General Election December, 2019 (U.K.)

sid waddell

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Did flint actually here thornberry use those words? No she didnt. It was at best third hand, maybe even fourth hand info. Scurrilous to put something like that out in public on such a basis, but likely she knew what she was doing.

Self serving grandstanding by Flint.

If anybody in Labour was guilty of not listening to people, it was the likes of herself.

Anyway, this stuff about "not listening to people" is a load of rot.

Politics is about beliefs and standing for something. If you have no actual beliefs and stand for nothing, you shouldn't be in it in the first place.

Politicians who stand for nothing are only about getting elected and peddling easy "answers". That was Flint in a nutshell over the last few years.

Of all the Labour MPs who have lost their seat, she's probably the one I have least sympathy for.

sid waddell

sid waddell wrote: »

It is objectively true that a lot of voters are idiots. Hell, there are plenty of politicians themselves that are idiots.

This is a discussion forum.

For some reason you've decided to take on the persona of an actual Tory politician.

I've no idea why anybody would do that on a discussion forum.

That's not the subject of dispute.

Furthermore, "idiots", is entirely subjective; it's a term thrown around for anyone with whom our politics does not align.

I have no doubt that you probably think my line of argument derives from some deeply ingrained idiocy I've yet to acknowledge.

sid waddell

Lefty Bicek wrote: »

And you've taken on the persona of a Labour politician !



I've no idea why anyone would do that after last Friday.

Tory supporters, including on here, have continually called Labour "nuts" and "insane" and "stupid" (add your own epithet of choice).

Therefore, by definition, they think that anybody who votes Labour is "nuts" or "insane" or "stupid".

Looking down on people, indeed.

Joe_ Public

sid waddell wrote: »

Self serving grandstanding by Flint.

If anybody in Labour was guilty of not listening to people, it was the likes of herself.

Anyway, this stuff about "not listening to people" is a load of rot.

Politics is about beliefs and standing for something. If you have no actual beliefs and stand for nothing, you shouldn't be in it in the first place.

Politicians who stand for nothing are only about getting elected and peddling easy "answers". That was Flint in a nutshell over the last few years.

Of all the Labour MPs who have lost their seat, she's probably the one I have least sympathy for.

She always came across a very bright, articulate mp to me, but to see her morph into some kind of Bill Cash drag act in the commons these past few months was depressing. I just find it sad, did she really expect the party could align its whole position just for her and a few other mps sakes? That seems exactly what she wanted and expected.

sid waddell

Was a particular poster talking about "looking down on people"?

Tut tut.

We have a eugenicist in our ranks.

Deleted User wrote: »

My answer to poverty is this:

Poor people must be discouraged from making children as much as possible. It's selfish and irresponsible for poor people, by definition, to create a baby for whom they cannot afford and who, by definition, faces the same poverty that they complain of. Who would do this? It's insane!

suicide_circus

the resistance here to the self evident truth that there is a serious disconnect between the London based bourgeois leadership and the largely northern working class membership of the Labour party is laughable but maybe more time needs to pass in order to get to grips with it.

Shelga

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Caroline Flint lashing out and with a cheap shot against Emily Thornberry to boot. The day i saw her stand up in the commons spitting venom at the eu for the scourge of zero hour contracts was the day i gave up any remnants of respect i had left for her. Always remember watching her on the Andrew Neil weekly show and she always came across well and also as one of the ardent remainers she now clearly despises. As a ploy to save her seat it was probably understandable, but to go full pivot from hard remain to hard leave, in the end maybe the voters just didnt trust her.

I think the trust thing is key. She seemed to do a complete 180 on Brexit, and that just doesn't ring true to people. As Jess Phillips said, she managed to "disagree well" with her constituents, and that kind of honesty goes down better, and thus her position on Brexit wasn't the main focus.

Flint also comes across as bitter, due to losing her seat. Even if what Thornberry said was true, and I personally don't think it was (Flint says "she told my colleague"- meaning she didn't hear it directly, this is just playground Chinese whispers then)- why is she trying to publicly increase the divisions in the Labour Party?

Nothing to do with sour grapes then.

Shelga

Also posting this comment from the Guardian, it's very long, but I think explains perfectly why Labour crashed and burned, especially the first few lines:


ally2815h ago

53
54
The party needs to reconnect with working-class self-help...

