Not The Politics Thread.

[Heathrow fox]

2 hours ago, bovril said:

I think the problem is the purple haired nutcases are very visible precisely because of twitter. 

Having the likes of Sara (head up the EUs arse) Pascoe,cramming every tv/radio comedy panel show isn’t helpful either quite frankly.Nor PollyToynbee being glad that enough old white people have died to swing the EU debate.Btw Does she ever get anything right?The people who represent Labour in the media really don’t do them any favours.That’s if they actually want their core vote back.

[Facecloth]

17 minutes ago, Heathrow fox said:

Having the likes of Sara (head up the EUs arse) Pascoe,cramming every tv/radio comedy panel show isn’t helpful either quite frankly.Nor PollyToynbee being glad that enough old white people have died to swing the EU debate.Btw Does she ever get anything right?The people who represent Labour in the media really don’t do them any favours.That’s if they actually want their core vote back.

I watch a fair bit of TV comedy and I can't remember the last time I saw Pascoe on anything. And when I have I've rarely seen her talk politics.

[eblair]

1 hour ago, Heathrow fox said:

There are now seven Labour MPs who have done a real working job.That’s a big part of the problem.Only twenty seven of the current lot had parents who did a working job.So it’s easy to see where this is going.

can you link where you are getting these stats from, genuinely curious to see who 7 are

[Dunge]

1 hour ago, Lionator said:

The second bit. It depends what we mean by wokism too, should comedians still be allowed to make racist jokes on BBC primetime, no? I'm anti any sort of discrimination. Or is it more that shamed to be British thing, because I could see why that would rub people up the wrong way.

 

And yes Owen Jones is an a*se 

How far wokedom extends is an interesting question to me. I see it as a modern-day Puritanism, only without a god or religious text behind it. I guess that in part makes it difficult to pin down and give an absolute definition. But I think common characteristics are judgementalism, preachiness and joylessness. (That’s not to say sardonic humour can’t be part of it, but it’s always punching at someone instead of being welcoming.)

 

As for where it’s found, Twitter is the obvious place, but not exclusively. The celebrity world seems to be absolutely full of it, which raises its profile. And the example of Sara Pascoe is a good one too, although I haven’t seen her around quite so much recently. The website The Poke can’t help but dive into it at times, and it can appear on television too - most notably in recent times with Doctor Who, which told one woke tale per week. I certainly take your point that these are all places and platforms where people are shouting loudly. Unfortunately it does also appear in political arguments, and I’ve seen it on Question Time in the past as well, always associated with hard left political beliefs. It’s no wonder people associate wokism with the Labour Party given their activists can be the most vocal demonstrators of it. I appreciate it must be very frustrating for typical Labour voters, or centre-left voters in general, but this is the image that comes across quite often. And part of the problem with Corbyn was the perception of him enabling these people and being a front for them.

 

As for Owen Jones, I dislike him a lot less than I used to. I think it’s partly because of the abuse he’s suffered - verbal, written and physical, and it angers me that anyone should receive that. I may massively disagree with him but there’s no way he deserves that.

[Alf Bentley]

1 hour ago, Heathrow fox said:

There are now seven Labour MPs who have done a real working job.That’s a big part of the problem.Only twenty seven of the current lot had parents who did a working job.So it’s easy to see where this is going.

 

I agree that this is a problem. Labour needs to have more MPs with a working-class background in terms of upbringing and work experience. Instead, increasing numbers seem to either be career politicians (union researchers, special advisers, councillors) or from sectors like law & public services administration. That creates a disconnect. That argues for radical change to candidate selection processes - though not easily achieved, as candidates are mainly selected by local parties.

 

But is this not an issue for the Tories, too, or is it not a problem that few Tory MPs have done manual work? Shouldn't every party represent the people of the country to some extent?

 

Do you have a source for your figures - and for the number of Tory MPs who've done such work? I'm not doubting the figures as they seem credible and I've seen the figure of 7 Labour MPs elsewhere, I'm just curious?

The best info that I could find is from 2017:  https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-qa-how-posh-is-parliament

 

That confirms how parliament has become more representative in some ways like gender & race - even fewer privately-educated MPs, surprisingly, though still disproportionately high). Yet MPs are less diverse by class / work experience. It also confirms (last graph) that the numbers of "career politicians" who've mainly just worked in politics is increasing.

 

It says: "Politics, business, law and finance account for more than half of the previous occupations held by current MPs. Conservatives account for the overwhelming majority of MPs who previously worked in business and finance. Labour MPs, meanwhile, made up the majority of those who came from charities, councils, education and trade unions. MPs who have come from jobs in politics or the legal profession are more evenly mixed between the main parties".

