UK Politics Thread XI: Boris' Big Bombastic Brexit Bash

[Joohan]

I dont buy that. People have access to all the information in t he world through the internet and myriad of other free and public resources. There are tons of boogie well known boogie socialists, and nearly half of this nation goes to college. The working class knows what socialism is, it's just that the current ideologues dont give a damn about the working class, and use the platform as a means to virtue signal.

the first point is meaningless. access to information is useless if people do not have the inclination to seek it out or the ability to filter good information from bad information. there are literally millions of people who still unironically believe that horoscopes can predict the future. there are literally millions of people who believe in homeopathy. i could go on all day, but there is point. the very fact that we do already live in a utopia where everyone is correct about everything alone should be sufficient to arouse suspicion of this idea.

the second point is questionable. what you go to college for matters. physicists and engineers for example have a terrible rep as a result of their complete lack of real exposure to the humanities which has caused several colleges to start forcing more and more humanities classes on them to save their own reputation.

the third point i would also dispute. i believe you would have a very very hard time finding anyone that give a proper definition of socialism. like, frankly, i would be very surprised if you could give a proper definition of socialism. it is something that has been thoroughly character assassinated and mischaracterized.

Socialism is the abolition of private property and the workers ownership of the means of production ( basically, I know that there is a lot of different takes on it ). The reason that working class people don't go exploring into the topic of socialism is because they've no motivation to do do so. What impressions they have on the topic come either from genocidal tyrannies, or from pretentious rich people who can't at all relate to them. Both are huge turn off's toward the topic. It's not a concerted effort by the elite to make the working man ignorant, it's simply fact that people aren't going to research something they have no interest in.

I'm not a socialist, but I care about the working class. I feel disgusted whenever I see people who proclaim to supposedly hold similar ideals to be so drastically far removed from our values and concerns. Again, to sight an British example, immigration! Open borders may make the unfettered upper-classes feel good about how woke they are, but they seriously concern working class people - something that self-proclaimed socialists don't seem to care about, or eve deride us for being racist to fret over.

It's attitudes like that that turn people away from the red's.

[Ostroeuropa]

I dont buy that. People have access to all the information in t he world through the internet and myriad of other free and public resources. There are tons of boogie well known boogie socialists, and nearly half of this nation goes to college. The working class knows what socialism is, it's just that the current ideologues dont give a damn about the working class, and use the platform as a means to virtue signal.

the first point is meaningless. access to information is useless if people do not have the inclination to seek it out or the ability to filter good information from bad information. there are literally millions of people who still unironically believe that horoscopes can predict the future. there are literally millions of people who believe in homeopathy. i could go on all day, but there is point. the very fact that we do already live in a utopia where everyone is correct about everything alone should be sufficient to arouse suspicion of this idea.

the second point is questionable. what you go to college for matters. physicists and engineers for example have a terrible rep as a result of their complete lack of real exposure to the humanities which has caused several colleges to start forcing more and more humanities classes on them to save their own reputation.

the third point i would also dispute. i believe you would have a very very hard time finding anyone that give a proper definition of socialism. like, frankly, i would be very surprised if you could give a proper definition of socialism. it is something that has been thoroughly character assassinated and mischaracterized.

Even a majority of Labour *members* oppose all-womens shortlists in the party.
It was imposed anyway and critics were called misogynists.

It's even worse outside the partys membership.

That's a good example because it demonstrates the extent of the disconnect between the ideology and principles of the labour party and the principles and ideology of basically everyone else, as well as how Labour is vitriolically hostile and demonizes people who voice criticism of their ideology. This blew up in their face over brexit and immigration such that they've had to tone it down and backpedal a bit on that specific point. But they're still acting that way on basically all the other sociocultural issues.

He's absolutely right. Left wing economics is overwhelmingly popular. What isn't is the socio-cultural positions of the Labour party.

Again;

Forty. Percent. Of. Tory. Voters. Do. Not. Think. Billionaires. Should. Exist. At. All.

This was the case BEFORE the collapse of the northern heartlands. God knows what its like now.

It's simply that Labour is so repulsive that they'd rather the Tories. People didn't vote for the BNP either, despite Labour being Blairite in those years. Socialism is not an adequate selling point when you are a racist and sexist party. It's historical inertia, spit, and hope keeping people voting Labour. That inertia is now broken in the north.

Labour will continue to fade into obscurity ranting about how the white supremacist patriarchy is out to get them, and nobody will care anymore except the tabloids obsessed with giving air time to them because of how much of a spectacle it is to watch them go mental and say absurd conspiracy theory level stuff in front of everybody as a major political party.

