fuck back off to whatever crypt you've been living in for the past decade my dude.
He was elected with a flagship policy of introducing a national minimum wage
Is he getting his political definitions from Fox News?
The stupid thing is paywalled so I can't read the whole letter but I think given other quotes from it like this one:
We should openly embrace liberal, tolerant but common-sensical positions on the ‘culture’ issues, and emphatically reject the ‘wokeism’ of a small though vocal minority
he's talking about culture issues more then policy.
And I think the top section is the thing they are referencing. From that top section:
after the 2019 defeat and a decade or more moving in the direction of the traditional left, Labour has a cultural problem with many working-class voters, a credibility problem with the middle ground, and is seen as being for everyone other than the hard-working families who feel their taxes aren’t spent on their priorities.
The tragedy for Labour is that this is not new. It mirrors almost exactly what happened in the late 1970s and early 1980s. This was the last time the far left came into a position of power in the Labour Party – though not in control of it – and when Labour suffered its second worst defeat ever (discounting the anomaly of 1935).
large numbers of Labour voters in 1983 felt our economic policy was not credible and our attitudes across a range of cultural questions were profoundly alienating.
In 2019 – this time with the far left in control – we suffered our worst defeat, and for pretty much the same reasons, but this time without that engraved Labour vote.
A rational person might conclude that our electoral history shows that a lurch to the far left was not, is not and will never be electorally successful.
For the best part of the past half-century, Labour has needed to reconcile the Labour and non-Labour progressive traditions of British politics in order to win power and govern sustainably.
This was the philosophy behind New Labour, and the social changes this polling survey reflects makes that more not less important today.
New Labour succeeded until the pressures of power, longevity in office and the divisions in progressive forces left Labour as a government vulnerable and the Liberal Democrats with an opportunity, too juicy to resist.
His suggestions:
1) The leadership should continue to push the far left back to the margins. The country must know there is no question of negotiating the terms of power with them.
2) The party needs a new future-oriented policy agenda based on an understanding of how the world is changing which rejects both the old-fashioned statist view of the left and the status quo politics of the right. I have suggested before that the technology revolution should be at the heart of it.
3) We should openly embrace liberal, tolerant but common-sense positions on the “culture” issues, and emphatically reject the “wokeism” of a small though vocal minority.
4) And we should go out and seek the best and brightest from the younger generation to come and stand as Labour candidates. And make a virtue of doing so.
The executive summary is fairly long and there's a bunch there but this seems like it might be the part he's talking about re: cultural issues:
4) So-called cultural issues, such as Brexit and immigration, have contributed to Labour’s recent problems. This is despite the fact that British attitudes have become steadily more liberal in recent decades on a range of issues: the death penalty, abortion and homosexuality, but also on race and immigration. Labour maintained its clear majority support among manual workers in the early post-war decades despite the views of its core voters on these issues, not because of them. Liberal reforms were tolerated as long as voters were confident the party would deliver on jobs, homes, health, tackling poverty and boosting pensions. Today that confidence has gone. Economics no longer trumps culture.
There's also a graph about half-way down as I skim through the body of the report with a decent visualization on how former Labour voters view themselves (mostly in the centre) vs how they view the party (mostly fairly left or very left). It seems like the suggestion is that he thinks Labour needs to actively reject the image of being a very left-wing party because that turns off Labour voters who don't identify with that kind of image of themselves.
But there's a lot more then just that in there. Seems fairly interesting from a data perspective at least. I'm gonna poke around more.
I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding of what “woke” means there
It's a completely useless word because its definition only exists in the mind of the person using it. It's pretty much the same as "SJW" in that it means nothing and its use and only serves to out the mindset of the person using it.
My dad (who will be 70 next year) mentioned it at one point a few weeks back, to which I pointed out that the opposite of "woke" is "asleep". I think he got the point, thankfully.
I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding of what “woke” means there
It's a completely useless word because its definition only exists in the mind of the person using it. It's pretty much the same as "SJW" in that it means nothing and its use and only serves to out the mindset of the person using it.
I don't think it's completely useless in this context because I think it's fairly obvious what they mean. Specifically I think it's being used to describe a (perceived) aggressive confrontational approach to cultural issues and specifically culture issues that don't have much support from most voters.
It's the new 'SJW', which was the new 'Political Correctness'.
All of which can be replaced with 'treating other people with respect' to make all the complaints sound as daft as they are.
There was a Mail opinion piece a while ago with a headline like The Woke Mob Can Rant All They Like But They Won’t Stop Me From Putting Worcestershire Sauce On My Spag Bol.
It’s the new imaginary enemy that will be used to justify whatever bullshit they put through to consolidate power and silence criticism.
There was a Mail opinion piece a while ago with a headline like The Woke Mob Can Rant All They Like But They Won’t Stop Me From Putting Worcestershire Sauce On My Spag Bol.
It’s the new imaginary enemy that will be used to justify whatever bullshit they put through to consolidate power and silence criticism.
One would think your fucking tastebuds would do that
+6
Options
BethrynUnhappiness is MandatoryRegistered Userregular
There was a Mail opinion piece a while ago with a headline like The Woke Mob Can Rant All They Like But They Won’t Stop Me From Putting Worcestershire Sauce On My Spag Bol.
It’s the new imaginary enemy that will be used to justify whatever bullshit they put through to consolidate power and silence criticism.
One would think your fucking tastebuds would do that
And if not, the Italians will certainly not forget that slight.