 

There's nothing wrong with some MPs on all sides coming from those backgrounds. Indeed, it's good that there are MPs with experience in business, law, finance, education, health, military, unions etc.

But the lack of MPs with a background in (traditional or 21st century) working-class jobs does create a disconnect between voters and politicians - but in all parties, not just Labour, surely? If anything, the Tories are worse, but heading in a better direction.

This was less of an issue even 20 years ago....John Prescott had been a ferry steward, Alan Johnson a postman, Dennis Skinner & the Tory Patrick McLoughlin miners etc.

 

I do find it strange, though, when people (with some justification) reject Labour as disconnected from their experiences for these reasons.....and go and vote for the Tories, even though so many of them still have the traditional Tory background of private school, Oxbridge, wealth, business & finance. There are some Tory MPs from a working-class background (maybe a few more after 2019?), but how many of them have done manual labour? 

[Alf Bentley]

58 minutes ago, eblair said:

can you link where you are getting these stats from, genuinely curious to see who 7 are

 

Off the top of my head.....Angela Rayner was a care worker and Ian Lavery a coal miner, before both became union officials, I think.

I can think of a number of others from the last 20 years, but they've mostly retired or lost their seats, now.

[Strokes]

Labour have a huge identity crisis, they don’t know what they stand for and neither do the public. So anything the Tories throw at them sticks. Under Blair they had that identity, New Labour. He could completely turn away from anything previous with that. Even if it was just the emperor's new clothes, it gave him and the party direction and made them appear in control.

[Fightforever]

I think Labour are in a good position long term as long as the left doesn't eat itself and piss off the moderates with the idiotic fringe ideologies that could gain traction of the left keeps going more hard left such as normalizing species dysphoria, forcing worker co-ops, the solving of 95% of crime using social programs rather than maintaining a full time police force and 8 year olds with no other political rights being able to biologically switch genders (whether these policies are right or wrong isn't the issue the problem is most the electorate doesn't believe them to be right and probably never will try convincing your average BAME Labour voter that their child should be able to change genders at age 8 my mum is BAME and knowing the BAME community that isn't going to be very popular). As long as policies like these don't find their way into mainstream Labour politics they should be nailed on to win most elections easily after 20 to 30 years go by. The trend of young people going conservative as they get older will end with young people today finding it too difficult to get on the property ladder and thus have nothing to conserve therefore making them unlikely to vote Conservative.

 

The problems I can see arising is right wing media gaining easy shock value stories from vocal lefties on social media such as Ash Sarkar (saying she was literally communist on live TV and her saying "we're winning" when talking about white people being set to become a minority) these sort people are the people that will kill the party if the party doesn't publicly distance themselves from these people. As long as Labour stays away from those types of idiots they should be fine to play a long term strategy.

 

I reckon Labour will choose the more hard line left over the moderates though. Problem is the moderates only really appeal to deadbeat towns (even most of these are going Tory anyway) for whom the average age of the electorate won't really be around for much longer anyway (these people want the economic policies of the left but not the social policies of the left hence why they side with the moderates). They need the youth onside when the old die off and the millennials start struggling to get on to the housing ladder. The key for them is to manage to not to disenfranchise the center left too much as to not have the party split into two.

Edited 10 May 2021 by Fightforever

[Fightforever]

31 minutes ago, Strokes said:

Labour have a huge identity crisis, they don’t know what they stand for and neither do the public. So anything the Tories throw at them sticks. Under Blair they had that identity, New Labour. He could completely turn away from anything previous with that. Even if it was just the emperor's new clothes, it gave him and the party direction and made them appear in control.

The corbynistas will take control in the long term. Appealing to moderates won't even work short term since towns like Hartlepool are going Tory regardless. The hard left is all they have got now.

Edited 10 May 2021 by Fightforever

[leicsmac]

33 minutes ago, Fightforever said:

I think Labour are in a good position long term as long as the left doesn't eat itself and piss off the moderates with the idiotic fringe ideologies that could gain traction of the left keeps going more hard left such as normalizing species dysphoria, forcing worker co-ops, the solving of 95% of crime using social programs rather than maintaining a full time police force and 8 year olds with no other political rights being able to biologically switch genders (whether these policies are right or wrong isn't the issue the problem is most the electorate doesn't believe them to be right and probably never will try convincing your average BAME Labour voter that their child should be able to change genders at age 8 my mum is BAME and knowing the BAME community that isn't going to be very popular). As long as policies like these don't find their way into mainstream Labour politics they should be nailed on to win most elections easily after 20 to 30 years go by. The trend of young people going conservative as they get older will end with young people today finding it too difficult to get on the property ladder and thus have nothing to conserve therefore making them unlikely to vote Conservative.

