The tragedy for the Labour Party is that its members seem to live in a country different from the electorate. The Party presents UK (or to be specific England) as full of racist, xenophobic, close minded white people with privilege who have benefitted from slavery, colonisation and oppression. Voters look around and find a country largely content, fair, tolerant and diverse. Nobody won votes by doing down their country. If you are ashamed of your flag, your history, your ancestors, your traditions, your contributions to the world, and everything that fills people with pride for their homeland, don’t expect to win votes from them.
when India launched its first satellite I remember BBC interviewing a dirt poor Indian farmer who was asked how he felt that the country was spending money on satellites when people like him were so poor. He replied in Bhojpuri: sir, at night when I look at the sky and see a light moving, I think that might be the satellite from my India. I feel so proud.
Till labour understands that the politics of envy has a much smaller audience than the politics of self reliance and pride, it is bound to, and deserves to lose.
OK, that may be pushing it a bit, but the whole left-wing response to last week’s report on race in the UK falls into that general category, where all the focus is on the problems (which are then greatly exaggerated) and no credit is given for improvements or acknowledgement that most (all?) other countries have a rather worse record than we do.
The whole race relations situation and its industry are in contradiction. Especially in the multicultural arts scene. What I find disturbing is the positive discrimination policies where merit goes out the window. I even have experienced it once at the BBC. A former late musical colleague had a similar experience. He used a Muslim name until he went for the audition and they saw he was white. They even said ‘we thought you was Muslim’!!! He didn’t get the gig!!
since 10 October 1974, no Labour leader apart from Tony Blair has won a general election
This never fails to cheer me. By the time of the next election it will 50 years, and Labour will still hate him.
The universities, left press, and the arts characterise the English middle-class as Mail-reading misers, who are sexist, racist and homophobic to boot. Meanwhile, they characterise the white working class as lardy Sun-reading slobs, who are, since you asked, also sexist, racist and homophobic. The national history is reduced to one long imperial crime, and the notion that the English are not such a bad bunch with many strong radical traditions worth preserving is rejected as risibly complacent. So tainted and untrustworthy are they that they must be told what they can say and how they should behave.
No. Just a voter who looks for facts. The right have given up on facts, preferring ideology and their little prejudices, which are stoked by the chip wrappers they read.
No disagreement on economic policy forces people to “dehumanize those they disagree with.” As for forcing “people to take sides” – isn’t that the point of political choice?
You wouldn’t happen to be a Labour supporter claiming the “right” prefer ideology over facts? My giddy aunt. I take it you never read the Labour “manifesto” or follow the media output from some of the party luminaires who embarrass them on a daily basis in the various forms of media. The problem with Labour, and their supporters, is that they have chosen to follow an ideology unique to the minority in the country, and they will not deviate from that course. The facts regarding popularity amongst voters escape them, based on other facts (economic, social, educational, historical to name a few), which also escape them. I’d suggest that if you are going to take a balanced view you could argue both sides of the political spectrum (and all the shades in the middle) follow ideology, some just pick one that works for the majority of the country and are therefore significantly more successful.
You are delusional and if you cannot even analyse, ie see, the problem then you have no hope of solving it.
Stereotyping people using any metrics, whether race, sex, class, income, or whatever is wrong, not only morally, but in terms of effective problem solving.
Labour has a problem and it will only get bigger if somebody doesn’t get a grip on it.
Living in a comfort bubble of stereotyped opinion isn’t *getting a grip on it*..
Labour activists took their traditional support for granted and traditional labour voter, became smart set synonym for bigoted, white thickos….
These people who say *Give examples* are the sort of people who if you said it rains a lot in Britain, would say, give examples.
Everyone can see what Labour has slipped into being, a hotchpotch of different (and often contradictory) identarian activist groups that have lost the ordinary working class vote that used to bind it all together.
They cannot even see why they lost big in Dec 2019, just as ultra-Remainers cannot see/admit why they lost and stay stuck in their comfort bubble mindset of thick, bigoted,little Englanders being duped by lying Boris.
Both groups probably overlap by at least 50%
It’s definitely worse now, as it’s pretty much the only card the Left have.
Why did people vote Brexit? Racism. Why are the white working class turning against Labour in the North? Racism.
It’s so handy! It completely avoids the necessity to think WHY those two situations have come about.
Similarly if everything is ‘structurally racist’ then it means that any situation can be simply explained away.
No qualifications but still can’t get a well-paid job? That’s structural racism that is mate. Not your responsibility at all.
Labour cant even Form a front to oppose SARS2 passport,why are they necessary ,when I have Cards which say i have my innoculations?..Johnson Vaccine rollout has been aided by Army, Certain NHS retirees return,.NHS and volunteers, his handling of SAGE Projected ”Data” has been p***poor ,Not to mention track&trace…I hope SDP,Reform &Independents do well on May 6 for Britain’s sake…
Yes, and the Left’s definition of race is confused with: religion (thus, resistance to Islam is racist along with being Islamophobic); language (here in the US, those against Spanish-speaking aliens crossing our border illegally – even white ones – are routinely cast as racist as well as xenophobic); and nationality, which is much the same as the linguistic equating. Thus, “race” no longer has to be regarded as immutable, but including things that are changeable. One can always learn a new language, drop or exchange your former religion, or change your nationality. But the Left will insist that to ask immigrants to do so, much less demand it, is inherently racist.
When UK gets Sharia, as it surely will as the demographic proves it, then the left will be the first in line to get dhimmied, or worse if they don’t submit. The Jizya tax will only be a start. Please read the Koran, Hadiths and Sunnah. They are up against the Salafist House of Saud and its massive oil wealth and plans for a global Umma.
Similarly if everything is ‘structurally racist’ then it means that any situation can be simply explained away.
Another, far more sinister, aspect to this is that any opposition can be labelled racist, and therefore silenced and condemned. Under the moral supremacy of progressives anyone deemed a racist (a term now so watered down as to be rendered meaningless), deserves all the bad things they get.
What is racist about the indigenous white working class protesting about a government that does nothing about illegal and legal immigrants taking their jobs at much lower pay rates and conditions given by unscrupulous bosses who don’t care if their workers sleep 10 in a room and would rather they didn’t have a trade union.
Mr Starmer was a rather nasty head of CPS and he and his successor brought in this subjective justice system. Once the main institutions have been infiltrated it doesn’t matter who is voted in -so actually Labour has been in charge for about 50 years?
Woman,aged 23,for no reason ‘glassed’ a complete stranger in a pub,causing him both physical and mental anguish. She has been given a suspended sentence.A man would have been sent to jail. Isn’t it called the long march through the institutions-universities especially but education in general , justice system ,organizations used to be ‘old-fashioned; ie National Trust now have the same trendy agenda.
Starmer did nothing for the child victims of the peodophile Muslim grooming gangs and Savile scandal when he was the CPS director. Political career was more important. His excuse ‘insufficient evidence’. Funny how everyone else knew. T.R. Times correspondent and other agencies and of course the parents who called for action. All the police and social services knew but did nothing.
Writing in The Guardian, the mouthpiece of everything left, so it must be true…
You said Lady Nugee (Thornberry) for a reason, she proved in her tweet her white English hating credentials.
I don’t think you realise how racist your statement is. Either you believe the people of colour in the Labour Party are racist so you are preemptively excluding them from the analysis you request or you believe only white people can be racist – which is empirically not the truth – and which is itself a racist stance.There’s nothing in the human psyche world-wide that actively prevents racism from taking hold in any culture if the person’s upbringing or adult biases enable it.
Additionally you seem fairly sure that people who are tempted to reply to your challenge will be unable to find a white xenophobic close minded person which actually says a lot of positive things about that demographic of the Labour party. Perhaps that section of the Labour Party is the least racist? Then again, perhaps you are forgetting the antisemitism scandals that are, after all, only a few months in the past. Do they not count as racism in your eyes?
Finally I’m unsure why Emily Thornberry is to be excluded from the list, she’s still a Labour MP. The Labour Party have not disavowed her which also says a lot about them.
I think you are trying to place the goal posts of this conversation in such a way that no-one can actively reply and therefore you can feel vindicated. Don’t bother; racism is wrong in whatever guise it strikes in whatever party or sphere of life it manifests itself. But then, so is being an apologist for it and so is attempting to manipulate a conversation so that people engaged in an honest discussion of racism are silenced before they even get started.
I’m confused. I asked a question, I didn’t make a statement. I asked for evidence of the Labour Party ‘presenting England as full of racist, xenophobic close minded white people’ the bit in italics was a quote from Vikram. How was my question racist? Emily Thornberry made her comments over six years ago and lost her place in the shadow cabinet as a result. She was, in effect, disciplined.
Of course, anti-semitism is racism. And there have been some appalling examples of it within the Labour Party. What connection does that have with my question?
Try news item on wednesday April 7…Also Many Zero hours Jobs, have Units on ”Unconscious bias” and ”prejudice” etc if that isn’t brainwashing jiggerywokery I dont know what is?..
I think there’s a strong case for saying this school is creating a hostile environment for white children and it’s time organisations promoting this stuff are taken to court.
Recent article on school children being taken to National Trust sites and encouraged to write (often false) narratives on how the owners/founders of said sites were racist, and/or profiteers from things such as slavery.
Maybe you’re thinking of Brexiteers comparing the EU to the third Reich? Actually, comparing people to Nazis is rarely helpful, unless they actually are. And nine times out of ten, they are not.
What are you talking about? The Iron and Steel Community was joined by European States in the aftermath of WW2, to integrate those sectors and reduce the likelihood of conflict. It was not open to individuals – whether or not they had served in German Military Intelligence during the war. Besides, Germany was subject to fairly intensive de-nazjfication after the war, and the new government was decidedly not a continuation of the previous one.
Mark, I notice from your comments over recent months that you often ask for evidence when people express opinions that disagree with your own. This is not a bad thing, but do you not also have eyes?
I do have eyes And I’m aware that we all see things differently. I want to understand why and how people see things differently. First step is to try and find out where the information people are basing their opinions on is coming from. Hence the request for evidence to support statements that read as statements of fact but are actually opinion. I’m sure I’m guilty of making opinions sound like facts, too. But I try and come up with examples or evidence if I’m claiming to be making a statement of fact or interpretation.
Some people cannot differentiate between evidence, and opinions and assertions, which are opinions expressed with such force and conviction, that the speaker or writer hopes what they say will materialize out of the ether.
Nearly every lefty/remainer type is as oblivious to anything outside of their secular religious political cult as a narcissist or psychopath is to the thoughts and feelings of others and genuinely empathising with others.
That’s not hyperbole. They really do not see, observe, acknowledge, comprehend, recognize anything outside of their bubble, that the rest of us see around us as clear as day, round the clock, year in year out. It’s a collective pathology, and let be real, a collective mental illness all thi extreme identity politics, racist woke shit.
They never listen or read an opposing view point or argument objectively to gain even one ounce of understanding of them before acting the expert on the subject, and outright dismissing anything opposite to their brainwashed ideology on its face (just look at the reaction to race report the other day).
Years on from Brexit and many still ask, in all insincerity, ”give me just one fact, argument or reason for leaving the EU that isn’t a lie”. BBC, Channel 4 and the rest have no left/woke/sjw/remainer bias, to them they’re all in bed with the Tories. They think you’re mad and can’t comprehend you’d have any proof to give (which they’d instantly find some delusional lie to dismiss without giving it a second look anyway).
They demand evidence for such things like Richard Dawkins does with religious people, in the full expectation they’ll never receive it as it obviouly doesn’t exist in reality.
They’ve dumfounded me for years, and they always will. How can all these people who simply hold a set of political beliefs in common all have the same personality traits? Traits that are as abnormal as any of the main major personality disorders they mirror so closely.
I agree with most of the liberal principle and a lot of left-wing policies. But I’ve rarely ever met a Lefty/remainer who wasn’t genuinely unable to understand or comprehend that people think differently to them. Or that acknowledging that and seeking to undertand the real reason why does not make them evil, or mean they are committing some unspeakably depraved act by listening to the reasoning of others with different views.
I just don’t get how holding a set of principles I myself hold in many areas, has so incapacitated their cognition, perspective, world-view and morality so perverely and in such totality, that they lose their on individuality and just have the same hive mind that is a predictable as the most basic computer program.
Tragic. Observe at the pride with which this man said something so embarrassing and shameful.
You just loudly declared ”I can’t and won’t think for myself. I refuse”. Well done.
There is a reason Britain is the most historically accomplished nation on earth. The majority refused to be brainwashed, belittled, talked down to, dictated to, cowed, manipulated, made to feel ashamed of their heritage, frightened into going along with the 1%’s exclusive interest in their wealth and the profitablity of their portfolios, companies, vested interests and other investment.
You’re proud a punch you did succumb and did abdicate your own thinking on the subject. I don’t know why, John. But you are.
It’s so ludicrous and ridiculous to see people so propagandized and programmed to hate and dehumanize other people that their brain is genuinely unable to compute that 17 million people were anything other than completely backwards. That they voted to leave without one decent reason or tangible benefit, despite having been exposed to many many argument and reasons for leaving over the years. And we now live in a society where there are million of John Hunters, who seem to think that if they don’t agree with the reason other people give for why they think or voted the way they did, then they don’t have any.
I will never ever again post on political comment thread in my life after this as I never again want to encounter people who boast about stuff like thi and revel in such idiocy, if I can possibly help it.
I’m genuinely trying to get beyond that. From your post I can see you’re frustrated lefties don’t ‘get it’ but it would help me if you explained what I don’t get.
Brilliant comment. It’s almost like they want racism to exist so that they can go around ‘bible-bashing’ others. I call them moral supremacists, because they’re just as bad as, perhaps even worse than, racial supremacists.
After more than a decade spending more mental energy on trying to understand these truly unhinghed, malicious, obnoxious, hate-filled, racist, intolerent, bigoted, thick-as-shit, hypocritical, delusion, warped people and their endless capacity to sow hatred and division in a way that only truly deviant people with severe personality disorders (narc, sociopaths, pychos, anti-social personality) do, the only answer that always make sense is that leftism/progressivism/wokeism/remainerism (its all the same thing), is simply the ideal – and probably the only ostentatiously social acceptable – way people can act and exert superiority and mental, physical and emotional dominion over other people.
That is all they are about. That is the alpha and the omega of absolutely every single thing they do. It’s to exert their perceived ‘moral superiority’ over other people, thereby gaining power and feeling good about themselves.
You reminded that is why they always fabricate and create an out-group to demonize in every single circumstance. Then use that supposed ills of that group as the reason for why they are so incredibly odious, having been so disgusted by the ‘moral depravity’ of the demonised group they are being thoroughly revolting, depicable human beings only because they are so virtuous, decent and superior in every way.
They really are a scary, callous, inhumane group of bullies, abusers, sadist, narcissists, deviants, pervs and run the whole gamut of maladaptive, unpleasant human characteritics, all hiding behind a nice, respectable facade.
Easier to say cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias. There are at least two on this thread who suffer. To most sensible, not particularly political people, this kneeling support of LGB whatever and of relatively recent minorities for votes blind sides the fact UK is 88% WASP (whose opinion should not count but does). As we’ll probably see in Hartlepool, even if the Labour Remainer parachuted in contender scrapes in, it will send Starmer a clear message. Resign, you’re not wanted mate.
It would have been. But for me, the main thing is who programmed them with those things and why. Not to mention their maladies go beyond just a few fallacies to something far deeper and more sinister. The hate and abuse unleashed on Leavers was insane.
Plus with Leave you knew who was who and why the were saying what they were.
You have 17 million odd remainers who just got drip-feed Project Fear doomsday scenarios from people in lofty positions in big multi-nationals and banks and just blindly followed these people based on arguments from authority, particularly J.O.B and other remainer ‘thought-leaders’ and who never questioned their own side at any stage or enquired any deeper.
The definition of sheep. Those posters you mentioned shouldn’t even be posting on Unherd. It goes everything these mindless, unthinking, lickspittle, establisment bootlicking herd-followers represent.
I agree with a of that except “They shouldn’t post on unherd”. I actually want more of them to write on here
so as to prevent this also becoming just an echo chamber. You have to consider all sides. Not everything the left argues for is wrong and not everything the right argues for is wrong either
I agree with the principle you are getting at. But you’ve misunderstood my reasons for saying that. I didn’t mean to imply no-one with opposing voices shouldn’t post here. The articles here are a mix of all viewpoints, all intelligently written, whether I agree with them or not, and it is a place that is designed to harbour diversity of thought of real substance and intelligence. It’s not a an echo chamber like the Guardian to begin with, so these imbeciles aren’t going against one set ideology here in the first place (but leftists never get that point in the main, because anyone who disagree with them are all put in the same box. It’s them who create the false dichotomy, not me).
But these guy are the typical internet trolls, completely brainwashed and are clearly unable to form a thought of their own violotion.
There’s a massive difference between opposing views and honest debate around that and people who come here just to attack, bait, goad, troll and abuse others whose only crime is to think for themselves and differently from the narrative they’ve themselves been brainwashed into.
If you think the guys I’m referring to are here for honest, constructive debate rather than those things I mentioned, then either out of the 100 or so posts I’ve seen from them I’ve messed all the intelligent, genuine ones, or we’ll just have to agree to disagree on that matter.
No. I didn’t fall into any trap. If you mean the trap that William Harvey talked about anyway. I’ve clarified what I meant.
I’m not a de-platforming mong. I just meant they have got this place wrong. And in customary fashion too, because the notion that there are people that exist who don’t fit into the little black and white schism they operate under is alien to these people. You either think the correct way (which is to conform precisely and identically to their every thought, decree and dictum), or you think incorrectly. I.E, you’re a racist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic, nationalist, blah, blah, blah.
This place in anethema to them. They are here in the same way IS are to ancient monuments that pre-date Islam, in that it’s a heresy to them. It’s the wrong place for them because it wasn’t created so everyone could stick to the same group-think, which is what they want.
Probably that lots of people voted, or that it was quite a close vote. He could even be pointing out that there was no “how hard do you want your Brexit” question. It’s hard to tell.
I’m not sure it’s the principles held by “left wing” people that makes them “oblivious to anything outside of their… [viewpoint]” (for at least some on the left, at any rate). I suspect it’s exactly the same reason that makes some right wing people “genuinely unable to understand or comprehend that people think differently to them” or “lose their on individuality and just have the same hive mind”. I’ve seen these phenomena on both sides of the aisle. Zorrow Tomorrow nailed it: “cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias”. Or, possibly, “human nature”.
The idea that ‘both sides are just as bad’ is false in from the perspective of the big picture. And it’s usually only Leftists or those that lean that way say it.
I’ve yet to see one exhibit some sort of understanding when they get criticized that the person offering the criticism is not automatically a right-winger that represents everything they hate. And by extension is only saying what they are because they are on the right and have an ideology of their own, and therefore can dismissed instantly.
It’s usually used as a knee-jerk rebuttal that stops them even reflecting on their on behavior for an instance (something, due the inherent religiousity and conviction that what they believe is THE Ultimate Truth, they don’t do). But in this case you’ve just made a good point with truth in it, and I don’t take for that kind of idiot. I just think you miss the profound difference between the two political positions.
Leftism today has become a secular religion made up by academics in classes like Gender studies’ and ‘Queer study’ classes, the social ‘sciences’, African-American studies, or derived from devout Marxist who expanded the ideology beyond just economic oppression. Me, me, me subjective subjects posing as real scientifically validated subjects, rather than the tragic historical trauma in some cases, and just the hate-filled, bigoted, intolerant neurosis and resentment in the other cases.
It’s nothing like the old Labour movement. And it’s way beyond just a set of political preference for how the government do things that most people in this country who voted for the Conservatives hold.
Of course, people in general can exhibit all the cognitive distortions of those people under the sway of some doctrinaire, fundamentalist, man-made cult ideology, cult or religion. But such people are generally acknowledged to have some sort of personality disorder that makes relating to other people and having an accurate perpective of the world impossible.
Not all the Left are like that, of course, just most today in the age of Wokism and all the other ism’ these people create non-stop.
I deplore the most widepread form of Leftism today not because I’m a right-winger (to whom they attribute every known evil) but because I know rigid ideology makes free-thinking, skilled, and comprehensive cognition impossible. And out of decency, humanity, genuinely seeing beyond race and other factors, out out logic, reason, rationality, love for evidence and empiricism, genuine liberal principle and because facts and reality matter.
The opposite of the Left today. Yet that doesn’t stop their delusion in thinking they tsand for all those things.
rigid ideology makes free-thinking, skilled, and comprehensive cognition impossible
well, difficult, at least. So w have some common ground. And this is true whether it’s a doctrinaire right wing refusal to contemplate state intervention, a fanatical devotion to and trust in Trump, or a “progressive” who believes that only white people can be racist, or a leftist who is committed to the teachings and methods of Leon Trotsky. You even see it in the Covid/Vax/Lockdown debate.
I’ll grant that there is sometimes more emphasis on the left on purity of doctrine – they share that with Evangelical Christianity – and that may explain the number and depth of the splits in both movements.
But dogmatism and refusal to think knows no party political barriers, sadly.
On the specific point of Brexit-related blind spots, I get that leaving the EU will allow a more sensible and sustainable approach to agriculture than the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy (if we chose to fund it properly, which government announcements so far suggest we may not). I get that it could allow a fairer immigration policy – in that we need no longer discriminate against Asian or African migrants (though I’m not sure that’s what the plurality of Brexit voters actually “voted for” – and it seems that, as Mrs May implied, our business sector will continue to demand high inward migration, so the “Britain is full” community may not be happy either). I get that we can now lower workers protections and reach trade deals that allow lower food and safety standards for imports, and thereby lower costs to UK industry and help exports to non-EU markets (though EU markets would be hit by tariffs if we do that – and I don’t think that’s the sort of “taking back control” most of us wanted).
But I struggle to see many concrete benefits to weigh against the loss of free movement rights and frictionless access to our nearest market. Perhaps, John, you have some specific benefits in mind?
”Well, yes, there is this reason, and that reason, and those other reasons, but they are not ‘concrete’ reasons. They are not reasons I agree with so they don’t count. Give me more reasons, and I’ll see if there are any that I’LL agree with.
There won’t be of course, because I’ve already sided with the global elite and they’ve made it very clear that under no circumtance am I to be reasonable or concede Brexit has any benefit at all and only financial arguments count as reasons.
But lets just pretend for a while until I instantly dismiss anything you put to me without giving it a moment’s thought and declare I was right all along that there is no evidence of any concrete reasons for why it could be a good thing – and again I win the argument for the millionth time. Please indulge me. Even just once. I want to know how the great James O’Brien, my hero and idol who taught me everything I know, feels on a regular basis when he performs the above routine and OWNS Brexiteer on his show. Must feel great being such an intellectual giant”.
I tell you what. You be the first one to show me you have a mind of your own and did you own research and analysis, and found concrete reasons that will remain true for eternity that leaving the EU was a disaster that will leave the UK worse off in more way than it will benefit from now until humanity is wiped out.
Show me that you differ from the Mighty J.O’B in getting your sources from places other than the purveyors of the what became known as the doomed Project Fear, which caused Jimbo and many other to have very real public mental breakdowns and many to become seriouly depressed and needing medical help. Only to turn out to be the biggest mountain of mendacious, dishonest bollocks ever foisted on the British public, but which remainers still don’t question. Still rely on. Still only talk about the red bus like absolutely demented fools.
And will continue to do that. Utterly brainwashed beyond help. You’re on the right side because the people you listen to those are mega-successful heads of business and commerce on the world stage. Not the thick working riff-raff who object to a world without borders immigration system which would make it harder for those oily profit-obsessed pychopaths in suits to move cheap third world labour around and exploit them, and save money on moving their goods across borders and don’t destroying the fabric of nations to do that.
Show me you’re one of the few that aren’t brainwashed and I’ll engage. Until then, no. I’ll not playing along with some tediously predictable remainer charade I’ve seen a thousand times, where they are not open to any new information or perpectives anyway, imply because you all fell for every argument from authority.
“Show me you’re one of the few that aren’t brainwashed and I’ll engage”
How concrete do you need your proof to be?
It’s almost like you think that if someone can differ from you it is because – unlike you – they are almost certainly brainwashed by some dark conspiracy. Disappointing.
One of my major reservations about Brexit was the strain and damage it would cause for the British Union itself. Taking (as it turned out) two of the UK’s constituent nations out of the EU against their will is bound to cause some level of disaffection with the whole enterprise. Particularly when Scotland was told to vote no to independence to guarantee their place in the EU. Then there are the particular difficulties in Northern Ireland, where border inspections on a porous 300+ mile border present… practical and political difficulties, and… health and safety issues – not to mention (in a province that is only part of the UK by the consent of its people) turning the status of the province from a very distant concern for the vast majority into a live political issue. All this before the shortcomings of the Boris deal and the NI protocol became apparent.
With that background, forgive me for wanting an actual concrete set of benefits to set against the (potentially fatal) damage to the country itself.
SO, once more – what ARE those benefits?
With SARS2 disastrous effect on Employment,matey We dont Need Dinghy people or 30,000 Fruit pickers, there will be 2million unemployed……Ed davey,Keir Starmer,mark drakefool,nicola sturgeon are So Pi***poor Boris will get away ..unless before 2024 Gen Election he spirals in polls,As M.Thatcher did from June 1990 & Poll tax unpopularity ..replaced nov 22
I’m not sure that 30,000 unemployed retail workers (or whatever they were doing before) about to be forced into seasonal labour picking fruit in the fields will see that as quite the sunny uplands they were promised – however much global warming we get this summer.
I wonder why people downvote a person who requests evidence for an unsupported assertion? And how many downvotes I’ll get for asking that question?
If you have some evidence to contribute, go ahead. If you have nothing to contribute, jog on.
There are genuine calls for it, like yours, where you have conducted yourself respectfully, acknowledged certain things so as to show you are worth being taken seriously (whether that is just a clever ploy or not I don’t know, but the occurrence of remainers who haven’t been poisoned to acutely depise, belittle and dehumanise leavers in the most degrading way is very low).
And then there are the calls from abhorrent, anti-social, malice-filled trolls who, like Germans under the Nazi given free-reign by their superiors to unleash the full-force of their prejudices towards designated groups, have launched themselves into doing that non-stop for years on end.
It goes without saying the context was different, as was the extremes to which they were permitted to take it. But the incitement to turn one group against the other and whip up hatred for the purposes of acheiving the aims of those in authority was just a calculated and deliberate, and many of the same methods were used.
Of course that waitrose masses, inbetween the mega-rich billionaires at the top who run the show, and the working class ‘underneath them’, whom they despise with a hatred that goes deep into pychopath territory, didn’t need a second invitation.
Frankly leavers are sick of the most enthusiatic and unhinged of that groups’ continued goading and trolling using James O’Brien’s tiresome negative hallucination, ideological blindness schtick.
In truth, everyone should have gone and done their own objective research. In most cases evidence is arrogantly and delusionally demanded by ignorant types who got all their bias info from their own echo-chamber. And who are asking rhetorically as they don’t expect to see any evidence, simply because the people they follow and who do their thinking for them dismissed it all when it was presented to them using certain dishonest tactics and just the most disgusting, haughty dismissals ever seen.
Yet, these types have no idea they’ve been subjected to the most successeful mass-media hate campaign every inflicted on the British public by the neo-liberal, predatory capitalist global order (and they are still proud socialist in some cases). They genuinely think they’re on the side of facts and evidence. People here are mart enough not to take them seriously. They are loathed for being utterly loathsome.This site’s demographic is people who aren’t the easily brainwashed type who outsource their own research, analysis, thinking and world-views to others completely, so don’t fall for idiotic baiting ploys and mocking condescension easily. That is what you are seeing there. Not people who can’t provide evidence if they think the other person is worth taking seriously.
What, you mean the same Labour Party that tried to ban White people from a conference based on their skin colour? We, the people, will take no lectures from these Marxist bigots on ‘prejudice’.
My ex for one, who would argue the Lady Nugee line until she ran out of breath. And don’t get me started on the ex’s historically-illiterate views of Empire and Royalty.
Once again you are playing your “where’s the evidence” card. Are you really so unaware and ill informed? Some recent examples of labour UK/whites are racist chanters: Lisa Nandy MP, Neil Coyle MP, Pat Glass MP, Dawn Butler MP, Diane Abbott MP, Nadia Whittington MP, David Lammy MP, keir Starmer MP etc. Etc. Etc.
I am sure you are right, but the politics of envy has baseline support of about 30% of the vote. So they only need to sway about another 10% to be in with a shout.
The other vice besides envy that pushes people to vote Labour is hate. Labour supporters in the House, the press, and on social media all imagine that the more vicious the hate they express, the more people they are persuading. Other people in the echo chamber applauding their hate encourages them in this. Of course the opposite is true. Voters like cheery and amiable, not hate-filled and envious, which Blair understood but few others of the left do, fortunately.
What the Aussies call “cutting down the tall poppies” – i.e devoting political energy to pulling down those who have for whatever reason done well in life.
A classic example being the destruction of the grammar school system.
Yes, it is. Like the faux patriotism the right of this this country specializes in ( subsidized by Russian oligarch contributions to the Tories’), it is an old saw for the gullible and uncaring.
As a grammar school boy, I can cheerfully say that their loss is no tragedy. The real tragedy is that privately educated politicians insist that public education be done as much as possible, on the cheap.
And as “cutting down the tall poppies”, it give a gardener a job!
“The other vice besides envy that pushes people to vote Labour is hate.”
There are good and bad (ethically speaking) reasons for voting for most parties.
Left wing voters may be motivated by “envy” or “hate”, as you suggest. Or by love, sympathy or concern for the poor whom they see being let down by the right. They may be motivated by justice for those they see as economically or otherwise oppressed.
Right wing voters may also be motivated by justice – believing that those who have done well are entitled to the rewards of their success. Or by ambition, hoping they too can benefit from opportunity. Or by concern for especially their more affluent and law-abiding fellow citizens. On they other hand, they may be motivated by selfishness and an unwillingness to pay any more than they must in taxes to support those less well off, or by racism which they rationalise (or don’t) as “Britain is full” or Group X is feckless or criminal or extremist or unpatriotic.
As I said – good and bad reasons. Wasn’t it Trump who said something about many good people on both sides? Why the urge to demonise those who disagree with you?
The problem is that with its rejoin the EU idea, the Labour party members have just expressed their white supremacist racist credentials.
It’s just that they are unconscious white supremacist racists.
Let me explain why. They will openly say that women are discriminated against because they statistically earn less.
The EU is statistically white. India for example is statistically brown. They want rules where white EU gets special treatment compared to brown India.
They are the racists.
Jesus. All it would take for you to cure yourself would be through an encounter with someone identical to you in pychological make-up. Even just once.
You’d be face to face with a delusional, vomit-inducing cretin so obnoxious and with such an alarmingly unwarranted sense of his own intellectual grandiosity and moral supremacy compared to anyone who differs from his infantile Paul Mason/Owen Jones student leftism, you’d never want to appear to be remotely similar to such a collosal arse of a human being ever again. You’d be cured instantly.
There is a kind of logic in that. The EU has rules allowing free movement for members and most members are white and on averge wealthier than many non-EU members.
The Tories want rules where rich people from anywhere get special treatment and poor people aren’t allowed in. Most poor people in the world are black or brown.
Both policies are racist. Immigration controls, per se, are racist in that they remove rights to people based on their place of birth – the people are pre-judged, the policies are prejudicial.
So it just becomes a matter of deciding which version of racism you support. The one that removes the additional wealth qualification to immigration or the one that doesn’t.
Discriminating according to race is racist. Discriminating according to some other trait, that incidentally captures more or less of a given race than another…? If that’s racist, then *everything is racist*, unless or until we live in a world where all traits are equally distributed across all races.
That holds true if the trait is ‘size of earlobe’ but not if the trait is ‘access to inherited wealth’ if inherited wealth is a consequence of a historically racist society. I’m not talking specifically about slavery here or deliberate discrimination. But deliberate discrimination, added to the ‘affinity bias’ of those with power (to use the term of the Govt report on racism) added to benefits of inherited wealth can result in fewer opportunities for some racial groups than others. That’s systemic racism as I see it.
I wish somebody would explain this stupid, lame idea of ” the politics of envy”, which some people seem to swear by. It’s just nonsense to most people.
In short, it’s the idea that if other people are doing better than you, there must be some immoral or unjust reason behind this eventuality, so therefore we should make those successful people less wealthy and/or less powerful. I am not poor but have not succeeded particularly, and I think that taking money off those who have done better than me is immoral, cruel and stupid.
Isn’t the flip side of that to believe that people worse off than you are somehow immoral or less worthy? Sometimes rich people are just lucky and poor people are unlucky. The greatest indicator of future wealth is the wealth of an individual’s parents – not that individual’s inherent merit.
Life is more complicated than that.
And opportunity is not evenly spread.
I believe it is best summed up by the observation that;
” In the presence of successful men, it is not polite to talk of luck”.
It’s the dog in the manger thing. The dog doesn’t eat hay but doesn’t want anyone else to have it. Not everyone can have a Rolls Royce so nobody can have one. A billionaire can share his money out with a million people and they get £1000 each or: he builds a £200 million factory, employing builders etc and then employs a 100 people for say 10 years, paying them wages for as long as demand for the product lasts. A socialist government will employ additional civil servants to administer it, who produce nothing. They will not run it efficiently tying it up with red tape and the product will be badly made and too expensive. Why socialism is a sh#t system.
I think the first part of this comment is well put. As to the second part I would comment that governments of all persuasions will occupy the regulatory space inappropriately.
The dysfunctional element in all governments is their unaccountability when it comes to regulation, which they all consider negatively so as to ensure the safety of those they rule, which they equate with oversight of industry (productive enterprises) every step of the way. Hence the propensity of bureaucracies in government to grow their presence in any sphere. In so doing they create overheads, many of which are unnecessary, whilst others are – OH&S for example.
