Who else sees the parallels between "nasty right wing GC" slurs and "nasty right wing Brexiter" slurs?

[ConsiderTheLobster]

If you're GC, you know that a vocal majority within certain liberal left circles will denounce you as a right wing bigot. You know that you're actually GC because you've looked into this deeply and are trying to protect vulnerable people (women, non-conforming children, and trans people).

If you voted Brexit, you know that a vocal majority within certain liberal left circles will denounce you as a right wing bigot. You know that you're sceptical of the EU because it constitutes a corporate-favouring trading block, poses barriers to nationalisation of services such as railways, has deeply racist immigration policies (permitting free movement of predominantly white Europeans whilst restricting the movement of others), keeps people in many non-EU (e.g., African) countries locked into unfavourable trade deals, and reduces the influence of genuine democracy.

If you're GC and you work at a university, in the NHS or in left-leaning media, you're scared to say so. If you voted Brexit and you work at a university, in the NHS or in left-leaning media, you're scared to say so.

There are of course some genuine bigots who oppose self ID because they're transphobic. And there are genuine bigots who voted Brexit because they are racist. In each case, these are the narratives peddled by certain media about, respectively, all GCs, and all Brexit-supporters.

So - how many of us GCs still berate the nasty fascist Brexiters?

"On the other hand I can see how my parents' homeland has been utterly devastated since joining the EU - every bright, mobile young person picked up and left leaving behind the elderly and disabled. The young people became free borderline slave labour for Germany, France and the UK and their countries have been left to rot."

Exactly what has happened. Then the employers in Germany, France and the UK can lower wages in various sectors - construction, faming, food production, pharma labs etc.

[quote ConsiderTheLobster]@ConspiracyOfOne, that's interesting. I have two friends who were born in the UK but whose parents are Greek. They both voted leave, having seen how the EU had treated the country where their extended families still lived.[/quote]

I can completely understand.

For my parents, who helped their country free itself from the Soviet Union, they saw huge parallels between the Soviet Union and EU - in fact they think the EU was worse!

@ConspiracyOfOne, it's interesting, isn't it, how convinced many (by no means all) Remainers are that they and their representative politicians see/saw "the truth", and the (either evil, unfortunate or stupid) Brexit lot were lied to or duped (at best). From where I'm standing, there are tall tales and biased narratives on ALL sides of this. For instance, the image of the EU as a nice, inclusive utopia which some (again, definitely not all) of the Remainers peddled/peddle is so far from the experience of your parents (and countless others) - but this image inevitably influenced votes (and responses to the outcome of the referendum).

@BelleHathor

FifteenToes Yes the working class stuck 2 fingers up to Labour, One Nation Tories & Remainers. respected the referendum result and did everything he could to keep that as Labour policy. Privately Corbyn likely wanted to leave, however when the Media, the Courts and Parliament repeatedly tried to turn over the Brexit result he didn't come out fighting for the leavers. Corbyn is great on paper, but like Alan Johnson said it's a form of student politics that doesn't connect with the majority, I'm afraid that unfortunately "personality" these days count for more than policies. Andy I think that was despite Corbyn, every other mechanism to overturn Brexit had failed so a lot of Tories and Lib Dems voted for Corbyn.

Hi did come out fighting for them, within the party, it's just that he only had limited power to do so. The leader of the Labour party doesn't have unilateral power to make policy, it's a complex mix of Conference reflecting CLPs filtered through shadow cabintet strategy. Corbyn was already on extremely tenuous ground with most of the parliamentary party, and people like Johnson, having constantly tried to undermine him every chance they got. He simply didn't have the autocratic power to decide Labour was a Remain party. It would have imploded; CLPs would have refused to campaign and much of the PLP would have resigned.

I voted Remain so I'm not arguing my own corner here, but I'm afraid this is all back-to-front and upside-down. If you want to leave the EU, feel aggrieved about attempts to reverse the referendum and insulted by condescending Remainers, then you should be grateful to Corbyn who did everything in his power to oppose those things in the Labour party. It's people like Johnson and Starmer who were convinced the working class just had to be told better.