I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding of what “woke” means there
It's a completely useless word because its definition only exists in the mind of the person using it. It's pretty much the same as "SJW" in that it means nothing and its use and only serves to out the mindset of the person using it.
Entirely this
The British tendency is to imagine a person and then get angry about something that hypothetical person might theoretically do
That's the best way to interpret "woke" I find. "The woke mob" = "the mob I have imagined". "Woke politics" = "the politics I have imagined that some people hold"
fuck back off to whatever crypt you've been living in for the past decade my dude.
He was elected with a flagship policy of introducing a national minimum wage
Is he getting his political definitions from Fox News?
The stupid thing is paywalled so I can't read the whole letter but I think given other quotes from it like this one:
We should openly embrace liberal, tolerant but common-sensical positions on the ‘culture’ issues, and emphatically reject the ‘wokeism’ of a small though vocal minority
he's talking about culture issues more then policy.
And I think the top section is the thing they are referencing. From that top section:
after the 2019 defeat and a decade or more moving in the direction of the traditional left, Labour has a cultural problem with many working-class voters, a credibility problem with the middle ground, and is seen as being for everyone other than the hard-working families who feel their taxes aren’t spent on their priorities.
The tragedy for Labour is that this is not new. It mirrors almost exactly what happened in the late 1970s and early 1980s. This was the last time the far left came into a position of power in the Labour Party – though not in control of it – and when Labour suffered its second worst defeat ever (discounting the anomaly of 1935).
large numbers of Labour voters in 1983 felt our economic policy was not credible and our attitudes across a range of cultural questions were profoundly alienating.
In 2019 – this time with the far left in control – we suffered our worst defeat, and for pretty much the same reasons, but this time without that engraved Labour vote.
A rational person might conclude that our electoral history shows that a lurch to the far left was not, is not and will never be electorally successful.
For the best part of the past half-century, Labour has needed to reconcile the Labour and non-Labour progressive traditions of British politics in order to win power and govern sustainably.
This was the philosophy behind New Labour, and the social changes this polling survey reflects makes that more not less important today.
New Labour succeeded until the pressures of power, longevity in office and the divisions in progressive forces left Labour as a government vulnerable and the Liberal Democrats with an opportunity, too juicy to resist.
His suggestions:
1) The leadership should continue to push the far left back to the margins. The country must know there is no question of negotiating the terms of power with them.
2) The party needs a new future-oriented policy agenda based on an understanding of how the world is changing which rejects both the old-fashioned statist view of the left and the status quo politics of the right. I have suggested before that the technology revolution should be at the heart of it.
3) We should openly embrace liberal, tolerant but common-sense positions on the “culture” issues, and emphatically reject the “wokeism” of a small though vocal minority.
4) And we should go out and seek the best and brightest from the younger generation to come and stand as Labour candidates. And make a virtue of doing so.
The executive summary is fairly long and there's a bunch there but this seems like it might be the part he's talking about re: cultural issues:
4) So-called cultural issues, such as Brexit and immigration, have contributed to Labour’s recent problems. This is despite the fact that British attitudes have become steadily more liberal in recent decades on a range of issues: the death penalty, abortion and homosexuality, but also on race and immigration. Labour maintained its clear majority support among manual workers in the early post-war decades despite the views of its core voters on these issues, not because of them. Liberal reforms were tolerated as long as voters were confident the party would deliver on jobs, homes, health, tackling poverty and boosting pensions. Today that confidence has gone. Economics no longer trumps culture.
There's also a graph about half-way down as I skim through the body of the report with a decent visualization on how former Labour voters view themselves (mostly in the centre) vs how they view the party (mostly fairly left or very left). It seems like the suggestion is that he thinks Labour needs to actively reject the image of being a very left-wing party because that turns off Labour voters who don't identify with that kind of image of themselves.
But there's a lot more then just that in there. Seems fairly interesting from a data perspective at least. I'm gonna poke around more.
It's the implication in that last point that all red wall voters are also homophobic racists and we need to pander to them, that I can't abide.
I'm not an idiot. I know that rejecting "wokeism" means stripping me of my rights. He can fuck clean off.
Again "former labour voters" are never ever going to vote labour again. And it's not because labour are too woke, it's because they're all now buy to let landlords, and as long as the Tories offer more economic incentive, they will vote for them.
It's not 1997, it's not 1983, and if labour try to just play things like it is, they will continue to lose, forever.
Even the suggestion that some kind of "sensible centrism" (leaning hard to the right) has any chance of succeeding in the era of Facebook is just utterly absurd.
It is really hard not to read Blair's comments as a fig leaf on regressive stances
Like I can't think of a way to read "emphatically reject the ‘wokeism’ of a small though vocal minority" as anything other than "reject minorites" with superfluous adjectives
Similarly people only ever appeal to "common sense" when they know that spelling out what they actually mean can only be an admission of bigotry
fuck back off to whatever crypt you've been living in for the past decade my dude.
He was elected with a flagship policy of introducing a national minimum wage
Is he getting his political definitions from Fox News?
The stupid thing is paywalled so I can't read the whole letter but I think given other quotes from it like this one:
We should openly embrace liberal, tolerant but common-sensical positions on the ‘culture’ issues, and emphatically reject the ‘wokeism’ of a small though vocal minority
he's talking about culture issues more then policy.
