Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
Cras wrote:
In the 70s and 80s, labour existed to look after worker's rights, the right to strike, unionise, and a host of other things. Those were, and are, solidly left-wing ideals. But let's not forget that there's no idealogical purity in the base there - there's self interest, same with the majority of the base of any political party.
Labour, innit. As in, let benefits accrue to labour instead of capital.But also I've been reading What's Left lately. One thing I took away from it that I hadn't realised before was that the uneasy alliance between the middle-class liberal Corbyn-style Labour supporters and the working-class trade unionists is bone-deep and dates back all the way to the formation of the party. I'd never thought about it very hard, but I'd half assumed that was a more modern phenomena.
Well yes, and that's the thing. People ignore the fact that it's the party of Labour and believe instead that it's the part of being left-wing. The two are far from being the same thing.
Cras wrote:
Well yes, and that's the thing. People ignore the fact that it's the party of Labour and believe instead that it's the part of being left-wing. The two are far from being the same thing.
No, that's the opposite of what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that it's always been a party divided, that the intelligentisa have always been a part of it, and that fault line (which is now rupturing in slow motion [1]) has always existed. It's always been the party of labour and the party of the left wing, however uneasily those things sat together, but that might be ending.
[1] Perhaps, at least in part, because we're moving further and further away from being a two-party state, and so people are less willing to make major concessions when choosing who to vote for.
I'm not really referring to the party, I'm referring to the apparent shock when the party faithful went out and voted in its droves for Brexit. Because Brexit has been sold to them as a very Labour ideal - protectionism turned up to eleven.
So back to your point, yes the divide is obvious. You've got the working class who are for small L labour and not particularly left wing, and the progressives who are left-wing, but not terribly pro small L labour.
You also had a similar divide in the Tory party until recently, but David Cameron triumphantly unified the party due to his referendum masterstroke.
Lonewolves wrote:
You also had a similar divide in the Tory party until recently, but David Cameron triumphantly unified the party due to his referendum masterstroke.
A similar divide in the party, but I think much less of a divide in the base.
Cras wrote:
So back to your point, yes the divide is obvious. You've got the working class who are for small L labour and not particularly left wing, and the progressives who are left-wing, but not terribly pro small L labour.
In the book I mentioned, Cohen argues that the progressives *were* pro-small-L-labour until the proletariat failed to rise up and implement communism for several decades in a row, at which point they went off them. I suppose you could tack on "...and ultimately the proletariat voted for UKIP" as a final coffin nail. The progressives were also no doubt added to by the lib dem collapse.
Cras wrote:
So back to your point, yes the divide is obvious. You've got the working class who are for small L labour and not particularly left wing, and the progressives who are left-wing, but not terribly pro small L labour.
For me, the situation is far more straight forward.
With the full benefit of hindsight, we can say that 'traditional' Labour policies of the 50s, 60s and 70s were empirically disastrous for all concerned, even the working classes, but here's the thing: they were earnestly *intended* to be beneficial to Labour's demographic, the working classes. After all, what's the point of being the stated political party for a specific group of the population, i.e. the working class, if you're not at least attempting to be acting in their best interest, in part for entirely selfish reasons of self preservation, perpetuation and re-election of the party to power? (Consider a Trade Union; the very thought of, say, Aslef or the public sector unions doing anything that wasn't in the selfish interests of their paying members is absurd, even if it isn't in the interests of the wider population. Precious little altruism or political idealism there).
Now, by the early to mid 1990s, it was pretty damn obvious to Labour that there wasn't a cat in hell's chance of the UK electorate (well, English electorate) electing an old school 1960s/1970s socialist party to power; rightly or wrongly, very few people believed in such politics anymore, in the UK as elsewhere. The world had moved on.
So, what do you do? You steal some the Tories' clothes and get someone media-savvy and friendly like Blair in, that's what you do - and to great effect. Sadly, though, and again in retrospect - the legacy of "New" Labour is *utterly* toxic, for reasons of inept execution and truly horrific outcomes which we need hardly revisit, and so yet again - Labour has to again ask itself existentially what it's for and whom they are representing, off the back of another terrible defeat.... so they 'return to the fold' and comfort zone with Corbyn, a living, breathing relic of that Jurassic pre-Blair political age, memories of why they binned all this nonsense 20 years ago having been dimmed by the passage of time. (Perhaps we'll see Blair Mk II, David Miliband maybe, setting out his stall in 5-10 years from now, from the wreckage of post-Corbyn Labour. The wheel turns).
