This Once Great Movement Of Ours

[DaWN]

I can't believe I'm having to say this again, but please note that Scotland does not vote in a vacuum from the rest of the United Kingdom. If Labour as a nationwide entity is popular enough to be challenging for government, then they will be popular enough in Scotland to win some seats; see the 2017 general election, in which they won 7 seats and came very close in quite a few others, and the party nationwide was not challenging for power in that election despite a decent result. Now this obviously does not mean a return to pre-2014 domination, but it does probably mean that Labour can do reasonably well enough in Glasgow, Lothian and Fife to contribute enough seats to a potential nationwide majority.

[Blair]

I can't believe I'm having to say this again, but please note that Scotland does not vote in a vacuum from the rest of the United Kingdom. If Labour as a nationwide entity is popular enough to be challenging for government, then they will be popular enough in Scotland to win some seats; see the 2017 general election, in which they won 7 seats and came very close in quite a few others, and the party nationwide was not challenging for power in that election despite a decent result. Now this obviously does not mean a return to pre-2014 domination, but it does probably mean that Labour can do reasonably well enough in Glasgow, Lothian and Fife to contribute enough seats to a potential nationwide majority.

Maybe in a Westminster Election where the SNP are doing badly; but we're currently seeing Labour hit national polling levels between 35-40% while getting 14% in the Scottish Parliament Elections.

And obviously it depends heavily on the SNP performance; which was pretty awful in 2017.

[DaWN]

I can't believe I'm having to say this again, but please note that Scotland does not vote in a vacuum from the rest of the United Kingdom. If Labour as a nationwide entity is popular enough to be challenging for government, then they will be popular enough in Scotland to win some seats; see the 2017 general election, in which they won 7 seats and came very close in quite a few others, and the party nationwide was not challenging for power in that election despite a decent result. Now this obviously does not mean a return to pre-2014 domination, but it does probably mean that Labour can do reasonably well enough in Glasgow, Lothian and Fife to contribute enough seats to a potential nationwide majority.

Maybe in a Westminster Election where the SNP are doing badly; but we're currently seeing Labour hit national polling levels between 35-40% while getting 14% in the Scottish Parliament Elections.

And obviously it depends heavily on the SNP performance; which was pretty awful in 2017.

Which is hardly all that much better than they were getting pre-2017

[Blair]

I think they got 22% in 2016 which was partly down to an extremely high Tory vote; so it’s a very worrying.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I think they got 22% in 2016 which was partly down to an extremely high Tory vote; so it’s a very worrying.

Yeah, 22% in the constituencies and 19% on the list. Though they polled at around about that consistently from the 2015 General Election until the 2016 Holyrood poll: the big surge in the Conservative vote knocked the SNP down from the high fifties and often hitting 60% to 46% in the end.

[CumbrianLefty]

Tbf the 14% was I think a single poll, they are generally scoring a bit better than that but not much.

[Serenity Now]

I've just read this article by Stephen Bush in the New Statesmen, with his analysis of the trajectory of the Labour under Starmer, which some of you may find interesting.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I've just read this article by Stephen Bush in the New Statesmen, with his analysis of the trajectory of the Labour under Starmer, which some of you may find interesting.

To condense what Starmer and those around him believe: a) the Labour Party is supposed to be a bloody Labour Party and that b) the trouble with trying to become the (American) Democrats is that, actually, one would end up as the (Italian) Democrats.

[CumbrianLefty]

The reaction from Corbynites to that article has often been along the lines of "Blue Labour, ugh". A sentiment I would not actually disagree with, were it true. I think the reality is more hopeful, however.

[DaWN]

The reaction from Corbynites to that article has often been along the lines of "Blue Labour, ugh". A sentiment I would not actually disagree with, were it true. I think the reality is more hopeful, however.

None of them actually know what Blue Labour is. They just equate it with their 'RED TORY!!!1!!' talk from circa 2015 and think it means any stinking dirty Blairite.

[CumbrianLefty]

Well the Twitter shouters do, perhaps. The more thinking elements of Corbynism (yes they do actually exist, you know) see it more as red-brown cranks like Paul Embery.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Also interesting is this.

[Serenity Now]

The reaction from Corbynites to that article has often been along the lines of "Blue Labour, ugh". A sentiment I would not actually disagree with, were it true. I think the reality is more hopeful, however.

I agree, Blue Labour and Starmer's politics (as described in the article) seem to have very different priorities. To put it crudely, I felt like the former prioritised social conservatism as an end in itself, while the latter seems rooted in more 'traditional' labour movement priorities (as Al describes).

[Serenity Now]

I'm also quite tempted to get a copy of "The New Working Class" by Claire Ainsley. Has anyone here read it?

[CumbrianLefty]

Also interesting is this.

