Oooopppss!!
- Thread starter gigilo
- Start date
Desperate Dan
Senior Jockey
One good thing for the country is that it looks like Ali, of this parish, will now be staying. Let`s hope he doesn`t need the NHS in the near future, despite the extra 50,000 nurses and 40 hospitals!
The Trade Unions aren't the problem. In many respects they've always had a conservative instinct anyway, hell the whole movement is based on preservation being the natural extension of the 'guilds' which were similar in construct. It was the Trade Unions in the late 70's that succeeded in ensuring that Dennis Healey and Tony Benn became deputy leader.
The influx of more extremist elements within the movement has come from the membership, it's basically back to the early 80's with Trotskyist entrism. The conservatives have an emerging problem too. Their membership went from 120,000 to 160,000 this year when it became apparent that they'd have a leadership battle and Brexiteers and continuity UKIPers joined the party
The same thing's happening in America too
Basically the politically engaged tend to be the activists who join parties and participate. These are the people who take their politics more seriously and they usually hold more extreme views on either side. Under the one member one vote format they can now wield more influence. Both parties need the one every five years voter who doesn't march to their tune. By the time they come to call on this voter they've lost them
Should we have a people’s vote because people didn’t know what they were voting for?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LyhTxQwSwJU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LyhTxQwSwJU
I was in Glasgow a few weeks ago with some friends. One of them has written this article about our trip. It is a long enough read but some of you may find it interesting:
https://www.drb.ie/blog/comment/2019/12/13/harmless-hatred
https://www.drb.ie/blog/comment/2019/12/13/harmless-hatred
Tout Seul
Senior Jockey
- Joined
- May 2, 2003
- Messages
- 2,628
The Conservative victory in this election has many parallels with Thatchers win. Too many people remember the 70/80s Labour Party and Momentum = Militant. A change was needed then as it is now. Thatchers big bribe was to sell off Council Houses, sod those that come along in the future needing help to access proper housing. She also set about severely curtailing the powers of the unions. That worked but at unacceptable cost to many that worked in the industrial sector. My job at the time was the provision of Government supported funding to help manufacturers of capital goods win contracts overseas, rewarding for me in all respects particularly in seeing the impact that selling several million pounds worth of British made products eg a paper making machine, or a car production line, all complete and highly polished at a factory gate, ready to be dismantled and shipped abroad. The pride of the workers and the fact that the sale would would have enabled several hundred people to earn a living for at least a few months. What a buzz! How f****** depressing seeing the gradual destruction of industry and the Communities that relied on it. Nowadays many of the sold council houses are available to rent, provided one is not on benefits. that's definitely not had an impact on the homeless number.
The bribe this time round is the amazing Brexit project, that will change everything for the better and we can now control immigration. Of course we could have done that years ago as the majority of immigrants come from outside the EU but that doesn't matter. Only approx. 58% of our trade is with Europe whilst approx 9% of their trade is with us. They clearly need us more than we need them. Even more we'll get a great deal from our friend in the White House. Make Britain Great again. Simples!
The bribe this time round is the amazing Brexit project, that will change everything for the better and we can now control immigration. Of course we could have done that years ago as the majority of immigrants come from outside the EU but that doesn't matter. Only approx. 58% of our trade is with Europe whilst approx 9% of their trade is with us. They clearly need us more than we need them. Even more we'll get a great deal from our friend in the White House. Make Britain Great again. Simples!
simmo
Senior Jockey
It's a bit (a lot) rambling but an interesting read nonetheless.
