Starmer’s chronicles

Originally Posted by Chris

Yes, it is an opinion piece. Of course it adopts a certain grand polemical style. It stands in a grand British Press tradition of using this literary form to call out hypocrisy and misbehaviour. The point is, as an intelligent reader, you’re supposed to price that in and then engage with the underlying argument. And tellingly, you refused (or are unable) to do so. Ironic, given that the point you are perhaps wilfully missing is that the ‘New Left’ is characterised by an abandonment of intellectual curiosity and a refusal to engage in debate, substituting instead diktat vis a vis acceptable opinions and public behaviour.
.

I think parts of his underlying point, that the modern left has become disconnected from some of those it seeks to represent, is valid and also that not talking about issues like the grooming gangs and immigration cedes those issues to the right but that isn't something we didn't already know and he spends most of the article with cliched examples of it. It isn't insightful beyond that.

We know this change has been slowly happening for a while but the terminally online examples he gives are a symptom of underlying democratic shifts as opposed to the left-wing being hijacked by people on social media.

I think several things are happening. The most obvious one is that the left-wing base in the UK and America has shifted from manual workers without degrees to university-educated service workers. Labour voters are now more likely to have further education and are trending younger.

These people are more likely to be socially liberal rather than just economically liberal which is what I think he is getting at when he refers to 'old left'. This is where there is a disconnect and I agree that the broader left has had a problem speaking to social conservatives. The left isn't one big cohesive block but some elements of the left, especially online, have a problem speaking to the country at large as well. The Corbyn faction of the Labour Party hated Starmer doing speeches in front of the Union Jack but these people are a minority of the left.

But I think he is also making a mistake in thinking the working class is one big monolithic bloc that isn't itself also more fragmented.

The working class from which the old left emerged and whose interests it was their mission to defend and promote are despised by the new left and its fraudulent acolytes. They despise the language of the working class; the way they run their families; the way they eat and how they choose to entertain themselves.

What language and what families? I think he is now just invoking a mythical version of a working-class person from an old era. There are plenty of working-class liberals around. There isn't one language of the working class, one way of raising those families, and one type of food or entertainment for the working class.

The left can speak very well to some of them and not at all to others. The disconnect is higher when it comes to culture, age and education as opposed to class.

[1andrew1]

Your analysis Damien is leaps and bounds above the tired opinion piece which Chris shared. Thanks for taking the time to share this with the Forum.

Originally Posted by Damien

I think parts of his underlying point, that the modern left has become disconnected from some of those it seeks to represent, is valid and also that not talking about issues like the grooming gangs and immigration cedes those issues to the right but that isn't something we didn't already know and he spends most of the article with cliched examples of it. It isn't insightful beyond that.

And herein is another example of the problem - those who are of the new left (younger, socially liberal, educated, i.e. people such as yourself) are simply dismissive of these issues. ‘Isn’t something that we didn’t already know’ … do you not see that for a huge chunk of the population, which feels distant and disconnected from those with power and influence, the obvious follow-up to that is ‘well why the hell aren’t you doing anything about it’? These aren’t cliches. Every one of the examples in the piece is current.

We know this change has been slowly happening for a while but the terminally online examples he gives are a symptom of underlying democratic shifts as opposed to the left-wing being hijacked by people on social media.

Seriously …. What is this word salad?

I think several things are happening. The most obvious one is that the left-wing base in the UK and America has shifted from manual workers without degrees to university-educated service workers. Labour voters are now more likely to have further education and are trending younger.

These people are more likely to be socially liberal rather than just economically liberal which is what I think he is getting at when he refers to 'old left'. This is where there is a disconnect and I agree that the broader left has had a problem speaking to social conservatives. The left isn't one big cohesive block but some elements of the left, especially online, have a problem speaking to the country at large as well. The Corbyn faction of the Labour Party hated Starmer doing speeches in front of the Union Jack but these people are a minority of the left.

Your analysis is muddled because you’re doing the very thing you’re accusing McKenna of doing, and trying to force people into a limited number of very broad categories and as a result you’re miss-labelling people - badly. You appear to be trying to force Jeremy Corbyn into the ‘Old Left’. It’s true the tabloids would call him a Lefty Dinosaur and point to his support for state ownership and collective bargaining. However Corbyn is extremely socially liberal - something you obviously get at some level as you correctly identified him with flag-haters. But then, McKenna would identify with the New Left. We are used to the left-right divide in the UK being characterised in economic terms because Thatcher, and that habit is hard to break. But break it we must, because there has been a broad economic consensus in the UK since Blair. The fault line now is overwhelmingly as social one. Look at it that way and you stand a better chance of not misunderstanding people like Jeremy Corbyn.

