To seriously wonder what it will take for the Left to realise hurling insults at their core voters won't win votes?

[basketoffreshveg]

guardian link

Now, I realise the above is about Trump, but if I didn't have to get ready for work I am sure I could find easily enough any number of articles from the last twelve months stating that core Labour voters are too stupid to know what is good for them, wrong, misguided, naive, foolish and poor judges of political and economical climates.

I keep thinking that at any key moment the light will go on and the penny will drop and the left will realise and identify this is the very problem and why they aren't being elected.

They aren't losing because of stupid voters but largely because these voters dislike being called stupid. I am not necessarily advocating a U turn insofar as policies go but in the way they are presented to the electorate.

Yet after every crushing blow I see articles like the one above and I have to reach the conclusion that there is a serious disconnect here as if I can identify the source of the problem and Labour/left seemingly cannot, and I am no genius, I truly can't see them ever getting back in.

Fawful - Are you talking about EU migrants specifically? I think that as from April people will have to prove they have a job in place before they can move here.

I'm not being derogatory at all. And I'm no expert but I'm certainly not ignorant either. Somewhere in between the two I would say.

I absolutely can empathise with the difficulties adapting to a different country; a different culture. I could see how this would increase crime rates through mental health difficulties, low income etc.

But the fact is, it's external factors that make some groups more prone to crime. It's not internal - it's not because they are Somali or Vietmanese etc. I'm not being 'bitchy' I'm trying to draw a line with racist presumptions.

What is your common sense solution then? How best help these areas, make them happier or safer, reduce crime etc

Don't be so bitchy about people who come from a hard life.

Like calling them "hostiles who will piss in our plant pots"? Yes, you're a fine one to lecture others aren't you.

There it is again the left calling people names, you are uneducated, patronising and bitchy Toomanypetals .

Oh hold on - your are being called names by the racists who have failed to explain their racist comments.

The point of this thread is the idea that the left call people names. The exact opposite has happened. Yet the left are called these names despite any evidence.

I suppose 'common sense' says the left are hurling abuse and we don't need any pesky facts to get in our way.

To go back to the question of whether some on the left are hurling insults at their core voters, or not, would anyone who doesn't think this is happening be interested in deconstructing the Polly Toynbee article I linked to earlier, particularly the paragraph below and showing me what PT means by "in Brexit seats where white supremasism won the day".

Several posters have said that they don't believe that PT is calling all leave voters white supremasists. I am genuinely unable to understand this reading of her article and would really appreciate if someone could explain this to me clearly.

I am asking this is a non-goady way. I may have read to much into her article, and be taking a meaning she has not intended and would like someone to explain exactly what they think she is saying. Who are the white supremasists she is talking about?

Here's the article

Brexit and Trump mark a whitelash. Politicians must not pander to it - Polly Toynbee
Brexit and Trump mark a whitelash. Politicians must not pander to it - Polly Toynbee

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/10/brexit-trump-whitelash-politicians-must-not-pander

and here's the relevant para.

"Most Labour MPs are in Brexit seats, where white supremacism won the day, and now you can hear some of them humbly promising to “listen” to those voices. But when you have listened, what then? Build walls and more deportation camps?"

So Fawful thinks that EU migrants come to stay with relatives when they move here. You must be thinking of those who have a job to come to. I am talking about those EUs who simply move. They may or may not stay with relatives but they apply for housing, get unemployment benefits and when they find a private rental have the rent totally paid out of the public purse, plus CTax. They may in fact never find a job. Are you aware of that?

Loads in my area of Greater London.

But that may be due to change in April.

Lady Nugee . She is all that is wrong with Labour

Wrong I assumed she was referring to particular Northen predominantly white working class areas.

Meanwhile on MN insults are being hurled at immigrants and the left.

I'm guessing it's not correct, like Shouthall's 'facts' about NHS waiting times and carbonara's 'knowledge' of housing

There you go again. You just cannot accept the unpalatable truth. Well, I hope - for your sake - you wake up, and the best way I suggest is if you experience one of the above: hospital treatment or need for housing. Then you will know. My second appt was recently, 8 Nov, and that took months & months to get to this point.

Wrong I assumed she was referring to particular Northen predominantly white working class areas

But why is she calling those Northern white working class voters "white supremacist"? As is happens I don't live in the North but it is where I was brought up, I am white and working class and strongly identify with people in those areas. I can't understand why a phrase like "white supremacist" aimed at ordinary, decent people who are just trying to do what they think is best for themselves, families and communities, is acceptable,and anything other than a slur. And as their motivation is probably similar to mine and many leave voters, how is she not calling most leave voters white supremacists?