The more I've dug into this, the more compelling argument I'm finding is that politics needn't even be the biggest influencer. It's more about culture, and it's something we've seen in America of course
Let me begin by looking at the 'Brexit' thing. This is the touchstone of the day, or so we're told, but for years opinion pollsters have been surveying the population by election issue. The ubiquitous subject of 'Europe' typically ranked between 8th and 10th as the most important consideration voters were weighing up. It was a fringe subject, typically cited by between 7-15% of respondents. On top of this only 35% of the population ever voted in European elections, and only 9% could name their MEP. This wasn't a burning issue to anyone outside of a febrile core, yet David Cameron thrust to the forefront because he decided to try and allow the people to referee his party
The other thing I hear is that Labour was too left wing. I took a cross section of the crap towns that run from North Wales, through the North Midlands and South Yorkshire and out onto the Lincolnshire coast who voted conservative on Thursday and tried to extrapolate how they voted in May's council election. Labour actually made gains in Bassetlaw, Gedling and High Peak. Leigh, Crewe, Scunthorpe, Heywood, and Lincoln so no losses, whereas the principal losses came in Staffordshire where they lost seats in Stoke and Newcastle under Lyme. The thing that I noticed though when trying to extract these results is that the Conservatives were losing seats too. The big winners were independents
So perhaps the finger points at Jeremy Corbyn? I think there's more mileage in this as an explanation. I think he'd lost some of his authenticity that might have made him appeal in 2017 but I think we're also failing to recognise that with the possible exception of Diane Abbott, Jeremy Corbyn would have been a 'pick your own opponent' nomination. The guy has never been in government, never held ministerial portfolio, he's never even held a shadow brief. He was 20pts behind when Theresa May announced her election. She made him look good. She was a turgid grey lady, who in response to his spending promises simply told us there was no "magic money tree", but that she was "strong and stable". Corbyn was poor in 2019, because Corbyn is poor. One thing I was quite surprised about however was just how poor Boris Johnson was too. He began the campaign on the streets of Wakefield doing his faux 'man of the people' routine, and finished it hiding in an industrial fridge rather than answering questions. Andrew Neil has already duffed him up once in the leadership hustings, and Boris chickened out of a rematch. So far as I can see he severely lacks substance and campaigns from one lie to the next. That will catch up with him eventually. It's difficult to sustain a policy of unbridled and unfounded optimism. In the real world pragmatism has a horrible habit of slapping you in face, so I'm not sure that being told "we're a fantastic country, with a great heritage and history, and a great future" cuts much ice until he can spell out, and answer the question of How?
In 2004 Thomas Franks wrote a book called "What's the Matter with Kansas" which explains Republicans won the heart of America by introducing a series of emotive 'hot button' issues into the political debate and elevating them to a point of toxic contention that they could mobilise people to vote against their own economic interests just to make a point. Things such as the second amendment (the right to bear arms) Roe v Wade (abortion) and heaven knows how many Christian driven minor none issues (same sex bathrooms) were being shoved forward. Politically its a good win of course. These sorts of things don't cost any money. If you can mobilise a population to support you by pledging to defend someone's right to religious freedom (usually code for something very different) then you can harvest up votes.
The UK doesn't really have any hot button issues on the same scale, until Brexit
I became aware about 12 months ago that people were increasingly defining their political loyalties not by Labour or Conservative, but by Remain or Leave. People were self=describing as Remainers or Brexiteers. The issue was beginning to replace the party, and with that a sports team mentality was developing. It's the sort of irrational support you're prepared to lend to a hapless football team like Coventry City for example. Last week I was speaking to an American who said (and I kid you not) "Even if you could prove that Trump is a liar, I'd still believe him"
I think we're seeing a lot of this play out, which is why I said I'm not even convinced it's about politics, that just happens to be scenery, what I think is involved is cultures and people's inability to admit error which translates into a determination to prove their point by repeating their behaviour. Why did so many communities that opposed Thatcherism in the 80's embrace its horcrux in Nigel Farage and adopt Brexit. Was it actually a vote, or a shout from the crap towns (what American's call 'fly over country')
There is a pervasive aggression in working class cultures. It means that simplistic and final end solutions to complex problems can be adopted within them. Again I see it a lot amongst American's and Trump supporters in particular. When given something complex to consider, they seek to simplify it. Nothing wrong with that. It's how they do it that I find weird. They frequently try and translate the theme of what they're grappling with into something more accessible (invariably a domestic equivalent). Their justification begins with the dreaded words "If your neighbour did …. " by the time they've finished making sense of it, they've invariably found a path that has solved the problem by justifying the shooting of their neighbour. Brexit was in the same category
People who aren't economists, and aren't au-fait with the inner workings of the EU institutions weren't going to set about educating themselves in it. Instead they would get off at the easiest stop on the line they could find, and that was immigration. That was something they thought they knew something about. If the subject matter precipitates an instantaneous answer of "**** 'em" then it's capable of being moulded into a vote winner. Of course it isn't helped by superior middle class commentators denouncing them for being stupid (Democrats are every bit as bad as Remainers for doing this). That just causes them to double-down and continue supporting their team with an ever greater sense of conviction.
