UK Politics - Weeny, Weedy, Weaky

[innonimatu]

Just wanted to give another example, explain why I think as I do. Even in things such as"sexual mores" this effect of class structure has imo been very noticeable. Where were differences between genders pushed from, and into whom? They were pushed top-down. Even in the most conservative and religious portion of my country gays were tolerated among the popular classes, but committed into hospices and/or disinherited among the local aristocracy. It took decades of campaign, by this aristocracy from the top-down, to impose a "popular" discrimination against gays during the time of the dictatorship here. It goes as far back as early modern times, with the inquisition doing that work - from the top down, again.
People can understand and relate with "their own". They can break down social prejudices when faced with the reality of family, friends, neighbors, to them "normal people", being part of a group they had been told were "outcast". Social prejudice is a construct fostered from above, in hierarchical societies, because it is a useful tool of social control, that can be used to "justify" though the speech of vice and virtue the differences in status. You want to get rid of prejudices, you need to have a "flatter" society.

The "sexual revolution" of the 1960s didn't occur in avoid. It happened in the new generation born after the great (relative) leveling of class position that followed World War II. All the speech that questioned authority, into the 1970s also, that wouldn't even have been possible without the changes in class structure that followed the demobilization of WW2.

 

[Senethro]

Maybe I wasn't paying attention, but I didn't notice that tactical promise in what he was saying? Or I'm failing to understand what you mean.

My opinion is that this is an issue of focus. By splitting the big problem into many small particular problems that focus is lost, what is presented instead is an incoherent mess of policies. The best intentions are diluted and annulled because there won't ever be r attention to address the detailed issues of all these groups separately. It just won't be politically viable, instead it will foster completion and fight between these groups, division.

One example: in many countries class and race intersect statistically, but if you eliminate the underclass entirely as a structural feature then that intersection is ended, and afterwards it'll be much easier to end racism. If no one is pushed any longer into having to perform crappy underpaid jobs (make those "bad jobs! well-paid!), into living in hovels instead of decent homes, there won't be an "undeserving" or "different" lot to be easily attacked.
If instead you only aim to equalize distribution of races across class and underclass (thing positive discrimination...), it won't happen because people will fight tooth and nail to avoid falling into the underclass and mobilize all their "weapons", including race which this is kept relevant! The narrative of the underclass being the undeserving will remain active and that is the root cause of many social ills. It's very easy for those on top to divert people into using "identity" divisions to keep social positions as they are. That is the real game being played, divide and rule.

Theoretically, sure, but what has this pure undistracted focus of non-idpol socialists achieved recently?

 

[innonimatu]

Theoretically, sure, but what has this pure undistracted focus of non-idpol socialists achieved recently?

Inertia has kept people tied into their usual "left" parties, and all the big ones have moved into idpol. The one recent leftist leader or a big party who wasn't focusing on idpol as a priority was Corbyn, and I'm sticking to my assessment that he was undone by his betrayal of his promise to respect the referendum result, and the parliamentary antics leading up to that. Looking at the situation in Europe I can see the PSF gone, whatever transvestite of left is in Italy on borrowed time until this crisis ends, and similarly in Spain. The greens, another form of idpol I guess, have split the left in Germany. But in many european countries there's the Euro&austerity factor also, it certainly wasn't just idpol!
As I was arguing, idpol was a distraction for the masses (and party militants) that could not replace real national policies. It won't save any of these parties, hasn't, that abandoned their socialist or social-democratic roots. They abandoned those roots not because of idpol but because they embraced neoliberalism. Idpol was supposed to be the "replacement" to keep these parties relevant. Turns out most people may take a while but can see through it.

And all this time the vocal opponents of it were mostly in the right (the left skeptical of idpol didn't want to come out as "nasty attacking it, left the filed open. It is one deep hole that has been dug.

 

[Senethro]

If embracing neoliberalism is the cause, then why isn't neoliberalism the problem?