Hence the observation about expense. Industrial enterprises are not exempt from creating their own inefficiencies, however, they do not need another layer imposed by government. Doubling down on unnecessary expense so to speak.
Let us discuss the failure of government more generally, without the political element which is most often used as a weapon to deflect understanding of issues by appealing to one or another belief (communism v capitalism etc.) not shared by others.
Interesting that you bring up that Indian satellite, given the political aftermath of that celebratory moment. Within months of the launch in April 1975, a court voided the then Indian prime minister’s election to her parliamentary seat. She refused to step aside, instead arresting opposition leaders for failing to support the national priorities. She was voted out two years later. I wonder if the farmer could see if her star had drifted off course.
A wonderful story of the satellite, Vikram. I forget the exact lines, but wasn’t it Oscar Wilde…’we are all lying in the ditch but some of us are looking at the stars’. Properly quoted I hope that gets rendered into Bhojpuri.
This is an excellent comment. However is it not absolutely appalling that you are applauding a member of the underclass for ‘knowing his place’ rather than wondering why a society which squanders unfathomable riches on useless high tech rather than on building an infrastructure (eg sewers.)
I don’t think the farmer is an example of self reliance and pride : I think he is contemptible.
In 3 paragraphs you sum up much. You make a powerful point in your last sentence… Labour / the Left just doesnt yet fully understand ( or maybe is unwilling to smell the coffee) the way increased numbers working people are now self-employed or work in small businesses. These people work hard, take risks, think differently - they dont want to be patronised by an out-dated Unionised dogma. Rather, they need encouragement,respect and “grown-up” support. Finally, it is a shame that many of the responses to your comments descended into a playground, ” my dad is richer than your dad” rant by some contributors.
Chris Scott
3 years ago
Go to the labour party website and there is a Let’s Vaccinate Britain campaign and Meet Keir and nothing in the way if a manifesto or real policies. They’re an empty vessel, and echo chamber for the extreme left who knowing they are unlikely to win in democratic election have taken their distorted view of the world to institutions they infest. They are a metropolitan party now; a party who consider the twenty-first century working class ignorant and racist; they despise patriotism and pride in one’s country. In fact they appear to hate it. They will never win another general election unless they begin to tackle economic and educational inequalities across all demographics within in UK.
Why would they need a manifesto a good four years before the country goes to the ballot box? You don’t write and publish policy four years in advance. Nobody does this.
How do you know, you won’t have a general election sooner? A political party having no manifesto or opinion is sloppy and shortsighted. Maybe this is their problem.
Boris starts his Covid Briefing questions with a couple from members of the public.
He pinched that idea from Jeremy Corbyn.
You obviously have no need to wise up on the funnies……
Not enough space here for the 2017 manifesto, but by far, much was very popular with the public.
As for 2019, I believe Boris is toying with the idea of much, much wider, better broadband.
Very prescient, that.
The election is most likely to be in May 2023; even if the Tories choose to hold on to May 2024 (they certainly won’t go in December 2024), we are looking at either 2 or 3 years until the vote.
I think the FTP would require it to be in Dec 2024, but that isn’t very relevant since it is likely to be abolished (a bill has been published). The thinking is that it has to be a May election rather than another winter election (of course), and that May 2023 will be optimal as the economy will still be feeling the effects of the post-pandemic surge. May 2024 is possible, but things are not likely to improve politically between May 2023 and May 2024.
The FTP was a blatant bit of constitutional gerrymandering designed to prop up the coalition government because the members of it didn’t think it would last. In particular, the Lib Dems realised that by joining with the Tories they had blown any chance of an electoral future unless they got some kind of PR deal done. They then made a total mess of that. They were right about the damage aligning with the Tories did, though.
No..”.but it will take a while for the red wall people to change their minds and vote Labour again. Labours boat has gone…….England is a very different place to when they were at their most successful. Of course there are still people struggling financially but over the years of my lifetime, I have seen many of the lower working classes move to the upper middle classes. The UK has had a boom time prior to the pandemic, yes some didn’t benefit from this but a huge amount of people did.Jeremy corbyns plan to attract the younger element was clever or at least they thought so. Activists like Owen (can’t remember his first name) who has been bleating about the Union Jack in recent days is typical of why Labour were swamped at the last election. Even now those same elements who are being wound up by academics (many of which did not originate here but came to our universities)) and students who are clearly easily influenced, will be alienating even more of the populace. It is true, the more they attack Boris Johnson the more he will survive and so will the Conservative party. I did write to a Labour MP just after the election of 2019 and make that statement and suggest they stop the bickering and constant criticism of Boris Johnson and start talking about positives for the future. She came back to me with “it’s my job to criticise the conservatives” which they are all still, doing daily. Rachael Reeves, Lisa Nandy, Clive Lewis, Jonathan Ashworth and more. Is it any wonder they are no further forward and I’m afraid relying on the youngsters will not get them far except into more trouble!
Not sure repeating opinion pieces from the Mail and The Telegraph adds much to the debate. That goes for the article and your comment. I thought Unherd was meant to be different.
Challenging the left wing drivel of the BBC – 86% of all media output in the UK – and counter to the conformist left wing mindset of current institutions. So yes, it is different – and that is what authoritarian left wingers can’t bear. Even when they represent a crushing orthodoxy, they want to be regarded as “heretics”.
I don’t read the mail. Why would you assume I read the Mail? I do read the Guardian and have seen the quality of journalism diminish over the last few years.
Apologies. I meant the message could have come from the Opinion pieces in the Mail or DT. For example, no concrete evidence is ever provided that the Labour Party ‘consider the twenty-first century working class ignorant and racist’. It’s just repeated as if its a fact.
Sorry mark I have just spent a week being told by left wing Academia that I asm a racist gammon . So I won’t vote for labour if that what it says about me.
It’s a derogatory word used by fat, middle-class, balding white men exclusively toward other fat, middle-class white men who aren’t a cool, laid-back, intelligent and sexually accomplished as them becaue they aren’t left-ing and aren’t unfalteringly right-on and ‘politically correct’ as them.
It’s word they love using as it makes them feel oh so edgy, witty and uber-cool, like when you were a kid an first started to swear. Perfectly infantile, like them.
They also love using the obvious racial undertones derogatory of the white middle-class ‘cis male’ they depise so much in front of ‘people of colour’ and ‘bame’ people so as to showcase how awesome they are for being so woke and able to mock their own race.
Additionally it’s a way for them to ingratiate themselves with non-whites they are cravenly deperate to impress as in the Little Britain ‘my black friends’ sketch so they don’t feel so ‘nerdy and white’. Ugh, how naff and lame would that be? At heart it’s a word they contrived to signify they are different from the ‘uncool’ white people the so often physically resemble to a tee, the gammon who read the Mail and think immigration is out of hand and aren’t smart enough to see Stewart Lee is a comedy genius
Call a black man chalky in their presence and you’ll soon see one, as they descend into apopletic, virtue-signalling, SJW, politically correct rage and their face goes crimson.
I despise the loathome, posers who use the word.
Diane Abbott
David lammy
Zarah sultana
Nadia Whittome
Emily thornberry
Any of these names strike a bell?
Any comments that have made?
Labour hates the white working class, they have shouted
Gammon
Racist
Xenophobic
Erc erc etc
But labour has never said anything about the working classes?
The biggest problem Labour always has is its hatred of aspiration. Every election the Tories emblazon this across their Manifesto. You want to buy a house we will help you. You want to run a business we will help you. Labour chants Brother we are going to bring in a Minimum wage and all will be paid this. The Rich will pay more tax. We are going to build more Council houses. We will give the worker equality. They forget to add Equality at the bottom is no good to anyone with aspirations.
Good list of loathsome left-wing louts with their ‘policies’. Could I add Dawn Butler to give further depth to the ignorance and stupidity of the group.
If you think most of those are not lackeys of Right Wing Starmer, I suggest your chippy stops wrapping in the Telegraph or Mail.
I won’t start on the much more loathsome and incompetent Tories’…
Gammon is the progressive code word for what they think of as thick white working class Brexit supporters, but don’t want to come out with openly.
A bit like Islamophobia is code for ‘racist’ because they’re not sure of their ground in calling someone racist that happens to express opposition to Islam.
Middle class hypocrites all.
Not quite. It also includes those members of the middle class who associate with the regressive parts of the working class who are attracted to the extremist right.
Every class has it’s progressive and regressive parts. We must not forget this. It is an important point.
On balance of probability it is just that! Or the fact that they went out of their way to obstruct a referendum result, spend their time dwelling on identity politics which by implication is a lecture to those who aren’t “on messenge” that they are indeed ignorant and racist.
Not until recently did I finally throw in the towel with The Guardian. Its days as a respectable centre-left voice are well behind it now, unfortunately.
I think the final straw for me was the original headline used in reference to Wiley posting anti-Semitic comments online.
Yeah, this self congratulatory drivel is a bit dull. I’m surprised Starmer even bothers to get out of bed at the minute. He can only agree with Boris pandering to covid shriekers otherwise he really will be doomed.
Note to Ed. How about discussing the real here and now problems of our shell fish industry. British business really harmed by real events that we made. Slightly more challenging for you????
This is a classic sign of a party about to collapse. If Starmer moves right on culture, to appease the old Red Wall, he’ll lose the bulk of his metropolitan support; if he goes all Corbyn, then the Red Wall is lost for good. Therefore, with lawyer’s caution, he does as little as possible. The Liberals were already in this position by the time of their great landslide in 1906 – which is a warning to complacent Johnsonites. But they ran a divided administration, inept in dealing with the crises of the day – Votes for Women, Ireland and, of course, the First World War. By 1910, their landslide majority had evaporated and they relied on nationalist Ireland, soon to secede. By the twenties, the Liberal Party was on the way down. At the same time, the Tories had moved to the centre, under the likes of Baldwin; but crucially they knew the difference between centre and left, whereas the shallow, unprincipled Johnson does not. Johnson’s ineptitude; his inability to keep the right on board; his serial dishonesty and cowardice are Labour’s last best hope.
Interesting question. I suspect Green, in the main. The temper of Metropolitan opinion is currently so hysterical and conformist that the extreme option is always considered the more honourable. And the Liberals are still hated for having supported Cameron’s Conservatives. Worse, in the demonology of resurgent Marxism, Liberalism is the ultimate hypocrisy. From the right’s point of view, the Liberal Party is weak and hypocritical precisely because it is NOT Liberal in any meaningful sense, so the idiots who run the show lose in both directions. That said, there may well be a greater number of non-Tory non-Leftists in London than confess themselves at dinner parties, and a “shy Liberal” vote may well blunt any putative Green triumph.
Agree, it will be Green. They are Marxist wreckers, so the natural home for metropolitan liberals whose personal wealth rents them insulation from the consequences of their virtue-signalling.
True, Labour has placed itself in a bind. A party that could pose a real threat to the Tories would essentially be UKIP minus the Thatcherism; a more palatable BNP-lite.
Yes, but not minus the Thatcherism as far as some might think. After all, the heavy lifting of Thatcherism is done and remains in place – union law which prevents a closed shop, flying pickets and unballoted strikes. As for fiscal conservatism – the really unpopular part of the doctrine today – it remains necessary. Therefore the answer must be to slash those parts of the state which do not help and in fact hinder the working poor – the quangos, the bossy boots, the racial bean counters and tenured Marxist windbags. For at least ten years a right wing government could be patriotic and fiscally conservative by slimming down the numbers of the surveillance / propaganda state built by Blair and Brown.
Cutting down on the quangos, local government, tenured windbags (whatever they are) etc. would potentially be popular but is largely symbolic as most spending is on benefits, health, defence, pensions and education.
Agree, but why ‘minus the Thatcherism’? A great stateswoman, a leader, courageous, brilliant and good for the country – another PM like that is exactly what the country needs.
Its probably coming already aided and abetted by the left/woke. Tories have skimmed the top off the red wall a Lite/BNP would gobble up the ones who are left in the poorest drug riddled no go estates.
UKIP is a dead duck ,has been since 2015,general election high ..It made the mistake of Putting in ‘Cronies” in PPC ,and ignoring people who’d been building up a base for 10-15 years…Reform (Centre right) ..SDP (Centre left) are better bets..As are Independents…
Corbyn wasn’t a fencesitter, I could tell you his policies. No idea what Starmer stands for. (Corbyn betrayed his principles when he adopted Labour’s bizarre policy on a second referendum. That surprised me).
Johnson has moved the Tories’ to the nationalist hard-right.
All the traditional Tories’ I know are now party-less.
The hard right have adopted a kind of Trumpism that looks plausible on the surface to those who do not take their politics seriously and seek simple, or rather simpleton solutions to their everyday problems.
However… Even Donald was found out and given the push.
We need a serious, committed social democratic party in this country to rescue it from the dogs and restore our place in the world as a beacon of wisdom and humanity.
What utter bilge. Nationalist hard right, eh? With a few squeaks of criticism directed toward “BLM” in spite of repeated riot and vandalism? With extensions of so-called “anti-hate” legislation? With further bien pensant intrusions into liberty of conscience? Your attitude demonstrates just how it is that the left spirals into democidal madness – nothing is ever quite far enough away from “the right” for you. Not even the soppiest, dripping wet left liberalism on offer in the person on Johnson.
Yes, nationalist hard right. And it is a radical Conservative government that is currently presenting Parliament with regressive, authoritarian legislation.
As for Johnson, well, as ever he uses the tools to hand to suit his own purposes, playing the authoritarian and libertarian strains in his party like violins.
Meanwhile, yes, people exercise their right to protest, and I have no doubt the consequence of this government’s miscalculations will lead us all to the disasters of economic collapse, mass unemployment and social disruption.
History shows Conservative government’s always have riots at some point – as Mrs Thatcher’s downfall proves.
Arbitary government cost Charles I his Crown and Johnson already has serious form in this area, and is to be opposed by every democrat and believer in the principle of the rule of law.
Trump was Not Right or Left dummy..he did more for Hispanics,Blacks,Blue Collar than Labour or Democrats will ever achieve….annelise Dodds is Labour forensic intellectual…er NO
Go to the labour party website and there is a Let’s Vaccinate Britain campaign and Meet Keir and nothing in the way if a manifesto or real policies.
They will never win another general election unless they begin to tackle economic and educational inequalities
This is disingenuous at best. Criticise the UX of their website if you want, but at the top of the page there is a “Where We Stand” with links to very specific economic policies.
And you think the Tories are interested in tackling those inequalities? The Tories, the party of Eton, hedge fund billionaires, Russian oligarchs, of Austerity, and of cronyism – contracts for chums. Astonishing.
Be very careful about the “institutions which the Left infests”. Take it from an American, all of who’s institutions are now controlled by radical Leftists… don’t give them an inch.
Do the GoP and Fox count as institutions? They don’t seem to be under radical leftist control. Or are they just fiendishly clever at hiding their leftism?
Sharon Overy
3 years ago
Yes, just look at the fuss that various Labour bods made the other week about government buildings flying the Union flag. In no other country, including very Woke ones, is the national flag deemed ‘Fascist’!
I think it’s the combination of the previous use of the flag by hard right organisations such as the BNP and NF, the illegal deportation of black people as part of the hostile environment and the government’s concurrent appeal to British patriotism that causes concern.
David Stanley
3 years ago
As has been the case for a number of years, a party that is left wing economically and right wing socially would clean up. Unfortunately, Labour are so far to the left socially that they have no chance. Everyone knows that the left openly despise most of the country and think we are all thick, racist idiots. Until that changes Labour have no chance of governing.
The recent race report highlighted this problem. Saying that there are racists in this country and more should be done to deal with them but that fundamentally most of us are decent people is completely in line with how the majority see this country. However, that perfectly reasonable assertion has brought out the crazies on the left who claim that thinking this way is akin to being in the KKK. Boris can then sit back and say you have a choice between a party that hates you and one that likes you.
Unfortunately, this mindset is so imbedded in almost every lefty that I can’t see it changing. This leaves the Conservatives to effectively do whatever they want which is not good for our country. They know that can be as corrupt (see PPE contracts) or incompetent (see covid death toll) as they like without having to worry about the opposition.
Going by the left wing people I know, asking the average lefty to be patriotic and see this country in a positive way is like asking the Pope to observe Ramadan. Until that changes Labour aren’t getting anywhere near Number 10, under Starmer or anyone else.
That’s pretty much how it comes across. The immediate reaction to the loss of the red wall seats after the last election was “those stupid norther racists are too stupid and racist to vote the right way”.
The recent race report highlighted this problem. Saying that there are racists in this country and more should be done to deal with them but that fundamentally most of us are decent people is completely in line with how the majority see this country.
The complaints about this report’s conclusions are largely focused on the poor standard of its thinking and analysis of available data and do not claim that most people in the country are anything other than fundamentally decent. The report says that differences in outcome are related to many factors other than racial discrimination. To take one example: that socioeconomic status has a bigger influence on outcomes than race. The report then fails to consider whether socioeconomic status is influenced by race or racial discrimination, either conscious or unconscious. a party that is left wing economically and right wing socially would clean up This is a relatively new concept in modern UK politics. Remember austerity? With the absence of clear blue water on economic policies the Conservatives have had to imagine other battle lines and hence the creation of the ‘culture war’ and the narrative that to criticise any aspect of modern Britain is unpatriotic. asking the average lefty to be patriotic and see this country in a positive way is like asking the Pope to observe Ramadan
I know many lefties and they are very proud of many aspects of the UK’s history and culture. There is less of the ‘my country right or wrong’ approach or celebration of military victories that go with dangerous nationalism but more respect for the positive history of immigration, legality, collective community action, democracy, freedom of thought and belief and multiculturalism.
I agree the current government stance on English Nationalism means they are allowed to get away with levels of corruption and incompetence we’ve not seen for decades because they define opposition as being unpatriotic. Ultimately, although that stance might bring short term electoral gain it relies on portraying opposition as the enemy. When the opposition/enemy makes up over 50% of the electorate (ie those not voting for the party of government) and that opposition/enemy is concentrated geographically (eg. London, Scotland, N. Ireland) the nationalist/patriot approach divides the country – possibly fatally. The only way then, to keep the country ‘together’ is by force and the restriction of democracy (curtailing the right to protest, curtailing freedom to act of local government, refusing regional referenda) and further demonisation of opposition or difference as unpatriotic.
The irony is that while the right complain about the identity politics of the left they are promoting a far more pernicious form of identity politics which divides people into two camps – the patriot or the enemy.
The civilised way to respond to that is to present an alternative view of patriotism that acknowledges, respects and celebrates differences, not one that increases division.
Mark – could you point me to any detailed analysis of the report that highlights the various problems of data and interpretation? I’ve seen general criticisms along these lines – ‘if one of my students submitted this, I’d fail it as being academically incredible’. But I’ve not seen any detailed critique. Frankly, I think anyone would struggle, as the report is based on credible statistics, helpfully brought together in one place.
I read the Guardian article last week. It’s exactly the sort of undetailed criticism that I mentioned in my earlier comment. I’m sure there are some questionable points in the report, which I’ve only looked at briefly, but there is also a mass of evidence to support its main contentions.
Often the Guardian (in common with the rest of the UK media) publish articles with few references to source material. But here they seem to have done better than Michael suggests.
From the Guardian article…
“The panel doesn’t contain any health experts,” is a pretty specific and detailed criticism.
And “they overlook 30 or 40 years of evidence about health inequalities,” is quite a major fault. If the report does cover the body of work on health inequality, the report’s advocates have conspicuously failed to mention it.
The article also references a BMJ article with more rigorous citations. Since that’s more your thing, maybe you should check it out.
A clinical fellow in primary care is quoted as saying that the health chapter of the report “flies in the face of decades of peer-reviewed scientific research”.
A lecturer in global health who was in fact cited in the report said, “It denies the role of racism in racial/ethnic inequalities in Covid, yet goes on to attribute these to deprivation and occupational exposures, which are the very definition of structural racism.”
So not totally without substance. Not bad for an overview article in the national press, even in the Guardian. And if you want more detail, read the BMJ article helpfully linked.
The complaints about this report’s conclusions are largely focused on the poor standard of its thinking and analysis of available data
The complaints were voiced by people who hadn’t read it, a number of whom called the authors Uncle Toms.
The report then fails to consider whether socioeconomic status is influenced by race or racial discrimination, either conscious or unconscious.
which is an entirely meretricious argument, because the root cause of the root cause of the root cause will always be argued to be racism, much as in the 17th century, everything bad was always the fault of witches. If you said the failure of the harvest wasn’t the fault of witches, you only said that because you were a witch yourself.
The grievance industry’s views on everything are of no account.
Much of the criticism of the report was initially of the government’s summary of the report and it’s conclusions which was pre-released before the report was. Brilliant media management by the government – they released ‘This report reveals Britain is not institutionally racist’ – people were asked to comment and commented on the summary (as report had not been released) and are then criticised for commenting before report was released. Essentially, the government had 18 hours of free media coverage where their interpretation of the report could be peddled but no-one else had access to the report.
Why downvote what seems to be quite incontrovertibly true? First we had a summary, which was widely covered, and after some time, the report.
We may deplore the rise of political spin – but don’t shoot the messenger.
As I recall, normal practice used to be to release a report, under embargo, to the press so that it could be covered on the publication date in a more detailed and reflective (and hopefully more informed) way.
Why is this way better?
“The report then fails to consider whether socioeconomic status is influenced by race or racial discrimination, either conscious or unconscious.”
Does it, though? My understanding is that it looks at areas where the population is racially diverse, but economically more homogeneous, and finds little difference in outcomes, or even that the whites in those areas do worse than at least some of the non-whites. If my understanding is accurate, and I admit to relying on second-hand information, then it has considered that.
On the equality report.
Left wing media commentary on the report has consisted largely of ad hominem attacks of the most disgusting variety accusing Dr Sewell and other commission members of being “c0c0nuts”, “Uncle T0ms” and other similarly racist terms of abuse. Aside from the fact that none of these journalists will be censured or sacked for using such terms, they do this in order to distract readers from the major “inconvenient truth” in the report namely the statement:
“The evidence shows that geography, family influence, socio-economic background, culture and religion have more significant impact on life chances than the existence of racism. That said, we take the reality of racism seriously and we do not deny that it is a real force in the UK”.
Before this report was published anyone voicing such an opinion risked the most horrendous abuse and the destruction of their livelihoods. When Nick Buckley, founder of a charity that has spent twenty years helping under-privileged young people of all races, dared to suggest such a common sense viewpoint he was sacked from that same charity lest the enforced groupthink message of the lucrative anti-racism juggernaut be questioned.
As someone with experience of working with many different races and cultures within the criminal justice system I must agree with Nick that focusing solely on systemic racism as the root of all racial inequalities is unlikely to help those who are most disadvantaged as it ignores the myriad factors involved.
Only when discussion of ALL the issues involved is allowed in the public sphere will improvements be made. This report is a good first step in allowing a more balanced debate to take place.
On patriotism
Please read Patrick Taylor’s beautifully articulate comment on this article. I don’t expect you to agree with him but at least appreciate that many ordinary people of all ethnic backgrounds may have a more beneficial view of being British than you do.
It remains to be seen as covid has obviously dominated everything for the last 12 months and will continue to affect us for a long time to come. Bojo is good at saying what it takes to win elections and I think that is how he has tried to position the party but the proof of the pudding is in the eating. If, by the end of this term, there is a noticeable reduction in economic inequality between the north and the south and immigration is in the tens of thousands then fair enough. However, I think he might be all talk. I’m open minded though and will give him a fair chance to prove himself.
The government may (or may not) be. Not so sure about the party of government. There is a good chance that policy will revert to more conservative orthodoxy after covid.
Give them an equal share of the Russian money and they can be as faux patriotic as the Conservatives.
Frederick B
3 years ago
It does make me wonder if Labour is in serious danger of following the Lib Dems into a left wing cul-de-sac of irrelevance, obsessed with “trans”, “white privilege” and lgbtq+.
If so, then we are either heading for a long period of, effectively, one-party Tory government or, hopefully, for the emergence of a new opposition from the centre-right.
The centre-right is split at present into half-a-dozen mini-parties – Ukip and its fragments – but it would only need one of these to begin to pick up momentum (pun not intended) and a new, badly needed, opposition would begin to emerge. I suppose that the Reform Party, with Farage’s blessing, is the most likely candidate.
You’ve got to be kidding. So we’ve got Reform, Reclaim, UKIP, New Social Covenant, and the Heritage Party. Is it just those five or are there more? These people are the People’s Front of Judaea, the Judaean People’s Front and the Campaign for a Free Palestine. Remember when UKIP split and we had the laughable “An Independence From Europe” party? How many seats did they ever win?
True, but the point was made with an important rider – “if they pick up momentum”. Johnson is currently acting as if he actively aims to lose a good fifteen per cent of his vote – at least – with policies and pronouncements which kick the right in the teeth: HS2, IR35, the list is very long. Then there’s migration – unaddressed, according to many who may have a claim to know, such as Lord Green. And finally there is the freedom versus “woke” issue, on which Johnson’s silence is nothing but a shameless dereliction. He commissions a report to dodge the matter in the first place, then fails to support its obviously sensible findings! Now, you might query Lord Green’s bona fides; you might say “we can afford to lose the right”, but a Conservative party cannot do either of these things. Lose just ten per cent of your vote and you’re back in either hung parliament or Labour government territory. Add to this the possible fallout of “lockdown” and all bets are off. I don’t predict – but I warn – the next parliament could be a kaleidoscope of factional parties, propping up a rump, legacy-party government in a time of terrible national crisis. And that will be Johnson’s fault.
The Labour Party is unelectable as far as too many of its traditional supporters are concerned – The white working class. Perhaps you have heard of them. Another party will take its place. Fascinating times.
This reminds me of the nonsense I recall from 1997, when it was being suggested that the Conservatives were finished and would be replaced by another party, but of the left. We would then supposedly have a polity consisting of two left of centre parties.
It wasn’t going to happen then and it won’t now. There is a gap for a sensible leftish party which Johnson is narrowing as much as he can, and so far with great success.
There seems to be a structural tendency among leftists, BTL commentators and anyone who disagrees with Johnson to underestimate him. I think this is at best wishful thinking and at worst an egregious mistake. He won the London mayoralty twice in a bought and paid for Labour city, he picked the right side of the Brexit referendum and won, he survived being knifed by Gove, he won the leadership, and he suckered the other parties into an election in which he won the biggest majority in 30 years while meting out to Labour its worst defeat in 85. He’s a formidable politician.
Only by the stupid. They got within 20 seats of winning and it was clear the Tories would lose their majority within a term because they typically lost 8 or 10 seats per Parliament anyway from deaths and bye-elections. The claim was less incredible after the rout of 1997, but it was still incredible.
Johnson’s move to the Left is on both the economy and on social issues. Leftish economic policies are always popular, not least in “red wall” seats, leftish social policies far less so.
Johnson has been fortunate (and he does have that valuable quality of being “lucky”) in that Covid has so far masked the consequences of his liberal new immigration policy. We shall see what happens post-Covid, bearing in mind that concern over immigration brought about the rise of Ukip, and we all know what happened then.
The wild card is how immigration from Hong Kong will land. It will improve the quality of the workforce, but with unforeseeable consequences elsewhere.
Just because I regard Johnson as a figure of fun, that does not mean that I do not respect his capacities as a smart political operator. If one is serious, one does not underestimate him.
But he can be a bumbling mess at times, and does as such to perfection.
Johnson is So ”Formidable” he has more Opposition on his backbenches,than Zoom SNP,lib-dems,Labour ..Starmer,Davey will vote Against SARS2 passports ONLY if its politically advantageous,not on principle..showing how useless most of our MPs have become…..Ayn Rand ”Atlas shrugged” where Workers Go on Strike in (USA) because taxes are too high…pity it isn’t happening here,a 1957 admittedly laissez faire political position, A plague on all 3 houses in westminster
I’ve never heard of the New Social Covenant – must google them – but I can add a couple to your list – For Britain (which has actually won Council seats) and the Veterans and Democrats party (or whatever it is now called). And don’t forget the SDP. Of all of them, the one with the clearest and most appealing policies is the Heritage Party, but the one with the best chance of picking up momentum must be Reform because of Farage’s endorsement.
An Independence from Europe ,mike Nattrass Party spent £100,000 on 2014 European elections, &Cost UKIP 1 mEP, as did The Literal democrats cost lib-dims in 1999 European elections 1 mEP
Obsession with “trans” and lgbtq+ is not a “left wing” issue, even if it seems particularly seductive to many who are on the left.
Peter Scott
3 years ago
Harvard Business School used to argue that when a business is in very bad shape, it takes 3 successive leaders – even if they get everything right – before it can really operate successfully again.
Starmer in himself is a very unappealing option for voters; but I suspect that (as Matthew Goodwin here points out) the reasons for disliking the Labour Party are so big, especially among the kinds of people whom it used to speak to and represent, that even 2 successive political geniuses would be wasted on the Labour leadership right now.
This is all to the good.
The Labour Party, always an unmanageable coalition of Democratic Socialists and Loony Communists, had lived out its usefulness by the end of the 1980s and ought to have died at that time, making way for a sane party of the left.
Its corpse was magicked into posthumous zombie-life, like an Egyptian mummy in a horror film, by that demagogic vandal-fantast Tony Blair, who resurrected it to carry on for a few decades more; in which time it did immense harm.
Very possibly there are no more adrenalin shots, cosmetic treatments and prosthetic artificial spines which can keep the cadaver upright. Hopefully it is at last lying down for its own long-deferred funeral.
They’ve had Brown, Miliband and Corbyn, so Starmer should be the man. No leader can save a business whose brand is destroyed and product no longer attractive.
Labour was destroyed at the last election, they only ever appeared to be resurrected because of the media’s attack on the government’s handling of the pandemic, that was always going to be temporary (the media’s attack was largely baseless and / or hysterical)
Labour clearly has a place as a political party (30%+ still vote for it), but probably not as a Party of government. Corbyn allowed the radical Left to take over the membership which will always prevent it having the appeal for the centre.
SDP …or similar ..few in Labour except Brendan Chilton,he bossed ”Labour Leave” is patriotic,un pc, get it pity he doesn’t either stand as independent or join SDP
Jon Redman
3 years ago
As I never tire of pointing out, the only time since 1945 a sitting government with a majority was defeated and replaced by the opposition with its own majority was in 1970, and that was after a change in the franchise. In 1979 and 1997 the sitting government no longer had a majority, and the opposition won one; in 2010 the government had a majority, and even led by Brown this could not be overturned.
It is psephologically inconceivable that Starmer will repeat any such feat as 1970’s against Johnson’s 80-seat majority (which would be 100 on fair constituency boundaries).
To see if any such thing looks likely one would have to look at what was actually happening out in the world, and it’s immediately clear that nothing of comfort to Starmer is going on. Worse, the point made above that there remains little evidence that Labour is dealing with [its] structural problems isn’t the half of it: it’s actually still getting worse. A YouGov poll reported by the Jewish Chronicle this weekend shows that most Labour members think they don’t have an anti-semitism problem, 49% think Israel is an apartheid state, and 72% think Corbyn should not be expelled.
In parliament they are indeed doomed, and TGFT. The threat now from the left is that they continue instead to infiltrate organisations and impose their agenda without anyone having voted for it. The attack on the left needs to morph away from winning elections and towards preventing its stealthy infection of discourse, quangoes, charities, HR departments, the law, and all else. Making accusations of racism a criminal offence is long overdue, and ever having asserted “white privilege” or “institutional racism” should become fit-and-proper-person barriers to service on any kind of public or regulated body.
Making accusations of racism a criminal offence is long overdue Do you mean making unproved allegations of racism a criminal offence? If so, writers at the Jewish Chronicle would have found themselves in court a lot in the last two years.
That sounds like an unproven accusation of racism. My reference was to the number of public apologies the JC has had to make over the last two years and damages payments it has had to make for making false allegations.
I’m open to you pointing out instances of other publications pulled up by Press Regulators for making false allegations of racism. There may be many, I honestly don’t know. I don’t dislike Jews. Why on earth would I?
To accuse an individual of racism should be a criminal offence. To be acquitted, you would have to convince the jury that the individual you have accused was motivated by, and demonstrated, racial hatred (or, to avoid being charged, you’d have to convince the CPS that you had a good chance of persuading a jury). I.e. that the accusation is true.
If you fail, you are guilty as charged and you should be jailed and heavily fined in a way that affects the rest of your life. This is because the intent of the accusation is always to ruin the life of the person you have accused. It’s the most serious accusation you can hurl at someone, yet at present, to do so carries literally nil risk of consequences to the accuser. Unless the target can afford to sue for libel, they receive no protection from the law whatsoever.
Anyone accusing a race at large of any form of privilege or misconduct should be considered to be of bad character, and hence not a fit or proper person to serve on any quango, professional or public advisory body, or charity, or to hold any state office or decoration, or to sit in the House of Lords. If someone expressed the opinion that all blacks are criminals, they wouldn’t get any sort of such job now; the same exclusion must apply to anyone who smears others as racists. Anyone who used the expression “white privilege” or used “whiteness” as an insult would lose every quango sinecure they had.
I don’t think the JC would have much trouble convincing a jury that those it said were racists actually were. Likewise, saying Diane Abbott was a racist would carry virtually nil risk, because she manifestly is one.
Can’t see a problem with that.
‘Class’ is just another ‘social group’ by which to categorise people instead of classifying them as individuals. It suffers from all of the same conceptual problems as classifying people by their race, sex, gender etc
So, you propose to change the law in favour of assumption of guilt (not innocence), suppression of free speech and equating the statement ‘all blacks are criminals’ with the statement ‘x person is a racist’.