Corbyn did in some ways hark back to real leftism, but I think where he didn't speak to many of the traditional voters was the Big State stuff. People often don't make a distinction, but there is a kind of leftism that is more about grass roots empowerment and building stable self-sufficient communities, and one that is more about programs etc being imposed from the top down - even where they see some of the same problems the approach is very different. Stuff like parachuting Momentum candidates in - usually very woke ones - made it clear that it was the second, and those traditional voters aren't so keen on that. Either the woke, or the being told other people know what is better for them.

Which Momentum candidates were parachuted in?. The term refers to candidates being imposed by central office rather than voted for locally (something the party bureaucracy used extensively under Blair and are now doing again under Starmer), not to people simply standing for selection in constituencies other than their own, which any member is entitled to do.

Corbyn was huge on local grass roots empowerment and, among other things, launched the democracy review to thoroughly reform the party's structures in favour of precisely that. Unfortunately he wasn't in place long enough for that to get very far, given the strength and ruthlessness of vested interests within the party.

This has been a really interesting thread and people have made a lot of good arguments I've learnt from, but unfortunately it's really brought home to me just how successful the media's hatchet job on Corbyn was. People just have no idea. (I don't mean that insultingly, just that the truth of so many things has been so successfully hidden or twisted).

FifteenToes I can tell by the tone of your posts that you really care and fully agree that this has been an interesting thread.
I don't know whether you have heard about the Gamestop Shares Redditors vs Wall Street battle that is currently happening (think Occupy wall street 2020). It really is a David vs Goliath story. The bankers "shorted" or bet against Gamestop at $20. If the share price fell they stood to make a lot of money. Conversely if the share price rises then they have to pay the difference. There was a reddit/discord group where everyone said to buy Gamestop shares pushing the price up to over $200 leaving the bankers on the hook for $77 billion. Might seem unrelated, but Redditors trend younger and a lot of them had parents severely affected by the 2008 crash. They saw no justice and only 1 person jailed their faith in politicians to hold the system to account is dented (Wall street called the politicians who suspended trading). This is the new generation of "Brexiters".

Corbyn was huge on local grass roots empowerment
Maybe he was but, for me Sophie Wilson (Rother Valley candidate 2019) exemplifies how much they got this wrong. I wouldn't describe her as parachuted in and I don't know whether she had Momentum backing, but I do remember her seeming completely out of touch with local voters, even managing to get into a public row with a local child sexual abuse survivor. She ended up losing a seat that had been Labour for 100 years - a perfect illustration for me of the schism between constituencies and voters.

I don't doubt that Corbyn, if he could have done what he wanted, including a more traditionally leftist approach to Brexit, would have been more appealing to some.

But as a leader, part of your job is making that stuff work in the party. If he could not create a message or vision that held together and appealed, and which people thought might actually be instantiated in some way, it's a kind of leadership failure. Even if you know he personally fought in your corner, if the party messaging in the election is the opposite of that, it doesn't matter, and the leader wears that.

The LP, in the end, threw in their lot with the type of urban, university educated Blairite, and really red tory, middle classes, that voted for them. And why not - those people deserve to be represented in politics as much as anyone. But if the working class voters, with very different interests, don't vote for that, it's hardly a betrayal. And eventually they will have to come to terms with the fact that the urban middle classes may not represent enough people to win an election.

I probably used "parachuted in" too broadly. What I was getting at though is that when you have a lot of candidates with little relationship to the constituency, you have a higher chance of loosing your connection with the needs of the people. You cannot give a bunch of working class voters who are worried about jobs a 20-something activist candidate who has never really held down a job and expect them to see that person as an effective representative.

On the other hand I can see how my parents' homeland has been utterly devastated since joining the EU - every bright, mobile young person picked up and left leaving behind the elderly and disabled. The young people became free borderline slave labour for Germany, France and the UK and their countries have been left to rot.

Indeed, and this is likely worst in countries where culturally the offspring look after their parents in their old age. What happens when said offspring up and leave for 'a better life' in the UK?