The best explanation I've got for Thursday's vote then is a combination of the lack of charisma and trust in Jeremy Corbyn (which I can certainly accept), allied to a pervasive culture in the working class where aggressive solutions that have a clear final end point do tend to find a good reception. The thing is, a lot of them have voted against their own economic interests. Labour certainly didn't get their increase of the national minimum wage, or their affordable house building programmes onto the centre stage. They needn't have really go the debate going about energy company pricing either, but these are deep lying though and won't go away
Perhaps I should write "What's the Matter with Dewsbury"
"
Let me begin by looking at the 'Brexit' thing. This is the touchstone of the day, or so we're told, but for years opinion pollsters have been surveying the population by election issue. The ubiquitous subject of 'Europe' typically ranked between 8th and 10th as the most important consideration voters were weighing up. It was a fringe subject, typically cited by between 7-15% of respondents. On top of this only 35% of the population ever voted in European elections, and only 9% could name their MEP. This wasn't a burning issue to anyone outside of a febrile core, yet David Cameron thrust to the forefront because he decided to try and allow the people to referee his party
The other thing I hear is that Labour was too left wing. I took a cross section of the crap towns that run from North Wales, through the North Midlands and South Yorkshire and out onto the Lincolnshire coast who voted conservative on Thursday and tried to extrapolate how they voted in May's council election. Labour actually made gains in Bassetlaw, Gedling and High Peak. Leigh, Crewe, Scunthorpe, Heywood, and Lincoln so no losses, whereas the principal losses came in Staffordshire where they lost seats in Stoke and Newcastle under Lyme. The thing that I noticed though when trying to extract these results is that the Conservatives were losing seats too. The big winners were independents
So perhaps the finger points at Jeremy Corbyn? I think there's more mileage in this as an explanation. I think he'd lost some of his authenticity that might have made him appeal in 2017 but I think we're also failing to recognise that with the possible exception of Diane Abbott, Jeremy Corbyn would have been a 'pick your own opponent' nomination. The guy has never been in government, never held ministerial portfolio, he's never even held a shadow brief. He was 20pts behind when Theresa May announced her election. She made him look good. She was a turgid grey lady, who in response to his spending promises simply told us there was no "magic money tree", but that she was "strong and stable". Corbyn was poor in 2019, because Corbyn is poor. One thing I was quite surprised about however was just how poor Boris Johnson was too. He began the campaign on the streets of Wakefield doing his faux 'man of the people' routine, and finished it hiding in an industrial fridge rather than answering questions. Andrew Neil has already duffed him up once in the leadership hustings, and Boris chickened out of a rematch. So far as I can see he severely lacks substance and campaigns from one lie to the next. That will catch up with him eventually. It's difficult to sustain a policy of unbridled and unfounded optimism. In the real world pragmatism has a horrible habit of slapping you in face, so I'm not sure that being told "we're a fantastic country, with a great heritage and history, and a great future" cuts much ice until he can spell out, and answer the question of How?
In 2004 Thomas Franks wrote a book called "What's the Matter with Kansas" which explains Republicans won the heart of America by introducing a series of emotive 'hot button' issues into the political debate and elevating them to a point of toxic contention that they could mobilise people to vote against their own economic interests just to make a point. Things such as the second amendment (the right to bear arms) Roe v Wade (abortion) and heaven knows how many Christian driven minor none issues (same sex bathrooms) were being shoved forward. Politically its a good win of course. These sorts of things don't cost any money. If you can mobilise a population to support you by pledging to defend someone's right to religious freedom (usually code for something very different) then you can harvest up votes.
