|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Oct 23, 2016 19:13:25 GMT
Rothwell is typical of "small town England", where I think we will perform poorly But if the political attitudes are as suggested then I wouldn't expect any other. No centre-left party could adopt Ukip style social conservatism and retain a shred of credibility. It's Northamptonshire, not bloody Alabama, so I'm not sure why you're wittering on about social conservatism. |
|
maxque
Non-Aligned
Posts: 9,312 
|
Post by maxque on Oct 23, 2016 21:27:35 GMT
No particular sign, actually, of worse results in Wales than elsewhere. And no particular sign anywhere of any relationship between Labour local bye performances and the referendum results. My comment was about Wales - but may be equally true in England - i just dont follow the results there as closely. There are differences in that in Wales Plaid can take seats from Labour and there is very limited chance of UKIP taking seats unlike in England. In the last 5 Welsh by elections Labour have lost 3 seats to Plaid, Independent and LibDem. Labour have retained 2 seats - one of them fairly comfortably but with a 20% swing from Lab to Plaid in the other. If Labour supporters are comfortable with that situation then carry on and dont panic. Next challenge Grangetown.... Well, the lost to Plaid and the swings are worrying, true. I would say losing to Independents is not worrying, given those are always specific circumstrances, which have no bearing on upper level elections, usually. Losing that seat to Liberal Democrats wasn't a surprise either, really, it's where it votes usually, LD only lost it due to their low popularity. And next Welsh by-election isn't in Grangetown, but in the most deprived part of Rhyl... |
|
|
|
Post by thirdchill on Oct 23, 2016 21:42:58 GMT
Rothwell is typical of "small town England", where I think we will perform poorly But if the political attitudes are as suggested then I wouldn't expect any other. No centre-left party could adopt Ukip style social conservatism and retain a shred of credibility. There really isn't any contradiction between holding economically socialist views and holding conservative social views and there never has been. Many people over the years who have held social conservative views over the years on homosexuality, abortion, promiscuity etc have also held very firmly socialist economic views (i.e. higher taxes on the wealthy, more state ownership). To say to those people you are not welcome in the labour movement is very strange, given that it has accommodated people with these views for most of the time since it's foundation, and at times these people have formed a very large or even the majority component of the party. Keir Hardie was quite socially conservative in a number of respects (though more progressive in others). Attlee could also be seen as quite conservative in some respects, and James Callaghan definitely had some very conservative views on social issues. Doesn't make them any less authentically labour. |
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Oct 23, 2016 22:58:32 GMT
But if the political attitudes are as suggested then I wouldn't expect any other. No centre-left party could adopt Ukip style social conservatism and retain a shred of credibility. There really isn't any contradiction between holding economically socialist views and holding conservative social views and there never has been. Many people over the years who have held social conservative views over the years on homosexuality, abortion, promiscuity etc have also held very firmly socialist economic views (i.e. higher taxes on the wealthy, more state ownership). To say to those people you are not welcome in the labour movement is very strange, given that it has accommodated people with these views for most of the time since it's foundation, and at times these people have formed a very large or even the majority component of the party. Keir Hardie was quite socially conservative in a number of respects (though more progressive in others). Attlee could also be seen as quite conservative in some respects, and James Callaghan definitely had some very conservative views on social issues. Doesn't make them any less authentically labour. The Left has pretty consistently supported socially liberal views from the late sixties on and I think a contemporary centre left party which advocated social conservatism simply wouldn't be regarded as left wing. It would be a populist party Of course you can look into history and the dominant views of the day would be reflected. But I don't really see how a contemporary centre left or left wing party could credibly adopt clearly right wing social values. I think the days when being left wing was purely about economics is somewhat outdated and I don't perceive any great level of support for this within the party. An example: following the decision by our former MP to step down at the last election (and his anti gay views were an issue for some of us) a candidate seeking nomination emerged who works for the Evangelical Alliance and holds the expected range of views. He clearly thought this might win him some support but he didn't manage to get a single nomination. I simply don't think that Labour could every be an economically left but socially right party and indeed I can't think of any party like that in the West. The Australian Labor Party has a significant presence of those people but they are in a minority. |
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Oct 23, 2016 23:05:47 GMT
But if the political attitudes are as suggested then I wouldn't expect any other. No centre-left party could adopt Ukip style social conservatism and retain a shred of credibility. It's Northamptonshire, not bloody Alabama, so I'm not sure why you're wittering on about social conservatism. We keep hearing about how out of touch we are on immigration and how this is affecting our vote. Perhaps it's not true but those who advocate that we need to have more socially conservative views and how we reflect London liberal values need to decide exactly what they are arguing. And it's small English towns who are portrayed as socially conservative. So - are these places as portrayed? And even if they are it can't give us the green light to adopt policies not worthy of us. If we can only win places like those mentioned by adopting anti immigration policies I'd rather lose. |
|
Sibboleth
Labour
'Sit on my finger, sing in my ear, O littleblood.'