In fact, McKenna’s entire thesis is grounded not in economics but in social policy, whether conservative or liberal/progressive. His complaint about the working class being told what to say, think and eat is a complaint about genderism and food and alcohol regulation, things which I admit may be less obvious to English readers but all of which have been addressed (sometimes very badly, IMO) in primary legislation in Scotland in the last decade. All of these tendencies exist UK-wide but the Scottish government has been under socially liberal control for some time now so the fault line is somewhat clearer here than you’re perhaps aware of.

But I think he is also making a mistake in thinking the working class is one big monolithic bloc that isn't itself also more fragmented.

What language and what families? I think he is now just invoking a mythical version of a working-class person from an old era. There are plenty of working-class liberals around. There isn't one language of the working class, one way of raising those families, and one type of food or entertainment for the working class.

The left can speak very well to some of them and not at all to others. The disconnect is higher when it comes to culture, age and education as opposed to class.

Again, a little of it may be lost in translation. He’s addressing a Scottish audience and the population of Scotland is less than 6 million. There is a lot less variation in social outlook here. The Scottish Labour Party is much more socially conservative than its English branch is. The Scottish Tories are socially conservative, obvs. And as the nationalist cause begins to fragment, one of the main fault lines between the SNP and Alba is social policy. But again, as I said to Ian, don’t pick up a newspaper opinion piece and expect an undergraduate essay. Of course he’s writing in broad strokes. That’s the genre. There is however a serious underlying point and the pearl-clutching from Ian yesterday and your subconsciously dismissive approach to the ‘cliches’ he raises (also, predictably, Andrew, who seems excessively relieved that you had a go at a rebuttal) really do illustrate McKenna’s point very well indeed. These are problems that the ‘New Left’ can’t or won’t acknowledge, and mostly won’t discuss beyond a dismissive wave of the hand and a #Nodeabte.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by ianch99

this pearl clutching we see in the right wing media & from assorted trolls would not be happening if said offences were carried out by white gangs.

If it was carried out by white gangs, it would have been cracked down on immediately.

That's sort of the point.

There are white rapists and paedophiles, there's more of them in this country than those of Pakistani heritage. because we are still, for the time being, a majority white nations.

But the rape gangs of Pakistani heritage far out weigh their population %

Plus culturally, white abusers are unlikely to have a drunk or drugged teenager in their flat, and then call uncles, cousins, brothers to come over and rape her.

It's completely different and to try and deflect by claiming "racism", which is what you're doing is nothing but predictable.

Originally Posted by Chris

And herein is another example of the problem - those who are of the new left (younger, socially liberal, educated, i.e. people such as yourself) are simply dismissive of these issues. ‘Isn’t something that we didn’t already know’ … do you not see that for a huge chunk of the population, which feels distant and disconnected from those with power and influence, the obvious follow-up to that is ‘well why the hell aren’t you doing anything about it’? These aren’t cliches. Every one of the examples in the piece is current.

I am not being dismissive of the issues. I am being dismissive of that article. I do think it's an issue for the left that we've vacated the ground on important issues to voters to the right. I don't think this article is good. There has been a lot of writing about this problem at this point.

Seriously …. What is this word salad?

It was late and I had come back from the football but my point is what followed about demographics changing. I think that's important because it feeds into who exactly the left is losing and why which I don't think is simply about class.

Your analysis is muddled because you’re doing the very thing you’re accusing McKenna of doing, and trying to force people into a limited number of very broad categories and as a result you’re miss-labelling people - badly. You appear to be trying to force Jeremy Corbyn into the ‘Old Left’.

No. I am saying Corbyn is one part of a left that has been disconnected from the people he claims to represent. Or more precisely the movement behind him. Illustrated by the fact it was his faction of the Labour Party that objected to the party using the flag of the country it aspired to represent. I don't understand how you read that paragraph as positioning Corbyn as the old left when he was an example I cited of the failure of the left to understand the country.

In fact, McKenna’s entire thesis is grounded not in economics but in social policy, whether conservative or liberal/progressive. His complaint about the working class being told what to say, think and eat is a complaint about genderism and food and alcohol regulation, things which I admit may be less obvious to English readers but all of which have been addressed (sometimes very badly, IMO) in primary legislation in Scotland in the last decade.

And I am saying that I don't think this is about class but education and, to a lesser extent, age. I think this divide exists within classes rather than between them. It's important because that's how we see who we're losing and why. After all the working class can be a young man working in a coffee shop in Edinburgh whilst doing this degree, a retired miner in a post-industrial town or a single mother from Hackney.