The alternative is that those Labour members like me who grit our teeth and try to explain this manage to gain control before we give up and go elsewhere. Do we really need decades and decades of stuff like Brexit before they finally learn?

Once Brexit is over the right wing *will* look for another social issue to use as a wedge. And Labour is too far gone along every axis there thanks to progressives, so it'll be a constant parade of failures and defeats as they gradually go mute from realizing stuff like "Oh. We should have taken immigration concerns more seriously and not treated opposition to immigration as bigotry. Now instead, we've got Brexit and Boris Johnson." on every single axis.

Fuck knows it might be Raab and his anti-feminism after johnson.

For one thing the open support for feminism despite it being a label only 20% of the British public adopts, with plenty of those being Lib Dems. This despite upward of 90% of the public supporting equality suggesting 70% conclude there is a difference between the two, and polling showing 2/3rds of the British public wants feminism to end.

Among young people, only 20% of women and 7% of men identify as feminist, while 25% of women and 40% of men are anti-feminist. These numbers get worse for older age groups.

Whether you conclude that's because of rhetoric, ideological framework, or the policy positions is up in the air; what isn't is that the current approach alienates people. That's just an empirical fact.

A further example of this disconnect between Labour and voters over feminism is the all-womens shortlist; which even a majority of Labour members don't support, but was imposed anyway. It's considerably less popular outside the Labour party, and Labour members are the most supportive of the measure at around 45% in favor to 55% opposed.

Second you've got the issue of nationalism and support for nationalist rhetoric and politics. A poll a while back said that if you force them to choose, upward of 70% of people choose to be proud of the British Empire rather than ashamed of it. Labour consistently "forces" this choice with its rhetoric and progressive take on Imperial history. That's one example, a further one being the general stance against nationalism and national identity as arbitrary.

Third you have the issue of immigration, which was consistently voted as the issue of most concern to voters for around a decade. That "Most concern" has subsided, but people haven't changed their minds, simply taken on other priorities.

Fourth there's the issue of multiculturalism VS Assimilation and social cohesion, itself tied back to the Nationalism issue. This is more split, but a slight edge in polls shows most people dislike multiculturalism.

Fifth there's the issue of things like the Nazi Pug trial and the general position the party and its activists have taken on stifling freedom of expression, including of hateful content, which alienates a majority of voters. 66% of voters say that Political correctness has gone too far, and this poll was conducted in such a way that older voters weren't represented, so it's likely worse than that.

Sixth there's the issue of circumcision and halal slaughter as examples of "Islamophilia" in the Labour party; North of 80% of the public support a ban on circumcision, and around 70% support a ban on non-stun slaughter. Labour opposed both of those measures. While the Tories do too, they don't make a fuss about those suggestions being "racist". (See Dianne Abbot rallying the party against these proposals when they came up in parliament.). Instead the Tories based their opposition around small government rhetoric. Furthering this are examples like Sarah Champion being fired for acknowledging the problem in Pakistani communities over rape gangs.

These are examples of how Labour is significantly out of step with most voters on sociocultural issues, most of them with solid polling data I can provide upon request. Johnathan Pie said it best;

Reading the Guardian does not win you elections. The positions therein are not normal positions, they are remarkably fringe, but Labour is consistently tricked into thinking this is how people think.

To put it in perspective; Some of Labours positions on these are about as popular as privatizing the NHS, something the Tories have the good sense to deny they want to do. Sense Labour lacks when it comes to downplaying these issues, instead they proudly and openly declare them.

When the right wing accuses Labour of being anti-male or anti-white or anti-britain and they come out with their ideological framework, what most people hear is something akin to;

"The Tories want the poor to die." "That's ridiculous, we just want to privatize the NHS to increase productivity, poor people can simply purchase healthcare."

And the people listening think; "oh. so... you want the poor to die.".

I.E, the form of denials Labour makes to accusations they hate men, for instance, by quoting feminist ideology explaining that they don't?

Most people hear a confession the accusation is true, not an adequate defense. It's only convincing to those who buy into the ideology, and that's basically nobody at this point. Same for Labours responses on issues of hating britain, or hating whites, and so on. You are only preaching to the converted, who is a very small section of the population, and not even all Labour voters buy it.

Again; to put it into perspective;

Labour had to actively change the law to legalize sexist discrimination in order to force through a wildly unpopular policy not even supported by a majority of their own party members. (Women short lists.).