Meanwhile on MN insults are being hurled at immigrants and the left

Yes, hurling insults is not right whoever it is aimed at and should be challenged and argued against.

most UK citizens receive more in benefits, medical care, etc than they pay in income tax in their lifetimes. Especially if they have children
Not accurate.

Don't faint, Fawful, but take a look at this French family who migrated to England. Neither parent is working, and he's on a Mickey Mouse course - he could hv signed up for similar in France.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3780802/Jobless-French-migrant-family-handed-44-000-benefits-year-warned-homeless-reject-house-turning-THREE-small.html

"They have received hand-outs worth more than £103,000 in the last 12 months, including:

£44,000 in housing and child benefits, child tax credits and NHS course payments worth £27,000

£38,400 four-month hotel stay
£21,000 in room service  

And yet disabled people hv to go thru the ringer every 2 yrs to get disability support, people on waiting lists for 5 yrs who have responsibily chosen not to produce children until they hv better accommodation are being knocked back all the time, in favour of EU migrants who just fancy coming over here and do not support themselves. And even if this guy gets his course qualification, how on earth is he going to pay for rent, CTax, food, etc? Answer: He never will be asked to.

Wikipedia definition of white supremacy

"White supremacy or white supremacism is a racist ideology centered upon the belief, and promotion of the belief, that white people are superior in certain characteristics, traits, and attributes to people of other racial backgrounds and that therefore white people should politically, economically and socially rule non-white people"

Yes, hurling insults is not right whoever it is aimed at and should be challenged and argued against.

So, you know, why don't you? Racism and insults are right here in black and white but few are keen to acknowledge them let alone challenge them.

This always mystifies me. The left being personal and hurling insults. First, the vehemence of the opposition to Trump isn't really 'political' as much as he has said things, done things, that indicates he is an unpleasant person that most people would avoid, whatever their voting preferences. As a long term 'leftie' I have been shocked by the venom, outright rudeness and abuse I have received on social media, whenever I attempt any rational discussion that expresses a different view from right wing assertions. I only went on Facebook to publicise genetic medical issues that my dog has, so I've ended up with some dog people as 'friends', some of whom hold views opposite to my own. I have always been used to having political discussion at work or with friends, so have been shocked by some of the personal invective and abuse. So, any attempt at suggesting that say, wholesale condemnation of Muslims is unreasonable, or that voting for a man who grabs women's genitals is a little odd is greeted by calls of 'leftie scum' or 'pinko' or some 4 letter expletives which I'd rather not repeat. Personally, I would join in any campaign against Trump were I American. Democracy is not a belief system, it's an imperfect way of deciding who governs. If it conflicts with my ethical sense, then I would protest.

Slarti would you like to write by posts for me since you know what I should be saying? Or can I carry on contributing what I feel constructive to do so?

I was on this thread y'day morning and had some very interesting exchanges. I came back this morning to post a follow up post on something I would like people's views on. In between I have been thinking a lot about this thread and the issues raised and deep problems on the left. If you look back I did question what I thought was a dubious comment. The op chose not to respond as is her right. Having thought about it, I wonder if she was making a point about specific issue rather than immigrants generally. Clarification would be good, but I don't see the point in harangung people if you disagree, it doesn't work, it just shuts down debate. I think it is better to have a debate.

If you read my comments, including the one you quoted from, you will see I have said several times that throwing insults I any direction is unhelpful. Rather than turn this thread into a slanging match (see various EU threads which got nowhere) I would rather try to contribute to an intelligent discussions' I think this I a v important issue that needs to be resolved or the left is in deep trouble.

I am going out now as I have things to do. Any failure on my part to challenge any offensive comments made before I return should in no way be taken as an endorsement of the views therein expressed.

Slarti would you like to write by posts for me since you know what I should be saying? Or can I carry on contributing what I feel constructive to do so?

Ah, so you get to tell others what they should post but the moment someone spots your hypocrisy you immediately try to shut them down. Post whatever you like, of course, but don't expect anyone to believe you are opposed to racism when you are constantly attacking those who challenge it. At least own it eh?

Polly Tonybee's job is to get clicks provoke debate. One way of doing that is to use provocative language.

