The Chairman Mao resembling, Monarchy hating, threat to Britain, Labour Party thread

[jon_c]

3 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

The working class party, my arse 

There isn't a working class party anymore, none of them are. 

[dAVe80]

1 minute ago, Demitri_C said:

The working class party, my arse 

Does this not make you realise why the grassroots members of the party have flocked to Corbyn? This is precisely the reason so many of us want to move to the left (well I say left, most of us are just happy to be moving from the centre right). The policies Labour are championing are not particularly radical Socialism. They're policies that are there to redress the balance, and make it fairer for everyone. Whether Corbyn succeeds or not, Labour needs to carry on moving in that direction. The members want it, and we need to find a way to make it resonate with the electorate. The working class are just being left further behind by this Tory government, and it's only going to get worse, if they get back in. Add the Strong & Stable, red, white, and ******* blue Brexit into that, and we truly will be *******!   

[TrentVilla]

5 minutes ago, jon_c said:

There isn't a working class party anymore, none of them are. 

I don't agree with that, the Labour Party is, it's just a lot of the MP's that aren't. 

But this is a real issue in British politics, the MP's predominately come from elite education and a very small section of society.

They largely don't represent the people they proport to represent.

I think that and the decisions that leads to is a fundamental factor in the disconnect between the electorate and the political parties/ process and MP's and not an insignificant factor in things like Brexit.

[TrentVilla]

4 minutes ago, dAVe80 said:

Does this not make you realise why the grassroots members of the party have flocked to Corbyn? This is precisely the reason so many of us want to move to the left (well I say left, most of us are just happy to be moving from the centre right). The policies Labour are championing are not particularly radical Socialism. They're policies that are there to redress the balance, and make it fairer for everyone. Whether Corbyn succeeds or not, Labour needs to carry on moving in that direction. The members want it, and we need to find a way to make it resonate with the electorate. The working class are just being left further behind by this Tory government, and it's only going to get worse, if they get back in. Add the Strong & Stable, red, white, and ******* blue Brexit into that, and we truly will be *******!   

A fair point. For me though it comes down to the poor leadership of the PLP by Corbyn.

Just to add though, I don't think that a left leaning Labour Party under someone like Corbyn is ever likely to be appealing to a fairly centre/right and conservative with a small c population.

I think the centre ground or just left of was where Labour needed to position itself but then I would say that as I'm of that stance myself.

I think a left leaning Labour Party under Corbyn and in part because of Corbyn doesn't stand a chance. Not least because of the point I made earlier about the narrative on the economy and Labouts inabilty to shape it.

[jon_c]

Just now, TrentVilla said:

But this is a real issue in British politics, the MP's predominately come from elite education and a very small section of society.

 

I agree is a real problem in both politics and the media, and I blame the system of unpaid internships. For most people to get a job in either of these areas you'd need to work a couple of years experience, no pay. It's a system to weed out the poor people who couldn't realistically do that and live. So all the posts are filled by rich kids living off their families. 

[TrentVilla]

Just now, jon_c said:

I agree is a real problem in both politics and the media, and I blame the system of unpaid internships. For most people to get a job in either of these areas you'd need to work a couple of years experience, no pay. It's a system to weed out the poor people who couldn't realistically do that and live. So all the posts are filled by rich kids living off their families. 

I think that is an excellent point and it's something that put me off when I considered it after my politics degree. I'm not really sure how anyone changes that though or even that there is any desire for change or perception that it's a problem.

Would public school, self funded uni students as Lib Dem or Labour MP's voted for tuition fees? 

[dAVe80]

Just now, TrentVilla said:

I don't agree with that, the Labour Party is, it's just a lot of the MP's that aren't. 

But this is a real issue in British politics, the MP's predominately come from elite education and a very small section of society.

They largely don't represent the people they proport to represent.

I think that and the decisions that leads to is a fundamental factor in the disconnect between the electorate and the political parties/ process and MP's and not an insignificant factor in things like Brexit.

The fact that Labour lost touch with it's core support, and took it for granted, has done the party no favours at all. I think the narrative of immigration, Islamophobia, and the emergence of UKIP has played part in disengaging the working class from the Labour Party too. Labour desperately needs to win back its heartlands. It's going to be a massive battle, but I'm hopeful it can be done.