The point about white privilege – awful phrase – is that you don’t have to be racist to benefit from it. You don’t even have to know about it to benefit from it. It’s not an attack on any individual or on a race. It’s a term trying to explain the nature of a society that exhibits a tendency to benefit those who fulfill certain criteria that are most commonly found in certain racial groups. It doesn’t mean every inequality is due to race.
No. If someone says that Person X is a racist, the evidence of a crime is whether they said that. If can be shown that they did, they are guilty on the facts, like using threatening language or attempting extortion. That’s all that need be proved.
The only permissible defence would be if they can show that it not a smear, but is actually true.
So you would be allowed say that David Irving is a racist, that Diane Abbott is a racist, that David Lammy is a racist, or that Jeremy Corbyn is an anti-Semite, because it would be trivial to prove all these creeps racists using their own words. Your defence would be truth, which if accepted by the jury would exonerate you. Shrieking that Jordan Peterson is a racist, however, would land you with a term of imprisonment and a life-changing fine, because you would be unable to prove this. All that would be necessary to convict you would be evidence that you actually said it.
There is no such thing as white privilege. There is only privileged presumed entitlement to hate white people. All who do so belong behind bars for a long, long time.
Well said. We are living in strange, appalling times when the racial hatred of white people masquerades as “anti-racism”; when genuinely open, tolerant, reasonable people, such as Mirza and Sewell are attacked with racial epithets for not hating whites; and when real antipathy to racial hatred is called “racism”. Perhaps we’re at the moment of crisis, as in a fever, when either the disease abates or the patient dies.
There’s abundant evidence Diane Abbott is a racist.
‘White people love playing ‘divide & rule'”.
Herself played ‘divide and rule’ by suggesting that not all Jews thought Corbyn hated Jews
‘London shouldn’t have another white middle aged mayor’
‘Blonde, blue-eyed Finnish girls’ have ‘never met a black person before’ so cannot work as nurses to them
‘West Indian mothers would go to the wall for their children’ i.e. those of other races would not
Ran education charity that helps only black children
Alleged the the “radicalisation of white men online”; no evidence given
Joined a Zoom call in support of two ex-Labour members expelled for anti-Semitism
Dismisses all criticism of her to be because of her race rather than her nastiness, hypocrisy and stupidity – only credible if it all comes from people of a different race, and she has no idea whether it does or doesn’t.
So in a hypothetical criminal trial of someone who had said she was a racist, they would cite in defence all the above as evidence that she was one. A jury would then decide whether anyone but a racist could possibly hold those views, and would acquit.
Some of those sound like excessive generalisation (white people love playing divide and rule), so not good. Some of your accusations are actually of perfectly reasonable behaviour, or factual statements. The mayor quote rather depends on whether she meant it’s someone else’s turn who isn’t white, or no more white mayors ever. One is partial quotes stitched together, so we have to trust your fairness. And the last one seems to be a personal interpretation on your part – have you any citations for where she claimed that criticism of her is always and entirely motivated by racism and not at all misogyny, or class based, or due to personal dislike or dislike of her political positions perhaps taken too far?
And the idea of criminalising accusations of racism is a bit silly. You could sue for defamation, I suppose (though vulgar abuse is actually a defence there, I understand).
I and I imagine most of the country are wary of Labour because of it’s lack of support for brevity post referendum and its take up of white bashing.What label to give isreal, a country in the middle East, is of little concern.I imagine that charges of anti semitic are entirely jumped up and based old Jeremy being in a meeting in Palestinians or something like that.
The Labour party’s position on Israel is the least of my concern,what I am concerned about is their position on Britain and the British people.
The problem is woke anti white bs not anything about Isreal.
Very good post. I sometimes wonder if the Left actually care about forming a government? It’s so much less hassle to infiltrate institutions such as the BBC, Education, Health, and the Police for example.
The result then being power without responsibility, and the opportunity to indulge themselves in their favourite pastime , identity politics.
Jez O'Meara
3 years ago
If the guy had any spine whatsoever, stop the apologising and knee bending then maybe he’d have half a chance of putting together a good opposition. While hes at it a bit of a cull on the crazies in the shadow front bench wouldnt hurt.
A bit of patriotic feeling would be good too. The conservatives could do a bit more in this also instead of this dipping the toe in the water and luke warmly suggesting that Britain is a nice sort of place. It IS a nice place with decency and every right to be proud of itself both historically and in the future.
Unfortunately Jez, AIUI the crazies in the shadow front bench are voted there by the crazies in the membership, 72% of whom think Corbyn should stay in the party. It’s much likelier that they will cull Starmer rather than he them.
Uncanny – it’s as if he’s been listening to you. “Sir Keir Starmer has apologised after visiting a church which has been criticised for its stance towards homosexuality.” “I apologise for the hurt my visit caused and have taken down the video,” he said. “It was a mistake and I accept that.” BBC
Paddy Taylor
3 years ago
“Patriotism” has always been a dirty word among Islington fauxialists. That attitude, skewered so well by Orwell, is a default setting for most politicians and journalists on the left.
How many articles does the Guardian publish, in any given year, that denigrate the very concept of patriotism? The intellectual Left, through the media and all the institutions of this country (over which they appear to have a stranglehold), have associated endlessly negative baggage with ‘British-ness’. I don’t think anyone can honestly deny that. They have infected any debate involving patriotism with a national self-loathing, the idea that patriotism is xenophobic at heart, the idea that British history is something only to apologise for.
In their heart of hearts how many Guardian readers were not with Ms Thornberry when she tweeted her sneering white van with cross of St George picture? As though such low-brow, working class patriotism was worthy only of scorn?
It is the idea that any and every culture can be celebrated – but not British culture – or at least not English culture. One can celebrate the Celtic parts of Britishness but celebrating Englishness, is akin to joining the BNP.
The Guardian line seems to be that anyone who has pride in being English has somehow admitted to something unhealthy and ‘problematic’. Why?
If a Frenchman is proud of being French, would they immediately mistrust his motives in the same way? If a Tongan speaks of his homeland with tears in his eyes, (they are, on the whole, the most deeply patriotic people I’ve ever met) would they be suspected of xenophobia and a misplaced pride. I’m fairly sure they wouldn’t.
So, what is so different about a British person expressing pride in their nationality? Why does the Left automatically suspect anyone who has pride in being English of some sinister subtext?
Listening to many former Labour voters giving their reasons for switching party allegiance one aspect that was consistently overlooked by commentators was “Patriotism”. Corbyn and crew were seen as hating their country, Boris was seen as a great champion of it. At heart that was a very large part of voter’s mistrust of Corbyn.
I would suggest that the voter perception of Boris as patriotic and optimistic, when set against the perception of the Labour party, whether the Miliband, Corbyn or Starmer iteration, as unpatriotic misanthropes, explains more of the swing away from Labour than any ideology or economic theory ever will.
The cynical “drape Labour in the flag” ploy, clearly focus-grouped by people who were genuinely surprised to find that the majority of the electorate don’t actually despise this country, was just another signpost on the way to Labour’s complete disassociation with voters and their utter irrelevance.
You should read Orwell again (the Lion and the unicorn). He was quite happy to point out the shortfalls of the British working classes.
Labor doesn’t get to be the 2nd largest party in the country with ONLY the votes of Islington. Through in the LibDem vote and you have parity with the Tories. I know that the electoral process doesn’t work that way but don’t exaggerate the Torie’s advantage.
Thornberry (google it) tweet was about a white van and 3 English flags. The caption was “image from Rochester” – nothing else.
Surely just one flag would suffice? Isn’t understatement the most English of values.
Yes, but when your country is always berated then some people will over indulge in showing their support for their country.
But as we are a tolerant people, most people will merely just smile at the over indulgence.
It is quite common amongst the Left to claim that the English do not even exist, despite history suggesting to the contrary.
Cave Artist
3 years ago
Yes that’s about it. Actually it doesn’t matter who the Labour leader is. The name of the party is an irrelevance now. The Conservative party does have the right one. Party politics is no longer about socialism versus capital but about woke versus the majority. Starmer, by taking the knee, has chosen to host the minority in this country. He can never win.
Ask someone on the street to describe Starmer and they’ll probably say he opposed Brexit, is a lawyer, took the knee for Black Lives Matter…
I wonder if Sir Keir’s taking of the knee will be as fatal to him as Emily Thornberry’s tweet was to her. Even if not his taking the knee; his proclaiming that trans women are women; and his rejection of Sewell’s report based on his belief in structural racism certainly put him firmly in the minority camp on the cultural issues that, as Matthew reminds us, are increasingly dominating national life and politics.
In bending the knee, then, he was his own worst enemy. He does not appear to have learnt any lessons from that, looking at his response to the Sewell Report.
The next election was lost when we saw the exit poll for the last, but what that photo did was crystallise, in one helpful image, why Starmer is so comprehensively unfit to be PM and the Labour Party to govern.
All of that is true, but the key thing for me is that it shows that he is not good at politics. As a politician, if you want to maximise your support, you sometimes have to fudge things a bit. You have to choose when to be vague and when to be specific. He chooses the wrong option every time.
David J
3 years ago
The pathetic knee-bender and closet remainer won’t get my vote.
Not a closet remainer
He is the chief architect of the 2nd referendum campaign
Never forgot that
Malcolm Powell
3 years ago
The problem isidentity politics.As an old fashioned socialist,I was always concerned with the huge economic (and other) inequalities that exist between different classes in society and different parts of the UK. I have not changed one iota on this.
The Labour party now controlled from London is only interested in the grievances of various (often middle class) minority groups such as BAME, :LGBT etc who have grievances.
Just look at the fuss over Starmer visiting a church this week. The tireless work the church is undertaking with the poor and homeless in London is ignored but we get a furore from middle class LGBT activists. What does Starmer do – stand on his head and apologies with a grovel.
Labour is doomed.There is no way back
Fraser Bailey
3 years ago
A good analysis from Matthew, as always. Kneeler Starmer has, if anything, done more to alienate Labour’s ‘traditional’ vote that Corbyn. If only that traditional vote had realised 20 years earlier just how much Labour despises them. In my view it’s not so much that ‘politics is downstream of culture’, but that voting is downstream of reality.
Now we need Reclaim, Reform and the rest to form some form of unified opposition to this appalling Tory party. But again, it will take time because voting is downstream of reality.
Reclaim/Reform – nobody is going to vote in 2025 against Tories because of lockdown in 2020/1. Farage was just a one trick pony.
GE2005 – remember that – The british people voted for 2 political parties that institutionally supported the Iraq War. And so did in 2010. Both “mainstream” parties had supported the Light Touch Regulations (tories wanted even less) and budget blowing spending (tories wanted lower taxes while keeping spending the same as labor).
Saying nobody is going to vote against Boris in 2024/5 because of lockdown is wishful thinking.
If the Government insist on demanding papers to go out, then many conservatives will not vote for them.
As long as the perception exists that Labour despise their traditional core vote and want to replace them with immigrants then the party is doomed to electoral oblivion.
Is it 3 million? I thought it was 300k? Probably near 30 million will turn up – the next completely unnecessary disaster willingly embraced – even if I would personally prefer a smattering of them to the more religiously-inclined alternative.
30 million would be four times the total population of Hong Kong. I think we can safely assume that the majority of the population will not take up the offer, either because they cannot afford to move, do not wish the inconvenience of relocation, or actually quite fancy continuing life under the Beijing jackboot. Others will leave, but find other homes where they have no legal entitlement to settle, but where their skills find them a welcome. How many will come? Time will tell, but probably far fewer than the wilder estimates bandied around. I personally have no problem with them coming here, but we do have to accept that every influx leads to more demand for housing, and contrary to what some on the left claim, accommodation is as subject to the laws of supply and demand as any other commodity.
More power to their elbow. I welcome them regardless of their religion.
Andy Yorks
3 years ago
The problem is quite simple: the Labour Party has been taken over by middle class professionals who are quite often employed by the public sector and its various off shoots. From this fact you get the obsession with identity politics which is only division on division. We have Gay rights, but now we have to have Trans rights and every other group you could imagine. As was pointed out last weeks reaction to the race report was revealing. The usual suspects rushed to the TV Studio before the ink was dry and when most of them could not possibly have had the time to read the damn thing. I think it is rather a hard sell on the door step to tell a former miner in a council house that the problem is his white privilege and his abundant racism and various phobias (add type before lecture). Add to this that all his many phobias lead him to vote Brexit and we will ignore that vote because we know what’s good for you, and I would be very surpised if you didn’t get a damn good hiding. And quite frankly it would be richly deserved.
The report, though not the government’s interpretation of it, was withheld from everyone until the government messaging could be established. They weren’t allowed to see it, let alone read it.
No one is telling former miners that ‘the problem’ is their white privilege. Trans rights is happening whether you like it or not, and all parties will have to just get on with it. Brexit should be viewed dispassionately in terms of our national interest – isn’t that what patriots do? On balance it still looks like a really terrible idea.
If by trans rights you mean mutilating children because they ‘feel’ they’re a different gender and giving them hormone treatment, or that biological males can take part in womens sports and use womens private areas, again, not a vote winner.
J J
3 years ago
I think the new fault line is between patriots and non patriots. The later may attempt to claim they ‘just have a different vision of Britain’. But we all know that is a not true, including the ones who preach it. The modern nation state has always been conceptually inconsistent with socialism. You can’t argue everyone is equal as a matter of morality, but then claim that moral concept ends at an arbitrary national border.
The real danger is perhaps ‘national socialism’, which is not really socialism, but it can use the appeal of socialism to bring to power a fascist government.
Hmm interesting. Not to fence sit but there’s merit in both here.
Even if the ideas were well-meaning, for some time now we have been fed a diet of anti-establishment, anti-corporate underdog-championing culture in films, books, series etc. Pick almost any film or series from the last 40-50 years and you will see what I mean.
This is where I agree with you – I see more widespread scepticism of authority than not, despite low-level passive conformity. However that could set the conditions for a complete reversal. A descent towards anarchy could provoke a reaction.
Comparisons to the 1930s come about time and again, but I think a key point is that in all the societies where fascism took root – there was a brief period of leftist/anarchism that enabled it – see Spain (1931-36), Germany (1932-4), Italy (1920-22)
I think that analysis of the socialist problem with the Nation State is spot on and of the danger of what’s called national socialism.
I wouldn’t say the difference is between patriot and non patriot, though. You can be a patriotic internationalist. You can’t, technically, be a nationalist socialist because of, as you point out, the conceptual inconsistency between socialism and the nation state.
Nicola Sturgeon is trying very hard to be a national socialist. Apart from the name of her party she is whipping up nationalistic jingoism in the Scottish electorate whilst at the same time planning to hand Scotland over to the EU eventually. She seems to be manipulating the inconsistency quite well.
I have often wondered how she can claim the point-of-principle high ground by equating Scotland’s bid for independence with Brexit’s bid for sovereignty (as evidenced by polls assessing the reasons why people voted Leave and as exploited by the SNP’s political machinery) when her ultimate aim is merely to turn around and deliver Scotland to a different master.
For clarity, I do not see Scotland as subservient to England – we are in a union – but that is the line the SNP is pushing. I am using their stances to illustrate their inconsistencies.
Is it still racism when one pale pink person hates other pale pink people because of their race/nationality?
I also wonder why someone wanting to break one union wants to join another. Part of the logic must be that some unions can last. It would be an interesting academic exercise to list all the unions there have been and how long each lasted.
I think they’ve pitched it cannily. They get support from the left because their policies are generally more left wing than Tories, and Labour, and Scotland is generally more left wing than England. They get support from patriots/nationalists because Scottish identity is often been seen in the context of resistance to England. And they get support from Scots who think of themselves as Europeans (internationalists, if you like) because of their support for the EU.
In the end it comes down to who do the Scots trust most; England or the EU? And the answer comes up EU.
Independence from Brussels doesn’t Exist it doesn’t matter how you disguise it……eU will collapse possibly in violence ..it WONT be A Velvet revolution.
Nicholas Rynn
3 years ago
Starmer, wonderfully described as a one man bland, appears to have little idea of how to connect with the working class North. He’s sinking and I cannot see, for the life of me, where the lifebelt is going to come from.
Strange that anyone ever thought SIR keir starmer, millionaire barrister and arch remainder, would be the person best placed to rekindle support amongst the northern working class. Still, he’s probably got more chance than Lady Nugen. At least he can keep the sneering contempt off his face when he has to talk to a pleb.
Good trial lawyers have to have at least a touch of the actor in their characters.
Robert Pay
3 years ago
“…its growing dependency on social liberals…” have you ever met these people? They are some of the most intolerant, illiberal people imaginable…Unfortunately, they run every institution in the country.
The Labour party got 10m votes in the last election . Somewhere between 10 and 20% of those votes come from the Muslim community. That gives labour a problem. To keep those votes it has to take positions that dont attractive a wider cohort of voters.
Another segment of their voters is the liberal metropolitan “woke” . And their endlessly accusing ordinary folk of being racists when they are clearly not -just annoys people.
Both these cohorts of voters are in safe labour seats . So keeping them happy doesnt win more seats . But keeping them happy stops the Labour party having wider appeal. They have driven the party into a dead end .
Possibly. However, if the views held by those liberal metropolitans spread (and that’s what normally happens with progressive views – hence why we ended up with a Tory government bringing in gay marriage) and Labour can hold on to the Muslim vote it could look very different in ten years.
It’s deeply ironic that the same party attracts 1st generation, religious Muslims and radical secular LGBTQ/race activists. If that’s really true, it does not bode well for labor long term.
And diane Abbott &Annelise Dodds mickey mouse economics,
Barry Crombie
3 years ago
I find this is a revisionism of the Corbyn years.
Possibly unlikely he was ever going to be PM seeing the character assassination in the press and amongst the party establishment but he still won over a large number of the under 40s in employment and identified some of the structural weaknesses exposed in the last year and proposed policies to deal with them
He was actually okay on Brexit and was caught between his own reading of the need to deliver it as best he could and those like Starmer who wanted to reverse it.
Brexit was the issue of 2019 and who can really argue that the policy that Corbyn went into 2017 (deliver it but try to limit impact) was worse than that defined by Starmer in 2019?
Labour lost 2019 badly but I think that Starmer was as much to blame as Corbyn if not more so for forcing the party into opposing Brexit so clearly. Not to mention the PLP and their crusade against the membership.
Starmer has nothing to say and seems to have little idea of politics – and this type of revisionism about the Corbyn years just excuses him and those around him
Again we see that the left has been appalling in the response to the pandemic, abandoning the idea of freedom from authoritarianism and arbitrary laws to the libertarian right. This goes for the ‘liberal’ commentators too….what a pathetic bunch!
Exactly. Corbyn wasn’t as entirely unelectable as many would like to believe (see 2017 results) but the lack of a firm pro-Brexit policy comprehensively did for Labour in the North.
I’m convinced that if the Grenfell Fire had taken place two weeks earlier, Labour would have won the 2017 election.
I have no idea what would have happened after that.
I think you may be misjudging the strength of reaction to grenfell. Few people I know viewed it as anything other than a tragic accident, ruthlessly and tastelessly exploited by the left for political gain.
TBF, I think in 2017 nobody seriously believed he could win so many stayed at home or voted Labour as a “safe” protest vote. May was an utterly insipid campaigner who seemed determined to alienate her own core vote, and he STILL couldn’t win.
You’re partly right. Corbyn wasn’t ‘actually ok on Brexit’. He has voted against every single EU treaty since he became an MP, and I do not believe for one moment he voted ‘Remain’. He was a Brexiteer but he hadn’t the b*lls to say so because he thought it would cause a revolt. The public knew he was lying and a fraud, and allowing Starmer to foist on him the policy of basically ignoring the result went down here in the North like a bucket of cold sick.
2017 Labour ‘victory’ was simply a reaction to the referendum by those who voted Remain. They could protest by voting Labour, knowing they had no chance of winning. In 2019 they would not take that risk.
The polls show that Corbyn was almost always consistently unpopular with the electorate, even when the Party was performing relatively well. He almost never beat ‘Theresa May’ in the ‘who would make the best PM’ polling question.
John Nutkins
3 years ago
Excellent analysis. ‘Forensic’ Starmer, former head of DPP and the CPS, a trained lawyer (hard to believe, isn’t it?), knee-jerks i.e. without a moment’s pause for thought, ‘takes the knee’ in obeisance to the odious, insulting, discriminatory and divisive BLM, weighs in immediately on the side of Whinge and Ginge in their disgraceful ‘interview’ by backing their absurd and hypocritical allegations, and bang on cue in he goes again criticising the findings of the recent report into race relations in this country.
The man is a moron lacking any moral compass and as leader of the Rabble Party I hope he keeps going, thus ensuring the hoped-for rapid further demise of the clique.
David Uzzaman
3 years ago
Any leader of the Labour Party will have the same problem trying to reconcile it’s new supporters who are obsessed with identity politics with its former voters who will have no truck with the SJWs. The Party’s dominance in London is not an asset to the rest of the Party because it just illustrates the rift.
Because BLM are nothing but a bunch of race baiting marxist thugs who want to abolish the family and defund the police.
Steve Gwynne
3 years ago
A vote for Labour is a vote for the institutional racism of Woke Culture.
The journey of Woke Labour’s Decline.
Blair – Brown – Corbyn – Starmer.
Last edited 3 years ago by Steve Gwynne
david stocker
3 years ago
I suggest that the electability of any future Labour leader will be found in their response to the following six questions; Is Britain a racist country? What is your definition of a woman? Should children be told that their gender is an act of choice? Which citizens from other countries should be allowed to live and work in the UK? Should we judge the past by the standards of the present day? How far back in time is it reasonable to continue to pursue historic grievances with other nations, peoples and cultures?
So nothing to do with social investment, healthcare, infrastructure, the environment, equality, the economy? Just a rag bag of talking points?
George Bruce
3 years ago
as the entire country has been sat at home
Utterly separate point relating to the use of the verbs stand and sit. I am Scottish, and have always said was standing/sitting rather than was stood/sat. If you had asked me say thirty years ago about was sat/stood I would have said it sounded like northern English conversational slang, and not something to be written by a person with a proper grasp of English. In fact, to be ranked with the Cockney(?) I did not do nothing. Fine for a local conversation, bizarre in a written article. Now was stood/sat seems pretty ubiquitous, even among bourgeois writers. It stills sounds ghastly to me. What do English readers think?
As an English reader, I’ve always thought of it as northern conversational slang. Gaining wider use though, even in polite society.
What about the increasing use of the American ‘gotten’ (I know, before someone points it out, that it’s from older, regional English dialect), and ‘alternate’ for ‘alternative’? I don’t particularly rail against these things, but they puzzle me.
Interesting point, although language does change over time.
I would use both sat and sitting, but in a slightly different context.
e.g. If I walked into a room of people who were all on a chair, I would think they were “sitting”.
But if I was describing my visit to the room some time afterwards, I would say they were all sat down.
Does the word “sat” imply the past, but “sitting” imply the present?
Thanks for the reply Nick, but to me if those people in your example were doing something other than standing or sitting you would say in the past they were doing something, not they were done something or were did something. So sit and stand are being treated as exceptions to the rule for other verbs if you say were sat or were stood.
Are you implying that people from the North should not be allowed access to the English Language because they are ‘the wrong hands’? Or are you implying that a certain level of education is needed before a person has a right to use their native language in the way they want to?
I agree that misuse of the English Language can be ugly but disagree that your (or my) feelings about that should have any weight when others decide how they want to use it. I’m constantly aware that English is an amalgam and an adaptation of many earlier languages and that regional differences exist depending on which populations were in the majority in different areas. And that’s only in the UK. Today English is being adapted throughout the world for speakers to use as they want to. We cannot stop it, nor should we.
I *were* stood/sat, surely?
I would interpret “has been sat” as “has been placed”, i.e. like a flowerpot on a winsowsill.
Last edited 3 years ago by Richard Lyon
Warren Alexander
3 years ago
The reason Starmer will never be Prime Minister is that he isn’t a leader. Leadership is about ideas. He doesn’t have any. It is about forming public opinion not simply following it, It is about being brave. He isn’t. It is about creating an exciting and inspiring identity. He is neither exciting or inspiring and has no defining identity.
The best Labour can hope for under Starmer is that a genuine leader will emerge for the next general election or, at worst, the one after that.
John Williams
3 years ago
The problem is bigger than Keir Starmer or any leader. The Labour Party is an industrial party in a post-industrial world. Its two main constituencies – working class and urban metropolitan – each have different value sets – social conservative and social liberal – and consequently despise each other. In past generations the working class/social conservative wing were prepared to put up with what it saw as the silliness of the urban metropolitan/social liberal wing for the sake of some economic protection; the need for that protection is not what it was, particularly as right wing parties throughout the west have moved towards an economically left-of-centre and socially right-of-centre position. The raison d’etre of the Labour party is further compromised by the rise of national identity (for the working class) and cosmopolitanism (for the metropolitans) over class identity as the prime determinant of a sense of selfhood. Such “false consciousness” has destroyed the old coalition of the left. It’s difficult to see a way back.
Ian Barton
3 years ago
Spot on analysis – I just can’t see how anyone could turn the Labour Party round within a single election cycle.
Agreed. It would have taken something positively cataclysmic to convert such a drubbing into election victory in a single term But surely it is possible that the Labour brand is irredeemably besmirched? It cannot now “go back” to its former traditions and credibly claim to be the party of (or at least for) the working man. The very name of the party is completely at odds with the make-up and outlook of its membership.
Frankly they all are… Its become a trope, but the Labour Party has nothing but contempt for the working class, the Conservatives have no interest in conserving anything, and the Liberal Democrats are not Liberal and don’t believe in democracy.
Agreed Ian. It will take, I think, four, so three more GE defeats. It requires the current toxic Labour membership to grow up and die off; for the electorate to forget what Labour is like; for Conservative incumbency to go on so long that they start to look exhausted; and a steady influx of disreputable pocket-liners to enter the party as being the only game in town for corruption (Blair actually achieved the last two within his first term).
Labour may win again in the second half of the 2030s, but no sooner.
The problem for Labour is their embrace of identity politics. At one time, their coalition of working class supporters and minority groups was a winning formula. But increasingly their traditional supporters have come to see that they have little in common with the wokeish preoccupations of so many Labour MPs. Identity politics are inherently divisive, and Labour needs to wean themselves off from them to have any hope of regaining power. I don’t see Keir Starmer, given his background and constituency, being willing or able to do this.
What use of identity politics could be more inherently divisive than pitting metropolitan elite against white working class, muslims against ‘native’ British, undocumented immigrants against refugees? These are the narratives of the right, not the left.
Twitter spats about trans rights are small change in identity politics compared to the widespread amplification of racial, class and geographical differences seen on the right.
Seeing everything through dense ideological filters, continuing even to acknowledge, let alone address, genuine concerns, will consign Labour to the history books.
Undocumented immigrants.migration Watch estimate over 1 million illegal immigrants,most brought here in Back of the lorry, or Dinghy by People traffickers..your Semantics are ‘Doublethink’ pathetic
Kevin Thomas
3 years ago
As I’ve been saying for a year now, he’s Ed Miliband without the charm. He hasn’t made any impression on the public and Labour is now facing losses that are the equivalent of the Tories losing Surrey. They may not get rid of him though because who else is there? Out of that contest last year, he was easily the best choice. I can’t think of a single person in Labour I can imagine winning a general election.
How dare you ! Go wash your mouth out with bleach this instant !!
Eleanor Barlow
3 years ago
I can see why people don’t think Starmer and his fellow travellers represent their interests. But why do they think Johnson will do any better? All that talk about levelling up is just Johnson’s usual bullshit. Moving a few civil service departments up north is not levelling up. Anyone who believes it, needs to have their head examined.
Well. Think about this. Both Labour and the Tories are out to screw you.
Very simply both believe in the welfare state and socialist redistribution.
But above all they both believe that that the minions shall never be told about the 14 trillion pound socialist welfare state pension debts. Never.
After all if the public knew, they would lose their heads.
……..but what a lovely man, so much nicer than that g… in power. Can he do any worse? I am just a simpleton who understands what being at the bottom of the pile feels like. Sir Keir anyday luv.x
Howard Medwell
3 years ago
A good read as always, but all this mystical stuff about patriotism, etc. misses the main point. The main reason why people vote Tory, or stay at home and let other people vote Tory, or only vote Labour when the Labour Party acts Tory, is because they are home owners. Nobody wants socialist revolution when their economic security depends upon rising property values.
Hosias Kermode
3 years ago
There is a new opportunity opening up if only the Labour Party would seize it. We need a party of the consumer. Because that is what we now are and where we are most vulnerable on so many levels. And the Conservatives can never convince in that role because of their debt to big business. Take housing: all the growth of the last 15 years has been in leasehold, an utterly corrupt form of tenure known nowhere else in the world but England and Wales. Business is creaming money off leaseholders as a result of the cladding scandal yet Tories won’t do the right thing. Labour could pick up votes by promising that home owning would really mean home owning and reforming the law accordingly. They could take on all sorts of threatened individual freedoms – including opposing vaccine passports. They could tackle environmentalism from the consumers’ point of view. An alarming recent interviewee on Lockdown TV claimed that, if present trends continue, male fertility will be zero by 2045. If this is true, we need incredibly urgent action to replace the plastics which, it is claimed, are poisoning us and undermining human fertility. There is SO MUCH to do. The battle is no longer the old one of workers/unions versus bosses, capitalism versus socialism. That battle has already been lost. It is a new one – the rights of the individual voter versus those of vested commercial interests. It’s the old Christian Democrat struggle to reconcile morality and profit. I wish they would give it a go but I don’t think there’s a chance in hell that they will.
Lydia R
3 years ago
Much as I dislike quoting Steve Bannon, his quote about “we want the left to talk about race and identity, the more the better” is very relevant here.
Nick Whitehouse
3 years ago
I am not so sure of the outcome of the next election.
Personally, I am against ID cards (AKA Vaccine passports) and would not wish to vote for a party who introduced them.
This would mean not voting for Boris. However as a conservative who could I vote for?
I think there is a big gap on the right for another party to succeed, which might split the conservative vote – thus allowing Sir Kneel to win.
Yes but You think Ed davey,keir Stumbler, will vote against ID Biometric Cards on phones or on plastic,which is same As Chinese Social Credit Card sytem ,24 hr surveillance and can refuse you access to Your Own bank account,Public transport,Cinemas,theatres,Sports Venues ,Shops etc…? Boris said of Blair’s 2004 ID Card,scheme ”It is An infringement on British liberty &in no circumstances ,will i ever support it” 17 years later ,Blair Still supports So do most of Our mediocrities in Brussels,Westminster,Peking,Washington DC! Welcome to Minority Report
Last edited 3 years ago by Robin Lambert
Sally Robertson
3 years ago
What is the point of Labour though? Young people today all want to be rich – either by hard work or by luck – talent contests/’influencing’. They want property, private schools, lovely holiday homes, cars (despite supposedly wanting to green the world).
The days of working for love of a job only are long gone. When I was at the BBC you worked there for love, you went to ITV for money. Not any more. And when you consider the price of living in the UK one can hardly blame people for wanting more money.
Communism has failed everywhere too. And the Labour Party has not even reached the centenary of its first government yet – that’s next year. They’re being rather quiet about it, aren’t they?
14 trillion pounds of socialist pension debts, with zero capital, all Bernie Maddoff’ed off the books.
Do a full audit, send everyone a break down of the causes and their share.
Richard Lyon
3 years ago
They signed their death sentence for me when they allowed themselves to be colonised by hateful militant feminist and racist activist entryists like Jessica Philips and Harriet Harman. The sight of Phillips on Parliament TV rocking in her chair, hugging her sides, snorting with laughter and banging her head off the table to express her amusement while being asked for “permission” to debate male suicide and collapsing education standards will haunt me forever.
Harriet Harman a ‘racist activist entryist’? She’s been and gone, and here peak was in the 90s. Jess Philips a ‘militant feminist’? Are you serious?
Pierre Pendre
3 years ago
What makes people think that either party will make big changes to their lives or standard of living? Brexit was admittedly a big change but was an accident which neither the Tories nor Labour wanted to happen. Corbyn may even have wanted it more than Johnson who was stuck with it and made the best of the hand dealt him. We have a mature electorate which sometimes goes a bit left and sometimes goes a bit right. Labour will eventually return to power because people will tire of the Tories. Corbyn was too extreme for anyone but students though not the batty clown the media made him out to be.
The next election may be too much of a hurdle swingwise but the one after gives Labour seven or eight years to sort out itself out with a better leader who is attractive to voters and an alternative to the exhausted Tories. I’m sure the Tories have bitterly regretted winning against expectations in 1992 only to get a walloping in 1997. People were desperate to see the back of them from Black Wednesday onwards, almost their entire term. The Tories don’t own the Red Wall. They won it because of a particular alignment of the stars. But anyone who still thinks that a change of government will be transformative is living in la la land which is why all the energy and angst expended on politics is futile.
He bent the knee to blm. That image is permanently seared into the minds of red wall voters. Come election time it will be on posters all over the country. He’s a woke metropolitan politician, it exudes from his every pore. The Red Wall know it and always will. On top of that Labour are a divided party. Starmer would do better to run for London Mayor – he’d walk it.
The obstacles for him to become PM of the country are colossal.
Try this experiment – search for the word ‘knee’ in the comments section of any newspaper article about Starmer. The number of hits tells you all you need to know.
Last edited 3 years ago by JP Edwards
Bill Blake
3 years ago
I’m stating the obvious, but Labour clearly need to be appeal to a sizeable proportion of those who voted conservative last time round. And to do that they need to convince voters that they are financially responsible and workable policies which can be bought into by a much wider section of the public. Whoever leads the party into that will need extremely strong vision and appeal!