To justify this, they quoted feminist ideology at people and took it as obvious that this was beyond legitimate question, and convinced precisely nobody, only validating the decision to around a fifth of the populace. (Some of whom will never vote Labour, because of economics.).

Rinse repeat that behavior on all the above issues for decades and you begin to understand how Labour has alienated a supermajority of the country and done things like lost the north of england and a sizable chunk of wales.

[Definitely Not Trumptonium]

100% agree with what you said.
Boris Johnson may even be the most powerful prime minister in living memory because he has got rid of the "wets" in his parliamentary party, the main opposition party is at it's weakest level since 1935 and I don't think they're learning their mistakes and finally Johnson has a cult like following amongst the membership.

On the issue of unity, I do believe that the new coalition of conservatives will hold as red wall and the liberal urban labour voters are completely different and have a different vision of their ideal Britain so i don't know how Labour will break the voting coalition.

So what happens when the Conservatives no longer have Brexit to rally those new voters around?

What happens when Labour loses their history to rally those new Tory voters around?

The Tory voters from the north who are new are identical to tory voters in the south. They live the typical Tory lifestyle - mortgaged house, a car or two and a stable job. They just transitioned late.

[Ifreann]

the first point is meaningless. access to information is useless if people do not have the inclination to seek it out or the ability to filter good information from bad information. there are literally millions of people who still unironically believe that horoscopes can predict the future. there are literally millions of people who believe in homeopathy. i could go on all day, but there is point. the very fact that we do already live in a utopia where everyone is correct about everything alone should be sufficient to arouse suspicion of this idea.

the second point is questionable. what you go to college for matters. physicists and engineers for example have a terrible rep as a result of their complete lack of real exposure to the humanities which has caused several colleges to start forcing more and more humanities classes on them to save their own reputation.

the third point i would also dispute. i believe you would have a very very hard time finding anyone that give a proper definition of socialism. like, frankly, i would be very surprised if you could give a proper definition of socialism. it is something that has been thoroughly character assassinated and mischaracterized.

Socialism is the abolition of private property and the workers ownership of the means of production ( basically, I know that there is a lot of different takes on it ). The reason that working class people don't go exploring into the topic of socialism is because they've no motivation to do do so. What impressions they have on the topic come either from genocidal tyrannies, or from pretentious rich people who can't at all relate to them. Both are huge turn off's toward the topic. It's not a concerted effort by the elite to make the working man ignorant, it's simply fact that people aren't going to research something they have no interest in.

If only there were some institution dedicated to giving young people a greater understanding of things that would not otherwise be a part of their experiences growing up. Some sort of "education" "system".

I'm not a socialist, but I care about the working class. I feel disgusted whenever I see people who proclaim to supposedly hold similar ideals to be so drastically far removed from our values and concerns. Again, to sight an British example, immigration! Open borders may make the unfettered upper-classes feel good about how woke they are, but they seriously concern working class people - something that self-proclaimed socialists don't seem to care about, or eve deride us for being racist to fret over.

It's attitudes like that that turn people away from the red's.

What about immigration should concern the working classes?

[Joohan]

Socialism is the abolition of private property and the workers ownership of the means of production ( basically, I know that there is a lot of different takes on it ). The reason that working class people don't go exploring into the topic of socialism is because they've no motivation to do do so. What impressions they have on the topic come either from genocidal tyrannies, or from pretentious rich people who can't at all relate to them. Both are huge turn off's toward the topic. It's not a concerted effort by the elite to make the working man ignorant, it's simply fact that people aren't going to research something they have no interest in.

If only there were some institution dedicated to giving young people a greater understanding of things that would not otherwise be a part of their experiences growing up. Some sort of "education" "system".

Well yeah, that's where pretty much everyone get's their first lesson's on socialism. That it leaves a bad taste in people's mouth ( Russia, China, Cuba, etc. ) is a big reason why it turns people off.

I'm not a socialist, but I care about the working class. I feel disgusted whenever I see people who proclaim to supposedly hold similar ideals to be so drastically far removed from our values and concerns. Again, to sight an British example, immigration! Open borders may make the unfettered upper-classes feel good about how woke they are, but they seriously concern working class people - something that self-proclaimed socialists don't seem to care about, or eve deride us for being racist to fret over.

It's attitudes like that that turn people away from the red's.

What about immigration should concern the working classes?[/quote]

Foreigners moving in and taking their jobs, people who've not contributed to the welfare system suddenly being given all of it's privileges, the displacement of their culture by an unassimilating immigrant population. Those are the first three reasons which come to mind, there are doubtless more.

