Election night 2019 / aftermath II

[Seanm]

Okay, there was no purge. Maybe some of the people I’m thinking about just drifted away of their own volition.
I would like to think that refusing to demonize immigrants and benefits claimants is intrinsically part of what the LP is about.
Not quite sure what an ethical foreign policy is, TBH. Which/whose ethics?

Well, I don't know who your thinking of, but you do put me in mind of the many right wing and centrist MPs who Corbyn included in his cabinet and who drifted away in front of TV cameras immediately after the referendum. At a local level we have seen quite a lot of the right drift away from meetings after the left voted in new chairs and secretaries. I do think many experienced that as a purge, because it was all quite sudden, and they'd come to feel entitled to these positions, but purges usually come from above and aren't usually carried out by means of voting.

If you need reminded of what a purge actually means, stick around: prominent ex and current right wing figures are now *literally* calling for the left to be purged. I mean, that's the word they're using, and it's entirely in keeping with their historical approach to managing the "broad church". It really is gaslighting to accuse the left of this kind of thing when the right have actually boasted about it being their MO, but there we have it. The idea that the left are ideological puritans who will purge anyone they disagree with is basically just the "You can't say anything anymore!" of the centre: it's what those who are used to having their way say when people stop listening to them.

You might like to think that refusing to demonize immigrants and benefits claimants is intrinsically part of what the LP is about, but it isn't, as a passing acquaintance with the party's history ought to tell you. New Labour didn't invent the Strivers vs Skivers discourse but they sure as hell picked up the ball and ran with it. I think they *can* claim ownership of the Bogus Asylum Seeker trope. Even Ed Milliband, demonised as a mad Marxist traitor by the media, had a section called "Immigration and Crime" in his manifesto, and literally carved LAbour's anti-immigration stance in stone.

Regarding an ethical foreign policy, I don't want to get into a discussion on moral relativism so I'll be as concrete as possible: we shouldn't be selling arms to Saudi Arabia. That's all. If we just stop actively supporting one of the most viciously murderous regimes in the world by arming them we will be making a massive contribution to stability and justice in the Middle East.

Not sure why I'm going to the trouble but the Ideological Puritan trope really does annoy me, and we're going to see a lot of it over the next months. This is all that the vast majority of the left want, ideologically, of the Labour Party: don't be racist, don't vilify the poor, don't arm the very worst people in the world. You might think that's not much to ask, but that's what's earned us 4 years of unrelenting attacks from the right and centre, and now just you watch: we're going to be hearing a lot about patriotism and aspiration over the next few months and that is Labour Party code for racism, militarism and hammering the poor. Many of us are not going to put up with that and if that makes us puritans, well, you can applaud the return of the broad church as the right do their best to purge us.

 

[Seanm]

Unionisation sounds like a great idea, but easier said than done. I wouldn't think you would get many recruits among white collar workers. And I would think Amazon and their like do everything they can to resist union recognition.

Absolutely. Labour's best plan for unionisation unfortunately relied on being in power: we can't remove anti-union legislation or restore sectoral bargaining (which would have helped gig workers) without being in government. Don't really know what the answer is now, TBH. Years of grassroots organising around precarious work in particular I guess.

 

[matthewr]

No doubt I will be slammed as a centrist/Blairite/red tory but I agreed with a lot from Jess Philips yesterday. She resonates as authentic, non-metropolitan and Labour with me and most of my family. Could she be the next leader? Not sure, although I think she would be good as Home Secretary (the fact that Home Sec. is the post that turns everyone into some degree of fascist notwithstanding).

Everywhere I campaigned, I heard the same thing. It was less about Brexit and more about belief. In these places of generations of Labour voting, they did not believe a Labour government would or could deliver for them. They didn’t trust us. They didn’t trust the Tories either, but then they never expected to, so that letdown was lesser. I spoke to people in my constituency and others who were distressed that they couldn’t vote Labour, visibly angry because they felt we, our leader and what we were presenting to them had put them in this position.

The truth is, there are corners of our party that have become too intolerant of challenge and debate. The truth is, there is a clique who don’t care if our appeal has narrowed, as long as they have control of the institutions and ideas of the party.