I challenge your base assumption that what seems ‘financially responsible and workable’ is what we have or have had. The 2019 Labour manifesto (and 2017 before that) attempted to redress the balance. Do you remember Whorlton was in the 2019 Tory one apart from ‘Deliver Brexit’ – you think what they will deliver will be responsible or workable?
Covid has been manna from heaven for Johnson – it hides the absolute disaster going on in trade with Europe. Brexit was never going to be easy but he has made it much worse. Luckily for him the press is in a froth about ‘variants’ and now he is managing to make people doubt vaccination as an effective tool. All with the help of the establishment. Left and right!
What has been at all responsible and workable about the economic policies since the early 80s transferring wealth to the rich and making society a service to them. This will be seen in full once the damage of the last year unwinds
The 2019 Labour manifesto was obviously not finacially credible.
Even to some-one such as my self I could see that their tax policies were nothing short of an attempt to hoodwink the public, dropping the higher rate tax threshold from 50p to 40p does not increase revenues by 25% – labour knew that, I refuse to believe that they didn’t know that, yet their spending promises assumed that it would.
Labours claim that re-nationalising the railways would be finacially neautral, while at the same time raising the wages of all the employees and enabling upgrade work – while technically possible if you assume that the current profits would be enough to cover the extra expeses – was something that the majority of the british public (and the labour party) know was incredably unlikely.
I’m not an ardent Conservative, or Liberal, or anything. I want a good choice of credible parties both left, right, center, and liberal – but we don’t have that anymore. We have single (and small ranges of linked) issue groups that have no hope of governing, the sad fact is – like or loath them the only credible governing party we have in the UK is the Conservatives – and I hope to god that they stay in power as bad as they are the alternative is far worse!
The Labour 2019 manifesto was entirely financially credible.
Britain can afford to increase spending moderately and reduce taxes because it is a sovereign currency issuing state.
We are not anywhere near exceeding the supply side and causing inflation.
Investments in infrastructure and local banking to support SUE’S would have boosted productivity and raised living standards.
It is entirely necessary to make strategic investments which boost productivity.
Also renationalising certain monopoly utilities like rail and water would be good as revenue could be reinvested to upgrade capacity as opposed to being spent on dividends to international investors.
Our Private Water utilities in particular facing long term problems as a result of underinvestment and taking on debt.These companies have polluted swimming areas in the ocean with untreated sewage.Something they have been doing at an increasing rate.A lot of swimmers have ended up in Hospital as a result.
It was not credible, pretty much every finacial expert outside of the party that expressed an opinion on the tax income figures stated that they were wishful thinking.
The spending plans were based on income that wouldn’t materialise and very optermistic assumptions about costs of renationalising infastructure.
Stategic investments for future prosperity are great, but in the last Labour manifesto they fiddled the figures.
…………………or the Tories mess up financially . Black Wednesday did for them in 1992 and if if interest rates rise something similar could well happen (or maybe a crash in the housing market?)
Last edited 3 years ago by Chris Hopwood
Simon Newman
3 years ago
“Over the past two decades, the Left essentially walked into the casino of British politics and put all of its chips behind social liberals whose support is concentrated in liberal enclaves rather than spread across the country.”
They embraced the politics of the US Democratic Party as that party was radicalising. It’s hard enough for the US Democrats to win, even with a fully compliant media. With Britain’s politically diverse print media and very different demographics, following AOC & co is not a good path to success.
On demographics – Labour seem to believe that Britain resembles Tony Blair’s vision of “rubbing the Right’s noses in Diversity” – that the UK’s demographics mirror those of the USA, or London. Like Hillary Clinton they take the Rust Belt – the Red Wall – completely for granted, and consequently a mild bit of Tory populism in the form of Brexit Boris serves to completely undermine their appeal and threaten to render them electorally irrelevant.
You’re right. Labour are following very closely the Democrats in basically abandoning their traditional base and following a metropolitan agenda. You only have to look at the Brexit vote and its concentration. Starmer was a fool to basically come out with the position that Labour should simply ignore the result, no matter how it was dressed up. He was saying to the traditional base ‘we don’t care how you vote, WE know what’s good for you. So shut up and do as you’re told’. An election winning formula.
I remember the Northern voters the day after the election telling the interviewer why he switched his vote to Tory. “You ignored us so we ignored you.”
“Starmer, in his defence, inherited a sinking ship from Jeremy Corbyn.”
A very unusual sinking ship, where the crew got off and the rats stayed on board (and multiplied!)
Fraser Bailey
3 years ago
Starmer has proved to be rather more wooden and witless than I anticipated. Quite how he became head of the CPS I don’t know, although I suppose nothing surprises one in modern Britain. And of course it was in this capacity that he, effectively, kneeled to the men from a certain group in order to secure their vote for Labour. He’s a nasty piece of work.
Of course, he is not helped by the mind bogglingly low standards of Labour MPs. We see another one in the news today for yet another astonishing display of stupidity – and she was already suspended for something or other. Human history has never seen a dumber or more disreputable rabble than the Labour Parliamentary Party and I swear there are as yet undiscovered tribes in New Guinea with a greater knowledge of world history and current affairs.
Last edited 3 years ago by Fraser Bailey
Rob Alka
3 years ago
Keir Starmer’s problem is being passionate about everything. Most voters recognise instinctively that this really means he isn’t truly passionate about anything (except to remain a leader of the Labour Party either to get into Downing Street or get sufficiently close and maybe get in the next time around). When he flicks on his “passion switch” he looks and sounds ridiculous, with anguished facial expressions, spouting lofty sentiments, full of G.A.S (Group Accepted Sentiments) but devoid of substance. When an interviewer probes beyond such G.A.S., Starmer starts to stutter, either changing the subject or obfuscating. If a shadow party leader shies away from explaining the basic principles of what he wants to do for the country that claims to be better than what the current party in power is doing, he becomes a man of straw, a shadow prime minister frightened of his own shadow. I’d like to believe Keir Starmer doesn’t need a personality implant and that away from politicking he is an affable chap. I also assume he holds genuine beliefs and principles for improving what ails British society that are decent and relevant rather than whacky or Corbynesque. But I can’t get a handle on what he has to offer Britain that is better than what is being is being pursued by the Conservative Party. I get the feeling his decision to join the Labour Party rather than the Conservative Party came about either by tossing a coin or grabbing a vacancy opportunity at a moment in time that just happened by chance to be with the Labour rather than Conservative party. Some say Starmer is a left wing socialist by nature who is trying gain a broader following by dissociating from the Neanderthal / Corbynistic socialist outlook of un-vote-able Old Labour but has to do this in a low key way so that Labour’s National Executive Committee Neanderthals don’t view him as a traitor to the cause. Others say he is a centralist liberalist Tory but he daren’t reveal himself as that much of a Labour turncoat because he’d be ridiculed by the media and crucified by the Labour Party. Besides, for better or worse, Boris Johnson pretty much owns that territory.
Somehow Tony Blair took a deep breath and grabbed at the opportunity to be all things to all men just when Labour was going through an identity crisis. Labour is going through that again but Starmer hasn’t the courage, imagination or force of personality to achieve what Blair did. And just to prove that he makes Ed Milliband a shadow minister. There are several high-quality Labour MP’s with an outlook suitable for our times that could seriously challenge the “reason-for being” of the Conservative Party. But all to no avail because, bottom line, Keir Starmer lacks the courage of his convictions to bring them in out of the cold or doesn’t share their convictions or, worse still, doesn’t have any convictions of his own other than the UK equivalent of America’s Motherhood & Apple Pie, all of which he is of course passionate about.
Paula Jones
3 years ago
Didn’t Starmer’s list of ‘achievements’ manage to omit that he was head honcho at the DPP when they were busy ignoring the Midlands grooming gangs, so as not to harm ‘diversity’?
Ann Ceely
3 years ago
After WWII, politics was the Trade Unions vs Everyone else.
After Margaret Thatcher, politics was “Ooops, the EU … dont we have any politicians worth voting for?”
Along came “Progressive” Tony. Unfortunately, we felt disillusioned.
Then, we were upset by the “Bigot” namecalling Scotsman when a polite lady asked a simple question.
So, here we are. Without any opposition politicians with any words we will stop to listen to!
Last edited 3 years ago by Ann Ceely
Andy White
3 years ago
Yes to Matt Goodwin: KS is going to be an interim leader not a PM. No to the comments people who are thinking (wishing, more like) that Labour is already finished.
It is now clear that KS lacks the political skills necessary for effective leadership, including achieving party unity, achieving cut-through with the public, and conveying a sense of direction. Meanwhile Labour’s near miss in 2017 gets too little attention, and the single issue election in 2019 gets too much. The potential to restore the party’s fortunes remains for someone better suited to the job. But the longer the party waits to make that change, the less there will be to work with.
Labour’s ‘near miss’ in 2017 gets too much attention from the Left. The worst possible result for the Labour Party was a sheer fluke. A last minute gamble by Remainers from other parties that Corbyn was also a Remainer (which he never has been) led to that late Labour surge.
That anomaly led the Corbynites to insist that their man deserved to stay and lead the Party to the next GE. When he vacillated over Brexit the voters he’d accidentally captured abandoned him in their thousands.
The consequences were that Labour not only lost 2017, but then lost catastrophically under Corbyn in 2019, and thus Inadvertently enabled Brexit. Corbyn’s final act was to leave his successor with the lowest number of Labour seats in 85 years.
In hindsight, Corbyn should have been sacked in 2017, but the Party waited too long that time as well.
Ben
3 years ago
Labour’s support now resides amongst the metropolitan media who drench us in a tirade of self-loathing anti-Englishness. No wonder people are leaving the capital and the BBC in droves.
That sounds like a bunch of lazy cliches. Which metropolitan media? Which self-loathing? Why Englishness and not Britishness? Leaving the capital? Because of COVID? Leave the BBC? How?
I suggest instead of being Self satisfied idiot,you actually see how many people Watch netflix,bT sport,Now,Amazon etc..& Dont pay BBC License..
Jonathan Weil
3 years ago
He could start by landing some actual blows on this authoritarian government of ours. Vaccine passports are un-British, he says. Well vote them down then, and start telling a positive story about this country’s tradition of civil liberty.
Last edited 3 years ago by Jonathan Weil
Angela Sullivan
3 years ago
Nope. Did Boris Johnson look like a Prime Minister in Waiting? Theresa May?
You can’t decide who looks like a Prime Minister and who doesn’t.
This has the usual drivel about small c northern social conservativism and simply ignores the long stream of shit which has been shovelled on the voters in red wall safe seats by the “social liberals” who have inhabited Party HQ since the days of Blair.
In times past local democracy was a huge feature of the Labour Party. In traditions with roots both in the Trade Union Movement and Methodist Chapels education of workers, solidarity group loyalty and social justice were all hugely important.
This didnt suit Blair, who wanted a party he could manage in a top down way. He took advantage of constituencies which had once boasted that you could have got a donkey elected if you had pinned a red rosette on it. He put his own proteges (often inexperienced young women) in against the wishes of the locals. I have very mixed feelings about All Women Shortlists. Unquestionably they achieved better representation for women, but they were also clearly used to gerrymander who was selected to run for office, as was the power of the NEC to veto candidates from standing.
Blair reduced the power of Party Conference, turning it from a sovereign body with the power to debate motions submitted by ordinary members via branches and make them party policy to a showcase which rubber stamped policy documents. The policy documents had been consolidated in “policy fourums” in which ordinary members could air their views, but Party Officials were the people who lapter decided what needed to be put on record.
The earlier format, with individual motions on different subjects, gave the conference delegates a degree of power. The later format admitted no changes to the policy documents which the conference could only approve. (Theorectically they could vote against them, but that would reject the baby as well as the bathwater.)
The power ratio of the Leadership to members was consistently changed during the Blair years. The Party became less democratic and more into sales pitch and razzamatazz. Branches – once forums where serious and significant political debates occurred – became irrelevant, except when activists were wanted to raise money or deliver leaflets.
The social structures which had made Labour the only possible party for two generations of voters were trampled on and Northerners saw their concerns ignored as the party courted “middle England”. This – coupled with Brexit – eventually broke down ties and loyalties which took a long time to build.
Thinking that a bit if flag-wagging and social conservatism will undo this is patronising and incorrect.
As is seeing a steady decline in Labour’s fortunes since Blair. Blair started taking the members loyalty for granted and abusing their trust. This caused a decline in Labours vote. Corbyn’s interregnum was NOT a continuation of this. The membership revived. Belief in Labour as a force for democracy and socialism revived, but not amongst MPs and the catering classes. They were horrified, and fought a hard and increasingly below the belt campaign against Corbyn.
The Lajour vote continued its downward trajectory, but for very different reasons.
Now that Starmer is running things the trendes that Corbyn halted are back in train. Starmer has made no attempt to deal with or prevent corruption and rule breaking inside the Labour Party. He has continued suspending members for inadequate reasons. He has interfered with what branches can discuss (wholly exceeding his legitimate powers to do so). He has interfered in candidate selection processes. He has driven out active members, to the extent that many areas are struggling to find sufficient candidates for local elections. In many areas the party is demoralised (which it was not under Corbyn).
The labour Party is probably now in a terminal condition. This is because the leadership and membership are heading in opposite directions. It is not a dispute of identity politics between woke inner cities and neanderthal northern towns. It is a complete betrayal of the membership by leaders who think they are above the laws they are entitled to make for others. There is not a cigarette paper to put between the Conservative and Labour Leadership here. Both share this attitude as they wash their hands and accept 17% payrises from an “independent” body they put in place. (It is obviously co-incidence that a very different body seems to be in charge of nurses and benefit claimants pay.)
The Labour Party was set up to serve the interests of workers. It does not. What it appears to be doing at present is acting as the Tory reserve team for when the first team screws up.
This is not what the people who join, or vote for the labour Party need. Starmer has let the Genie out if the bottle, and I don’t think academic commentators have the foggiest idea how to put it back in.
The members are a 500,000 strong cult, the MPs need to get elected which will never happen with the policies of the cult.
Dudden Hall
3 years ago
The main problem with the Labour Party is the Blairites.
They are the ones who stabbed Jeremy Corbyn in the back, and lost him the election by forcing him to accept another referendum.
Corbyn wanted to accept the referendum result, and go for a soft Brexit.
Miliband, another Blairite, did not offer a referendum, forcing millions of Labour voters to vote for Cameron, just to get a chance of leaving the EU.
Even now the Blairites are at work, trying to undermine the Labour Party yet again, which undermines democracy.
Until the Labour Party gets fully behind Brexit, and gets rid of the Blairites it will never win another election.
Colin Haller
3 years ago
Labour is unelectable mostly because it ceases to be connected in any way to its erstwhile constituency among the working classes. It no longer represents either their values or their concerns.
Starmer is beside the point.
Jeremy Smith
3 years ago
I though LibDems were going to win a lot more seats in 2010, Remain and Clinton was going to win. I also thought TM was going to win. So there is my political judgement.
I would like to point out that right now UK GOV is spending money like a pimp with a week to live. I don’t see how the Tories can be the party of the Shires (low taxes) and Red Wall (big spending). And that is the Party’s weak point.
I am reasonably sure levelling up is going nowhere, it is going to (German experience) cost at least – my rough calcs – £30 billion extra a year spending for 20/30 years. And I don’t see how Tory shires are going pay for it.
VDMA (Germany) calculates that the Germany is going to lose c50% of the jobs in the car industry thanks to electrification. If Germany’s industrial base (fare more diverse and sophisticated) is about to get hammered I don’t see how UK can perform any better. It is easy to talk about culture. flag and patriotism but none of those things can pay for the mortgage or 2 weeks in Corfu.
Why can’t you understand that the UK government is capable of investing in the Country?
How do you think we are paying for the Covid furlough?
BoE controls the Gilt market,Treasury can spend as much as it deems necessary into the Economy.
This is a good thing we need to invest and update our economy.its interesting you mention Germany, after reunification investment into former communist East Germany has given East Germany a higher GDP per capita than most of Britain.
Germany has done well over the last 20 years because it is using an artificially undervalued currency; has a captive market with the Eurozone. I saw an interview with Bernard Connolly (George Soros was on the same Dutch TV programme) where he made the point that if you used the dollar as a yardstick the optimum value for the Euro for Greece would be about 35 cents, but for Germany it would be $2.35. The dollar/Euro was then at $1.10. The USA, UK and others ought to apply anti-dumping tariffs to EU goods. That would help the Germans.
How has Sweden (economic structure similar to Germany) has done so well outside of the EZ? Denmark? No it has nothing to do with size.
For the first 5/6 years of EUR the currency was overvalued for the German economy. And they still did fine just like they did in the days of D-Mark.
And the idea that Greece with 10M is keeping EUR down is utterly risible especially since EUR is the 2nd largest currency in the world. People around the world (not in EZ) stash their savings in EUR. That means extra demand for the currency.
Germany achieved that (fact not an opinion) by doublings its national debt during the 90s and through solidarity tax – complex issue but to keep it simple – 5% on everything.
Who/what is going to pay that 5% tax?
Is UK GOV going to double its debt as % of GDP?
The curse of governing in bad times. It is undoubtedly the case that some incredibly difficult times are coming – not immediately because the taps are on worldwide, sadly of necessity, so we will get a fairly hefty bounce in the first instance, at least in the UK – but there is no getting round the eventual pain. I suspect unemployment will top out closer to 20% than 10%. It all depends on how the Tories manage the election timings – they cannot afford to get too close to the heart of the bust before going to the country, so they will probably go in about 24 months, by when the slide will have started, but I suspect people will cut them a lot of slack in the first instance. In any case, for Labour to make an impact they would need to be united, with a well defined offering, and as they have none of that, and under Starmer they have not impressed, so it is out of their hands, and would require the government to make several major mistakes over the next couple of years for Starmer to get in.
Neil Mcalester
3 years ago
An excellent article although it leaves out the question of where disaffected Tory voters will go as Johnson moves left and whether that will make a difference to the calculations.
Just as Trump hollowed out the Republican party, so Johnson is hollowing out the Conservatives. When the end-of-pier comedy routine is no longer funny, there will be nothing left.
Trump did no such thing. What he did was expose people like McConnell, Romney et all as RINOs. The leadership is divorced from the base, so what is actually needed is a ‘Blue Momentum’. Too many people think what are essentially liberal (to the left) views and opinions are conservative when they are clearly not.
GA Woolley
3 years ago
For all practical purposes, Labour is 2 parties. A farish Left grouping of Wokeists, identity politicals, Momentum, Union barons, and old fashioned ‘socialists’, and an amorphous, largely anonymous, and irresolute group of centre-Left MPs and members who have been cowed into keeping quiet. Starmer is the leader of neither.
Michael Whittock
3 years ago
The question is: if not him, then who? Who in the Labour Party? (I can’t see anybody). Who anywhere? Are we entering an era of one party government?
I think Andy Burnham might have been a better choice. But the membership rejected him in favour of Corbyn the loser. Since then he has left Parliament and become Greater Manchester Mayor. He can bullshit as well as Boris Johnson, but he seems more down-to-earth than the others in Labour.
..and far too aware of the views and aspirations of the traditional working class (former) core Labour voter to make him acceptable to the privately educated middle class liberal elite currently in charge.
Simon Stephenson
3 years ago
If truth be known, the interests of a large majority of the country would be best served by a Prime Minister who came from a list of desirables on which neither Johnson nor Starmer would appear in the top million. But, things being as they are, the chance of anyone above Johnson and Starmer on the list becoming Prime Minister is roughly the same as that of the moon being made out of cheese.
Last edited 3 years ago by Simon Stephenson
Andrew Lale
3 years ago
‘…the Conservatives have also leaned towards the Left, variously promising to “level-up” the most regionally imbalanced nation in the industrialised world while moving institutions, civil servants and banks north.’ Ah, magical thinking. It’s so much easier than… thinking. How many people think gifting sinecures to the north east and Scotland will turn those places into hotbeds of entrepreneurialism?
Lydia R
3 years ago
There’s a big clash coming up between the religious minority Labour voters and the LGBT wing as we’ve seen with the recent farcical visit to the Baptist Church by Sir Kneeler.
Well there’s only one winner in that particular clash, as can be seen in Islamic countries everywhere.
Scott Carson
3 years ago
“Starmer, in his defence, inherited a sinking ship from Jeremy Corbyn.”
Really? I’d have said Starmer was hugely instrumental in scuppering that ship himself. Can’t have a socialist in charge of the Labour Party, can we, or so the Labour hierarchy appears to think.
jonknight1
3 years ago
Perhaps the only thing in his favour is that he looks like a Tory, sounds like a Tory, yet isn’t a Tory. To a general public disengaged with politics but fed up with the current situation, that could be enough.
Blair won because he trashed the Tories – first Major (not hard to do) then IDS, (also not hard) then Hague (much harder, but Blair succeeded here, too). Also he brought some refreshing ideas, (stealing the Tories’ clothes which is why I voted for him in 1997) when Major and the Tories only had recycled Thatcherism, and ever-more privatisation when it was looking like that creed had run its course (and it had). Blair’s Irish peace treaty was an achievement of historic merit and significance. Then, as Blair achieved dictator status, with no meaningful opposition inside his Party or inside Parliament, things started to go downhill. But that’s another story. The fact is that if Blair had not given way to Gordon Brown, he would have won in 2010, too.
Starmer should study Blair’s record carefully. I think the lessons he could take away include:
Learn how to beat up Boris. Study him carefully, as Blair used to do with his opposite numbers, and work out the weak spots. Corruption is obviously one, loose morals another. Then go for the jugular, repeatedly.
Talk up Britain, like Boris does.
Develop one or two good ideas and repeat them, ad nauseam. Suggestions: an anti-corruption unit inside Whitehall, with a country-wide remit; more infrastructure spending, including HS2 – it employs people and it’s good for economic efficiency. There are others.
Giles,
The NI peace treaty came about because of the risk that Major took in holding secret negotiations with Sinn Fein during his time. None of Phoney Tony’s “achievements” were actually down to him. He was handed a golden economic legacy by the Tories (more by luck than judgement, having crashed out of the ERM years earlier, which also prevented the mistake of joining the Euro being made). The only thing that was really down to Phoney Tony was the illegal war he conned us into with his dodgy dossier.
Hopefully Sir Kier or anyone else seeking leadership of our country will completely ignore your advice and definately not try to emulate the war criminal and buddy of Jimmy Savile.
Matt Goodwin says ‘Conservatives have also leaned towards the Left, variously promising to “level-up” the most regionally imbalanced nation in the industrialised world’. Of course this ‘promising’ was part of an election campaign, why then would a party that won by 80 seats change its usual low tax low spend policy so as to level up? Does anyone here really believe that the Tories aim to ‘level-up’, as opposed to the more likely ‘be seen to be levelling up’? The question then is how quickly people see that the promise won’t be kept.
Last edited 3 years ago by Mark Blagrove
Mark Blagrove
3 years ago
There is rightly debate about whether the current Tory populist strengths mean Keir Starmer is doomed, the irony is that the Tories being this unassailable in England makes Scottish independence even more likely.
David Waring
3 years ago
Who is Keir Starmer?
Mark Lilly
3 years ago
Goodwin writes: ‘Over the past two decades, the Left essentially walked into the casino of British politics and put all of its chips behind social liberals’ Actually, quite the opposite, as the cowardice over cancel culture and Batley school and the homophobic demos outside schools clearly show. In c.1990, Labour began to ditch liberal values (women’s and gay rights, et al) to embrace their new fanatical religion: anti-racism. This most significantly involved wooing anti-rights religious groups, especially muslims. It was simply demographic calculation; once the old class struggle narrative was no longer convincing they needed a new constituency. Labour then adopted the stance of all major parties on social issues: if someone is homophobic, anti-women, anti-abortion, racist … then they are vigorously denounced as fascists UNLESS they give a supernaturalist justification for such views, when they suddenly become entitled to respect. [Sign of the times from Goodwin, supra: “the entire country has been sat at home, watching the news …” A professor ???]
Daniel Goldstein
3 years ago
“Labour’s broken bond with the working class”
Surely, Matthew, you mean the white working class? Plenty of ‘working class’ people do still vote Labour but they’re in safe seats. I like you, Matthew, but you really are just churning out the same boring stuff repeatedly at the moment. Every article is a variation on “Labour are failing”.
What on earth do you want? There is not a lot else to say about them just now, other than to point to Claudia Webbe, Apsana Begum and the Liverpool crew and their prosecutions, the Mike Hall tribunal and Hartlepool bye election to come, and the number of local labour members being suspended. Amazing to think in that context that Khan is a success storey. He has to write something its his job.
Christopher Chantrill
3 years ago
The left has always been about the educated and its right to rule. But up until now it always understood the need to fool the workers into thinking that the left was on the side of the workers.
Oh well. It was fun while it lasted.
It might have been fun for them, but not for the rest of us.
Colin Cook
3 years ago
I think there is only one Labour person capable of receiving support from the nation. He currently lives in the US. That person is David Milliband. He would need to be coaxed back here, and stand as an MP. He was an obvious candidate before Ed was elected, and Ed was put there by the unions, who are as always blinded by their own interests: the nation comes second. There is, in my opinion, something stately about David. I wonder how many people agree with me?
I think you’ll find that very few people agree with you. He might have been more plausible than the rest of them but he’s a vacuous and unpleasant piece of work who approved of torture and ‘special renditions’ etc when Foreign Secretary.
Douglas Allford
3 years ago
Don’t hear many fans of the ‘report’ mentioning Windrush — a catastrophe visited upon British citizens; it follows from a ‘hostile environment’ designed by two home secretaries to induce ecstasy in their supporters.
The Windrush thing was started by Labour in 2008/9.
M Blanc
3 years ago
Unlike the Dems in the US, apparently Labour still need the votes of the white working (or formerly working) class, upon whom they never pass up an opportunity to excrete. Their path forward is obvious: import a few million more Third Worlders, learn how to discover pallets of ballots, or both.
JR Stoker
3 years ago
I’m not so sure. He has almost certainly a long time to the next election, and if one comes early it will be because of some catastrophic event that the Tory Party is damaged by. This is like Mrs Thatcher (peace be upon her) in 1975. She knew she had time to bring about change in the Conservatives, and for a long time nothing much seemed to be happening. But everything to do with thought, policy, people, campaigning was being examined, rebuilt, improved. That, I suspect, is what Starmer is doing. Labour in late 2023 will be a different party (so long as he can keep control of it until then, and all the signs are that he is a ruthless operator who will). He is a deep thinker, unlike Boris, not opportunist or over-emotional. He has to play a long game and so far he is playing it well. He looks a bit dull, but after 5 years of Boris their will be a swing to dullness! But also to policies which resonate with what people will want – which will be nothing much to do with vaccines.
The Trouble he(Starmer) doesn’t Think, He is !) A Fence sitter “2) Chooses A Remainer for hartlepool May 6 which voted Leave by 70% 3) Jumps on Any fashionable bandwagon (Blm),As bad as Ed Davey, Boris Johnson Are…He is Iain Duncan Smith with Hair….. Vote Independent May 6.. Some of the posts on here,are just plain daft, When I knock on doors people NEVER ask about ”Trans issues” or ”Climate change’ but they do Ask’..about 1) decline of town centres even b4 SARS2 2) disapearing countryside 3) flytipping etc..
Gerald O'Connell
3 years ago
The next election is a long way away. Plenty of time for Johnson’s court jester routine to become boring and post-Brexit economic issues to outweigh cultural ones. People rarely win UK elections, they usually lose them. Rather than looking at why Starmer can’t win, it might be more appropriate to look at why Johnson might lose. Having surrounded himself with talentless yes-men he might yet face an unpleasant reckoning…
Also plenty time for him to recover and to mature into the role. Why so negative about the man who’s played a blinder on vaccinations? ‘talentless yes men’, oh so you mean instead he’s surrounded by highly talented independent-minded women such as Kate Bingham who masterminded the vaccine purchase?
Kate Bingham is nothing to do with Conservative Party, but is a single appointment, and clearly a successful one. Meanwhile Johnson has lied about the Irish Border, lied about the NHS, failed to respond to COVID, giving the UK the highest death rate, and appointed a bunch of talentless Yes People.
Yes of course, apart from being married to Jessie Norman MP Financial Secretary to the Treasury she has absolutely nothing to do with the conservative party.
Ben Morris
3 years ago
The pandemic has made this a very difficult time to be in opposition, and Starmer clearly has some housework to do, but Thatcher’s first efforts as Tory leader were not seen as impressive, and Johnson has made so many promises which he simply cannot keep. There are going to be problems with Northern Ireland, Scotland, levelling up, and the post-Brexit economy, as well as the obvious fault lines in his nationalist coalition between wealthier traditional Tories in the South and Red Wall voters, so it is quite possible that if Labour find the right balance of ingredients they will look rather more appealing come 2024. Nationalism is the tool the Tories are currently using to bind together a very broken country, broken largely by themselves with their pitiless and now discredited insistence on cutting the services on which the most vulnerable depend, but if nationalism – as seems inevitable -actually leads to a reduction in our economy and capacity to improve lives, the government will quite quickly find itself in trouble.
I despise Johnson because of his demolition of the economy brought about by lock downs, nothing to do with becoming an independent nation.
Karl Greenall
3 years ago
It’s quite a lesson to read some of the comments made here about the Labour Party.
Once we get past the old nonsenses about lack of patriotism – think of the Russian oligarch money swirling round the Tory party at the moment – the ludicrous claims about racism and xenophobia – the traditional “pleasurable vices of the right”, and the rose-tinted views of those not working in the gig economy, it is clear that Labour’s problems go back beyond even the war criminal Blair and his pet (very) peculiar Mandelson.
New Labour kept all the old Thatcherite vices until they blew up in 2007/8.
But for all their problems, at least they will avoid the blame for the coming storm.
And they need a new, serious leader, clearly not the current one, or any of his useless shadow cabinet.
‘But for all their problems, at least they will avoid the blame for the coming storm.’
Do you care to bet on it? Johnson is a master in the art of pinning the blame elsewhere than on himself and making it stick.Mainly because the MSM let him get away with it. Members of his Cabinet are also learning fast.
We’re already in a one party state. It’s not looking like Labour are going to overturn it any time soon. Not likely in my lifetime anyway.
Kelvin Rees
3 years ago
This is the same old narrative that was used to justify Trump. Remarkable how London politics is simply dismissed as an aberration. Which place contributes the most to the UK economy; London or Hartlepool? And sic, ‘The Working Class’! Please, please, bring on PR.
The tragedy for the Labour Party is that its members seem to live in a country different from the electorate. The Party presents UK (or to be specific England) as full of racist, xenophobic, close minded white people with privilege who have benefitted from slavery, colonisation and oppression. Voters look around and find a country largely content, fair, tolerant and diverse. Nobody won votes by doing down their country. If you are ashamed of your flag, your history, your ancestors, your traditions, your contributions to the world, and everything that fills people with pride for their homeland, don’t expect to win votes from them.
when India launched its first satellite I remember BBC interviewing a dirt poor Indian farmer who was asked how he felt that the country was spending money on satellites when people like him were so poor. He replied in Bhojpuri: sir, at night when I look at the sky and see a light moving, I think that might be the satellite from my India. I feel so proud.
Till labour understands that the politics of envy has a much smaller audience than the politics of self reliance and pride, it is bound to, and deserves to lose.
Great stuff. Btw, is there a Bhojpuri word for satellite? (My parents’ dialect is Bhojpuri).
The satellite was called Aryabhatta; that’s what everyone called it then
You need to start writing your own articles Vikram. I eagerly search for your comments on here and am never disappointed by them. Well said once more.
I suspect his distance from India makes for a nostalgic patriotic claim. Am I wrong?
Could you give some examples of the party presenting England as full of racist, xenophobic close minded white people? (Not Emily Thornberry)
Lisa Nandy doesn’t doesn’t seem to have many positive things to say about the country or its people.
She is half Indian and her dad was from Calcutta. Nothing more radical than a politicised Bengali.!!!!!!
OK, that may be pushing it a bit, but the whole left-wing response to last week’s report on race in the UK falls into that general category, where all the focus is on the problems (which are then greatly exaggerated) and no credit is given for improvements or acknowledgement that most (all?) other countries have a rather worse record than we do.
And I wonder, where was the balancing defence of the report? Why so much silence from other parts of the political spectrum?
Trevor Phillips defended it in the Times this week.
Agreeing that the report is correct when it says Britain is better than 30 years ago is surely damning it with faint praise?
The whole race relations situation and its industry are in contradiction. Especially in the multicultural arts scene. What I find disturbing is the positive discrimination policies where merit goes out the window. I even have experienced it once at the BBC. A former late musical colleague had a similar experience. He used a Muslim name until he went for the audition and they saw he was white. They even said ‘we thought you was Muslim’!!! He didn’t get the gig!!
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/09/labour-left-miliband-hating-english
This never fails to cheer me. By the time of the next election it will 50 years, and Labour will still hate him.
Just as true 6 years on. Worse, if anything.
So what you are saying is that the truth hurts.
Please explain.
All the points Jon moans about are true.
You must work as a Labour strategist!
No. Just a voter who looks for facts. The right have given up on facts, preferring ideology and their little prejudices, which are stoked by the chip wrappers they read.
I think the right/left dichotomy is misleading. It forces people to take sides and dehumanize those they disagree with.
No disagreement on economic policy forces people to “dehumanize those they disagree with.”
As for forcing “people to take sides” – isn’t that the point of political choice?
You wouldn’t happen to be a Labour supporter claiming the “right” prefer ideology over facts? My giddy aunt. I take it you never read the Labour “manifesto” or follow the media output from some of the party luminaires who embarrass them on a daily basis in the various forms of media. The problem with Labour, and their supporters, is that they have chosen to follow an ideology unique to the minority in the country, and they will not deviate from that course. The facts regarding popularity amongst voters escape them, based on other facts (economic, social, educational, historical to name a few), which also escape them. I’d suggest that if you are going to take a balanced view you could argue both sides of the political spectrum (and all the shades in the middle) follow ideology, some just pick one that works for the majority of the country and are therefore significantly more successful.
