Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

to think that until the Left engage rather than name call, there will be a Tory govt?

179 replies

ApplePaltrow · 08/05/2015 17:57

Over the last year every thread on UKIP or tory voters has been 80% name calling. Over and over people have called them idiots, racists, disablist and worse. Any attempt to discuss calmly any potential valid concerns were met with vitriol. Even post the election, most of the commentary has been that the electorate were duped or that they were evil cunts.

AIBU to think that this is part of the problem? It turns out that when you name call, people are quiet - but don't change their views! UKIP are wrong - 100%. But people had fears and concerns about the future of the country and instead of engaging with them, the left made them feel ashamed and told them to shut up. So they went to UKIP and they abandoned Labour.

I think a big issue and very prominent on mumsnet is that the anti-fascist working class seems to despise (what they perceive to be as) the "softly pro fascist" working class. There seems to be huge contempt on the basis that "we grew up similarly and I didn't fall for it". They have the evangelical zeal of ex smokers. But not everyone is you. And you have to meet people where they are, not where you want them to be.

You can't win people without respecting them. Part of respecting them is listening to them. (John Harris at the Guardian is actually pretty good on this.) Labour will not win again until they realize that.

OP posts:
SorryToDisturbYou · 08/05/2015 23:48

If it were anything to do with a shortage of resources, then the issue of where the Tories are planning to find £12bn of cuts would have been a major election issue.

Somehow, 'the issue we're not allowed to talk about' - immigration - was in all the headlines, all the TV interviews, on all the doorsteps, and in all the manifestos.

The not insignificant issue of where the next government plans to cut a massive chunk of non-ringfenced spending from, somehow never got mentioned by the enthusiastically Tory press. Odd that.

SorryToDisturbYou · 08/05/2015 23:50

ApplePaltrow what do you suggest would tempt UKIP voters into another camp? They perceive there is a problem with immigration - how, if you were David Cameron, say, would you deal with that?

ApplePaltrow · 09/05/2015 05:12

To be clear, David Cameron doesn't need to solve it. He can agree with UKIP that immigration needs to be controlled and even that we need to be out of the EU because there's enough overlap with the Tory vision of the UK.

Re Labour: I think UKIP voters feel that there is something seriously wrong with the UK that needs radical change to fix. That needs to be validated. Honestly, I think it's true even if I disagree that it's immigration/EU that is wrong. If the Labour party would stand up and acknowledge that the status quo or minor reforms are not enough, then I think all voters - UKIP included - have shown they would be willing to put up with very difficult circumstances (like austerity) to solve it. The solution doesn't need to be immigration focused.

If Labour were willing to admit that the UK is in an unfixable mess and only radical change would fix it (and actually show how they would fix it) - then I know UKIP voters would be receptive to that.

OP posts:
sebsmummy1 · 09/05/2015 05:48

Post of the day!!

ApplePaltrow has just summed up my thoughts exactly.

^Great, so here's an idea. Instead of just listening to the tories and trying to outflank them, here's what they should do: sit down and work out what they actually stand for. Not what the tories stand for (burning disabled people, selling the NHS to terrorists, eating babies etc), what they - the Labour Party - stand for.

They don't have to stand on every street corner doing a nigel farage with a pint of beer but they do need to actually look beyond polls or votes to WHAT people want/fear/believe. Speak to non labour community activists. I consider UKIP a form of grassroots community activism. Talk to the people voting them. Talk to "little englanders" that they despise. Talk to people in London. Don't ask them about "party affiliation". Look at their communities: what are their concerns, what are their hopes, what are their goals? What is possible? What can the UK actually be? You want to create a full picture, not a narrow one based on which is the most salient issue for voters on one day every 5 years.

And most importantly: what is possible? What is possible to do in 2015 in a globalized world? Nobody in the electorate believes that the UK can go back in time to an age of cushy full employment and nurses who made you a sandwich. Nobody believes that you can defy the global economic structure and kick all the rich people out. Nobody believes that we can just "get rid of London" or nationalise everything or get rid of private property or whatever people say on here. There's no point putting forward unrealistic promises. People twice now have been more believing of the tories who have offered "more hardship to come" than Labour who've offered "a return to the good times". No one believes it.

Labour need to sit down and actually construct a positive inclusive complete realistic vision of what the UK can be. That is a true alternative. Then flow polices out from there and STICK TO THEM. No wishwashy back and forth surges left and right.^

NRomanoff · 09/05/2015 08:54

hackmum proves the OP point.

Anyway. I Think if labour wants to win it has to come from them. They really need to look at the election and identity exactly what went wrong. Not looking at who they can blame. The simple fact is, if people felt they were credible they would gave voted for them. They got it completely wrong. They need to get back peoples trust, for a start. Part of that os having reasoned discussions.