Posts: 16,036
|
Post by Sibboleth on Oct 23, 2016 23:17:03 GMT
Not convinced that Rothwell is any more socially conservative than (say) Norris Green.
|
|
|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on Oct 23, 2016 23:29:58 GMT
We keep hearing about how out of touch we are on immigration and how this is affecting our vote. Perhaps it's not true but those who advocate that we need to have more socially conservative views and how we reflect London liberal values need to decide exactly what they are arguing. And it's small English towns who are portrayed as socially conservative. So - are these places as portrayed? And even if they are it can't give us the green light to adopt policies not worthy of us. If we can only win places like those mentioned by adopting anti immigration policies I'd rather lose. If someone was making that argument for the LDs I'd take exactly the asme attitude as you. And FWIW I think the social conservatism if small English towns is overplayed. Depends on the town for a start. And there are balancing forces of tolerance and empathy. |
|
|
|
Post by Penddu on Oct 24, 2016 5:00:18 GMT
My comment was about Wales - but may be equally true in England - i just dont follow the results there as closely. There are differences in that in Wales Plaid can take seats from Labour and there is very limited chance of UKIP taking seats unlike in England. In the last 5 Welsh by elections Labour have lost 3 seats to Plaid, Independent and LibDem. Labour have retained 2 seats - one of them fairly comfortably but with a 20% swing from Lab to Plaid in the other. If Labour supporters are comfortable with that situation then carry on and dont panic. Next challenge Grangetown.... Well, the lost to Plaid and the swings are worrying, true. I would say losing to Independents is not worrying, given those are always specific circumstrances, which have no bearing on upper level elections, usually. Losing that seat to Liberal Democrats wasn't a surprise either, really, it's where it votes usually, LD only lost it due to their low popularity. And next Welsh by-election isn't in Grangetown, but in the most deprived part of Rhyl... I hadnt forgotten the Rhyl West byelection, just that I cant see Labour losing that one. However i had forgotten the Gibbonsdown seat in Barry, where Conservatives have a sizeable vote which would threaten Labour. The Grangetown seat is the most interesting because both Conservatives and Plaid have a strong vote here and I could see Labour pushed into third place. |
|
|
|
Post by marksenior on Oct 24, 2016 7:03:01 GMT
Well, the lost to Plaid and the swings are worrying, true. I would say losing to Independents is not worrying, given those are always specific circumstrances, which have no bearing on upper level elections, usually. Losing that seat to Liberal Democrats wasn't a surprise either, really, it's where it votes usually, LD only lost it due to their low popularity. And next Welsh by-election isn't in Grangetown, but in the most deprived part of Rhyl... I hadnt forgotten the Rhyl West byelection, just that I cant see Labour losing that one. However i had forgotten the Gibbonsdown seat in Barry, where Conservatives have a sizeable vote which would threaten Labour. The Grangetown seat is the most interesting because both Conservatives and Plaid have a strong vote here and I could see Labour pushed into third place. The Conservatives do not have a sizeable vote in Grangetown , they were 4th behind the Lib Dems who held the ward 2008-2012 |
|
|
|
Post by Penddu on Oct 24, 2016 9:06:05 GMT
I hadnt forgotten the Rhyl West byelection, just that I cant see Labour losing that one. However i had forgotten the Gibbonsdown seat in Barry, where Conservatives have a sizeable vote which would threaten Labour. The Grangetown seat is the most interesting because both Conservatives and Plaid have a strong vote here and I could see Labour pushed into third place. The Conservatives do not have a sizeable vote in Grangetown , they were 4th behind the Lib Dems who held the ward 2008-2012 Mark - I think you are right - i mixed up Conservatives and Lib Dems (an easy thing to do..) |
|
|
|
Post by marksenior on Oct 24, 2016 9:17:56 GMT
The Conservatives do not have a sizeable vote in Grangetown , they were 4th behind the Lib Dems who held the ward 2008-2012 Mark - I think you are right - i mixed up Conservatives and Lib Dems (an easy thing to do..) Yes understandable like Labour and Plaid ,2 cheeks of the same arse . |
|
|
|
Post by Penddu on Oct 24, 2016 9:48:26 GMT