 

The problems I can see arising is right wing media gaining easy shock value stories from vocal lefties on social media such as Ash Sarkar (saying she was literally communist on live TV and her saying "we're winning" when talking about white people being set to become a minority) these sort people are the people that will kill the party if the party doesn't publicly distance themselves from these people. As long as Labour stays away from those types of idiots they should be fine to play a long term strategy.

 

I reckon Labour will choose the more hard line left over the moderates though. Problem is the moderates only really appeal to deadbeat towns (even most of these are going Tory anyway) for whom the average age of the electorate won't really be around for much longer anyway (these people want the economic policies of the left but not the social policies of the left hence why they side with the moderates). They need the youth onside when the old die off and the millennials start struggling to get on to the housing ladder. The key for them is to manage to not to disenfranchise the center left too much as to not have the party split into two.

I would agree that Labour should really be focusing on economic rather than more niche social issues (especially on housing, as you say) but the bolded does worry me a bit. Perception really shouldn't trump facts in a lot of situations.

 

However, unfortunately I know that it does and the mess it causes, but I'm really not sure that it should be accepted as a simple fait accompli that people just are that way. The next "niche" issue that people don't "believe" to be right in large numbers might end up being more important to everyone - like anti-vaxx sentiment or climate change ignorance, for instance.

[Fightforever]

17 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I would agree that Labour should really be focusing on economic rather than more niche social issues (especially on housing, as you say) but the bolded does worry me a bit. Perception really shouldn't trump facts in a lot of situations.

 

However, unfortunately I know that it does and the mess it causes, but I'm really not sure that it should be accepted as a simple fait accompli that people just are that way. The next "niche" issue that people don't "believe" to be right in large numbers might end up being more important to everyone - like anti-vaxx sentiment or climate change ignorance, for instance.

Labour's core demographic after the next 20 to 30 years (when the long term game will actually start paying off) will undoubtedly be BAME. As of May 2014 only 64% of children being born were white British. That's probably around the high 40s low 50s percentage wise now. BAME communities are finding accepting the vaccine difficult. I can't imagine the fringe hard left social policies ever working out for them. Try convincing your local mosque attendees that kids should be allowed to change their gender at age 8 like some on the fringes of the hard left suggest and you will get laughed out the room.

 

Advocating for those policies when the time is right is a different thing entirely but the party trying to be too ahead of its time will split the party in two no doubt about it. You either choose pragmatism or a Tory dynasty.

 

I wouldn't worry too much regarding climate change ignorance. Even the moderates in the Labour party will want to sort climate change.

Edited 10 May 2021 by Fightforever

[Heathrow fox]

Alf Bentley and e Blair.                     It was a figure quoted on RT.Seven current Labour MPs have had a working class job.In 1987 it was over a hundred.I know it comes down to what defines a “proper” job but I’m surprised it’s as high as seven tbh.Just a had a quick look on Wilki.Picked twenty random Labour MPs and all but one came through the usual routes.(found one former teacher)

I wouldn’t think many Tory MPs have got their hands dirty either without checking.Still think the Brexit effect is at play and Johnson is more durable and popular than anyone expected.I think Batley is going to have a by-election next.Which will be another good indicator.

Edited 10 May 2021 by Heathrow fox
Forgot to quote

[leicsmac]

6 minutes ago, Fightforever said:

Labour's core demographic after the next 20 to 30 years (when the long term game will actually start paying off) will undoubtedly be BAME. As of May 2014 only 64% of children being born were white British. That's probably around the high 40s low 50s percentage wise now. BAME communities are finding accepting the vaccine difficult. I can't imagine the fringe hard left social policies ever working out for them. Try convincing your local mosque attendees that kids should be allowed to change their gender at age 8 like some on the fringes of the hard left suggest and you will get laughed out the room.

 

Advocating for those policies when the time is right is a different thing entirely but the party trying to be too ahead of its time will split the party in two no doubt about it. You either choose pragmatism or a Tory dynasty.

 

I wouldn't worry too much regarding climate change ignorance. Even the moderates in the Labour party will want to sort climate change.

TBH I chose those two particular issues merely as ones where perception being valued ahead of fact could end up being very damaging, but you pretty much make my point for me by saying that a sizeable group of BAME people in the UK are harbouring anti-vaxx sentiment. That is an obvious case where what people believe rather than what really is is damaging not only to them, but to everyone they come into contact with.