The UK doesn't really have any hot button issues on the same scale, until Brexit
I became aware about 12 months ago that people were increasingly defining their political loyalties not by Labour or Conservative, but by Remain or Leave. People were self=describing as Remainers or Brexiteers. The issue was beginning to replace the party, and with that a sports team mentality was developing. It's the sort of irrational support you're prepared to lend to a hapless football team like Coventry City for example. Last week I was speaking to an American who said (and I kid you not) "Even if you could prove that Trump is a liar, I'd still believe him"
I think we're seeing a lot of this play out, which is why I said I'm not even convinced it's about politics, that just happens to be scenery, what I think is involved is cultures and people's inability to admit error which translates into a determination to prove their point by repeating their behaviour. Why did so many communities that opposed Thatcherism in the 80's embrace its horcrux in Nigel Farage and adopt Brexit. Was it actually a vote, or a shout from the crap towns (what American's call 'fly over country')
There is a pervasive aggression in working class cultures. It means that simplistic and final end solutions to complex problems can be adopted within them. Again I see it a lot amongst American's and Trump supporters in particular. When given something complex to consider, they seek to simplify it. Nothing wrong with that. It's how they do it that I find weird. They frequently try and translate the theme of what they're grappling with into something more accessible (invariably a domestic equivalent). Their justification begins with the dreaded words "If your neighbour did …. " by the time they've finished making sense of it, they've invariably found a path that has solved the problem by justifying the shooting of their neighbour. Brexit was in the same category
People who aren't economists, and aren't au-fait with the inner workings of the EU institutions weren't going to set about educating themselves in it. Instead they would get off at the easiest stop on the line they could find, and that was immigration. That was something they thought they knew something about. If the subject matter precipitates an instantaneous answer of "**** 'em" then it's capable of being moulded into a vote winner. Of course it isn't helped by superior middle class commentators denouncing them for being stupid (Democrats are every bit as bad as Remainers for doing this). That just causes them to double-down and continue supporting their team with an ever greater sense of conviction.
The best explanation I've got for Thursday's vote then is a combination of the lack of charisma and trust in Jeremy Corbyn (which I can certainly accept), allied to a pervasive culture in the working class where aggressive solutions that have a clear final end point do tend to find a good reception. The thing is, a lot of them have voted against their own economic interests. Labour certainly didn't get their increase of the national minimum wage, or their affordable house building programmes onto the centre stage. They needn't have really go the debate going about energy company pricing either, but these are deep lying though and won't go away
Perhaps I should write "What's the Matter with Dewsbury"
"
Out here the gravity of discontent pulls in only one direction: to the right, to the right, further to the right. Strip today's Kansans of their job security, and they head out to become registered Republicans. Push them off their land, and next thing you know they're protesting in front of abortion clinics. Squander their life savings on manicures for the CEO, and there's a good chance they'll join the John Birch Society."
"For decades Americans have expressed a populist uprising that only benefits the people it is supposed to be targeting … The angry workers, mighty in their numbers, and marching irresistibly against the arrogant. They are shaking their fists at the sons of privilege. They are laughing at the dainty affections of the Leawoof toffs. They are massing at the gates of Mission Hills, hoisting the black flag, and while the millionaires tremble in their mansions, they are bellowing out their terrifying demands. "We are here", they scream, "to cut your taxes"
"For decades Americans have expressed a populist uprising that only benefits the people it is supposed to be targeting … The angry workers, mighty in their numbers, and marching irresistibly against the arrogant. They are shaking their fists at the sons of privilege. They are laughing at the dainty affections of the Leawoof toffs. They are massing at the gates of Mission Hills, hoisting the black flag, and while the millionaires tremble in their mansions, they are bellowing out their terrifying demands. "We are here", they scream, "to cut your taxes"
Last edited:
A very well reasoned piece Alun, and I agree with almost every word. I stopped reading at your choice of football team to make your case though. The parts where I usually disagree must have come later. :lol:
AliGupter
At the Start
I have done and continue to pay more than enough taxes now so that if I ever did need the NHS, which I hope not, I would be well in credit.
I relieve significant burden on the NHS by having private healthcare and I think that should be encouraged more. As with private education also.
The type of leader who would do well as Labour leader against Boris now would be Ed Balls.
He was a key part of the New Labour machinery, without neccesarily being known to the public as the figurehead or 'leader',. He has since done very well on Strictly Come Dancing and the public have really taken to him.
I was reading an article by Janet Street Porter in the Independant which said this three years ago.
A shame he seems to have retired.
He was a key part of the New Labour machinery, without neccesarily being known to the public as the figurehead or 'leader',. He has since done very well on Strictly Come Dancing and the public have really taken to him.