Yeah, in Stoke we had Tristram Hunt brought in for Labour after local candidates weren't selected. Looking after my disabled son for 70 hours a week, I approached him because the council were blocking the financial support the DWP were wanting to pay us. (The council were refusing to sign a form noting that my son was out of a Care Home 3 days a week, and was being cared for at home). After several chats with Hunt, I was moved on to a political intern, who told me I should be ashamed at "wanting to be paid (i.e. Carer's Allowance and Disability Living Allowance) for looking after your (adult) son."

At that time, someone would have needed to be 121 years old to have elected the last Conservative MP to have represented Stoke., but we've got a Conservative now. She's no better...

Yeah, in Stoke we had Tristram Hunt brought in for Labour after local candidates weren't selected. Looking after my disabled son for 70 hours a week, I approached him because the council were blocking the financial support the DWP were wanting to pay us. (The council were refusing to sign a form noting that my son was out of a Care Home 3 days a week, and was being cared for at home). After several chats with Hunt, I was moved on to a political intern, who told me I should be ashamed at "wanting to be paid (i.e. Carer's Allowance and Disability Living Allowance) for looking after your (adult) son."

That was in 2010, five years before Corbyn became leader. It was before even Ed Milliband became leader. You really think Corbyn would have wanted to push Tristram Hunt onto Stoke? They are at diametrically opposite ends of the Labour party.

This is exactly what I mean. The parachuting in of candidates to serve the central party's agenda is a favourite ploy of the Labour right. Corbyn fought against it.

I realise not everyone's as much of a Labour geek as me, and one shouldn't have to be to know who to vote for. But I can tell you, not just in terms of Corbyn personally but generally, the professional middle class Blairite tendency within Labour are FAR more into the whole centralised control thing than the left, and they're utterly unscrupulous in what they have to do to achieve it. The media love to push the whole "Momentum thug, pushing out decent Labour moderates" mythology, but it has no connection with reality.

I don't doubt that Corbyn, if he could have done what he wanted, including a more traditionally leftist approach to Brexit, would have been more appealing to some.

But as a leader, part of your job is making that stuff work in the party. If he could not create a message or vision that held together and appealed, and which people thought might actually be instantiated in some way, it's a kind of leadership failure. Even if you know he personally fought in your corner, if the party messaging in the election is the opposite of that, it doesn't matter, and the leader wears that.

Yep. I think a huge part of the problem is that he just didn't have the numbers. Johnson could kick out 30 Tory MPs when they wouldn't toe the line on Brexit. Corbyn only HAD about that many who were loyal to him, and he could hardly kick out the remaining two hundred. It was a very odd situation in that respect.

My point has only been that it was Corbyn, and his cohort on the left, who tried to do what people in this thread have been saying they want Labour to do: properly stick up for traditional Labour values, respect the working class, show that respect by following through on the referendum result. (Some like Dennis Skinner even voted Leave). But the tory media PR job against Corbyn was relentless in making sure nobody saw that connection, and just saw instead that he lived in London and was a terrorist. It was the Blairites in the party who made sure that Labour Leave didn't have legs. And now Starmer's in charge they're in the ascendant and ruthlessly purging the party of socialists.

To which most of the working class, led by the media, will probably go "oh hooray, Labour's becoming a proper party that can reflect our interests again". Funny old world.

The LP, in the end, threw in their lot with the type of urban, university educated Blairite, and really red tory, middle classes, that voted for them. And why not - those people deserve to be represented in politics as much as anyone. But if the working class voters, with very different interests, don't vote for that, it's hardly a betrayal. And eventually they will have to come to terms with the fact that the urban middle classes may not represent enough people to win an election.

But that's precisely the problem: Neither faction represents enough people to win an election.

The percentage of the population either self-identifying as working class, or definable as such by objective criteria, has steadily declined since 1945 and is now very much a minority, And some of those will always be died-in-the-wool right wingers. The days when they could form an electoral majority without cooperation with the middle class are ancient history. (Actually they never existed - Labour has always been an uneasy coalition of organised labour and middle class reformism since its formation with the input of Fabian intellectuals. The London wokerati are just the latest incarnation of that).

All of which means the pure working class Labour government you are waiting for will never happen. So it's just as well the working class have got Boris Johnson and the right of the Tory party, who are going to look out for their interests so much better than Labour would have.

