[TobyD]

I can't be assed to argue about this, but that really doesn't represent anything I've looked at. Frankly, he was an electoral disaster and I think his alarmingly laissez-faire attitude to Russia would not be popular at the moment, although I'm sure a tiny minority on Twitter would love it.
I'd far rather criticise the current government to be honest, as they could do something good for the country right now, but flap around the edges obsessed with pointless window dressing to try to distract people from party gate.

[Oldmanmatt]

Who do Labour represent, now, though Brutus?

And, genuine question, what does “working class” mean? I mean today, not historically.

Personally, I feel the political world would be better split along the Liberal/Progressive vs Conservative/reactionary axis.
The former tend to naturally represent/include in their thinking, the lower socioeconomic strata and diverse subcultures etc.

A huge number of people, who would benefit from Labour policies, shy away from being labelled “Working Class” etc. That label, in particular, carries some negative baggage for a lot of people.
Junior office workers, clerical staff, bank clerks etc etc, probably slot into the category you’re envisioning (economically) but would consider themselves “professional” in education or prospects. Whereas, plenty of “Woking men/women” in manual trades (plumbers, electricians, builders) are, economically, middle class, these days.


I think Labour has a “Patronising”  issue and is in the midst of a terrible identity crisis. It will be interesting to see where this leads.

[BrutusTheBear]

I can't be assed to argue about this, but that really doesn't represent anything I've looked at. Frankly, he was an electoral disaster and I think his alarmingly laissez-faire attitude to Russia would not be popular at the moment, although I'm sure a tiny minority on Twitter would love it.
I'd far rather criticise the current government to be honest, as they could do something good for the country right now, but flap around the edges obsessed with pointless window dressing to try to distract people from party gate.

  You made a statement about Corbyn causing the present financial woes of the Labour Party, I used information to demonstrate that what you said is not the truth of the matter.
Your response is to say 'that doesn't represent anything I've looked at', well maybe you should look further or at least be prepared to listen when someone presents you with information beyond what you have looked at?
Whilst you were at it you added in some more disgruntled rumblings about Jeremy; he's out of the PLP, hasn't been leader for a substantial amount of time, a lot of his supporters have left the party and he is effectively irrelevant to the current leadership.  The general gist of my argument is that this obsession with Corbyn needs to stop. They need to move on, get their house in order or we will have an opposition Party that has bankrupted itself and that will be too weak to compete in the next GE.
You raised the legal costs as a point, my response gave more detailed factual information about how Labour is losing income and now you CBA to argue.

I'd be interested to hear your views on the LPs hypocrisy in it's treatment of it's own staff, the struggle to get big money backers, the legal costs of NDAs and the use of them against female staff?  Not even a 'shit that's a bad look for them they handled that badly' or 'they definitely need to do something about income'?  We're just going to ignore these things and not discuss them? 

OMM agree that the LP is having an identity crisis, add that to financial crisis and a crisis in the way it treats/manages it's own staff. 

I'm not sure who Labour represents now, I think they'd like to represent 'the red wall' voters whatever that means, I don't think they know what that means, whilst at the same time distancing themselves from Corbyn and anyone that would vote for him, only the more they go on about him the less distance there is.  Just shut it down and stop talking about him for goodness sake it's toxic.

Agree 'Working class' is a clumsy term and patronising to some, I guess today it would encompass those on low incomes employed and unemployed but that's too simplistic.  There is something the LP leadership could do here isn't there?  Making it clear who they represent, redefining and using different language to do that.  Identifying with those working men and women, working with their unions to secure better pay that keeps up with inflation etc..  It's like they're caught in the middle wanting to attract the big corporate/ wealthy backers but not succeeding and wanting to inspire those 'working people' to vote for them but not wanting to send out messages that would discourage the already discouraged wealthy donors. 
The LP under Corbyn were good at raising funds through the memberships participation and were in a strong financial position without backing down on the values they were standing by, they also had more large £10k+ donors than Starmer does at present.  Starmer and co. could learn from this model and use it but they won't because...

[seankenny]

Brutus, you could always “be the change you want to see in the world” and rejoin Labour and send them a tenner.

