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.

As Jonathan Pie asked, "how bad do you have to be to lose to that?"

Well ?Quite bad was the answer.

I don't think that the racist / sexist insults have come from left campaigns (although certainly that seems to be the debating style of some of their supporters) so I disagree with that OP

I think Dodo s point is a very valid one and agree that it is actually supporters, such as journalists and people on social media making these sort of assertions rather than, for example, the Labour party itself. I think it's easy to lose sight of this just because the discourse is just so horrid.

So for example, this is the Fabian Society report on the left's response to Brexit - Facing the unknown: Building a progressive response to Brexit.

www.fabians.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/FABJ4808_Europe_Report_130916_WEB_2.pdf

Okay it's not an official Labour response but it is written by Angela Eagle and Chuka Umanna amongst others. I haven't read it all yet but the parts I have read seem to be along similar lines to the views of many on this thread and quite thoughtful and reflective.

Eg in the intro, "there is nothing innately left wing about supporting uncontrolled immigration"

I think the worst of the bike is actually coming from the press and I feel the Guardian deserves a special mention here. For anyone not convinced that anyone on the left is dishing out insults, please do have a read of the article by Polly Toynbee I linked to earlier, or indeed almost any article by her.

bile not bike

Trumps campaign wasn't based in insult and bigotry - it's success was based in proposed economic policies for small town America - trade barriers, inward investment, restriction on immigration (US jobs for US workers), reduction in corporation tax, maternity leave improvement to encourage more women in industry.
For a paternalistic and nationalistic party the OP should look to the BNP.
New Labour had made the bet that they were going to be pragmatic towards businesses and that people were going to appreciate growth.
Turns out they were wrong and probably only won in 97 because they had the Sun's support.
This time they are not prepared to say what the Sun wants them to, OP.

This time they are not prepared to say what the Sun wants them to, OP.

In the age of social media and the internet in general, the Bogeyman of the "right wing" press is wearing thin

And whilst I think that journalists writing bile-filled articles calling people names and deliberately misunderstanding people's motives is awful and is adding to the general deterioration in political debate in this country (see posts above about QT), it also doesn't even work.

My favorite bit of the "Facing the unknown" report is in a piece by James Morris called "We must respect people's desire for control" where he reports that whilst the Times succeeded in moving its readers hugely towards remain, and the Telegraph had no effect on it's readers' voting, the Guardian (and the Mirror) saw its readers move in the opposite direction to it's remain stance. So all the vilifying and selective reporting and nasty name calling by Polly Toynbee et al didn't work.

People are sick of being told that they have to accept more of the same because they are not allowed to risk something different. That they are idiots for not doing as they are told.

I watched the Michael Moore show on Channel 4 the other day. I'd assumed it would be a documentary, a "Trump is shit" exposé showing (even more) of Trump's idiotic and offensive views. It was in fact a one-man stand-up (sit-down) show, saying how wonderful Hillary was, how perfect she was, and how voting for Trump would be a short-sighted, short-term "fuck you" (his words) to the establishment, that it would feel great for a few weeks before turning into a painful disaster.

My problem with Moore's way of putting his arguments across is that it was very much a case of telling his audience they were morons if they even considered voting for Trump over the saintly Hillary. If I were a wavering voter (I'm not, and I'm not American anyway) a show like Moore's could easily push me away from Hillary and towards Trump. I like to think my brain would kick in before I cast my vote, but still.

I used to like Moore back in the 1990s and early 2000s, but his style is exactly why people are turning away from the very people he supports. His personal style is, too often, the Left's style as a whole. The liberal, forward-thinking view, that anyone who disagrees shouldn't be reasoned with or persuaded, rather they should be ignored or (worse) shouted at and told that they are idiots. Very much like the idealistic 12-year-old's well-meaning and genuinely felt, but very ill thought out contribution to a dinner table discussion on global politics: fine provided everyone agrees with them and tells them how clever they are, but as soon as there is dissent they have no argument other than to cry, shout or just say that "you're all idiots".

American voters are not all idiots. No country's voting population is. Many Trump voters will not like the man, they will know how horrible he is, but they saw a man who was trying to win votes through his (ludicrous) promises. They saw Hillary as a know-it-all who will tell people what is best for them, how they should spend their money, and what they must think.

PS - What the hell is the deal with people urging Michelle Obama to run for the Democrats in 2020? "We need a woman to become President. But no woman is suitable unless she's spent 8 years as the First Lady first." It's demeaning and reinforces the idea that women need a strong man to show them the way before they can take on an important task themselves.

"Labour needs to find the language to express these universal truths that most people know in their heart of hearts: you get what you pay for, and foreigners are not to blame for the failings of our shrinking state. Conviction, diligence and seriousness will win over fantasy politics that will self-destruct before long."

This is a quote from the bile filled article by Polly Toynbee. The only comment in the article that was close to insulting was referring to labour voting Brexit constituencies where "white supremacism won the day".

One comment in a long thoughtful article and the left are " dishing out insults", this is not even close to the offense caused by Farage joking about sexual harassment. It is not even in the same ball park.

Then why not try the BNP? I'm just they'll be happy to have a shot at building glorious infrastructure, look after their own needy citizens, avoid taking in refugees, and EU citizens home.
Why wait for Labour to suggests it?

Many Trump voters will not like the man, they will know how horrible he is, but they saw a man who was trying to win votes through his (ludicrous) promises. They saw Hillary as a know-it-all who will tell people what is best for them, how they should spend their money, and what they must think.