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...class-voters-didnt-trust-labour-jess-phillips

I like Starmer but he is a very London sort of choice and as impressive as he is, not convinced he would help too much with Labour's problems outside of large cities. He would solve the competency problem though. Don't know much about Lisa Nandy, Yvette Cooper seems like a step backwards, Rebecca Long-Bailey and Clive Lewis I am ok with but not enthusiastic.

The other two wider points that occur on reflection:

1) Labour seems now a party of the cities. This is, I think, because of the Blairite years that extended support into the urban middle classes as well as the traditional poorer areas and for this reason I don't think MOAR BLAIR is really the answer. It would just shore up the current situation.

2) A significant part of traditional labour support in the and midlands can be socially illiberal and this and the collapse of trust in Labour is what makes them less surprising Tory voters than one might imagine.

 

[matthewr]

Not sure why I'm going to the trouble but the Ideological Puritan trope really does annoy me, and we're going to see a lot of it over the next months. This is all that the vast majority of the left want, ideologically, of the Labour Party: don't be racist, don't vilify the poor, don't arm the very worst people in the world. You might think that's not much to ask, but that's what's earned us 4 years of unrelenting attacks from the right and centre, and now just you watch: we're going to be hearing a lot about patriotism and aspiration over the next few months and that is Labour Party code for racism, militarism and hammering the poor. Many of us are not going to put up with that and if that makes us puritans, well, you can applaud the return of the broad church as the right do their best to purge us.

I think at least some of the impression of Labour being taken over by the hard left comes from some of the outriders on social media who also got on TV a lot. If people have a view of Corbyn as an unreconstructed 70s style socialist and then actual communists are appearing on TV I don't think this helps. IMHO to be a broad church the left of the party needs to look to bring in the centre and the centre needs to bring in the left and aving Bastani or Sarkar on TV is just as unhelpful I think as Blair once more emerging from his crypt.

 

[Marchbanks]

Yes, and the one about all the penguins being called Eric.

Was that you too?

No, that wasn’t me. That would be silly. I think we established that stuffed seagulls were all called Jonathan though (extrapolating from a sample of two.)

 

[glancaster]

No doubt I will be slammed as a centrist/Blairite/red tory but I agreed with a lot from Jess Philips yesterday. She resonates as authentic, non-metropolitan and Labour with me and most of my family. Could she be the next leader? Not sure, although I think she would be good as Home Secretary (the fact that Home Sec. is the post that turns everyone into some degree of fascist notwithstanding).





https://www.theguardian.com/comment...class-voters-didnt-trust-labour-jess-phillips

I like Starmer but he is a very London sort of choice and as impressive as he is, not convinced he would help too much with Labour's problems outside of large cities. He would solve the competency problem though. Don't know much about Lisa Nandy, Yvette Cooper seems like a step backwards, Rebecca Long-Bailey and Clive Lewis I am ok with but not enthusiastic.

The other two wider points that occur on reflection:

1) Labour seems now a party of the cities. This is, I think, because of the Blairite years that extended support into the urban middle classes as well as the traditional poorer areas and for this reason I don't think MOAR BLAIR is really the answer. It would just shore up the current situation.

2) A significant part of traditional labour support in the and midlands can be socially illiberal and this and the collapse of trust in Labour is what makes them less surprising Tory voters than one might imagine.

Yes, Jess Philips would do well as a leader in terms of the country: she's straight-talking, brave, and compassionate. The main problem with her is that she is hated by the Corbynites, so she can't be a unity candidate. (Remember her remarks about stabbing Corbyn 'in the front'?) It's an internal Labour Party issue, but it still massively hurts her chances.

Starmer appeals to my head, and I think is respected across the party and country, but there is something about him that doesn't fit. I can't quite put my finger on it. I have referred to it before as him lacking the killer instinct. He reminds me a bit of my daughter's rabbit.

Notwithstanding that, when I saw the list of 'likelys', these were the two that jumped out to me.

But you never know who would be good as a leader until they actually get the role. It requires quite different skills from being a politician even one rung down. And I have to confess, I'm terrible at picking Labour leaders: I favoured Prescott over Blair, for example.

Kind regards

- Garry

 

[MVV]

I was just reading that Jess Philips piece before popping in here. Her as leader would stiffen things up no end. PMQs would be a right laf.