Nellieellie - I too “have been shocked by the venom, outright rudeness and abuse I have received on social media, whenever I attempt any rational discussion that expresses a different view from” LEFT wing assertions. “I have always been used to having political discussion at work or with friends, so have been shocked by some of the personal invective and abuse I have read on MN, and all coming from left wingers who immediately throw words out like nazi, which is to shut down discussion and divert it to that person having to defend herself all the time.

That type of totalitarianism is endemic in the current Labour Party – not surprisingly, because Corbyn and his aides are communists.

The people rioting in the streets of USA cannot grasp a reality, which is that a significant number of poor white blue-belt States returned Trump based on the current voting system. However you cut your analysis, the fact remains that is one factor that swung the votes, as well as the Cubans in Florida who returned to their traditional Republican roots in this election.

America may need to overhaul its electoral college system, but that has been in place for a very long time. You might as well say that the last 10 elections did not reflect the people’s real choice because of it, but you cannot pick & choose which elections are legitimate and which are not.

Interestingly, regarding the electoral college, the system was, ironically, originally designed to prevent someone who campaigns in the extremely divisive way Trump has from becoming president:

The process of election affords a moral certainty, that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications. Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States

"the little arts of popularity" are seen here to be insufficient to satisfy the desire of "the whole Union" for the 'requisite qualifications".

The electors in the Electoral College were expected to exercise their judgment to keep such demagogues out, in order to ensure that, even if you disagree with their political stance, the president would still be respected as a person by most Americans. In that I think we can see that it has been a failure.

Extract from Wiki:

"The United States Electoral College is the body that elects the president and vice president of the United States every four years. Citizens of the United States do not directly elect the president or the vice president; instead they choose "electors", who pledge beforehand to vote for the candidate who wins in their party. Each state gets to choose as many electors as the combined total of the number of U.S. senators and representatives to which the state is entitled.

"The candidate who receives an absolute majority of electoral votes (currently 270) for the office of president or of vice president is elected to that office."

Indeed, Oxford, that's how it;s been happening for a long time. But it's not how the original framers of the constitution envisaged it happening. Sorry, I should have attributed my quote - it was Alexander Hamilton. The link is here:
avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed68.asp

This article enlarges on the same idea:

They chose to found a republic that was not a direct democracy, and this is why: a simple binding majority vote provides no check upon the election of a tyrant.

www.huffingtonpost.com/douglas-anthony-cooper/the-electoral-college-was_b_12897066.html

Now, of course, people can argue that this is no longer appropriate, but I'm not sure if the point has ever been tested in law before the Supreme Court (something else to google!) I suspect it's a non-issue though: too many people with guns would be really, really angry if the electoral college defeated Trump. The old days of deference are gone.

Interestingly, I tried to tell friends and family that reposting, sharing, and putting together FB and twitter memes would only do one thing, and that was to promote Trumps name.

The issue people have, and lets be honest it isn't just the left, its a huge amount of people who consider themselves good, is that they listen to mainstream media who are run by the left.

Take Trumps 'racist' allegations, it is based on the premise that he said 'all Mexicans are rapists, drug dealers etc...' and was pushed by left mainstream media worldwide, when he clearly didn't say any such thing and was discussing illegal Mexican immigrant and human traffickers.

People are not stupid, and they see the lie, when they see the lie, and then keep hearing from all demented anti Trump protestors reinforcing the lie then Trump becomes victimised...

AND THIS IS WHAT YOU GET!

Kesstrel

The Huffington post is part of the problem, and the promoting of going against the will of the people is a hysterical reaction to losing an election!

Slarti

1. Do you agree that some (not all, some) commentators/people on SM on the left have said that all leave voters are stupid and/or racist?

1. Do you believe that all leave voters are stupid and/or racist?

1. Do you believe that any left wing people voted leave?

I'm finding the thread very interesting, though it's interesting that no-one has responded to Wintersnigh's interesting post at 17.09 yesterday.

I don't think the problem will ever go away, because the more vocal Liberals know that they are right, and any dissension is obviously framed as racism.

Earlier in the thread, a poster said that, yes, certain nationalities were associated with higher crime levels, but that we should consider where they had come from and, effectively, cut them some slack. Also we, as the West, were the problem, and that we had a duty to share recources more fairly. In an ideal world, I would agree (also if I'd EVER heard a Liberal giving an upper limit of the number of people we should allow in). But it's not an ideal world and people are tired of being preached to. After all, has any politician ever stood on these issues at election?

I don't know how anyone can fail to see that the general liberal response to these issues has been to say that voters who disagree with them are thick/racist. And no, it's really not going to lead anywhere appart from Labour being in permanent opposition.