And I think the top section is the thing they are referencing. From that top section:
after the 2019 defeat and a decade or more moving in the direction of the traditional left, Labour has a cultural problem with many working-class voters, a credibility problem with the middle ground, and is seen as being for everyone other than the hard-working families who feel their taxes aren’t spent on their priorities.
The tragedy for Labour is that this is not new. It mirrors almost exactly what happened in the late 1970s and early 1980s. This was the last time the far left came into a position of power in the Labour Party – though not in control of it – and when Labour suffered its second worst defeat ever (discounting the anomaly of 1935).
large numbers of Labour voters in 1983 felt our economic policy was not credible and our attitudes across a range of cultural questions were profoundly alienating.
In 2019 – this time with the far left in control – we suffered our worst defeat, and for pretty much the same reasons, but this time without that engraved Labour vote.
A rational person might conclude that our electoral history shows that a lurch to the far left was not, is not and will never be electorally successful.
For the best part of the past half-century, Labour has needed to reconcile the Labour and non-Labour progressive traditions of British politics in order to win power and govern sustainably.
This was the philosophy behind New Labour, and the social changes this polling survey reflects makes that more not less important today.
New Labour succeeded until the pressures of power, longevity in office and the divisions in progressive forces left Labour as a government vulnerable and the Liberal Democrats with an opportunity, too juicy to resist.
His suggestions:
1) The leadership should continue to push the far left back to the margins. The country must know there is no question of negotiating the terms of power with them.
2) The party needs a new future-oriented policy agenda based on an understanding of how the world is changing which rejects both the old-fashioned statist view of the left and the status quo politics of the right. I have suggested before that the technology revolution should be at the heart of it.
3) We should openly embrace liberal, tolerant but common-sense positions on the “culture” issues, and emphatically reject the “wokeism” of a small though vocal minority.
4) And we should go out and seek the best and brightest from the younger generation to come and stand as Labour candidates. And make a virtue of doing so.
The executive summary is fairly long and there's a bunch there but this seems like it might be the part he's talking about re: cultural issues:
4) So-called cultural issues, such as Brexit and immigration, have contributed to Labour’s recent problems. This is despite the fact that British attitudes have become steadily more liberal in recent decades on a range of issues: the death penalty, abortion and homosexuality, but also on race and immigration. Labour maintained its clear majority support among manual workers in the early post-war decades despite the views of its core voters on these issues, not because of them. Liberal reforms were tolerated as long as voters were confident the party would deliver on jobs, homes, health, tackling poverty and boosting pensions. Today that confidence has gone. Economics no longer trumps culture.
There's also a graph about half-way down as I skim through the body of the report with a decent visualization on how former Labour voters view themselves (mostly in the centre) vs how they view the party (mostly fairly left or very left). It seems like the suggestion is that he thinks Labour needs to actively reject the image of being a very left-wing party because that turns off Labour voters who don't identify with that kind of image of themselves.
But there's a lot more then just that in there. Seems fairly interesting from a data perspective at least. I'm gonna poke around more.
It's the implication in that last point that all red wall voters are also homophobic racists and we need to pander to them, that I can't abide.
I'm not an idiot. I know that rejecting "wokeism" means stripping me of my rights. He can fuck clean off.
Again "former labour voters" are never ever going to vote labour again. And it's not because labour are too woke, it's because they're all now buy to let landlords, and as long as the Tories offer more economic incentive, they will vote for them.
It's not 1997, it's not 1983, and if labour try to just play things like it is, they will continue to lose, forever.
Even the suggestion that some kind of "sensible centrism" (leaning hard to the right) has any chance of succeeding in the era of Facebook is just utterly absurd.
If you believe this, how is Labour just not entirely fucked? That seems like it's basically saying "Labour can't win because the voters they had are gone for good".
I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding of what “woke” means there
It's a completely useless word because its definition only exists in the mind of the person using it. It's pretty much the same as "SJW" in that it means nothing and its use and only serves to out the mindset of the person using it.
Entirely this
The British tendency is to imagine a person and then get angry about something that hypothetical person might theoretically do
That's the best way to interpret "woke" I find. "The woke mob" = "the mob I have imagined". "Woke politics" = "the politics I have imagined that some people hold"
It's Harry Enfield's Frank Doberman (of the Self-Righteous Brothers) writ large.
fuck back off to whatever crypt you've been living in for the past decade my dude.
He was elected with a flagship policy of introducing a national minimum wage
Is he getting his political definitions from Fox News?
The stupid thing is paywalled so I can't read the whole letter but I think given other quotes from it like this one:
We should openly embrace liberal, tolerant but common-sensical positions on the ‘culture’ issues, and emphatically reject the ‘wokeism’ of a small though vocal minority
he's talking about culture issues more then policy.
And I think the top section is the thing they are referencing. From that top section:
after the 2019 defeat and a decade or more moving in the direction of the traditional left, Labour has a cultural problem with many working-class voters, a credibility problem with the middle ground, and is seen as being for everyone other than the hard-working families who feel their taxes aren’t spent on their priorities.
The tragedy for Labour is that this is not new. It mirrors almost exactly what happened in the late 1970s and early 1980s. This was the last time the far left came into a position of power in the Labour Party – though not in control of it – and when Labour suffered its second worst defeat ever (discounting the anomaly of 1935).
large numbers of Labour voters in 1983 felt our economic policy was not credible and our attitudes across a range of cultural questions were profoundly alienating.
In 2019 – this time with the far left in control – we suffered our worst defeat, and for pretty much the same reasons, but this time without that engraved Labour vote.