As always, John Harris gets it. Loathe them as much as you wish, the Tories have a very simple message about aspiration and self reliance that speaks to a lot of people across all kinds of income levels and backgrounds. You may think it shouldn't, you may think it's 24 carat bollox, and you may be right, but it's a universal simple message that resonates.

Too often in the last few years, when the Left have spoken about social justice, income equality, racial equality, any of these matters, it's been couched almost entirely in terms of an extreme form of helpless victimhood that that a lot of people(myself included) just don't identify with. A lot of the electorate, none of whom are remotely wealthy don't consider themselves to be oppressed, downtrodden victims that need to be 'saved'.

They don't wish to be patronised. They don't wish to be 'looked after' like children. They're not(nor should they be) 'grateful'. So calling them idiots and worse for voting for Brexit/Tory because they'll lose out on EU funding, as I've seen on a fair few comments, misses the point by a country mile. They don't want handouts, from the EU or anyone else.

Others have spoken about the extremely Londoncentric attitude of the party. One example that's always stayed with me: back in 2010, you may recall, the Coalition brought in the benefits cap. The cap proposed at that time was £26000 IIRC. Labour spent a lot of time and effort opposing it, without once considering WHY such a policy had the support of so much of the public, including their core voters.

In this very publication, Polly Toynbee referred to some of these welfare cuts as a 'Final Solution for the poor'.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/oct/25/benefits-cut-rents-up-housing-time-bomb

Now, the number of people receiving the sums anywhere near the cap was miniscule, the majority of them in inner London due to housing costs, and we all know the Daily Mail et al were going to talk up the few examples in existence, but implying that living outside of London was just like being put on a train headed to Auschwitz, along with other hyperbolic terms like 'social cleansing' 'social apartheid' etc, which was the prevailing sentiment expressed by those from the 'Progressive Left' at the time really didn't help.

Because, as horrific and incomprehensible the prospect of living more than 5 minutes away from Harvey Nicks may appear to some, it is the lived reality of tens of millions of people in the UK...a reality that dictates if you can't afford to live in London, then you don't. Yet Labour inexplicably chose that particular hill to die on.

As I've mentioned on here before, I grew up and still live relatively near Romford(technically an outer London borough, but I still consider it Essex). I also lived in Manchester for 3-4 years back in the late 90s. The former experience means the notion of a working class Tory isn't quite the conceptual struggle it appears to some on here; the latter allows me to confirm definitively the existence of running electricity, water, decent coffee and even serviceable cutlery beyond the wild savage frontier known as 'North of the M25'.

I mean, if Labour came across as hopelessly, painfully and cringeworthingly Londoncentric to someone living out in Zone 6 back then, God knows what those living further afield have made of them during the intervening years. I understand the criticisms of Corbyn, but this disconnect precedes him by some margin. And publications like the Guardian, I'm afraid have to take some responsibility for the discourse that's led to it.

Joe_ Public

suicide_circus wrote: »

the resistance here to the self evident truth that there is a serious disconnect between the London based bourgeois leadership and the largely northern working class membership of the Labour party is laughable but maybe more time needs to pass in order to get to grips with it.

Not really. Its just stating the obvious which everyone knows, a long standing issue going back to thatcher and blair eras, that was simply brought into sharper focus by brexit. The real question is how they address it and why many think they need a northerner, preferably female, as next leader. Lot of work and soul searching to be done though.

Lefty Bicek

sid waddell wrote: »

Tory supporters, including on here, have continually called Labour "nuts" and "insane" and "stupid" (add your own epithet of choice).

Therefore, by definition, they think that anybody who votes Labour is "nuts" or "insane" or "stupid".

Looking down on people, indeed.

Well all of that is just looking down on other people's intelligence or voting preferences.

The problem for Thornberry though, is that she was perceived to be/accused of 'looking down' in that most British of ways - social class.

Perenially touchy subject over there. Not easily forgiven.

sid waddell

sid waddell wrote: »

Was a particular poster talking about "looking down on people"?

Tut tut.

We have a eugenicist in our ranks.

I stand by that comment.

And it's not eugenics; it's a statement of fact, that if you cannot afford to give a baby, or multiple children, a decent standard of living, then you should consider not having those children until such time that you can.

It's simply a matter of prudent financial management.

sid waddell

Deleted User wrote: »

I stand by that comment.

And it's not eugenics; it's a statement of fact, that if you cannot afford to give a baby, or multiple children, a decent standard of living, then you should consider not having those children until such time that you can.

