General British politics discussion thread

ancapailldorcha

quokula wrote: »

Yeah this is a key part of it - it’s not that people from certain areas are uneducated, it’s that the ones who get educated go on to move to a big city. These cities then have hugely concentrated voting blocks for Labour while those who are left behind by the brain drain seem increasingly susceptible to the sort of nationalistic jingoism that the Tories and the right wing media are keen on pushing.

The lack of PR and the flawed nature of FPTP means that come election time all the focus and media attention ends up on these specific areas who decide the elections, while massively diverse cities like London made up of millions of people of all classes and all backgrounds basically get ignored as they almost uniformly vote Labour.

Again it’s not unlike the US where the Democrats have been consistently ahead in popular vote share for a couple of decades thanks to the massive concentration of voters in cities, but archaic voting systems mean their vote just doesn’t matter as much as voters turning red in low population rust belt states.

I do think countries like Ireland with decent voting systems are far more resilient to these kinds of problems.

I genuinely think that if things continue as they are here then, short of a shakeup the UK will effectively be a one party state. The voting system prevents anyone but Labour from challenging the Tories but Labour look more and more like a spent force here. The continued weakening of trade unions in turn diminishes the party while the desertion of many Labour voters in 2019 has shown that their solid northern working class base isn't solid at all.

The Greens are a single issue party while the Lib Dems are nowhere near popular enough to topple Labour. Funnily enough, I had to work to remember who their leader is. UKIP still exist which seems insane. My ballot yesterday listed their mayoral candidate as one Peter Gammons, a man I know nothing about. I had forgotten all about them until I saw a tweet from them going on about animal welfare.

breezy1985

Arthur Daley wrote: »

And wouldn't they be right. They were never asked to take in so many migrants, and the open borders doctrine will not put a number on when this will stop. So the logical and sensible conclusion is that migration will continue unchecked. Unless and until those behind this government policy will confirm otherwise.

Put a figure on it. Spell it out. When is enough, enough? Speak to your electorate and be clear.

That is what the Tories have done. Eventually when forced into it by Farage and company

No they wouldn't because there isn't this sea of immigrants taking the jobs and I don't see why this fear of it seems to affect so many pensioners anyway. Unchecked migration is a myth and the biggest failing is that it has never been explained to people properly that European countries need desperately need these young people coming in to work and pay tax to support the massive pension bill. Some countries in Europe will be facing a pensioner for every worker without it.

And the real lie about the migration problem was how easy the English accepted me and welcomed but at the same time hated Pavel, Paulo and Abdul. That's racism pure and simple, old people scared the world doesn't look the same as it did in 1950

Shelga

42% turnout in Hartlepool is so sad. Most people just don't care.

If someone doesn't care enough to vote, what can you do for them? Where does personal responsibility come in to play?

If I was a British Labour MP, I'd genuinely have no idea how to break through the mindless patriotism over there at the moment. I do not envy them.

Agree that Britain minus Scotland is turning into a one-party state, and if Scotland becomes independent, Labour is basically finished. Having no opposition is bad for everyone. Worrying times ahead.

Arthur Daley

breezy1985 wrote: »

Unchecked migration is a myth and the biggest failing is that it has never been explained to people properly that European countries need desperately need these young people coming in to work and pay tax to support the massive pension bill. Some countries in Europe will be facing a pensioner for every worker without it.

And then who pays the pension and healthcare of the migrants who have come in since 1990, and all their dependents?
More migrants. A Ponzi scheme basically

hotmail.com

Shelga wrote: »

42% turnout in Hartlepool is so sad. Most people just don't care.

If someone doesn't care enough to vote, what can you do for them? Where does personal responsibility come in to play?

If I was a British Labour MP, I'd genuinely have no idea how to break through the mindless patriotism over there at the moment. I do not envy them.

Agree that Britain minus Scotland is turning into a one-party state, and if Scotland becomes independent, Labour is basically finished. Having no opposition is bad for everyone. Worrying times ahead.

42% is an extremely good turnout for a by election.

Our 2019 by elections only got around 26% turnout.

partyguinness

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I genuinely think that if things continue as they are here then, short of a shakeup the UK will effectively be a one party state. The voting system prevents anyone but Labour from challenging the Tories but Labour look more and more like a spent force here. The continued weakening of trade unions in turn diminishes the party while the desertion of many Labour voters in 2019 has shown that their solid northern working class base isn't solid at all.