Mark - I think you are right - i mixed up Conservatives and Lib Dems (an easy thing to do..) Yes understandable like Labour and Plaid ,2 cheeks of the same arse . With Dafydd Elis Thomas the arsehole in the middle.... |
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Oct 24, 2016 9:53:40 GMT
Not convinced that Rothwell is any more socially conservative than (say) Norris Green. Well....working class Liverpool certainly wasn't overwhelmingly Brexit! And Ukip and other far right forces have never taken much of a hold in this area. But if those sort of places aren't particularly socially conservative why are we banging on about Ukip appeal and issues like immigration? Or perhaps the London metropolitan thing isn't the key issue some claim it to be? I am really not sure what is being advocated here..... There are some who think we could just try a rerun of Blairism but I think that would fall on deaf ears - enthusiasm for globalisation, an optimistic outlook which just wouldn't be believed |
|
carlton43
Reform Party
Posts: 50,943
Member is Online
|
Post by carlton43 on Oct 24, 2016 9:56:12 GMT
There really isn't any contradiction between holding economically socialist views and holding conservative social views and there never has been. Many people over the years who have held social conservative views over the years on homosexuality, abortion, promiscuity etc have also held very firmly socialist economic views (i.e. higher taxes on the wealthy, more state ownership). To say to those people you are not welcome in the labour movement is very strange, given that it has accommodated people with these views for most of the time since it's foundation, and at times these people have formed a very large or even the majority component of the party. Keir Hardie was quite socially conservative in a number of respects (though more progressive in others). Attlee could also be seen as quite conservative in some respects, and James Callaghan definitely had some very conservative views on social issues. Doesn't make them any less authentically labour. The Left has pretty consistently supported socially liberal views from the late sixties on and I think a contemporary centre left party which advocated social conservatism simply wouldn't be regarded as left wing. It would be a populist party Of course you can look into history and the dominant views of the day would be reflected. But I don't really see how a contemporary centre left or left wing party could credibly adopt clearly right wing social values. I think the days when being left wing was purely about economics is somewhat outdated and I don't perceive any great level of support for this within the party. An example: following the decision by our former MP to step down at the last election (and his anti gay views were an issue for some of us) a candidate seeking nomination emerged who works for the Evangelical Alliance and holds the expected range of views. He clearly thought this might win him some support but he didn't manage to get a single nomination. I simply don't think that Labour could every be an economically left but socially right party and indeed I can't think of any party like that in the West. The Australian Labor Party has a significant presence of those people but they are in a minority. I like those two posts and agree all of the content in thirdchill and most of mike's. That is where we are and how we came to be there. Mike does recognize that there can be no broad-based mass movement as on the pre-60s model without unacceptable traducing of core principles. Others in the Labour Party and on this site disagree. Mike is prepared to see a smaller party and to lose out on regular power for ethical policy purity, albeit with a strong desire for electoral reform so as to achieve acceptable coalition with more centre left parties. What I fail to understand is how the party purity needing to compromise when entering coalition differs from having it as it were all 'in house' with the compromises made in house instead of 'smoke-filled rooms' with other parties? Surely we all recognize that there has to be such compromise or a party will diminish to a state of integral purity, stasis and never being in power at all? The considerable difference now is that the once broad church of Labour has IMO narrowed very considerably on three memes. Those are 1) the general formalist social conservatism perhaps most easily encapsulated by designation as 'the RC position'? Then 2) the failure to tolerate any thorough-going examination of devising a settled