It's simply a matter of prudent financial management.

Ah right, so it's fine for Tories like yourself to call poor people "insane", "selfish" and "irresponsible" for having children.

Eugenics is exactly what it is.

And yet you have the cheek to accuse anybody else of looking down on people.

I rest my case.

Lefty Bicek

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Not really. Its just stating the obvious which everyone knows, a long standing issue going back to thatcher and blair eras, that was simply brought into sharper focus by brexit. The real question is how they address it and why many think they need a northerner, preferably female, as next leader. Lot of work and soul searching to be done though.

Why preferably female ?

Northerner, I can understand.

sid waddell

sid waddell wrote: »

Ah right, so it's fine for Tories like yourself to call poor people "insane", "selfish" and "irresponsible" for having children.

Eugenics is exactly what it is.

And yet you have the cheek to accuse anybody else of looking down on people.

I rest my case.

It's not looking down on people at all.

It's not even about "being poor", if we're really honest.

It's about living within our means. If you cannot afford the latest Mercedes, you should not indebt yourself just to satisfy that desire.

Having a child bears far more responsibility than owning a Mercedes.

It's about responsible financial management, and that principle applies to everyone in society with the decisions they take.

Joe_ Public

Lefty Bicek wrote: »

Why preferably female ?

Northerner, I can understand.

I didnt mean my personal preference, just what quite a few labour people are saying. John McDonnell said it weeks ago. Only main party never to have had a female leader so attraction seems fairly obvious to me. It makes sense if they have enough strong candidates and i think they do. I like Rayner though her perceived closeness to corbyn may not go in her favour. Lisa Nandy seems to be an early frontrunner and ticks a few of the right boxes.

sid waddell

Deleted User wrote: »

It's not looking down on people at all.

It's not even about "being poor", if we're really honest.

So calling poor people "selfish", "insane" and "irresponsible" for having children is not looking down on people.

Em, sure.

You really couldn't have proved my point about how Tories like yourself are living in an alternative, fact free reality any better, could you?

suicide_circus

Lefty Bicek wrote: »

Why preferably female ?

Northerner, I can understand.

its more identity politics juggling. the gender or the hometown of a new leader is utterly irrelevant - its about likeability. Corbyn had none. Swinson had none. Boris has a bit. Its marketing.

sid waddell

sid waddell wrote: »

So calling poor people "selfish", "insane" and "irresponsible" for having children is not looking down on people.

Em, sure.

You really couldn't have proved my point about how Tories like yourself are living in an alternative, fact free reality any better, could you?

Do you accept the fundamental principle that you should not take the cost of something you cannot afford?

Shelga

Deleted User wrote: »

Do you accept the fundamental principle that you should not take the cost of something you cannot afford?

I think a key point that you are overlooking is that having children is becoming increasingly unaffordable in this day and age. It’s not a question of working harder and getting more money- the cost of property is a major barrier for lots of people, not just in London. Places with thriving industries and well-paid jobs tend to have astronomically expensive houses to match.

maynooth_rules

Why are Corbyn and McDonnell getting any say whatsoever in the successor. Its shameful that Corbyn can brass neck his way through this, and leave at a time of his choosing. Had he any pride we would have walked on Friday morning. But he wants his extreme left wing virus to stay infecting the party into the next leader.
It should be Keir Starmer. And whats between his legs should play no role in dismissing his as the standout choice

Letwin_Larry

devnull wrote: »

I didn't like Ken Clarke at all for many years but in the last two or three years he has really talked with a lot of sense. He's a tory but one of the better ones who is both intelligent and not blinkered

One of my former colleagues, who is Polish had a chance meeting with him around the time of referendum and said he couldn't have been nicer and reassured her that he would always speak up for the likes of her who are being demonised despite paying into the country for many years.

If there were more of the likes of him much of the last few years would have been easier to take. The fact the Lib Dems were proposing him as caretaker PM shows that.

i think he's a decent skin. no biterness, just good old fashioned common sense. another i like is Michael Heseltine.
i worked in London at the time of Maggie, but like myself i suppose, these 'grandees' have mellowed with age. as you get older you realise these extreme ideologies, while they may appear very attractive are in fact nonsensical.
the Lab party is learning this lesson i hope. although judging from some of the commentary perhaps not.

no matter who they appoint it will not be the right person. a lefty will not appeal to the centre. a centrist will antagonise the corbynites. a Northerner may not appeal to the metropolitian elite in Putney/Islington. a Londoner will not go down well up North.

they really are in a bind imo.

but 1 big question remains!!!