 

I do agree that it is on Labour to play a longer game and market these ideas better so as to be more convincing (as well as focusing on many other issues that folks find more important), but my point is that "never" is a very long time, and IMO policies should be always be crafted with the idea of progression and the idea that people's minds are not set and they can change.

[Heathrow fox]

3 hours ago, Facecloth said:

I watch a fair bit of TV comedy and I can't remember the last time I saw Pascoe on anything. And when I have I've rarely seen her talk politics.

The things I’ve seen her on she often talked about politics.Though admittedly I haven’t seen her on tv for a while either.She has been on the radio a fair bit.

[Fightforever]

32 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

TBH I chose those two particular issues merely as ones where perception being valued ahead of fact could end up being very damaging, but you pretty much make my point for me by saying that a sizeable group of BAME people in the UK are harbouring anti-vaxx sentiment. That is an obvious case where what people believe rather than what really is is damaging not only to them, but to everyone they come into contact with.

 

I do agree that it is on Labour to play a longer game and market these ideas better so as to be more convincing (as well as focusing on many other issues that folks find more important), but my point is that "never" is a very long time, and IMO policies should be always be crafted with the idea of progression and the idea that people's minds are not set and they can change.

The good news about anti-science attitudes are that those are much more down to education rather than deeply rooted philosophical issues such as the gender example or the extremely radical reshaping of how we deal with crime. I say never because at least in my opinion by the time any those opnions are mainstream I will be long gone or at the very least on my way out.

 

Mind you I am only in my late twenties.

 

Since I have seen the left going very hard left in the last few years I see these policies (or something similar) as the straw that breaks the camel's back when it comes to how far left Labour can go without screwing itself over. The far left doesn't believes compromise or in waiting when the time is right or trying to be gradual and that's what I think will be the death of them.

 

These sort of large scale ideological changes come gradually after a few decades of transition with trial and error if at all. If you want the entire remodelling of society abolishing all gender roles and what not that's up to you but going too fast will benefit no one apart from those who hold a stake in keeping things the way they are right now and that's why I caution against it. 

Edited 10 May 2021 by Fightforever
The next time I come on here it's on my pc with a mouse and keyboard I make far to many typos on my phone.

[leicsmac]

5 minutes ago, Fightforever said:

The good news about anti-science attitudes are that those are much more down to education rather than deeply rooted philosophical issues such as the gender example or the extremely radical reshaping of how we deal with crime. I say never because at least in my opinion by the time any those opnions are mainstream I will be long gone or at the very least on my way out.

 

Mind you I am only in my late twenties.

 

Since I have seen the left going very hard left in the last few years I see these policies (or something similar) as the straw that breaks the camel's back when it comes to how far left Labour can go without screwing itself over. The far left doesn't believes compromise or in waiting when the time is right or trying to be gradual and that's what I think will be the death of them.

 

These sort of large scale ideological changes come gradually after a few decades of transition with trial and error if at all. If you want the entire remodelling of society abolishing all gender roles and what not that's up to you but going too fast will benefit no one apart from those who hold a stake in keeping things the way they are right now and that's why I caution against it. 

Unfortunately, the "deficit model" of communication (have a Google for more explanation) has been proven to be ineffective even when it comes to science communication. Educating people on scientific fact doesn't necessarily lead them to believe and vote for policy based on it and science is just as subject to those philosophical issues as anywhere else - believe me, I wish it wasn't the case and it's deeply, deeply frustrating, but it is.

 

I don't think we disagree much on the general issue here - change does normally only come at a point when people are "ready" for it.

[Fightforever]

17 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Unfortunately, the "deficit model" of communication (have a Google for more explanation) has been proven to be ineffective even when it comes to science communication. Educating people on scientific fact doesn't necessarily lead them to believe and vote for policy based on it and science is just as subject to those philosophical issues as anywhere else - believe me, I wish it wasn't the case and it's deeply, deeply frustrating, but it is.

 

I don't think we disagree much on the general issue here - change does normally only come at a point when people are "ready" for it.

Had a quick google on this and I reckon it will make for grim reading. What do you think the root cause is when it comes to anti-science attitudes then? Could it be a deep held mistrust by the disadvantaged communities over historical grievances with the authorities or is it something more deeper? No doubt if anti-science attitudes start getting bigger humanity as a whole is screwed.

Edited 10 May 2021 by Fightforever

[leicsmac]

23 minutes ago, Fightforever said:

Had a quick google on this and I reckon it will make for grim reading. What do you think the root cause is when it comes to anti-science attitudes then? Could it be a deep held mistrust by the disadvantaged communities over historical grievances with the authorities or is it something more deeper? No doubt if anti-science attitudes start getting bigger humanity as a whole is screwed.