[Nigel]

Who do Labour represent, now, though Brutus?

And, genuine question, what does “working class” mean? I mean today, not historically.

I know I have mentioned this before but it bears repeating (I think!)...."working class", red wall, and everything else are all distractions.

Its AGE, nothing else.

In 2017, and more surprisingly given the received wisdom (myths!) in 2019, Labour actually received a bigger share of the vote then the Tories amongst those in every income decile <£100K (i.e. all but the very rich), of all ages, *once retirees are stripped out*.

To put that in plain language: in 2019 Labour beat the Tories across the board amongst people who work for a living. Then when the votes of the retired are added in, they lost across the board.

This link explains it succintly and has a drop down bar which toggles between "including retirees" and "excluding retirees" so you can see for yourself how pronounced this is - https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2021/06/labour-not-conservatives-was-largest-party-among-low-income-workers-2019

I have a vague memory of mentioning this on the thread last year and linking to some different colourful pics which demonstrated the age thing really well, will see if I can find it...

[BrutusTheBear]

Brutus, you could always “be the change you want to see in the world” and rejoin Labour and send them a tenner.

I'd be purged before I could take a breath besides membership is increasingly being made less involved in policy making, ideas that aren't popular with the leadership are sidelined, the young people of the party are being silenced/censored (particularly irksome for a former youth worker), some of the activities of the organisation are particularly ugly/abusive, it's not really looking close to being a path towards the change I want to see or likely to become that path for along time if ever. By other ways and means for sure but for me the LP is dead duck (that's decomposition is causing a wretched smell that turns my stomach).

[abarro81]

As a broadly left-wing but non-tribal voter, I find it funny how anyone associated with Labour always seems to want the rival factions to stop fighting/bashing each other... except the other faction is always the one that has to stop the fighting/bashing 

[BrutusTheBear]

Think of them less as factions and more as 2 groups with incompatible views that have been forced together into a political party by the circumstance of a particularly shit democratic (if you can call it that) system.

[seankenny]

Brutus, you could always “be the change you want to see in the world” and rejoin Labour and send them a tenner.

I'd be purged before I could take a breath besides membership is increasingly being made less involved in policy making,

That’s because Labour members are comfortable and overly idealistic (I am a Labour Party member). Their idea of policy-making is a lot of nonsense that would make the party unelectable. Policy-making is hard, the idea that it is best done by some middle management teachers on a Thursday evening is insane.

[spidermonkey09]

Think of them less as factions and more as 2 groups with incompatible views that have been forced together into a political party by the circumstance of a particularly shit democratic (if you can call it that) system.

I think this is sort of true but also avoids the fact the Conservative Party manages to be a pretty broad church and also not fall apart in factional squabbles all the time. Perhaps thats one of the reasons they are the most successful political party in the West, by quite a long way (defined in terms of winning elections). I am always struck by the sheer effectiveness of the Tory party machine at election time, as it shuts out all dissent and gets the job done. Is there something inherent to right wing ideology that explains this, at least in part? Perhaps a deep seated belief that Conservatism, in any of its forms, is preferable to a Labour government?

[spidermonkey09]

That’s because Labour members are comfortable and overly idealistic (I am a Labour Party member). Their idea of policy-making is a lot of nonsense that would make the party unelectable. Policy-making is hard, the idea that it is best done by some middle management teachers on a Thursday evening is insane.

This is also sort of but not entirely true I think. Any party should listen to its members up to a point; the question is about where the line should be drawn. I am also a LP member and I want to be asked what my views are, but equally it would be mental for policy to be dictated solely by members, because they constitute such a tiny minority of the population.

[galpinos]

Think of them less as factions and more as 2 groups with incompatible views that have been forced together into a political party by the circumstance of a particularly shit democratic (if you can call it that) system.