The Greens are a single issue party while the Lib Dems are nowhere near popular enough to topple Labour. Funnily enough, I had to work to remember who their leader is. UKIP still exist which seems insane. My ballot yesterday listed their mayoral candidate as one Peter Gammons, a man I know nothing about. I had forgotten all about them until I saw a tweet from them going on about animal welfare.

I think what happened to Labour is that they have been caught between two bar stools and now have a severe identity crisis. The Party itself is absolutely Remain but the majority of its core vote base is pro-Brexit. That is a problem and a real idenity crisis. All the Tories have to do is sit back and pick up the crumbs.

At this stage all Labour can hope for over the next 10 years is that the Tories will just shoot themselves in the foot. It will happend no doubt.

It's like FF in Ireland who tend to dominate with FG only benefitting when FF screw it up and then back to FF again. Rinse and repeat.

As mentioned by another posters, the whole "left v right" debate no longer exists. Blair recognised this with his "New Labour" mantra. People are simple- job, money in the pocket and nice car on the drive and a sun holiday every year. That is it. People are not interested in old idealogical arguments.

hotmail.com

partyguinness wrote: »

I think what happened to Labour is that they have been caught between two bar stools and now have a severe identity crisis. The Party itself is absolutely Remain but the majority of its core vote base is pro-Brexit. That is a problem and a real idenity crisis. All the Tories have to do is sit back and pick up the crumbs.

At this stage all Labour can hope for over the next 10 years is that the Tories will just shoot themselves in the foot. It will happend no doubt.

It's like FF in Ireland who tend to dominate with FG only benefitting when FF screw it up and then back to FF again. Rinse and repeat.

As mentioned by another posters, the whole "left v right" debate no longer exists. Blair recognised this with his "New Labour" mantra. People are simple- job, money in the pocket and nice car on the drive and a sun holiday every year. That is it. People are not interested in old idealogical arguments.

Then the point of Labour comes into question.

If they move to the centre and become Tory Lite, there is little point in voting for them.

These votes also show that issues that are vocal on twitter just don't translate into voting patterns. Labour would be better off staying off the Woke issues but then they'll piss off their base.

Perhaps Labour is better as a Left Opposition party that never governs. Perhaps that's its future.

partyguinness

breezy1985 wrote: »

No they wouldn't because there isn't this sea of immigrants taking the jobs and I don't see why this fear of it seems to affect so many pensioners anyway. Unchecked migration is a myth and the biggest failing is that it has never been explained to people properly that European countries need desperately need these young people coming in to work and pay tax to support the massive pension bill. Some countries in Europe will be facing a pensioner for every worker without it.

And the real lie about the migration problem was how easy the English accepted me and welcomed but at the same time hated Pavel, Paulo and Abdul. That's racism pure and simple, old people scared the world doesn't look the same as it did in 1950

It's amazing how many retired pensioners get exercised and vote on matters that have no bearing on their own lives.

Even my own father in law: Scottish. 72, retired, Daily Mail reading, Brexit voter. He does not have one solitary non white person in his social circle. He would be a traditional Labour voter from a working class background. Exercised his right to buy in the 1980s under Thatcher and would be pro Trade Union type. Retired now anyway.

He stood in front of me one day and said "There is just too many emigrants". I can tell you he has absolutely zero interaction with emigrants (except me and I only moved to bang his daughter). Nothing. He lives in a white town. He can easily go from one end of the week to the next without laying eyes on a non white person. So I came to the firm conclusion that people like that were voting for Brexit not based on their own personal experiences but rather based on the tripe peddled in the press.

During Brexit he was telling me how there was an abdundance of jobs before the EEC membership....in the 1960s. It ain't the 1960s anymore. He is strangely ignorant on how the UK in the 1970s was a basket case and was actually bailed out- EEC membership was a Godsend. He is also strangely ignorant on the employment rights that he benefitted from drived from EU membership.

ancapailldorcha

partyguinness wrote: »

It's amazing how many retired pensioners get exercised and vote on matters that have no bearing on their own lives.

Even my own father in law: Scottish. 72, retired, Daily Mail reading, Brexit voter. He does not have one solitary non white person in his social circle. He would be a traditional Labour voter from a working class background. Exercised his right to buy in the 1980s under Thatcher and would be pro Trade Union type. Retired now anyway.