How did a Tory, a silver-spooned Etonian, a Telegraph columnist, a bigot, a racist, a liar manage to get ex-miners/dockers, ex-miners/dockers sons & daughters to overwhelmingly endorse him, after Thatcherism, and a decade of Tory austerity?!!!!

Joe_ Public

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

How did a Tory, a silver-spooned Etonian, a Telegraph columnist, a bigot, a racist, a liar manage to get ex-miners/dockers, ex-miners/dockers sons & daughters to overwhelmingly endorse him, after Thatcherism, and a decade of Tory austerity?!!!!

Dont forget a 13 year labour government where the gap between rich and poor widened alarmingly helped contribute to this outcome.

I think part of it is when people refer to "ex mining communities". The key word is community and that sense of community has been shredded with cuts and austerity going back many years. The days when labour were the glue that bound those communities together are long gone and not sure they'll easily get those voters back as the whole thing is so much more fragmented and disconnected now. Cuts to schools, sports facilities, libraries, the gutting of town centres with no viable alternatives. I think all these will continue to happen and they'll still just blame all politicians for it.

Shelga

Shelga wrote: »

I think a key point that you are overlooking is that having children is becoming increasingly unaffordable in this day and age. It’s not a question of working harder and getting more money- the cost of property is a major barrier for lots of people, not just in London. Places with thriving industries and well-paid jobs tend to have astronomically expensive houses to match.

...which is precisely my point: those who cannot afford to give their child a decent standard of living / upbringing, should think responsibly and decide not to have that child until such time that they can afford to have the child / maximize its upbringing potential.

Again, it's a simple matter of financial prudence and parental responsibility.

Strazdas

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

i think he's a decent skin. no biterness, just good old fashioned common sense. another i like is Michael Heseltine.
i worked in London at the time of Maggie, but like myself i suppose, these 'grandees' have mellowed with age. as you get older you realise these extreme ideologies, while they may appear very attractive are in fact nonsensical.
the Lab party is learning this lesson i hope. although judging from some of the commentary perhaps not.

no matter who they appoint it will not be the right person. a lefty will not appeal to the centre. a centrist will antagonise the corbynites. a Northerner may not appeal to the metropolitian elite in Putney/Islington. a Londoner will not go down well up North.

they really are in a bind imo.

but 1 big question remains!!!

How did a Tory, a silver-spooned Etonian, a Telegraph columnist, a bigot, a racist, a liar manage to get ex-miners/dockers, ex-miners/dockers sons & daughters to overwhelmingly endorse him, after Thatcherism, and a decade of Tory austerity?!!!!

It's a great question. One theory I've heard is that the class system is much more engrained into English society than we can possibly imagine, looking in from the outside and living in a republic.

People like Cameron, Johnson and Rees-Mogg would be regarded as an absolute joke in Ireland if they were Irish, but the English mindset and media is very different. It's obvious to us that they are puffed up eejits and buffoons and not very intelligent but their media portrayal cross channel is of high intellect and men who were born to rule.

LuckyLloyd

Shelga wrote: »

Also posting this comment from the Guardian, it's very long, but I think explains perfectly why Labour crashed and burned, especially the first few lines:


ally2815h ago

53
54
The party needs to reconnect with working-class self-help...

Heard the same stuff in 2015 and we’ll hear versions of the same thing every time Labour lose an election. And it all pushes the conversation in the same direction: ‘don’t campaign and run for what you actually believe in’. Go centrist. Even better, go centre right. And therefore you can ‘win’ even though you’re actually losing, just in a more nuanced way that makes you feel better about the whole thing.

Don’t call them racist. Don’t call them economically illiterate. Don’t ask them which of the EU rules are the problem, makes them feel stupid. Speaking of which, don’t call them stupid. Don’t impinge upon their working class pride - they don’t want a handout and actually think they’ll be a millionaire some day. Don’t dare say privatisation is bad. Or that the market produces some ****ty unequal outcomes. Infact, just be a slightly lite version of your opponents with ideally a young charismatic leader. Then you’ll win.

