One for Guardian readers

[????]

Spot on Louisa

[Louisa]

Otta I object very strongly to your proposal that the class system doesn't mean anything anymore! Hu-hum.

Louisa.

[JoeLeg]

TE44 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I don't quite get where this unelectable status

> has came from. When you look at most of the

> puppets, psychopaths, etc. who have been elected,

>

> or the ones who will be standing for pm, I just

> can't see why he's that unelectable, other than

> the labour party moving so far right, its

> impossible for the majority support. I'm glad

> he's

> refusing to go its showing the labour party for

> what they are

Personal opinion, there's two reasons...

A) You talk about 'majority support' for Labour, but let's put personal beliefs or wishes to the side for a moment and ask ourselves, how successful has the Labour Party been in the last forty or so years at achieving power? Well, apart from Tony Blair, it hasn't really, plain and simple.

Why is that? Well, maybe I'm just getting old and cynical, but I really don't see much evidence that there's enough support in this country as a whole for hard-left government. Scotland dropped Labour and went to the SNP, believing it to be the party that will look out for them. Far too much of Labours base has swallowed the UKIP line, and the centre ground which Blair successfully courted has gone straight back to the Tories.

What does this tell me? I think there is, really, very little appetite amongst voters as a whole for looking out for others. I remember seeing Tony Benn giving an inspirational talk many years ago in which he confidently predicted the rise of a socialist society, but nothing I've seen in the 20 years since has convinced me he was right. He was followed by Norman Tebbit (ugh), and I'm afraid to say much more of what Tebbit predicted about the future has come to pass.

There is not the desire in the UK - overall - for the type of policies a Corbyn government would follow. We can argue till the sun comes up what that says about Britain today, but it changes not one iota the fact that he doesn't speak for most people. Now that we have definate left-wing supporters, including myself and many I know (though not all) voicing serious misgivings about his leadership, I think he is done. I don't know where Labour is heading, but I believe those at the top - on all sides - have lost track of not only what the party was meant to be, but also what it can be in the 21st century.

B) which leads neatly onto my second, much shorter point. The right wing of politics in this country has always, always been much better organised. If it was the Tories Corbyn would've been gone already and they would be coalescing under a new leader. But Labour has itself set up so that infighting and disagreement is more public and affects the party more. Twas ever thus...the right looks after itself much better, and the left look like they couldn't run a tea party.

[JoeLeg]

Oh yeah, and everything Louisa said. More succinct and spot on than me!

[TE44]

http://uk.businessinsider.com/uk-general-election-vote-statistics-how-the-left-gained-2015-5

There will always be people who only look out for themselves and can manage that way of life by not giving a shit about others, who vote or abstain for the same reason. This seems the only option in politics, what is the point of an opposition that refuses to oppose, i'm sure the political parties will remind everyone what class means which hopefully will naturally bring people to fight against this contempt for change.

[Loz]

JoeLeg Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> B) which leads neatly onto my second, much shorter point. The right wing of politics in this country

> has always, always been much better organised. If it was the Tories Corbyn would've been gone

> already and they would be coalescing under a new leader. But Labour has itself set up so that

> infighting and disagreement is more public and affects the party more. Twas ever thus...the right

> looks after itself much better, and the left look like they couldn't run a tea party.

That's probably because the right essentially have the one primary ideology, with differing levels of belief.

The left look more like a coalition of various ideologies - the urban middle-class lefty, the radical lefty, the old-school unionist. These should be different parties and, if we had PR, they probably would be. But they are forced to come together, which leads to power struggles like we see now.

[JoeLeg]

I'm kind of confused by your response, not really sure what point you're trying to make, but I'll respond as best I can.

TE44 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> http://uk.businessinsider.com/uk-general-election-

> vote-statistics-how-the-left-gained-2015-5

>

Well, ok, but that's a set of statistics from the last election, so not really relevant to theorising about a party led by Jeremy Corbyn who has become a far more polarising figure than Ed Milibamd ever was, though I'll concede Milibamd was a terrible leader in his own way (in my opinion).