 

[mitsho]

Construction workers also benefit from Gay Marriage, since they almost certainly know someone who is gay. Don't you want to have a just society in any case? You don't need to benefit from everything yourself. Voters in Switzerland f.e. voted down a constitutional amendment that would have given them 1 additional week of vacation (but they did agree to make the national day a national holiday, so there's that )

It is true that a lot of the current electorate of the Left are educated people, but they are middle class: teachers, creatives, and so on. Not the rich upper class you make them out to be. Where does the left lose more blue collar voters to, the populist right or to the non-voting group? It's general apathy. Besides, it's hard to argue with democratic facts: If more people want Starmer, then he's the right one. Corbyn was the right one, because the party electorate chose him. But after a disastrous election, they took away his mandate and now chosen someone different. Democracy is sometimes as easy as that (but not always right - only the hindsight of history can be that).

 

[Ajidica]

Perhaps it is due to a language/political background difference, but can you clarify exactly what you mean by 'idpol' because right now it seems like you are basically using the term as "stuff I don't like".
As it looks to me, "idpol" is simply what cranky people call political organizing conducted outside of the traditional "working class". Labor organizing to achieve political influence and compel politicians to respond to their concerns, good. Sexual and racial minorities organizing to achieve political influence and compel politicians to respond to their concerns, bad.

Returning to the UK political scene, Labour has had a strong component of what you would probably call "idpol" or "professional class" since the 1940s with the Gaitskellite wing of the party and figures such as Roy Jenkins. Laws passed under their influence; such as the decriminalization of homosexuality, liberalization of divorce and abortion laws, prohibition on corporal punishment in schools; all contributed to the UK being a 'modern' society. Since the 30's Labour has always been an awkward coalition between trade unionists, socialists, and social reformers. I'm not sure why you think it should be any different now.

 

[innonimatu]

I really don't want to hijack the treat, it is about UK politics. And I feel like I'm repeating things that were discussed in other threads already. @mitsho everyone benefits, or at least no one is harmed and should be neutral at least. The thing is this stuff does not need to be a political banner. In my county at least it was passed matter-of-fact, no one made much noise about it, it was sure why not? The country was not much divided that anyone would pick up the issue to oppose it. We got more unequal and divided since the 1990s, but not yet as bad as I see in other countries. I'm not arguing against social concerns and improvements, even if they are bought up by small groups. I was arguing about the focus of politics.

@Ajidica I'm also not an expert on Labour history, so can't argue over that. But what I have seen over my lifetime was the old social-democratic parties of Europe commuting political suicide one after the other. Having abandoned their old aims of improving economic equality (and I'm trying not to ant about the EU consensus imported from Washington...), they replaced it with sectorial concerns, appealing to many different groups organized around many different issues and made it the party policy - idpol. This is not enough. And it is divisive: talk too much to a stranger and you'll put the listener off with something you say. If it's a friend or someone who knows you well, there's no risk. But with a stranger the one thing you happen to say that he dislikes will have a bad effect. Parties have made strangers of their supporters (here I could talk about the collapse of the PCI into that copycat of the american Democracts) and now they can't count on being listened to. It's a combination of factors, my point is: keeping this course is political suicide. And that's where I see Labour heading now.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

As it looks to me, "idpol" is simply what cranky people call political organizing conducted outside of the traditional "working class". Labor organizing to achieve political influence and compel politicians to respond to their concerns, good. Sexual and racial minorities organizing to achieve political influence and compel politicians to respond to their concerns, bad.

This is exactly what it is.

 

[Ajidica]

I really don't want to hijack the treat, it is about UK politics. And I feel like I'm repeating things that were discussed in other threads already. @mitsho everyone benefits, or at least no one is harmed and should be neutral at least. The thing is this stuff does not need to be a political banner. In my county at least it was passed matter-of-fact, no one made much noise about it, it was sure why not? The country was not much divided that anyone would pick up the issue to oppose it. We got more unequal and divided since the 1990s, but not yet as bad as I see in other countries. I'm not arguing against social concerns and improvements, even if they are bought up by small groups. I was arguing about the focus of politics.