Thing is, though, the old school 1970s working class has changed beyond recognition too; gone are the old unskilled factory and mining jobs (just as others, most notably rust belt USA are finding out even now), and people tire of all this crass flip-flopping and reinvention in the naked pursuit of power, for its own sake. After all, the Tories don't seem to have this problem.
One also has to consider *who* is doing all the reinventing and political positioning - members of the metropolitan class, far removed from 'old school' Labour voters of yesteryear. We only have to recall incidents such as that stalwart of the working class, Barrister Emily Thornbury, mocking that guy for having a white van and the St George's cross flag or whatever it was. As I've said before, I honestly believe that many in the Labour political machine *loathe* the working class.
So in conclusion, to my mind it seems hardly surprising that, given Labour has demonstrably lost sight of the actual interests of the working classes proper, we can't be too surprised to see said working classes voting for somebody else. It really is that simple.
tl;dr the working class has changed and so have social-democratic parties.
Same issue all over Europe. The old middle and working classes are no more, replaced with the precariat and gig economy workers. All three pillars of European postwar politics, social-democratic, liberal and conservative parties, are struggling to cope. The former has been more screwed over or unable to adapt the worst though.
(DocG's spot on about Labour's roots incidentally, as someone who has a small stack of books about Labour history old and new.)
Same issue all over Europe. The old middle and working classes are no more, replaced with the precariat and gig economy workers. All three pillars of European postwar politics, social-democratic, liberal and conservative parties, are struggling to cope. The former has been more screwed over or unable to adapt the worst though.
(DocG's spot on about Labour's roots incidentally, as someone who has a small stack of books about Labour history old and new.)
Cavey wrote:
Cras wrote:
So back to your point, yes the divide is obvious. You've got the working class who are for small L labour and not particularly left wing, and the progressives who are left-wing, but not terribly pro small L labour.
For me, the situation is far more straight forward.
With the full benefit of hindsight, we can say that 'traditional' Labour policies of the 50s, 60s and 70s were empirically disastrous for all concerned, even the working classes, but here's the thing: they were earnestly *intended* to be beneficial to Labour's demographic, the working classes. After all, what's the point of being the stated political party for a specific group of the population, i.e. the working class, if you're not at least attempting to be acting in their best interest, in part for entirely selfish reasons of self preservation, perpetuation and re-election of the party to power? (Consider a Trade Union; the very thought of, say, Aslef or the public sector unions doing anything that wasn't in the selfish interests of their paying members is absurd, even if it isn't in the interests of the wider population. Precious little altruism or political idealism there).
Now, by the early to mid 1990s, it was pretty damn obvious to Labour that there wasn't a cat in hell's chance of the UK electorate (well, English electorate) electing an old school 1960s/1970s socialist party to power; rightly or wrongly, very few people believed in such politics anymore, in the UK as elsewhere. The world had moved on.
So, what do you do? You steal some the Tories' clothes and get someone media-savvy and friendly like Blair in, that's what you do - and to great effect. Sadly, though, and again in retrospect - the legacy of "New" Labour is *utterly* toxic, for reasons of inept execution and truly horrific outcomes which we need hardly revisit, and so yet again - Labour has to again ask itself existentially what it's for and whom they are representing, off the back of another terrible defeat.... so they 'return to the fold' and comfort zone with Corbyn, a living, breathing relic of that Jurassic pre-Blair political age, memories of why they binned all this nonsense 20 years ago having been dimmed by the passage of time. (Perhaps we'll see Blair Mk II, David Miliband maybe, setting out his stall in 5-10 years from now, from the wreckage of post-Corbyn Labour. The wheel turns).
Thing is, though, the old school 1970s working class has changed beyond recognition too; gone are the old unskilled factory and mining jobs (just as others, most notably rust belt USA are finding out even now), and people tire of all this crass flip-flopping and reinvention in the naked pursuit of power, for its own sake. After all, the Tories don't seem to have this problem.
