to both sections in 2017. I am not sure he will be able to do so again. Very reluctantly, I suspect going forward Labour ought to probably focus on younger working class voters, move to a remain position and rebuild amongst this section. It means losing the heartlands though.

Blair and his ilk are a big problem in this too. They wrote off the heartlands for "middle England" voters but hollowed out the core support in the process. There seems to be little understanding how to re-build that either.

Either way class is alive and well, but Labour risk the anger moving to the right/populists. There is a lot of class anger in the Brexit vote too.

 

[catcherintherye]

I do wonder about that sometimes, for example the Iraq War gets brought up on here (and Twitter) a lot as almost this watershed moment. The thing is it feels like one of those cheap point scoring things that in the grand scheme of things don’t really bother voters.

To me the Iraq war is the seismic event for New Labour. Up until that point the Tories had just replaced IDS, Labour remained 15+ points ahead in polls and had a quite effective domestic agenda that kept enough of it's left leaning supporters behind them. I think Blair gambled it on a needless big play over becoming an ever internationalist figure. It was a gamble Labour didn't have to take. At every point since that moment, rather than play it down they have always seemed to "double down" on the strategy rather than diverting from it. Blair often talks of it as a defining moment. Why let the worst bit be the defining bit?

From that point on it was a slow decline for New Labour and their project. I throw Change UK in their too, as they now poll around 2-3%. It's been a sharp decline, from Blair to Brown to Miliband and only really reversed when Corbyn came in.

The sad part is, modest increases in funding for the NHS/school (plus a relatively modern curriculum) multi-agency working, a great reduction in crime, the Peace agreement in Ireland, the annihilation over a 7-8 year period of the Conservatives, Sure Start, greater funding for Domestic Violence etc should have been the legacy they built upon. It was almost as if though for Blair, this was too easy and he wanted to prove a point to his opponents.

 

[roydo]

Very reluctantly, I suspect going forward Labour ought to probably focus on younger working class voters

Just younger. Class is irrelevant to most youngsters. One poster routinely bangs on about a class war and class traitors. but outside the narrow echo chamber of the Labour membership, there isnt a class issue with normal folk. Just people.

 

[magicjuan]

Nonsense. The problem is that 'the plight of the working class' as it was classical framed isn't just the plight of the working class anymore. The traditionally 'working class' framed problems such as access to affordable homing, financial security, prospects of improving ones lot in life, access to quality healthcare and educational services etc. are being seen in areas outside of where 10, 20 years ago we'd expect them to be seen. It's completely myopic to frame these as just working class problems.

Going back to the 2017 election I remember seeing a Labour video laying out their promises. It was set in a typical 'northern' working class town with plenty of actors with sterotypical 'ee by gum' style accents. There was plenty of chat about how 30-40 years ago things were so different in these towns and that how Labour's manifesto would transform these towns. Wonderful. The problem was, imagine you're a newly qualified teacher from the home counties who has come from a fairly modest middle class background - you've been to university but you're struggling on a low wage, can't afford a place of your own etc - does the vision that put forward by Labour actually talk to you? What Blair did was actually layout a vision that would speak to both elements, something I don't think that Corbyn is actually capable of.

The left have massively fetishized the problems of the working class to the point of condescension and to a point where examples of similar patterns happening elsewhere in society are dismissed because it doesn't fit the classist outlook.

Think that's pants to be honest.

 

[zzr45]

To me the Iraq war is the seismic event for New Labour. Up until that point the Tories had just replaced IDS, Labour remained 15+ points ahead in polls and had a quite effective domestic agenda that kept enough of it's left leaning supporters behind them. I think Blair gambled it on a needless big play over becoming an ever internationalist figure. It was a gamble Labour didn't have to take. At every point since that moment, rather than play it down they have always seemed to "double down" on the strategy rather than diverting from it. Blair often talks of it as a defining moment. Why let the worst bit be the defining bit?

From that point on it was a slow decline for New Labour and their project. I throw Change UK in their too, as they now poll around 2-3%. It's been a sharp decline, from Blair to Brown to Miliband and only really reversed when Corbyn came in.

The sad part is, modest increases in funding for the NHS/school (plus a relatively modern curriculum) multi-agency working, a great reduction in crime, the Peace agreement in Ireland, the annihilation over a 7-8 year period of the Conservatives, Sure Start, greater funding for Domestic Violence etc should have been the legacy they built upon. It was almost as if though for Blair, this was too easy and he wanted to prove a point to his opponents.

I’d argue that it wasn’t so much grand standing as such from Blair, more that he was caught up in the zeitgeist. It was only a couple of years removed from 9/11 and very much America dictated the foreign policy of the Western world. Sadly we, along with the rest of the world, got caught up with this and didn’t assess the situation rationally. The French did in a move that was unpopular at the time. Thankfully, we did seem to learn that lesson as shown by the vote on Syria, although examples such as Libya show that perhaps we didn’t.

I get that Blair’s Labour is far removed from what most Labour voters on here support and some of the economic/business policy was not particularly good, but I do think it gets a massively bad rap.

 

[catcherintherye]

Just younger. Class is irrelevant to most youngsters. One poster routinely bangs on about a class war and class traitors. but outside the narrow echo chamber of the Labour membership, there isnt a class issue with normal folk. Just people.

No thats a fair point mate. I think a more apt way of phrasing it would just be that they need to build amongst young people. In an overall sense, I think most young people are quite working class now in their relation to key indicators (particularly around home ownership). It's an interesting change from a materialist perspective.

If the discussion is about class and how Labour relate to it, then I do think age has to be considered a key factor too.

 

[catcherintherye]

I’d argue that it wasn’t so much grand standing as such from Blair, more that he was caught up in the zeitgeist. It was only a couple of years removed from 9/11 and very much America dictated the foreign policy of the Western world. Sadly we, along with the rest of the world, got caught up with this and didn’t assess the situation rationally. The French did in a move that was unpopular at the time. Thankfully, we did seem to learn that lesson as shown by the vote on Syria, although examples such as Libya show that perhaps we didn’t.

I get that Blair’s Labour is far removed from what most Labour voters on here support and some of the economic/business policy was not particularly good, but I do think it gets a massively bad rap.

Yes fair point. There was certainly those thoughts and there has always been an Atlantist tradition within the Labour Party too (Blair didn't invent it). I would say Blair went over and above that though, which was his problem really. He never looked like a leader who had reluctantly gone along with things because practically he had too, but rather he placed himself at the vanguard of the movement, more of a war monger than the war mongers. When the war turned out badly, and the evidence became more spurious it was very hard to turn back from that. For the rest of the time, he looks to have continued to push it.

What we agree upon is it's a shame the rest of the program (good and bad) cannot be evaluated by all sides really. Lots of Blair's domestic agenda was very progressive. The stuff they did in Glasgow was a miracle really. The rejuvenation of City Centre's as well. How places like Liverpool, Glasgow, Manchester, Newcastle, Cardiff, Leeds etc were turned around was fantastic really.

I do think he contributes to that though. His followers even more so. That he doesn't just concede on the war and go back to the domestic policy surprises me.