I think this is sort of true but also avoids the fact the Conservative Party manages to be a pretty broad church and also not fall apart in factional squabbles all the time. Perhaps thats one of the reasons they are the most successful political party in the West, by quite a long way (defined in terms of winning elections). I am always struck by the sheer effectiveness of the Tory party machine at election time, as it shuts out all dissent and gets the job done. Is there something inherent to right wing ideology that explains this, at least in part? Perhaps a deep seated belief that Conservatism, in any of its forms, is preferable to a Labour government?

It's because Tory's want to win come what may and most of them will do whatever it takes. They know that there is compromise required in order to get into power and they are willing to make that compromise to give them access to power to shape policy in the direction they want.*

The "left" are less willing to make these compromises, they see themselves as more morally pure and righteous and as a result, are left by the wayside, scrabbling in the ditch with each other. 

*This has been tested as the last few governments have had some very vocal factions pushing against them from their own back benches and gap between the direction of their varying viewpoints is stark, leading to no end of cretins getting far to much power and airtime!

[TobyD]

I am always struck by the sheer effectiveness of the Tory party machine at election time, as it shuts out all dissent and gets the job done. Is there something inherent to right wing ideology that explains this, at least in part? Perhaps a deep seated belief that Conservatism, in any of its forms, is preferable to a Labour government?

Well, yes. They're laser focused on winning and will stomach things they don't like to stay in power. This might seem immoral and annoying often, but in many ways it's the sensible approach to our electoral system. Many of the Conservative MPs hate Boris Johnson but voted for him as leader to be sure of winning the election. I can see the sense as you can't really do anything terribly effective in opposition, however right you think you are.
Personally I couldn't have ever voted for Johnson though, if I was in that position.

[mrjonathanr]

Well, yes. They're laser focused on winning and will stomach things they don't like to stay in power. This might seem immoral and annoying often, but in many ways it's the sensible approach to our electoral system.

A less charitable - and simpler- interpretation might suggest that they like power a whole lot more than they do moral considerations.

[Oldmanmatt]

Well, yes. They're laser focused on winning and will stomach things they don't like to stay in power. This might seem immoral and annoying often, but in many ways it's the sensible approach to our electoral system.

A less charitable - and simpler- interpretation might suggest that they like power a whole lot more than they do moral considerations.

It’s just easier to coordinate selfish people (which is their common denominator), as long as you make sure there’s something in it for them. Morals are an abstract concept anyway, but the selfish simply substitute the “Just world” premise to alleviate any crisis of conscience. Bad things only happen to bad people.

[chris j]

There was some research I saw reported I think last year that concluded that Tories were far more tolerant of friends opposing political view whereas something like 70% of Labour supporters polled would cancel a friend if they found out that person had right wing views. Cue Laura Pidcock's famous quote and of course Angela Rayner's comments at the party conference labeling Tories as scum. Given our electoral system you can't win by just speaking to your own side, and it hardly attracts wavering Tory voters to even consider voting Labour when the Labour Party isn't shy about saying what they think of you.

Never mind that with all the factional infighting the Labour Party doesn't seem interested in lifting its gaze from its own navel...

[TobyD]

However I think it is also the conservative party which has an identity crisis at the moment. They're very divided.

[Bradders]

There was some research I saw reported I think last year that concluded that Tories were far more tolerant of friends opposing political view whereas something like 70% of Labour supporters polled would cancel a friend if they found out that person had right wing views. Cue Laura Pidcock's famous quote and of course Angela Rayner's comments at the party conference labeling Tories as scum. Given our electoral system you can't win by just speaking to your own side, and it hardly attracts wavering Tory voters to even consider voting Labour when the Labour Party isn't shy about saying what they think of you.

Classic examples of this aplenty in this very thread....

It’s just easier to coordinate selfish people

[Nigel]

I have a vague memory of mentioning this on the thread last year and linking to some different colourful pics which demonstrated the age thing really well, will see if I can find it...

Replying to myself I know, here's a pic of the 65+ vote by constituency in GE2019:



Link here to an article with more pics - https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/general-election-map-uk-young-old-voters-a4323171.html

This demographic has a disproportionate effect on the result due to high turnout. Basically only the scousers and eastenders don't swing things for the Tories. Even Scottish pensioners are Tories!