That as basically mundane a personality as Corbyn excited such irrational extreme passions in *both* directions really is one of the paradoxes of the past five years.

[EastAnglianLefty]

The reaction from Corbynites to that article has often been along the lines of "Blue Labour, ugh". A sentiment I would not actually disagree with, were it true. I think the reality is more hopeful, however.

None of them actually know what Blue Labour is. They just equate it with their 'RED TORY!!!1!!' talk from circa 2015 and think it means any stinking dirty Blairite.

Even amongst those who do this, the reasons for making such claims vary. Some are just acting in bad faith; some know very little about the Labour Party; some are fundamentally from the radical liberal tradition that merged with the trade union left to form the Labour Party.

People often assume the radical liberal tradition was essentially the moderates who went off to the SDP, but this is at best an oversimplification and at worst an active mischaracterisation. Radical liberalism informs just about every variety of crankery on every wing of the Labour party, from Israel/Palestine obsessives; to the people who care a great deal about the non-white working class and have a strange irrational hatred of the people of Ashington; to FBPE types; to Blue Labour itself (because where else do you think the Ruskin adoration comes from?) To oversimplify in the other direction, it's the tradition inherited by people who identify as left-wing but don't actually seem to care very much about class or economics.

[CumbrianLefty]

The reaction from Corbynites to that article has often been along the lines of "Blue Labour, ugh". A sentiment I would not actually disagree with, were it true. I think the reality is more hopeful, however.

I agree, Blue Labour and Starmer's politics (as described in the article) seem to have very different priorities. To put it crudely, I felt like the former prioritised social conservatism as an end in itself, while the latter seems rooted in more 'traditional' labour movement priorities (as Al describes).

For me, the giveaway with Blue Labour was the "family, faith, flag" slogan - the middle one especially. Even amongst the fabled working class voters of the now almost totally mythologised "red wall" - how many of them do you think go to church regularly, actually?

[DaWN]

Meanwhile, Scottish Labour have reached hitherto unassailable heights of 21% in the latest poll.

[cp]

Also interesting is this.

That as basically mundane a personality as Corbyn excited such irrational extreme passions in *both* directions really is one of the paradoxes of the past five years.

No more a paradox than why trade deals and arcane debates about sovereignty drove so many to apoplexy in the Brexit debate. In both cases, the received wisdom of the status quo ante seemed so fixed - either due to its self-evident superiority in the case of supporters, or its unaccountable entitlement in the case of detractors - that the very effort of debating it automatically became a matter of moral conviction. To even entertain the notion that Corbyn wasn't a hero/villain, or that Brexit wasn't a catastrophe/panacea, was to adopt a perspective from which no common ground could ever be found.

[Silent Hunter]

The reaction from Corbynites to that article has often been along the lines of "Blue Labour, ugh". A sentiment I would not actually disagree with, were it true. I think the reality is more hopeful, however.

I agree, Blue Labour and Starmer's politics (as described in the article) seem to have very different priorities. To put it crudely, I felt like the former prioritised social conservatism as an end in itself, while the latter seems rooted in more 'traditional' labour movement priorities (as Al describes).

For me, the giveaway with Blue Labour was the "family, faith, flag" slogan - the middle one especially. Even amongst the fabled working class voters of the now almost totally mythologised "red wall" - how many of them do you think go to church regularly, actually?

You can still have faith without attending church regularly; attendance arguably helps, but it's not compulsory.

[EastAnglianLefty]

The reaction from Corbynites to that article has often been along the lines of "Blue Labour, ugh". A sentiment I would not actually disagree with, were it true. I think the reality is more hopeful, however.

I agree, Blue Labour and Starmer's politics (as described in the article) seem to have very different priorities. To put it crudely, I felt like the former prioritised social conservatism as an end in itself, while the latter seems rooted in more 'traditional' labour movement priorities (as Al describes).

For me, the giveaway with Blue Labour was the "family, faith, flag" slogan - the middle one especially. Even amongst the fabled working class voters of the now almost totally mythologised "red wall" - how many of them do you think go to church regularly, actually?

You can still have faith without attending church regularly; attendance arguably helps, but it's not compulsory.

Yes, but there still isn't any evidence for religion playing an important part in the lives of Labour's "traditional working class vote". Is tradition important and can that involve elements that are basically religious in origin? Sure. But active religious belief is not a particularly significant element of working-class life, and to the extent there are exceptions it isn't really any more notable than middle-class religiosity.

[Alcibiades]

Also interesting is this.

That as basically mundane a personality as Corbyn excited such irrational extreme passions in *both* directions really is one of the paradoxes of the past five years.