[Ifreann]

If only there were some institution dedicated to giving young people a greater understanding of things that would not otherwise be a part of their experiences growing up. Some sort of "education" "system".

Well yeah, that's where pretty much everyone get's their first lesson's on socialism. That it leaves a bad taste in people's mouth ( Russia, China, Cuba, etc. ) is a big reason why it turns people off.

So it's not a concerted effort to keep people ignorant, it's a concerted effort to teach people selectively.

What about immigration should concern the working classes?

Foreigners moving in and taking their jobs,

That's not really how it works. Immigrants can't take jobs, they don't go to your workplace and beat you up and throw you out. Employers are the ones who decide who gets a job, not immigrants. Unless they're immigrants who employ people, obviously.

people who've not contributed to the welfare system suddenly being given all of it's privileges,

People who work and pay taxes without the state having to pay to educate them.

the displacement of their culture by an unassimilating immigrant population.

Your culture doesn't go away just because your neighbours have a different culture.

Those are the first three reasons which come to mind, there are doubtless more.

Do go on.

[Vassenor]

Also turns out the Government tried to declare Extinction Rebellion a terrorist group then pretend they didn't when the backlash hit.

[Joohan]

Well yeah, that's where pretty much everyone get's their first lesson's on socialism. That it leaves a bad taste in people's mouth ( Russia, China, Cuba, etc. ) is a big reason why it turns people off.

So it's not a concerted effort to keep people ignorant, it's a concerted effort to teach people selectively.

I'm sorry, should every lesson at school concerning the socialist states of the 20th and 21st centuries be started with, " this isn't real socialism. "? Entire history classes could be dedicated to nothing but exploring the multitudes of philosophical and ideological of the various strains of socialist thought ( and there are such classes, just not in primary schools ) - or, people could be simply taught what the results were of those ideologies being put into action ( as they are now ). Socialism has a bad rep, because it did bad, that's not propaganda. Even socialists can agree that the 20th century was a huge failure for their ideology ( tens of millions dead and a collapse so total that the neo-libs now run the world ). With a record like that, it's no suprise that joe schmoe isn't really stoked on the topic.

That's not really how it works. Immigrants can't take jobs, they don't go to your workplace and beat you up and throw you out. Employers are the ones who decide who gets a job, not immigrants. Unless they're immigrants who employ people, obviously.

I wanna think that you're just being coy, but I honestly feel you're not - so i'll explain. The fear is, generally, low-skilled people moving in from poorer foreign countries ( for Britain this might be people from Eastern Europe or India, while in America this could mean Latin America ) will enter into the workforce and compete with native workers for their low-skilled jobs. These foreigners often having an advantage in this competition in that they are more willing to accept lower wages and are seldom part of any union ( making them the obvious choice for the thrifty employer ). The working class is concerned about immigration because they don't want to lose their jobs to immigrants who are willing to do it for less. Boogie upper-class socialists though... don't really have to worry about that, and because they don't have to worry they don't care, and are antithetical to the concerns of working men and women.

People who work and pay taxes without the state having to pay to educate them.

But now having to pay for their medical expenses and social security ( extra pricey if you happen to live in a state with socialized medicine, like the UK does ). That's if they pay taxes of course, in the United States a lot of immigrant labor is kept under the radar and so they don't pay into taxes or social security

Your culture doesn't go away just because your neighbours have a different culture.

It does when all your neighbors now have a different culture. Just look at London today, were over 12% of the city is now Muslim, former working class neighborhoods are now overwhelmingly occupied by immigrant populations, and so on. People have a real sense of their homes slipping away from them, and the fact boogie socialists don't care - or even welcome it ( which has absolutely infuriated people ) - is why the working class has been moving toward the populist right.

[Fartsniffage]

But now having to pay for their medical expenses and social security ( extra pricey if you happen to live in a state with socialized medicine, like the UK does ). That's if they pay taxes of course, in the United States a lot of immigrant labor is kept under the radar and so they don't pay into taxes or social security.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 42506.html

[Joohan]

But now having to pay for their medical expenses and social security ( extra pricey if you happen to live in a state with socialized medicine, like the UK does ). That's if they pay taxes of course, in the United States a lot of immigrant labor is kept under the radar and so they don't pay into taxes or social security.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 42506.html

I don't think this is a very helpful article - in that it did not distinguish the contributions of the immigrant population by class. No one doubts that the doctor or engineer who is moving into the country is going to significantly benefit the overall economy, and they're generally not the people whom the average working man is concerned about. UK happens to have a large immigrant population coming from developed EU countries. The concern generally, are those low skilled persons coming in from poorer nations. What of their contributions?