He stood in front of me one day and said "There is just too many emigrants". I can tell you he has absolutely zero interaction with emigrants (except me and I only moved to bang his daughter). Nothing. He lives in a white town. He can easily go from one end of the week to the next without laying eyes on a non white person. So I came to the firm conclusion that people like that were voting for Brexit not based on their own personal experiences but rather based on the tripe peddled in the press.

During Brexit he was telling me how there was an abdundance of jobs before the EEC membership....in the 1960s. It ain't the 1960s anymore. He is strangely ignorant on how the UK in the 1970s was a basket case and was actually bailed out- EEC membership was a Godsend. He is also strangely ignorant on the employment rights that he benefitted from drived from EU membership.

I think I can do you one better. My aunt here married an Englishman of European descent. Together, they run a trades business. Their tradesman are all Romanian. He voted remain but she was desperate to vote leave.

In my experience, the mental justification seems to involve thinking of specific foreigners as "the right kind of immigrants". I've been described that way when I was living in much more diverse Oxford so I'd argue that seeing people of different backgrounds can foster more xenophobia or make no difference at all.

partyguinness

partyguinness wrote: »

He stood in front of me one day and said "There is just too many emigrants". I can tell you he has absolutely zero interaction with emigrants (except me and I only moved to bang his daughter)

you didn't get the hint then?

partyguinness

hotmail.com wrote: »

Then the point of Labour comes into question.

If they move to the centre and become Tory Lite, there is little point in voting for them.

These votes also show that issues that are vocal on twitter just don't translate into voting patterns. Labour would be better off staying off the Woke issues but then they'll piss off their base.

Perhaps Labour is better as a Left Opposition party that never governs. Perhaps that's its future.

Yes. Labour is pretty snookered for the next few years. It will be a good 5-10 years at best before they can make any in roads. All it can hope for is that when the various empty promises from the Tories and Brexit does not bring dividends that the electorate will come back.


We have seen over the past few months that the Tories have free reign to do what they want.

Sam Russell

Shelga wrote: »

42% turnout in Hartlepool is so sad. Most people just don't care.

If someone doesn't care enough to vote, what can you do for them? Where does personal responsibility come in to play?

If I was a British Labour MP, I'd genuinely have no idea how to break through the mindless patriotism over there at the moment. I do not envy them.

Agree that Britain minus Scotland is turning into a one-party state, and if Scotland becomes independent, Labour is basically finished. Having no opposition is bad for everyone. Worrying times ahead.

Well this is a tide favouring the Tories as it did for Thatcher. It then turned to favour Blair and 'Cool Britannia', both lasted three General Elections.

MT sold off the council houses at a discount and stopped the provision of any new ones. This resulted in a continuous rise in house prices ever since because it was private landlord or buy a house - but given the continuous rise in prices that was a no-brainer.

Of course it is basically a Ponzi scheme, and when interest rates rise as they will, then affordability will drive political change. So Labour or a new party will have their chance.

partyguinness

Aegir wrote: »

you didn't get the hint then?

Yeah...but you see I have always had a job so apparently that does not count as all emigrants are scroungers apparently plus it means I am paying for her rather than him...;)

In fact, over 10 years ago I started a job search on a Monday. By the end of that week I had several interviews and started the following Monday week.

My wife's friends and family could not understand it. They had heard there are no jobs etc etc and various tales of people they knew struggling to get work. Well, I blew that theory out the window. Then again I was a motivated emigrant.

breezy1985

breezy1985 wrote: »

There seems to be a mindset developed in the second half of the 20th century that everywhere can be prosperous all the time. A lot of people in these former industrial and mining areas sit around moaning and waiting for the jobs down the mines to return but the coal mines and factories are a small blip in human history and so are these towns. There are jobs in England but the young people are going to need to relocate within England same as the immigrants do to get the jobs. Humans are transient and always have been and I bet up until a few generations back the families of these people were too

Throughout history, people have often moved to where the work was, mostly because they had little or nothing where they were living, so moving was not such a big deal.
These days, with the modern materialism and everyone having a stable accommodation either rented (privately or council) or owned, simply "upping sticks" and moving is not an easy prospect, upping sticks is easy if you're a camper or migrant.