> There will always be people who only look out for

> themselves and can manage that way of life by not

> giving a shit about others,

My point is that for most of our history, and particularly since Thatcherism, this has been prevalent.

who vote or abstain

> for the same reason. This seems the only option in

> politics, what is the point of an opposition that

> refuses to oppose,

I don't think Labour is refusing to oppose; I think it's engaged in a civil war for the soul of the party. Can we truly say that hard-left/socialist policies represent the feelings of enough of the electorate for a party to embrace them and be able to say they really speak for working class people? I think there's many people who Labour believe they should be representing who would say Labour is not the party for them, for myriad reasons. Labour hasn't yet worked out how to be relevant in modern times.

i'm sure the political parties

> will remind everyone what class means which

> hopefully will naturally bring people to fight

> against this contempt for change.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'contempt for change', or rather, who you mean by that. Tories? Labour? Both?

[JoeLeg]

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> JoeLeg Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

>

> > B) which leads neatly onto my second, much

> shorter point. The right wing of politics in this

> country

> > has always, always been much better organised.

> If it was the Tories Corbyn would've been gone

> > already and they would be coalescing under a new

> leader. But Labour has itself set up so that

> > infighting and disagreement is more public and

> affects the party more. Twas ever thus...the

> right

> > looks after itself much better, and the left

> look like they couldn't run a tea party.

>

> That's probably because the right essentially have

> the one primary ideology, with differing levels of

> belief.

>

> The left look more like a coalition of various

> ideologies - the urban middle-class lefty, the

> radical lefty, the old-school unionist. These

> should be different parties and, if we had PR,

> they probably would be. But they are forced to

> come together, which leads to power struggles like

> we see now.

Yes, very true. I've often felt that PR would be better, but I'm not sure the problems outweigh the benefits.

The left in this country has often felt to me as you describe it - like one continuous argument that really needs to work out what it is before taking on the right. Hasn't got there yet.

[Burbage]

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Now I like to give the Guardian a good kicking as

> much as the next person, but it most media outlets

> went with similar versions of this story. Even

> the Beeb.

Which suggests it was a plant - a story fed to the outlets by someone, probably from within the Labour Party, to further the agenda of whoever was paying them. In the old days, when there was journalism, a pre-digested leak or press release would spark at least a little curiosity. But these days, they just get lightly rewritten (if that) by, in this case, the Guardian's Religion and Hate Crime Correspondent, as it's important to get stuff out there, where it can flog advertising, and correct it later (and flog more advertising), than to worry about details.

Which leaves us to have to work out where the money was, and who might be pushing the agenda. This is sad because, in a very real sense, it hands victory to the small army of green-ink conspiracists that we thought we'd left behind on facebook.

But it's also great fun, not least because journalists, however lazy, are legally allowed to conceal their sources, even those that bribe them. That means we can be creative.

To my mind, the most interesting coincidence is that that Tristram Hunt MP got given ?20k, for no stated purpose, by Lord Sainsbury (a former minister under Blair) just before all this happened, that Tristram Hunt MP stepped out of the shadow cabinet, citing 'political differences' with Corbyn, and that Corbyn was generally Brexity whereas Sainsbury was Remain to the tune of over ?500k.

Obviously, I have no idea if there really is a link. It is, after all, possible Lord Sainsbury was not acting out of guilt, philanthropy or the fear of having to pay more for tomatoes. And maybe Tristram Hunt MP (Eton, Observer, BBC) has no idea how plant stories. And, of course, it doesn't easily fit with the idea that the Labour's woes are all caused by hard-left troublemaking, rather than Blairite (and ex-SDP) grasping grudgery.

But it's certainly a thought, and more likely, to my mind, that most of the above. Not least because all the information I've got comes from the Electoral Commission and (perhaps less plausibly) Wikipedia, rather than a bunch of other media outlets that, with respect, do little more than recycle other people's agendas.

[Seabag]

TE44 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> http://uk.businessinsider.com/uk-general-election-

> vote-statistics-how-the-left-gained-2015-5

>

> There will always be people who only look out for

> themselves and can manage that way of life by not

> giving a shit about others, who vote or abstain

> for the same reason. This seems the only option in

> politics, what is the point of an opposition that

> refuses to oppose, i'm sure the political parties

> will remind everyone what class means which

> hopefully will naturally bring people to fight

> against this contempt for change.

This isn't personal TE44, but I glazed over in seconds at reading your post

Politics isn't often about politics, it's often about people. And JC is not a people's person, he's fringe and dull as dishwater

And like Louisa said

[TE44]

I'm basically saying the Labour party no longer stand for anything fair, I do not believe people have moved from wanting a more just society, which that way of thinking is often attributed to left wing. Joel your post above "the left in this country etc" covers a lot of people, many who may feel they have no political party they wish to vote for, or were you meaning the left parties in this country.