A rational person might conclude that our electoral history shows that a lurch to the far left was not, is not and will never be electorally successful.
For the best part of the past half-century, Labour has needed to reconcile the Labour and non-Labour progressive traditions of British politics in order to win power and govern sustainably.
This was the philosophy behind New Labour, and the social changes this polling survey reflects makes that more not less important today.
New Labour succeeded until the pressures of power, longevity in office and the divisions in progressive forces left Labour as a government vulnerable and the Liberal Democrats with an opportunity, too juicy to resist.
His suggestions:
1) The leadership should continue to push the far left back to the margins. The country must know there is no question of negotiating the terms of power with them.
2) The party needs a new future-oriented policy agenda based on an understanding of how the world is changing which rejects both the old-fashioned statist view of the left and the status quo politics of the right. I have suggested before that the technology revolution should be at the heart of it.
3) We should openly embrace liberal, tolerant but common-sense positions on the “culture” issues, and emphatically reject the “wokeism” of a small though vocal minority.
4) And we should go out and seek the best and brightest from the younger generation to come and stand as Labour candidates. And make a virtue of doing so.
The executive summary is fairly long and there's a bunch there but this seems like it might be the part he's talking about re: cultural issues:
4) So-called cultural issues, such as Brexit and immigration, have contributed to Labour’s recent problems. This is despite the fact that British attitudes have become steadily more liberal in recent decades on a range of issues: the death penalty, abortion and homosexuality, but also on race and immigration. Labour maintained its clear majority support among manual workers in the early post-war decades despite the views of its core voters on these issues, not because of them. Liberal reforms were tolerated as long as voters were confident the party would deliver on jobs, homes, health, tackling poverty and boosting pensions. Today that confidence has gone. Economics no longer trumps culture.
There's also a graph about half-way down as I skim through the body of the report with a decent visualization on how former Labour voters view themselves (mostly in the centre) vs how they view the party (mostly fairly left or very left). It seems like the suggestion is that he thinks Labour needs to actively reject the image of being a very left-wing party because that turns off Labour voters who don't identify with that kind of image of themselves.
But there's a lot more then just that in there. Seems fairly interesting from a data perspective at least. I'm gonna poke around more.
It's the implication in that last point that all red wall voters are also homophobic racists and we need to pander to them, that I can't abide.
I'm not an idiot. I know that rejecting "wokeism" means stripping me of my rights. He can fuck clean off.
Again "former labour voters" are never ever going to vote labour again. And it's not because labour are too woke, it's because they're all now buy to let landlords, and as long as the Tories offer more economic incentive, they will vote for them.
It's not 1997, it's not 1983, and if labour try to just play things like it is, they will continue to lose, forever.
Even the suggestion that some kind of "sensible centrism" (leaning hard to the right) has any chance of succeeding in the era of Facebook is just utterly absurd.
If you believe this, how is Labour just not entirely fucked? That seems like it's basically saying "Labour can't win because the voters they had are gone for good".
In short, Yes, labour are entirely fucked, and The UK is becoming a japan-esque de-facto one party state.
And on a larger scale, I don't really see a way out of the death spiral of western democracy whilst the far right have so effectively weaponised social media to spread their message and the people with the power to do anything about it are either sympathetic to that cause or choose to ignore it. It really actually doesn't matter what labour say or do, because they don't control what people get to see. They could make all of Tony Blair's proposed changes and it wouldn't matter anyway because unless they can also get the tabloids on their side, and out-spend their opponents on online campaigns, they're gonna lose.
If I put that aside, maybe they could try appealing to someone under 50 by offering some meaningful economic change, or some indication that they care whatsoever about climate change or inequality or just... Anything?
But no, the only option is just try to prove you hate minorities enough to out-tory the tories.
I don't believe labour are 100% fucked. We can win a GE. I got no time for doomerism. Fuck that.
Now that's the kind of attitude that made Peppa Pig
+5
Options
jaziekBad at everythingAnd mad about it.Registered Userregular
edited November 2021
The thing about using dogwhistles to win an election is, either it works once and then everyone realises you aren't actually gonna lynch all the immigrants, or you if you want to keep power, you actually have to follow through and do all the shit you promised.
Does it really matter? When push comes to shove, when some small amount of labour members turn around and say "oh we were only pretending to be bigots to win, we didn't expect the leadership to actually do all the things they promised the far right they'd do", it's not going to make much of a difference to those getting put against the proverbial wall.
Even if you're still hitched to the wagon out of some sense of pragmatism, at some point there has to be a line. There has to be a point at which you say "I will not support this, because I believe it is fundamentally wrong."
And if throwing minority groups to the dogs to try and appease the absolute worst of society isn't crossing that line, then I think you need to take a long hard look at yourself.
The thing about using dogwhistles to win an election is, either it works once and then everyone realises you aren't actually gonna lynch all the immigrants, or you if you want to keep power, you actually have to follow through and do all the shit you promised.
Does it really matter? When push comes to shove, when some small amount of labour members turn around and say "oh we were only pretending to be bigots to win, we didn't expect the leadership to actually do all the things they promised the far right they'd do", it's not going to make much of a difference to those getting put against the proverbial wall.
Even if you're still hitched to the wagon out of some sense of pragmatism, at some point there has to be a line. There has to be a point at which you say "I will not support this, because I believe it is fundamentally wrong."
And if throwing minority groups to the dogs to try and appease the absolute worst of society isn't crossing that line, then I think you need to take a long hard look at yourself.