Taking gay rights for a moment, you cannot have it be a politically neutral topic that is treated as a matter-of-fact legal issue when very loud and influential political groups make it into an issue and a political party sees it as a way to rile up the base and split the opposition.
In the early 70s, gay rights in the US were viewed largely in the legal 'matter-of-fact' way with both parties largely treating it as a "they may be perverts, but they aren't criminals" issue and for the most part staying out of it. Then along comes [censored] like Anita Bryant running a scare campaign and elements -notably the GOP as they were being hijacked by the Evangelicals around this time- jumped on it as a way to get political votes. As LGBT groups organized, some urban Democrats came to see them as part of a new coalition that would reduce Democratic reliance on notoriously corrupt unions such as the Teamsters and allow them to capitalize on the emerging reformist/good government sentiment.*

*Unrelated to the topic at hand, but in the 80s there was a major movement in urban areas to make the city 'cool' again and draw a line between the "old cities" of the 1970s, characterized by riots, unemployment, malaise, corruption, and bankruptcy; and the "new cities" that were fun and vibrant places to be run by forward-thinking and progressive politicians who valued good government over protecting parochial interests.

@Ajidica I'm also not an expert on Labour history, so can't argue over that. But what I have seen over my lifetime was the old social-democratic parties of Europe commuting political suicide one after the other. Having abandoned their old aims of improving economic equality (and I'm trying not to ant about the EU consensus imported from Washington...), they replaced it with sectorial concerns, appealing to many different groups organized around many different issues and made it the party policy - idpol. This is not enough. And it is divisive: talk too much to a stranger and you'll put the listener off with something you say. If it's a friend or someone who knows you well, there's no risk. But with a stranger the one thing you happen to say that he dislikes will have a bad effect. Parties have made strangers of their supporters (here I could talk about the collapse of the PCI into that copycat of the american Democrats) and now they can't count on being listened to. It's a combination of factors, my point is: keeping this course is political suicide. And that's where I see Labour heading now.

I feel you have things backward; that people felt they didn't need political parties to achieve their goals and then began ignoring parties.

EDIT: To elaborate, in the 80s and early 90s we still saw massive protests and political movements; in the US we had Jesse Jackson's Rainbow Coalition and the UK saw the Miners Strike and the Poll Tax Riots. However, come the mid to late 90s the "doom scenarios" had not yet come to pass. Living standards in the western world were rising, and enough was "going right" that people could be found that took Fukuyama seriously. If things were going well despite 'the left' failing in the political objectives, that would indicate political involvement in the traditional sense wasn't necessary to achieve objectives.
Needless to say I haven't entirely fleshed this idea out yet.

 

[Zardnaar]

Your opinion is a joke and not a funny one either.

Under your ideology, no minority would ever see any improvement of their lives, specifically African-Americans, LGBTQ people, disabled people, religious minorities, native Americans etc.

Vile. Disgusting.

No it's called reality.

Gays etc have it pretty good here. Perfect in PC uberland probably not but it doesn't get much better. We had a right wing party pass gay marriage.

That happened because we took care of the economic stuff decades ago. You have to be affluent/secure enough to be liberal.

Look at a lot of conservative nation's say in eastern Europe, India, China etc.

Or the liberal nation's such as the Commonwealth and Scandinavia. They're all politically stable, wealthy, low corruption welfare states.

Our ancestors didn't give a hoot about gay rights decades ago. Hell they probably would have beaten them up. But it takes time to evolve from point A to point B and C.

Using the USA as an example you're about to see the consequences of not winning an election.

Another meanspirited call to abandon groups that have been staunch allies and supporters of your cause, all because they don't look like you.

YOU, @innonimatu, are the person minorities fear; someone who would throw the rest of us under the bus to further your cause without a second's worth of hesistation, YOU, are the person PoC fear because of your unwillingness to advocate for social or legal change if it doesn't personally benefit them.