As a MOR voter, my view of the left is that facts are the last thing it heeds. Instead, prejudice and revolution are what turn it on.
And slogan chanting. Serious discussion. No way.
Aren’t the British left just the same?
You are delusional and if you cannot even analyse, ie see, the problem then you have no hope of solving it.
Stereotyping people using any metrics, whether race, sex, class, income, or whatever is wrong, not only morally, but in terms of effective problem solving.
Labour has a problem and it will only get bigger if somebody doesn’t get a grip on it.
Living in a comfort bubble of stereotyped opinion isn’t *getting a grip on it*..
Not all of us eat chips and would not wrap them in the Guardian/Daily Mirror if we did!
Labour activists took their traditional support for granted and traditional labour voter, became smart set synonym for bigoted, white thickos….
These people who say *Give examples* are the sort of people who if you said it rains a lot in Britain, would say, give examples.
Everyone can see what Labour has slipped into being, a hotchpotch of different (and often contradictory) identarian activist groups that have lost the ordinary working class vote that used to bind it all together.
They cannot even see why they lost big in Dec 2019, just as ultra-Remainers cannot see/admit why they lost and stay stuck in their comfort bubble mindset of thick, bigoted,little Englanders being duped by lying Boris.
Both groups probably overlap by at least 50%
Jon doesn’t sound hurt. He sounds pleased that the left is still busy digging its grave.
You seem dim in an infantile sort of way – were you educated after Blair was elected by chance, as that would explain your factless whining drivel.
Bully for you. You quote a opinion from someone who agrees with you but offer no evidence to back it up.
And you offer no evidence to refute it.
Still, 50 years, no one elected but Bliar, how does it feel on the Left, Mark?
It’s definitely worse now, as it’s pretty much the only card the Left have.
Why did people vote Brexit? Racism. Why are the white working class turning against Labour in the North? Racism.
It’s so handy! It completely avoids the necessity to think WHY those two situations have come about.
Similarly if everything is ‘structurally racist’ then it means that any situation can be simply explained away.
No qualifications but still can’t get a well-paid job? That’s structural racism that is mate. Not your responsibility at all.
Labour cant even Form a front to oppose SARS2 passport,why are they necessary ,when I have Cards which say i have my innoculations?..Johnson Vaccine rollout has been aided by Army, Certain NHS retirees return,.NHS and volunteers, his handling of SAGE Projected ”Data” has been p***poor ,Not to mention track&trace…I hope SDP,Reform &Independents do well on May 6 for Britain’s sake…
Yes, and the Left’s definition of race is confused with: religion (thus, resistance to Islam is racist along with being Islamophobic); language (here in the US, those against Spanish-speaking aliens crossing our border illegally – even white ones – are routinely cast as racist as well as xenophobic); and nationality, which is much the same as the linguistic equating. Thus, “race” no longer has to be regarded as immutable, but including things that are changeable. One can always learn a new language, drop or exchange your former religion, or change your nationality. But the Left will insist that to ask immigrants to do so, much less demand it, is inherently racist.
When UK gets Sharia, as it surely will as the demographic proves it, then the left will be the first in line to get dhimmied, or worse if they don’t submit. The Jizya tax will only be a start. Please read the Koran, Hadiths and Sunnah. They are up against the Salafist House of Saud and its massive oil wealth and plans for a global Umma.
Another, far more sinister, aspect to this is that any opposition can be labelled racist, and therefore silenced and condemned. Under the moral supremacy of progressives anyone deemed a racist (a term now so watered down as to be rendered meaningless), deserves all the bad things they get.
What is racist about the indigenous white working class protesting about a government that does nothing about illegal and legal immigrants taking their jobs at much lower pay rates and conditions given by unscrupulous bosses who don’t care if their workers sleep 10 in a room and would rather they didn’t have a trade union.
Mr Starmer was a rather nasty head of CPS and he and his successor brought in this subjective justice system. Once the main institutions have been infiltrated it doesn’t matter who is voted in -so actually Labour has been in charge for about 50 years?
??
Woman,aged 23,for no reason ‘glassed’ a complete stranger in a pub,causing him both physical and mental anguish. She has been given a suspended sentence.A man would have been sent to jail. Isn’t it called the long march through the institutions-universities especially but education in general , justice system ,organizations used to be ‘old-fashioned; ie National Trust now have the same trendy agenda.
Starmer did nothing for the child victims of the peodophile Muslim grooming gangs and Savile scandal when he was the CPS director. Political career was more important. His excuse ‘insufficient evidence’. Funny how everyone else knew. T.R. Times correspondent and other agencies and of course the parents who called for action. All the police and social services knew but did nothing.
Starmer may have his faults – but if the police didn’t investigate (and you say they did nothing), how could the DPP bring a case?
That’s a link to an opinion piece that contains only the opinion of the person writing it. No evidence.
Writing in The Guardian, the mouthpiece of everything left, so it must be true…
You said Lady Nugee (Thornberry) for a reason, she proved in her tweet her white English hating credentials.
I don’t think you realise how racist your statement is. Either you believe the people of colour in the Labour Party are racist so you are preemptively excluding them from the analysis you request or you believe only white people can be racist – which is empirically not the truth – and which is itself a racist stance.There’s nothing in the human psyche world-wide that actively prevents racism from taking hold in any culture if the person’s upbringing or adult biases enable it.
Additionally you seem fairly sure that people who are tempted to reply to your challenge will be unable to find a white xenophobic close minded person which actually says a lot of positive things about that demographic of the Labour party. Perhaps that section of the Labour Party is the least racist? Then again, perhaps you are forgetting the antisemitism scandals that are, after all, only a few months in the past. Do they not count as racism in your eyes?
Finally I’m unsure why Emily Thornberry is to be excluded from the list, she’s still a Labour MP. The Labour Party have not disavowed her which also says a lot about them.
I think you are trying to place the goal posts of this conversation in such a way that no-one can actively reply and therefore you can feel vindicated. Don’t bother; racism is wrong in whatever guise it strikes in whatever party or sphere of life it manifests itself. But then, so is being an apologist for it and so is attempting to manipulate a conversation so that people engaged in an honest discussion of racism are silenced before they even get started.
Mark thinks that whether something is racism or not depends on the race of the racist.
I’m confused. I asked a question, I didn’t make a statement. I asked for evidence of the Labour Party ‘presenting England as full of racist, xenophobic close minded white people’ the bit in italics was a quote from Vikram. How was my question racist?
Emily Thornberry made her comments over six years ago and lost her place in the shadow cabinet as a result. She was, in effect, disciplined.
Of course, anti-semitism is racism. And there have been some appalling examples of it within the Labour Party. What connection does that have with my question?
Try Teachers Preaching ”White privilege” rubbish to Infants!
Again, evidence?
I think you will find that in asking for evidence you are deigning somebody’s lived experience.
Try news item on wednesday April 7…Also Many Zero hours Jobs, have Units on ”Unconscious bias” and ”prejudice” etc if that isn’t brainwashing jiggerywokery I dont know what is?..
‘Jiggerywokery’ – I love it! Thanks Robin, now all I need is an opportunity to use it! 🙂
Evidence, please.
see Above clone/clown…
I think there’s a strong case for saying this school is creating a hostile environment for white children and it’s time organisations promoting this stuff are taken to court.
They can’t, because such evidence does not exist. They are culture warriors fighting clouds.
Recent article on school children being taken to National Trust sites and encouraged to write (often false) narratives on how the owners/founders of said sites were racist, and/or profiteers from things such as slavery.
Clive Lewis likened those who wrote the recent report to the KKK.
No, he implied that the report’s portrayal of the extent of racism in the UK was as absurd as the KKK denying they were a racist organisation.
In that case he is comparing the UK as a whole to the KKK which just proves my point even more.
No, Mark. They just make it up and lose the thread…..
Didn’t David Lammy compare Brexiteers unfavourably to Naz!s a while back?
Maybe you’re thinking of Brexiteers comparing the EU to the third Reich? Actually, comparing people to Nazis is rarely helpful, unless they actually are. And nine times out of ten, they are not.
Yes but Abwehr Members Joined Iron&steel community in 1952 ,Read ”The great deception” and ”The tainted source” stop being dopey &open your eyes
What are you talking about? The Iron and Steel Community was joined by European States in the aftermath of WW2, to integrate those sectors and reduce the likelihood of conflict. It was not open to individuals – whether or not they had served in German Military Intelligence during the war. Besides, Germany was subject to fairly intensive de-nazjfication after the war, and the new government was decidedly not a continuation of the previous one.
Mark, I notice from your comments over recent months that you often ask for evidence when people express opinions that disagree with your own. This is not a bad thing, but do you not also have eyes?
I do have eyes And I’m aware that we all see things differently. I want to understand why and how people see things differently. First step is to try and find out where the information people are basing their opinions on is coming from. Hence the request for evidence to support statements that read as statements of fact but are actually opinion. I’m sure I’m guilty of making opinions sound like facts, too. But I try and come up with examples or evidence if I’m claiming to be making a statement of fact or interpretation.
Some people cannot differentiate between evidence, and opinions and assertions, which are opinions expressed with such force and conviction, that the speaker or writer hopes what they say will materialize out of the ether.
Nearly every lefty/remainer type is as oblivious to anything outside of their secular religious political cult as a narcissist or psychopath is to the thoughts and feelings of others and genuinely empathising with others.
That’s not hyperbole. They really do not see, observe, acknowledge, comprehend, recognize anything outside of their bubble, that the rest of us see around us as clear as day, round the clock, year in year out. It’s a collective pathology, and let be real, a collective mental illness all thi extreme identity politics, racist woke shit.
They never listen or read an opposing view point or argument objectively to gain even one ounce of understanding of them before acting the expert on the subject, and outright dismissing anything opposite to their brainwashed ideology on its face (just look at the reaction to race report the other day).
Years on from Brexit and many still ask, in all insincerity, ”give me just one fact, argument or reason for leaving the EU that isn’t a lie”. BBC, Channel 4 and the rest have no left/woke/sjw/remainer bias, to them they’re all in bed with the Tories. They think you’re mad and can’t comprehend you’d have any proof to give (which they’d instantly find some delusional lie to dismiss without giving it a second look anyway).
They demand evidence for such things like Richard Dawkins does with religious people, in the full expectation they’ll never receive it as it obviouly doesn’t exist in reality.
They’ve dumfounded me for years, and they always will. How can all these people who simply hold a set of political beliefs in common all have the same personality traits? Traits that are as abnormal as any of the main major personality disorders they mirror so closely.
I agree with most of the liberal principle and a lot of left-wing policies. But I’ve rarely ever met a Lefty/remainer who wasn’t genuinely unable to understand or comprehend that people think differently to them. Or that acknowledging that and seeking to undertand the real reason why does not make them evil, or mean they are committing some unspeakably depraved act by listening to the reasoning of others with different views.
I just don’t get how holding a set of principles I myself hold in many areas, has so incapacitated their cognition, perspective, world-view and morality so perverely and in such totality, that they lose their on individuality and just have the same hive mind that is a predictable as the most basic computer program.
I’m still waiting for one EU law and one tangible benefit! 🙂
Tragic. Observe at the pride with which this man said something so embarrassing and shameful.
You just loudly declared ”I can’t and won’t think for myself. I refuse”. Well done.
There is a reason Britain is the most historically accomplished nation on earth. The majority refused to be brainwashed, belittled, talked down to, dictated to, cowed, manipulated, made to feel ashamed of their heritage, frightened into going along with the 1%’s exclusive interest in their wealth and the profitablity of their portfolios, companies, vested interests and other investment.
You’re proud a punch you did succumb and did abdicate your own thinking on the subject. I don’t know why, John. But you are.
It’s so ludicrous and ridiculous to see people so propagandized and programmed to hate and dehumanize other people that their brain is genuinely unable to compute that 17 million people were anything other than completely backwards. That they voted to leave without one decent reason or tangible benefit, despite having been exposed to many many argument and reasons for leaving over the years. And we now live in a society where there are million of John Hunters, who seem to think that if they don’t agree with the reason other people give for why they think or voted the way they did, then they don’t have any.
I will never ever again post on political comment thread in my life after this as I never again want to encounter people who boast about stuff like thi and revel in such idiocy, if I can possibly help it.
I’m genuinely trying to get beyond that. From your post I can see you’re frustrated lefties don’t ‘get it’ but it would help me if you explained what I don’t get.
Brilliant comment. It’s almost like they want racism to exist so that they can go around ‘bible-bashing’ others. I call them moral supremacists, because they’re just as bad as, perhaps even worse than, racial supremacists.
After more than a decade spending more mental energy on trying to understand these truly unhinghed, malicious, obnoxious, hate-filled, racist, intolerent, bigoted, thick-as-shit, hypocritical, delusion, warped people and their endless capacity to sow hatred and division in a way that only truly deviant people with severe personality disorders (narc, sociopaths, pychos, anti-social personality) do, the only answer that always make sense is that leftism/progressivism/wokeism/remainerism (its all the same thing), is simply the ideal – and probably the only ostentatiously social acceptable – way people can act and exert superiority and mental, physical and emotional dominion over other people.
That is all they are about. That is the alpha and the omega of absolutely every single thing they do. It’s to exert their perceived ‘moral superiority’ over other people, thereby gaining power and feeling good about themselves.
You reminded that is why they always fabricate and create an out-group to demonize in every single circumstance. Then use that supposed ills of that group as the reason for why they are so incredibly odious, having been so disgusted by the ‘moral depravity’ of the demonised group they are being thoroughly revolting, depicable human beings only because they are so virtuous, decent and superior in every way.
They really are a scary, callous, inhumane group of bullies, abusers, sadist, narcissists, deviants, pervs and run the whole gamut of maladaptive, unpleasant human characteritics, all hiding behind a nice, respectable facade.
Easier to say cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias. There are at least two on this thread who suffer. To most sensible, not particularly political people, this kneeling support of LGB whatever and of relatively recent minorities for votes blind sides the fact UK is 88% WASP (whose opinion should not count but does). As we’ll probably see in Hartlepool, even if the Labour Remainer parachuted in contender scrapes in, it will send Starmer a clear message. Resign, you’re not wanted mate.
It would have been. But for me, the main thing is who programmed them with those things and why. Not to mention their maladies go beyond just a few fallacies to something far deeper and more sinister. The hate and abuse unleashed on Leavers was insane.
Plus with Leave you knew who was who and why the were saying what they were.
You have 17 million odd remainers who just got drip-feed Project Fear doomsday scenarios from people in lofty positions in big multi-nationals and banks and just blindly followed these people based on arguments from authority, particularly J.O.B and other remainer ‘thought-leaders’ and who never questioned their own side at any stage or enquired any deeper.
The definition of sheep. Those posters you mentioned shouldn’t even be posting on Unherd. It goes everything these mindless, unthinking, lickspittle, establisment bootlicking herd-followers represent.
I agree with a of that except “They shouldn’t post on unherd”. I actually want more of them to write on here
so as to prevent this also becoming just an echo chamber. You have to consider all sides. Not everything the left argues for is wrong and not everything the right argues for is wrong either
I agree with the principle you are getting at. But you’ve misunderstood my reasons for saying that. I didn’t mean to imply no-one with opposing voices shouldn’t post here. The articles here are a mix of all viewpoints, all intelligently written, whether I agree with them or not, and it is a place that is designed to harbour diversity of thought of real substance and intelligence. It’s not a an echo chamber like the Guardian to begin with, so these imbeciles aren’t going against one set ideology here in the first place (but leftists never get that point in the main, because anyone who disagree with them are all put in the same box. It’s them who create the false dichotomy, not me).
But these guy are the typical internet trolls, completely brainwashed and are clearly unable to form a thought of their own violotion.
There’s a massive difference between opposing views and honest debate around that and people who come here just to attack, bait, goad, troll and abuse others whose only crime is to think for themselves and differently from the narrative they’ve themselves been brainwashed into.
If you think the guys I’m referring to are here for honest, constructive debate rather than those things I mentioned, then either out of the 100 or so posts I’ve seen from them I’ve messed all the intelligent, genuine ones, or we’ll just have to agree to disagree on that matter.
Oh dear this has become a rant and you have fallen into the same trap as those you accuse. Sad you started out well.
No. I didn’t fall into any trap. If you mean the trap that William Harvey talked about anyway. I’ve clarified what I meant.
I’m not a de-platforming mong. I just meant they have got this place wrong. And in customary fashion too, because the notion that there are people that exist who don’t fit into the little black and white schism they operate under is alien to these people. You either think the correct way (which is to conform precisely and identically to their every thought, decree and dictum), or you think incorrectly. I.E, you’re a racist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic, nationalist, blah, blah, blah.
This place in anethema to them. They are here in the same way IS are to ancient monuments that pre-date Islam, in that it’s a heresy to them. It’s the wrong place for them because it wasn’t created so everyone could stick to the same group-think, which is what they want.
16.3 Million Remain 17.4 leave
What point are you trying to make?
Probably that lots of people voted, or that it was quite a close vote. He could even be pointing out that there was no “how hard do you want your Brexit” question.
It’s hard to tell.
I’m not sure it’s the principles held by “left wing” people that makes them “oblivious to anything outside of their… [viewpoint]” (for at least some on the left, at any rate). I suspect it’s exactly the same reason that makes some right wing people “genuinely unable to understand or comprehend that people think differently to them” or “lose their on individuality and just have the same hive mind”. I’ve seen these phenomena on both sides of the aisle.
Zorrow Tomorrow nailed it: “cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias”. Or, possibly, “human nature”.
The idea that ‘both sides are just as bad’ is false in from the perspective of the big picture. And it’s usually only Leftists or those that lean that way say it.
I’ve yet to see one exhibit some sort of understanding when they get criticized that the person offering the criticism is not automatically a right-winger that represents everything they hate. And by extension is only saying what they are because they are on the right and have an ideology of their own, and therefore can dismissed instantly.
It’s usually used as a knee-jerk rebuttal that stops them even reflecting on their on behavior for an instance (something, due the inherent religiousity and conviction that what they believe is THE Ultimate Truth, they don’t do). But in this case you’ve just made a good point with truth in it, and I don’t take for that kind of idiot. I just think you miss the profound difference between the two political positions.
Leftism today has become a secular religion made up by academics in classes like Gender studies’ and ‘Queer study’ classes, the social ‘sciences’, African-American studies, or derived from devout Marxist who expanded the ideology beyond just economic oppression. Me, me, me subjective subjects posing as real scientifically validated subjects, rather than the tragic historical trauma in some cases, and just the hate-filled, bigoted, intolerant neurosis and resentment in the other cases.
It’s nothing like the old Labour movement. And it’s way beyond just a set of political preference for how the government do things that most people in this country who voted for the Conservatives hold.
Of course, people in general can exhibit all the cognitive distortions of those people under the sway of some doctrinaire, fundamentalist, man-made cult ideology, cult or religion. But such people are generally acknowledged to have some sort of personality disorder that makes relating to other people and having an accurate perpective of the world impossible.
Not all the Left are like that, of course, just most today in the age of Wokism and all the other ism’ these people create non-stop.
I deplore the most widepread form of Leftism today not because I’m a right-winger (to whom they attribute every known evil) but because I know rigid ideology makes free-thinking, skilled, and comprehensive cognition impossible. And out of decency, humanity, genuinely seeing beyond race and other factors, out out logic, reason, rationality, love for evidence and empiricism, genuine liberal principle and because facts and reality matter.
The opposite of the Left today. Yet that doesn’t stop their delusion in thinking they tsand for all those things.
We can at least agree on this:
well, difficult, at least. So w have some common ground. And this is true whether it’s a doctrinaire right wing refusal to contemplate state intervention, a fanatical devotion to and trust in Trump, or a “progressive” who believes that only white people can be racist, or a leftist who is committed to the teachings and methods of Leon Trotsky. You even see it in the Covid/Vax/Lockdown debate.
I’ll grant that there is sometimes more emphasis on the left on purity of doctrine – they share that with Evangelical Christianity – and that may explain the number and depth of the splits in both movements.
But dogmatism and refusal to think knows no party political barriers, sadly.
On the specific point of Brexit-related blind spots, I get that leaving the EU will allow a more sensible and sustainable approach to agriculture than the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy (if we chose to fund it properly, which government announcements so far suggest we may not). I get that it could allow a fairer immigration policy – in that we need no longer discriminate against Asian or African migrants (though I’m not sure that’s what the plurality of Brexit voters actually “voted for” – and it seems that, as Mrs May implied, our business sector will continue to demand high inward migration, so the “Britain is full” community may not be happy either). I get that we can now lower workers protections and reach trade deals that allow lower food and safety standards for imports, and thereby lower costs to UK industry and help exports to non-EU markets (though EU markets would be hit by tariffs if we do that – and I don’t think that’s the sort of “taking back control” most of us wanted).
But I struggle to see many concrete benefits to weigh against the loss of free movement rights and frictionless access to our nearest market. Perhaps, John, you have some specific benefits in mind?
”Well, yes, there is this reason, and that reason, and those other reasons, but they are not ‘concrete’ reasons. They are not reasons I agree with so they don’t count. Give me more reasons, and I’ll see if there are any that I’LL agree with.
There won’t be of course, because I’ve already sided with the global elite and they’ve made it very clear that under no circumtance am I to be reasonable or concede Brexit has any benefit at all and only financial arguments count as reasons.
But lets just pretend for a while until I instantly dismiss anything you put to me without giving it a moment’s thought and declare I was right all along that there is no evidence of any concrete reasons for why it could be a good thing – and again I win the argument for the millionth time. Please indulge me. Even just once. I want to know how the great James O’Brien, my hero and idol who taught me everything I know, feels on a regular basis when he performs the above routine and OWNS Brexiteer on his show. Must feel great being such an intellectual giant”.
I tell you what. You be the first one to show me you have a mind of your own and did you own research and analysis, and found concrete reasons that will remain true for eternity that leaving the EU was a disaster that will leave the UK worse off in more way than it will benefit from now until humanity is wiped out.
Show me that you differ from the Mighty J.O’B in getting your sources from places other than the purveyors of the what became known as the doomed Project Fear, which caused Jimbo and many other to have very real public mental breakdowns and many to become seriouly depressed and needing medical help. Only to turn out to be the biggest mountain of mendacious, dishonest bollocks ever foisted on the British public, but which remainers still don’t question. Still rely on. Still only talk about the red bus like absolutely demented fools.
And will continue to do that. Utterly brainwashed beyond help. You’re on the right side because the people you listen to those are mega-successful heads of business and commerce on the world stage. Not the thick working riff-raff who object to a world without borders immigration system which would make it harder for those oily profit-obsessed pychopaths in suits to move cheap third world labour around and exploit them, and save money on moving their goods across borders and don’t destroying the fabric of nations to do that.
Show me you’re one of the few that aren’t brainwashed and I’ll engage. Until then, no. I’ll not playing along with some tediously predictable remainer charade I’ve seen a thousand times, where they are not open to any new information or perpectives anyway, imply because you all fell for every argument from authority.
How concrete do you need your proof to be?
It’s almost like you think that if someone can differ from you it is because – unlike you – they are almost certainly brainwashed by some dark conspiracy. Disappointing.
One of my major reservations about Brexit was the strain and damage it would cause for the British Union itself. Taking (as it turned out) two of the UK’s constituent nations out of the EU against their will is bound to cause some level of disaffection with the whole enterprise. Particularly when Scotland was told to vote no to independence to guarantee their place in the EU. Then there are the particular difficulties in Northern Ireland, where border inspections on a porous 300+ mile border present… practical and political difficulties, and… health and safety issues – not to mention (in a province that is only part of the UK by the consent of its people) turning the status of the province from a very distant concern for the vast majority into a live political issue. All this before the shortcomings of the Boris deal and the NI protocol became apparent.
With that background, forgive me for wanting an actual concrete set of benefits to set against the (potentially fatal) damage to the country itself.
SO, once more – what ARE those benefits?
With SARS2 disastrous effect on Employment,matey We dont Need Dinghy people or 30,000 Fruit pickers, there will be 2million unemployed……Ed davey,Keir Starmer,mark drakefool,nicola sturgeon are So Pi***poor Boris will get away ..unless before 2024 Gen Election he spirals in polls,As M.Thatcher did from June 1990 & Poll tax unpopularity ..replaced nov 22
I’m not sure that 30,000 unemployed retail workers (or whatever they were doing before) about to be forced into seasonal labour picking fruit in the fields will see that as quite the sunny uplands they were promised – however much global warming we get this summer.
Replying to a stitch-up of a report, the response should have been” Let us now take a proper look at racism….”
I wonder why people downvote a person who requests evidence for an unsupported assertion? And how many downvotes I’ll get for asking that question?
If you have some evidence to contribute, go ahead. If you have nothing to contribute, jog on.
There are genuine calls for it, like yours, where you have conducted yourself respectfully, acknowledged certain things so as to show you are worth being taken seriously (whether that is just a clever ploy or not I don’t know, but the occurrence of remainers who haven’t been poisoned to acutely depise, belittle and dehumanise leavers in the most degrading way is very low).
And then there are the calls from abhorrent, anti-social, malice-filled trolls who, like Germans under the Nazi given free-reign by their superiors to unleash the full-force of their prejudices towards designated groups, have launched themselves into doing that non-stop for years on end.
It goes without saying the context was different, as was the extremes to which they were permitted to take it. But the incitement to turn one group against the other and whip up hatred for the purposes of acheiving the aims of those in authority was just a calculated and deliberate, and many of the same methods were used.
Of course that waitrose masses, inbetween the mega-rich billionaires at the top who run the show, and the working class ‘underneath them’, whom they despise with a hatred that goes deep into pychopath territory, didn’t need a second invitation.
Frankly leavers are sick of the most enthusiatic and unhinged of that groups’ continued goading and trolling using James O’Brien’s tiresome negative hallucination, ideological blindness schtick.
In truth, everyone should have gone and done their own objective research. In most cases evidence is arrogantly and delusionally demanded by ignorant types who got all their bias info from their own echo-chamber. And who are asking rhetorically as they don’t expect to see any evidence, simply because the people they follow and who do their thinking for them dismissed it all when it was presented to them using certain dishonest tactics and just the most disgusting, haughty dismissals ever seen.
Yet, these types have no idea they’ve been subjected to the most successeful mass-media hate campaign every inflicted on the British public by the neo-liberal, predatory capitalist global order (and they are still proud socialist in some cases). They genuinely think they’re on the side of facts and evidence. People here are mart enough not to take them seriously. They are loathed for being utterly loathsome.This site’s demographic is people who aren’t the easily brainwashed type who outsource their own research, analysis, thinking and world-views to others completely, so don’t fall for idiotic baiting ploys and mocking condescension easily. That is what you are seeing there. Not people who can’t provide evidence if they think the other person is worth taking seriously.
Thanks… I think.
What, you mean the same Labour Party that tried to ban White people from a conference based on their skin colour? We, the people, will take no lectures from these Marxist bigots on ‘prejudice’.
My ex for one, who would argue the Lady Nugee line until she ran out of breath. And don’t get me started on the ex’s historically-illiterate views of Empire and Royalty.
‘That Photograph’ was enough for me. Add to that the periodic ravings of the likes of Abbot and Lammy, and there you have it.
Once again you are playing your “where’s the evidence” card. Are you really so unaware and ill informed? Some recent examples of labour UK/whites are racist chanters: Lisa Nandy MP, Neil Coyle MP, Pat Glass MP, Dawn Butler MP, Diane Abbott MP, Nadia Whittington MP, David Lammy MP, keir Starmer MP etc. Etc. Etc.
Oh yes and Emily Thornberry as well.
Beautifully put indeed!
I am sure you are right, but the politics of envy has baseline support of about 30% of the vote. So they only need to sway about another 10% to be in with a shout.
The other vice besides envy that pushes people to vote Labour is hate. Labour supporters in the House, the press, and on social media all imagine that the more vicious the hate they express, the more people they are persuading. Other people in the echo chamber applauding their hate encourages them in this. Of course the opposite is true. Voters like cheery and amiable, not hate-filled and envious, which Blair understood but few others of the left do, fortunately.
What on earth is this “politics of envy” stuff?
What the Aussies call “cutting down the tall poppies” – i.e devoting political energy to pulling down those who have for whatever reason done well in life.
A classic example being the destruction of the grammar school system.
I thought it was a term used by the wealthy to describe anyone who challenges their right to be wealthy?
Yes, it is. Like the faux patriotism the right of this this country specializes in ( subsidized by Russian oligarch contributions to the Tories’), it is an old saw for the gullible and uncaring.
Pair of stupid lefties. Nobody cares about your lazy bearded scrounger from the 1860s, other than the blood on his hands.
Do you think that Karl’s question was a genuine in-good-faith question? You so silly.
It was serious. I did not expect a sensible or credible answer.
I still wait….
As a grammar school boy, I can cheerfully say that their loss is no tragedy. The real tragedy is that privately educated politicians insist that public education be done as much as possible, on the cheap.
And as “cutting down the tall poppies”, it give a gardener a job!
A tired old right-wing trope.
There are good and bad (ethically speaking) reasons for voting for most parties.
Left wing voters may be motivated by “envy” or “hate”, as you suggest. Or by love, sympathy or concern for the poor whom they see being let down by the right. They may be motivated by justice for those they see as economically or otherwise oppressed.
Right wing voters may also be motivated by justice – believing that those who have done well are entitled to the rewards of their success. Or by ambition, hoping they too can benefit from opportunity. Or by concern for especially their more affluent and law-abiding fellow citizens. On they other hand, they may be motivated by selfishness and an unwillingness to pay any more than they must in taxes to support those less well off, or by racism which they rationalise (or don’t) as “Britain is full” or Group X is feckless or criminal or extremist or unpatriotic.
As I said – good and bad reasons. Wasn’t it Trump who said something about many good people on both sides? Why the urge to demonise those who disagree with you?
Wow you just lit up my day so on point.
The problem is that with its rejoin the EU idea, the Labour party members have just expressed their white supremacist racist credentials.
It’s just that they are unconscious white supremacist racists.
Let me explain why. They will openly say that women are discriminated against because they statistically earn less.
The EU is statistically white. India for example is statistically brown. They want rules where white EU gets special treatment compared to brown India.
They are the racists.
Eh? Could you explain that again, please?
Maybe just read the post again – it’s perfectly clear.
But not in the strictly statistical sense.
Jesus. All it would take for you to cure yourself would be through an encounter with someone identical to you in pychological make-up. Even just once.
You’d be face to face with a delusional, vomit-inducing cretin so obnoxious and with such an alarmingly unwarranted sense of his own intellectual grandiosity and moral supremacy compared to anyone who differs from his infantile Paul Mason/Owen Jones student leftism, you’d never want to appear to be remotely similar to such a collosal arse of a human being ever again. You’d be cured instantly.
There is a kind of logic in that. The EU has rules allowing free movement for members and most members are white and on averge wealthier than many non-EU members.
The Tories want rules where rich people from anywhere get special treatment and poor people aren’t allowed in. Most poor people in the world are black or brown.
Both policies are racist. Immigration controls, per se, are racist in that they remove rights to people based on their place of birth – the people are pre-judged, the policies are prejudicial.
So it just becomes a matter of deciding which version of racism you support. The one that removes the additional wealth qualification to immigration or the one that doesn’t.
Discriminating according to race is racist. Discriminating according to some other trait, that incidentally captures more or less of a given race than another…? If that’s racist, then *everything is racist*, unless or until we live in a world where all traits are equally distributed across all races.
That holds true if the trait is ‘size of earlobe’ but not if the trait is ‘access to inherited wealth’ if inherited wealth is a consequence of a historically racist society. I’m not talking specifically about slavery here or deliberate discrimination. But deliberate discrimination, added to the ‘affinity bias’ of those with power (to use the term of the Govt report on racism) added to benefits of inherited wealth can result in fewer opportunities for some racial groups than others. That’s systemic racism as I see it.
This is also an interesting comment on the BBC.
I wish somebody would explain this stupid, lame idea of ” the politics of envy”, which some people seem to swear by. It’s just nonsense to most people.
In short, it’s the idea that if other people are doing better than you, there must be some immoral or unjust reason behind this eventuality, so therefore we should make those successful people less wealthy and/or less powerful. I am not poor but have not succeeded particularly, and I think that taking money off those who have done better than me is immoral, cruel and stupid.
Isn’t the flip side of that to believe that people worse off than you are somehow immoral or less worthy? Sometimes rich people are just lucky and poor people are unlucky. The greatest indicator of future wealth is the wealth of an individual’s parents – not that individual’s inherent merit.
Life is more complicated than that.
And opportunity is not evenly spread.
I believe it is best summed up by the observation that;
” In the presence of successful men, it is not polite to talk of luck”.
It’s the dog in the manger thing. The dog doesn’t eat hay but doesn’t want anyone else to have it. Not everyone can have a Rolls Royce so nobody can have one. A billionaire can share his money out with a million people and they get £1000 each or: he builds a £200 million factory, employing builders etc and then employs a 100 people for say 10 years, paying them wages for as long as demand for the product lasts. A socialist government will employ additional civil servants to administer it, who produce nothing. They will not run it efficiently tying it up with red tape and the product will be badly made and too expensive. Why socialism is a sh#t system.
I think the first part of this comment is well put. As to the second part I would comment that governments of all persuasions will occupy the regulatory space inappropriately.
The dysfunctional element in all governments is their unaccountability when it comes to regulation, which they all consider negatively so as to ensure the safety of those they rule, which they equate with oversight of industry (productive enterprises) every step of the way. Hence the propensity of bureaucracies in government to grow their presence in any sphere. In so doing they create overheads, many of which are unnecessary, whilst others are – OH&S for example.