 

[Tony L]

I also like Jess Philips. She is sharp, funny, honest and not afraid to show real emotions about things that matter. I certainly don’t agree with her on everything (e.g. Brexit), but she’s a good ‘un for sure.

PS I still feel Starmer could damage Johnson more, and as such he remains my choice.

 

[MVV]

This is a bit ‘bald men arguing about a comb’ but I’m with Garry even though I have never met his daughte’s rabbit.

 

[cooky1257]

Have you ANY idea how close all of what you wrote is to the writings of Hitler ? ..just change 'capitalist scum' for 'Jewish zionist conspiracy '. Change 'tory scum' for the same.

I no more want your world than his. You are the very people that he appealed to at first ...he relied on his supporters being as "thick as mince" too.

The difference is there was no Jewish conspiracy but the obvious excesses of Capitalism are now presenting humanity with an existential threat whilst those same Capitalists have lobbied to deny it..Capitalism in the shape of big oil set the middle east alight, Capitalism came within a whisker of a global catastrophe by lobbying for 20 years against banning CFC's, Capitalism took the shortcut and eye for the bottom line and clad tower blocks in flammable sheeting and has spent £30m so far fighting the victims, Capitalism encouraged immigration from the Commonwealth then deported their children, Capitalism has little interest in civil liberties, Capitalism in its never ending desire for growth is eating it's own tail. I could go on.

 

[Seanm]

No doubt I will be slammed as a centrist/Blairite/red tory but I agreed with a lot from Jess Philips yesterday. She resonates as authentic, non-metropolitan and Labour with me and most of my family. Could she be the next leader? Not sure, although I think she would be good as Home Secretary (the fact that Home Sec. is the post that turns everyone into some degree of fascist notwithstanding).





https://www.theguardian.com/comment...class-voters-didnt-trust-labour-jess-phillips

I like Starmer but he is a very London sort of choice and as impressive as he is, not convinced he would help too much with Labour's problems outside of large cities. He would solve the competency problem though. Don't know much about Lisa Nandy, Yvette Cooper seems like a step backwards, Rebecca Long-Bailey and Clive Lewis I am ok with but not enthusiastic.

The other two wider points that occur on reflection:

1) Labour seems now a party of the cities. This is, I think, because of the Blairite years that extended support into the urban middle classes as well as the traditional poorer areas and for this reason I don't think MOAR BLAIR is really the answer. It would just shore up the current situation.

2) A significant part of traditional labour support in the and midlands can be socially illiberal and this and the collapse of trust in Labour is what makes them less surprising Tory voters than one might imagine.

Phillips is a passable stand-up but she's already demonstrated her leadership skills by spending the last 4 years sh_t-talking the people whose support she needs. I've no real idea of her politics: they might be consistent with her work on women's equality or they might not. Having said that I'm not opposed to her in principle, as all we really need right now is someone who can attack Johnson while not providing cover for the right to tear up the policy program, and not reaching for the racism dial. Nominally left candidate Angela Raynor not to be trusted on the latter score so I really don't know. Sure, Phillips, why not.

On socially illiberal traditional Labour supporters, it's these people who Labour have in the past used to justify immigrant-bashing etc. and that's already being wheeled out again as the answer. This is what we have to watch, as even if it were not completely unacceptable in principle it's been demonstrated not to work. Long term solution here is institution building and reforming local councils but that really is loooooong term. Short term f___ knows. We tried to put forward an economic offer rather than New LAbour's culture war offer and that obviously didn't work either. I'd rather keep hammering that line though in the hope that it can get through. Phillips might be able to help there, might not.

 

[matt j]

Jess Philips for me too. Like Matthew, I've just joined up.

 

[glancaster]

This is a bit ‘bald men arguing about a comb’ but I’m with Garry even though I have never met his daughte’s rabbit.

Meet Trixie...

Pros as Labour leader:
1. Immaculately well presented.
2. Good teeth.

Cons as Labour leader:
1. Brexit stand-point unclear (although she's part Polish and part Netherlands Dwarf, so draw your own conclusions).
2. Eats own poo.

Kind regards

- Garry

 

[Tony L]

2. Eats own poo.

My god, that beautiful rabbit is a Tory!