You claim Id-Pol is poison, even as you reduce everything to class, because you are a class essentialist, nothing else matters to you it seems, you can't fathom the idea that anything other than that could be of importance because i doubt you've had to walk even a mile in their shoes.

You don't even get that minorities suffer worse in terms of being economically disadvantaged, be it being refused loans, housing or even jobs, you don't seem to understand that.



You are the centrist we need to be wary off, who'd sacrifice everyone else to achieve his own goals, whilst bemoaning why he has so few allies.

You wouldn't last a day in my shoes, you think i give a **** about economics if my main concern is whether today is going to be the day i'm going to be assaulted, perhaps even killed because of who and what i am? My main concern is to survive today and hopefully live in a society that is going to tolerate me and not treat me like some sort of freak, but such considerations don't seem to even exist in your mind, you can't even fathom such an existence because it all boils down to money for you.

People like you don't get it, you never will until it's happened to either you or one of yours. You scare me.

And for all those reading; I don't give a rats ass about how hostile i'm being, for decades my community has been betrayed by people like @innonimatu who use us for our votes and then abandon us the second they get in power and I'm sick of being bound by decorum and the expectation that I'm going to just sit here like a good little girl and take it from someone who is willing to abandon me the second it becomes inconveniant but still demands me to treat them as an ally.

MLK Jr warned us about the white, moderate liberal and that applies to what i've seen here today; too scared to rock the vote, constantly delaying by giving out false expectations and promises of hope, willing to reduce it all to a single issue whilst ignoring the diverse reality we live in.

I'm willing to help you, can't do that without winning power.

If you were here you could apply for and get a benefit and they would help you out with housing. Worst case scenario you might have to live short term in a motel, we have a housing crisis and right now the system is overwhelmed but they backpay you and evictions are illegal atm.

I would vote for trans rights bills, gay marriage etc but I wouldn't campaign on it. It's easier to ask for forgiveness later than ask for permission at the ballot box.

 

[Traitorfish]

No it's called reality.

Gays etc have it pretty good here. Perfect in PC uberland probably not but it doesn't get much better. We had a right wing party pass gay marriage.

That happened because we took care of the economic stuff decades ago. You have to be affluent/secure enough to be liberal.

Look at a lot of conservative nation's say in eastern Europe, India, China etc.

Or the liberal nation's such as the Commonwealth and Scandinavia. They're all politically stable, wealthy, low corruption welfare states.

Our ancestors didn't give a hoot about gay rights decades ago. Hell they probably would have beaten them up. But it takes time to evolve from point A to point B and C.

Using the USA as an example you're about to see the consequences of not winning an election.

Over 50% of the indigenous population of New Zealand live in poverty. They make up half of your prison population, they experience double the unemployment rate, and have a life expectancy eight years less than whites.

Please, tell us more about your twin miracles of economic redistribution and political correctness.

 

[Zardnaar]

Construction workers make up a tiny fraction of the modern British working class. They aren't electorally more significant because they are perceived to carry some aura of blue collar authenticity that is denied to far more numerous retail, service and clerical workers.

It was an example. A lot still applies to retail and service type jobs.

 

[Ajidica]

That happened because we took care of the economic stuff decades ago. You have to be affluent/secure enough to be liberal.

Is it me, or does this line of thought you keep using smack of bigotry and classism, that 'working class' can't care about gay rights because caring about those things is a 'middle class' problem.
Purely anecdotally, in general the people I know who are most vocal in support of lgbt rights would be described as 'working class'.

 

[Traitorfish]

It was an example. A lot still applies to retail and service type jobs.

You presumably chose the example of construction workers for a reason. If you imagined that the same applied to retail workers, a sector of the working class which dwarfs construction workers, you have said so.

 

[Zardnaar]

Over 50% of the indigenous population of New Zealand live in poverty. They make up half of your prison population, they experience double the unemployment rate, and have a life expectancy eight years less than whites.