That is all aside from the point though that was being made though.

[Fartsniffage]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 42506.html

I don't think this is a very helpful article - in that it did not distinguish the contributions of the immigrant population by class. No one doubts that the doctor or engineer who is moving into the country is going to significantly benefit the overall economy, and they're generally not the people whom the average working man is concerned about. UK happens to have a large immigrant population coming from developed EU countries. The concern generally, are those low skilled persons coming in from poorer nations. What of their contributions?

That is all aside from the point though that was being made though.

and the average non-European migrant will make a positive net contribution of £28,000 while living here. By comparison, the average UK citizen’s net lifetime contribution in this scenario is zero.

https://www.oxfordeconomics.com/recent- ... 250df6dbba

[Joohan]

I don't think this is a very helpful article - in that it did not distinguish the contributions of the immigrant population by class. No one doubts that the doctor or engineer who is moving into the country is going to significantly benefit the overall economy, and they're generally not the people whom the average working man is concerned about. UK happens to have a large immigrant population coming from developed EU countries. The concern generally, are those low skilled persons coming in from poorer nations. What of their contributions?

That is all aside from the point though that was being made though.

and the average non-European migrant will make a positive net contribution of £28,000 while living here. By comparison, the average UK citizen’s net lifetime contribution in this scenario is zero.

https://www.oxfordeconomics.com/recent- ... 250df6dbba

Again, this isn't what I asked. Low skilled labor migrants... what are their contribution figures?

[Fartsniffage]

https://www.oxfordeconomics.com/recent- ... 250df6dbba

Again, this isn't what I asked. Low skilled labor migrants... what are their contribution figures?

On average, more than the locals. There are always going to be some percentage that take from the system more than they give. It's the same with the locals.

But on average they are a net benefit.

[Joohan]

Again, this isn't what I asked. Low skilled labor migrants... what are their contribution figures?

On average, more than the locals. There are always going to be some percentage that take from the system more than they give. It's the same with the locals.

But on average they are a net benefit.

That's not what I was talking about, but whatever dude - this isn't the debate being had.

[Fartsniffage]

On average, more than the locals. There are always going to be some percentage that take from the system more than they give. It's the same with the locals.

But on average they are a net benefit.

That's not what I was talking about, but whatever dude - this isn't the debate being had.

What is the debate being had?

[Joohan]

That's not what I was talking about, but whatever dude - this isn't the debate being had.

What is the debate being had?

To make it short, that many contemporary socialists are isolated and don't care for the interests and values of the working class.

[Fartsniffage]

What is the debate being had?

To make it short, that many contemporary socialists are isolated and don't care for the interests and values of the working class.

And immigrants being a net benefit to the working class doesn't figure in that discussion?

[Joohan]

To make it short, that many contemporary socialists are isolated and don't care for the interests and values of the working class.

And immigrants being a net benefit to the working class doesn't figure in that discussion?

Oh it absolutely does, and helps explicitly to highlight the divide. I mentioned above in detail - of course you've already read that post.

[Fartsniffage]

And immigrants being a net benefit to the working class doesn't figure in that discussion?

Oh it absolutely does, and helps explicitly to highlight the divide. I mentioned above in detail - of course you've already read that post.

You mean the bit about fears of the working class not being addressed by boogie socialists?

How else should they ally that fear other than education? I'm not a fan of just doing populism at the expense of the working class simply to get votes.

[Joohan]

Oh it absolutely does, and helps explicitly to highlight the divide. I mentioned above in detail - of course you've already read that post.

You mean the bit about fears of the working class not being addressed by boogie socialists?

How else should they ally that fear other than education? I'm not a fan of just doing populism at the expense of the working class simply to get votes.

Either your concern is for the working class or it's not - it's not a matter of education or ignorance, it's one of priority. The dude working a teamster or mining job doesn't care about pronoun use, gender and diversity quotas, statues of imperialists, repatriations, or whatever else - he is concerned with weather or not he might be replaced by a low skilled immigrant willing to work for less. He's concerned with weather or not his job might be moved overseas. He's concerned if his culture at home is being lost due to multiculturalism. These are thing's which working class people are concerned about but a lot of contemporary socialists either don't care about it or are on the opposite side of the spectrum.