One also has to consider *who* is doing all the reinventing and political positioning - members of the metropolitan class, far removed from 'old school' Labour voters of yesteryear. We only have to recall incidents such as that stalwart of the working class, Barrister Emily Thornbury, mocking that guy for having a white van and the St George's cross flag or whatever it was. As I've said before, I honestly believe that many in the Labour political machine *loathe* the working class.
So in conclusion, to my mind it seems hardly surprising that, given Labour has demonstrably lost sight of the actual interests of the working classes proper, we can't be too surprised to see said working classes voting for somebody else. It really is that simple.
That seems decidedly less straight forward than my one-sentence comment
Not sure what brevity has to do with it, although I've seen longer posts.
At least they're all my own words, for better or for worse.
As an aside, I don't think that New Labour was as monumental a change as it's generally regarded. Social-democratic parties in Europe, Australia, Canada and so on went through similar changes during the eighties and nineties, adopting liberal social and economic ideas. The difference with UK Labour was the change was later and less gradual, and more striking. Perhaps more well-marketed too. (Also, take onboard that Labour unlike their European cousins never had to deal with coalition governments as a matter of course. Some Labour parties have only ever governed with the centre-right.)
Cavey wrote:
:shrug:
Not sure what brevity has to do with it, although I've seen longer posts.
At least they're all my own words, for better or for worse.
Not sure what brevity has to do with it, although I've seen longer posts.
At least they're all my own words, for better or for worse.
Worse
Anonymous X wrote:
(DocG's spot on about Labour's roots incidentally, as someone who has a small stack of books about Labour history old and new.)
Which ones do you recommend? Outside of general surveys of UK political history I've not really looked at Labour's own history since my undergraduate days. Obviously, I have well-thumbed copies of Kenneth Morgan's 'Labour in Power, 1945-1951' and Addison's 'Road to 1945' and I've read lots on the Blair/Brown years.
This charming chap is Richard Spencer. Here, he is giving a speech at a conference in Washington DC which ended with Nazi salutes and shouts of “Heil Trump, heil our people, heil victory!”. Richard Spencer was described by Brietbart as one of the leading "intellectuals" of the alt-right. At that time, Breitbart was run by Steve Bannon. In August, Bannon described Breitbart as "the platform for the alt-right." Richard Spencer coined the phrase "alt-right" and says it has "white identity as its core idea."
Steve Bannon will work with Trump as the White House chief strategist.
I don't know any other way to join these dots.
https://twitter.com/estwebber/status/801027674017824768
Conservative Simon Burns: "Generous" of Trump to make a suggestion for ambassador, recommends Hillary for US ambassador to the UK
— Esther Webber (@estwebber) November 22, 2016
Quote:
Conservative Simon Burns: "Generous" of Trump to make a suggestion for ambassador, recommends Hillary for US ambassador to the UK
Of course trump wants Farage as ambassador, he's proven in the past he likes locking trump's arse. Which is all the qualification trump needs to hire someone.
To save you the trouble of listening to 'The Now Show' on Friday, perhaps the prime minister could appoint Mr Farage as ambassador to Mars?
This is a rare beast! An Owen Jones opinion column in The Guardian that Cavey might agree with!
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... oliticians
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... oliticians
Owen Jones is just so very punchable.
He really is. Fucking posh boys playing at being socialist. Smug twat.
MrChris wrote:
He really is. Fucking posh boys playing at being socialist. Smug twat.
If he believes in what he talks about, and there's no indication that he doesn't, then why shouldn't he talk about it?
Did I say he's not allowed to speak? He's entitled to his opinion, but I think he's an irritating, entitled, smug cunt, and there's something of a whiff of hypocrisy about him given his privileged background.
MrChris wrote:
Did I say he's not allowed to speak? He's entitled to his opinion, but I think he's an irritating, entitled, smug cunt, and there's something of a whiff of hypocrisy about him given his privileged background.
I actually think this is quite a credible piece and under ordinary circumstances I could concur.... but when it comes to this insufferable little twerp, I'm afraid I simply must object by default and on principle. A more punchable human being is impossible for me to imagine; he sets my very teeth on edge. The guy is Cavey kryptonite!
Ugh.
You can't win if you're on the left. If you're poor then it's politics of envy; if you're rich then you're a champagne socialist.
I don't much like Jones either.