policy of how to cope with the rise of mass movement of people and all the consequent stresses on communities through costs of provision of housing and healthcare and reflection of competition for jobs and depression of wages. And 3) the more amorphous but still potent feeling among many that there is a real difference between the respectable/deserving poor and the feckless/feral/undeserving poor, which IMO is more potent in those closest to the position than it is in the more distanced escapees to the established middle classes? UKIP is a dull blunt instrument fashioned in such a crude manner that it only picks up on the former labour vote that has already made a mental change of state to 'One-time Labour Leaning and Now Pissed Off With Them'. A more subtle and even consensual and cosy and nostalgic approach (perhaps the Evans faction) could make really deep inroads to that sector by a more inspirational/aspirational outward looking model with probably rather radical cross 'left-right' barrier policies. I don't think this is possible but it could be? It is only there as a potential because the labour Party has eschewed large areas of stolid old fashioned people because they don't measure up to its far more narrow and prissy model of what a socialist supporter must now be to qualify to be in the movement at all. It has lost huge potential for power and influence by being too pure for its own good on three or four narrow issues that govern everything else. |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,952
|
Post by The Bishop on Oct 24, 2016 10:10:33 GMT
We keep hearing about how out of touch we are on immigration and how this is affecting our vote. Perhaps it's not true but those who advocate that we need to have more socially conservative views and how we reflect London liberal values need to decide exactly what they are arguing. And it's small English towns who are portrayed as socially conservative. So - are these places as portrayed? And even if they are it can't give us the green light to adopt policies not worthy of us. If we can only win places like those mentioned by adopting anti immigration policies I'd rather lose. If someone was making that argument for the LDs I'd take exactly the asme attitude as you. And FWIW I think the social conservatism if small English towns is overplayed. Depends on the town for a start. And there are balancing forces of tolerance and empathy. Though it is fair to say that Stroud is a bit of an unusual "small town" in some respects! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2016 11:27:58 GMT
But if the political attitudes are as suggested then I wouldn't expect any other. No centre-left party could adopt Ukip style social conservatism and retain a shred of credibility. There really isn't any contradiction between holding economically socialist views and holding conservative social views and there never has been. Many people over the years who have held social conservative views over the years on homosexuality, abortion, promiscuity etc have also held very firmly socialist economic views (i.e. higher taxes on the wealthy, more state ownership). To say to those people you are not welcome in the labour movement is very strange, given that it has accommodated people with these views for most of the time since it's foundation, and at times these people have formed a very large or even the majority component of the party. Keir Hardie was quite socially conservative in a number of respects (though more progressive in others). Attlee could also be seen as quite conservative in some respects, and James Callaghan definitely had some very conservative views on social issues. Doesn't make them any less authentically labour. Keir Hardie of course campaigned with the Miners Unions against eastern european Jewish immigrants, saying they should be sent home. ("6 or 7 to a house, undecutting wages") |
|
|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on Oct 24, 2016 11:36:17 GMT
Though it is fair to say that Stroud is a bit of an unusual "small town" in some respects! Well, yes, we're all bloody hippies here, obviously. But that's part of what I mean by it depending on the town. And I think in most places, small town or otherwise, there are strong reserves of decency. That can emerge as conservatism or liberalism depending on the issue. It is why so many people are, for example, simultaneously strong for law-and-order and for a free NHS, which traditionally were strong areas for Conservative and Labour respectively. The difficulty for "progressives" is to get the general public to see the targets of tabloid abuse as real human beings. As soon as people do, you find the supposedly small minded middle Englanders making a rather different view of things from the stereotype. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2016 11:40:48 GMT