I am shocked so many people think Labour would not, in the next 5 years, made any cuts had they been elected. I believe 100% that they would. They hoped that enough people in the country hated the tories that it would make it easy to get in. It didn't work.

Ed Balls is a prime example. 2010 he only won by 1100 votes. And yet didn't put much effort in, in his constituency. He believed her would get it. He was wrong. People in his own constituency are unhappy with him. But some how he still thought we would vote for him. This is not a strategy for being re-elected.

SorryToDisturbYou · 09/05/2015 09:33

ApplePaltrow I'm not trying to out-"woman of the people"-you... but how many UKIP voters have you actually spoken to?

I have talked to a lot of people during this election, and yes, some of them planned to vote UKIP. And I talked to them calmly and without name calling.

I'm afraid that generally their views are based on misconceptions, for example that you can't get a job any more unless you're a black lesbian, that you can't send people to prison any more because of 'human rights', and that health and safety/political correctness has gorn mad.

One bloke (ex-Lib Dem voter) did have a sensible point about wage depression by immigration.

The only way to fix this is either by returning to a UK where only white, straight men get all the opportunities and power, or by banning the Daily Mail, which is running all these bullshit stories.
here [[http://realmedia.press/media-item/the-daily-mail-disability/]] saying 75% of people on Incapacity are faking it - absolute bollocks as proved if you actually read the article in detail.

Neither of these is really an option.

I don't buy this 'broken Britain' rhetoric. I think Britain is amazing.

I think the 1% at the top are greedy bastards who are ripping the rest of us off, who would quite happily see our public services trashed so they can keep their mega bonuses, and who shamelessly stoke and exploit the fears of ordinary people so they can keep their power...
...but I don't think any of that is likely to be fixed by voting Tory. Or UKIP.

SorryToDisturbYou · 09/05/2015 09:36

Fixed link

yearofthegoat · 09/05/2015 09:42

namechange's article links to an interview in The Economist with Tony Blair back in January that makes interesting reading:

A former Labour leader casts doubt on his party’s chances of winning the next election

ApplePaltrow · 09/05/2015 19:34

SorryToDisturbYou

I laughed slightly when I read your prior post. You think that Britain is amazing... except that we need to stop the 1% who are ruining it. UKIP think that Britain is amazing... except we need to stop immigrants and the EU who are ruining it. Both sides think something is deeply wrong with the UK that needs to be fixed with radical action, no?

OP posts:
ApplePaltrow · 09/05/2015 21:29

SorryToDisturbYou

This has nothing to do with "Broken Britain". I voted for Labour in 1997 and despite people's later anti-Tony Blair rhetoric, I think they were a great government. They poured money into the NHS, education, social services. They tried to tackle social exclusion, they funded childcare. They tried to improve things. They were absolutely brilliant. And from 1997 - 2007, the economy was fantastic. We had pots of money to put into the country and we did! It was one of the best decades the UK has ever had.

And as soon as 2008 came, it all collapsed. All the improvements in every institution reversed themselves immediately. Productivity collapsed. Efficiency collapsed. The NHS is back to the bad old days. Schools are crumbling. People are literally starving. The prior Labour govt might as well not have existed.

And that's the point: Labour proved that pouring money into these institutions cannot lead to long term change. It won't create a productive efficient workable sustainable nationalized health system, like those we desire in Europe. It won't create a functioning education system like that in Germany that actually fixes our productivity problem. Increasing benefits doesn't actually move families out of poverty. It makes them happier in poverty but it will never actually change the demographics of the UK in any meaningful way. We can pour billions into it and as soon as the economy turns, they will collapse.

And the UK is facing a demographic time bomb - the costs of funding pensions and healthcare will skyrocket over the next few decades. (Ironically, it's in a much better position than rest of Europe because of Thatcher's cuts to public pensions). It's also going to face much more competition from an increasingly educated global middle class. Do you really think we can compete? Do you really think we can adapt?

What 2008 showed people is that our fate is tied to the fate of the global economy, not how much govt welfare is spread around. Because it makes no fucking difference. It would be nice if we could all know that voting for more Sure Start centres would mean we could depend on having a pension in 30 years but it's not true. The NHS is unaffordable. It won't exist in the same form in 30 years no matter which govt is in power. The rhetoric from the left is useless. We have no power over the global economy. We don't have the ability to even stop energy rises in our own country! Look at all the handwringing and backtracking over an energy cap.

What 2008 showed people is that if you want to secure the future of your own children you have to do it yourself. It destroyed the faith people had in these institutions to protect them and their families. You think people are being selfish. I disagree. They support the Tory cuts, not because they hate disabled people or "benefit scroungers" but because they are hoping that the tory cuts and welfare reform will actually accomplish what people prayed that the Labour spending would accomplish - it will fix these institutions so we can have faith in them again.