Hence the observation about expense. Industrial enterprises are not exempt from creating their own inefficiencies, however, they do not need another layer imposed by government. Doubling down on unnecessary expense so to speak.
Let us discuss the failure of government more generally, without the political element which is most often used as a weapon to deflect understanding of issues by appealing to one or another belief (communism v capitalism etc.) not shared by others.
A great analysis and summary.Lets hope Starmer will see it
If he sees it, rest assured that he’ll ignore it.
Interesting that you bring up that Indian satellite, given the political aftermath of that celebratory moment. Within months of the launch in April 1975, a court voided the then Indian prime minister’s election to her parliamentary seat. She refused to step aside, instead arresting opposition leaders for failing to support the national priorities. She was voted out two years later. I wonder if the farmer could see if her star had drifted off course.
A wonderful story of the satellite, Vikram. I forget the exact lines, but wasn’t it Oscar Wilde…’we are all lying in the ditch but some of us are looking at the stars’. Properly quoted I hope that gets rendered into Bhojpuri.
This is an excellent comment. However is it not absolutely appalling that you are applauding a member of the underclass for ‘knowing his place’ rather than wondering why a society which squanders unfathomable riches on useless high tech rather than on building an infrastructure (eg sewers.)
I don’t think the farmer is an example of self reliance and pride : I think he is contemptible.
In 3 paragraphs you sum up much. You make a powerful point in your last sentence… Labour / the Left just doesn
t yet fully understand ( or maybe is unwilling to smell the coffee) the way increased numbers working people are now self-employed or work in small businesses. These people work hard, take risks, think differently - they dont want to be patronised by an out-dated Unionised dogma. Rather, they need encouragement,respect and “grown-up” support. Finally, it is a shame that many of the responses to your comments descended into a playground, ” my dad is richer than your dad” rant by some contributors.Go to the labour party website and there is a Let’s Vaccinate Britain campaign and Meet Keir and nothing in the way if a manifesto or real policies. They’re an empty vessel, and echo chamber for the extreme left who knowing they are unlikely to win in democratic election have taken their distorted view of the world to institutions they infest. They are a metropolitan party now; a party who consider the twenty-first century working class ignorant and racist; they despise patriotism and pride in one’s country. In fact they appear to hate it. They will never win another general election unless they begin to tackle economic and educational inequalities across all demographics within in UK.
Why would they need a manifesto a good four years before the country goes to the ballot box? You don’t write and publish policy four years in advance. Nobody does this.
How do you know, you won’t have a general election sooner? A political party having no manifesto or opinion is sloppy and shortsighted. Maybe this is their problem.
The fixed parliament act.
About to be abolished and toothless anyway in present circumstances.
For which the Tory manifesto had a commitment to repeal.
………………and the Tories would happily pinch the best policies from it
Thats the best one today. Do you write comedy scripts cos freind you have a flair for it.
Boris starts his Covid Briefing questions with a couple from members of the public.
He pinched that idea from Jeremy Corbyn.
You obviously have no need to wise up on the funnies……
Can you list any of Labour’s policies?
Not enough space here for the 2017 manifesto, but by far, much was very popular with the public.
As for 2019, I believe Boris is toying with the idea of much, much wider, better broadband.
Very prescient, that.
So popular they still lost?
The election is most likely to be in May 2023; even if the Tories choose to hold on to May 2024 (they certainly won’t go in December 2024), we are looking at either 2 or 3 years until the vote.
The FTP requires that it be in May 2024. Why would Boris go for an election after only 3.5 years?
Er, how long between 2017 and 2019? And that was under the terms of the FTPAct?
I think the FTP would require it to be in Dec 2024, but that isn’t very relevant since it is likely to be abolished (a bill has been published). The thinking is that it has to be a May election rather than another winter election (of course), and that May 2023 will be optimal as the economy will still be feeling the effects of the post-pandemic surge. May 2024 is possible, but things are not likely to improve politically between May 2023 and May 2024.
The FTP was a blatant bit of constitutional gerrymandering designed to prop up the coalition government because the members of it didn’t think it would last. In particular, the Lib Dems realised that by joining with the Tories they had blown any chance of an electoral future unless they got some kind of PR deal done. They then made a total mess of that. They were right about the damage aligning with the Tories did, though.
No..”.but it will take a while for the red wall people to change their minds and vote Labour again. Labours boat has gone…….England is a very different place to when they were at their most successful. Of course there are still people struggling financially but over the years of my lifetime, I have seen many of the lower working classes move to the upper middle classes. The UK has had a boom time prior to the pandemic, yes some didn’t benefit from this but a huge amount of people did.Jeremy corbyns plan to attract the younger element was clever or at least they thought so. Activists like Owen (can’t remember his first name) who has been bleating about the Union Jack in recent days is typical of why Labour were swamped at the last election. Even now those same elements who are being wound up by academics (many of which did not originate here but came to our universities)) and students who are clearly easily influenced, will be alienating even more of the populace. It is true, the more they attack Boris Johnson the more he will survive and so will the Conservative party. I did write to a Labour MP just after the election of 2019 and make that statement and suggest they stop the bickering and constant criticism of Boris Johnson and start talking about positives for the future. She came back to me with “it’s my job to criticise the conservatives” which they are all still, doing daily. Rachael Reeves, Lisa Nandy, Clive Lewis, Jonathan Ashworth and more. Is it any wonder they are no further forward and I’m afraid relying on the youngsters will not get them far except into more trouble!
3 Years December 2024 latest ..
Not sure repeating opinion pieces from the Mail and The Telegraph adds much to the debate. That goes for the article and your comment. I thought Unherd was meant to be different.
Challenging the left wing drivel of the BBC – 86% of all media output in the UK – and counter to the conformist left wing mindset of current institutions. So yes, it is different – and that is what authoritarian left wingers can’t bear. Even when they represent a crushing orthodoxy, they want to be regarded as “heretics”.
If you believe that, I will have little problem selling you the Forth Bridge.
What number are you thinking?
OK, how much? But I will need to part exchange a small bridge I have in San Francisco, will that be OK?
Done!
I’d have thought most numbers beyond your comprehension.
It depends on which numbers.
Did it really take you 4 hours to come up with that?
what a desperately small-minded take.
Oh, it’s you again; with more mindless abuse.
It is. You just don’t like what the world is telling you.
Your problem
I don’t read the mail. Why would you assume I read the Mail? I do read the Guardian and have seen the quality of journalism diminish over the last few years.
Apologies. I meant the message could have come from the Opinion pieces in the Mail or DT. For example, no concrete evidence is ever provided that the Labour Party ‘consider the twenty-first century working class ignorant and racist’. It’s just repeated as if its a fact.
To accuse somebody of being a Mail reader is pretty rude!
Sorry mark I have just spent a week being told by left wing Academia that I asm a racist gammon . So I won’t vote for labour if that what it says about me.
Labour does not refer to people as racist gammon.
I think I just saved your bacon.
Who does the word ‘gammon’ refer to? Does it refer to all races?
I believe it refers to the round, ruddy cheeks of those enraged by political correctness, and other associated old saws.
It’s a derogatory word used by fat, middle-class, balding white men exclusively toward other fat, middle-class white men who aren’t a cool, laid-back, intelligent and sexually accomplished as them becaue they aren’t left-ing and aren’t unfalteringly right-on and ‘politically correct’ as them.
It’s word they love using as it makes them feel oh so edgy, witty and uber-cool, like when you were a kid an first started to swear. Perfectly infantile, like them.
They also love using the obvious racial undertones derogatory of the white middle-class ‘cis male’ they depise so much in front of ‘people of colour’ and ‘bame’ people so as to showcase how awesome they are for being so woke and able to mock their own race.
Additionally it’s a way for them to ingratiate themselves with non-whites they are cravenly deperate to impress as in the Little Britain ‘my black friends’ sketch so they don’t feel so ‘nerdy and white’. Ugh, how naff and lame would that be? At heart it’s a word they contrived to signify they are different from the ‘uncool’ white people the so often physically resemble to a tee, the gammon who read the Mail and think immigration is out of hand and aren’t smart enough to see Stewart Lee is a comedy genius
Call a black man chalky in their presence and you’ll soon see one, as they descend into apopletic, virtue-signalling, SJW, politically correct rage and their face goes crimson.
I despise the loathome, posers who use the word.
Lady Nugee & the England Flags?
Do you mean the BBC presenter and the Union Flags? Took me a while to figure it out.
Diane Abbott
David lammy
Zarah sultana
Nadia Whittome
Emily thornberry
Any of these names strike a bell?
Any comments that have made?
Labour hates the white working class, they have shouted
Gammon
Racist
Xenophobic
Erc erc etc
But labour has never said anything about the working classes?
… and that Peterborough MP — possibly still in the Clink …
The biggest problem Labour always has is its hatred of aspiration. Every election the Tories emblazon this across their Manifesto. You want to buy a house we will help you. You want to run a business we will help you. Labour chants Brother we are going to bring in a Minimum wage and all will be paid this. The Rich will pay more tax. We are going to build more Council houses. We will give the worker equality. They forget to add Equality at the bottom is no good to anyone with aspirations.
It’s easy to put assertions together. Evidence and proof of a credible nature please.
Good list of loathsome left-wing louts with their ‘policies’. Could I add Dawn Butler to give further depth to the ignorance and stupidity of the group.
If you think most of those are not lackeys of Right Wing Starmer, I suggest your chippy stops wrapping in the Telegraph or Mail.
I won’t start on the much more loathsome and incompetent Tories’…
Yes you may!
There are so many of them they are just repellent
Ridiculous!
Labour is in the trouble it is these days because it goes out of it’s way to avoid the working class.
They can be rubbish In more than 1 way
Gammon is the progressive code word for what they think of as thick white working class Brexit supporters, but don’t want to come out with openly.
A bit like Islamophobia is code for ‘racist’ because they’re not sure of their ground in calling someone racist that happens to express opposition to Islam.
Middle class hypocrites all.
Not quite. It also includes those members of the middle class who associate with the regressive parts of the working class who are attracted to the extremist right.
Every class has it’s progressive and regressive parts. We must not forget this. It is an important point.
21 likes for a list of names. You forgot Jo Cox.
That’s ‘a bit below the belt’ Mark.
You missed Gordon Brown’s “some bigoted woman”?
Yep. 11 years ago. Hardly a topical example of a response to BLM.
You seriously think he’s changed his mind since? That he was so far from the current state of the radical left speaks volumes.
On balance of probability it is just that! Or the fact that they went out of their way to obstruct a referendum result, spend their time dwelling on identity politics which by implication is a lecture to those who aren’t “on messenge” that they are indeed ignorant and racist.
Evidence is not a requirement these days, on the right.
You ought to see those comics the Telegraph and the Mail…….
And the Guardian is just the lefty version of the same thing – each one pandering to their dwindling reader base.
Yes, Mark. If I could, I would buy you a pint for that.
Total agreement.
Not until recently did I finally throw in the towel with The Guardian. Its days as a respectable centre-left voice are well behind it now, unfortunately.
I think the final straw for me was the original headline used in reference to Wiley posting anti-Semitic comments online.
Yeah, this self congratulatory drivel is a bit dull. I’m surprised Starmer even bothers to get out of bed at the minute. He can only agree with Boris pandering to covid shriekers otherwise he really will be doomed.
Note to Ed. How about discussing the real here and now problems of our shell fish industry. British business really harmed by real events that we made. Slightly more challenging for you????
UnHerd is an excellent platform, but some are standing too close to the edge…..
I prefer my spot by the buffet-bar!
This is a classic sign of a party about to collapse. If Starmer moves right on culture, to appease the old Red Wall, he’ll lose the bulk of his metropolitan support; if he goes all Corbyn, then the Red Wall is lost for good. Therefore, with lawyer’s caution, he does as little as possible. The Liberals were already in this position by the time of their great landslide in 1906 – which is a warning to complacent Johnsonites. But they ran a divided administration, inept in dealing with the crises of the day – Votes for Women, Ireland and, of course, the First World War. By 1910, their landslide majority had evaporated and they relied on nationalist Ireland, soon to secede. By the twenties, the Liberal Party was on the way down. At the same time, the Tories had moved to the centre, under the likes of Baldwin; but crucially they knew the difference between centre and left, whereas the shallow, unprincipled Johnson does not. Johnson’s ineptitude; his inability to keep the right on board; his serial dishonesty and cowardice are Labour’s last best hope.
In your view, to whom would the bulk of his metropolitan support transfer their support? A combination of Greens and Lib Dems?
Interesting question. I suspect Green, in the main. The temper of Metropolitan opinion is currently so hysterical and conformist that the extreme option is always considered the more honourable. And the Liberals are still hated for having supported Cameron’s Conservatives. Worse, in the demonology of resurgent Marxism, Liberalism is the ultimate hypocrisy. From the right’s point of view, the Liberal Party is weak and hypocritical precisely because it is NOT Liberal in any meaningful sense, so the idiots who run the show lose in both directions. That said, there may well be a greater number of non-Tory non-Leftists in London than confess themselves at dinner parties, and a “shy Liberal” vote may well blunt any putative Green triumph.
And an interesting answer! Thanks for your thoughts.
A pleasure. Many thanks for the discussion.
Agree, it will be Green. They are Marxist wreckers, so the natural home for metropolitan liberals whose personal wealth rents them insulation from the consequences of their virtue-signalling.
Resurgent Marxism. ??
He never went away.
He had his rump kicked black and blue by 1989, ducky.
True, Labour has placed itself in a bind. A party that could pose a real threat to the Tories would essentially be UKIP minus the Thatcherism; a more palatable BNP-lite.
Yes, but not minus the Thatcherism as far as some might think. After all, the heavy lifting of Thatcherism is done and remains in place – union law which prevents a closed shop, flying pickets and unballoted strikes. As for fiscal conservatism – the really unpopular part of the doctrine today – it remains necessary. Therefore the answer must be to slash those parts of the state which do not help and in fact hinder the working poor – the quangos, the bossy boots, the racial bean counters and tenured Marxist windbags. For at least ten years a right wing government could be patriotic and fiscally conservative by slimming down the numbers of the surveillance / propaganda state built by Blair and Brown.
Cutting down on the quangos, local government, tenured windbags (whatever they are) etc. would potentially be popular but is largely symbolic as most spending is on benefits, health, defence, pensions and education.
It might also send a small signal to the wastrels that populate Government and Governmental organisations.
Small signal to the party faithful. The wastrels are in Government.
Agree, but why ‘minus the Thatcherism’? A great stateswoman, a leader, courageous, brilliant and good for the country – another PM like that is exactly what the country needs.
Its probably coming already aided and abetted by the left/woke. Tories have skimmed the top off the red wall a Lite/BNP would gobble up the ones who are left in the poorest drug riddled no go estates.
UKIP is a dead duck ,has been since 2015,general election high ..It made the mistake of Putting in ‘Cronies” in PPC ,and ignoring people who’d been building up a base for 10-15 years…Reform (Centre right) ..SDP (Centre left) are better bets..As are Independents…
Starmer is like Corbyn another fence sitter. He really thought bending the knee in submission was a smart move. Shows how dumb he really is.
Corbyn wasn’t a fencesitter, I could tell you his policies. No idea what Starmer stands for. (Corbyn betrayed his principles when he adopted Labour’s bizarre policy on a second referendum. That surprised me).
Johnson has moved the Tories’ to the nationalist hard-right.
All the traditional Tories’ I know are now party-less.
The hard right have adopted a kind of Trumpism that looks plausible on the surface to those who do not take their politics seriously and seek simple, or rather simpleton solutions to their everyday problems.
However… Even Donald was found out and given the push.
We need a serious, committed social democratic party in this country to rescue it from the dogs and restore our place in the world as a beacon of wisdom and humanity.
What utter bilge. Nationalist hard right, eh? With a few squeaks of criticism directed toward “BLM” in spite of repeated riot and vandalism? With extensions of so-called “anti-hate” legislation? With further bien pensant intrusions into liberty of conscience? Your attitude demonstrates just how it is that the left spirals into democidal madness – nothing is ever quite far enough away from “the right” for you. Not even the soppiest, dripping wet left liberalism on offer in the person on Johnson.
Yes, nationalist hard right. And it is a radical Conservative government that is currently presenting Parliament with regressive, authoritarian legislation.
As for Johnson, well, as ever he uses the tools to hand to suit his own purposes, playing the authoritarian and libertarian strains in his party like violins.
Meanwhile, yes, people exercise their right to protest, and I have no doubt the consequence of this government’s miscalculations will lead us all to the disasters of economic collapse, mass unemployment and social disruption.
History shows Conservative government’s always have riots at some point – as Mrs Thatcher’s downfall proves.
Arbitary government cost Charles I his Crown and Johnson already has serious form in this area, and is to be opposed by every democrat and believer in the principle of the rule of law.
Trump was Not Right or Left dummy..he did more for Hispanics,Blacks,Blue Collar than Labour or Democrats will ever achieve….annelise Dodds is Labour forensic intellectual…er NO
So they say, but the facts are hard to find. I believe Trump was the source for those opinions. Dummy.
Your ignorance Proceeds you, Trump Dind NOT say anything like that..You sound as Senile &disturbed as Biden..
This is disingenuous at best. Criticise the UX of their website if you want, but at the top of the page there is a “Where We Stand” with links to very specific economic policies.
Pleas write underneath “Where we Stand” In the Shite
I too looked at Labour website recently – looking for a statement of values – there isn’t one! Only statements about ‘Labour values’.
Typing on unherd about echo chamber. Bless.
Well said.
And you think the Tories’ will?
And you think the Tories are interested in tackling those inequalities? The Tories, the party of Eton, hedge fund billionaires, Russian oligarchs, of Austerity, and of cronyism – contracts for chums. Astonishing.
Be very careful about the “institutions which the Left infests”. Take it from an American, all of who’s institutions are now controlled by radical Leftists… don’t give them an inch.
Do the GoP and Fox count as institutions? They don’t seem to be under radical leftist control. Or are they just fiendishly clever at hiding their leftism?
Yes, just look at the fuss that various Labour bods made the other week about government buildings flying the Union flag. In no other country, including very Woke ones, is the national flag deemed ‘Fascist’!
Why dont we fly a union jack over every food bank as well to show how great we really are ?
I think it’s the combination of the previous use of the flag by hard right organisations such as the BNP and NF, the illegal deportation of black people as part of the hostile environment and the government’s concurrent appeal to British patriotism that causes concern.
As has been the case for a number of years, a party that is left wing economically and right wing socially would clean up. Unfortunately, Labour are so far to the left socially that they have no chance. Everyone knows that the left openly despise most of the country and think we are all thick, racist idiots. Until that changes Labour have no chance of governing.
The recent race report highlighted this problem. Saying that there are racists in this country and more should be done to deal with them but that fundamentally most of us are decent people is completely in line with how the majority see this country. However, that perfectly reasonable assertion has brought out the crazies on the left who claim that thinking this way is akin to being in the KKK. Boris can then sit back and say you have a choice between a party that hates you and one that likes you.
Unfortunately, this mindset is so imbedded in almost every lefty that I can’t see it changing. This leaves the Conservatives to effectively do whatever they want which is not good for our country. They know that can be as corrupt (see PPE contracts) or incompetent (see covid death toll) as they like without having to worry about the opposition.
Going by the left wing people I know, asking the average lefty to be patriotic and see this country in a positive way is like asking the Pope to observe Ramadan. Until that changes Labour aren’t getting anywhere near Number 10, under Starmer or anyone else.
Totally agree with this. Why on earth would anyone vote for a party that constantly tells you you’re thick, or nasty, or both?
If you promise to get an education and clean up your nasty ways, Labour may be willing to accept your vote
That’s pretty much how it comes across. The immediate reaction to the loss of the red wall seats after the last election was “those stupid norther racists are too stupid and racist to vote the right way”.
The recent race report highlighted this problem. Saying that there are racists in this country and more should be done to deal with them but that fundamentally most of us are decent people is completely in line with how the majority see this country.
The complaints about this report’s conclusions are largely focused on the poor standard of its thinking and analysis of available data and do not claim that most people in the country are anything other than fundamentally decent. The report says that differences in outcome are related to many factors other than racial discrimination. To take one example: that socioeconomic status has a bigger influence on outcomes than race. The report then fails to consider whether socioeconomic status is influenced by race or racial discrimination, either conscious or unconscious.
a party that is left wing economically and right wing socially would clean up
This is a relatively new concept in modern UK politics. Remember austerity? With the absence of clear blue water on economic policies the Conservatives have had to imagine other battle lines and hence the creation of the ‘culture war’ and the narrative that to criticise any aspect of modern Britain is unpatriotic.
asking the average lefty to be patriotic and see this country in a positive way is like asking the Pope to observe Ramadan
I know many lefties and they are very proud of many aspects of the UK’s history and culture. There is less of the ‘my country right or wrong’ approach or celebration of military victories that go with dangerous nationalism but more respect for the positive history of immigration, legality, collective community action, democracy, freedom of thought and belief and multiculturalism.
I agree the current government stance on English Nationalism means they are allowed to get away with levels of corruption and incompetence we’ve not seen for decades because they define opposition as being unpatriotic. Ultimately, although that stance might bring short term electoral gain it relies on portraying opposition as the enemy. When the opposition/enemy makes up over 50% of the electorate (ie those not voting for the party of government) and that opposition/enemy is concentrated geographically (eg. London, Scotland, N. Ireland) the nationalist/patriot approach divides the country – possibly fatally. The only way then, to keep the country ‘together’ is by force and the restriction of democracy (curtailing the right to protest, curtailing freedom to act of local government, refusing regional referenda) and further demonisation of opposition or difference as unpatriotic.
The irony is that while the right complain about the identity politics of the left they are promoting a far more pernicious form of identity politics which divides people into two camps – the patriot or the enemy.
The civilised way to respond to that is to present an alternative view of patriotism that acknowledges, respects and celebrates differences, not one that increases division.
Mark – could you point me to any detailed analysis of the report that highlights the various problems of data and interpretation? I’ve seen general criticisms along these lines – ‘if one of my students submitted this, I’d fail it as being academically incredible’. But I’ve not seen any detailed critique. Frankly, I think anyone would struggle, as the report is based on credible statistics, helpfully brought together in one place.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/apr/01/commission-race-report-used-cherry-picked-data-uk-public-health-experts-say
Wish I had more but, to be fair, it took a team 6 months to write and has only been in the public domain six days.
I read the Guardian article last week. It’s exactly the sort of undetailed criticism that I mentioned in my earlier comment. I’m sure there are some questionable points in the report, which I’ve only looked at briefly, but there is also a mass of evidence to support its main contentions.
Often the Guardian (in common with the rest of the UK media) publish articles with few references to source material. But here they seem to have done better than Michael suggests.
From the Guardian article…
“The panel doesn’t contain any health experts,” is a pretty specific and detailed criticism.
And “they overlook 30 or 40 years of evidence about health inequalities,” is quite a major fault. If the report does cover the body of work on health inequality, the report’s advocates have conspicuously failed to mention it.
The article also references a BMJ article with more rigorous citations. Since that’s more your thing, maybe you should check it out.
A clinical fellow in primary care is quoted as saying that the health chapter of the report “flies in the face of decades of peer-reviewed scientific research”.
A lecturer in global health who was in fact cited in the report said, “It denies the role of racism in racial/ethnic inequalities in Covid, yet goes on to attribute these to deprivation and occupational exposures, which are the very definition of structural racism.”
So not totally without substance. Not bad for an overview article in the national press, even in the Guardian. And if you want more detail, read the BMJ article helpfully linked.
Don’t be expect them to be moved by reality, Mark.
The complaints were voiced by people who hadn’t read it, a number of whom called the authors Uncle Toms.
which is an entirely meretricious argument, because the root cause of the root cause of the root cause will always be argued to be racism, much as in the 17th century, everything bad was always the fault of witches. If you said the failure of the harvest wasn’t the fault of witches, you only said that because you were a witch yourself.
The grievance industry’s views on everything are of no account.
Much of the criticism of the report was initially of the government’s summary of the report and it’s conclusions which was pre-released before the report was. Brilliant media management by the government – they released ‘This report reveals Britain is not institutionally racist’ – people were asked to comment and commented on the summary (as report had not been released) and are then criticised for commenting before report was released. Essentially, the government had 18 hours of free media coverage where their interpretation of the report could be peddled but no-one else had access to the report.
Why downvote what seems to be quite incontrovertibly true? First we had a summary, which was widely covered, and after some time, the report.
We may deplore the rise of political spin – but don’t shoot the messenger.
As I recall, normal practice used to be to release a report, under embargo, to the press so that it could be covered on the publication date in a more detailed and reflective (and hopefully more informed) way.
Why is this way better?
“The report then fails to consider whether socioeconomic status is influenced by race or racial discrimination, either conscious or unconscious.”
Does it, though? My understanding is that it looks at areas where the population is racially diverse, but economically more homogeneous, and finds little difference in outcomes, or even that the whites in those areas do worse than at least some of the non-whites. If my understanding is accurate, and I admit to relying on second-hand information, then it has considered that.
On the equality report.
Left wing media commentary on the report has consisted largely of ad hominem attacks of the most disgusting variety accusing Dr Sewell and other commission members of being “c0c0nuts”, “Uncle T0ms” and other similarly racist terms of abuse. Aside from the fact that none of these journalists will be censured or sacked for using such terms, they do this in order to distract readers from the major “inconvenient truth” in the report namely the statement:
“The evidence shows that geography, family influence, socio-economic background, culture and religion have more significant impact on life chances than the existence of racism. That said, we take the reality of racism seriously and we do not deny that it is a real force in the UK”.
Before this report was published anyone voicing such an opinion risked the most horrendous abuse and the destruction of their livelihoods. When Nick Buckley, founder of a charity that has spent twenty years helping under-privileged young people of all races, dared to suggest such a common sense viewpoint he was sacked from that same charity lest the enforced groupthink message of the lucrative anti-racism juggernaut be questioned.
As someone with experience of working with many different races and cultures within the criminal justice system I must agree with Nick that focusing solely on systemic racism as the root of all racial inequalities is unlikely to help those who are most disadvantaged as it ignores the myriad factors involved.
Only when discussion of ALL the issues involved is allowed in the public sphere will improvements be made. This report is a good first step in allowing a more balanced debate to take place.
On patriotism
Please read Patrick Taylor’s beautifully articulate comment on this article. I don’t expect you to agree with him but at least appreciate that many ordinary people of all ethnic backgrounds may have a more beneficial view of being British than you do.
a party that is left wing economically and right wing socially would clean up
Which is what we have in government, no?
It remains to be seen as covid has obviously dominated everything for the last 12 months and will continue to affect us for a long time to come. Bojo is good at saying what it takes to win elections and I think that is how he has tried to position the party but the proof of the pudding is in the eating. If, by the end of this term, there is a noticeable reduction in economic inequality between the north and the south and immigration is in the tens of thousands then fair enough. However, I think he might be all talk. I’m open minded though and will give him a fair chance to prove himself.
Possibly, which raises interesting questions.
The government may (or may not) be. Not so sure about the party of government. There is a good chance that policy will revert to more conservative orthodoxy after covid.
The SDP is left economically but right culturally.
Looking at Corbyns cohorts thinking so is Communism.
I do wish your analysis applied to Scotland as well. The SNP make Labour look to be populated with the best politicians from anywhere anytime.
Give them an equal share of the Russian money and they can be as faux patriotic as the Conservatives.
It does make me wonder if Labour is in serious danger of following the Lib Dems into a left wing cul-de-sac of irrelevance, obsessed with “trans”, “white privilege” and lgbtq+.
If so, then we are either heading for a long period of, effectively, one-party Tory government or, hopefully, for the emergence of a new opposition from the centre-right.
The centre-right is split at present into half-a-dozen mini-parties – Ukip and its fragments – but it would only need one of these to begin to pick up momentum (pun not intended) and a new, badly needed, opposition would begin to emerge. I suppose that the Reform Party, with Farage’s blessing, is the most likely candidate.
The New Social Covenant group and the Heritage Party could be part of a centre-right movement.
You’ve got to be kidding. So we’ve got Reform, Reclaim, UKIP, New Social Covenant, and the Heritage Party. Is it just those five or are there more? These people are the People’s Front of Judaea, the Judaean People’s Front and the Campaign for a Free Palestine. Remember when UKIP split and we had the laughable “An Independence From Europe” party? How many seats did they ever win?
True, but the point was made with an important rider – “if they pick up momentum”. Johnson is currently acting as if he actively aims to lose a good fifteen per cent of his vote – at least – with policies and pronouncements which kick the right in the teeth: HS2, IR35, the list is very long. Then there’s migration – unaddressed, according to many who may have a claim to know, such as Lord Green. And finally there is the freedom versus “woke” issue, on which Johnson’s silence is nothing but a shameless dereliction. He commissions a report to dodge the matter in the first place, then fails to support its obviously sensible findings! Now, you might query Lord Green’s bona fides; you might say “we can afford to lose the right”, but a Conservative party cannot do either of these things. Lose just ten per cent of your vote and you’re back in either hung parliament or Labour government territory. Add to this the possible fallout of “lockdown” and all bets are off. I don’t predict – but I warn – the next parliament could be a kaleidoscope of factional parties, propping up a rump, legacy-party government in a time of terrible national crisis. And that will be Johnson’s fault.
With Johnson, don’t be you mean rumpy pumpy?
The Labour Party is unelectable as far as too many of its traditional supporters are concerned – The white working class. Perhaps you have heard of them. Another party will take its place. Fascinating times.
This reminds me of the nonsense I recall from 1997, when it was being suggested that the Conservatives were finished and would be replaced by another party, but of the left. We would then supposedly have a polity consisting of two left of centre parties.
It wasn’t going to happen then and it won’t now. There is a gap for a sensible leftish party which Johnson is narrowing as much as he can, and so far with great success.
There seems to be a structural tendency among leftists, BTL commentators and anyone who disagrees with Johnson to underestimate him. I think this is at best wishful thinking and at worst an egregious mistake. He won the London mayoralty twice in a bought and paid for Labour city, he picked the right side of the Brexit referendum and won, he survived being knifed by Gove, he won the leadership, and he suckered the other parties into an election in which he won the biggest majority in 30 years while meting out to Labour its worst defeat in 85. He’s a formidable politician.
Your first sentence reminds me of 1992 when it was said Labour was finished!
Only by the stupid. They got within 20 seats of winning and it was clear the Tories would lose their majority within a term because they typically lost 8 or 10 seats per Parliament anyway from deaths and bye-elections. The claim was less incredible after the rout of 1997, but it was still incredible.
Johnson’s move to the Left is on both the economy and on social issues. Leftish economic policies are always popular, not least in “red wall” seats, leftish social policies far less so.
Johnson has been fortunate (and he does have that valuable quality of being “lucky”) in that Covid has so far masked the consequences of his liberal new immigration policy. We shall see what happens post-Covid, bearing in mind that concern over immigration brought about the rise of Ukip, and we all know what happened then.
The wild card is how immigration from Hong Kong will land. It will improve the quality of the workforce, but with unforeseeable consequences elsewhere.
Just because I regard Johnson as a figure of fun, that does not mean that I do not respect his capacities as a smart political operator. If one is serious, one does not underestimate him.
But he can be a bumbling mess at times, and does as such to perfection.
People here like bumbling. Boris bumbles for Britain and does it smartly.
Johnson is So ”Formidable” he has more Opposition on his backbenches,than Zoom SNP,lib-dems,Labour ..Starmer,Davey will vote Against SARS2 passports ONLY if its politically advantageous,not on principle..showing how useless most of our MPs have become…..Ayn Rand ”Atlas shrugged” where Workers Go on Strike in (USA) because taxes are too high…pity it isn’t happening here,a 1957 admittedly laissez faire political position, A plague on all 3 houses in westminster
Pretty sure that happened. The Conservatives were replaced by a centre left party… They just forgot to change their name.
I’ve never heard of the New Social Covenant – must google them – but I can add a couple to your list – For Britain (which has actually won Council seats) and the Veterans and Democrats party (or whatever it is now called). And don’t forget the SDP. Of all of them, the one with the clearest and most appealing policies is the Heritage Party, but the one with the best chance of picking up momentum must be Reform because of Farage’s endorsement.
An Independence from Europe ,mike Nattrass Party spent £100,000 on 2014 European elections, &Cost UKIP 1 mEP, as did The Literal democrats cost lib-dims in 1999 European elections 1 mEP
Not while the SDP has its bizarre insistence on maintaining such a subterranean public profile.
I’d echo that: I didn’t even know the SDP were still around, i thought they disappeared along with Spitting Image.
Obsession with “trans” and lgbtq+ is not a “left wing” issue, even if it seems particularly seductive to many who are on the left.
Harvard Business School used to argue that when a business is in very bad shape, it takes 3 successive leaders – even if they get everything right – before it can really operate successfully again.
Starmer in himself is a very unappealing option for voters; but I suspect that (as Matthew Goodwin here points out) the reasons for disliking the Labour Party are so big, especially among the kinds of people whom it used to speak to and represent, that even 2 successive political geniuses would be wasted on the Labour leadership right now.
This is all to the good.
The Labour Party, always an unmanageable coalition of Democratic Socialists and Loony Communists, had lived out its usefulness by the end of the 1980s and ought to have died at that time, making way for a sane party of the left.
Its corpse was magicked into posthumous zombie-life, like an Egyptian mummy in a horror film, by that demagogic vandal-fantast Tony Blair, who resurrected it to carry on for a few decades more; in which time it did immense harm.
Very possibly there are no more adrenalin shots, cosmetic treatments and prosthetic artificial spines which can keep the cadaver upright. Hopefully it is at last lying down for its own long-deferred funeral.