Trying to entice people to move to the jobs is something that no one really does for unskilled workers. Migrants come in for nothing.

partyguinness

Sam Russell wrote: »

Well this is a tide favouring the Tories as it did for Thatcher. It then turned to favour Blair and 'Cool Britannia', both lasted three General Elections.

MT sold off the council houses at a discount and stopped the provision of any new ones. This resulted in a continuous rise in house prices ever since because it was private landlord or buy a house - but given the continuous rise in prices that was a no-brainer.

Of course it is basically a Ponzi scheme, and when interest rates rise as they will, then affordability will drive political change. So Labour or a new party will have their chance.

Well that is true that Thatcher started it but it must be pointed out that Labour also embraced it and actually made it easier by relaxing the criteria through a succession of legislative measures.

Itssoeasy

That result in Hartlepool wasn’t good. I mean even a close race between labour and the conservative candidate would have something for the labour leadership to hang their hats on, but it wasn’t even close. So the issue that some voters said they couldn’t vote for labour last time out because of Corbyn has spread to his successor. Unless the labour leadership get control of the party and aren’t controlled by a vocal progressive wing they’ll be like labour decades ago. Unelectable. I remember hearing that wing after the election and it was like they were in their own alternate reality over what had just happened. It seemed to be external forces that were the blame and they were beyond reproach. It’s like the progressive wing of the democrats in the US. There’s a bang on entitlement to lead of them at times. There’s also a lack of understanding that social media likes and retweets don’t count for votes in ballot boxes and hopefully never will.

hotmail.com

hotmail.com wrote: »

Biden is seen with the American flag on every speech he gives.

The Brits and the Yanks always loved their flag in ways we find cringey. Large countries have their flag everywhere with the exception of Germany.

Go to somewhere like Denmark and you'll see the Danish flag everywhere, in England you rarely see the flag, NI is not Britain, they are territory marking up there.

The US is exceptional with flags

BonnieSituation

hotmail.com wrote: »

42% is an extremely good turnout for a by election.

Our 2019 by elections only got around 26% turnout.

Any inclination as to why those by elections in 2019 had a particularly low turnout? Any idea at all?

partyguinness

Deleted User wrote: »

Go to somewhere like Denmark and you'll see the Danish flag everywhere, in England you rarely see the flag, NI is not Britain, they are territory marking up there.

The US is exceptional with flags

A lot of bad things have happened to people by people waving around the Union Jack and/or Stars and stripes. The sight of a Union Jack or the US flag is going to raise the blood pressure of quite a few countries.

Denmark does not have anything like the same hang up. Anyway the Union Jack is one God awful ugly flag.

BonnieSituation

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Any inclination as to why those by elections in 2019 had a particularly low turnout? Any idea at all?

Lack of interest, I suppose, maybe a lack of a NOTA (None of the above) option on the ballot paper gave the disinterested only one option, abstain.

partyguinness

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Any inclination as to why those by elections in 2019 had a particularly low turnout? Any idea at all?

Election fatigue?

Wet miserable day in December?
More people at work?

partyguinness

partyguinness wrote: »

A lot of bad things have happened to people by people waving around the Union Jack and/or Stars and stripes. The sight of a Union Jack or the US flag is going to raise the blood pressure of quite a few countries.

Denmark does not have anything like the same hang up. Anyway the Union Jack is one God awful ugly flag.

The OP was referring to flags flying "at home" not overseas.
If you hate the flag of the country you're living in, should you be there at all?

Joe_ Public

Itssoeasy wrote: »

That result in Hartlepool wasn’t good. I mean even a close race between labour and the conservative candidate would have something for the labour leadership to hang their hats on, but it wasn’t even close. So the issue that some voters said they couldn’t vote for labour last time out because of Corbyn has spread to his successor. Unless the labour leadership get control of the party and aren’t controlled by a vocal progressive wing they’ll be like labour decades ago. Unelectable. I remember hearing that wing after the election and it was like they were in their own alternate reality over what had just happened. It seemed to be external forces that were the blame and they were beyond reproach. It’s like the progressive wing of the democrats in the US. There’s a bang on entitlement to lead of them at times. There’s also a lack of understanding that social media likes and retweets don’t count for votes in ballot boxes and hopefully never will.