If that’s what ‘winning’ is what’s the point? If England is intent on building an ever more poor, divided and unequal society that’s up to them. Our lack of a deeply engrained class system is a blessing; as is the effective lack of ideology from our main parties. Long may it last. The Brits can do what they like.

Oh and also: so long as those 40 Scottish seats are gone Labour will never win anyway, so it doesn’t really matter either way.

Lefty Bicek

Strazdas wrote: »

It's a great question. One theory I've heard is that the class system is much more engrained into English society than we can possibly imagine, looking in from the outside and living in a republic.

People like Cameron, Johnson and Rees-Mogg would be regarded as an absolute joke in Ireland if they were Irish, but the English mindset and media is very different. It's obvious to us that they are puffed up eejits and buffoons and not very intelligent but their media portrayal cross channel is of high intellect and men who were born to rule.

How can the theory (where did you hear it ?) of an engrained class system explain

How did a Tory, a silver-spooned Etonian, a Telegraph columnist, a bigot, a racist, a liar manage to get ex-miners/dockers, ex-miners/dockers sons & daughters to overwhelmingly endorse him, after Thatcherism, and a decade of Tory austerity?!!!!

If anything, the question hints at the very opposite of stratified class beliefs.

Whether people want to admit it or not, there is a thread of bigotry and racism in the working class. Always has been. Coarser than the silver-spoon type, but there we are. I have no idea to what extent that is a factor here, but clearly you are unaware it even exists. Boris is aware, though.

There's a really silly reverse snobbery in your comment about their 'not very intelligent eejits and buffoons'.

We'd be behind the sofa if they offered their impressions of some of our gombeen 'legislators', spluttering and slavering in the Dáil.

It's rude to point. Unwise too.

VinLieger

Deleted User wrote: »

...which is precisely my point: those who cannot afford to give their child a decent standard of living / upbringing, should think responsibly and decide not to have that child until such time that they can afford to have the child / maximize its upbringing potential.

Again, it's a simple matter of financial prudence and parental responsibility.

Your ignoring that society cannot function in the long term if you have several years of the kind of drastically reduced child birth you are advocating for.

Just look at the state pension time bomb that's being constantly swept under the carpet here caused by the lowering of births over the past 20 years. By 2040 we are projected to have a worker to retiree ratio of as low as 3:1 from the 5:1 we have currently, tell me how we fund health, pensions and other vital services those retirees will be putting a massive strain on with such a low worker to retiree ratio?

Yes people shouldn't have more kids than they are capable of sustaining but its also up to any responsible the government to make having 2-3 kids somewhat affordable for an average family without stretching things to the bread line like is currently happening.

Strazdas

Lefty Bicek wrote: »

How can the theory (where did you hear it ?) of an engrained class system explain

The English class system is much more pronounced than any other country in Europe (the majority of whom are republics).

A high profile monarchy, an aristocracy, an honours system (knighthoods etc), super elite universities like Eton, Cambridge and Oxford which would be nearly impossible for a working class person to attend, and so on

rossie1977

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

How did a Tory, a silver-spooned Etonian, a Telegraph columnist, a bigot, a racist, a liar manage to get ex-miners/dockers, ex-miners/dockers sons & daughters to overwhelmingly endorse him, after Thatcherism, and a decade of Tory austerity?!!!!

He didn't. As plenty have stated tories vote barely rose from 13,636,684 votes in 2017 and 13,966,565 in 2019.

60 million Americans voted for McCain who wasn't in great health and Sarah Palin as vice president in 2008 when the Republicans had overseen 800,000 people a month losing their jobs.. Why

Why did 63+ million vote for second term of George Bush Jr. Why did blue collar workers consider a guy who lived in a tower with his name in gold letters and flew around in his own jumbo jet 'one of them'. Why did most of the Irish population consider a guy who owned islands thanks to decades of corruption 'one of their own'.

Lefty Bicek

Strazdas wrote: »

The English class system is much more pronounced than any other country in Europe (the majority of whom are republics).

A high profile monarchy, an aristocracy, an honours system (knighthoods etc), super elite universities like Eton, Cambridge and Oxford which would be nearly impossible for a working class person to attend, and so on

Denmark and Norway, both monarchies. Both score highly in social mobility. Monarchy is no indicator one way or another.

The Honours system, whatever one thinks of it's merits, is extremely class-inclusive, including plenty Irish recipients.

Eton is not a university.

Oxford and Cambridge are not 'nearly impossible for a working class person to attend'.


.