Please, tell us more about your twin miracles of economic redistribution and political correctness.

That's statistics, I'm well aware of BZs social issues. A huge amount if it is due to rent and mortage costs which here is tied to immigration.

We had 9 years if a neo liberal government, 2 years of a labour government. That neo lib government was socially liberal but borrowed for tax cuts and reversed the previous government's tax increase.

Hence why I'm so big on winning elections. Labour spent most of those 9 years infighting and throwing up crap leaders.

I'm not claiming we don't have poor people here but if you're gonna be poor NZ isn't such a bad place to do it. We have 5000 people on the streets and 35000 in stressed accommodation.

I care more about them than claiming there's 53 genders or whatever. I would rather help them get off the streets regardless of who or what they are.

If embracing neoliberalism is the cause, then why isn't neoliberalism the problem?

Neo liberialism is the problem. Trickle down doesn't work.

Our variant of it is socially liberal. They're a bit saner than the foreign versions as the use the scalpel vs chainsaw approach but the end result is similar but less vicious.

They moved left on social issues and undercut a big chunk of the reason to vote left. An extra $20 a week tax cut looks attractive vs nothing or a $20 a week tax hike.

Gay marriage doesn't really cost anything. A conservative may not agree but a neo liberal theoretically won't care.

Vote us well buy you a PlayStation and 5 games is a lot more appealing than vote us and we'll legalize gay marriage espicially when the ones offering the free PlayStation will also vote for gay marriage.

 

[Traitorfish]

I care more about them than claiming there's 53 genders or whatever.

It is not my experience that people who refuse to acknowledge the LGBT movement as anything more than frivolous lifestyle politics- "53 genders or whatever"- are actually very interested in helping poor people.

You can claim that you want to "help poor people", but if you refuse to acknowledge the role in which sexism, ablism, homophobia and transphobia, or racism and colonialism play in creating and perpetuating poverty, you are going to struggle to help a large number of actual, individual poor people.

 

[Zardnaar]

Is it me, or does this line of thought you keep using smack of bigotry and classism, that 'working class' can't care about gay rights because caring about those things is a 'middle class' problem.
Purely anecdotally, in general the people I know who are most vocal in support of lgbt rights would be described as 'working class'.

Some do absolutely. Not enough though.

It is not my experience that people who refuse to acknowledge the LGBT movement as anything more than frivolous lifestyle politics- "53 genders or whatever"- are actually very interested in helping poor people.

You can claim that you want to "help poor people", but if you refuse to acknowledge the role in which sexism, ablism, homophobia and transphobia, or racism and colonialism play in creating and perpetuating poverty, you are going to struggle to help a large number of actual, individual poor people.

Nope they do. But a lot if idpol can be independent of that.

Universal welfare, health, education etc doesn't really care about races and what have you.

The idea being if you end up in the emergency room you get help regardless.

They've been throwing money at it for decades here. Takes time.

Here for example you get free doctors visits up to age 18, free schooling up to year 13, and the government pays about 80% if your tertiary. Health care is free/very cheap I paid pull price for doctors docto plus subscription less than $30 USD. If Cloud needs drugs it's $3 for the prescription.

We don't have inner city projects here or urban decay. We have poor areas of course but it's not like overseas. If you're poor you can still access health and education.

 

[innonimatu]

That happened because we took care of the economic stuff decades ago. You have to be affluent/secure enough to be liberal.
Our ancestors didn't give a hoot about gay rights decades ago. Hell they probably would have beaten them up. But it takes time to evolve from point A to point B and C.

