Haven't read, so don't know what this is all about, but @iamofwfc likes it, so I'll guess it's full of bitter politics of envy bowllox from the Working Class Zero ™ . Something about dinner parties, focaccia, inside toilets and whippets?
The Labour front bench looks more working class than it has for many years and certainly more so than the Tories. Everyone’s going to need a different reason.
Regular as clockwork. Pubs must kick out early round Davy's way! The idea that middle class people who like to holiday in Umbria and enjoy the taste of balsamic vinegar – but who also have to work for a living – can't care about workers' rights, the health service, the care system, the education system, the cost of living and so on is the weirdest idea of all the weird ideas that seep through the political thinking in this country. Having recently travelled to a Tory-voting part of the north of England where everything seems to be broken and closed down, the streets look poor and the people poorer, makes me wonder where this idea of pride and sovereignty actually stems from. Watching brown stuff pouring into the sea and seeing it lap up on the beach as brown and foamy as a pint of bitter while all around no one seemed to care, they just shrugged with indifference. But, sure, the problems all stem from the fact that the people in the middle have stuff. Let's tear everyone and everything down to the lowest possible level. A baffling, miserablist world view. "It's just as bad everywhere else." Not only untrue but also the call of a man who doesn't mind sitting in a puddle of sewage just as long as everyone else has to sit in a puddle of sewage.
@Davy Crockett you seem to be presenting this as a wholly new phenomena, but the screamingly middle class Fabian Society (George Bernard Shaw and his ilk) helped found the Labour Party through the Labour Representation Committee in 1900. Middle class socialism has been an enduring part of the Labour Party, which is an uneasy coalition. Even the most recent iterations of ‘authentic’ Labour in the 70s and 80s featured highly popular affluent people, such as Roy Jenkins, Tony Benn, Dennis Healey, Michael Foot etc. Throughout its life, the Labour Party has also faced opposition from working class nationalists, racists who targeted Jewish People in the 1930s and Black people in the 60s and 70s. They have always seen Labour as traitors to the Crown. They don’t need do-gooders as an excuse to vote for the bosses. Labour has two problems always. If it’s authentic, it’s a danger and all the might of the ruling class will be used to work it over and turn the working class against it. If it moves to the centre, then it does more of the bosses work, but can’t do anything without moving into at least some of that ground.
Out of interest @davy crocket do you think the Labour Party has more or fewer middle class tosspots in its ranks now than it did under Jezza?
We may need to clarify what a middle class tosspot is. Jeremy Corbyn’s background is full on middle class tosspot. Keir Starmer’s is not, despite him appearing to have become one. If you can become one can you also move in the other direction? More than once in a lifetime? Asking for a friend.
Crazy thought, but perhaps you need to represent more than just the working class to win an election? Or are Labour supposed to continue doing the 'we're unelectable, but we don't care and we'll pretend we're not' schtick?
Not a new thing but the moment I'd take the usless populist middleclass topsspot idiots over reckless selfish nest feathering morons. It's a fine line though.
I think you could argue that they are being "populist" with their Brexit stance, which is clearly aimed at the winning the "red wall" vote. I don't think that most people truly believe that Starmer now thinks that he can make Brexit "work". But, other than that, Labour is definitely not populist.
You could argue that there is a fair amount of populism within Labour. It is trying to present a patriotic image and is steering at least towards the middle ground on issues like transgender and immigration. These things could be called populist or maybe just craven. Nevertheless, the idea that it is within a whisker of the Tories doesn’t add up.
Yup. They’ve been soft on the issues that the Tories could easily attack. As long as Starmer doesn’t create any damaging policy, the approach is pragmatic and sensible.
My point really is there's nothing for people to dislike because there's very little there. Vague policies and aims with little meat on the bones that could attract criticism. Other than being anti Tory which is the populist stance. It's his plan to gain power because the Tories are so god damn awful. We'll end up voting him in without knowign what we're voting for other than change, which probably isn't a bad thing.
Labour has a lot of policies, but they don’t interest the press. For instance it has a comprehensive plan about migration, but the answers are so obvious they would shame the Tories if the press went on about them. The press isn’t much interested in its plans for social care or green industry etc. It says little about some controversial matters because it doesn’t have to. It would just be difficult and it wouldn’t get a fair hearing. Cameron knew this and won the 2010 election on the basis of saying eff-all squared.