The other issue is a similarization to the "don't argue with an idiot, they'll bring you down to their level, and beat you with experience".
Anyone think that there are sufficient bigots up for grabs, that labor tacking hard into that, will outnumber those who go "fuck this shit", and stay home or vote for one of the smaller parties?
I'm not normally one for dropping support because they're (UK Labour, US Democrats, AU Labor) not working hard enough on minority goals. But if a party is going to forgo even the figleaf of working for equality for those people, and go all-in on trying to win back bigots from the party of bigots? Then fuck 'em. It's one thing to pick the lesser of two evils. If you're picking essentially the same of two evils, then I have no problem with sitting that out.
If you actually read the paper I linked or even the parts I quoted, the thrust seems to not be "Labour needs to get more bigoted" but rather "Labour needs to create the impression that it's more focused on helping people in their daily lives then on fighting culture war battles".
eg -
Those who have turned away regard the party as incompetent, out of touch and excessively concerned with helping different minority groups over people in general. Older voters who have deserted Labour feel especially strongly about the need for competent government – and equally strongly that Labour is incompetent.
Liberal reforms were tolerated as long as voters were confident the party would deliver on jobs, homes, health, tackling poverty and boosting pensions. Today that confidence has gone. Economics no longer trumps culture.
There is much common ground across all social and political groups that suggests the priorities for the government – any government – should be pensioners, the poor and “ordinary working people”. However, too few of the voters that Labour needs to attract currently think that these are the party’s priorities.
And especially these big conclusions at the end:
the party needs to persuade voters that it is competent, in touch and has a relevant agenda for improving everyday life. While cultural issues have dominated political debate in recent years, the people’s agenda today is primarily economic and social, not cultural.
This has relevance to fraught issues, including immigration and relations with the EU. As long as they are framed as cultural battles, the Conservatives will have more powerful weapons. But if Labour can reframe these issues as economic and social challenges, in which current government policies damage people’s everyday lives, then Labour has the opportunity to develop policies that are both progressive and popular.
This probably ties in with something earlier re: voters thinking Labour has no clear purpose or direction:
Labour’s failure to cut through on bread-and-butter issues, such as taxes and living standards, flows from widespread uncertainty about what a Labour government would do – not just in terms of specific measures, but on its overall objectives. The party suffers not just from a perceived lack of policies, but a perceived lack of purpose.
shryke on
+2
Options
jaziekBad at everythingAnd mad about it.Registered Userregular
I'm not normally one for dropping support because they're (UK Labour, US Democrats, AU Labor) not working hard enough on minority goals. But if a party is going to forgo even the figleaf of working for equality for those people, and go all-in on trying to win back bigots from the party of bigots? Then fuck 'em. It's one thing to pick the lesser of two evils. If you're picking essentially the same of two evils, then I have no problem with sitting that out.
I fully agree. There is a huge difference between not focusing on minority goals, which I don't think labour has ever done, and actively working to harm minorities, which is what Tony Blair is suggesting here. Labour can, and should, run an economically focused campaign. They should be talking about the Tories selling off the NHS, they should be talking about rising inflation, and rising cost of living, stagnating wages, and degrading public services. The increasing gulf between the haves and have-nots. They should be hammering home that the Tories are not doing anywhere near enough to deal with the threat of climate change. They should be showing how they would actually improve the lives of people in the country.
The fact that they aren't doing any of that either means they are just colossally incompetent or they simply do not care, and are really quite happy with the status quo.
I do not buy the argument that it is necessary to demonise minorities in order to do this. To do so is to just accept the logic of the right on their terms.
Labour have been doing those things and more. Just a couple of months ago the shadow Chancellor published plans to spend 29bn to tackle climate change. They have constantly talked about how bad the privatisation of the NHS will be.
The problem isn't that they aren't doing anything, it is that people are not listening.
Labour have been doing those things and more. Just a couple of months ago the shadow Chancellor published plans to spend 29bn to tackle climate change. They have constantly talked about how bad the privatisation of the NHS will be.
The problem isn't that they aren't doing anything, it is that people are not listening.
It's not that people aren't listening, it's that it's not really up to labour whether or not their message even makes it to people in the first place. It's up to tabloid journalists, and social media algorithms. And neither of those are on their side.
Without taking an opinion in this specific instance, there is a party saying something and then there's a party saying something and if you have to refer voters to a bullet point on a website or a line from an interview 6 months ago dont even bother.
Without taking an opinion in this specific instance, there is a party saying something and then there's a party saying something and if you have to refer vorers to a bullet point on a website or a line from an interview 6 months ago dont even bother.
The optimist hopes that this is part of the plan. Oppose 'reactionary woke politics' and back 'values of common sense and fairness' when the difference is really just framing.
+1
Options
AegisFear My DanceOvershot Toronto, Landed in OttawaRegistered Userregular
edited November 2021
Yea, re: @shryke 's comments, the underlying paper that Blair wrote the foreward, has more nuanced electoral analysis and recommendations. It seems to be suggesting that the fundamental problems facing Labour's electoral prospects are that:
Its electoral base has shifted from under it.
In 1970, the electorate was 66% working class and 33% middle class. Labour won 56% of the working class vote (10 million) and 22% of the middle class vote (2.2 million). As such, working class voters made up 82% of overall Labour voters.
In 2019, the electorate was 43% working class and 57% middle class. Labour won 33% of the working class vote (4.1 million) and 33% of the middle class vote (6.2 million). As such, working class voters made up 40% of overall Labour voters.