We're also seeing an increased gender divide as women go more left-wing and men more right-wing. Why? I think that will increasingly become the biggest problem for the left, how to speak to young men of any class.

Incidentally, the reserve question can be asked of the right. Why are the right losing ground with younger people, especially women, and with people who have more formal qualifications? The ground is shifting for everyone here.

These are problems that the ‘New Left’ can’t or won’t acknowledge, and mostly won’t discuss beyond a dismissive wave of the hand and a #Nodeabte.

This is talked about on the left though, you don't see it because you're not in that ecosystem. Ultra-lefty (far more left-wing that me) Novara was talking about this after the Trump Election: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x776NMQaV6k

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Is he a socialist?

[thenry]

Who voted?

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

Is he a socialist?

Ooh yes, be careful of those socialists....
https://t.co/p6OtPdUlxR

Can you actually "Run for Prime Minister" ?

No. You need to get 326 sympathetic people to run in constituencies across the country, win every single one of them, then get them to nominate you to be PM. There are 650 parliamentary constituencies and the only way to be PM is to be the person most likely to “enjoy the confidence” of a majority of the MPs elected to serve them.

You can add ‘constitutional illiterate’ to the long list of Mr Tate’s flaws.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

Is he a socialist?

Nope, he’s a bell-end.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Chris

I have to say this phrasing is so unlike you it crossed my mind that it might actually not be you.

I’m not here to cheerlead for any particular journalist, but I will simply point out that he’s been in the industry for decades, and writes for one of the UK’s major regional morning titles. Dismissing him out of hand just because you don’t like what he’s saying …. Well, you truly are making his point for him.

The real pity here is that I genuinely expected a bit more willingness to engage from you. Them’s the breaks I guess.

More ad-hominen attacks. I guess you only "debate" people that agree with you. I am dismissing his piece not because I disagree with him but because it was a shambolic ramble about generic tropes. You liked it so good for you but please don't claim that if you don't "understand" it, you must be "New Left", a "no-debater", thick, etc.. I am more than happy debate points made by someone that has a cogent argument but he had none of these.

I really thought you were better than this. That is the end of this subject for me.

[Escapee]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Plus culturally, white abusers are unlikely to have a drunk or drugged teenager in their flat, and then call uncles, cousins, brothers to come over and rape her.

If I were to call you to come over in that situation I would expect either:

A. You report me to the police.
B. You distance yourself from me but possibly don't take any action.
C. You pop over to the flat.

I would guess C is the most unlikely, but for some cultures it seems it's not that clear cut.

There needs to be an inquiry that concentrates on the specific issue of these grooming gangs, the cultural element and why the authorities did not take action. The claims that the police and social services have learnt from it is not a good enough answer, the public needs to know what lessons they have learned and what action is being taken.

My wife is a social worker, she has worked for a number of local authorities and previously worked with similar vulnerable children. She told me many years ago that almost every town has at least one kebab shop or the like known to the authorities.

She has taken on cases where the white social workers have been afraid to take action because of the threats by certain cultures, for example where the males tell her they don't have to speak to her because "she is a woman" or threaten to report her for being racist. My wife is black, so unlike most white social workers she's not afraid of the racist label, she tells them to crack on and report her.

I don't think Starmer wants anything to do with an enquiry, because I think we are potentially looking at something which will end up being called the "Rape for votes scandal".

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Escapee

If I were to call you to come over in that situation I would expect either:

A. You report me to the police.
B. You distance yourself from me but possibly don't take any action.
C. You pop over to the flat.

I would guess C is the most unlikely, but for some cultures it seems it's not that clear cut.

There needs to be an inquiry that concentrates on the specific issue of these grooming gangs, the cultural element and why the authorities did not take action. The claims that the police and social services have learnt from it is not a good enough answer, the public needs to know what lessons they have learned and what action is being taken.

My wife is a social worker, she has worked for a number of local authorities and previously worked with similar vulnerable children. She told me many years ago that almost every town has at least one kebab shop or the like known to the authorities.

She has taken on cases where the white social workers have been afraid to take action because of the threats by certain cultures, for example where the males tell her they don't have to speak to her because "she is a woman" or threaten to report her for being racist. My wife is black, so unlike most white social workers she's not afraid of the racist label, she tells them to crack on and report her.

I don't think Starmer wants anything to do with an enquiry, because I think we are potentially looking at something which will end up being called the "Rape for votes scandal".

we're already there