They’ve had Brown, Miliband and Corbyn, so Starmer should be the man. No leader can save a business whose brand is destroyed and product no longer attractive.
Labour was destroyed at the last election, they only ever appeared to be resurrected because of the media’s attack on the government’s handling of the pandemic, that was always going to be temporary (the media’s attack was largely baseless and / or hysterical)
Labour clearly has a place as a political party (30%+ still vote for it), but probably not as a Party of government. Corbyn allowed the radical Left to take over the membership which will always prevent it having the appeal for the centre.
Starmer’s not the fourth after three. He’s the first of a new round of three further duds, as were Broon, Miliband and Corbyn.
What would “a sane party of the left” look like?
SDP …or similar ..few in Labour except Brendan Chilton,he bossed ”Labour Leave” is patriotic,un pc, get it pity he doesn’t either stand as independent or join SDP
As I never tire of pointing out, the only time since 1945 a sitting government with a majority was defeated and replaced by the opposition with its own majority was in 1970, and that was after a change in the franchise. In 1979 and 1997 the sitting government no longer had a majority, and the opposition won one; in 2010 the government had a majority, and even led by Brown this could not be overturned.
It is psephologically inconceivable that Starmer will repeat any such feat as 1970’s against Johnson’s 80-seat majority (which would be 100 on fair constituency boundaries).
To see if any such thing looks likely one would have to look at what was actually happening out in the world, and it’s immediately clear that nothing of comfort to Starmer is going on. Worse, the point made above that there remains little evidence that Labour is dealing with [its] structural problems isn’t the half of it: it’s actually still getting worse. A YouGov poll reported by the Jewish Chronicle this weekend shows that most Labour members think they don’t have an anti-semitism problem, 49% think Israel is an apartheid state, and 72% think Corbyn should not be expelled.
In parliament they are indeed doomed, and TGFT. The threat now from the left is that they continue instead to infiltrate organisations and impose their agenda without anyone having voted for it. The attack on the left needs to morph away from winning elections and towards preventing its stealthy infection of discourse, quangoes, charities, HR departments, the law, and all else. Making accusations of racism a criminal offence is long overdue, and ever having asserted “white privilege” or “institutional racism” should become fit-and-proper-person barriers to service on any kind of public or regulated body.
Making accusations of racism a criminal offence is long overdue
Do you mean making unproved allegations of racism a criminal offence? If so, writers at the Jewish Chronicle would have found themselves in court a lot in the last two years.
They have
Clearly the left are still banging their Antisemitism drum
That sounds like an unproven accusation of racism. My reference was to the number of public apologies the JC has had to make over the last two years and damages payments it has had to make for making false allegations.
You must specially dislike Jews if you think the JC are the worst offenders.
I’m open to you pointing out instances of other publications pulled up by Press Regulators for making false allegations of racism. There may be many, I honestly don’t know. I don’t dislike Jews. Why on earth would I?
To accuse an individual of racism should be a criminal offence. To be acquitted, you would have to convince the jury that the individual you have accused was motivated by, and demonstrated, racial hatred (or, to avoid being charged, you’d have to convince the CPS that you had a good chance of persuading a jury). I.e. that the accusation is true.
If you fail, you are guilty as charged and you should be jailed and heavily fined in a way that affects the rest of your life. This is because the intent of the accusation is always to ruin the life of the person you have accused. It’s the most serious accusation you can hurl at someone, yet at present, to do so carries literally nil risk of consequences to the accuser. Unless the target can afford to sue for libel, they receive no protection from the law whatsoever.
Anyone accusing a race at large of any form of privilege or misconduct should be considered to be of bad character, and hence not a fit or proper person to serve on any quango, professional or public advisory body, or charity, or to hold any state office or decoration, or to sit in the House of Lords. If someone expressed the opinion that all blacks are criminals, they wouldn’t get any sort of such job now; the same exclusion must apply to anyone who smears others as racists. Anyone who used the expression “white privilege” or used “whiteness” as an insult would lose every quango sinecure they had.
I don’t think the JC would have much trouble convincing a jury that those it said were racists actually were. Likewise, saying Diane Abbott was a racist would carry virtually nil risk, because she manifestly is one.
Can’t see a problem with that.
You dont understand what white privilege is do you John?
It does not exist
Class privilege and money does
‘Class’ is just another ‘social group’ by which to categorise people instead of classifying them as individuals. It suffers from all of the same conceptual problems as classifying people by their race, sex, gender etc
It does not exist. Anyone who asserts that it does is an evil lowlife racist.
What was that about unfounded accusations of racism?
So, you propose to change the law in favour of assumption of guilt (not innocence), suppression of free speech and equating the statement ‘all blacks are criminals’ with the statement ‘x person is a racist’.
The point about white privilege – awful phrase – is that you don’t have to be racist to benefit from it. You don’t even have to know about it to benefit from it. It’s not an attack on any individual or on a race. It’s a term trying to explain the nature of a society that exhibits a tendency to benefit those who fulfill certain criteria that are most commonly found in certain racial groups. It doesn’t mean every inequality is due to race.
No. If someone says that Person X is a racist, the evidence of a crime is whether they said that. If can be shown that they did, they are guilty on the facts, like using threatening language or attempting extortion. That’s all that need be proved.
The only permissible defence would be if they can show that it not a smear, but is actually true.
So you would be allowed say that David Irving is a racist, that Diane Abbott is a racist, that David Lammy is a racist, or that Jeremy Corbyn is an anti-Semite, because it would be trivial to prove all these creeps racists using their own words. Your defence would be truth, which if accepted by the jury would exonerate you. Shrieking that Jordan Peterson is a racist, however, would land you with a term of imprisonment and a life-changing fine, because you would be unable to prove this. All that would be necessary to convict you would be evidence that you actually said it.
There is no such thing as white privilege. There is only privileged presumed entitlement to hate white people. All who do so belong behind bars for a long, long time.
Well said. We are living in strange, appalling times when the racial hatred of white people masquerades as “anti-racism”; when genuinely open, tolerant, reasonable people, such as Mirza and Sewell are attacked with racial epithets for not hating whites; and when real antipathy to racial hatred is called “racism”. Perhaps we’re at the moment of crisis, as in a fever, when either the disease abates or the patient dies.
I though you were against accusing people of racism, especially without evidence?
There’s abundant evidence Diane Abbott is a racist.
So in a hypothetical criminal trial of someone who had said she was a racist, they would cite in defence all the above as evidence that she was one. A jury would then decide whether anyone but a racist could possibly hold those views, and would acquit.
Some of those sound like excessive generalisation (white people love playing divide and rule), so not good. Some of your accusations are actually of perfectly reasonable behaviour, or factual statements. The mayor quote rather depends on whether she meant it’s someone else’s turn who isn’t white, or no more white mayors ever. One is partial quotes stitched together, so we have to trust your fairness. And the last one seems to be a personal interpretation on your part – have you any citations for where she claimed that criticism of her is always and entirely motivated by racism and not at all misogyny, or class based, or due to personal dislike or dislike of her political positions perhaps taken too far?
And the idea of criminalising accusations of racism is a bit silly. You could sue for defamation, I suppose (though vulgar abuse is actually a defence there, I understand).
Your first paragraph is a very interesting statistic. I had never thought of that before. Thanks
I and I imagine most of the country are wary of Labour because of it’s lack of support for brevity post referendum and its take up of white bashing.What label to give isreal, a country in the middle East, is of little concern.I imagine that charges of anti semitic are entirely jumped up and based old Jeremy being in a meeting in Palestinians or something like that.
The Labour party’s position on Israel is the least of my concern,what I am concerned about is their position on Britain and the British people.
The problem is woke anti white bs not anything about Isreal.
You deserve my update for “psephologically ” if nothing else
Very good post. I sometimes wonder if the Left actually care about forming a government? It’s so much less hassle to infiltrate institutions such as the BBC, Education, Health, and the Police for example.
The result then being power without responsibility, and the opportunity to indulge themselves in their favourite pastime , identity politics.
If the guy had any spine whatsoever, stop the apologising and knee bending then maybe he’d have half a chance of putting together a good opposition. While hes at it a bit of a cull on the crazies in the shadow front bench wouldnt hurt.
A bit of patriotic feeling would be good too. The conservatives could do a bit more in this also instead of this dipping the toe in the water and luke warmly suggesting that Britain is a nice sort of place. It IS a nice place with decency and every right to be proud of itself both historically and in the future.
Unfortunately Jez, AIUI the crazies in the shadow front bench are voted there by the crazies in the membership, 72% of whom think Corbyn should stay in the party. It’s much likelier that they will cull Starmer rather than he them.
Uncanny – it’s as if he’s been listening to you. “Sir Keir Starmer has apologised after visiting a church which has been criticised for its stance towards homosexuality.” “I apologise for the hurt my visit caused and have taken down the video,” he said. “It was a mistake and I accept that.” BBC
“Patriotism” has always been a dirty word among Islington fauxialists. That attitude, skewered so well by Orwell, is a default setting for most politicians and journalists on the left.
How many articles does the Guardian publish, in any given year, that denigrate the very concept of patriotism? The intellectual Left, through the media and all the institutions of this country (over which they appear to have a stranglehold), have associated endlessly negative baggage with ‘British-ness’. I don’t think anyone can honestly deny that. They have infected any debate involving patriotism with a national self-loathing, the idea that patriotism is xenophobic at heart, the idea that British history is something only to apologise for.
In their heart of hearts how many Guardian readers were not with Ms Thornberry when she tweeted her sneering white van with cross of St George picture? As though such low-brow, working class patriotism was worthy only of scorn?
It is the idea that any and every culture can be celebrated – but not British culture – or at least not English culture. One can celebrate the Celtic parts of Britishness but celebrating Englishness, is akin to joining the BNP.
The Guardian line seems to be that anyone who has pride in being English has somehow admitted to something unhealthy and ‘problematic’. Why?
If a Frenchman is proud of being French, would they immediately mistrust his motives in the same way? If a Tongan speaks of his homeland with tears in his eyes, (they are, on the whole, the most deeply patriotic people I’ve ever met) would they be suspected of xenophobia and a misplaced pride. I’m fairly sure they wouldn’t.
So, what is so different about a British person expressing pride in their nationality? Why does the Left automatically suspect anyone who has pride in being English of some sinister subtext?
Listening to many former Labour voters giving their reasons for switching party allegiance one aspect that was consistently overlooked by commentators was “Patriotism”. Corbyn and crew were seen as hating their country, Boris was seen as a great champion of it. At heart that was a very large part of voter’s mistrust of Corbyn.
I would suggest that the voter perception of Boris as patriotic and optimistic, when set against the perception of the Labour party, whether the Miliband, Corbyn or Starmer iteration, as unpatriotic misanthropes, explains more of the swing away from Labour than any ideology or economic theory ever will.
The cynical “drape Labour in the flag” ploy, clearly focus-grouped by people who were genuinely surprised to find that the majority of the electorate don’t actually despise this country, was just another signpost on the way to Labour’s complete disassociation with voters and their utter irrelevance.
You should read Orwell again (the Lion and the unicorn). He was quite happy to point out the shortfalls of the British working classes.
Labor doesn’t get to be the 2nd largest party in the country with ONLY the votes of Islington. Through in the LibDem vote and you have parity with the Tories. I know that the electoral process doesn’t work that way but don’t exaggerate the Torie’s advantage.
Thornberry (google it) tweet was about a white van and 3 English flags. The caption was “image from Rochester” – nothing else.
Surely just one flag would suffice? Isn’t understatement the most English of values.
Yes, but when your country is always berated then some people will over indulge in showing their support for their country.
But as we are a tolerant people, most people will merely just smile at the over indulgence.
Didn’t Boris live in Islington for many years and isn’t Dominic Cummings still a resident??
Vegan creeping Jesuses. Orwell nails it in The Road to Wigan Pier.
Over 70 years ago. The world and the UK have changed a lot since then.
Still plenty of vegan creeping Jesuses among the Labour (Momentum) ranks though.
It is quite common amongst the Left to claim that the English do not even exist, despite history suggesting to the contrary.
Yes that’s about it. Actually it doesn’t matter who the Labour leader is. The name of the party is an irrelevance now. The Conservative party does have the right one. Party politics is no longer about socialism versus capital but about woke versus the majority. Starmer, by taking the knee, has chosen to host the minority in this country. He can never win.
I wonder if Sir Keir’s taking of the knee will be as fatal to him as Emily Thornberry’s tweet was to her. Even if not his taking the knee; his proclaiming that trans women are women; and his rejection of Sewell’s report based on his belief in structural racism certainly put him firmly in the minority camp on the cultural issues that, as Matthew reminds us, are increasingly dominating national life and politics.
That photo was taken by his worst enemy.
In bending the knee, then, he was his own worst enemy. He does not appear to have learnt any lessons from that, looking at his response to the Sewell Report.
The next election was lost when we saw the exit poll for the last, but what that photo did was crystallise, in one helpful image, why Starmer is so comprehensively unfit to be PM and the Labour Party to govern.
All of that is true, but the key thing for me is that it shows that he is not good at politics. As a politician, if you want to maximise your support, you sometimes have to fudge things a bit. You have to choose when to be vague and when to be specific. He chooses the wrong option every time.
The pathetic knee-bender and closet remainer won’t get my vote.
Sir Kneel.
Not a closet remainer
He is the chief architect of the 2nd referendum campaign
Never forgot that
The problem isidentity politics.As an old fashioned socialist,I was always concerned with the huge economic (and other) inequalities that exist between different classes in society and different parts of the UK. I have not changed one iota on this.
The Labour party now controlled from London is only interested in the grievances of various (often middle class) minority groups such as BAME, :LGBT etc who have grievances.
Just look at the fuss over Starmer visiting a church this week. The tireless work the church is undertaking with the poor and homeless in London is ignored but we get a furore from middle class LGBT activists. What does Starmer do – stand on his head and apologies with a grovel.
Labour is doomed.There is no way back
A good analysis from Matthew, as always. Kneeler Starmer has, if anything, done more to alienate Labour’s ‘traditional’ vote that Corbyn. If only that traditional vote had realised 20 years earlier just how much Labour despises them. In my view it’s not so much that ‘politics is downstream of culture’, but that voting is downstream of reality.
Now we need Reclaim, Reform and the rest to form some form of unified opposition to this appalling Tory party. But again, it will take time because voting is downstream of reality.
Reclaim/Reform – nobody is going to vote in 2025 against Tories because of lockdown in 2020/1. Farage was just a one trick pony.
GE2005 – remember that – The british people voted for 2 political parties that institutionally supported the Iraq War. And so did in 2010. Both “mainstream” parties had supported the Light Touch Regulations (tories wanted even less) and budget blowing spending (tories wanted lower taxes while keeping spending the same as labor).
Saying nobody is going to vote against Boris in 2024/5 because of lockdown is wishful thinking.
If the Government insist on demanding papers to go out, then many conservatives will not vote for them.
But what a trick
As long as the perception exists that Labour despise their traditional core vote and want to replace them with immigrants then the party is doomed to electoral oblivion.
Isn’t that why the right of residence has been given to 3 million Hong Kong citizens – so they will come over and vote Tory??
Is it 3 million? I thought it was 300k? Probably near 30 million will turn up – the next completely unnecessary disaster willingly embraced – even if I would personally prefer a smattering of them to the more religiously-inclined alternative.
30 million would be four times the total population of Hong Kong. I think we can safely assume that the majority of the population will not take up the offer, either because they cannot afford to move, do not wish the inconvenience of relocation, or actually quite fancy continuing life under the Beijing jackboot. Others will leave, but find other homes where they have no legal entitlement to settle, but where their skills find them a welcome. How many will come? Time will tell, but probably far fewer than the wilder estimates bandied around. I personally have no problem with them coming here, but we do have to accept that every influx leads to more demand for housing, and contrary to what some on the left claim, accommodation is as subject to the laws of supply and demand as any other commodity.
You don’t think that any Chinese people will miraculously acquire the appropriate certification for coming to Britain?
The right kind of immigrant.
Indeed they are. Enterprising and hard working, not religious (as far as I’m aware) and not looking for handouts.
More power to their elbow. I welcome them regardless of their religion.
The problem is quite simple: the Labour Party has been taken over by middle class professionals who are quite often employed by the public sector and its various off shoots. From this fact you get the obsession with identity politics which is only division on division. We have Gay rights, but now we have to have Trans rights and every other group you could imagine. As was pointed out last weeks reaction to the race report was revealing. The usual suspects rushed to the TV Studio before the ink was dry and when most of them could not possibly have had the time to read the damn thing. I think it is rather a hard sell on the door step to tell a former miner in a council house that the problem is his white privilege and his abundant racism and various phobias (add type before lecture). Add to this that all his many phobias lead him to vote Brexit and we will ignore that vote because we know what’s good for you, and I would be very surpised if you didn’t get a damn good hiding. And quite frankly it would be richly deserved.
The report, though not the government’s interpretation of it, was withheld from everyone until the government messaging could be established. They weren’t allowed to see it, let alone read it.
Very well said Andy.
No one is telling former miners that ‘the problem’ is their white privilege. Trans rights is happening whether you like it or not, and all parties will have to just get on with it. Brexit should be viewed dispassionately in terms of our national interest – isn’t that what patriots do? On balance it still looks like a really terrible idea.
If by trans rights you mean mutilating children because they ‘feel’ they’re a different gender and giving them hormone treatment, or that biological males can take part in womens sports and use womens private areas, again, not a vote winner.
I think the new fault line is between patriots and non patriots. The later may attempt to claim they ‘just have a different vision of Britain’. But we all know that is a not true, including the ones who preach it. The modern nation state has always been conceptually inconsistent with socialism. You can’t argue everyone is equal as a matter of morality, but then claim that moral concept ends at an arbitrary national border.
The real danger is perhaps ‘national socialism’, which is not really socialism, but it can use the appeal of socialism to bring to power a fascist government.
Hmm interesting. Not to fence sit but there’s merit in both here.
Even if the ideas were well-meaning, for some time now we have been fed a diet of anti-establishment, anti-corporate underdog-championing culture in films, books, series etc. Pick almost any film or series from the last 40-50 years and you will see what I mean.
This is where I agree with you – I see more widespread scepticism of authority than not, despite low-level passive conformity. However that could set the conditions for a complete reversal. A descent towards anarchy could provoke a reaction.
Comparisons to the 1930s come about time and again, but I think a key point is that in all the societies where fascism took root – there was a brief period of leftist/anarchism that enabled it – see Spain (1931-36), Germany (1932-4), Italy (1920-22)
I think that analysis of the socialist problem with the Nation State is spot on and of the danger of what’s called national socialism.
I wouldn’t say the difference is between patriot and non patriot, though. You can be a patriotic internationalist. You can’t, technically, be a nationalist socialist because of, as you point out, the conceptual inconsistency between socialism and the nation state.
Nicola Sturgeon is trying very hard to be a national socialist. Apart from the name of her party she is whipping up nationalistic jingoism in the Scottish electorate whilst at the same time planning to hand Scotland over to the EU eventually. She seems to be manipulating the inconsistency quite well.
I have often wondered how she can claim the point-of-principle high ground by equating Scotland’s bid for independence with Brexit’s bid for sovereignty (as evidenced by polls assessing the reasons why people voted Leave and as exploited by the SNP’s political machinery) when her ultimate aim is merely to turn around and deliver Scotland to a different master.
For clarity, I do not see Scotland as subservient to England – we are in a union – but that is the line the SNP is pushing. I am using their stances to illustrate their inconsistencies.
Is it still racism when one pale pink person hates other pale pink people because of their race/nationality?
I also wonder why someone wanting to break one union wants to join another. Part of the logic must be that some unions can last. It would be an interesting academic exercise to list all the unions there have been and how long each lasted.
I think they’ve pitched it cannily. They get support from the left because their policies are generally more left wing than Tories, and Labour, and Scotland is generally more left wing than England. They get support from patriots/nationalists because Scottish identity is often been seen in the context of resistance to England. And they get support from Scots who think of themselves as Europeans (internationalists, if you like) because of their support for the EU.
In the end it comes down to who do the Scots trust most; England or the EU? And the answer comes up EU.
Independence from Brussels doesn’t Exist it doesn’t matter how you disguise it……eU will collapse possibly in violence ..it WONT be A Velvet revolution.
Starmer, wonderfully described as a one man bland, appears to have little idea of how to connect with the working class North. He’s sinking and I cannot see, for the life of me, where the lifebelt is going to come from.
Strange that anyone ever thought SIR keir starmer, millionaire barrister and arch remainder, would be the person best placed to rekindle support amongst the northern working class. Still, he’s probably got more chance than Lady Nugen. At least he can keep the sneering contempt off his face when he has to talk to a pleb.
Who is Lady Nugen?
Good trial lawyers have to have at least a touch of the actor in their characters.
“…its growing dependency on social liberals…” have you ever met these people? They are some of the most intolerant, illiberal people imaginable…Unfortunately, they run every institution in the country.
Really? I’d be fascinated to see your claims supported with evidence.
Are you deigning Robert’s lived experience?
National trust,BBC for starters you dummy
That’s because they are basically Fascists.
The Labour party got 10m votes in the last election . Somewhere between 10 and 20% of those votes come from the Muslim community. That gives labour a problem. To keep those votes it has to take positions that dont attractive a wider cohort of voters.
Another segment of their voters is the liberal metropolitan “woke” . And their endlessly accusing ordinary folk of being racists when they are clearly not -just annoys people.
Both these cohorts of voters are in safe labour seats . So keeping them happy doesnt win more seats . But keeping them happy stops the Labour party having wider appeal. They have driven the party into a dead end .
Possibly. However, if the views held by those liberal metropolitans spread (and that’s what normally happens with progressive views – hence why we ended up with a Tory government bringing in gay marriage) and Labour can hold on to the Muslim vote it could look very different in ten years.
It’s deeply ironic that the same party attracts 1st generation, religious Muslims and radical secular LGBTQ/race activists. If that’s really true, it does not bode well for labor long term.
And diane Abbott &Annelise Dodds mickey mouse economics,
I find this is a revisionism of the Corbyn years.
Possibly unlikely he was ever going to be PM seeing the character assassination in the press and amongst the party establishment but he still won over a large number of the under 40s in employment and identified some of the structural weaknesses exposed in the last year and proposed policies to deal with them
He was actually okay on Brexit and was caught between his own reading of the need to deliver it as best he could and those like Starmer who wanted to reverse it.
Brexit was the issue of 2019 and who can really argue that the policy that Corbyn went into 2017 (deliver it but try to limit impact) was worse than that defined by Starmer in 2019?
Labour lost 2019 badly but I think that Starmer was as much to blame as Corbyn if not more so for forcing the party into opposing Brexit so clearly. Not to mention the PLP and their crusade against the membership.
Starmer has nothing to say and seems to have little idea of politics – and this type of revisionism about the Corbyn years just excuses him and those around him
Again we see that the left has been appalling in the response to the pandemic, abandoning the idea of freedom from authoritarianism and arbitrary laws to the libertarian right. This goes for the ‘liberal’ commentators too….what a pathetic bunch!
Exactly. Corbyn wasn’t as entirely unelectable as many would like to believe (see 2017 results) but the lack of a firm pro-Brexit policy comprehensively did for Labour in the North.
I’m convinced that if the Grenfell Fire had taken place two weeks earlier, Labour would have won the 2017 election.
I have no idea what would have happened after that.
I think you may be misjudging the strength of reaction to grenfell. Few people I know viewed it as anything other than a tragic accident, ruthlessly and tastelessly exploited by the left for political gain.
TBF, I think in 2017 nobody seriously believed he could win so many stayed at home or voted Labour as a “safe” protest vote. May was an utterly insipid campaigner who seemed determined to alienate her own core vote, and he STILL couldn’t win.
You’re partly right. Corbyn wasn’t ‘actually ok on Brexit’. He has voted against every single EU treaty since he became an MP, and I do not believe for one moment he voted ‘Remain’. He was a Brexiteer but he hadn’t the b*lls to say so because he thought it would cause a revolt. The public knew he was lying and a fraud, and allowing Starmer to foist on him the policy of basically ignoring the result went down here in the North like a bucket of cold sick.
2017 Labour ‘victory’ was simply a reaction to the referendum by those who voted Remain. They could protest by voting Labour, knowing they had no chance of winning. In 2019 they would not take that risk.
The polls show that Corbyn was almost always consistently unpopular with the electorate, even when the Party was performing relatively well. He almost never beat ‘Theresa May’ in the ‘who would make the best PM’ polling question.
Excellent analysis. ‘Forensic’ Starmer, former head of DPP and the CPS, a trained lawyer (hard to believe, isn’t it?), knee-jerks i.e. without a moment’s pause for thought, ‘takes the knee’ in obeisance to the odious, insulting, discriminatory and divisive BLM, weighs in immediately on the side of Whinge and Ginge in their disgraceful ‘interview’ by backing their absurd and hypocritical allegations, and bang on cue in he goes again criticising the findings of the recent report into race relations in this country.
The man is a moron lacking any moral compass and as leader of the Rabble Party I hope he keeps going, thus ensuring the hoped-for rapid further demise of the clique.
Any leader of the Labour Party will have the same problem trying to reconcile it’s new supporters who are obsessed with identity politics with its former voters who will have no truck with the SJWs. The Party’s dominance in London is not an asset to the rest of the Party because it just illustrates the rift.
‘Its’, not ‘it’s’!
Starmer’s biggest issue is summed up in one photograph, him taking the knee. It tells us a lot about his personal attitude to modern Britain.
Why?
Bandwagons, jumping there upon.
You ‘bend the knee’ to none save God Almighty and Queen Elizabeth. Where I live it played very badly indeed.
…and even worse where I come from where proud decent working class folk bend the knee to no one.
Because BLM are nothing but a bunch of race baiting marxist thugs who want to abolish the family and defund the police.
A vote for Labour is a vote for the institutional racism of Woke Culture.
The journey of Woke Labour’s Decline.
Blair – Brown – Corbyn – Starmer.
I suggest that the electability of any future Labour leader will be found in their response to the following six questions; Is Britain a racist country? What is your definition of a woman? Should children be told that their gender is an act of choice? Which citizens from other countries should be allowed to live and work in the UK? Should we judge the past by the standards of the present day? How far back in time is it reasonable to continue to pursue historic grievances with other nations, peoples and cultures?
So nothing to do with social investment, healthcare, infrastructure, the environment, equality, the economy? Just a rag bag of talking points?
Utterly separate point relating to the use of the verbs stand and sit. I am Scottish, and have always said was standing/sitting rather than was stood/sat.
If you had asked me say thirty years ago about was sat/stood I would have said it sounded like northern English conversational slang, and not something to be written by a person with a proper grasp of English. In fact, to be ranked with the Cockney(?) I did not do nothing. Fine for a local conversation, bizarre in a written article.
Now was stood/sat seems pretty ubiquitous, even among bourgeois writers. It stills sounds ghastly to me. What do English readers think?
As an English reader, I’ve always thought of it as northern conversational slang. Gaining wider use though, even in polite society.
What about the increasing use of the American ‘gotten’ (I know, before someone points it out, that it’s from older, regional English dialect), and ‘alternate’ for ‘alternative’? I don’t particularly rail against these things, but they puzzle me.
Interesting point, although language does change over time.
I would use both sat and sitting, but in a slightly different context.
e.g. If I walked into a room of people who were all on a chair, I would think they were “sitting”.
But if I was describing my visit to the room some time afterwards, I would say they were all sat down.
Does the word “sat” imply the past, but “sitting” imply the present?
Thanks for the reply Nick, but to me if those people in your example were doing something other than standing or sitting you would say in the past they were doing something, not they were done something or were did something. So sit and stand are being treated as exceptions to the rule for other verbs if you say were sat or were stood.
This English reader agrees that it sounds pretty terrible.
I agree with you completely.
That’s bad grammar he used is that.
Are you implying that people from the North should not be allowed access to the English Language because they are ‘the wrong hands’? Or are you implying that a certain level of education is needed before a person has a right to use their native language in the way they want to?
I agree that misuse of the English Language can be ugly but disagree that your (or my) feelings about that should have any weight when others decide how they want to use it. I’m constantly aware that English is an amalgam and an adaptation of many earlier languages and that regional differences exist depending on which populations were in the majority in different areas. And that’s only in the UK. Today English is being adapted throughout the world for speakers to use as they want to. We cannot stop it, nor should we.
I *were* stood/sat, surely?
I would interpret “has been sat” as “has been placed”, i.e. like a flowerpot on a winsowsill.
The reason Starmer will never be Prime Minister is that he isn’t a leader. Leadership is about ideas. He doesn’t have any. It is about forming public opinion not simply following it, It is about being brave. He isn’t. It is about creating an exciting and inspiring identity. He is neither exciting or inspiring and has no defining identity.
The best Labour can hope for under Starmer is that a genuine leader will emerge for the next general election or, at worst, the one after that.
The problem is bigger than Keir Starmer or any leader. The Labour Party is an industrial party in a post-industrial world. Its two main constituencies – working class and urban metropolitan – each have different value sets – social conservative and social liberal – and consequently despise each other. In past generations the working class/social conservative wing were prepared to put up with what it saw as the silliness of the urban metropolitan/social liberal wing for the sake of some economic protection; the need for that protection is not what it was, particularly as right wing parties throughout the west have moved towards an economically left-of-centre and socially right-of-centre position. The raison d’etre of the Labour party is further compromised by the rise of national identity (for the working class) and cosmopolitanism (for the metropolitans) over class identity as the prime determinant of a sense of selfhood. Such “false consciousness” has destroyed the old coalition of the left. It’s difficult to see a way back.
Spot on analysis – I just can’t see how anyone could turn the Labour Party round within a single election cycle.
Well the Tories are desperately trying to make Labour electable.
Yeah, the vaccine passports idea is a pretty large coffin nail.
Agreed. It would have taken something positively cataclysmic to convert such a drubbing into election victory in a single term But surely it is possible that the Labour brand is irredeemably besmirched? It cannot now “go back” to its former traditions and credibly claim to be the party of (or at least for) the working man. The very name of the party is completely at odds with the make-up and outlook of its membership.
Its name is gloriously Orwellian, actually.
Frankly they all are… Its become a trope, but the Labour Party has nothing but contempt for the working class, the Conservatives have no interest in conserving anything, and the Liberal Democrats are not Liberal and don’t believe in democracy.
Agreed Ian. It will take, I think, four, so three more GE defeats. It requires the current toxic Labour membership to grow up and die off; for the electorate to forget what Labour is like; for Conservative incumbency to go on so long that they start to look exhausted; and a steady influx of disreputable pocket-liners to enter the party as being the only game in town for corruption (Blair actually achieved the last two within his first term).
Labour may win again in the second half of the 2030s, but no sooner.
Whereas Boris can U-turn on a sixpence
The problem for Labour is their embrace of identity politics. At one time, their coalition of working class supporters and minority groups was a winning formula. But increasingly their traditional supporters have come to see that they have little in common with the wokeish preoccupations of so many Labour MPs. Identity politics are inherently divisive, and Labour needs to wean themselves off from them to have any hope of regaining power. I don’t see Keir Starmer, given his background and constituency, being willing or able to do this.
What use of identity politics could be more inherently divisive than pitting metropolitan elite against white working class, muslims against ‘native’ British, undocumented immigrants against refugees? These are the narratives of the right, not the left.
Twitter spats about trans rights are small change in identity politics compared to the widespread amplification of racial, class and geographical differences seen on the right.
Seeing everything through dense ideological filters, continuing even to acknowledge, let alone address, genuine concerns, will consign Labour to the history books.
Undocumented immigrants.migration Watch estimate over 1 million illegal immigrants,most brought here in Back of the lorry, or Dinghy by People traffickers..your Semantics are ‘Doublethink’ pathetic
As I’ve been saying for a year now, he’s Ed Miliband without the charm. He hasn’t made any impression on the public and Labour is now facing losses that are the equivalent of the Tories losing Surrey. They may not get rid of him though because who else is there? Out of that contest last year, he was easily the best choice. I can’t think of a single person in Labour I can imagine winning a general election.
The quality of politicians across the board is depressingly low.
Being like Ed Miliband, even with the charm, wouldn’t help much. He needs to be like Tony Blair.
How dare you ! Go wash your mouth out with bleach this instant !!
I can see why people don’t think Starmer and his fellow travellers represent their interests. But why do they think Johnson will do any better? All that talk about levelling up is just Johnson’s usual bullshit. Moving a few civil service departments up north is not levelling up. Anyone who believes it, needs to have their head examined.
Well. Think about this. Both Labour and the Tories are out to screw you.
Very simply both believe in the welfare state and socialist redistribution.
But above all they both believe that that the minions shall never be told about the 14 trillion pound socialist welfare state pension debts. Never.
After all if the public knew, they would lose their heads.
……..but what a lovely man, so much nicer than that g… in power. Can he do any worse? I am just a simpleton who understands what being at the bottom of the pile feels like. Sir Keir anyday luv.x
A good read as always, but all this mystical stuff about patriotism, etc. misses the main point. The main reason why people vote Tory, or stay at home and let other people vote Tory, or only vote Labour when the Labour Party acts Tory, is because they are home owners. Nobody wants socialist revolution when their economic security depends upon rising property values.