So over 50 years, the overall electorate class makeup has nearly completely flipped. But Labour has not managed to capture a proportionally similar vote share (while also losing their traditional working class vote). But since working class voters as a % of the electorate is shrinking, even reclaiming their original share of working class votes as in 1970, they'd still be in a downward trajectory. Over the same time, too, they've also managed to lose support among their original working class group, which makes things even worse.
Everyone seems to view government spending as ineffective in the sense that they do not see/appear to see more benefits from government services than they pay into it.
Their Figure 6 seems to be showing that it doesn't matter if you're working or middle class, more than half of both class respondents indicated that they pay more in national/local taxes than they receive in services. This also extended to old people (more than 40% responded the same) and those with and without children (44% and 42%).
The only group that seemed to indicate parity between taxes they pay and services they receive are those who make less than £14k per year.
So on the one hand, Labour clearly is winning the vote of anyone below 35. On the other hand, they had near parity of that group back in 1987, and then in 2015 they only incrementally gained the 35-54 group after they grew older, and then lost all those gains in 2019.
If there is going to be a benefit to the current young age differential, they need to be able to maintain it as that generation ages. Even if they are able to do that, though, this suggests that they only start to see any benefit from the current differential in 20-30 years at the earliest.
Yea, re: shryke 's comments, the underlying paper that Blair wrote the foreward, has more nuanced electoral analysis and recommendations. It seems to be suggesting that the fundamental problems facing Labour's electoral prospects are that:
Its electoral base has shifted from under it.
In 1970, the electorate was 66% working class and 33% middle class. Labour won 56% of the working class vote (10 million) and 22% of the middle class vote (2.2 million). As such, working class voters made up 82% of overall Labour voters.
In 2019, the electorate was 43% working class and 57% middle class. Labour won 33% of the working class vote (4.1 million) and 33% of the middle class vote (6.2 million). As such, working class voters made up 40% of overall Labour voters.
So over 50 years, the overall electorate class makeup has nearly completely flipped. But Labour has not managed to capture a proportionally similar vote share (while also losing their traditional working class vote). But since working class voters as a % of the electorate is shrinking, even reclaiming their original share of working class votes as in 1970, they'd still be in a downward trajectory. Over the same time, too, they've also managed to lose support among their original working class group, which makes things even worse.
Everyone seems to view government spending as ineffective in the sense that they do not see/appear to see more benefits from government services than they pay into it.
Their Figure 6 seems to be showing that it doesn't matter if you're working or middle class, more than half of both class respondents indicated that they pay more in national/local taxes than they receive in services. This also extended to old people (more than 40% responded the same) and those with and without children (44% and 42%).
The only group that seemed to indicate parity between taxes they pay and services they receive are those who make less than £14k per year.
So on the one hand, Labour clearly is winning the vote of anyone below 35. On the other hand, they had near parity of that group back in 1987, and then in 2015 they only incrementally gained the 35-54 group after they grew older, and then lost all those gains in 2019.
If there is going to be a benefit to the current young age differential, they need to be able to maintain it as that generation ages. Even if they are able to do that, though, this suggests that they only start to see any benefit from the current differential in 20-30 years at the earliest.
Yeah, the age divide seems like it's rapidly becoming the defining feature of UK politics. And the problem for Labour is that they got the side of the conflict that doesn't vote.
Another thing Blair is hinting at is the sheer catch 22 of the Tory culture wars. The reason Tories love culture war is because Labour literally cannot win. Either they say nothing and lose support because they're abandoning support for human rights for minorities, or they say something in which case they're labelled as woke vegans with smelly armpits kowtowing to vocal minorities on issues the "average person" could not care less about.
Either way we all run around wringing our hands about statues and Churchill while the rich get richer, the poor get poorer and the planet slowly but surely dies. As ever, the right move in lockstep towards their goals and the left fight each other to be the voice of the "real" left.
+10
Options
jaziekBad at everythingAnd mad about it.Registered Userregular
Yea, re: @shryke 's comments, the underlying paper that Blair wrote the foreward, has more nuanced electoral analysis and recommendations. It seems to be suggesting that the fundamental problems facing Labour's electoral prospects are that:
Its electoral base has shifted from under it.
In 1970, the electorate was 66% working class and 33% middle class. Labour won 56% of the working class vote (10 million) and 22% of the middle class vote (2.2 million). As such, working class voters made up 82% of overall Labour voters.
In 2019, the electorate was 43% working class and 57% middle class. Labour won 33% of the working class vote (4.1 million) and 33% of the middle class vote (6.2 million). As such, working class voters made up 40% of overall Labour voters.
So over 50 years, the overall electorate class makeup has nearly completely flipped. But Labour has not managed to capture a proportionally similar vote share (while also losing their traditional working class vote). But since working class voters as a % of the electorate is shrinking, even reclaiming their original share of working class votes as in 1970, they'd still be in a downward trajectory. Over the same time, too, they've also managed to lose support among their original working class group, which makes things even worse.
Everyone seems to view government spending as ineffective in the sense that they do not see/appear to see more benefits from government services than they pay into it.
Their Figure 6 seems to be showing that it doesn't matter if you're working or middle class, more than half of both class respondents indicated that they pay more in national/local taxes than they receive in services. This also extended to old people (more than 40% responded the same) and those with and without children (44% and 42%).