The single best thing you can do to get a different result at the next election is to find a retired person you know and find out how they vote. Then talk to them about it. Or block their door on election day.

[galpinos]

The single best thing you can do to get a different result at the next election is to find a retired person you know and find out how they vote. Then talk to them about it. Or block their door on election day.

As well as convincing the under 50's to go out and vote.

[chris j]

However I think it is also the conservative party which has an identity crisis at the moment. They're very divided.

Yes, so they'll probably (and deserve) to lose the next election, if Labour gets its act together. Labour last won with Tony  Blair espousing the big tent actively appealing to other political faiths to join up while the Tories were massively divided on Europe. The last 10 years has had a consistent message from Labour MPs that they don't like anyone who isn't ideologically pure and won't work with them. It's not a way to win people over to your cause...

[Nigel]

However I think it is also the conservative party which has an identity crisis at the moment. They're very divided.

The last 30 years at least!

Its baffling why the narrative is always that Labour fight like rats in a sack whilst the Tories all swing in behind their team. Outside of the 6 weeks prior to an election they are at each other's throats non-stop. They are on about removing the current PM, they had a vote of confidence in the last one and eventually shuffled her off by not voting for her headline policy (EU deal), the one before had to resign because he lost a referendum precipitated by the festering huge split in the party, etc etc. I could go on.

[TobyD]

However I think it is also the conservative party which has an identity crisis at the moment. They're very divided.

Yes, so they'll probably (and deserve) to lose the next election, if Labour gets its act together. Labour last won with Tony  Blair espousing the big tent actively appealing to other political faiths to join up while the Tories were massively divided on Europe. The last 10 years has had a consistent message from Labour MPs that they don't like anyone who isn't ideologically pure and won't work with them. It's not a way to win people over to your cause...

I entirely agree; there are some more moderate Labour voices, whom I could see appealing to an older more (small c) conservative demographic such as Rachel Reeves. Wes Streeting is also a good media performer and they both seem like competent politicians with a decent grasp of their brief. Unfortunately, they often seem to get drowned out by others in the media. 

But crucially, I think the Conservative party has lost all direction. It's manifestly not Conservative at the moment; and doesn't seem to have a single idea about why it's in government, other than to try to stay there. They've got a pretty fat majority, and theoretically could be passing lots of actual policies, yet in over 2 years they've done very little. They keep saying they're getting on with the job; but don't seem to have an idea about what that actually is.

[spidermonkey09]

The last 30 years at least!

Its baffling why the narrative is always that Labour fight like rats in a sack whilst the Tories all swing in behind their team. Outside of the 6 weeks prior to an election they are at each other's throats non-stop.

I agree; my point was more about the six weeks itself and how quickly all the infighting gets forgotten, whereas on the left it seems to remain, or be brought up more in the news.

[petejh]

I have a vague memory of mentioning this on the thread last year and linking to some different colourful pics which demonstrated the age thing really well, will see if I can find it...

Replying to myself I know, here's a pic of the 65+ vote by constituency in GE2019:



Link here to an article with more pics - https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/general-election-map-uk-young-old-voters-a4323171.html

This demographic has a disproportionate effect on the result due to high turnout. Basically only the scousers and eastenders don't swing things for the Tories. Even Scottish pensioners are Tories!

The single best thing you can do to get a different result at the next election is to find a retired person you know and find out how they vote. Then talk to them about it. Or block their door on election day.

And the population is steadily ageing not getting younger. That's progress in living standards for you. The association between older age, and voting conservative, should worry other parties and incentivise them to try to appeal to older voters who may be more 'conservative' in outlook than the young. People are generally self-interested, and you should expect the UK population in another decade to have even more older age voters keen on hanging on to their accumulated wealth and not being hammered by tax (not that they are now! I think wealthy pensioners could contribute a little bit more than they do, especially if they're working still).


https://ageing-better.org.uk/ageing-population

Life expectancy has increased significantly in recent decades and the number of people in later life has grown rapidly. There are currently almost 12 million people aged 65 and over in the UK, with 3.2 million aged 80 and over. It’s estimated that by 2036, one in four of the population will be over 65.