[MakemineVanilla]

12 minutes ago, jon_c said:

There isn't a working class party anymore, none of them are. 

True.

All the major parties abandoned the bottom third of the workforce including Labour.

It was labour who continued with, what they called euphemistically, 'a deregulated' labour market, which basically meant fewer rights and zero-hours contracts.

This is what helped to produce the precariat and built inequality and relative poverty into UK society, while substantially improving pay and conditions for elite public employees.

Somehow, pretending to be the friend of the poor while screwing them, seems worse than being an upfront self-interested bunch of bastards. 

[dAVe80]

10 minutes ago, TrentVilla said:

A fair point. For me though it comes down to the poor leadership of the PLP by Corbyn.

 

I'd personally put the bigger proportion of the blame on the PLP, but Corbyn is not perfect. I've had some great conversations with a few of the people who managed to get Corbyn nominated in the first leadership election. It was probably the start of the grassroots movement that's backed him. The idea at the beginning was just to get a left leaning MP on the ballot. It's proven to be very popular (with the membership), so I'd hope that if and when someone needs to take over, we'll have the conviction to back another candidate from the left.  

[TrentVilla]

4 minutes ago, dAVe80 said:

The fact that Labour lost touch with it's core support, and took it for granted, has done the party no favours at all. I think the narrative of immigration, Islamophobia, and the emergence of UKIP has played part in disengaging the working class from the Labour Party too. Labour desperately needs to win back its heartlands. It's going to be a massive battle, but I'm hopeful it can be done.

This is probably where we start to differ.

I don't think a traditional Labour Party is electable, certainly not based on its heartlands. Especially as you rightly say they've been eroded by UKIP and the SNP.

I think Blair recognised that and whatever people may think of him and his legacy and Iraq he was quite brilliant at leading, legitimising and uniting the party especially at the outset.

I think that is where Corbyn has failed and where I'm most critical of him, his lack of leadership or more accurately poor leadership. Principled he may be but a leader he is not.

Labour needs desperately to win back its traditional vote, I agree. But not to give it a chance of victory, but to stop it being humiliated at the polls.

[blandy]

I think defining parties by "class" is a mistake. e.g. "Labour is the party of the working class" To me it's utter nonsense. I guess you could claim the Upper Classes have got the tories. Who's got the middle classes?  Where are the boundaries? Is there a set list of occupations or criteria for memebership of one or the other? Footballers, told when to work, what to do, when to go home, when to jump and how high....and paid in millions. Are they working class or upper class?

Speaking as a member of the aristocracy, I obviously look down on everyone, so my contempt for your petty class based obsessions is no doubt above your comprehension.

Anyway, in these modern times, when there seem to be so many different "tribes" I think defining parties by class is foolish in the extreme. The democratic system is broken, the two party version doesn't fit with the myriad fragments of society.

 

 

[TrentVilla]

5 minutes ago, dAVe80 said:

I'd personally put the bigger proportion of the blame on the PLP, but Corbyn is not perfect. I've had some great conversations with a few of the people who managed to get Corbyn nominated in the first leadership election. It was probably the start of the grassroots movement that's backed him. The idea at the beginning was just to get a left leaning MP on the ballot. It's proven to be very popular (with the membership), so I'd hope that if and when someone needs to take over, we'll have the conviction to back another candidate from the left.  

I think it would be a mistake but that's just my opinion. But if they do they need to pick one actually up to what is a very difficult job.

[TrentVilla]

2 minutes ago, blandy said:

I think defining parties by "class" is a mistake. e.g. "Labour is the party of the working class" To me it's utter nonsense. I guess you could claim the Upper Classes have got the tories. Who's got the middle classes?  Where are the boundaries? Is there a set list of occupations or criteria for memebership of one or the other? Footballers, told when to work, what to do, when to go home, when to jump and how high....and paid in millions. Are they working class or upper class?

Speaking as a member of the aristocracy, I obviously look down on everyone, so my contempt for your petty class based obsessions is no doubt above your comprehension.

Anyway, in these modern times, when there seem to be so many different "tribes" I think defining parties by class is foolish in the extreme. The democratic system is broken, the two party version doesn't fit with the myriad fragments of society.

 

 

I don't think you can define parties by class but I think the old definitions are still valid when talking about their bedrock support.