I don't much like Jones either.
I have no opinion on his politics or his writing. He just looks like someone I want to punch.
MrChris wrote:
Did I say he's not allowed to speak? He's entitled to his opinion, but I think he's an irritating, entitled, smug cunt, and there's something of a whiff of hypocrisy about him given his privileged background.
Yeah, but like Myp said, if you are not poor and have socialist beliefs, what can you do?
Curiosity wrote:
MrChris wrote:
Did I say he's not allowed to speak? He's entitled to his opinion, but I think he's an irritating, entitled, smug cunt, and there's something of a whiff of hypocrisy about him given his privileged background.
Yeah, but like Myp said, if you are not poor and have socialist beliefs, what can you do?
Give me all your money so you can be poor and fix the problem.
Curiosity wrote:
MrChris wrote:
Did I say he's not allowed to speak? He's entitled to his opinion, but I think he's an irritating, entitled, smug cunt, and there's something of a whiff of hypocrisy about him given his privileged background.
Yeah, but like Myp said, if you are not poor and have socialist beliefs, what can you do?
Walk the walk, instead of talk the talk?
Nothing to stop rich people with socialist beliefs to voluntarily pay more taxes. Spookily enough, though, none of the buggers seem to do so, weird that.
(Besides, I mean come on Curio. The guy's an insufferable arse, surely... I could not bear to share the same room as him, and I'm quite certain the feeling would be mutual. Believe it or not, I had the greatest respect for my fiercely socialist shop floor peers back in the day; I might not have agreed with them but they were genuine and authentic, right down to their steel-capped boots. This guy though? Pfft, give me a break).
EDIT: Heh! Grim... beat me to it, and far more succinctly, too.
Socialist beliefs aren't that everyone should be poor. It's that we should have structures in place to help those that are in need of help. Not sure why that is deemed incompatible with being middle class. Anyone with eyeballs and half a brain can see that income inequality has increased over recent years, and that trying to address that balance is beneficial.
This may come as quite a shock, Curio, but believe it or not, Socialists don't have a monopoly on caring about social inequalities. There are plenty of other people whose politics lie in the centre ground, e.g. Liberals, and quite a few progressive Tories as well ('One Nation Conservative', the clue's in the name).
Regardless, though, no-one is saying anything about being entitled or otherwise to hold one set of views, or another. I just happen to hold my view that, if you're going to be an extremely vocal, hectoring, public proponent on the hard Left, and hugely critical of those (i.e. most people) holding converse views, then by Heck, you'd better have some authenticity, legitimacy and some actual frame of reference, and life experience so to do? (Note: by 'life experience' I don't mean indulging in endless days/weeks on fucking Twitter whilst metaphorically still in shorts, or debating finer points at some Oxbridge University. I mean knowing the first fucking thing, first hand, about the very things - and people - you're talking about? Mind you, he's hardly the only offender on that score...).
You may well disagree, of course, but it's notable that many others, including here (and including from his own side of the fence as it were) seem to hold similar views.
Regardless, though, no-one is saying anything about being entitled or otherwise to hold one set of views, or another. I just happen to hold my view that, if you're going to be an extremely vocal, hectoring, public proponent on the hard Left, and hugely critical of those (i.e. most people) holding converse views, then by Heck, you'd better have some authenticity, legitimacy and some actual frame of reference, and life experience so to do? (Note: by 'life experience' I don't mean indulging in endless days/weeks on fucking Twitter whilst metaphorically still in shorts, or debating finer points at some Oxbridge University. I mean knowing the first fucking thing, first hand, about the very things - and people - you're talking about? Mind you, he's hardly the only offender on that score...).
You may well disagree, of course, but it's notable that many others, including here (and including from his own side of the fence as it were) seem to hold similar views.
It's fun to imagine the Tories as evil, moustache twirling baddies though.
DavPaz wrote:
It's fun to imagine the Tories as evil, moustache twirling baddies though.
I think the country clearly has a naughty schoolboy fetish, what with the sternness of the Headmistress and her crew.
I like being an overgrown naughty schoolboy. It's ace! 
To be honest, I'm feeling really despondent about the country at the moment. But then no matter how gloomy I feel politically, it's still my home, most of the people I like live here, and we still have in such a small areas a staggeringly diverse landscape across these small islands that never fails to raise the spirits.
