This Once Great Movement Of Ours

[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...

[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.

[Alcibiades]

Ed Miliband's performance today showed rightfully why Starmers team tend to lean quite heavily on him- one of the better commons performances I've seen by the end of it (he seemed a bit wobbly at first but I think it was a style thing)

Landed a number of good hits on Johnson & actually reminded me quite a lot of how Hague use to approach opposition where he tended to slaughter Gordon Brown. It's quite liberating to be a former leader.

Why was Milliband unable to win in 2015 and why was Cameron able to get his reputration quite down at the time, making him appear like a weird person? (see: That infamous sandwich photo for instance)

I think that the single biggest reason was that Cameron was able to blame Labour for the recession and claim Tory policies revived the economy without being sufficiently challenged on these points by Miliband.

[Alcibiades]

IMO, the right decision morally and politically. Corbyn’s position, already precarious after the report was released, became untenable after his statement. This appears to voters, among whom Corbyn is very unpopular, to be a decisive and bold break with not just anti-Semitism but Corbynism more generally. As others have said, an actual successful breakaway is unlikely, but there is still the danger that the appearance of infighting weakens the party’s image. Anyway, Starmer is really putting his money where his mouth is, so to speak, which does no harm to his public perception.

[Alcibiades]

IMO, the right decision morally and politically. Corbyn’s position, already precarious after the report was released, became untenable after his statement. This appears to voter, among whom Corbyn is very unpopular, to be a decisive and bold break with not just anti-Semitism but Corbynism more generally. As others have said, an actual successful breakaway is unlikely, but there is still the danger that the appearance of infighting weakens the party’s image. Anyway, Starmer is really putting his money where his mouth is, so to speak, which does no harm to his public perception.

Its a high risk move nonetheless.

Not least, in fact, because suspension isn't actually expulsion and in due course Corbyn might have to be let back into the fold - how exactly would that be spun?

Indeed - but one of the reasons for the decline of social democratic parties across Europe has been playing it too safe when they are already suffering from major image problems.

[Alcibiades]

Whether Corbyn’s right or wrong, suspending him is a massive overreaction from a party that’s literally accepted ex-BNP councillors into its fold - still, I’m sure that fact has nothing to do with antisemitism in the party. BNP guys are notoriously big friends of the Jews.

I actually looked up the councillor in question; she showed far more humility and contrition than Corbyn would ever be capable of doing.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2004/jun/14/localgovernment.politics

[Alcibiades]

The other thing is that factionalism seems to be a fairly universal phenomenon among left-wing movements worldwide. Maybe it’s something about the ideology, or perhaps more precisely how that ideology affects their conception of doing politics, which leads to this.

Nonetheless, as Blair points out, the Labour Party is fairly uniquely heterogenous among social democratic and socialist parties in terms of the number of historical political traditions it draws on. Even if these divisions are not particularly relevant today, they have left behind an environment, culture and apparatuses in which factionalism can thrive.

[Alcibiades]

https://twitter.com/epkaufm/status/1390735605437456387?s=21

I would suggest implicitly slagging off a large swath of your electorate (young graduates, most of whom are not “rich” by any means) tends not to be the best of ideas.

[Alcibiades]

https://twitter.com/epkaufm/status/1390735605437456387?s=21

I would suggest implicitly slagging off a large swath of your electorate (young graduates, most of whom are not “rich” by any means) tends not to be the best of ideas.

Eh, I get what you mean, but in my experience the politically engaged young college graduates (the ones mentioned here) are definitely richer than the average person in their 20s.

Also politically engaged young people tend to have a certain perceived status in the media that outpaces their income. Orwell called academics and journalists and those in jobs of that ilk "The Upper Lower Middle Class"

I don’t think he was necessarily referring to only politically engaged ones here; he was in the initial bit about the “woke bourgeoisie”, but then went on to contrast the broader electorates.

And what makes it such a silly comment is that the key reason for Labour strength among this group is its economic precarity.
 

[Alcibiades]

https://twitter.com/epkaufm/status/1390735605437456387?s=21

I would suggest implicitly slagging off a large swath of your electorate (young graduates, most of whom are not “rich” by any means) tends not to be the best of ideas.

The MP is dead on though. I don't see this as 'slagging off' anyone. He's making a valid point.

He’s really not though. He’s trafficking in tired, lazy stereotypes and epitomises one of the main problems with Labour at the moment.

Labour need to stop romanticising a largely mythical working class; barely anyone works in factories anymore. In many cases, these young graduates are much less economically secure than blue collar homeowning pensioners. And they should certainly be grateful for any movement towards their party, and stop assuming that certain groups “should” or “shouldn’t” be voting for Labour.

[Alcibiades]

Well a significant part of the blame has to lie with those Labour figures who spent much of 2010-15 loudly flagellating themselves that "Labour must apologise for spending too much in government" and proceeding to attack the then leader for not doing so. And often for purely factional reasons too.

With the deeply unfortunate result that said leader decided to barely push back on the same accusations from the Tories during the 2015 campaign.