Who holds those in the middle is pretty much the king making factor.

[dAVe80]

5 minutes ago, blandy said:

I think defining parties by "class" is a mistake. e.g. "Labour is the party of the working class" To me it's utter nonsense. I guess you could claim the Upper Classes have got the tories. Who's got the middle classes?  Where are the boundaries? Is there a set list of occupations or criteria for memebership of one or the other? Footballers, told when to work, what to do, when to go home, when to jump and how high....and paid in millions. Are they working class or upper class?

Speaking as a member of the aristocracy, I obviously look down on everyone, so my contempt for your petty class based obsessions is no doubt above your comprehension.

Anyway, in these modern times, when there seem to be so many different "tribes" I think defining parties by class is foolish in the extreme. The democratic system is broken, the two party version doesn't fit with the myriad fragments of society.

 

 

It's all down to if you put gravy on your fish and chips or not!

[StefanAVFC]

Is it any surprise that self-serving MPs shift to the centre/right when the country, time after time, has showed it wants centre-right politics? We're inherently selfish as a country IMO.

[Risso]

58 minutes ago, TrentVilla said:

There are others far more well informed on this area of policy than me, most likely you included, but this question made me question my own perception. I would have answered, if asked that the Tories had cut tax for the wealthy but I wasn't sure if this was just an assumption on my part. But a quick look turned up the below, there were lots of other similar articles.

I appreciate these changes were introduced by Osborne and the article even says they go against May's "political mantra" but it was still this Government and the Tory party. Besides, May doesn't particularly strike me as someone with a political mantra, more as someone that blows with the wind.

So, it seems to me the point made by @meregreen has some merit but I'd be interested to hear a counter view on this one, if there is one, as I may still be being swayed by my deep rooted mistrust of of the Tories and assumption that this is just what they do.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/apr/01/huge-tax-giveaway-for-rich-as-poor-are-hit-george-osborne-tax-benefit-budget-changes

But they're not tax cuts for the rich.  A rise in the personal allowance benefits everybody.  Plus the "rich" start to lose their personal allowance once they ear over £100,000.  Anybody who earns £123,000 and over loses their personal allowance altogether.

Your point about people assuming something true is spot on.  "Tax cuts for the rich" is a great soundbite but where is the actual evidence?  The Conservative government has done more to counter tax avoidance than any other government in history, believe me.

[dAVe80]

1 minute ago, StefanAVFC said:

Is it any surprise that self-serving MPs shift to the centre/right when the country, time after time, has showed it wants centre-right politics? We're inherently selfish as a country IMO.

Unfortunately there could be merit in this argument. As Nick Cave put it, people they ain't no good.

[Risso]

1 minute ago, StefanAVFC said:

Is it any surprise that self-serving MPs shift to the centre/right when the country, time after time, has showed it wants centre-right politics? We're inherently selfish as a country IMO.

If you're going to lump everybody together, I'd say we're a naturally hard-working and entrepreneurial country.  I loathe the self-defeating and making-life-equally-shit-for-everybody nature of socialism with a passion.  Wanting the best for your family isn't selfish, it's human nature.  And I firmly believe that that belief creates wealth for everybody else too.

[blandy]

1 minute ago, TrentVilla said:

I don't think you can define parties by class but I think the old definitions are still valid when talking about their bedrock support.

Who holds those in the middle is pretty much the king making factor.

I think the last sentence is right, but not the first. Different takes on it, or different experiences maybe lead us to our views. I think a fair chunk of the Corbyn/Momentum support is from people who wouldn't be thought of as traditionally working class by a long way and a lot of the people who have deserted him would be.

Further, the UKIPs or former UKIPs voters are likely to make a huge difference in this election - I saw a survey/poll that said something like a 30-40% of them were gonna stay UKIPs, about 40-50%+ were going to go back to the tories and hardly any to Labour, Liberals or Greens. There were something like 12 million people voted for the purple pillocks last time, weren't there? or 8 million. Anyway, loads. Mostly poorly educated, northern and midlands people, plus the various middle class racist nans etc. I wonder if they'll not be a major factor. And hardly any of them like Corbyn or Labour.

[blandy]

9 minutes ago, Risso said:

But they're not tax cuts for the rich.

If you raise the 40% threshold from 42K to 45K that benefits only well paid people doesn't it?