I was reading an article by Janet Street Porter in the Independant which said this three years ago.
A shame he seems to have retired.
Last edited:
simmo
Senior Jockey
Labour would need to reconcile the grass roots support for old labour with the requirement to be a bit more new labour before they could elect someone like ed balls, never mind win over the country.
Aye. But I don't think any of the current crop have what it takes I am afraid to say, and that includes the well touted Keir Starmer.
I am slightly perplexed as to why it seems like I am the only person who thinks this.
This isn't about winning a sixth form college argument.
Labour need the very best they can get, so to underestimate Boris Johnson by electing some of the names mentioned would be no good.
Ed Balls would a ton better than any name in the current running.
The public know him from the dancing and as I say...he is the type of person who the public could/would endear to.
I am slightly perplexed as to why it seems like I am the only person who thinks this.
This isn't about winning a sixth form college argument.
Labour need the very best they can get, so to underestimate Boris Johnson by electing some of the names mentioned would be no good.
Ed Balls would a ton better than any name in the current running.
The public know him from the dancing and as I say...he is the type of person who the public could/would endear to.
Last edited:
I think Labour need a leader with a good knowledge of the law as Johnson will want to flaunt the law at every opportunity [eg page 48 of their manifesto]. He'll also be loud and funny and needs someone quite calm and matter of fact to counter that. imo Keir Starmer fits the bill but Labour won't choose him because they seem dead set on Long Bailey who has the charisma of a muddy puddle. Also my SIL is a dead ringer for Starmer and would do very well as a looky likey. My family will be better off under this Conservative government because Labours increased tax/council tax increase for second homes would have cost them dear [my partner has a holiday home]. However we all voted against the Conservatives because we have a social conscience. The crazy thing is, we're making up food parcels for the local food banks and I'm pretty sure a lot of the people needing them will have voted Tory. It's a funny old world.
On the contrary, many would agree I reckon. Starmer is by some way the best of the current bunch, which is hardly a ringing endorsement and I'd keep him in the cabinet as Shadow Justice Secretary which is his background after all; and the new government's likely parading of big, tough, hard, bull-in-a-china-shop Laura Norder will require forensic scrutiny. Not Starmer as leader though: the metropolitan ardent remainer is cyanide in the old 'heartlands' now, whereas it has only been noxious over the last decade
My choice for leader would be Lisa Nandy who seems aware, sensible, erudite, calm, collected and Northern. For those concerned with such things she also ticks the diversity box, being of mixed race. Backbenchers I'd like to see as contenders are Dan Jarvis and Wes Streeting
Whatever happens, the entire front bench need putting out to pasture, with the exception of Starmer, possibly the transport bloke McDonald and, grudgingly, Long-Bailey
Rother Valley - the Battle of Orgreave and all that - gone Tory. Who'd have dreamt that :blink:
Labour are an utter disgrace should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves
Edit: I see "transport bloke McDonald" is having a go at the BBC, so kick him into touch too...pathetic
Last edited:
Tout Seul
Senior Jockey
- Joined
- May 2, 2003
- Messages
- 2,628
I never understood quite how Corbyn was elected Leader and whilst I acknowledge that McDonnell is both articulate and very clever, he reminds of the cartoon snake in Disney's Jungle Book. Their prominence in the Party was a reaction to the failure of Blair/Brown to seize the opportunity to create a strong Centrist party.
That said Corbyn's paymasters, the unions, always seem to resist following the more worker friendly actions of their European counterparts, perhaps to enable them to negotiate better terms for potential employers from overseas. Certainly was the case when the Japanese car firms came here. That meant that Corbyn was unable to come down on one side or tother.
That said Corbyn's paymasters, the unions, always seem to resist following the more worker friendly actions of their European counterparts, perhaps to enable them to negotiate better terms for potential employers from overseas. Certainly was the case when the Japanese car firms came here. That meant that Corbyn was unable to come down on one side or tother.
Last edited:
I hear you, Drone.
Sadly the two dirtiest words in British politics for a while now seem to be a) Socialist and b) Labour.
Therefore, the first thing I would do, (call it thinking outide the box), is change the name of the party to make it more marketable at future elections.