 

[Seanm]

I think at least some of the impression of Labour being taken over by the hard left comes from some of the outriders on social media who also got on TV a lot. If people have a view of Corbyn as an unreconstructed 70s style socialist and then actual communists are appearing on TV I don't think this helps. IMHO to be a broad church the left of the party needs to look to bring in the centre and the centre needs to bring in the left and aving Bastani or Sarkar on TV is just as unhelpful I think as Blair once more emerging from his crypt.

I don't think it really made any difference TBH. The picture that's starting to emerge is that a lot of people in the "red wall" who voted Tory literally thought that Labour had been in power for the last 10 years. Bastani's luxury communism schtick isn't uppermost in the minds of this kind of voter.

I'm all for a broad church but the centre have to come up with some ideas, and have to stop talking about purges. If all they've got is "How about a bit more patriotism" they'll continue to be relegated to the sidelines just as part of the natural order of things, it isn't going to require any factional battles.

 

[Marky-Mark]

An old boss of mine always used to say you’ve got 2 ears and one mouth for a reason, use them in that ratio.

Except for the fact the reason you have two ears has everything to do with hearing nonsense like this crap saying from both sides of your head and nothing to do with not listening.

 

[Seanm]

Jess Philips for me too. Like Matthew, I've just joined up.

Good f__ing man. We need to keep fighting.

 

[glancaster]

My god, that beautiful rabbit is a Tory!

To be fair, they all do it. It's quite natural...

 

[Marchbanks]

The picture that's starting to emerge is that a lot of people in the "red wall" who voted Tory literally thought that Labour had been in power for the last 10 years.

Eh? A lot? Literally?? Ten years??? Do you mean they simply got the parties mixed up and threw the wrong one out? Where has this picture started to emerge from?

 

[h.g.]

I’ve been criticised for calling racists racists, calling people idiots for voting ‘leave’ to “stick it to the elites” etc, but I honestly can’t imagine anything more patronising and insulting than the Johnson/Cummings election campaign. They were clearly working on the assumption the end-user was well sub-80 IQ. I’d far prefer politicians appeal to the top of the market with well reasoned arguments and coherent strategic planning, i.e. to actually address the issues rather than endlessly burping-up a ‘get Brexit dumb’ mantra or similarly vacuous thug chants.

Failure to address reality and instead create some cuddly fantasy world and then address that permeates almost every post in these types of threads.

The working class part of your "gammon" does not make political decisions in the way you do and it never did. When they voted labour they were normally part of a range of groups associated with the labour party (family, unions, clubs, pubs,...). Many of these have weakened or disappeared and with it the emotional bond between the working class "gammon" and the labour party has weakened. The process is not recent and dates back to the upheaval in the 70s. Add in the recent hard left shift in the labour party (widely perceived as utterly useless leader, undeliverable and unrealistic promises and reinforced by being an ineffective opposition party) plus Boris promising to get things done and acting in a way that could break the deadlock and get things done. The result has been sufficient to break the emotional bond with the labour party for many working class voters.

Hard right conservatives cannot put forward reality based arguments in favour of what they are doing because it serves the best interests of only a tiny proportion of the population: "We are seeking to become the world's off shore tax haven so Rees-Mogg can move his business activity back here from Singapore and the Caymen Islands. In order to do this we need to "f*ck business" and the interests of the 99% and even some of the 1% by lowering taxes, deregulating, starving to death what is left of the UKs social infrastructure, opening the channels more to redirect tax payers money into the wealth redistribution industry, etc, etc, etc..." It is absolutely ridiculous to expect those funding and driving brexit and this right wing conservative party to be open and upfront about their objectives. This is a task for the opposition which they have singularly failed to get across to "the gammon". The conservative parties strategy had to be primarily emotion based rather than fact based and it was. It remains to be seen how much the current conservative party will implement given it would mean losing the next election given what is coming (which they will be perfectly well aware of and almost certainly better than we are).

My experience of talking to the "gammon" over the past few years has been that racist aspects have been very small along with the nastier side of nationalism. The feeling that things were better for us when the UK was standing on it's own two feet was strong though. Knowledge about why and the role of the EU in the process was almost completely absent. Attempts to introduce relevant facts usually lead to the shutters coming down and an exchange of information petering out. A direct assault with facts is not an effective approach at a personal level nor I am pretty sure at other levels.