What's your take on the Sophie Wilson selection Fifteen? As I've said, I wouldn't describe it as 'parachuted' and I don't know if she was momentum backed, but it looked like a total car crash and had all the markings of a party that had totally confused 'grass roots' with 'young'.

Well, no, the thing is that as much as Momentum saw themselves as "real" socialists, and as much as they weren't Blairies, they were never anything like traditional Labour either. They wanted to do some income redistribution, have some state run programs, and nationalise infrastructure.

But they didn't manage to send a message that they would protect or promote industry or create good jobs, make sure communities were viable for families to remain over generations, rebalance the national economy, or deal with the problems created by movement of labour. What's more, they openly despised those who articulated many of those concerns. Or anyone who had qualms over their identity politics projects, right down to males in women's prisons.

I'm not sure it's true that there isn't enough of any one demographic to win an election. There is a huge gap in the electoral map, and it's the case in most of North America and Europe - leftist of economic issues and moderately socially conservative, and with some level of respect for things like ties to place. It's not just working class people, there are a whole lot in that group who are politically disenfranchised.

As it stands now, conservative parties are picking up many of those voters though it is not a great fit either. If there was a party that represented those kinds of interests, it could do really well. The real problems is that it's an anti-globalist position, so it comes under attack from a whole different direction.

Though over the last few years there has been some resurgence of conservative thinkers who are not economically liberal, and that is really a new think in the current political landscape. It could be they end up taking over the ground that used to belong to the traditional left.

@Floisme

What's your take on the Sophie Wilson selection Fifteen? As I've said, I wouldn't describe it as 'parachuted' and I don't know if she was momentum backed, but it looked like a total car crash and had all the markings of a party that had totally confused 'grass roots' with 'young'.

I don't honestly know about it. I understand Labour didn't shortlist ANY local candidates, which is bizarre even for them. But within the selection available she was young, working class and female - shouldn't those have been good things?

Generally speaking Labour's approach to candidate selection is a dog's breakfast. They want to pretend that they're representing local choice but there is SO much corruption behind the scenes that sometimes you wonder why they bother. But as I said, it's the right of the party who are the real masters of this not the left.

Well, no, the thing is that as much as Momentum saw themselves as "real" socialists, and as much as they weren't Blairies, they were never anything like traditional Labour either. They wanted to do some income redistribution, have some state run programs, and nationalise infrastructure.

But they didn't manage to send a message that they would protect or promote industry or create good jobs, make sure communities were viable for families to remain over generations, rebalance the national economy, or deal with the problems created by movement of labour.

That's interesting, I hadn't noted that distinction. Is there anyone on the left, within or outside Labour, that you think is representing these concerns?

Weird when this happens. ChestnutStuffing it's like they were listening to you.

Coming to a focus group near you:

www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/feb/02/labour-urged-to-focus-on-flag-and-patriotism-to-win-voters-trust-leak-reveals

Cos that's not condescending at all!

Next up: Keir Starmer to change his name to "Kev", Angela Raynor to star in the UK remake of Roseanne, and Stephen Kinock to tour the Red Wall in a Bernard Manning tribute act.

But within the selection available she was young, working class and female - shouldn't those have been good things?
It's worth reading up on if you don't know what happened. Car crash of a campaign as I've said. Epitomised for me the state of the party.

@FifteenToes

Yeah, in Stoke we had Tristram Hunt brought in for Labour after local candidates weren't selected. Looking after my disabled son for 70 hours a week, I approached him because the council were blocking the financial support the DWP were wanting to pay us. (The council were refusing to sign a form noting that my son was out of a Care Home 3 days a week, and was being cared for at home). After several chats with Hunt, I was moved on to a political intern, who told me I should be ashamed at "wanting to be paid (i.e. Carer's Allowance and Disability Living Allowance) for looking after your (adult) son."

That was in 2010, five years before Corbyn became leader. It was before even Ed Milliband became leader. You really think Corbyn would have wanted to push Tristram Hunt onto Stoke? They are at diametrically opposite ends of the Labour party.

This is exactly what I mean. The parachuting in of candidates to serve the central party's agenda is a favourite ploy of the Labour right. Corbyn fought against it.