I think UKIP voters (who I've spoken to) have seen enough to believe that the country and its institutions are in deep crisis and the future does not look good and they are trying to push back against it. They want to protect what little they think we have left, from europe, from foreigners, from whoever. I think if you offered them another way then they would listen.

Labour are arguing that they will reverse Tory cuts and take us back to 2005 basically. Great. Except we know what comes after 2005: 2008. We already know that this won't work.

If Ed Miliband had stood up and said: Look. We know the country is in crisis. Our infrastructure is a joke. Our education system and productivity is a mess. The NHS is unaffordable and if you are under 30 you should be playing the lottery if you want a pension. We can't spend our way out of this. We have to do better. The tories have offered reform and change. But their's is the wrong change. We have a responsibility to protect and value the dignity of each person in this country no matter what. And the tory reforms have failed to do that. What they have done is despicable and wrong. Here is what we will do: grand plan that fixes country! This will not be easy. We are going to have to be disciplined and we are going to have to make tough choices. But we are in this together. I promise you that this government will never turn on any sector of the population. We won't name call. We won't demonize. And we will make sure that every burden and every hardship is shared equally and fairly. We will restore your faith in this great country and be worthy of your trust.

etc etc gets a bit flowery but you get the picture. And it would have to be radical changes. That's the message and you stick to it. The point is that not only would people have voted Labour but many many UKIP voters would have too. This is not about 12bn or immigration checks. This is about trust and hope. This is about the future of Britain and the safety, security and life chances of our children's generation and the next generations to come. Please tell me someone in Labour HQ gets that!

OP posts:
Stickytoffeepuddingplease · 09/05/2015 22:02

Very well said OP and you are completely correct IMO.

I was only having the exact same conversation with my DM and DF and some DF today and we all said the same thing that you are pointing out.

Excellent point OP. Agree with bells and whistles on

rootypig · 09/05/2015 22:30
Confused

Apple, don't you realise that health services and education in Europe are better funded than here, and that's why they are successful? Long term success is long term funding, not some magical German alchemy.

SorryToDisturbYou · 09/05/2015 22:35

I don't think the 1% are ruining it - it's been a long week so I'll try to summarise - but I think we could do better. Don't forget that the evidence shows that more equal societies are better for the people at the top as well as at the bottom.

I don't think you can turn around after a few years and say Sure Start was pointless; the evidence shows that kids with a better start in this way do better in life; more employable, less crime, etc. But that'll take another 10 years or more to pan out, and the system is not set up to reward gov'ts that make life better in 10+ years' time.

The Conservatives already reorganised the NHS (despite promising they wouldn't) and each reorganisation costs huge amounts of money to implement. If their 'reforms' didn't improve things, not sure how the act of removing money from the nhs will?

It appears that the NHS will need an extra £8bn by the end of this parliament, which the Tories promised to provide in a pre-election panic; they don't know how they are going to fund it.
But they are spending £8bn on unnecessary tax cuts for purely ideological reasons. There's a distinct lack of joined-up thinking.

In all honesty, something like making the pilot's checklist thing compulsory across the NHS (or other examples of evidence-based policy) would be low-cost, and probably create better patient outcomes than all of the Health And Social Care Act reforms put together. Also, stop hiving everything off into separate functions that can be tendered out, and make everything everyone's problem. No more buck-passing of unprofitable patients to try and get them onto someone else's budget.

And also I can't speak for Labour HQ because I am a Lib Dem. I can barely speak for myself at the min as I have had about 8 hours sleep since 5am Thursday, my party has been annihilated nationally and locally and I'm feeling a wee bit down. Also knackered. BUt hope some of that was at least vaguely coherent.

rootypig · 09/05/2015 22:38

Healthcare spending in France and Germany is about 11.5% of GDP. In the UK in 1997 we spent 6.6% of GDP on the NHS. THAT is what the Tories left us. It grew steadily under Labour, reaching its highest point, 9.8%, in 2009. It was back to 9,1% in 2013, the most recent data I could find, even after a period of total stagnation of GDP. No doubt it will fall further.

data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.TOTL.ZS
ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Healthcare_statistics

www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/may/02/uk-healthcare-spending-gdp

SorryToDisturbYou · 09/05/2015 22:42

Also, I don't think everything did instantly go wrong in 08. We were recovering pretty well until ideologically-driven tory austerity cuts tanked the economy and hence tax receipts. Lib Dems tempered the worst of it - now we will see just how bad public services can get with Conservatives holding the reins.

You really think the NHS will be better in 5 years than it is now?

I certainly think there will be many more private firms making money out of it - I sincerely doubt it will look any better to your average service user. And I also predict many more services will be charged for.

rootypig · 09/05/2015 23:00

We were recovering pretty well until ideologically-driven tory austerity cuts tanked the economy and hence tax receipts.