There is a new opportunity opening up if only the Labour Party would seize it. We need a party of the consumer. Because that is what we now are and where we are most vulnerable on so many levels. And the Conservatives can never convince in that role because of their debt to big business. Take housing: all the growth of the last 15 years has been in leasehold, an utterly corrupt form of tenure known nowhere else in the world but England and Wales. Business is creaming money off leaseholders as a result of the cladding scandal yet Tories won’t do the right thing. Labour could pick up votes by promising that home owning would really mean home owning and reforming the law accordingly. They could take on all sorts of threatened individual freedoms – including opposing vaccine passports. They could tackle environmentalism from the consumers’ point of view. An alarming recent interviewee on Lockdown TV claimed that, if present trends continue, male fertility will be zero by 2045. If this is true, we need incredibly urgent action to replace the plastics which, it is claimed, are poisoning us and undermining human fertility. There is SO MUCH to do. The battle is no longer the old one of workers/unions versus bosses, capitalism versus socialism. That battle has already been lost. It is a new one – the rights of the individual voter versus those of vested commercial interests. It’s the old Christian Democrat struggle to reconcile morality and profit. I wish they would give it a go but I don’t think there’s a chance in hell that they will.
Much as I dislike quoting Steve Bannon, his quote about “we want the left to talk about race and identity, the more the better” is very relevant here.
I am not so sure of the outcome of the next election.
Personally, I am against ID cards (AKA Vaccine passports) and would not wish to vote for a party who introduced them.
This would mean not voting for Boris. However as a conservative who could I vote for?
I think there is a big gap on the right for another party to succeed, which might split the conservative vote – thus allowing Sir Kneel to win.
Yes but You think Ed davey,keir Stumbler, will vote against ID Biometric Cards on phones or on plastic,which is same As Chinese Social Credit Card sytem ,24 hr surveillance and can refuse you access to Your Own bank account,Public transport,Cinemas,theatres,Sports Venues ,Shops etc…? Boris said of Blair’s 2004 ID Card,scheme ”It is An infringement on British liberty &in no circumstances ,will i ever support it” 17 years later ,Blair Still supports So do most of Our mediocrities in Brussels,Westminster,Peking,Washington DC! Welcome to Minority Report
What is the point of Labour though? Young people today all want to be rich – either by hard work or by luck – talent contests/’influencing’. They want property, private schools, lovely holiday homes, cars (despite supposedly wanting to green the world).
The days of working for love of a job only are long gone. When I was at the BBC you worked there for love, you went to ITV for money. Not any more. And when you consider the price of living in the UK one can hardly blame people for wanting more money.
Communism has failed everywhere too. And the Labour Party has not even reached the centenary of its first government yet – that’s next year. They’re being rather quiet about it, aren’t they?
14 trillion pounds of socialist pension debts, with zero capital, all Bernie Maddoff’ed off the books.
Do a full audit, send everyone a break down of the causes and their share.
They signed their death sentence for me when they allowed themselves to be colonised by hateful militant feminist and racist activist entryists like Jessica Philips and Harriet Harman. The sight of Phillips on Parliament TV rocking in her chair, hugging her sides, snorting with laughter and banging her head off the table to express her amusement while being asked for “permission” to debate male suicide and collapsing education standards will haunt me forever.
Harriet Harman a ‘racist activist entryist’? She’s been and gone, and here peak was in the 90s. Jess Philips a ‘militant feminist’? Are you serious?
What makes people think that either party will make big changes to their lives or standard of living? Brexit was admittedly a big change but was an accident which neither the Tories nor Labour wanted to happen. Corbyn may even have wanted it more than Johnson who was stuck with it and made the best of the hand dealt him. We have a mature electorate which sometimes goes a bit left and sometimes goes a bit right. Labour will eventually return to power because people will tire of the Tories. Corbyn was too extreme for anyone but students though not the batty clown the media made him out to be.
The next election may be too much of a hurdle swingwise but the one after gives Labour seven or eight years to sort out itself out with a better leader who is attractive to voters and an alternative to the exhausted Tories. I’m sure the Tories have bitterly regretted winning against expectations in 1992 only to get a walloping in 1997. People were desperate to see the back of them from Black Wednesday onwards, almost their entire term. The Tories don’t own the Red Wall. They won it because of a particular alignment of the stars. But anyone who still thinks that a change of government will be transformative is living in la la land which is why all the energy and angst expended on politics is futile.
The most sensible comment here.
He bent the knee to blm. That image is permanently seared into the minds of red wall voters. Come election time it will be on posters all over the country. He’s a woke metropolitan politician, it exudes from his every pore. The Red Wall know it and always will. On top of that Labour are a divided party. Starmer would do better to run for London Mayor – he’d walk it.
The obstacles for him to become PM of the country are colossal.
Try this experiment – search for the word ‘knee’ in the comments section of any newspaper article about Starmer. The number of hits tells you all you need to know.
I’m stating the obvious, but Labour clearly need to be appeal to a sizeable proportion of those who voted conservative last time round. And to do that they need to convince voters that they are financially responsible and workable policies which can be bought into by a much wider section of the public. Whoever leads the party into that will need extremely strong vision and appeal!
I challenge your base assumption that what seems ‘financially responsible and workable’ is what we have or have had. The 2019 Labour manifesto (and 2017 before that) attempted to redress the balance. Do you remember Whorlton was in the 2019 Tory one apart from ‘Deliver Brexit’ – you think what they will deliver will be responsible or workable?
Covid has been manna from heaven for Johnson – it hides the absolute disaster going on in trade with Europe. Brexit was never going to be easy but he has made it much worse. Luckily for him the press is in a froth about ‘variants’ and now he is managing to make people doubt vaccination as an effective tool. All with the help of the establishment. Left and right!
What has been at all responsible and workable about the economic policies since the early 80s transferring wealth to the rich and making society a service to them. This will be seen in full once the damage of the last year unwinds
Actually I didn’t state a base assumption… However, voters, especially coming up to an election, are able to recognise exactly what it isn’t.
The 2019 Labour manifesto was obviously not finacially credible.
Even to some-one such as my self I could see that their tax policies were nothing short of an attempt to hoodwink the public, dropping the higher rate tax threshold from 50p to 40p does not increase revenues by 25% – labour knew that, I refuse to believe that they didn’t know that, yet their spending promises assumed that it would.
Labours claim that re-nationalising the railways would be finacially neautral, while at the same time raising the wages of all the employees and enabling upgrade work – while technically possible if you assume that the current profits would be enough to cover the extra expeses – was something that the majority of the british public (and the labour party) know was incredably unlikely.
I’m not an ardent Conservative, or Liberal, or anything. I want a good choice of credible parties both left, right, center, and liberal – but we don’t have that anymore. We have single (and small ranges of linked) issue groups that have no hope of governing, the sad fact is – like or loath them the only credible governing party we have in the UK is the Conservatives – and I hope to god that they stay in power as bad as they are the alternative is far worse!
The Labour 2019 manifesto was entirely financially credible.
Britain can afford to increase spending moderately and reduce taxes because it is a sovereign currency issuing state.
We are not anywhere near exceeding the supply side and causing inflation.
Investments in infrastructure and local banking to support SUE’S would have boosted productivity and raised living standards.
It is entirely necessary to make strategic investments which boost productivity.
Also renationalising certain monopoly utilities like rail and water would be good as revenue could be reinvested to upgrade capacity as opposed to being spent on dividends to international investors.
Our Private Water utilities in particular facing long term problems as a result of underinvestment and taking on debt.These companies have polluted swimming areas in the ocean with untreated sewage.Something they have been doing at an increasing rate.A lot of swimmers have ended up in Hospital as a result.
It was not credible, pretty much every finacial expert outside of the party that expressed an opinion on the tax income figures stated that they were wishful thinking.
The spending plans were based on income that wouldn’t materialise and very optermistic assumptions about costs of renationalising infastructure.
Stategic investments for future prosperity are great, but in the last Labour manifesto they fiddled the figures.
…………………or the Tories mess up financially . Black Wednesday did for them in 1992 and if if interest rates rise something similar could well happen (or maybe a crash in the housing market?)
“Over the past two decades, the Left essentially walked into the casino of British politics and put all of its chips behind social liberals whose support is concentrated in liberal enclaves rather than spread across the country.”
They embraced the politics of the US Democratic Party as that party was radicalising. It’s hard enough for the US Democrats to win, even with a fully compliant media. With Britain’s politically diverse print media and very different demographics, following AOC & co is not a good path to success.
On demographics – Labour seem to believe that Britain resembles Tony Blair’s vision of “rubbing the Right’s noses in Diversity” – that the UK’s demographics mirror those of the USA, or London. Like Hillary Clinton they take the Rust Belt – the Red Wall – completely for granted, and consequently a mild bit of Tory populism in the form of Brexit Boris serves to completely undermine their appeal and threaten to render them electorally irrelevant.
You’re right. Labour are following very closely the Democrats in basically abandoning their traditional base and following a metropolitan agenda. You only have to look at the Brexit vote and its concentration. Starmer was a fool to basically come out with the position that Labour should simply ignore the result, no matter how it was dressed up. He was saying to the traditional base ‘we don’t care how you vote, WE know what’s good for you. So shut up and do as you’re told’. An election winning formula.
I remember the Northern voters the day after the election telling the interviewer why he switched his vote to Tory. “You ignored us so we ignored you.”
He needs to stop kneeling on the fence.
How is taking the knee sitting on the fence?
🙂
“Starmer, in his defence, inherited a sinking ship from Jeremy Corbyn.”
A very unusual sinking ship, where the crew got off and the rats stayed on board (and multiplied!)
Starmer has proved to be rather more wooden and witless than I anticipated. Quite how he became head of the CPS I don’t know, although I suppose nothing surprises one in modern Britain. And of course it was in this capacity that he, effectively, kneeled to the men from a certain group in order to secure their vote for Labour. He’s a nasty piece of work.
Of course, he is not helped by the mind bogglingly low standards of Labour MPs. We see another one in the news today for yet another astonishing display of stupidity – and she was already suspended for something or other. Human history has never seen a dumber or more disreputable rabble than the Labour Parliamentary Party and I swear there are as yet undiscovered tribes in New Guinea with a greater knowledge of world history and current affairs.
Keir Starmer’s problem is being passionate about everything. Most voters recognise instinctively that this really means he isn’t truly passionate about anything (except to remain a leader of the Labour Party either to get into Downing Street or get sufficiently close and maybe get in the next time around). When he flicks on his “passion switch” he looks and sounds ridiculous, with anguished facial expressions, spouting lofty sentiments, full of G.A.S (Group Accepted Sentiments) but devoid of substance. When an interviewer probes beyond such G.A.S., Starmer starts to stutter, either changing the subject or obfuscating. If a shadow party leader shies away from explaining the basic principles of what he wants to do for the country that claims to be better than what the current party in power is doing, he becomes a man of straw, a shadow prime minister frightened of his own shadow.
I’d like to believe Keir Starmer doesn’t need a personality implant and that away from politicking he is an affable chap. I also assume he holds genuine beliefs and principles for improving what ails British society that are decent and relevant rather than whacky or Corbynesque. But I can’t get a handle on what he has to offer Britain that is better than what is being is being pursued by the Conservative Party. I get the feeling his decision to join the Labour Party rather than the Conservative Party came about either by tossing a coin or grabbing a vacancy opportunity at a moment in time that just happened by chance to be with the Labour rather than Conservative party.
Some say Starmer is a left wing socialist by nature who is trying gain a broader following by dissociating from the Neanderthal / Corbynistic socialist outlook of un-vote-able Old Labour but has to do this in a low key way so that Labour’s National Executive Committee Neanderthals don’t view him as a traitor to the cause. Others say he is a centralist liberalist Tory but he daren’t reveal himself as that much of a Labour turncoat because he’d be ridiculed by the media and crucified by the Labour Party. Besides, for better or worse, Boris Johnson pretty much owns that territory.
Somehow Tony Blair took a deep breath and grabbed at the opportunity to be all things to all men just when Labour was going through an identity crisis. Labour is going through that again but Starmer hasn’t the courage, imagination or force of personality to achieve what Blair did. And just to prove that he makes Ed Milliband a shadow minister. There are several high-quality Labour MP’s with an outlook suitable for our times that could seriously challenge the “reason-for being” of the Conservative Party. But all to no avail because, bottom line, Keir Starmer lacks the courage of his convictions to bring them in out of the cold or doesn’t share their convictions or, worse still, doesn’t have any convictions of his own other than the UK equivalent of America’s Motherhood & Apple Pie, all of which he is of course passionate about.
Didn’t Starmer’s list of ‘achievements’ manage to omit that he was head honcho at the DPP when they were busy ignoring the Midlands grooming gangs, so as not to harm ‘diversity’?
After WWII, politics was the Trade Unions vs Everyone else.
After Margaret Thatcher, politics was “Ooops, the EU … dont we have any politicians worth voting for?”
Along came “Progressive” Tony. Unfortunately, we felt disillusioned.
Then, we were upset by the “Bigot” namecalling Scotsman when a polite lady asked a simple question.
So, here we are. Without any opposition politicians with any words we will stop to listen to!
Yes to Matt Goodwin: KS is going to be an interim leader not a PM. No to the comments people who are thinking (wishing, more like) that Labour is already finished.
It is now clear that KS lacks the political skills necessary for effective leadership, including achieving party unity, achieving cut-through with the public, and conveying a sense of direction. Meanwhile Labour’s near miss in 2017 gets too little attention, and the single issue election in 2019 gets too much. The potential to restore the party’s fortunes remains for someone better suited to the job. But the longer the party waits to make that change, the less there will be to work with.
Labour’s ‘near miss’ in 2017 gets too much attention from the Left. The worst possible result for the Labour Party was a sheer fluke. A last minute gamble by Remainers from other parties that Corbyn was also a Remainer (which he never has been) led to that late Labour surge.
That anomaly led the Corbynites to insist that their man deserved to stay and lead the Party to the next GE. When he vacillated over Brexit the voters he’d accidentally captured abandoned him in their thousands.
The consequences were that Labour not only lost 2017, but then lost catastrophically under Corbyn in 2019, and thus Inadvertently enabled Brexit. Corbyn’s final act was to leave his successor with the lowest number of Labour seats in 85 years.
In hindsight, Corbyn should have been sacked in 2017, but the Party waited too long that time as well.
Labour’s support now resides amongst the metropolitan media who drench us in a tirade of self-loathing anti-Englishness. No wonder people are leaving the capital and the BBC in droves.
That sounds like a bunch of lazy cliches. Which metropolitan media? Which self-loathing? Why Englishness and not Britishness? Leaving the capital? Because of COVID? Leave the BBC? How?
I suggest instead of being Self satisfied idiot,you actually see how many people Watch netflix,bT sport,Now,Amazon etc..& Dont pay BBC License..
He could start by landing some actual blows on this authoritarian government of ours. Vaccine passports are un-British, he says. Well vote them down then, and start telling a positive story about this country’s tradition of civil liberty.
Nope. Did Boris Johnson look like a Prime Minister in Waiting? Theresa May?
You can’t decide who looks like a Prime Minister and who doesn’t.
This has the usual drivel about small c northern social conservativism and simply ignores the long stream of shit which has been shovelled on the voters in red wall safe seats by the “social liberals” who have inhabited Party HQ since the days of Blair.
In times past local democracy was a huge feature of the Labour Party. In traditions with roots both in the Trade Union Movement and Methodist Chapels education of workers, solidarity group loyalty and social justice were all hugely important.
This didnt suit Blair, who wanted a party he could manage in a top down way. He took advantage of constituencies which had once boasted that you could have got a donkey elected if you had pinned a red rosette on it. He put his own proteges (often inexperienced young women) in against the wishes of the locals. I have very mixed feelings about All Women Shortlists. Unquestionably they achieved better representation for women, but they were also clearly used to gerrymander who was selected to run for office, as was the power of the NEC to veto candidates from standing.
Blair reduced the power of Party Conference, turning it from a sovereign body with the power to debate motions submitted by ordinary members via branches and make them party policy to a showcase which rubber stamped policy documents. The policy documents had been consolidated in “policy fourums” in which ordinary members could air their views, but Party Officials were the people who lapter decided what needed to be put on record.
The earlier format, with individual motions on different subjects, gave the conference delegates a degree of power. The later format admitted no changes to the policy documents which the conference could only approve. (Theorectically they could vote against them, but that would reject the baby as well as the bathwater.)
The power ratio of the Leadership to members was consistently changed during the Blair years. The Party became less democratic and more into sales pitch and razzamatazz. Branches – once forums where serious and significant political debates occurred – became irrelevant, except when activists were wanted to raise money or deliver leaflets.
The social structures which had made Labour the only possible party for two generations of voters were trampled on and Northerners saw their concerns ignored as the party courted “middle England”. This – coupled with Brexit – eventually broke down ties and loyalties which took a long time to build.
Thinking that a bit if flag-wagging and social conservatism will undo this is patronising and incorrect.
As is seeing a steady decline in Labour’s fortunes since Blair. Blair started taking the members loyalty for granted and abusing their trust. This caused a decline in Labours vote. Corbyn’s interregnum was NOT a continuation of this. The membership revived. Belief in Labour as a force for democracy and socialism revived, but not amongst MPs and the catering classes. They were horrified, and fought a hard and increasingly below the belt campaign against Corbyn.
The Lajour vote continued its downward trajectory, but for very different reasons.
Now that Starmer is running things the trendes that Corbyn halted are back in train. Starmer has made no attempt to deal with or prevent corruption and rule breaking inside the Labour Party. He has continued suspending members for inadequate reasons. He has interfered with what branches can discuss (wholly exceeding his legitimate powers to do so). He has interfered in candidate selection processes. He has driven out active members, to the extent that many areas are struggling to find sufficient candidates for local elections. In many areas the party is demoralised (which it was not under Corbyn).
The labour Party is probably now in a terminal condition. This is because the leadership and membership are heading in opposite directions. It is not a dispute of identity politics between woke inner cities and neanderthal northern towns. It is a complete betrayal of the membership by leaders who think they are above the laws they are entitled to make for others. There is not a cigarette paper to put between the Conservative and Labour Leadership here. Both share this attitude as they wash their hands and accept 17% payrises from an “independent” body they put in place. (It is obviously co-incidence that a very different body seems to be in charge of nurses and benefit claimants pay.)
The Labour Party was set up to serve the interests of workers. It does not. What it appears to be doing at present is acting as the Tory reserve team for when the first team screws up.
This is not what the people who join, or vote for the labour Party need. Starmer has let the Genie out if the bottle, and I don’t think academic commentators have the foggiest idea how to put it back in.
The members are a 500,000 strong cult, the MPs need to get elected which will never happen with the policies of the cult.
The main problem with the Labour Party is the Blairites.
They are the ones who stabbed Jeremy Corbyn in the back, and lost him the election by forcing him to accept another referendum.
Corbyn wanted to accept the referendum result, and go for a soft Brexit.
Miliband, another Blairite, did not offer a referendum, forcing millions of Labour voters to vote for Cameron, just to get a chance of leaving the EU.
Even now the Blairites are at work, trying to undermine the Labour Party yet again, which undermines democracy.
Until the Labour Party gets fully behind Brexit, and gets rid of the Blairites it will never win another election.
Labour is unelectable mostly because it ceases to be connected in any way to its erstwhile constituency among the working classes. It no longer represents either their values or their concerns.
Starmer is beside the point.
I though LibDems were going to win a lot more seats in 2010, Remain and Clinton was going to win. I also thought TM was going to win. So there is my political judgement.
I would like to point out that right now UK GOV is spending money like a pimp with a week to live. I don’t see how the Tories can be the party of the Shires (low taxes) and Red Wall (big spending). And that is the Party’s weak point.
I am reasonably sure levelling up is going nowhere, it is going to (German experience) cost at least – my rough calcs – £30 billion extra a year spending for 20/30 years. And I don’t see how Tory shires are going pay for it.
VDMA (Germany) calculates that the Germany is going to lose c50% of the jobs in the car industry thanks to electrification. If Germany’s industrial base (fare more diverse and sophisticated) is about to get hammered I don’t see how UK can perform any better. It is easy to talk about culture. flag and patriotism but none of those things can pay for the mortgage or 2 weeks in Corfu.
Why can’t you understand that the UK government is capable of investing in the Country?
How do you think we are paying for the Covid furlough?
BoE controls the Gilt market,Treasury can spend as much as it deems necessary into the Economy.
This is a good thing we need to invest and update our economy.its interesting you mention Germany, after reunification investment into former communist East Germany has given East Germany a higher GDP per capita than most of Britain.
Germany has done well over the last 20 years because it is using an artificially undervalued currency; has a captive market with the Eurozone. I saw an interview with Bernard Connolly (George Soros was on the same Dutch TV programme) where he made the point that if you used the dollar as a yardstick the optimum value for the Euro for Greece would be about 35 cents, but for Germany it would be $2.35. The dollar/Euro was then at $1.10. The USA, UK and others ought to apply anti-dumping tariffs to EU goods. That would help the Germans.
How has Sweden (economic structure similar to Germany) has done so well outside of the EZ? Denmark? No it has nothing to do with size.
For the first 5/6 years of EUR the currency was overvalued for the German economy. And they still did fine just like they did in the days of D-Mark.
And the idea that Greece with 10M is keeping EUR down is utterly risible especially since EUR is the 2nd largest currency in the world. People around the world (not in EZ) stash their savings in EUR. That means extra demand for the currency.
Germany achieved that (fact not an opinion) by doublings its national debt during the 90s and through solidarity tax – complex issue but to keep it simple – 5% on everything.
Who/what is going to pay that 5% tax?
Is UK GOV going to double its debt as % of GDP?
The curse of governing in bad times. It is undoubtedly the case that some incredibly difficult times are coming – not immediately because the taps are on worldwide, sadly of necessity, so we will get a fairly hefty bounce in the first instance, at least in the UK – but there is no getting round the eventual pain. I suspect unemployment will top out closer to 20% than 10%. It all depends on how the Tories manage the election timings – they cannot afford to get too close to the heart of the bust before going to the country, so they will probably go in about 24 months, by when the slide will have started, but I suspect people will cut them a lot of slack in the first instance. In any case, for Labour to make an impact they would need to be united, with a well defined offering, and as they have none of that, and under Starmer they have not impressed, so it is out of their hands, and would require the government to make several major mistakes over the next couple of years for Starmer to get in.
An excellent article although it leaves out the question of where disaffected Tory voters will go as Johnson moves left and whether that will make a difference to the calculations.
Just as Trump hollowed out the Republican party, so Johnson is hollowing out the Conservatives. When the end-of-pier comedy routine is no longer funny, there will be nothing left.
Trump did no such thing. What he did was expose people like McConnell, Romney et all as RINOs. The leadership is divorced from the base, so what is actually needed is a ‘Blue Momentum’. Too many people think what are essentially liberal (to the left) views and opinions are conservative when they are clearly not.
For all practical purposes, Labour is 2 parties. A farish Left grouping of Wokeists, identity politicals, Momentum, Union barons, and old fashioned ‘socialists’, and an amorphous, largely anonymous, and irresolute group of centre-Left MPs and members who have been cowed into keeping quiet. Starmer is the leader of neither.
The question is: if not him, then who? Who in the Labour Party? (I can’t see anybody). Who anywhere? Are we entering an era of one party government?
I think Andy Burnham might have been a better choice. But the membership rejected him in favour of Corbyn the loser. Since then he has left Parliament and become Greater Manchester Mayor. He can bullshit as well as Boris Johnson, but he seems more down-to-earth than the others in Labour.
Yes, Burnham is more or less human and does talk sense quite often. Far too much sense to become leader of the Labour Party.
..and far too aware of the views and aspirations of the traditional working class (former) core Labour voter to make him acceptable to the privately educated middle class liberal elite currently in charge.
If truth be known, the interests of a large majority of the country would be best served by a Prime Minister who came from a list of desirables on which neither Johnson nor Starmer would appear in the top million. But, things being as they are, the chance of anyone above Johnson and Starmer on the list becoming Prime Minister is roughly the same as that of the moon being made out of cheese.
‘…the Conservatives have also leaned towards the Left, variously promising to “level-up” the most regionally imbalanced nation in the industrialised world while moving institutions, civil servants and banks north.’ Ah, magical thinking. It’s so much easier than… thinking. How many people think gifting sinecures to the north east and Scotland will turn those places into hotbeds of entrepreneurialism?
There’s a big clash coming up between the religious minority Labour voters and the LGBT wing as we’ve seen with the recent farcical visit to the Baptist Church by Sir Kneeler.
Well there’s only one winner in that particular clash, as can be seen in Islamic countries everywhere.
“Starmer, in his defence, inherited a sinking ship from Jeremy Corbyn.”
Really? I’d have said Starmer was hugely instrumental in scuppering that ship himself. Can’t have a socialist in charge of the Labour Party, can we, or so the Labour hierarchy appears to think.
Perhaps the only thing in his favour is that he looks like a Tory, sounds like a Tory, yet isn’t a Tory. To a general public disengaged with politics but fed up with the current situation, that could be enough.
Something about lipstick and pigs.
Sounds like Doris.
Blair won because he trashed the Tories – first Major (not hard to do) then IDS, (also not hard) then Hague (much harder, but Blair succeeded here, too). Also he brought some refreshing ideas, (stealing the Tories’ clothes which is why I voted for him in 1997) when Major and the Tories only had recycled Thatcherism, and ever-more privatisation when it was looking like that creed had run its course (and it had). Blair’s Irish peace treaty was an achievement of historic merit and significance. Then, as Blair achieved dictator status, with no meaningful opposition inside his Party or inside Parliament, things started to go downhill. But that’s another story. The fact is that if Blair had not given way to Gordon Brown, he would have won in 2010, too.
Starmer should study Blair’s record carefully. I think the lessons he could take away include:
HS2. How is that an investment? How do the ticket sales pay for the costs and make a profit?
The last thing anyone outside London wants is HS2. A vanity project for London
For London? How so?
Giles,
The NI peace treaty came about because of the risk that Major took in holding secret negotiations with Sinn Fein during his time. None of Phoney Tony’s “achievements” were actually down to him. He was handed a golden economic legacy by the Tories (more by luck than judgement, having crashed out of the ERM years earlier, which also prevented the mistake of joining the Euro being made). The only thing that was really down to Phoney Tony was the illegal war he conned us into with his dodgy dossier.
Hopefully Sir Kier or anyone else seeking leadership of our country will completely ignore your advice and definately not try to emulate the war criminal and buddy of Jimmy Savile.
https://t.co/jraP31YZXA
Matt Goodwin says ‘Conservatives have also leaned towards the Left, variously promising to “level-up” the most regionally imbalanced nation in the industrialised world’. Of course this ‘promising’ was part of an election campaign, why then would a party that won by 80 seats change its usual low tax low spend policy so as to level up? Does anyone here really believe that the Tories aim to ‘level-up’, as opposed to the more likely ‘be seen to be levelling up’? The question then is how quickly people see that the promise won’t be kept.
There is rightly debate about whether the current Tory populist strengths mean Keir Starmer is doomed, the irony is that the Tories being this unassailable in England makes Scottish independence even more likely.
Who is Keir Starmer?
Goodwin writes: ‘Over the past two decades, the Left essentially walked into the casino of British politics and put all of its chips behind social liberals’ Actually, quite the opposite, as the cowardice over cancel culture and Batley school and the homophobic demos outside schools clearly show.
In c.1990, Labour began to ditch liberal values (women’s and gay rights, et al) to embrace their new fanatical religion: anti-racism. This most significantly involved wooing anti-rights religious groups, especially muslims. It was simply demographic calculation; once the old class struggle narrative was no longer convincing they needed a new constituency.
Labour then adopted the stance of all major parties on social issues: if someone is homophobic, anti-women, anti-abortion, racist … then they are vigorously denounced as fascists UNLESS they give a supernaturalist justification for such views, when they suddenly become entitled to respect.
[Sign of the times from Goodwin, supra: “the entire country has been sat at home, watching the news …” A professor ???]
“Labour’s broken bond with the working class”
Surely, Matthew, you mean the white working class? Plenty of ‘working class’ people do still vote Labour but they’re in safe seats. I like you, Matthew, but you really are just churning out the same boring stuff repeatedly at the moment. Every article is a variation on “Labour are failing”.
What on earth do you want? There is not a lot else to say about them just now, other than to point to Claudia Webbe, Apsana Begum and the Liverpool crew and their prosecutions, the Mike Hall tribunal and Hartlepool bye election to come, and the number of local labour members being suspended. Amazing to think in that context that Khan is a success storey. He has to write something its his job.
The left has always been about the educated and its right to rule. But up until now it always understood the need to fool the workers into thinking that the left was on the side of the workers.
Oh well. It was fun while it lasted.
It might have been fun for them, but not for the rest of us.
I think there is only one Labour person capable of receiving support from the nation. He currently lives in the US. That person is David Milliband. He would need to be coaxed back here, and stand as an MP. He was an obvious candidate before Ed was elected, and Ed was put there by the unions, who are as always blinded by their own interests: the nation comes second. There is, in my opinion, something stately about David. I wonder how many people agree with me?
I think you’ll find that very few people agree with you. He might have been more plausible than the rest of them but he’s a vacuous and unpleasant piece of work who approved of torture and ‘special renditions’ etc when Foreign Secretary.
Don’t hear many fans of the ‘report’ mentioning Windrush — a catastrophe visited upon British citizens; it follows from a ‘hostile environment’ designed by two home secretaries to induce ecstasy in their supporters.
The Windrush thing was started by Labour in 2008/9.
Unlike the Dems in the US, apparently Labour still need the votes of the white working (or formerly working) class, upon whom they never pass up an opportunity to excrete. Their path forward is obvious: import a few million more Third Worlders, learn how to discover pallets of ballots, or both.
I’m not so sure. He has almost certainly a long time to the next election, and if one comes early it will be because of some catastrophic event that the Tory Party is damaged by. This is like Mrs Thatcher (peace be upon her) in 1975. She knew she had time to bring about change in the Conservatives, and for a long time nothing much seemed to be happening. But everything to do with thought, policy, people, campaigning was being examined, rebuilt, improved. That, I suspect, is what Starmer is doing. Labour in late 2023 will be a different party (so long as he can keep control of it until then, and all the signs are that he is a ruthless operator who will). He is a deep thinker, unlike Boris, not opportunist or over-emotional. He has to play a long game and so far he is playing it well. He looks a bit dull, but after 5 years of Boris their will be a swing to dullness! But also to policies which resonate with what people will want – which will be nothing much to do with vaccines.
The Trouble he(Starmer) doesn’t Think, He is !) A Fence sitter “2) Chooses A Remainer for hartlepool May 6 which voted Leave by 70% 3) Jumps on Any fashionable bandwagon (Blm),As bad as Ed Davey, Boris Johnson Are…He is Iain Duncan Smith with Hair….. Vote Independent May 6.. Some of the posts on here,are just plain daft, When I knock on doors people NEVER ask about ”Trans issues” or ”Climate change’ but they do Ask’..about 1) decline of town centres even b4 SARS2 2) disapearing countryside 3) flytipping etc..
The next election is a long way away. Plenty of time for Johnson’s court jester routine to become boring and post-Brexit economic issues to outweigh cultural ones. People rarely win UK elections, they usually lose them. Rather than looking at why Starmer can’t win, it might be more appropriate to look at why Johnson might lose. Having surrounded himself with talentless yes-men he might yet face an unpleasant reckoning…
Also plenty time for him to recover and to mature into the role. Why so negative about the man who’s played a blinder on vaccinations? ‘talentless yes men’, oh so you mean instead he’s surrounded by highly talented independent-minded women such as Kate Bingham who masterminded the vaccine purchase?
Kate Bingham is nothing to do with Conservative Party, but is a single appointment, and clearly a successful one. Meanwhile Johnson has lied about the Irish Border, lied about the NHS, failed to respond to COVID, giving the UK the highest death rate, and appointed a bunch of talentless Yes People.
Yes of course, apart from being married to Jessie Norman MP Financial Secretary to the Treasury she has absolutely nothing to do with the conservative party.
The pandemic has made this a very difficult time to be in opposition, and Starmer clearly has some housework to do, but Thatcher’s first efforts as Tory leader were not seen as impressive, and Johnson has made so many promises which he simply cannot keep. There are going to be problems with Northern Ireland, Scotland, levelling up, and the post-Brexit economy, as well as the obvious fault lines in his nationalist coalition between wealthier traditional Tories in the South and Red Wall voters, so it is quite possible that if Labour find the right balance of ingredients they will look rather more appealing come 2024. Nationalism is the tool the Tories are currently using to bind together a very broken country, broken largely by themselves with their pitiless and now discredited insistence on cutting the services on which the most vulnerable depend, but if nationalism – as seems inevitable -actually leads to a reduction in our economy and capacity to improve lives, the government will quite quickly find itself in trouble.
Nationalism means investing in the nation.so improving the economy and capacity to improve lives.
I despise Johnson because of his demolition of the economy brought about by lock downs, nothing to do with becoming an independent nation.
It’s quite a lesson to read some of the comments made here about the Labour Party.
Once we get past the old nonsenses about lack of patriotism – think of the Russian oligarch money swirling round the Tory party at the moment – the ludicrous claims about racism and xenophobia – the traditional “pleasurable vices of the right”, and the rose-tinted views of those not working in the gig economy, it is clear that Labour’s problems go back beyond even the war criminal Blair and his pet (very) peculiar Mandelson.
New Labour kept all the old Thatcherite vices until they blew up in 2007/8.
But for all their problems, at least they will avoid the blame for the coming storm.
And they need a new, serious leader, clearly not the current one, or any of his useless shadow cabinet.
‘But for all their problems, at least they will avoid the blame for the coming storm.’
Do you care to bet on it? Johnson is a master in the art of pinning the blame elsewhere than on himself and making it stick.Mainly because the MSM let him get away with it. Members of his Cabinet are also learning fast.
We’re already in a one party state. It’s not looking like Labour are going to overturn it any time soon. Not likely in my lifetime anyway.
This is the same old narrative that was used to justify Trump. Remarkable how London politics is simply dismissed as an aberration. Which place contributes the most to the UK economy; London or Hartlepool? And sic, ‘The Working Class’! Please, please, bring on PR.