Honestly, I have no idea as to what the root cause is and there's so many different theories - to be honest it could be the combined influence of a few of them, including the one you mentioned that are the problem. I think such things tend to depend on the individual or small group that you're referring to, tbh.

 

However, in better news, more "transactional" methods of communication (establishing dialogues and talking shops etc) allowing for exchange of views and questions, rather than just one-way communication, has proven to be more effective in terms of shifting attitudes and viewpoints when it comes to science, so it's not a losing situation all round. The drawback is that such methods are often much more consuming in terms of time and effort on the part of all parties involved.

[Gordon the Great]

17 hours ago, Rain King said:

Thankfully not all.

 but more than enough it seems.

Edited 10 May 2021 by Gordon the Great
missed word

[Strokes]

6 hours ago, Fightforever said:

The corbynistas will take control in the long term. Appealing to moderates won't even work short term since towns like Hartlepool are going Tory regardless. The hard left is all they have got now.

I think that’s too simplistic and a bit defeatist to be honest. Labour has always has had divisions within but they’ve only been electable when they aren’t so open. A United appearance and a core message would do wonders for the party. 

[Sharpe's Fox]

10 hours ago, Heathrow fox said:

There are now seven Labour MPs who have done a real working job.That’s a big part of the problem.Only twenty seven of the current lot had parents who did a working job.So it’s easy to see where this is going.

What? That is clearly a crock of shit. I don't even like the Labour Party at the moment but I can think of eight straight away. Nadia Whittome was a carer, Ian Lavery a miner, Rosena Allin Khan a doctor, Angela Rayner a social carer, John Trickett a builder, Ian Byrne a taxi driver, Mick Whitley in a car plant, Paula Barker a council officer. That's just people around the Labour left I know about off by heart. I know of about 30 MP's and there are 200 of them! Really ridiculous post from yourself.

[MANFACE]

 

There is no saving of Labour.

Labour has lost the trust and loyalty of the working men and women of this country, and especially when Diane Abbot goes on about going back to Corbyn's left wing agenda?

 

Labour just don't get it and never will.

 

Anyway, I know a Leicester City fan who got elected.

[David Guiza]

2 hours ago, MANFACE said:

 

There is no saving of Labour.

Labour has lost the trust and loyalty of the working men and women of this country, and especially when Diane Abbot goes on about going back to Corbyn's left wing agenda?

 

Labour just don't get it and never will.

 

Anyway, I know a Leicester City fan who got elected.

May I just ask when you seem to be so final in your wording of this post, as though Labour's position is unchangeable and the party is effectively dead and buried for eternity. I appreciate that may just be semantics, but I'm intrigued nonetheless.

It's irrefutable that the Tory Party have done great damage to the working class in the past, and yet, Rother Valley for example, voted in a Tory MP who lists his hero as Margaret Thatcher. Why is it that the Tory Party can change their skin, but Labour cannot?

 

As an aside, is it really not time that even a basic level of Politics and Constitutional and Administrative Law is taught in mainstream education? I imagine the below example of misunderstanding of responsibility is widespread throughout the UK:-

 

 

 

Edited 10 May 2021 by David Guiza

[LVFox]

Labour have one huge problem, and it's image.

 

Whilst Corbyn had many issues and people who couldn't vote for him, in the 2017 election he had clear vision and huge momentum at the right time. 

 

That was his chance though, and in 2019 he had become a slight caricature in my eyes, alienating more and more people to the delight of his most loyal supporters, when he should have chased those who didn't vote his way previously.

 

Now he's gone, Starmer was the right choice for leader of the party, but he has zero identity in terms of policy and presence. He hasn't presented one reason to vote for Labour other than it isn't voting for the Conservatives, and while the local elections are obviously not the same as general elections, people still relate each party to the head of the table, and at the moment Starmer has offered nothing other than a couple of moments of pressure during the pandemic. He would likely make a very competent Prime Minister, but he's really failing as a convincing Leader of the Opposition.

[RoboFox]

29 minutes ago, David Guiza said:

As an aside, is it really not time that even a basic level of Politics and Constitutional and Administrative Law is taught in mainstream education? I imagine the below example of misunderstanding of responsibility is widespread throughout the UK:-

 

 

 

This has, is, and always will be the problem. 

 

Political systems are complex. Misinformation is rife and large sections of our media is biased and polarising. 

 

People don't really know what they're voting for and so they gravitate to headline policies and personality politics.