I'm disagreeing with this: it depends on which ancestors. Your victorian era ancestors probably would, because they were told by their highers-up that it was a very bad thing. Further back you're going to find ancestor who just didn't care because with whom others joined up with didn't really matter to them and no one was telling them otherwise. Without economic, religious or political authorities basing their power on turning people against each other. It has been a constant flow across history, in one direction and then the other, tolerance/intolerance, it ties into hierarchical politics exploiting divisions.
As @Ajidica says, individually being affluent is not a requirement to be socially liberal. It's just that has the world is today it's easy to divide people because they live in a constant fight against each other for social position. And all kinds of nasty politics prosper under those conditions. It's not enough to be an affluent society, it's also necessary that this hierarchical fight pressure is reduced because people are relatively at ease in their position. Then then can't easily be divided over race, sex, lineage, etc. And the only stable way to place people at ease is to have a more "horizontal" society, as much as possible given organizational needs.

 

[Zardnaar]

I'm disagreeing with this: it depends on which ancestors. Your victorian era ancestors probably would, because they were told by their highers-up that it was a very bad thing. Further back you're going to find ancestor who just didn't care because with whom others joined up with didn't really matter to them and no one was telling them otherwise. Without economic, religious or political authorities basing their power on turning people against each other. It has been a constant flow across history, in one direction and then the other, tolerance/intolerance, it ties into hierarchical politics exploiting divisions.
As @Ajidica says, individually being affluent is not a requirement to be socially liberal. It's just that has the world is today it's easy to divide people because they live in a constant fight against each other for social position. And all kinds of nasty politics prosper under those conditions. It's not enough to be an affluent society, it's also necessary that this hierarchical fight pressure is reduced because people are relatively at ease in their position. Then then can't easily be divided over race, sex, lineage, etc. And the only stable way to place people at ease is to have a more "horizontal" society, as much as possible given organizational needs.

Not that far back late 19th century/early 20th century.

NZ was the first place granting universal suffrage to women 30 years before USA, pensions from the same time, universal healthcare very early on, then welfare pre WW2. The foundations were laid pre WW1 in the late Victorian era in the 1890s.

They tried importing the UK class system but they broke up the estates in 1870s iirc. May have been 1880s.

I'm not talking about individually affluent but how the poorest cope. Poor people here still have things like satellite TV and PlayStations they're not living in slums and projects.

It's worse up north due to cost of living.

 

[Traitorfish]

Nope they do. But a lot if idpol can be independent if that.

Universal welfare, health, education etc doesn't really care about races and what gave you.

The idea being if you end up in the emergency room you get help regardless.

They've been throwing money at it for decades here. Takes time.

If you enact fully automated luxury space communism tomorrow, sure. But in the meantime, we must be pragmatic in how we direct our resources. Moderates have long reminded us of this. This means that certain groups can merit specific attention.

Again, look at the Maori. You cannot in good faith pretend that it's all just an unfortunate coincidence that a population of dispossessed indigenous people score lower across the board on economic and health metrics. The only way to reconcile this reality with a refusal to acknowledge the role of racism and colonialism in creating these conditions is to suppose that there is just something about the Maori, about their culture or their genetic makeup, that more strongly predisposes them to poverty than whites. And even if you don't say this explicitly, other people will, and if you refuse to contest them in substantive terms, if you refuse to offer alternative explanations for these conditions, then their argument is the only game in town, and the problem of Maori poverty is never acknowledged as a problem, at least not beyond a vague wistful observation that, wow, it sucks that the Maori are poor, but it wouldn't be right to spend any extra money on them because it will make white people sad.

It doesn't even need to be something conventionally "idpol". In Scotland, there is a long history of rural poverty, especially in the Highlands and Isles. Recent governments have spent a lot of time and resources trying to address that. It isn't a big sexy issue, it doesn't have celebrity-lead twitter hashtags. It runs against traditional assumptions that rural poverty is a by-product of the culture of these regions. And it requires them to spend more money on people living in those areas than in the more populated Central Belt. But the money they spend in those areas goes further, it helps break cycles of poverty and create a foundation for future well-being that regionally-indiscriminate spending would not. Should these politics be abandoned because the construction worker we have imagined doesn't care about child mortality rates on Skye?