The only group that seemed to indicate parity between taxes they pay and services they receive are those who make less than £14k per year.
So on the one hand, Labour clearly is winning the vote of anyone below 35. On the other hand, they had near parity of that group back in 1987, and then in 2015 they only incrementally gained the 35-54 group after they grew older, and then lost all those gains in 2019.
If there is going to be a benefit to the current young age differential, they need to be able to maintain it as that generation ages. Even if they are able to do that, though, this suggests that they only start to see any benefit from the current differential in 20-30 years at the earliest.
What would interest me about this data is how they've gone about categorising the surveyed voters into the classes, as described. What makes someone working class as opposed to middle class in this case?
What would interest me about this data is how they've gone about categorising the surveyed voters into the classes, as described. What makes someone working class as opposed to middle class in this case?
The paper categorizes it as such:
This report uses the conventional definitions of social class, derived from the occupation of the head of each household: A (professional), B (managerial), C1 (other non-manual), C2 (skilled manual), D (semi-skilled manual) and E (unskilled). There is a case for designing a different class scheme but this would make historic comparisons difficult, so we must use the data we have.
What would interest me about this data is how they've gone about categorising the surveyed voters into the classes, as described. What makes someone working class as opposed to middle class in this case?
The paper categorizes it as such:
This report uses the conventional definitions of social class, derived from the occupation of the head of each household: A (professional), B (managerial), C1 (other non-manual), C2 (skilled manual), D (semi-skilled manual) and E (unskilled). There is a case for designing a different class scheme but this would make historic comparisons difficult, so we must use the data we have.
Working Class - C2DE
Middle Class - ABC1
Things are fundamentally different today than they were 40 years ago... But lets just ignore that because otherwise we might have to think about things a bit harder.
Posts
The stupid thing is paywalled so I can't read the whole letter but I think given other quotes from it like this one: he's talking about culture issues more then policy.
This seems to be the paper from his Tony Blair institute that he's basing this on:
https://institute.global/policy/red-walls-red-bridges-rebuilding-labours-voter-coalition
And I think the top section is the thing they are referencing. From that top section:
His suggestions:
The executive summary is fairly long and there's a bunch there but this seems like it might be the part he's talking about re: cultural issues: There's also a graph about half-way down as I skim through the body of the report with a decent visualization on how former Labour voters view themselves (mostly in the centre) vs how they view the party (mostly fairly left or very left). It seems like the suggestion is that he thinks Labour needs to actively reject the image of being a very left-wing party because that turns off Labour voters who don't identify with that kind of image of themselves.
But there's a lot more then just that in there. Seems fairly interesting from a data perspective at least. I'm gonna poke around more.
Too much time with their noses in the trough.
Steam | XBL
I think "wokeism" is just one of those weird english things where words that look related don't refer to related things.
It's a completely useless word because its definition only exists in the mind of the person using it. It's pretty much the same as "SJW" in that it means nothing and its use and only serves to out the mindset of the person using it.
Steam | XBL
I don't think it's completely useless in this context because I think it's fairly obvious what they mean. Specifically I think it's being used to describe a (perceived) aggressive confrontational approach to cultural issues and specifically culture issues that don't have much support from most voters.
All of which can be replaced with 'treating other people with respect' to make all the complaints sound as daft as they are.
It’s the new imaginary enemy that will be used to justify whatever bullshit they put through to consolidate power and silence criticism.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
One would think your fucking tastebuds would do that
Entirely this
The British tendency is to imagine a person and then get angry about something that hypothetical person might theoretically do
That's the best way to interpret "woke" I find. "The woke mob" = "the mob I have imagined". "Woke politics" = "the politics I have imagined that some people hold"
Most British people don't give a shit and just want to watch bake off
It's the implication in that last point that all red wall voters are also homophobic racists and we need to pander to them, that I can't abide.
I'm not an idiot. I know that rejecting "wokeism" means stripping me of my rights. He can fuck clean off.
Again "former labour voters" are never ever going to vote labour again. And it's not because labour are too woke, it's because they're all now buy to let landlords, and as long as the Tories offer more economic incentive, they will vote for them.
It's not 1997, it's not 1983, and if labour try to just play things like it is, they will continue to lose, forever.
Even the suggestion that some kind of "sensible centrism" (leaning hard to the right) has any chance of succeeding in the era of Facebook is just utterly absurd.
Like I can't think of a way to read "emphatically reject the ‘wokeism’ of a small though vocal minority" as anything other than "reject minorites" with superfluous adjectives
Similarly people only ever appeal to "common sense" when they know that spelling out what they actually mean can only be an admission of bigotry
If you believe this, how is Labour just not entirely fucked? That seems like it's basically saying "Labour can't win because the voters they had are gone for good".
It's Harry Enfield's Frank Doberman (of the Self-Righteous Brothers) writ large.
Steam | XBL
In short, Yes, labour are entirely fucked, and The UK is becoming a japan-esque de-facto one party state.
And on a larger scale, I don't really see a way out of the death spiral of western democracy whilst the far right have so effectively weaponised social media to spread their message and the people with the power to do anything about it are either sympathetic to that cause or choose to ignore it. It really actually doesn't matter what labour say or do, because they don't control what people get to see. They could make all of Tony Blair's proposed changes and it wouldn't matter anyway because unless they can also get the tabloids on their side, and out-spend their opponents on online campaigns, they're gonna lose.
If I put that aside, maybe they could try appealing to someone under 50 by offering some meaningful economic change, or some indication that they care whatsoever about climate change or inequality or just... Anything?