That's not to abandon the good political heritage of the Labour Party, but I really would consider calling it something like the 'New Democratic' party which would reflect what I think a large proportion of the electorate would appreciate an oppostion party to be.
I actually briefly joined the Conservative Party in about 2008 as an experiment. I am as Labour as they come insofar as far as coming from a single parent background, working class, state secondary school etc.
I could have been part of the Tory project myself but living up north and seeing the effects of the cuts, I wouldn't have been able to stomach cheerleading more and more years of Conservative government.
The real 'momentum', for various reasons, has been with the Conservative Party for a number of years, partly due to what Tout rightly aluded to, (in terms of Blair and Brown not solidifying the centre ground in time for Cameron and the Conservative Party to mop it up).
Nigel Farage has done a lot of damage aswell.
Afterall, we would still be in the E.U if it wasn't for him.
I said in a previous post - that both new and old Labour...Blairite and Corbynistas', have their high and low points. It isn't an either/or situation. An almagamation between the two is where Labour needs to be.
Changing the name to the New Democratic Party could help in terms of the vital branding battle that the Tories are so successful at.
The very word Labour just conjurs up the wrong feeling in the very people that the party needs to vote for them these days. I think this is terminal.
Last edited:
Desperate Dan
Senior Jockey
I`ve mentioned before that, in my view, the calibre of our current politicians is far, far lower than anything I can remember. Probably epitomised by a fraud and serial liar now being our Prime Minister. How we raise the standard of our M P`s I just don`t know. What decent and principled person would want to enter this cesspool of liars where abuse and vile threats is par for the course. We`re doomed I tell ya!!
It says it all that when my daughter, who left teaching recently after many years of working in pretty rough comprehensive schools due to the lack of funding/increasing size of classes etc, became politically active recently due to Brexit and the Conservatives, my first thought was 'will she be safe'.
'old labour' were not pro eu internationalists and with no whiff of terrorist apologist either.
I'm from Piddocks ex constituency, what happened there and in Bishop Auckland, Sedgefield and Darlington has been on the cards for sometime. Labour changed, the views of the people there did not and they gradually shifted away. With Corbyn and his London centric middle class socialists running the show the change became ever more marked and accelerated Labour's loss of support.
If Lab think traditional working class areas like that need to be brow beaten into changing their minds on the eu, mass immigration and various other things to then fall in line and vote how they're 'supposed to' then they've learned nothing and will stay in the wilderness lol.
I'm from Piddocks ex constituency, what happened there and in Bishop Auckland, Sedgefield and Darlington has been on the cards for sometime. Labour changed, the views of the people there did not and they gradually shifted away. With Corbyn and his London centric middle class socialists running the show the change became ever more marked and accelerated Labour's loss of support.
If Lab think traditional working class areas like that need to be brow beaten into changing their minds on the eu, mass immigration and various other things to then fall in line and vote how they're 'supposed to' then they've learned nothing and will stay in the wilderness lol.
Last edited:
I watched a vid where some of the momentum brown shirts were having a wee tanty around parliament area on Fri and hopefully got a bit of truncheon justice.
But listening to a couple of them talk, one guy with all his makeup on and a girl talking about the working claRRss, they’re same sort of snotty London/home counties socialist worker types that didn’t mix with us locals nor dare go drinking in places like the bigg market when I was student up there many moons ago.
Then they were seen as joke but if that lot are now indicative of labour activist supporters then lab will continue on destination fkd.
But listening to a couple of them talk, one guy with all his makeup on and a girl talking about the working claRRss, they’re same sort of snotty London/home counties socialist worker types that didn’t mix with us locals nor dare go drinking in places like the bigg market when I was student up there many moons ago.
Then they were seen as joke but if that lot are now indicative of labour activist supporters then lab will continue on destination fkd.
You can be pro working class without being against middle class professionals though.
Class struggles have always been there...when things are at there least toxic the middle or upper class are supposed to be helping poorer people including ethnic minorities and the disadvantaged members of society (clearly many white people fall into the latter) through various different means....there is nothing wrong with that.
A lot of middle class people generally felt the best way to do this was to work within the Labour party or the 'left' as the Tories were the antithesis to helping poorer people.
The narrative has changed now.
Camerons compassionate conservatism (lol)
The rise of the far right
The left imploding upon itself
Take your pick...
Last edited:
