X Close

Is it the Tories who are doomed? Labour has a coalition designed for winning in 2040

Credit: Getty


May 10, 2021   6 mins

One of the least well-known stories about Boris Johnson’s time at Oxford involves an incident one Easter when, as he was pondering suicide, a stray dog followed him home. When Boris returned to his study, the animal transformed into Mephistopheles and there offered to make everything he wants in life come true (with one tiny catch).

How else do we explain the Prime Minister’s incredibly good fortune, which now seems likely to carry him to another election victory in a couple of years’ time? Barely 12 months after almost imitating his hero Pericles by dying of the plague, Boris is unassailable, credited not just with the successful vaccine programme, but more bizarrely, ending the European Super League, thereby making him the saviour of English football on top of everything else.

But fortuna has most favoured Boris with his timing; he’s leader of the Tory Party at a time when political changes beyond his control are acting to make it invincible. Ten years ago, its primacy wouldn’t have been possible, and neither will it be in another ten.

While the Government has no doubt benefited from the vaccine effect, the underlying cause of last week’s Hartlepool result is the Great Realignment of politics: in short, the political divide is no longer about economics but values.

There are various reasons for this shift, but globalisation is the central theme; a process that has been speeding up since this epoch began in December 2001 with China’s admission to the WTO. That Hartlepool, or Blyth Valley or Don Valley are now to be found in the Conservative camp isn’t inevitable, but it is highly probable; neither Jeremy Corbyn nor Keir Starmer nor Attlee himself could have stopped it.

Following last week’s results, UnHerd featured voices from the three wings of the former Labour coalition, which you might call the Corbynite, Blairite and Blue Labour factions. This realignment is taking place partly because the latter has dropped out of the coalition, or been pushed out; as Paul Embery argued, the two other wings essentially have a great deal in common, as much as they like fighting on social media.

They are a logical coalition, broadly sharing an internationalist and socially liberal worldview. The problem is that, without Blue Labour, they don’t have enough voters to win, a problem aggravated by the fact that progressives tend to self-segregate geographically, which is extremely unhelpful in a first-past-the-post system.

On top of this, the radical Left, often too interested in politics and their own moral purity, are very off-putting to a large number of voters and bad at compromise and coalition-building — more fortuna for Boris.

Yet if current demographic trends continue, these two groups will have enough voters to win. Not by the next election, but maybe the one after. For despite Johnson’s victory last week, Labour now has a coalition designed for winning in the Britain of 2040. They have strong support among the young, unmarried, renters and ethnic minorities — all the groups which are demographically ascendent.

In particular, the age gap is the most worrying thing for Conservatives. The idea that most people start off as excitable socialists who want to change the world and darken into cynical conservatives is historically exaggerated. Thatcher did very well among 18-24-year-olds, for instance, and the under-30s aren’t anywhere near as rebellious as popular culture wants them to be. Most in fact tend to be quite conformist, following the prevailing culture noises around them – which is exactly what should worry the Tories. Crucially, their values aren’t shifting as they age; unless that changes, then at some point the demographic balance will tip towards Labour, and quite heavily.

This was the underlying theme of my book, Small Men on the Wrong Side of History, published with rather unfortunate timing just months after Boris’s huge election victory. For the time being, however, this trend won’t win elections because it is concentrated among certain professions, the university-educated, and the metropolitan. That’s a minority of people, in an even smaller minority of seats, but history shows that populations tend to adopt the belief systems of high-status members over time. Twitter isn’t Britain, but in a generation or so it probably will be.

I’ve often read the comforting argument that the young will rebel against the “woke wave” — but there is little evidence of that, except in small clusters. Few of us are naturally non-conforming or rebellious, because most of us don’t want to be unpopular and having unpopular political beliefs take a toll on wellbeing. Young people won’t rebel against wokery anymore than young people in late 4th century Rome rebelled against Christianity. And the new religion is stronger and more powerful, so much so that it can successfully dictate what society’s taboos are, and what is beyond the pale to say. No ideology can compete with that.

At some point, the “woke” worldview which has come to the fore in the United States since 2013, will start to spread enough to become electorally significant in Britain, and there will be a tipping point where liberals and progressives together will win. This will happen not long into the future: just as the Tories won an overwhelming majority in the Tees Valley last week, and even made gains in Durham, so they lost Tunbridge Wells and Cambridgeshire, a sign of things to come as the disappearance of younger Conservative voters in the professions begins to turn south-east England red.

Yet while much of this is to do with values and identity, there are also more banal material explanations. Recounting the awful conditions facing Russia’s urban underclass before the revolution, Orlando Figes described in A People’s Tragedy how Moscow landlords were able to prevent the authorities from building more homes for the desperate workers: “Such was the demand for accommodation that workers thought nothing of spending half their income on rent.” Only half their income, a twenty-something Londoner would complain, like the proverbial Monty Python Yorkshireman: When I was growing up, we paid 60%!

There is a noticeable link between high housing costs and voting for Left-wing parties, partly because affordable housing encourages people to start families, which makes them more conservative for a whole array of reasons: everything from a declining belief in the blank slate — a cornerstone of progressive thinking — to support for more traditional gender roles to economic conservatism.

Voting also maps on to population density; the more people per square mile, the more Left-wing people become on average. Meanwhile, urban people adopt more of the character traits associated with being progressive; they’re more likely to be mentally ill, for example, which correlates with liberalism, more likely to be sexually progressive, innovative and open to new experiences, and trusting of a wider circle of people.

There is also the effect of people’s social milieus; if everyone around you believes something, most people come to adopt those beliefs. Anti-Toryism is almost a social norm for young people — something accelerated by housing costs — but at some point the social network becomes so anti-Tory that even home-owning does not flip a person’s politics.

The trend I’ve outlined is, of course, Londoncentric — for now — but then things are different outside the capital; for all the chatter about the North being deprived, the sort of people who vote Tory in the Red Wall (and even more so in the Midlands) are doing okay. They can afford their own home and car, with enough income to afford a decent holiday and gym membership, while their university-educated contemporaries in London are living in squalid flat shares in their 30s, without any prospect of affording a family, their politics getting redder and their hair bluer.

Both these cultural and economic trends are going against the Conservatives; house inflation continues to rise and fertility continues to fall — yet despite this Britain’s population is growing and therefore becoming more urban.

And here is another long-term advantage for the Left: immigration and its longer-term effects. While modern progressivism is increasingly repulsive to a lot of minority voters, in every western democracy the Left have a plurality or majority among non-white populations (although this varies from Canada at one end, where it has been very narrow, to France, where the gap is huge). This is because the Left-Right divide is essentially about the conflict between national and global identities, and there is little that conservatives can do to overturn that advantage (although they can, and should, reduce it by being moderate).

To put it simply, demographically Britain under 30 is very different to Britain over 50. It’s going to be more diverse, more urban, more single, more university-educated and more impoverished by rental prices. Its values are completely different.

So, unless something is done about housing costs, this wave of disappointment will wash away today’s Tory advantage. So far, the best proposal has been Policy Exchange’s Street Votes, which would potentially create millions of new homes without touching the Green Belt, while also making lots of suburban homeowners immensely rich. That one idea, more than any other, might lay the ground for a future Tory home-owning majority.

In the meantime, as housing inflation sadly denies more people the chance of a decent life, we will see the Tory desert in overpriced London constituencies start to spread outwards. And when the time comes, Labour will almost certainly capture once-unimaginable areas of the Home Counties and Thames Valley, just as the Democrats win almost all the most expensive ZIP codes in the US.

But for now Boris can kick around and enjoy his great advantage, with an enfeebled opposition whose values repulse much of the country, knowing that he truly has the luck of the devil. But Mephistopheles, and demography, will come for him and his party eventually.


Ed West’s book Tory Boy is published by Constable

edwest

Join the discussion


Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber


To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.

Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.

Subscribe
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

454 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Vikram Sharma
Vikram Sharma
3 years ago

There is no inevitability as described here. If the Tories manage two more terms and stay focussed on their task, they could turn this tide. A few suggestions:

  • explain the difference between managed skilled migration with strict controls against the Ponzi scheme of ever increasing unskilled migration. Do this with facts and figures.
  • detoxify universities. the left has completely occupied public organisations with a common purpose. Insist on political neutrality as non-negotiable
  • fearlessly expose voter fraud in certain communities and constituencies, and the low level corruption that infests those biradaris. Don’t be scared of being called racists for pointing out illegality.
  • challenge the left on wokery. Demand to know where the left stands on pulling down statues, renaming streets, decolonising the curriculum etc. If as they claim the culture wars have been started by the right, let the left refuse to engage by saying that these are not priority matters for the Left.
  • speak up for the country. Big it up for what it is- a tiny island with few natural resources that managed to become an empire through sheer grit, determination and ingenuity.
  • refuse to judge the past my modern standards. Just refuse.
  • treat voters like grown ups. Have a conversation and don’t hector.
  • don’t let the SNP get away by playing the victim card. Many Scots know the benefits of the Union but some are blinded by anti-English bias. They can be won over. Or at least worth trying
  • finally, stay as far away as you can from transgender and identity politics. Just refuse to engage with the matter.
Last Jacobin
Last Jacobin
3 years ago
Reply to  Vikram Sharma

Respectfully, I think the point of the article is that all of the things you suggest in the above are being rejected by the demographic and cultural changes that are already becoming dominant.

Fraser Bailey
Fraser Bailey
3 years ago
Reply to  Last Jacobin

Fair and transparent voting practices are certainly a victim of demographic and cultural changes. The Tories need to severely restrict postal voting, the expansion of which was introduced by Labour to exploit third world voting practices.
Moreover, largely as a consequence of Labour’s enthusiasm for the foibles of certain groups, there are now 10 or 11 Tory councillors in Rotherham, where previously there had been none.

Last edited 3 years ago by Fraser Bailey
Last Jacobin
Last Jacobin
3 years ago
Reply to  Fraser Bailey

Not sure I follow. Are you saying there’s a problem with postal vote fraud? I’m sure there have been incidences – Tower Hamlets in 2014 comes to mind – but I’m not sure there is inherently a problem with it in principle.

Fraser Bailey
Fraser Bailey
3 years ago
Reply to  Last Jacobin

There are no problems with many things in principle. But it’s the practice that counts.

Chris Wheatley
Chris Wheatley
3 years ago
Reply to  Fraser Bailey

To throw doubt on voting practices without evidence, to say that elections could be fraudulent just for the sake of saying it, is irresponsible and anarchic.
Let’s just go to voting by internet and complain about that.

Quentin Vole
Quentin Vole
3 years ago
Reply to  Chris Wheatley

‘Absentee’ voting, whether postal or via the Internet, is a significant problem for any democratic system if it becomes sufficiently widespread. There’s a strong reason for having a secret ballot – neither coercion nor bribery can force me to vote in a particular way. But secret ballots are not possible if the vote is not taking place in a private location (a polling booth).

Giulia Khawaja
Giulia Khawaja
3 years ago
Reply to  Quentin Vole

Why is it so difficult to upvote.

Sean MacSweeney
Sean MacSweeney
3 years ago
Reply to  Chris Wheatley

Certain “communities” don’t share our values of fairness when it comes to voting, I won’t name them, but we all know who they are

Ian Wigg
Ian Wigg
3 years ago

Labour?

Charlie Walker
Charlie Walker
3 years ago
Reply to  Fraser Bailey

Did anyone see Boris’s answer to Adam from Business Insider’s “question” re voter ID?
“Nonsense”
Almost as good as Hancock’s answer to Laura Kuenssberg last week

Tom Graham
Tom Graham
3 years ago
Reply to  Last Jacobin

The problem in principle and in practice is that it is far more open to fraud and coercion.

Fraser Bailey
Fraser Bailey
3 years ago
Reply to  Tom Graham

Very true, but there may be some good news on this front. Apparently the govt is bringing in photo ID for voting, to be announced in tomorrow’s Queen’s speech. This should deprive Labour of a few more ill gotten seats. Just last week a number of people turned up to vote only to be told that they had already voted. One of them was an election lawyer!

Last edited 3 years ago by Fraser Bailey
Kremlington Swan
Kremlington Swan
3 years ago
Reply to  Fraser Bailey

I really don’t see why all this technology is needed.
Every voter is sent a card. Take that card with you to the polling station and have your name crossed off.
There may be ways to defraud this system, but I would have thought a lot of effort would be required, and any successes would have marginal impact.
Taking your card to a polling station should be the minimum level of effort required of a voter.
Frankly, if you can’t be bothered to make that small effort the democratic process is better off without your input.

Derek M
Derek M
3 years ago

But you don’t have to take it

Johnny Sutherland
Johnny Sutherland
3 years ago
Reply to  Derek M

Not at present but I think the idea is a suggestion not what currently happens.

Jean Fothers
Jean Fothers
3 years ago
Reply to  Fraser Bailey

Also apparently, this “conservative” govt is thinking of bringing in votes for 16 year-olds.
Have they learned nothing from Scotland and snp?

Ann Ceely
Ann Ceely
3 years ago
Reply to  Fraser Bailey

Ive already got 2 voter-ids – Passport and Driving License

Chris Wheatley
Chris Wheatley
3 years ago
Reply to  Tom Graham

This is a more responsible way of saying it.

mike otter
mike otter
3 years ago
Reply to  Last Jacobin

Postal voting is wrong in principle because it is not transparent. Anyone could have bought or stolen the vote and there is no way to tell. Casting your ballot in person is not immune to threats and bribes but a truly secret ballot cannot be achieved by postal votes. The only postal votes allowed should be those unable to get to the polls. This may be due to illness or they are working overseas or offshore etc. Then they would need to place a blank slip given them by an electoral official into a sealed envelope in plain site, expensive, but worth it IMO. Bridari got our local ward councillors elected last week and some of the vote was harvested along clan lines, some on genuine enthusiasm for our excellent local councillors. They are not Labour.

Robin Lambert
Robin Lambert
3 years ago
Reply to  mike otter

My thoughts entirely, A ”Remainer ” ”I’ve Voted Twice” In EU referendum ,once in london & in Oxford home..”student bragged in June 2016,when I was an Independent in Local Ward by election….I think the Article is fallacious,.. Greens are eating into loony ‘left’ Vote &lib-dems.. ‘SDP’ eating into moderate left Vote , ‘Reform’ into Tories. in future…However Dopey Starmer should see Council victories in Bristol & Oxford,(Chipping Norton) are because Tories are Changing Rural Planning Laws Not Popular…Concreting over England’s farms,Meadows,Grasslands etc…

Last edited 3 years ago by Robin Lambert
Dougie Undersub
Dougie Undersub
3 years ago
Reply to  Robin Lambert

Not that tired old concreting over England nonsense again, please. It’s just not true.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42554635.amp

Dominic S
Dominic S
3 years ago

Given that its mini-cities like Brighton and Bristol going Green it can’t be concreting the countryside that’s the issue there.

Simon Baggley
Simon Baggley
3 years ago

You reference the BBC

Tom Fox
Tom Fox
3 years ago
Reply to  Simon Baggley

You only need to google ‘britain from space at night’ to see that that isn’t true. I’ll try and paste a link.comment image



Last edited 3 years ago by Tom Fox
Robin Lambert
Robin Lambert
3 years ago

You are talking Nonsense,the BBC is inaccurate 7% of West midlands was built on last year, See CPRE,Migration watch… ..

David J
David J
3 years ago

Fly with me over the Oxfordshire Cotswolds, and I will show you market towns and villages growing like crazy. All turning into commuter havens, with few alternatives to private transport.

William meadows
William meadows
3 years ago
Reply to  Last Jacobin

If you can’t get off your but, once every two years and vote, that’s your problem. I don’t want to be ruled by the aphthy party. Postal votes for the ill and the over 80s only.

Jim Jones
Jim Jones
3 years ago

How would you determine who truly needs a postal vote though whatever system you devise would be basically just be a waste of money

Richard Lord
Richard Lord
3 years ago
Reply to  Last Jacobin

How can it be sensible that you can turn up to a polling station with no poll card or ID, state a name and address (available on a public register) and place a vote? If you’re registered in two places ie students, it’s possible (although illegal) to vote twice in a national election.

The current system is wide open to abuse and needs updating urgently.

Bertie B
Bertie B
3 years ago
Reply to  Last Jacobin

Had to upvote as a counter measure – you guys sound like you have been listening too closely to Trump! Just because people who might use postal votes don’t equally support both sides of the debate doesn’t make them fraudulent. If theres fraud – prove it.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
3 years ago
Reply to  Bertie B

And how do you suggest we do that may I ask?

For a state that can’t even arrest & charge the killer of Ms Ashli Babbitt, despite the overwhelming video evidence, one must conclude that the Rule of Law has been suspended, possibly forever.

Consummatum est.

Ian Wigg
Ian Wigg
3 years ago
Reply to  Bertie B

It doesn’t matter whether postal voting benefits Labour, Conservative or The Monster Raving Loony Party. If it allows relatively easy voting fraud then it should be banned except for strictly prescribed circumstances.

Having said that, it does beg the question as to why rather than being a cross party concern, it’s the left which don’t want to see any restrictions on it (actually want to increase the availability) whereas the right want to restrict it.

Couldn’t be that it is beneficial to the Left?

Suggestion for simple method of identification.

At polling station enter NI number and post code. If validated machine issues a polling slip. Not foolproof but way better than nothing and relatively cheap with no “state surveillance” connotations.

Saul D
Saul D
3 years ago
Reply to  Bertie B

For elections, like many administrative processes, the burden of proof is on the election officials to show the election was fair. Hence observed voting, observed counting, recounts and rules over chain of custody and transparency.
If there is a claim of fraud, then the election officials ensure they can demonstrate every process, procedure and count was done correctly.
If something smells, it is not for the accuser to prove their case, but for the election officials to demonstrate thoroughly that there were no issues and the claim has no basis.

Giulia Khawaja
Giulia Khawaja
3 years ago
Reply to  Last Jacobin

Certain groups of people subscribe to voting patterns endemic in less democratically advanced societies.

Chris Hopwood
Chris Hopwood
3 years ago
Reply to  Fraser Bailey

……..but in the West Midlands the (successful) Tory Mayoral candidate had been urging people to postally vote for at least the last couple of months

Ian Wigg
Ian Wigg
3 years ago
Reply to  Chris Hopwood

When in Rome

Johannes Kreisler
Johannes Kreisler
3 years ago
Reply to  Last Jacobin

But Vikram outlines how those demographic and cultural changes  can be successfully prevented, before they happen. In short, make wokery ‘uncool’ and deeply reprehensible for the younger people. A lot of sufficiently intelligent, educated youngs are leftists due to peer pressure, compulsive conformism, cultural insecurity. They will remain trapped in it until *someone* has the courage to point out the emperor has no clothes. (By ‘someone’ i mean the education system / media etc., not us lone individual voices in comment sections.)

Last Jacobin
Last Jacobin
3 years ago

But what will really happen if ‘wokery’ isn’t made uncool? Will it really be the end of society as we know it or just a slightly different version of it where people are more accepting of racial, cultural and gender differences and diversity?

Johannes Kreisler
Johannes Kreisler
3 years ago
Reply to  Last Jacobin

But it’s wokery who is not accepting of racial, cultural etc. differences at all. The wokes insist that no such differences exist, all cultures are somehow indiscriminately “equal”.

Zach Thornton
Zach Thornton
3 years ago

Woke is a slippery term. You define woke according to most extreme interpretation possible. I am extremely critical of the excesses of wokeness but would nonetheless consider myself woke. I am willing to sincerely listen to others with a different experience to my own and I am interested in learning about colonialism and imperialism, rather than whitewashing the British Empire. My point is that you interpret even the most lukewarm attempt to accomodate someone elses point of view as wokery gone mad. It’s an equally, if not more problematic proposition.

Ted Ditchburn
Ted Ditchburn
3 years ago
Reply to  Zach Thornton

I am interested in learning about good things European civilisation has given the world, rather than denigrating the British Empire … Sorry I am revealing built in bias.
Of course one wants neither to whitewash or denigrate anything, not colonialism, imperialism , vaccine based medecine, democracy, or whatever…one wants to study them in the round and not through a narrow political prism that is around now, and won’t be in even a few years time.

Zach Thornton
Zach Thornton
3 years ago
Reply to  Ted Ditchburn

I have had conversations where people have justified the domination of India by Britain as having been a net benefit for Indians. The person in question (who had travelled to India) cited the railways and India’s parliamentary system. YouGov released statistics in the last few years showing around 40% of Brits thought the Empire had been a benefit for the colonised. This reveals the level of ingrained racism, in the sense that people are parroting the narrative that Britain merely went out into the world to civilise the barbarian and inferior races for their own good. The former colonised now live here and will not put up with it. They were ignored in earlier decades but now a large amount of white Brits realise that it’s simply not good enough any more. Even this comment will have me demonised here as a communist infiltrator (has happened many times before) seeking to bring back the gulag. It’s obscene and from the very people crying identity politics at every turn. They just don’t call their own identity politics for what it really is.

Robin Lambert
Robin Lambert
3 years ago
Reply to  Zach Thornton

Were the French better at running india,before Plessey? of Course not, British Put in Ports &Railways, got rid of Corrupt Moghuls,and Caste System …Really You are desperate..Britain went out because it needed Markets beyond Europe….Inventing Horologist Clock &Navigation helped,well done john Harrison.. i notice You Omit, Dutch, French,Spanish Empires, and Arabs Inventing Slavery 2,000 years before Caucasians set foot in Africa…

Last edited 3 years ago by Robin Lambert
Zach Thornton
Zach Thornton
3 years ago
Reply to  Robin Lambert

The British Empire was a system of economic exploitation. Positive changes that arose were a fortunate by-product and not the intent. Next you’ll be arguing that the Mongol Empire was created in order to safeguard Eurasian trade routes and usher in religious tolerance. No, the Mongol Empire was about power and domination, just like our ancestral Empire. By the way, people like you always say you didn’t mention the arab slave or the Barbary Pirates. I didn’t mention them because I wasn’t talking about them. Do I need a 1,000 word foreword before any comment about the British Empire on social media? It’s frankly ridiculous. Stay on topic.

Robin Lambert
Robin Lambert
3 years ago
Reply to  Zach Thornton

Moghuls ,you twerp….I suggest You stay on topic….

J A Thompson
J A Thompson
3 years ago
Reply to  Zach Thornton

Having travelled in India and spoken to the actual people, I know there are many there who consider the English to have been of net benefit to their country. I presume you would hesitate to accuse them of ‘ingrained racism’

Zach Thornton
Zach Thornton
3 years ago
Reply to  J A Thompson

Most Indians prefer to be in charge of their own affairs. As I say, clearly everything that happened during the era of empire wasn’t bad. My point is that the empire was primarily a system of exploitation of people deemed to be racially inferior.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
3 years ago
Reply to  Zach Thornton

Invariably because they failed the ‘Darwinian Test’ of being able to defend
themselves. In India’s are deplorably so.

Last edited 3 years ago by CHARLES STANHOPE
Zach Thornton
Zach Thornton
3 years ago

Thank you for vindicating my comments.

Last Jacobin
Last Jacobin
3 years ago
Reply to  Zach Thornton

Well said.

Frederick B
Frederick B
3 years ago
Reply to  Zach Thornton

No, of course we British didn’t go out into the world to benefit the “natives”.. We went to make money, but we ended up doing two things: 1/ bringing statehood and modernity to the colonies 2/ creating new homelands for ourselves (Australia, Canada, NZ).
Of course there were mistakes and errors en route – did Britain really go to war with China on behalf of a drug cartel? – but we ended up creating the modern world with all its immeasurable benefits for the colonised. Most of the people alive in the world today would never have been born were it not for that modern world which we brought into being.

Zach Thornton
Zach Thornton
3 years ago
Reply to  Frederick B

We created a modern world setup for us and not for the colonised. That globalisation has spread modernity is scarcely justification for the destruction of entire indigenous groups and ways of life. Stop trying to justify imperial crimes. You must understand that people have ancestors alive today who were tortured by British colonial troops. The crimes of empire are still felt. People don’t want this pathetic self-justification. Imagine the Third Reich justifying the Holocaust 200 years after the fact by saying there was now a United and white European superstate. It’s abhorrent and that’s pretty close to how you sound.

Johannes Kreisler
Johannes Kreisler
3 years ago
Reply to  Zach Thornton

 am interested in learning about colonialism and imperialism, rather than whitewashing the British Empire.

It’s not that we are uninformed or underinformed about colonialism or s|avery or imperialism – quite on the contrary, we are pretty sufficiently learned about all that. It’s that we don’t regard any of those as the ultimate sins and unspeakable atrocities the wokes want us to regard them as. Yes, they happened. Every nation was at some point in history colonised / colonising, ens|aved/ens|aving, many were multiple times. We got over it. It’s only the inept ones who still insist on using them as figleaves to cover up their historical ineptitude. 

wokery gone mad.

Wokery has never been sane to start with. What’s barking insane from the beginning cannot go mad. It stays mad.

Zach Thornton
Zach Thornton
3 years ago

If that’s the case how do you explain the prevalence in Britain today of the revisionist history that empire was a civilising mission rather than a system of economic exploitation?

Johannes Kreisler
Johannes Kreisler
3 years ago
Reply to  Zach Thornton

Because it was a civilising force as well at the same time.
Not that i agree with it, as i think civilisation cannot be imposed upon a society from the outside. It should occur from within. Africa is a prime example for that – no matter how much “civilisation” you keep throwing at it, it won’t stick.

Zach Thornton
Zach Thornton
3 years ago

This is precisely the type of attitude that those you view as ‘woke’ disagree with. How did forcing Indians to sell their fabrics to Britain at an artificially low price to then buy back finished clothing goods at a high price benefit Indian society? Empire was a system of economic exploitation created to benefit Britain, well, Britain’s ruling class in the main. The notion that it was spreading civilisation is self-justification after the fact. If you insist on adhering to this blantantly biased understanding of colonialism there is going to be rancour in society. Dismissing it as woke madness shows how weak your arguments must be and makes it impossible to transcend our past. How can we move forward, if we don’t even recognise what happened?

Last edited 3 years ago by Zach Thornton
Johannes Kreisler
Johannes Kreisler
3 years ago
Reply to  Zach Thornton

How can we move forward, if we don’t even recognise what happened?

We do recognise it. It’s just that our evaluation of it differs.
The Roman Empire colonising a large swath of the European landmass, North Africa, Near East is regarded as a civilising force on balance, regardless of the economic exploitations committed in the process. (It certainly proved to be catalyst of civilising in my old lands in Central Europe.)
Outcomes typically depend on who is doing the colonising to whom.

Zach Thornton
Zach Thornton
3 years ago

The Roman Empire was one of the most unequal civilisations to have ever existed. Gaul was destroyed in a genocide of massacres, torture and starvation. It can only be viewed as a civilising force from a remote point in time. It was the opposite for anyone that endured being on the receiving end of Rome’s imperial might.

Could you clarify what you mean by civilising in this context? Also, what part or era of the Roman Empire?

Andrew Raiment
Andrew Raiment
3 years ago
Reply to  Zach Thornton

How beneficial have the previous cultural revolutions been over the last 100 years. How many deaths, through imprisonment, torture and starvation, all under the banner of equity.

Last edited 3 years ago by Andrew Raiment
CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
3 years ago
Reply to  Zach Thornton

What utter nonsense, who on earth told you that?

The US is almost certainly “the most unequal civilisation that ever existed” In recent years, whilst you were no doubt asleep, they have “destroyed in massacres, torture snd starvation “ * much of the Middle East.

Whereas Rome the took the benefits of civilisation to millions, ‘you’ have destroyed on a truly epic scale.

In addition you cannot even prosecute the killer of Ms Ashli Babbitt, slaughtered in the vaunted Capitol Building.

Let that great Frenchman George Clemenceau have the last word. In 1919 he described the US “as a state that had gone from barbarism to decadence without the usual interval of civilisation “
Was he wrong? And has anything really changed?

(*Your rather clunky prose, if I may say so).

Last edited 3 years ago by CHARLES STANHOPE
Zach Thornton
Zach Thornton
3 years ago

The United States of America may well be the most unequal society that has ever existed. The trouble is that I made no such claim. The Roman Empire was one of the most unequal of the classic civilisations. 80% + of the inhabitants of the empire were subsistence peasants or slaves where food insecurity was common and their lives beholden to masters with vast wealth. Wealth from all over the empire was funelled to a relatively limited number of urban centres.
How you can claim Rome advanced civilisation to Gaul and keep a straight face is beyond me. The entire region was decimated by warfare, massacres and pillaging. Millions of people lost their lives or were sold into slavery. Civilising is an odd term to ascribe to such an event. I don’t know why you feel the need to mask violent historical periods with euphemistic language.

Johannes Kreisler
Johannes Kreisler
3 years ago
Reply to  Zach Thornton

violent historical periods 

The last relatively nonviolent historical period in Europe was the eneolithicum (Copper Age, as we continentals call it).

The Roman Empire was [….]

You don’t appear to know much about the Roman Empire, do you? Not beyond a dogeared SWP pamphlet titled ‘The History Of Class Struggle, with illustrations’, by the sound of it.

Last edited 3 years ago by Johannes Kreisler
Zach Thornton
Zach Thornton
3 years ago

You’ve demonstrated zero knowledge. You made an assertion without justification or evidence.

Anything to the left of Genghis Khan counts as the SWP to you. It’s laughable.

Johannes Kreisler
Johannes Kreisler
3 years ago
Reply to  Zach Thornton

Could you clarify what you mean by civilising in this context? 

It brought new technologies, innovations, artistic styles, etc. etc. to the regia involved. Unlike the soviet colonisation of the same parts much later, which effectively nuked them back to the stone age so to speak. Not all colonisations are equal.

Zach Thornton
Zach Thornton
3 years ago

You are so incredibly biased. The Roman Empire destroyed civilisations as much as it furthered civilisation.

Last Jacobin
Last Jacobin
3 years ago

We made a desert, and called it peace.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
3 years ago
Reply to  Last Jacobin

And who said that and it what context may I ask?

Last Jacobin
Last Jacobin
3 years ago

It’s a variation on a theme of Tacitus who put the words into Calgacus’ mouth in The Agricola. Calgacus was a Pictish chieftan who opposed the Romans. Originally it was ‘they make a desert’. I like to think Tacitus was a bit more self aware and knew he was questioning the moral right of the Roman Empire.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
3 years ago
Reply to  Last Jacobin

Thank you.
I couldn’t have put it better.

Simon Baggley
Simon Baggley
3 years ago
Reply to  Last Jacobin

Well done – must be time for your tea now

Arnold Grutt
Arnold Grutt
3 years ago
Reply to  Zach Thornton

“Dismissing it as woke madness shows how weak your arguments must be and makes it impossible to transcend our past.”

But it isn’t ‘our’ past (mine starts in 1953 but only legally-speaking in 1963, the age of criminal responsibility). It was the people of that times’ present. You are asserting a connection, a decisive link without documenting it. And the problem with documenting the past is that what we have left is fragments, random examples of particular things, survivals, sometimes unrelated and lacking in context, which are being interpreted as what they mean to people now. But that is not what they might have meant to particular people at that time.
You are doing what ideologues always do and reducing an irretrievable, complex, multi-faceted reality to a single directional thing and motive (as do, of course, those of your opponents who claim that the Empire was overall a good thing, which is equally meaningless) to be approved or disapproved of. But there were trillions squared of things happening, and as many motives for what went on in India over that period. One cannot reach any conclusion about the ‘rightfulness’ of what occurred either according to the ‘morals’ and standpoints of people at that time which are beyond access, or ours now. Only what one is compelled (without presupposition)to believe now about what is retrievable from that past. And this will never be as simple and unilateral as what you apparently wish to find.
Everything before one’s oldest grandparent’s birth is ‘history’ and by definition questionable, because there are no living witnesses. Not even film, memoirs, sound recordings or reported speech can be wholly trusted (because all are subject to possible interference or ‘shaping’ and selection).
History as a collection of randomly preserved actions cannot provide a secure foundation for a ‘moral’ attitude in the present, only philosophy, which is timeless. So the notion of ‘historical guilt in the present’ is worthless, except as an emotional spasm, such as that which you seem to be experiencing. That you do so changes nothing in the past, nor does it create any generational ‘responsibility’ now, among people who were not involved.

Last edited 3 years ago by Arnold Grutt
Fennie Strange
Fennie Strange
3 years ago
Reply to  Arnold Grutt

It’s about time someone made this important point – thank you Arnold Grutt, your comment deserves to be an article in its own right.

Simon Sharp
Simon Sharp
3 years ago
Reply to  Zach Thornton

Do you make the same black or white case for the Chinese dynastic empire – the Ottoman empire or any other? Can’t it be that that they produced things which still influence and benefit us now as well as producing atrocities?
reexplaining everything through a radical perspective of ‘economic exploitation’ rather than the chaotic messy reality of human history would be a prime example of reviionism.

Zach Thornton
Zach Thornton
3 years ago
Reply to  Simon Sharp

No, I agree that’s it’s complicated and many good things happened during the era of empire. What I disagree with is the historical revisionism that the purpose of empire was benign, even benevolent. The Mongol Empire brought about religious tolerance and led Europe and China interacting with unprecedented technological exchange. The Great Khan did not start his expansion for these aims but to enrich his clan and for power.

Simon Sharp
Simon Sharp
3 years ago
Reply to  Zach Thornton

so we’re both agreeing that reality is found in between the extremes of western culture being the epitome of evil and it being an undisputed shining good.
And neither of us are happy that some people seem so very keen on pushing those cartoon extremes?

Zach Thornton
Zach Thornton
3 years ago
Reply to  Simon Sharp

It seems so. The readers of Unherd – at least most of the commentators here – have a problem with that. The excesses of ‘wokeness’ justify whitewashing history in their mind. Would you agree?

Johannes Kreisler
Johannes Kreisler
3 years ago
Reply to  Zach Thornton

What I disagree with is the historical revisionism that the purpose of empire was benign, even benevolent. 

You still don’t get it. “Benevolence” is not something what was on the table. The purpose of empire-building, wars, conquest was to conquer. Not to benefit the conquered. Those who got conquered were not conquered because they were more benevolent or peaceful, but because they lacked the requisite wherewithal at the time to become conquerors themselves.
Benevolence as a “universal” virtue is a very newfangled (post-Enlightenment) concept.
Bemoaning the lack of benevolence in historical events is like PETA condemning the neanderthals for wearing fur and eating meat.

Last edited 3 years ago by Johannes Kreisler
Zach Thornton
Zach Thornton
3 years ago

I was not bemoaning a lack of benevolence. I was criticising the suggestion that the British Empire was a benefit for the colonised, rather than primarily a system exploitation benefitting Britain and it’s ruling class. You have made comments along these lines and that’s the issue.

Zach Thornton
Zach Thornton
3 years ago
Reply to  Zach Thornton

“Well meaning Belgian colonisers”

Christ on a bike!

Millions of people died during Belgian rule. Hands and arms were routinely hacked off by colonial administrators forcing people to work as slaves in jungle for their own profit.

You are unbelievably biased with how you excuse colonial crimes but so harshly condemn communist crimes in the same sentence. I suspect you’re too old to learn. Good day.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
3 years ago
Reply to  Zach Thornton

Who told you that ?
It was all about plunder and profit, as you Americans well know.
You virtually exterminated the indigenous inhabitants of your continent in an effort to “get rich quick”.
Granted, it worked for a few.

Zach Thornton
Zach Thornton
3 years ago

I am not American.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
3 years ago
Reply to  Zach Thornton

Canadian then?

Giulia Khawaja
Giulia Khawaja
3 years ago
Reply to  Zach Thornton

Your choice of words indicate your preconceived idea of the British Empire
“Colonialism” “ imperialism”
“ whitewashing”
Are you interested in learning about other empires as well?

Jim Jones
Jim Jones
3 years ago
Reply to  Giulia Khawaja

Do you know what whataboutery is?

Giulia Khawaja
Giulia Khawaja
3 years ago
Reply to  Jim Jones

Is it a pointless as your comment?

Jim Jones
Jim Jones
3 years ago
Reply to  Giulia Khawaja

Well evidently not in your opinion

Simon Baggley
Simon Baggley
3 years ago
Reply to  Jim Jones

In mine as well

Zach Thornton
Zach Thornton
3 years ago
Reply to  Giulia Khawaja

Indeed and I do. Why do you people always presume otherwise?

Simon Sharp
Simon Sharp
3 years ago
Reply to  Zach Thornton

who are ‘us people’?- if you mean the unherd commentariat then they are indeed the rag tag unwashed heathens that exist outside the borders of a specific left wing perspective but don’t like he Daily mail so much. I know to confirmed left wingers this unwashed mass can look homogenous – but the eyes can be deceiving.

Zach Thornton
Zach Thornton
3 years ago
Reply to  Simon Sharp

I mean people who spout ‘what about this empire’ as if it’s valid response. It’s a brain dead point.

Giulia Khawaja
Giulia Khawaja
3 years ago
Reply to  Zach Thornton

Who are “ you people” ? Why am I included in “you people” ?

Zach Thornton
Zach Thornton
3 years ago
Reply to  Giulia Khawaja

Commenting ‘what about this’ is not a valid line of argument. It’s a poor attempt to derail the conversation.

Paul Savage
Paul Savage
3 years ago
Reply to  Last Jacobin

But “wokery” isn’t more accepting of diversity at all is it? Diversity of opinion is anathema to woke culture. People are hounded from their jobs for dissenting from the new “truths” that cannot be questioned.

Last edited 3 years ago by Paul Savage
Simon Baggley
Simon Baggley
3 years ago
Reply to  Last Jacobin

It isn’t about accepting differences which everyone should agree with – it’s when some differences are elevated against the majorities will by a vocal minority and become the dominant cultural force

Brian Dorsley
Brian Dorsley
3 years ago
Reply to  Last Jacobin

Mark, I studied Critical Race Theory last year. I didn’t want to, but it was part of my doctorate course. The whole point of the course was about eradicating ‘whiteness’ with the admittance that this could not come about without some shedding of ‘white’ blood. These were tenured well-paid professors saying this, not idealistic angry students. ‘Wokery’ is not tolerance – it is a racist and sexist ideology that categorizes people based on inherent characteristics, and then tells both groups they are enemies. It’s a form of ‘peasant’ management by those who have a vested interest in stoking hatred.

Chris Wheatley
Chris Wheatley
3 years ago
Reply to  Last Jacobin

You make this sound like a competition between a New Statesman article and a Spectator headline. Woke is doing more than making things equal, it is over-compensating. Do you actually need positive discrimination for every single question? Do you need to allow arguments about gender if a very large part of the population think it is just silly and tiresome.
Woke is fashionable. Is it always good for a country to follow every fashion?

Johnny Rottenborough
Johnny Rottenborough
3 years ago

Johannes Kreisler—But Vikram outlines how those demographic and cultural changes can be successfully prevented, before they happen
Labour and the Conservatives initiated the demographic and cultural changes in the late 1940s and they have no intention of allowing the changes to be prevented. For example, patriotic parties are closed down by the authorities; a favourite tactic is to imprison their leaders to break them.

mike otter
mike otter
3 years ago
Reply to  Last Jacobin

Wokism is angry, racist and violent. These are not demographic or cultural phenomena, they are mental health or civic order issues. I know very few people under (or over) 40 who are like that. Its perfectly possible that a peaceful, democratic government will be elected 2028 thru 40 and they will work to reduce the worst of life’s unequal outcomes or to reduce police & criminal violence etc. However that could just be Boris’ Tories or Blair’s Labour and it certainly won’t/can’t be wokists.

Ted Ditchburn
Ted Ditchburn
3 years ago
Reply to  mike otter

spot on…it won’t be Corbyn’s Labour either..tbh Woke is like an inferior version of *try to understand and respect others* with added politically motivated stupid bits tacked on by various versions of outdated Marxist thinking that wants, as ever, to undermine society and create divisions because as they famously say, they will never achieve power through democracy, only direct action.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
3 years ago
Reply to  Last Jacobin

Isn’t that just cryptic code for we have been invaded and are now being outbred by ‘others’?

Last Jacobin
Last Jacobin
3 years ago

Only if you split people up as ‘people who are like me’ and ‘the others’. The cultural shifts are as important as the demographics.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
3 years ago
Reply to  Last Jacobin

Has it not always been so. Romans and Peregrini,
Greeks and Barbarians, even Brahmins and Untouchables?

Johannes Kreisler
Johannes Kreisler
3 years ago
Reply to  Last Jacobin

Oh, the old “othering” chestnut.
Do you really believe that the blindingly obvious differences between European nations and the vast, functionally illiterate, ineducable masses floating into Europe should be overlooked? Really? Why?

Last Jacobin
Last Jacobin
3 years ago

Because they are people, worthy of respect and have the same rights to a decent life as anyone else. Appreciate this may seem like a hopelessly idealistic view but it is in essence the difference between those on the right and those on the left.

Johannes Kreisler
Johannes Kreisler
3 years ago
Reply to  Last Jacobin

Because they are people

Yes they are people. Nobody mistakes them for algæ, pigeons or shrubs.

 worthy of respect 

Courtesy, not respect. Respect is earnt, whereas courtesy is afforded to all, indiscriminately, even to those not worthy of respect.
That said, them being people and being worth of courtesy/respect is no reason to accommodate them in any country/society they wish to live in. They can be people and given respect in their own natural habitats, be it Africa or the M.E.

Last Jacobin
Last Jacobin
3 years ago

So, they are people but not people with the same right to a try and make a decent life as people born elsewhere?
Respect, as in respect their rights as people, not legal or territorial rights but human.
‘Their own natural habitats’ – so their natural habitats are somehow different from mine?

Johannes Kreisler
Johannes Kreisler
3 years ago
Reply to  Last Jacobin

So, they are people but not people with the same right to a try and make a decent life as people born elsewhere?

Yes, that’s correct. Same as i don’t have the same rights in someone else’s country (or house, land, etc.) as the inhabitants do.

as in respect their rights as people, not legal or territorial rights but human

There’s no such thing as “human rights”. It’s a made-up, make-believe dogma.

‘Their own natural habitats’ – so their natural habitats are somehow different from mine?

Yes. It’s a different geographical location. Presuming you’re a native of Europe, your natural habitat is different from Antarctica or Africa or the Pacific Islands, no?

Last edited 3 years ago by Johannes Kreisler
Last Jacobin
Last Jacobin
3 years ago

I agree human rights is a made up idea – just as the notion of countries or continents or geography or property rights or law is made up. All ideas are made up. We just disagree about which made up ideas we choose to believe in.

Johannes Kreisler
Johannes Kreisler
3 years ago
Reply to  Last Jacobin

But continents and geography are tangible material items. Countries / nations, property rights, laws discern tangible constructs, as well as abstract constructs.
Human rights” fly in the face of natural laws. Natural rights are ethics based and constant. ‘Human’ rights are arbitrary and irrational, therefore a fallacy.

Diarmid Weir
Diarmid Weir
3 years ago

‘Natural rights are ethics based’…? What ethics…whose ethics…?

Johannes Kreisler
Johannes Kreisler
3 years ago
Reply to  Diarmid Weir

Laws of reciprocity for example.
Doing unto others and others doing unto you, that sort of thing.
Morals are ephemeral, arbitrary, culture-dictated, fallible. Ethics are constant.
It’s for a good reason that Justitia is depicted with a scale, blindfolded.

Diarmid Weir
Diarmid Weir
3 years ago

Reciprocity on its own isn’t very helpful – it’s compatible with all sorts of horrendous acts. And where do such rules come from? Are they God-given, have they evolved, or what?

Johannes Kreisler
Johannes Kreisler
3 years ago
Reply to  Diarmid Weir

And where do such rules come from? Are they God-given, have they evolved, or what?

Recognised. Just like the π (and any such constants), which are neither God-given nor evolved, just are. Recognised, observed.

Reciprocity on its own isn’t very helpful – it’s compatible with all sorts of horrendous acts. 

Indeed. Still at least a measure of justice. The arbitrariness of injustice is compatible with all sorts of horrendous acts as well, on top of being unjust.

Diarmid Weir
Diarmid Weir
3 years ago

You can’t liken moral ‘laws’ to laws of nature; that is a basic fallacy. There are predictable consequences to ignoring natural laws irrespective of whether they are ‘recognised’ or not – whereas the consequences of breaking moral laws are contingent on the actions of other people.

Johannes Kreisler
Johannes Kreisler
3 years ago
Reply to  Diarmid Weir

Yes. You are reiterating what i said.

Diarmid Weir
Diarmid Weir
3 years ago

Absolutely not. You are claiming a special status for some ‘moral laws’ whilst denying such status to codified human rights – but you have provided no basis whatsoever for such a distinction .

Johannes Kreisler
Johannes Kreisler
3 years ago
Reply to  Diarmid Weir

No. On the opposite, i said ‘moral laws’ are arbitrary, ephemeral, prone to fallacy.
You may want to re-read my previous comments.

Diarmid Weir
Diarmid Weir
3 years ago

‘Morals’, ‘ethics’ – you really want to argue that these are different concepts? On what basis would you do so? If ‘recognition’ is your criterion, then where is the evidence for this recognition? If it exists where does it come from and what is its significance?

Johannes Kreisler
Johannes Kreisler
3 years ago
Reply to  Diarmid Weir

Of course they are different concepts.
I suggest you re-read my previous posts, i answered your questions already.

If ‘recognition’ is your criterion, then where is the evidence for this recognition? If it exists where does it come from and what is its significance?

Where does the circumference to diameter ratio of a circle come from? From the Easterbunny?
The evidence of its recognition is in its formula, and in its assigned (imperfect) decimal value.

What is its significance?

The significance of its existence, or the significance of its recognition, you mean? If the latter, it signifies the observer’s understanding of it. Or if you meant the former, it’s just itself.

Diarmid Weir
Diarmid Weir
3 years ago

You need to consider more carefully how pi differs from an ‘ethical rule’ or ‘principle’ or whatever you want to call it.
No ‘observers’ who accurately divide the circumference of a circle by its diameter can disagree on the result. There is no such unarguable demonstration of any ethical rule.
If I ignore the value of pi in building my house with a semi-circular profile roof I will immediately be in trouble. If I ignore an ‘ethical rule’, there will be no consequences unless this is observed as such and punished by other people.
All ethical and moral rules are equally ‘arbitrary, ephemeral, prone to fallacy’ except to the extent that they are codified (not necessarily formally) and reliably bring consequences (to a lesser or greater degree) if observed to be broken. They do not exist (and thus cannot be ‘recognised’) prior to any such codification.

Johannes Kreisler
Johannes Kreisler
3 years ago
Reply to  Diarmid Weir

Example of ethical rule: “an eye for an eye” (reciprocity)
~ of moral rule: “turn the other cheek” (arbitrariness)

If I ignore an ‘ethical rule’, there will be no consequences unless this is observed as such and punished by other people.

Punished by law. Law enacted by those ‘other people’.

They do not exist (and thus cannot be ‘recognised’) prior to any such codification.

Recognition / observation comes before codification. What’s unrecognised cannot be codified.

Zach Thornton
Zach Thornton
3 years ago

Our natural habitat as human beings is land on planet Earth. You speak as if the people in a given place have evolved seperately to purely inhabit that region. The various peoples of Eurasia have been migrating, invading and breeding together for thousands of years.

Johannes Kreisler
Johannes Kreisler
3 years ago
Reply to  Zach Thornton

You speak as if the people in a given place have evolved seperately to purely inhabit that region. The various peoples of Eurasia have been migrating, invading and breeding together for thousands of years.

On the contrary. I speak in full knowledge of the various peoples of Eurasia interacting / invading / interbreeding / generally mingling and mixing with one another through millennia.

Zach Thornton
Zach Thornton
3 years ago

You want me to believe it’s just an innocent comment when you write that poor mostly brown people should stay in their natural habitat. Pull the other one.

Johannes Kreisler
Johannes Kreisler
3 years ago
Reply to  Zach Thornton

What is it then? Come on, spell it out. You mean it’s a waycisst comment, don’t you?
Newsflash: you are at full liberty to call me rac¡st as you please, any time. I don’t take offence in that. Nobody does.
To the point though, those “poor mostly brown people” you speak of are not entitled to live off the welfare systems of other people. There’s zero excuse for them to do so.

Last edited 3 years ago by Johannes Kreisler
Zach Thornton
Zach Thornton
3 years ago

I couldn’t care less how you feel about it.

Fraser Bailey
Fraser Bailey
3 years ago
Reply to  Last Jacobin

The grooming gang members, the Somalis causing mayhem across London, and the Albanian drugs gangs are not worthy of respect. I know they are in your world, but not in ours.
The terrifying fact is that had Labour held on to power for the last 11 years, not a single member of a single grooming gang would have been prosecuted.

Last edited 3 years ago by Fraser Bailey
Last Jacobin
Last Jacobin
3 years ago
Reply to  Fraser Bailey

So some immigrants are bad people, some aren’t. Some people born in UK for generations back are good people, some aren’t.
That’s not a ‘terrifying fact’ it’s an assertion that neither you or I can prove or disprove.

Johannes Kreisler
Johannes Kreisler
3 years ago
Reply to  Last Jacobin

“Some” is a quantifiable proportion. If a critical mass (which doesn’t have to be majority) shares a characteristic, it becomes a pattern.

Chris Wheatley
Chris Wheatley
3 years ago
Reply to  Last Jacobin

You are correct. Mr Bailey was making an assertion. Just like saying that there are thousands of people out there of uncertain gender. Couldn’t it just be cool to behave in a certain way? Could it be just an assertion?
Could it not just be a fashion to take a picture of yourself and your family and the dog kneeling with BLM signs – just to show your friends how cool you are?

Last edited 3 years ago by Chris Wheatley
Last Jacobin
Last Jacobin
3 years ago
Reply to  Chris Wheatley

Could be just a fashion. In which case why are so many people getting worked up about it as if it’s the end of civilisation?

Johannes Kreisler
Johannes Kreisler
3 years ago
Reply to  Last Jacobin

Because it translates into legislation, policies, economics, and has a very tangible effect on lives. That’s why. Wokery is not a victimless fad.

Chris Wheatley
Chris Wheatley
3 years ago
Reply to  Last Jacobin

Because we are changing our systems around the fashion, thereby sealing it in for a long time.
This is a fashion like hippies in the 60s/70s. Young people had long hair. But there was no rule which said that you could get the choice jobs if you had long hair, the BBC didn’t replace all of its newsreaders with long-haired hippies. There was no hate crime if you insulted somebody with long hair. We didn’t train primary school children that short hair was evil and that previous generations with short hair had to be forgotten.
It was a fashion and it went away.

Robin Lambert
Robin Lambert
3 years ago
Reply to  Chris Wheatley

As a failed hippie, Short haired ”Skinheads” were B**** & deservedly out of fashion..

Ted Ditchburn
Ted Ditchburn
3 years ago
Reply to  Fraser Bailey

Have you seen the stabbing figures in London over the last few years..they are rising off the scale.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
3 years ago
Reply to  Ted Ditchburn

Blsck on Black so no cause for alarm………yet.

Robin Lambert
Robin Lambert
3 years ago
Reply to  Fraser Bailey

The Police When I was in London for 40 years,released Figures for Crime per ethnic Make Up for London,turkish Drug Gangs,Caribbean ”Skunk” sellers made up alot of that,with Bangladeshi &Pakistani & VietnamesePeople traffickers, Why have these figures been stopped by Sadist Khan?… Knife crime &Turf Wars were Also rampant in South London & North..

kathleen carr
kathleen carr
3 years ago
Reply to  Last Jacobin

The two differences in respect are-be kind and do nothing to deliberately upset someone against do everything I demand or else.

Ted Ditchburn
Ted Ditchburn
3 years ago
Reply to  Last Jacobin

No it is not. People on the right respect others but without being so addicted to their own view of the world that they disregard obvious problems for people equally worthy of respect who may be already here .

Last Jacobin
Last Jacobin
3 years ago
Reply to  Ted Ditchburn

So that would explain the austerity policies of the 2010s? It was the Tories trying to protect the poor made poorer by the failures of capitalism?

Eleanor Barlow
Eleanor Barlow
3 years ago
Reply to  Last Jacobin

Yes they are people and have the same rights as anyone else. But it would be better for all if they stayed at home, unless they have skills that are in demand. Otherwise they end up on welfare benefits indefinitely, and have to be housed, provided with medical care and their children given an education – sometimes at the expense of the indigenous population.
Genuine refugees should be allowed in, but I question whether the UK immigration service is competent enough to suss out the fakes. Either that, or there are too many loopholes in immigration law for human rights lawyers to exploit.
For countries that are ruled so abysmally that they result in large numbers of asylum seekers, I favour taking over any assets they may have in the host country, to help pay for the upkeep of asylum seekers.

Chris Wheatley
Chris Wheatley
3 years ago
Reply to  Last Jacobin

But what if it is just a fashion? Do you wait for the next fashion to turn up and change everything again?

Last Jacobin
Last Jacobin
3 years ago
Reply to  Chris Wheatley

Is everything changing? The rich are still getting richer and the poor are staying poor. Personally, I think that’s what needs addressing.

Chris Wheatley
Chris Wheatley
3 years ago
Reply to  Last Jacobin

You are correct but you have changed the subject.
Strictly speaking, if you follow the way things will go in the USA, when there is a choice of people waiting for hospital beds, the non-white person will be chosen.
To follow exactly the same logic, if there is a choice between a man and a woman, you must choose the man. In that way you will have equality of life expectancy.
Everything should be as equal as possible. The choice between woke and non-woke is in fact between positive discrimination, on the one hand, and a slower, more deliberate path on the other hand.
Positive discrimination will remove a generation from the argument – anyone over 65 years old will not be fit to make the change. A slower change will allow everybody to take part.

Last Jacobin
Last Jacobin
3 years ago
Reply to  Chris Wheatley

I guess I am in favour of positive discrimination but not necessarily in the terms you lay out.
On health, for example, trying to ensure equality of coverage and equality of access might mean putting additional resources into areas where take up of services is low or where quality of services is low. This might be seen as woke but actually is beneficial to all as people will present sooner and ultimately could take up less resources to keep them healthy.
Life expectancy differences between men and women are not nearly as great as the differences between poor people and rich people. That would be the first area to address rather than try and equalise something that may be biological.
I don’t see ‘woke’, whatever it is, as being a significantly different trend than the anti-racist or anti-sexist or pro-environment trends of the past, for example. I know lots of people do.

Chris Wheatley
Chris Wheatley
3 years ago
Reply to  Last Jacobin

Ok, we agree to differ. But there is the question of fat shaming…….

Robin Lambert
Robin Lambert
3 years ago
Reply to  Last Jacobin

Really UK at 70million is OVERPOPULATED ..South east england at 440 per sq.Mile is more so than tokyo,New York,

Giulia Khawaja
Giulia Khawaja
3 years ago
Reply to  Last Jacobin

They are worthy of consideration as fellow humans. But so are the British and there has been very little consideration or respect for us, our lifestyle, traditions, history, from the increasingly powerful and demanding “others”.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
3 years ago
Reply to  Last Jacobin

No they don’t. Just as in Ancient Rome that privilege has to be earned. Worthy has no relevance at all.

Giulia Khawaja
Giulia Khawaja
3 years ago
Reply to  Last Jacobin

The Brits are not the ones doing the “splitting up”.
it is not only that there is now an unbalance of ethnicity, there is also an unbalance of class.

Richard Lord
Richard Lord
3 years ago
Reply to  Last Jacobin

I couldn’t disagree more. The MSM and twitterati make these woke issues appear dominant. The young I know are as scathing about it as older people.

gearyjohansen
gearyjohansen
3 years ago
Reply to  Last Jacobin

But they are only becoming dominant amongst the chattering classes. Everyone else has already rejected them. Wokeness has already been rejected as a social force, by the vast mass of people. Even most university students admit to beliefs they are unwilling to voice for fear of the mob or social censure. It’s a performative Western equivalent of North Korea. Only the dark triad types proven to be equally predominant amongst the alt Right and PC authoritarians, actually have anything to gain from the movement.

Starry Gordon
Starry Gordon
3 years ago
Reply to  Last Jacobin

In any case identity (as of race, ethnicity, language, region, religion, sex, sexual orientation, and so on) is not ideology or political practice. Identities emerge into importance only when the political machinery has seized up and most voters cannot materially further their interests at the polls.

Tim Beard
Tim Beard
3 years ago
Reply to  Vikram Sharma

Not a chance

No one with a brain should ever vote Tory again

Johannes Kreisler
Johannes Kreisler
3 years ago
Reply to  Tim Beard

Not even when not voting Tory puts Labour into government?

Andrew Fisher
Andrew Fisher
3 years ago
Reply to  Tim Beard

Classic! So the majority of the voters who voted Tory are brainless? What a brilliant election winning pitch! It’s working out so well.

When I was a much younger left wing gay man, even then I was shocked at how moronic much left wing politics actually is. ‘Maggie, Maggie, Maggie, Out, Out, Out’ chanted on marches weeks after another Tory landslide! But we were oh so righteous and virtuous!

Last edited 3 years ago by Andrew Fisher
Last Jacobin
Last Jacobin
3 years ago
Reply to  Andrew Fisher

Tim’s dislike of the Tories is not from the left.

mike otter
mike otter
3 years ago
Reply to  Vikram Sharma

Wise words – you’ve planned the work Vikram – the hard bit will be finding someone to work the plan!

Rosie Franczak
Rosie Franczak
3 years ago
Reply to  Vikram Sharma

The use of the word ‘detoxify’ is a clue to a warped world view.What a disgustingly nasty unhelpful and selfish list. Kindness and goodness is largely the prerogative of the selfless and altruistic. It is not even on your list yet it is essential to social cohabitation and progress. Pulling down statues was about not praising a few 18th century men, starting in Bristol ; men who made a lot of money from slaves, most who died in misery and pointing out in the BLM heat, that they did that. Remembering is the measure of a civilised people. Oxbridge is hardly the dominant playground of the left in academic circles and never was. It still entertains privilege for elites in its processes, and the Bullingdon club is largely responsible for Brexit and a rise of phoney patriotism that hides a hatred of the foreigner. Certainly LSE, where I went, is not dominated by the left at all any more so get your facts right. What’s this ‘refuse to judge the past by modern standards?’ What modern standards do you mean and how were they arrived at and do they really exist? If McPherson concluded the Police were institutionally racist, it is right to listen to the former Black deputy commissioner who in 2020, said it still is. Modern standards have to be examined to see if they have fallen below a certain level that is retrogressive and intolerable. It is not about comparing Elizabethan vagrancy laws with today’s welfare provision, although knowing how far we have come gives me hope. So History is important to understanding the now , both here and elsewhere. We have a role in the world to set standards too. History is also endlessly fascinating. It is for example, important to watch and listen to the Windermere children who were helped to escape the Nazis and remember what happened, or it could happen again in different but comparable forms. History is not destined to repeat itself exactly (there is often a new twist), but refusing to learn from the past is foolish. To assess the present by understanding the past is mature, sensible and crucial for human life in the now and civilisation generally, If women had not flexed their muscles as Suffragettes, against being defined by their bodies and their housewifely duties, we would still be without the vote, strapped into stays, & suffering from housemaids knee and prolapses. I could go on but I can’t be bothered.

Last edited 3 years ago by Rosie Franczak
Niobe Hunter
Niobe Hunter
3 years ago
Reply to  Rosie Franczak

I feel your post would be read by more people if it was divided into paragraphs instead of coming across as one long continuous rant.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
3 years ago
Reply to  Niobe Hunter

Surely either continuous or long would have done, but not both?

Vikram Sharma
Vikram Sharma
3 years ago
Reply to  Rosie Franczak

If you think pulling down statues equates learning from history, what can I say to you? You are arguing with someone else, not me.

Last Jacobin
Last Jacobin
3 years ago
Reply to  Vikram Sharma

Maybe putting statues in context to gain a better understanding of how the people who were celebrated by the statues were able to make the money necessary to have statues put up in their honour? That’s learning, surely?

Johannes Kreisler
Johannes Kreisler
3 years ago
Reply to  Last Jacobin

It’s not that we do not understand / are uninformed of any of that; we are perfectly sufficiently learned on the matter. It is that we do not regard s|avery / colon¡sation as the ultimate s¡n and unspeakable cr¡me as much as the blm mob wants to make us to. Yes, they happened. They happened to pretty much all peoples on the planet (for some multiple times), and we all got over it. Except those who still cling to it as to cover up their own ineptitudes. Yes, s|avery happened to blacks too. No, it wasn’t such a big deal.

Chris Wheatley
Chris Wheatley
3 years ago
Reply to  Vikram Sharma

Statues must be overrated. As Mr Bridgeford says, they are just rich people from the past.

Monty Marsh
Monty Marsh
3 years ago
Reply to  Rosie Franczak

I could go on but I can’t be bothered”
I detect a synergy between what you can’t be bothered to write, and what I can’t be bothered to plough through.

Johannes Kreisler
Johannes Kreisler
3 years ago
Reply to  Rosie Franczak

Not quite sure if you’re aware that “black” is a common noun / adjective – unless it’s a surname -, so there’s no justification for capitalising it.

Johannes Kreisler
Johannes Kreisler
3 years ago
Reply to  Rosie Franczak

Kindness and goodness is largely the prerogative of the selfless and altruistic. 

You seem to have no idea how poisonously loaded the words “kindness”, “goodness” (+ “love”, “empathy”, ‘kompasshun’ etc.) became when uttered by the left. They induce a gag reflex in any sane person.

Jim Jones
Jim Jones
3 years ago
Reply to  Rosie Franczak

From whose point of view did they do more good than harm and in what way was the slave trade not such a big deal

Ted Ditchburn
Ted Ditchburn
3 years ago
Reply to  Vikram Sharma

Trying to predict things 20 years ahead is OK for chatting about but it isn’t a serious thesis in that change through that period will change every parameter. Enormous technological change is going to impact the woke class as AI impacts on their areas of work, that right now has seen little of the disruption that others have felt.
That will change the attitudes of teachers, lawyers, accountants as it has steel workers, miners and car workers.

Colin Reeves
Colin Reeves
3 years ago
Reply to  Vikram Sharma

I suspect the Tories will indeed be toast, but not for EW’s reasons. By 2040, the net zero carbon agenda will have made the life of man more solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. It’s the Tories who are promoting it, and as with the ERM, the fact that Labour is just as much in favour will count for little: they’ll get the blame. That’s if elections even matter any more; the Democrats have shown that you don’t need voters to win, just ‘votes.’

Drahcir Nevarc
Drahcir Nevarc
3 years ago
Reply to  Vikram Sharma

Agreed, except for your last point, which surely falls under the heading of the wokery which you rightly say should be challenged.

matthewspring
matthewspring
3 years ago
Reply to  Vikram Sharma

Vikram, we need you working for Boris. Brilliant to-do list. Bravo,sir!

Jake C
Jake C
3 years ago
Reply to  Vikram Sharma

Why do we have to refer to the empire,let’s just focus on developing our economy so ots the best in the world.

Victoria Cooper
Victoria Cooper
3 years ago
Reply to  Vikram Sharma

The Tories can turn the tide? It would have to be without Boris Johnson, he is getting greener by the minute.

Steve Craddock
Steve Craddock
3 years ago

There are many problems in the UK i just wish we had a government with sufficient backbone to try solving some of them.
I suppose this is what comes when the government treats every morning edition of the newspapers or opinion poll or twitter storm as a fresh election.
The electorate handed them an 80 seat mandate, I just wish they would do something with it, like try leading for change rather following the news cycles, and cravenly paying homage to their big business pay masters.
I don’t think we can get a lower calibre of politicians than we have at present, but I am constantly amazed at the general idiots that seem end up in Parliament.

Last edited 3 years ago by Steve Craddock
kathleen carr
kathleen carr
3 years ago
Reply to  Steve Craddock

The conservatives were given the brexit supporters vote who had previously voted ukip ( which got 4 million votes ). This is probably a temporary gift if they just turn into Labour-lite themselves.They are counting on our FPTP system to keep them in power , but if a viable opposition emerges they may get voted out.

Robin Lambert
Robin Lambert
3 years ago
Reply to  kathleen carr

That opposition is SDP, Reform….Independents…lib-Lab-Snp-Plaid have been supine is support of trashing Small businesses They wont vote Tory or labour ,or lib-dim for a long time if ever..Thats 3million voters for a start…

Robin Lambert
Robin Lambert
3 years ago
Reply to  Steve Craddock

The REAL Changes since 2019 Conservatives Dont Conserve,(where I retired to they are concreting over Farms,Green areas)
Liberals are illiberal
Labour Dont look after Blue collar workers
Greens destroy the environment,by Stupid demonising of CARBON,which barely 0.04% of atmosphere,:Life giving gas.human activity is responsible for 31% of that (Google facts)..rubbish,that The Sun has ”No effects on Climate!’ with Garbage like this Promoted by UN,WHO, Microsoft divorceesetc Lib,Lab.Cons,Snp,plaid,greens We are in trouble…!

Last edited 3 years ago by Robin Lambert
andrew harman
andrew harman
3 years ago

There are two important points that this article overlooks.
1) The British Conservatives are the great survivors of western politics. time and again they have reinvented themselves to accommodate the times under certain leaders: Peel, Disraeli, Churchill and yes Thatcher and Johnson. Whatever changes come – and the assumptions made by the author are by no means certain to come to pass – they will adapt.
2) Such is the nature of my work I know a large number of younger people rather well and I live in solid red Bristol. Most are cynical and even contemptuous of the wokery so often ascribed to them and many are more vocal about it than one may think. Rebelling against it all could well become the new cool.

google
google
3 years ago
Reply to  andrew harman

I have an 11 year-old boy who can spot it almost instinctively, and is quite sick of it. It’s a reaction to the continuous torrent of woke nonsense they have to endure at school

andrew harman
andrew harman
3 years ago
Reply to  google

Youthful wisdom

Dominic Rudman
Dominic Rudman
3 years ago
Reply to  andrew harman

My 14 year old heard a news piece on the European Space Agency looking to have a disabled astronaut, rolled his eyes and said “God, does EVERYTHING have to be a diversity hire these days??”

andrew harman
andrew harman
3 years ago
Reply to  Dominic Rudman

More youthful wisdom.

Victor Newman
Victor Newman
3 years ago
Reply to  andrew harman

Our silence doesn’t mean assent. Yes, there is an assumption that if a teacher says something, then it will be believed. The dead zombie media assumes that repetition works: they don’t understand that smart people can spot secular religiosity a mile off. We just switch off – we don’t waste energy processing nonsense. Ironically, the left is silencing itself through broadcasting absurd propositions which makes the media they employ redundant.

Simon Newman
Simon Newman
3 years ago
Reply to  andrew harman

Yes – young people in Britain aren’t particularly ideological, and compared to the USA they aren’t particularly conformist either. Race-guilting can be pretty effective on middle class white girls in the USA; it has much less attraction in the UK where its claims are much more obviously laughable.

Zach Thornton
Zach Thornton
3 years ago
Reply to  andrew harman

Young people are often anti the excesses of woke. The witchhunts and the faux outrage. Conversely, they’re also quite socially liberal when it comes to social issues. Often all of the above is portrayed as woke. It’s become a nonsense and merely a pejorative used by mostly ageing right wingers. You might as well just say you hate the left.

kathleen carr
kathleen carr
3 years ago
Reply to  andrew harman

The modern Conservative party was founded by Disraeli to accomodate the large new voting population and it later picked up a lot of female votes. However its newest supporters are people Labour doesn’t want-so not a natural fit. The traditional conservative communities-farming and business aren’t necessarily pleased with the tories either. Labour lost rather than conservatives won.

Robin Lambert
Robin Lambert
3 years ago
Reply to  andrew harman

Bristol apart from idiot Statue tossed into Bristol harbour..They voted against Tories Concreting over rural areas?..

Kevin Thomas
Kevin Thomas
3 years ago

This year marks 20 years since a chuckling Labour activist told me the only people he saw voting Tory at the polling station he’d worked at were white haired old people and he confidently predicted the Tories would never see power again. In the 2019 election, the youngest age group to mostly vote Tory had dropped ten years since 2017 to include people who grew up on Oasis and the Spice Girls. That’s the group just slightly above millennials. Millennials will eventually vote Tory too. It’s always been the way. Who voted for Brexit in the highest numbers? The flower power generation and the punks. People who write off generations as permanently left wing don’t understand human nature. Besides, the serious brainwashing is mostly done on the affluent end of the middle classes, ie: the ones who will one day be running the institutions. They don’t bother with the working classes so much, and how would you convince kids from an estate in Hartlepool that they have white privilege?

Last edited 3 years ago by Kevin Thomas
David Morrey
David Morrey
3 years ago
Reply to  Kevin Thomas

Yes, have just been adding my own comment to this effect. The core of the Tory vote today are the elderly who, in their youth, were considered the most counter cultural and left wing generation this country had ever produced. People grow up.

r.p.judkins
r.p.judkins
3 years ago
Reply to  Kevin Thomas

Milennails are people who grew up on Oasis and the Spice Girls. Gen Z are people born when Oasis and the Spice Girls were big.

Prashant Kotak
Prashant Kotak
3 years ago

The big hole in Ed’s thesis, is of course the following: that as us boomer golden oldies break on through to the other side, we will all leave our accumulated asset wealth (houses primarily) to the local cats home (as a final kicker), instead of to an entire generation of dark and brooding millennials, more bitter and fed up at waiting so long than even Prince Charles.

And, of course, said millennials and Gen Zee’s, having come into their own so very very late, will in fact all promptly donate their inherited estates to the local branch of Momentum Geriatric (TM), out of sheer spite at the inequities of the universe, to spend their old age in a bedsit in misery, instead of promptly turning Tory with the attitude of ‘we hold what we have’ while showing a bony and quivering middle finger to all the causes they showed such affection for all the years of their dispossession.

Jon Redman
Jon Redman
3 years ago
Reply to  Prashant Kotak

Indeed, and if we get Chinese immigration from Hong Kong, their demand for housing will tend to counteract any incipient generational slump.

Fraser Bailey
Fraser Bailey
3 years ago
Reply to  Jon Redman

I believe people from Hong Kong are accustomed to living in very small spaces. We could repurpose the left luggage lockers at London’s main stations.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
3 years ago
Reply to  Fraser Bailey

Or replace the Scotch with the HK Chinese perhaps.
At least they would be grateful.

Robin Lambert
Robin Lambert
3 years ago

in 1984 A Tory Mp proposed Hong Kong Enterprises could be housed on inner hebrides, i say, Let them settle ( Move) to Glasgow let Nicola sort out that ,instead of pandering to islam ”Hate” Laws

Last edited 3 years ago by Robin Lambert
Prashant Kotak
Prashant Kotak
3 years ago
Reply to  Fraser Bailey

Haha – I somehow think the ones who manage to escape the clutches of the CCP will be wealthy enough so as to head for the prime bits of Mayfair instead more likely.

Fraser Bailey
Fraser Bailey
3 years ago
Reply to  Prashant Kotak

You are probably correct. It is we who will be huddling in the left luggage lockers at Liverpool Street.

Lee Johnson
Lee Johnson
3 years ago

Flawless logic here with just a few problems:

  • people grow old (the age divide melts)
  • people save and buy houses (they are no longer poor)
  • people intermarry (ethnicity fades)
  • people do u-turns

I remember being a communist at Uni. It was fashionable and gave a fighting purpose to a meaningless lifestyle. But we all grow up eventually, even me.

Stanley Beardshall
Stanley Beardshall
3 years ago

Sorry, Ed, you’ve clearly not noticed that the UK Labour party is dead. Exactly like socialism here in France, it isn’t sleeping, it isn’t hibernating – it’s dead, defunct, terminado. Don’t worry about what may happen in twenty years time, just enjoy the fact that the Militant Tendency are, poltically, gone.

Robin Lambert
Robin Lambert
3 years ago

In Europe Greens are pseudo Marxists have taken a lot off The SDP ,next years French presidential elections, will be interesting how will EU establishment, ”Fix” the runoff so Frexit Parties cannot win/.?

Last edited 3 years ago by Robin Lambert
Ian Barton
Ian Barton
3 years ago

Spot on – lumping “ethic minorities” together in this way is nonsense.
e.g the Conservatives are already the natural home for most of the Indian community, who are economically liberal, socially conservative and comparatively successful on nearly all measures.

Last edited 3 years ago by Ian Barton
kathleen carr
kathleen carr
3 years ago
Reply to  Ian Barton

Except that this group tend to live in nice areas and the suburbs wheras Khan supporters-as it were -have taken over the inner cities. As authors like Douglas Murray show , the major group by 2040 of the under-50’s will be this group who are left-wing. The present majority old group were born 1940-1950 , so will be mostly gone by 2040’s. Those of Boris’s generation seem to be extending their youth-they often don’t have children until about 50 and prefer to be ‘the eternal student’ in outlook which is also left-wing. Boris by concentrating on green issues which appeal to the ‘everywhere’ rather than the ‘somewhere’ people- who are natural conservatives is even trying to alienate his major supporters. This pattern seems to be repeating all over the west.

David Wicks
David Wicks
3 years ago
Reply to  kathleen carr

People all change over time, the over 50’s will be more conservative in 20-30 years time than they are now in their 20’s. Also remember the Conservatives want to win, so as has been shown in every decade, they are now unrecognisable from the decade before, having consistently shifted left, as society has.
The article is amusing in its guesswork, even Andy Burnham will struggle to mesh ideologue Labour members together. If I was them I’d push for PR (part of manifesto) as a coalition is as good as it will get for Labour, for a long time!

Last edited 3 years ago by David Wicks
kathleen carr
kathleen carr
3 years ago
Reply to  David Wicks

There is a larger group in the 50-60 range who will become very wealthy through inheritance ( because of rising house prices) .However among the younger group those who are natural conservatives are not being helped. For example a couple who work in a supermarket and earn £40 between them would like to buy a terrace house for under £100,000. However they are all being taken town & city wise by Khan supporters and landlords are buying them up elsewhere. So they become the’ rent and can’t afford to start a family.’The new housing plans announced are for those able to afford £250,thousand + and are often bought by those escaping the cities which have become a bit too lively for them.

Andrew Raiment
Andrew Raiment
3 years ago

I used to bore people to sleep, telling them there’s no way Boris Johnson would ever be Prime Minister, so I guess anything is possible.

I also remember reading below the line comments in The Guardian around 2005, where the smug concensus was that the tories would be out of power for another generation precisely because of the demographic shift.

Last edited 3 years ago by Andrew Raiment
Jon Redman
Jon Redman
3 years ago

There is literally no question to which the answer is ever “leftism”, unless the question is “how can I get really poor really quickly, pay too much tax, and be hated for it?”
I simply don’t believe that anyone will vote Labour to solve their housing problem, or indeed any problem at all. Labour hates homeowners and indeed hates all private property of all descriptions.
It’s far likelier that as the older generation dies off, it won’t be able to sell its houses at the prices it expects, because the buyers simply haven’t got the pot.
If something can’t go on it will stop.

Johannes Kreisler
Johannes Kreisler
3 years ago
Reply to  Jon Redman

Labour hates homeowners and indeed hates all private property of all descriptions.

Yes; except their own homeownership and their own private property. For others, the longer they keep them in overpriced rents, the more votes for Labour. That’s how the class war works.

Fraser Bailey
Fraser Bailey
3 years ago

I have learned over the last couple of days that Starmer owns about 10 million pounds worth of land. He probably hopes to sell it to a house builder. By God these people are evil.

D Ward
D Ward
3 years ago
Reply to  Fraser Bailey

And of course there’s Bliar, Mandelscum, the Milipedes and scores of other “left-wingers” coining it in via property…

Jon Redman
Jon Redman
3 years ago
Reply to  D Ward

I still laugh at that photo of Miliband in his “kitchen”, which turned out to be his second kitchen, because he’s so grand he’s got two. My mirth only increased as he tried to kill the issue by explaining that he only uses the second kitchen.

Robin Lambert
Robin Lambert
3 years ago
Reply to  D Ward

Blairs Property portfolio is Rumoured to be £150million?…

Last Jacobin
Last Jacobin
3 years ago
Reply to  Fraser Bailey

Source?

Fraser Bailey
Fraser Bailey
3 years ago
Reply to  Last Jacobin

I have seen/heard it mentioned by one or two people over the last couple of days. Alex Belfield was one of them, I think, and he is generally too well trained not to assert falsehoods.

Last Jacobin
Last Jacobin
3 years ago
Reply to  Fraser Bailey

Ah. The old ‘bloke down the pub told me’ or far right shock jock ‘source’.

Niobe Hunter
Niobe Hunter
3 years ago
Reply to  Last Jacobin

It was in a glossy magazine. I’m afraid I can’t remember which but something like Homes and Gardens.
he was interviewed with his ‘partner’ in his home, and they showed the journalist round. I suppose it was part of the PR attempt to make him more likeable or something.
anyway, the two kitchens were both shown by him, with his full consent. It was only afterwards that he and his team realised that this might not have had the desired effect.

Aidan Trimble
Aidan Trimble
3 years ago
Reply to  Last Jacobin

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/mar/13/ed-miliband-two-kitchens-use-smaller-one

Yeah, this ‘far right shock jock source’. What say you now Bridgeford ?

Last Jacobin
Last Jacobin
3 years ago
Reply to  Aidan Trimble

I was tasking for a source on the allegation about Starmer: I have learned over the last couple of days that Starmer owns about 10 million pounds worth of land. He probably hopes to sell it to a house builder. By God these people are evil.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
3 years ago