No more a paradox than why trade deals and arcane debates about sovereignty drove so many to apoplexy in the Brexit debate. In both cases, the received wisdom of the status quo ante seemed so fixed - either due to its self-evident superiority in the case of supporters, or its unaccountable entitlement in the case of detractors - that the very effort of debating it automatically became a matter of moral conviction. To even entertain the notion that Corbyn wasn't a hero/villain, or that Brexit wasn't a catastrophe/panacea, was to adopt a perspective from which no common ground could ever be found.

Most Brexit voters did not care much about trade deals, or even sovereignty. It was immigration...

[cp]

Also interesting is this.

That as basically mundane a personality as Corbyn excited such irrational extreme passions in *both* directions really is one of the paradoxes of the past five years.

No more a paradox than why trade deals and arcane debates about sovereignty drove so many to apoplexy in the Brexit debate. In both cases, the received wisdom of the status quo ante seemed so fixed - either due to its self-evident superiority in the case of supporters, or its unaccountable entitlement in the case of detractors - that the very effort of debating it automatically became a matter of moral conviction. To even entertain the notion that Corbyn wasn't a hero/villain, or that Brexit wasn't a catastrophe/panacea, was to adopt a perspective from which no common ground could ever be found.

Most Brexit voters did not care much about trade deals, or even sovereignty. It was immigration...

Well, not really. Immigration was the sharp and racist edge of the Leave campaign during the referendum, but the discourse during and after June 2016 has been propelled more by rhetoric of 'control', and the taking back thereof. Most of that was articulated in terms of transactional economic nationalism and ideological principle. Meanwhile, the Remain side was preponderantly fixated on the economic benefits of close alignment (again, before and after the referendum campaign).

In any case, the received wisdom about immigration was one of the things Brexit supporters found themselves stifled from criticizing. I don't agree with the need to criticize it, of course, but I can't really deny the opponents' impressions of how their views had been treated prior to 2016.

[Alcibiades]

Also interesting is this.

That as basically mundane a personality as Corbyn excited such irrational extreme passions in *both* directions really is one of the paradoxes of the past five years.

No more a paradox than why trade deals and arcane debates about sovereignty drove so many to apoplexy in the Brexit debate. In both cases, the received wisdom of the status quo ante seemed so fixed - either due to its self-evident superiority in the case of supporters, or its unaccountable entitlement in the case of detractors - that the very effort of debating it automatically became a matter of moral conviction. To even entertain the notion that Corbyn wasn't a hero/villain, or that Brexit wasn't a catastrophe/panacea, was to adopt a perspective from which no common ground could ever be found.

Most Brexit voters did not care much about trade deals, or even sovereignty. It was immigration...

Well, not really. Immigration was the sharp and racist edge of the Leave campaign during the referendum, but the discourse during and after June 2016 has been propelled more by rhetoric of 'control', and the taking back thereof. Most of that was articulated in terms of transactional economic nationalism and ideological principle. Meanwhile, the Remain side was preponderantly fixated on the economic benefits of close alignment (again, before and after the referendum campaign).

In any case, the received wisdom about immigration was one of the things Brexit supporters found themselves stifled from criticizing. I don't agree with the need to criticize it, of course, but I can't really deny the opponents' impressions of how their views had been treated prior to 2016.

‘Taking back control’ was a very effective slogan (and like all the most effective slogans, very light on substance), but undoubtedly the most key element of it in voters’ minds was taking back control of immigration. ‘Making our own laws’ was also a decent motivator, but I think trade deals was not high in the minds of many, mostly confined to Daniel Hannan-types. Figures within both campaigns have tended to say that it was immigration which sealed the result.

I actually disagree with your assessment on the discourse around immigration pre-2016; Labour felt the need to take a tough stance in 2015 and it seemed that politicians were actually stifled from saying immigration is a net positive.

[Blair]

I think the reason why it feels like Starmer is oversteering is that the ideological direction of the last 10 years within Labour has been towards the left; there was a gap which the party could comfortably step into.  Miliband made a public apology over Iraq, focused his political strategy heavily on Liberal Democrat voters & slowly repaired the relationship with the Trade Unions over issues like spending, austerity & the NHS.

Corbyn then obviously turbocharged this with rejecting austerity, opposing air strikes in Syria and putting public sector spending right at the centre of the campaign.

Both steps certainly needed to be done & I'm not someone who thinks that there was some neo-Blairite route for the party after the crash that would have worked.

However I think a lot of the reaction to what Starmer has or more specifically hasn't said is rooted around there being a basic assumption that since 2014 the leadership will generally try its best to aim for the ideological safety of the left.*

On the topic of blue Labour like all labour factions the worse advocates are the people in it. A collection of blowhards, weirdos and cosplayers.

The interesting thing is that I've always felt that Labour can appeal to the abstract 'blue labour' target voter without having to actually embrace the politics of blue Labour; Corbyn did so extremely well on police cuts for example.




*obvious exceptions to this in the Immigration Act 2014, the Welfare Vote in '15.