There really isn't any contradiction between holding economically socialist views and holding conservative social views and there never has been. Many people over the years who have held social conservative views over the years on homosexuality, abortion, promiscuity etc have also held very firmly socialist economic views (i.e. higher taxes on the wealthy, more state ownership). To say to those people you are not welcome in the labour movement is very strange, given that it has accommodated people with these views for most of the time since it's foundation, and at times these people have formed a very large or even the majority component of the party. Keir Hardie was quite socially conservative in a number of respects (though more progressive in others). Attlee could also be seen as quite conservative in some respects, and James Callaghan definitely had some very conservative views on social issues. Doesn't make them any less authentically labour. Keir Hardie of course campaigned with the Miners Unions against eastern european Jewish immigrants, saying they should be sent home. ("6 or 7 to a house, undecutting wages") Rand Rebellion, 1922. |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Oct 24, 2016 17:55:13 GMT
Not convinced that Rothwell is any more socially conservative than (say) Norris Green. Well....working class Liverpool certainly wasn't overwhelmingly Brexit! And Ukip and other far right forces have never taken much of a hold in this area. But if those sort of places aren't particularly socially conservative why are we banging on about Ukip appeal and issues like immigration? Or perhaps the London metropolitan thing isn't the key issue some claim it to be? I am really not sure what is being advocated here..... There are some who think we could just try a rerun of Blairism but I think that would fall on deaf ears - enthusiasm for globalisation, an optimistic outlook which just wouldn't be believed I suspect Rothwell was probably one of the less Brexit-y bits in its are and UKIP have never got close to electing anybody from the area. You're doing what you always doing, arguing against your set conception of the small town south. Some of what you say is true of parts of the small town south (not including Rothwell), some bears very little relationship to anything at all and rather a lot actually seems like a much better description of Labour-voting areas in the north. I'm not really sure what is being advocated either, given that as far as I can tell nobody in this thread has been advocating anything. |
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Oct 24, 2016 18:35:13 GMT
Well....working class Liverpool certainly wasn't overwhelmingly Brexit! And Ukip and other far right forces have never taken much of a hold in this area. But if those sort of places aren't particularly socially conservative why are we banging on about Ukip appeal and issues like immigration? Or perhaps the London metropolitan thing isn't the key issue some claim it to be? I am really not sure what is being advocated here..... There are some who think we could just try a rerun of Blairism but I think that would fall on deaf ears - enthusiasm for globalisation, an optimistic outlook which just wouldn't be believed I suspect Rothwell was probably one of the less Brexit-y bits in its are and UKIP have never got close to electing anybody from the area. You're doing what you always doing, arguing against your set conception of the small town south. Some of what you say is true of parts of the small town south (not including Rothwell), some bears very little relationship to anything at all and rather a lot actually seems like a much better description of Labour-voting areas in the north. I'm not really sure what is being advocated either, given that as far as I can tell nobody in this thread has been advocating anything. Well...I'm not entirely unaware of the small towns of the south as I was brought up in one. I'm thinking of the assumption that we aren't doing so well in some of these small towns because of immigration and being seen as a 'city' party not relating to socially conservative places. I don't know if that is the reasoning or not but it's certainly one being emphasised elsewhere. |
|