[TE44]

Seabag If its a choice between someone thats a bit dull but is honest and genuinely cares to a bunch of mps who can vote against an unfair welfare bill but choose to abstain, i think i could put up with the dull.

[????]

Burbage Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Loz Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Now I like to give the Guardian a good kicking

> as

> > much as the next person, but it most media

> outlets

> > went with similar versions of this story. Even

> > the Beeb.

>

> Which suggests it was a plant - a story fed to the

> outlets by someone, probably from within the

> Labour Party, to further the agenda of whoever was

> paying them. In the old days, when there was

> journalism, a pre-digested leak or press release

> would spark at least a little curiosity. But these

> days, they just get lightly rewritten (if that)

> by, in this case, the Guardian's Religion and Hate

> Crime Correspondent, as it's important to get

> stuff out there, where it can flog advertising,

> and correct it later (and flog more advertising),

> than to worry about details.

>

> Which leaves us to have to work out where the

> money was, and who might be pushing the agenda.

> This is sad because, in a very real sense, it

> hands victory to the small army of green-ink

> conspiracists that we thought we'd left behind on

> facebook.

>

> But it's also great fun, not least because

> journalists, however lazy, are legally allowed to

> conceal their sources, even those that bribe them.

> That means we can be creative.

>

> To my mind, the most interesting coincidence is

> that that Tristram Hunt MP got given ?20k, for no

> stated purpose, by Lord Sainsbury (a former

> minister under Blair) just before all this

> happened, that Tristram Hunt MP stepped out of the

> shadow cabinet, citing 'political differences'

> with Corbyn, and that Corbyn was generally Brexity

> whereas Sainsbury was Remain to the tune of over

> ?500k.

>

> Obviously, I have no idea if there really is a

> link. It is, after all, possible Lord Sainsbury

> was not acting out of guilt, philanthropy or the

> fear of having to pay more for tomatoes. And maybe

> Tristram Hunt MP (Eton, Observer, BBC) has no idea

> how plant stories. And, of course, it doesn't

> easily fit with the idea that the Labour's woes

> are all caused by hard-left troublemaking, rather

> than Blairite (and ex-SDP) grasping grudgery.

>

> But it's certainly a thought, and more likely, to

> my mind, that most of the above. Not least because

> all the information I've got comes from the

> Electoral Commission and (perhaps less plausibly)

> Wikipedia, rather than a bunch of other media

> outlets that, with respect, do little more than

> recycle other people's agendas.

Corbyn supporters consistently moving into COnspiract Theorty territory is another warning light for me on him

[JoeLeg]

TE44 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I'm basically saying the Labour party no longer

> stand for anything fair, I do not believe people

> have moved from wanting a more just society, which

> that way of thinking is often attributed to left

> wing.

Fair enough, agree to disagree and all that.

I still maintain Corbyn just doesn't have the supporters nationwide to gain power, and I think Momentum, McDonnell and the rest should think about that, but what do I know?

Joel your post above "the left in this

> country etc" covers a lot of people, many who may

> feel they have no political party they wish to

> vote for, or were you meaning the left parties in

> this country.

I mean that Loz is right when he points out that the left covers a very wide range of people while the right is often more tightly grouped under an ideology.

Look at Labour in the 70's, 80's, 90's and look st it now. Look at the difference between the PLP and much of the grass roots support. We can see huge variances in what the party is, as well as how it is seen.

Now look at the Conservatives, and tell me if you can see the sa kind of fractures, arguments and issues. I'll save you the time; you can't, because they've always been better organised. I believe this to be a major factor in the rights historical dominance of politics, namely that they can get a coherent message across.

[Otta]

Louisa Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Otta I object very strongly to your proposal that

> the class system doesn't mean anything anymore!

> Hu-hum.

>

> Louisa.

Fair enough, so put me right, explain what working/middle class means today.

Oh and your post before that one was a spot on description of what's happening with Labour.

[TE44]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cornwall-36697772

All those radical lefties, what next.

[uncleglen]

It's not just working class/ middle class any more- there is a distinct underclass that has been dispossessed, ill-educated and has no hope...

I have followed Charles Murray's work since I read his Sunday times essay in the 1980s.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/telegraph-view/8698227/A-palpable-change-inthenational-mood.html

[TE44]

Joeleg yes I do see the same fractures and arguments in Cons. They are definitely well organised when it comes to making decisions within there group, refusing to give out information to

The public. As far as a coherent message, what would that be, they have never seemed coherent to me. Sorry phone playing up, missed ypur post above.