I realise not everyone's as much of a Labour geek as me, and one shouldn't have to be to know who to vote for. But I can tell you, not just in terms of Corbyn personally but generally, the professional middle class Blairite tendency within Labour are FAR more into the whole centralised control thing than the left, and they're utterly unscrupulous in what they have to do to achieve it. The media love to push the whole "Momentum thug, pushing out decent Labour moderates" mythology, but it has no connection with reality.

Fair point about the date. Hunt actually jumped ship, and was replaced by a local man who was a councillor in N-u-L. He was equally unwilling to help, and was eventually unseated by the Tory in the most recent General Election.

Each of these people have been charming and enthusiastic when I first meet them, and then, apparently, have a word with the council to get 'The real story'. I haven't had any financial support for my son's care since 2013. (Despite the Ombudsman's finding in our favour that year, leading to the council applying to the DWP for a couple of year's worth of DLA, backdated,, which they duly handed to us...The receipt read 'Carer's Allowance', which suggests that they still don't get it.).

Generally, I have to admit that the more firebrand Leftist the politician, the more I suspect that someone who's White and working-class ain't going to interest them; too few intersetionalities.

But Tristram Hunt is neither firebrand nor leftist. (I don't know about your other guy).

[Slitheringsnakes:] "And for those who don't like having foreign criminals in the UK - let's see how you enjoy all the additional crime we suffer because of a lack of full co-operation and data sharing between the UK police and those in the EU."

Right, sure. There is no reason you can't have good intelligence sharing between police forces in the UK and Europe. Maybe there is some bureaucratic reason that will cause problems in practice, but no, I'm not going to worry much about the risk, when in theory things could still work perfectly well.

A lot of the stuff you think you need the EU for, you just don't. It could be done perfectly well at the national level, (in some cases with international treaties).

And for human rights protections, I think it would be far better protected at the national level, because at least then you have a chance to more easily fix things if a court makes a crazy decision, like taking the side of supposed trans rights in sports teams.

If I remember correctly, you were originally talking about how you had "common sense" on your side. It looks rather like you are just trying to push fear and not "common sense".

Why can't police forces talk to each other just because of Brexit? Even if there is genuinely some bureaucratic or legal problem, OK, you can just push for the EU to change things. It's in their best interests also they we all cooperate on organised crime and terrorism, or serious criminals on the run. It's entirely possible that they would agree that you need to fix any problems with good cooperation. So it might take some time to fix any problems that come up, but it can be done.

I suppose you could always try arguing:

"Oh no, the EU are too stubborn, irrational and bureaucratic to cooperate properly, even when it's in everyone's best interests..."

But I don't see how that ultimately helps your case of how wonderful the EU is!

I get why people voted remain but it's ridiculous how closed minded the popular belief that there can be absolutely no benefits of Brexit is.

@FifteenToes - I don't know, it's difficult to think of anyone. Trevor Phillips leans that way - I'm not sure if he always has or if that represents an evolution in his thinking.

@FifteenToes

Weird when this happens. ChestnutStuffing it's like they were listening to you.

Coming to a focus group near you:

www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/feb/02/labour-urged-to-focus-on-flag-and-patriotism-to-win-voters-trust-leak-reveals

Cos that's not condescending at all!

Next up: Keir Starmer to change his name to "Kev", Angela Raynor to star in the UK remake of Roseanne, and Stephen Kinock to tour the Red Wall in a Bernard Manning tribute act.

You know, the problem with this is that fundamentally, branding is shallow. They do not need to change their brand, they need to allow the ideas and concerns of party members in constituency associations, and people who know the communities, to communicate their concerns and ideals and needs.

It's interesting that the Torys seem to be able to keep their finger on the pulse a little better even though they explicitly don't operate that way with their candidates. There is something quite different about the way they think about leadership and responsiveness, and it seems to work for them. I don't know if it could translate to Labour though. Maybe it's that Labour tries to be idealistic and principled, but they simply may choose principles which don't reflect what most real people care about. Whereas the Torys often govern pragmatically, they focus on the realpolitik - and that includes the voter mood.