But no, the only option is just try to prove you hate minorities enough to out-tory the tories.
Now that's the kind of attitude that made Peppa Pig
Does it really matter? When push comes to shove, when some small amount of labour members turn around and say "oh we were only pretending to be bigots to win, we didn't expect the leadership to actually do all the things they promised the far right they'd do", it's not going to make much of a difference to those getting put against the proverbial wall.
Even if you're still hitched to the wagon out of some sense of pragmatism, at some point there has to be a line. There has to be a point at which you say "I will not support this, because I believe it is fundamentally wrong."
And if throwing minority groups to the dogs to try and appease the absolute worst of society isn't crossing that line, then I think you need to take a long hard look at yourself.
The dismissal of certain things as "woke cultural issues" instead of... Basic human rights
The other issue is a similarization to the "don't argue with an idiot, they'll bring you down to their level, and beat you with experience".
Anyone think that there are sufficient bigots up for grabs, that labor tacking hard into that, will outnumber those who go "fuck this shit", and stay home or vote for one of the smaller parties?
I'm not normally one for dropping support because they're (UK Labour, US Democrats, AU Labor) not working hard enough on minority goals. But if a party is going to forgo even the figleaf of working for equality for those people, and go all-in on trying to win back bigots from the party of bigots? Then fuck 'em. It's one thing to pick the lesser of two evils. If you're picking essentially the same of two evils, then I have no problem with sitting that out.
He's nothing if not consistent
eg -
And especially these big conclusions at the end:
This probably ties in with something earlier re: voters thinking Labour has no clear purpose or direction:
I fully agree. There is a huge difference between not focusing on minority goals, which I don't think labour has ever done, and actively working to harm minorities, which is what Tony Blair is suggesting here. Labour can, and should, run an economically focused campaign. They should be talking about the Tories selling off the NHS, they should be talking about rising inflation, and rising cost of living, stagnating wages, and degrading public services. The increasing gulf between the haves and have-nots. They should be hammering home that the Tories are not doing anywhere near enough to deal with the threat of climate change. They should be showing how they would actually improve the lives of people in the country.
The fact that they aren't doing any of that either means they are just colossally incompetent or they simply do not care, and are really quite happy with the status quo.
I do not buy the argument that it is necessary to demonise minorities in order to do this. To do so is to just accept the logic of the right on their terms.
The problem isn't that they aren't doing anything, it is that people are not listening.
It's not that people aren't listening, it's that it's not really up to labour whether or not their message even makes it to people in the first place. It's up to tabloid journalists, and social media algorithms. And neither of those are on their side.
The optimist hopes that this is part of the plan. Oppose 'reactionary woke politics' and back 'values of common sense and fairness' when the difference is really just framing.
Its electoral base has shifted from under it.
In 1970, the electorate was 66% working class and 33% middle class. Labour won 56% of the working class vote (10 million) and 22% of the middle class vote (2.2 million). As such, working class voters made up 82% of overall Labour voters.
In 2019, the electorate was 43% working class and 57% middle class. Labour won 33% of the working class vote (4.1 million) and 33% of the middle class vote (6.2 million). As such, working class voters made up 40% of overall Labour voters.
So over 50 years, the overall electorate class makeup has nearly completely flipped. But Labour has not managed to capture a proportionally similar vote share (while also losing their traditional working class vote). But since working class voters as a % of the electorate is shrinking, even reclaiming their original share of working class votes as in 1970, they'd still be in a downward trajectory. Over the same time, too, they've also managed to lose support among their original working class group, which makes things even worse.
Everyone seems to view government spending as ineffective in the sense that they do not see/appear to see more benefits from government services than they pay into it.
Their Figure 6 seems to be showing that it doesn't matter if you're working or middle class, more than half of both class respondents indicated that they pay more in national/local taxes than they receive in services. This also extended to old people (more than 40% responded the same) and those with and without children (44% and 42%).
The only group that seemed to indicate parity between taxes they pay and services they receive are those who make less than £14k per year.
Labour has an age issue
Conservative lead by age bracket:
18-34 - +2% (1987) | -12% (2015) | -27% (2019)
35-54 - +6% (1987) | -2% (2015) | +5% (2019)
55+ - +15% (1987) | +21% (2015) | +39% (2019)
So on the one hand, Labour clearly is winning the vote of anyone below 35. On the other hand, they had near parity of that group back in 1987, and then in 2015 they only incrementally gained the 35-54 group after they grew older, and then lost all those gains in 2019.
If there is going to be a benefit to the current young age differential, they need to be able to maintain it as that generation ages. Even if they are able to do that, though, this suggests that they only start to see any benefit from the current differential in 20-30 years at the earliest.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
Yeah, the age divide seems like it's rapidly becoming the defining feature of UK politics. And the problem for Labour is that they got the side of the conflict that doesn't vote.
Either way we all run around wringing our hands about statues and Churchill while the rich get richer, the poor get poorer and the planet slowly but surely dies. As ever, the right move in lockstep towards their goals and the left fight each other to be the voice of the "real" left.
What would interest me about this data is how they've gone about categorising the surveyed voters into the classes, as described. What makes someone working class as opposed to middle class in this case?
The paper categorizes it as such:
Working Class - C2DE
Middle Class - ABC1
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
Things are fundamentally different today than they were 40 years ago... But lets just ignore that because otherwise we might have to think about things a bit harder.