A good old fashioned purge is the order of the day then. I guess, 1970s and 80s labour politics was exciting if nothing else. I'm also curious to know how long the "it's all corbyns fault" will last them. Starmer keeping his head down so far, while Mandelson was just on the telly moments ago blaming corbyn. It's what they kept telling him on the doorsteps, he told Sophie Ridge, not even about brexit, all about corbyn. Then immediately after it was finished, Sam Coates pointed out that the failed labour candidate himself, Paul Williams, had said no voters raised corbyn as an issue with him. Perhaps just a big coincidence and Mandy only knocked on the anti corbyn doors?

BonnieSituation

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Lack of interest, I suppose, maybe a lack of a NOTA (None of the above) option on the ballot paper gave the disinterested only one option, abstain.

Eh, no.

partyguinness wrote: »

Election fatigue?

Wet miserable day in December?
More people at work?

There were 4 by-elections held on 29th November.

I remember the exasperation that they had to be held at all.

The world and its mother knew that the GE was coming and surely enough, 71 days later it was held. That's the main reason for the lack of turnout.

To frame it in the same fashion as that in Hartlepool as some have done is a bit disingenuous.

partyguinness

Deleted User wrote: »

The OP was referring to flags flying "at home" not overseas.
If you hate the flag of the country you're living in, should you be there at all?

I don't hate it at all. I said it was an ugly flag IMO.

BonnieSituation

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The OP was referring to flags flying "at home" not overseas.
If you hate the flag of the country you're living in, should you be there at all?

That's quite the leap.

partyguinness

Joe_ Public wrote: »

A good old fashioned purge is the order of the day then. I guess, 1970s and 80s labour politics was exciting if nothing else. I'm also curious to know how long the "it's all corbyns fault" will last them. Starmer keeping his head down so far, while Mandelson was just on the telly moments ago blaming corbyn. It's what they kept telling him on the doorsteps, he told Sophie Ridge, not even about brexit, all about corbyn. Then immediately after it was finished, Sam Coates pointed out that the failed labour candidate himself, Paul Williams, had said no voters raised corbyn as an issue with him. Perhaps just a big coincidence and Mandy only knocked on the anti corbyn doors?

I guess they have to try and blame Corbyn. Why not? It's either that or admit that perhaps Labour is no longer relevant to large swathes traditional Labour districts.

Sam Russell

partyguinness wrote: »

Well that is true that Thatcher started it but it must be pointed out that Labour also embraced it and actually made it easier by relaxing the criteria through a succession of legislative measures.

That is because it is a political gift that keeps on giving to politicians.

Any house owner likes the idea that their biggest asset keeps on increasing in value, so any politician that tried to reverse that would find it most unpopular. However, it is now getting to the point that only the top 30% of earners can afford to buy their first home, instead of the top 70%. Also private rents have risen to higher than a mortgage would be on the same or equivalent property.

It will require a new model to combat that and the current batch of politicians have not worked out how that can be done and are sticking with the current model by shared ownership and first time buyers grants.

Making houses more affordable for first-time buyers pushes up prices. What is needed is more houses built - preferably at lower cost to the buyer.

Joe_ Public

partyguinness wrote: »

I guess they have to try and blame Corbyn. Why not? It's either that or admit that perhaps Labour is no longer relevant to large swathes traditional Labour districts.

I guess they can try as long as it lasts, but if they actually truly believe their own rhetroric, what does that say about their chances of putting things right? I think they would be better off looking at the likes of Andy Burnham and Paul Dennett and carefully analysing why they are bucking the trend with very strong performances. But i'm not sure would they like the answers all that much.

I never post in the Politics forum, but reading some of the posts around here is astonishing.

The people of Huddersfield are 'lazy, 'entitled', 'racist'. Owen Jones on the TV talking about class consciousness and Jeremy Corbyn. Absolute nonsense that has no relevancy.

The real disconnect these days is between what well-educated and relatively financially comfortable people think the Labour Party should look like, and what it represents to entire communities who always voted Labour. Shouting and screaming at these people won't make them come back into the tent.

The Labour Party and moderate socialism in general has always been about jobs, a sense of place, recognising the power of a collective over an individual. Then need to get back to that pronto. Not having an elite at the top of the party calling their former voters racists for voting Tory. 'It's about the economy, stupid".

Lots of self-reflection needed.