Absolutely true. Just look at the sodding figures.

www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2009/nov/25/gdp-uk-1948-growth-economy

Bunnyjo · 09/05/2015 23:45

I completely and utterly agree with you, OP. I have seen Conservative voters (and, before anyone assumes, I wasn't one) described anything from disablist, to Nazis, to selfish twats/bastards/cunts*, to murderers who were going to be responsible for killing people. Absolutely reprehensible filth!

Much of what I have seen from Labour, both from people within the party and the party faithful, is outward blaming tactics. Labour need to look inward as to the reasons the completely failed to connect with the electorate.

The longer Labour continue to blame everyone else for their failure on Thursday, the longer it will take for them to recover and become a formidable force in opposition.

Whatever your political persuasion, a strong Labour Party, either in opposition or government, is necessary for the country.

*insert your vulgar noun of choice here.

Aermingers · 09/05/2015 23:50

SorryToDisturbYou We don't have freedom of movement across borders. We are not part of the Schengen area and retain control of our borders. In theory we only allow people who can prove EU citizenship in and out.

I think immigration was an issue that did a lot of damage. But I think much of that was a hangover from Blair than anything else. Although Ed claimed they were going to have effective border controls everybody knows that Blair never had mass immigration as a policy or put it in a manifesto but it still happened.

And the Labour focus on welfare, I think, was a huge turn off for most apart from people who were intending to vote Labour anyway.

Putting aside the rights and wrongs of Tory welfare policy a huge proportion of the electorate thinks that welfare was too generous under Labour. Labour's focus on welfare, I suspect, turned off a lot of voters who didn't want to go back to the bad old days of opening their newspaper to see they were funding a £6 million pound mansion in St John's Wood for a family of asylum seekers when they're stuck in a leaky bedsit in Peckham.

Aermingers · 09/05/2015 23:58

SorryToDisturbYou. Labour was the government that allowed private firms to run parts of the NHS in 2008. Between 2008 and 2010 under Labour such contracts increased from 0% to 4.4%.

In the 5 years of the coalition that figure has risen to 6.1%.

So under 2 Labour years a 4.4% rise and under 5 years of coalition a 1.7% rise

So in reality the pace of privatisation slowed dramatically under the Tories.

rootypig · 10/05/2015 00:00

opening their newspaper to see they were funding a £6 million pound mansion in St John's Wood for a family of asylum seekers

Put down the Daily Mail, Aermingers.

As for Labour and welfare. What they massively expanded was in work welfare. A huge subsidy to companies paying less than a living wage. They tightened access to many other things.

TooManyHouseGuests · 10/05/2015 00:14

I am sure that some racist people did vote for UKIP, but I think UKIP voters weren't generally voting out of racism, so much as the fear that they were being undercut by cheap labour. They are upset about their wages being held down because they perceive a steady supply of new comers willing to work for less. I don't think they are overly fussed about the colour of the newcomers' skin. It doesn't matter if the competition for jobs is a white Pole, a brown Brazilian, or a black African- they don't want to lose their job to anyone; the race of the competition really isn't relevant.

The immigration question is complex. It's not always clear whether new entrants into the labour market help or hurt the economy. Generally, the statistics show that immigration makes a net contributor to the economy. But even if they create overall gains, there are often both winners and losers within the system. The folks voting UKIP felt that they were the losers and that no one cared about them.

Aermingers · 10/05/2015 00:22

See, you're doing exactly what the OP talked about. Dismissing things as 'Daily Mail'. I should more correctly have referred to refugees though. There was one quite well publicised case where an Afghani woman was charged with benefit fraud. As a result the details of her benefits were discussed in court.

She was in receipt of £170,000 a year in benefits whilst earning £16,000 per year. She got £12,500 pounds a month housing benefit. She was evicted after the Tories capped housing benefit.

There was another case where there was an £8,000 per month house paid for out of housing benefit.

These are not small sums, the amount is staggering. It would take the entire tax paid by 170 minimum wage worker in a year just to foot the bill for the Afghani woman.

She received 14 x the minimum wage annually in benefits. And this is documented in a court case, not just the Daily Mail.

Can you not see why people who are working on low wages would see things like that and find it frustrating? And they are the people who are supposed to be Labour's core voters.

SinisterBunnyMonth · 10/05/2015 00:22

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

rootypig · 10/05/2015 00:39

But some things ARE Daily Mail, and SHOULD be dismissed. Not all opinion valid.

rootypig · 10/05/2015 00:40

As for housing benefit, the scandal is not refugees, but private landlords. It is a huge transfer of wealth from the taxpayer to landlords and it's a fucking scandal.

Swipe left for the next trending thread