Some old school leftists kind of got it, and were concerned with matters of patriotism over any idea of internationalism ( these guy's typically weren't of the marxian variety, but I digress ) - but there are seldom few today, and socialism has come to reflect the cosmopolitanism of neo-liberal capitalism.

[Ostroeuropa]

You mean the bit about fears of the working class not being addressed by boogie socialists?

How else should they ally that fear other than education? I'm not a fan of just doing populism at the expense of the working class simply to get votes.

Either your concern is for the working class or it's not - it's not a matter of education or ignorance, it's one of priority. The dude working a teamster or mining job doesn't care about pronoun use, gender and diversity quotas, statues of imperialists, repatriations, or whatever else - he is concerned with weather or not he might be replaced by a low skilled immigrant willing to work for less. He's concerned with weather or not his job might be moved overseas. He's concerned if his culture at home is being lost due to multiculturalism. These are thing's which working class people are concerned about but a lot of contemporary socialists either don't care about it or are on the opposite side of the spectrum.

Some old school leftists kind of got it, and were concerned with matters of patriotism over any idea of internationalism ( these guy's typically weren't of the marxian variety, but I digress ) - but there are seldom few today, and socialism has come to reflect the cosmopolitanism of neo-liberal capitalism.

Exactly this.

See here;

The polling data suggests we had a very broad amount of support from the public for left wing economic policies, a supermajority.https://labourlist.org/2019/11/how-popu ... -policies/

This did not translate into actual support. One argument for why that i've seen thrown around a lot is that people didn't want all these policies done at once, and thus it seemed extreme and untenable. I'd like you to bare that in mind as we enter the discussion, specifically the notion that holding all those positions at once was untenable despite an overwhelming majority supporting them, and to contrast that with Labours sociocultural positions being held all at once. I also think it's notable that the Brexit election centered on a socio-cultural issue despite our best efforts, whereas the previous election centered on economic issues far more prominently.

With that said, here are the electability problems we face on sociocultural issues:

Firstly, Feminism.

Labour is an openly feminist party both explicitly and in terms of their rhetoric, framing of issues, and so on. A high-end result for this among the populace is 27% identify as feminist, while 80% of the country supports the notion that men and women "should be equal in every way". This suggests that around 53% of the country who are amenable to equality conclude there is a difference between feminism and equality. Essentially this means that when we adopt feminism, over half of the country will conclude we are advocating something *different* from equality.

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/c ... ines_w.pdf

Low-end surveys for feminism in the country push 7% support for feminism.https://www.fawcettsociety.org.uk/news/ ... -feminists

There is also the problem of the Liberal Democrats. 39% of Labour voters identify as feminist, while 44% of Lib Dem voters do. We can conclude that even if 100% of feminists supported one of those two parties, at least half would go to the liberal democrats. This suggests that the Labour parties position on the topic alienates 53% of voters who support equality, and 10% who oppose equality, while appealing at best to around 15% of the vote.

The issue of only 39% of Labour voters identifying as feminist also aligns with the gradual loss and alienation of traditional Labour voters. It's another example of the problem of the party not adequately representing the support it already has and ignoring their preferences, a narrative we've heard a lot lately. Also consider that feminism appeals most to white, upper-middle class professional women, who are not typically a demographic all that hot on Labour politics. They are however, a very powerful demographic in terms of media narrative and so on, as Journalists tend to be of this group, and this particular demographic has a lot of sway in our culture.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47006912

Arguably this is one reason why during the Blairite years a heavy shift towards open feminist politics occurred, such as with the adoption of all-women shortlists. A policy not supported by the majority of Labour *members*, let alone voters. Whether because of the rhetoric, the positions themselves, or the framework for understanding and explaining sexism, we can conclude an explicitly and exclusively feminist position among our party spokespeople alienates support. This is also relevant to ensuring future voters; One third of young people are anti-feminist. (25% of young women, and 42% of young men.).https://www.buzzfeed.com/markdistefano/ ... i-feminism

The prior BBC link will show, less than 20% of Young women identify as feminist.

Second, Nationalism. One striking example of the disconnect between Labour and the country is on the topic of Nationalism; especially the Empire:https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2014/07/26/britain-proud-its-empire

59% of Britons choose to be proud of the Empire, compared to 19% who say it is something to be ashamed of. 23% say they don't know. Only 15% of the country says the Empire left colonies worse off.

This is at odds with the progressive anti-imperial narrative among left wing outlets, activists, and the party. It also suggests a majority of those who voted for the Labour party do not believe the Empire left colonies worse off. It also goes quite some way to explaining the hostility to Corbyn in particular.