Kern wrote:
To be honest, I'm feeling really despondent about the country at the moment. But then no matter how gloomy I feel politically, it's still my home, most of the people I like live here, and we still have in such a small areas a staggeringly diverse landscape across these small islands that never fails to raise the spirits.
Look on the bright side: At least we didn't elect Trump. (nor did we elect Farage to a seat that 'matters')
Kern wrote:
To be honest, I'm feeling really despondent about the country at the moment. But then no matter how gloomy I feel politically, it's still my home, most of the people I like live here, and we still have in such a small areas a staggeringly diverse landscape across these small islands that never fails to raise the spirits.
Absolutely. I like your sentiments, sir.
Damn right. We're all in the same boat. Let's not drill any more holes
Edit. Sorry, I'm in an unusually good mood today
Edit. Sorry, I'm in an unusually good mood today
Cavey wrote:
Nothing to stop rich people with socialist beliefs to voluntarily pay more taxes. Spookily enough, though, none of the buggers seem to do so, weird that.
This is an interesting point. I wouldn't say I'm rich (except in as much as compared to huge parts of the populations of developing countries, pretty much everyone who posts on here could be defined as "rich"). As well as having a relatively well-paid job, last year I started uploading designs to sell on products via Redbubble. This started as a minor hobby but has become slightly profitable, to the point where it pays me generally £100-£200 a month (sadly not enough to quit the day job, but a nice bit of extra pocket money). It would be very easy to just pocket that and, although I have no evidence either way, the cynical part of me imagines that's what most Redbubble/Zazzle/Cafepress sellers do. Instead, I registered for self-assessment and pay income tax on it.
I'm sure Trump would call me stupid for doing that, but I've never understood the apparently universal assumption that everyone pays the minimum amount of tax that they can get away with. In general, you're probably right though Cavey - not many people volunteer to pay more tax than they have to. But is it morally wrong to espouse the idea that you (and those of similar levels of income to you) should pay more tax than you actually do? Should it be up to individuals to pay more, or governments to make them pay more?
Well, Warren Buffett has called for people like him to be taxed at a higher rate. I don't think he's paid any extra tax, but he has given tens of billions of dollars to charity, so I guess he gets a let off there
I always read his name as War on Buffet, and imagine him eating loads of food.
Bobbyaro wrote:
I always read his name as War on Buffet, and imagine him eating loads of food.
Or overturning a table shouting cheese with pineapple diatribes
MaliA wrote:
Bobbyaro wrote:
I always read his name as War on Buffet, and imagine him eating loads of food.
Or overturning a table shouting cheese with pineapple diatribes
In Margaritaville .
Him and Robin Mahfood would probably get along well.
Brexit costs / Osborne's crappy forecasting [1], a story in two numbers from the Treasury:
That's £220bn more debt in 2019/20 than previously forecast. Hey, remember when we went through grinding austerity so the Tory's marvellous long term economic plan could bring us into economic surplus? lol
Sunlit uplands, my friends!
Source: https://twitter.com/chrisshipitv/status ... 3215706112
That's £220bn more debt in 2019/20 than previously forecast. Hey, remember when we went through grinding austerity so the Tory's marvellous long term economic plan could bring us into economic surplus? lol
Sunlit uplands, my friends!
Source: https://twitter.com/chrisshipitv/status ... 3215706112
Here's the cost of #Brexit folks.
Before #EURef Osborne predicted debt in 2019/20 of
[1] Delete according to your preference of holding Osborne or Cameron accountable for this. Or split the difference! A mere £110bn apiece.
This is about taking control, remember?
Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
That's £220bn more debt in 2019/20 than previously forecast. Hey, remember when we went through grinding austerity so the Tory's marvellous long term economic plan could bring us into economic surplus? lol
To put that more in context, a brief look around suggests the national debt when the Conservative's took office in 2010 was just under £1.2tn, and that same Conservative party is now forecasting it will be £1.9tn in 2020. That's an impressive result for the party of fiscal responsibility.(I happen to think there are better ways to reason about the national economy than the debt. But hey, Tories were the ones that kept talking about it, so as far as I'm concerned that's now the petard they can be hoist upon.)
Page 149 of 289 [ 14415 posts ]