[Alcibiades]

This is an interesting read from Neal Lawson regarding the PR motion at the recent conference. He argues that the leadership clinging to its support for FPTP is the result of a sclerotic “us vs them” machine psyche deeply ingrained within both the left and right of the Labour Party, which views an eternal guarantee of second place as preferable to unseating the Tories if that entails smaller parties having an increased presence. I’m sure that some here will take issue, though, with his assertion that FPTP presents a long-term structural disadvantage to Labour.

[Alcibiades]

Sure, I don’t think Labour’s immigration policy contributed directly, in the short-term, to their defeat in 2015, but at the same time it was very much not a good thing overall for the party, as it essentially let the right-wing narrative on immigration go unchallenged and become the dominant one. This put Labour at a massive disadvantage on an issue the Tories were always then going to outdo them on, and probably contributed to the Leave vote, which was decisively not a boon to Labour’s electoral fortunes.

[Alcibiades]

Also worth remembering that when the Tories tried the COALITION OF CHAOS messaging in 2017, it wasn’t exactly particularly successful…

Keir Starmer will undoubtedly be asked a fair bit about potential coalition partners during the next general election campaign, but I see no reason as to why he needs to give any answer other than, “I want to lead a Labour majority government, and that is my only focus at the moment.”

[Alcibiades]

So, uh, what exactly has happened to the Labour Party in the past few years? I don't mean the immediate aftermath of Corbyn being replaced--all that was expected--but a total surrender of nearly everything Labour historically stood for to an extent not seen since the Blair years. Starmer has come out against nationalizations (which have overwhelming public support), against increased public spending (and also against tax hikes, if the concern is over deficits), and is seemingly trying to out-Tory the Tories on immigration and trans rights. What, outside of maybe climate commitments, distinguishes Starmer from Sunak at this point?

My best guess is that Starmer is afraid of doing anything that could jeopardize Labour's massive polling lead, but playing Thomas Dewey and promising absolutely nothing to anyone is exactly how you lose that polling lead by next year.

Ah yes, the Blair years, renowned for a dearth of public spending.

[Alcibiades]

So, uh, what exactly has happened to the Labour Party in the past few years? I don't mean the immediate aftermath of Corbyn being replaced--all that was expected--but a total surrender of nearly everything Labour historically stood for to an extent not seen since the Blair years. Starmer has come out against nationalizations (which have overwhelming public support), against increased public spending (and also against tax hikes, if the concern is over deficits), and is seemingly trying to out-Tory the Tories on immigration and trans rights. What, outside of maybe climate commitments, distinguishes Starmer from Sunak at this point?

My best guess is that Starmer is afraid of doing anything that could jeopardize Labour's massive polling lead, but playing Thomas Dewey and promising absolutely nothing to anyone is exactly how you lose that polling lead by next year.

Ah yes, the Blair years, renowned for a dearth of public spending.

I'm speaking overall--Blair spent quite a lot but his tenure as leader of Labour was still a major shift to the right (as was the case for most left-of-center parties in the 1990s). Starmer seems unwilling to commit to anything at all. And, again, the total abandonment of any sort of commitment to trans rights or migrant rights.

With regards to trans rights, yes, I find Starmer’s stance disappointing, but to pretend that he is trying to “out-Tory the Tories” is ridiculous hyperbole; the point is he has been trying to thread an awkward middle ground on the issue. As far as immigration is concerned, I really have no idea what you’re on about. Starmer has certainly not said anything anywhere near as right-wing as, say, even Ed Miliband on it, and in fact has taken a number of notable pro-immigration stands as Blair says in the post above me.

As for (Tony) Blair, I think you’re taking a massively superficial, online leftist view of his government, but that’s tangential to the main topic at hand.

[Alcibiades]

These days, the St George’s Cross certainly has more far-right connotations than the Union Jack (although this was not always the case; in the 80s, as well as its use by the National Front, hooligans would always fly the latter at England games). It’s really not a mystery why Labour isn’t using it; it also seems relevant here that ethnic minorities in England, for fairly obvious reasons, are likelier to identify as British rather than English.

[Alcibiades]

If English nationalism is that important to you, other parties are available. I’m not sure why anyone would expect the Labour Party to ‘lead’ on this extremely niche (and that’s putting it mildly) issue.

[Alcibiades]

If English nationalism is that important to you, other parties are available. I’m not sure why anyone would expect the Labour Party to ‘lead’ on this extremely niche (and that’s putting it mildly) issue.

IDK what you're going about days after the Starmer media tour against the woke red-purple-blue cross, which is a bit more than 'perhaps England is a nation'. For that matter I am not a particularly big fan of St George's Cross (see also: the Labour rose) and so your talk of its connotations is completely irrelevant.

Alternatively, actually I am from Northumberland, the last Labour government led on the extremely niche issue of the restoration of its autonomy if in an imperfect form, sadly it was defeated by money and the Teesside vote, etc.

I have to say, this post has only confused me more; I’m not too sure what your complaint is. I had interpreted you as taking umbrage to Labour using the Union Jack because you feel no affinity whatsoever with a British identity, instead considering yourself solely English; my point was that a truly minuscule proportion of people in England share these feelings, and so it’s ludicrous to expect Labour to cater to them in any way.

As a side note (I’m not really sure why you brought it up — I wasn’t talking about the St George’s Cross in the post you quoted), I did think that Starmer’s intervention into the England kit brouhaha was very silly.