I read this article yesterday in the Washington which pretty much said the same thing

Trump's victory should be in no way interpreted as a vote of confidence in him or his capacity to do the job. Less than 4 in 10 voters (38 percent) had a favorable opinion of him. Only 1 in 3 said he was “honest and trustworthy.” Thirty-eight percent said he was “qualified” to be president. Thirty-five percent said he has the “temperament to serve effectively as president.”

How can a candidate win with numbers like these? Because the desire for change was so great that it overrode all of the doubts — or at least many of the doubts — people had about Trump.

www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/10/the-13-most-amazing-things-in-the-2016-exit-poll/

No, that's okay then, only calling 37 % of the electorate "white supremacists" and likening them to people who are filled with hate, use violence and lynch people. Nothing serious then, quite suitable for political discourse in 2016. Do carry on.

I'm still not getting your "he said a ruder word than me, miss" line. I don't care what NF says, I want people on the left, and indeed everyone, treat other people with respect, even, gulp, if we disagree.

Just because some people are insulting to others, doesn't make it alright for others. Is this contraversial???

I don't really get this 'let's blame the left if people vote for racists'

We should all be vigilant against racist people and policies, shouldn't we? It's everyone's failure if racism thrives.

I'm still not seeing the validity of your argument wrong.

If someone thinks a label of racism or sexism has been wrongly attributed to someone "by the left" they aren't automatically correct in that opinion and it doesn't stand to reason that "the left" should cease and desist calling out what they perceive to be racism and sexism just in case someone is offended by them. And if that really stops someone voting for leftist policies then I really don't see how they could be said to have been supporters in the first place.

I think it's simply more likely that lots of people hold right wing views and are either in support of or indifferent to the sexism and racism that accompanies a lot of it. It's not the case that the left, in challenging these ideologies, has somehow pushed people towards them. That's pretty twisted logic.

"No, that's okay then, only calling 37 % of the electorate "white supremacists"

Not every Brexit voter. Why would you claim that? She is clear she is talking about some labour constituencies. There is evidence to back up the claim that anti immigration sentiment played a big part in the way some people in some constituencies voted.

If you are not in one of these constituencies and are not racist why are you choosing to be offended?

The two Guardian articles quoted contain one 'insult' to a certain group of people in some constituencies and it could be argued she is correct. Based on this the left is throwing around insults. It is blatantly not true.

Lots of responses!

Ally, I'm most certainly not trying to silence debate - the opposite!

Dodo, thank you for your insightful post.

I think the issue is there is a disconnect here.

One side sees the other (Leavers, Trump voters) as 'racist.' And, since racism is wrong, they don't have an issue with calling them on it.

However, I don't think for a moment every Leave voter was racist and I doubt every Trump voter was either. Therefore, calling them racist means any debate comes with petty arguing and justification.

Think Gordon Brown in 2010

Woman - "I'm worried about the effects of uncontrolled immigration." (I agree she expressed it badly.)
Brown - "well please don't be, because ..."

Then later called her a racist bigot.

Labour lost. UKIP have been on the rise ever since.

You can say 'but she was! It was justified!' as much as you like but they still lost.

One side sees the other as racist - massive over-simplification right there.

In that Polly Toynbee article she calls mass-inmigration "cultural progress"...

That shows how truly out of touch she is with the common man!

he didn't call her a racist bigot. He referred to her as a bigoted woman..

and tbh iirc I thought that was how she came across.

"In that Polly Toynbee article she calls mass-inmigration "cultural progress"...

That shows how truly out of touch she is with the common man!"

Should Polly Toynbee switch her view to being anti-immigration, just to make her more in touch with the "common man", as you put it?

I remember in the 1970s there was a lot of hostility towards immigrants, particularly against West Indians and Asians. The gutter press routinely ran stories about how lazy they were, or how fast they bred - all the usual anti-immigrant tropes.

A lot of us think that immigration from the West Indies and the Asian subcontinent has enriched our cultural life in this country. I don't think mass immigration has been an unqualified good, but when I think about what an inward-looking place Britain was before mass immigration, then I can see plenty of benefits. And I don't think that's a view that is solely the preserve of the white, liberal-minded middle-classes - I think you will find plenty of working-class people who would say the same thing.

I think it does probably show how out of touch she is with the average daily mail reader, yes.

Hackman I too support immigration and believe it has been good for the UK.

However, shutting down concerns about immigration by claiming it is 'cultural progress' shows that Toynbee has little understanding of why many working class are concerned about immigration.

I hadn't read the Toynbee article when I posted my response. Having now read it, I see she doesn't in fact refer to mass immigration as "cultural progress". What she says is: "Roll back the cultural progress in all our race relations and anti-discrimination acts, and if we’re not careful it will be not only permissible but politically necessary to acknowledge the lowest of visceral racist, sexist and nationalist instincts as valid."

So she's actually referring, not to immigration, but to equality legislation. Did you not realise that, Twogoats, or are you deliberately misrepresenting her?

Immigration - depends how people experience it. Large numbers of new people settling in distinct locations, such as London suburbs and Lincolnshire (as I understand) will lead to tensions and disputes re local resourcing. A colleague of mine voted Leave as she was fearful of her child's palce at secondary school being taken away. She lives in rural W Yorks ffs but the same stuff operated in less resourced places.

Yes when we came to England from Scotland, though we are an Irish family we had "No Blacks No Irish No Dogs" signs from landlords to helpfully direct us where we couldn't live.

More bile - Guardian writer tweets time for presidential assassination.
Deletes account.
mobile.twitter.com/search?q=monisha_rajesh

Hackman okay, I will admit that I didn't read the whole article. I have made a mistake there.