Third, Immigration. 74% of the public say they want a reduction in immigration. This is something the party has gradually come around to; but we should consider the contrast between this and the Brown Era "Bigotgate" attitude held toward those who wanted less immigrants.

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/c ... 060315.pdf

Further detailing this is that "Reduce immigration a Lot" is the most popular position. Including among Labour voters. The second most is; "Reduce immigration a little.". In third place is "Keep immigration levels the same", at 19%. This suggests that the rhetoric most likely to appeal is not a soft acknowledgement of a need to reduce numbers, but an active stance that immigration is far too high. It is again an example of how Labour is out of step with its voters and has been for a considerable amount of time. It's notable that the figures are pretty consistent; Labour is appealing to around 20% of the population with these positions while ignoring the majority of its own voters.

Fourth, the issue of multiculturalism VS Assimilation. There's more to be happy about here. On this issue we're looking at a rough 50/50% split among the general public, but once again we're looking at the numbers being skewed by heavy liberal democrat support for multiculturalism, and the numbers aren't quite so rosey in the Labour party itself.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/ ... och-powell

This is, again, another example of an issue where the narrative of "Labour doesn't listen to its voters" holds true and where we risk alienating more of them. It appears that the Labour strategy is to, essentially, chase the Liberal democrat vote. I put it to you that this is not possible to achieve while also pursuing left wing economics, without the gradual erosion of trust and support of around 2/3rds of Labour voters. Hence this latest election.

Fifth, free speech issues and culture war scandals like the Nazi Pug trial, as well as the general "Offended" thing.https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/maga ... ps-america

67% of Britons, including a majority of Labour voters, say that they disagree with the notion that people need to be careful with what they say to avoid offending people of different backgrounds, prefering to endorse the statement that people are too easily offended. For the record, this is compared to Trump-era USA, where only 59% prefer the statement that people are too easily offended. I'd invite you to consider this in the light of the strategy to go after Boris on his previous statements such as letterboxes and so on. Further, the nazi pug trial incident also compares unfavorably in terms of the Labour party having supported and passed laws to crack down on offensive speech, despite this proposition being even less popular than a generalized "You should just try and not offend people of different backgrounds.".

Sixth, on issues the public do overwhelmingly care about, Labour missteps yet again. 77% of the public support a ban on non-stun slaughter of animals.

https://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2015 ... -slaughter

In addition 63% support a ban on circumcision, while only 13% oppose such a ban.

https://eachother.org.uk/uk-ban-male-in ... cumcision/

On both of these issues, Labour has taken the position to defend religious minorities rights to these practices, some MPs going so far as to level charges of racist motivations behind the opposition to them, further alienating the public (And, again, alienating the majority of Labour voters.). An example of this "Islamophilia" perception is another reason for the general perception problem Labour faces. (A further example being the sacking of Sarah Champion for her acknowledgement that Pakistani communities had an issue with rape gangs.).There's also the pertinent example of drug legalization; just 28% of people oppose the legalization of cannabis.https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... -of-voters

We've gotten better on that one recently, but it took a long time. These are examples where potential progressive and very popular wins for the Labour party are ignored in favor of pursuing policies that are overwhelmingly unpopular. The social issues voters want resolved are not being resolved. Instead, Labour pushes in a direction they oppose.

I would also argue that due to Labours inconsistent economic platform over the last few decades, we have abandoned our solid perception in the public eye as "The socialist party". And have instead become seen as a party primarily about these sociocultural issues with some economic squabbles. The "Factionalism" of the party is on economics, but on socioculturalism there is unity. That presents a severe optics problem for our party identity in the minds of the public.

We cannot expand our vote while holding these positions as compulsory among our representatives, and we risk the gradual collapse of a majority of those still voting for the Labour party since they do not actually support these positions. The good news is there are Labour members and supporters who identify with our party while also not aligning with these positions. We simply need to give them more of a say and more prominence within the party to rectify this issue. This is not to say that the aforementioned positions cannot still be represented in the Labour party; I would argue we need to be a broad tent.

I'd also argue that failure to do so, and the Tory propensity to remain silent on these issues, leaves our voters open to far-right recruitment and indoctrination into views far more radical on these topics than they need be.

[Fartsniffage]

You mean the bit about fears of the working class not being addressed by boogie socialists?

How else should they ally that fear other than education? I'm not a fan of just doing populism at the expense of the working class simply to get votes.

Either your concern is for the working class or it's not - it's not a matter of education or ignorance, it's one of priority. The dude working a teamster or mining job doesn't care about pronoun use, gender and diversity quotas, statues of imperialists, repatriations, or whatever else - he is concerned with weather or not he might be replaced by a low skilled immigrant willing to work for less. He's concerned with weather or not his job might be moved overseas. He's concerned if his culture at home is being lost due to multiculturalism. These are thing's which working class people are concerned about but a lot of contemporary socialists either don't care about it or are on the opposite side of the spectrum.

Some old school leftists kind of got it, and were concerned with matters of patriotism over any idea of internationalism ( these guy's typically weren't of the marxian variety, but I digress ) - but there are seldom few today, and socialism has come to reflect the cosmopolitanism of neo-liberal capitalism.

Whether or not a low skilled worker gets replaced by an immigrant working for less money is an issue to be dealt with by controlling employers, not immigrants. Enforce minimum wage and increase it. A socialist position. Don't lie to working class people about their jobs being at risk to foreigners to just get votes.

The reality is that immigrants are good for British workers even without doing that. The evidence is there. But you want to perpetuate the idea that immigrants bad. I assume because you have an issue with foreigners or you make money doing that. Which is it?

[Ostroeuropa]

Either your concern is for the working class or it's not - it's not a matter of education or ignorance, it's one of priority. The dude working a teamster or mining job doesn't care about pronoun use, gender and diversity quotas, statues of imperialists, repatriations, or whatever else - he is concerned with weather or not he might be replaced by a low skilled immigrant willing to work for less. He's concerned with weather or not his job might be moved overseas. He's concerned if his culture at home is being lost due to multiculturalism. These are thing's which working class people are concerned about but a lot of contemporary socialists either don't care about it or are on the opposite side of the spectrum.

Some old school leftists kind of got it, and were concerned with matters of patriotism over any idea of internationalism ( these guy's typically weren't of the marxian variety, but I digress ) - but there are seldom few today, and socialism has come to reflect the cosmopolitanism of neo-liberal capitalism.

Whether or not a low skilled worker gets replaced by an immigrant working for less money is an issue to be dealt with by controlling employers, not immigrants. Enforce minimum wage and increase it. A socialist position. Don't lie to working class people about their jobs being at risk to foreigners to just get votes.

The reality is that immigrants are good for British workers even without doing that. The evidence is there. But you want to perpetuate the idea that immigrants bad. I assume because you have an issue with foreigners or you make money doing that. Which is it?

Increasing wages will make even more immigrants move to our country if we don't put stricter controls on immigration. You're essentially proposing to exasperate the other problems with immigration like breakdown of community cohesion and so on.

[Fartsniffage]

Whether or not a low skilled worker gets replaced by an immigrant working for less money is an issue to be dealt with by controlling employers, not immigrants. Enforce minimum wage and increase it. A socialist position. Don't lie to working class people about their jobs being at risk to foreigners to just get votes.

The reality is that immigrants are good for British workers even without doing that. The evidence is there. But you want to perpetuate the idea that immigrants bad. I assume because you have an issue with foreigners or you make money doing that. Which is it?

Increasing wages will make even more immigrants move to our country if we don't put stricter controls on immigration. You're essentially proposing to exasperate the other problems with immigration like breakdown of community cohesion and so on.

If an immigrant can take your job at the same pay and benefits then you're an idiot. A guy who doesn't speak English as a first language, has few or no contacts in the UK, and doesn't follow British social practices taking your job? That's on you for being shit.

And people should be told that rather than just blaming immigrants.

[Ostroeuropa]

Increasing wages will make even more immigrants move to our country if we don't put stricter controls on immigration. You're essentially proposing to exasperate the other problems with immigration like breakdown of community cohesion and so on.

If an immigrant can take your job at the same pay and benefits then you're an idiot. A guy who doesn't speak English as a first language, has few or no contacts in the UK, and doesn't follow British social practices taking your job? That's on you for being shit.

And people should be told that rather than just blaming immigrants.

There's the good old classist liberal spite we've been missing which has cost Labour so badly.

I'm guessing you don't want to acknowledge the other reasons immigrants might be better for bosses even with all those in play, right? Like them needing the job to stay in the country making them less likely to take certain actions?

I also note you lashing out here instead of actually addressing the point. Making the UK more attractive to workers without controlling immigration will mean more immigrants come here, and that exasperates the other problems immigration causes like social cohesion.