The Labour Thread

[Jockney]

Just as well it isn't a presidential race, eh.

 

[Look Out There Are Llamas]

It was a more how the fuck is May still ahead than anything else.

 

[Jockney]

A lot of people hate Labour and Corbyn.

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

It was a more how the fuck is May still ahead than anything else.

But for popular anti-establishment sentiment at present, a Marxist maniac like Corbyn wouldn't even be in the conversation.

 

[Jockney]

But for popular anti-establishment sentiment at present, a Marxist maniac like Corbyn wouldn't even be in the conversation.

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

Not really applicable here but OK.

 

[Jockney]

Not really applicable here but OK.

It's more relevant than essentially saying "Corbyn wouldn't be so popular if the people weren't so angry," and attributing their anger to a vague oppositionalism. There are material needs that are not being addressed by anyone else apart from Corbyn. I know you're aching to expand on the Corbyn-Trump comparison, but it doesn't stand the test of any sort of analysis. Corbyn is the result of social liberalism breaking down and a collective desire to return to moderate social democracy, at least temporarily. Trump is the result of a lack of a left-wing economic alternative to social liberalism.

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

It's more relevant than essentially saying "Corbyn wouldn't be so popular if the people weren't so angry," and attributing their anger to a vague oppositionalism. There are material needs that are not being addressed by anyone else apart from Corbyn. I know you're aching to expand on the Corbyn-Trump comparison, but it doesn't stand the test of any sort of analysis. Corbyn is the result of social liberalism breaking down and a collective desire to return to moderate social democracy, at least temporarily. Trump is the result of a lack of a left-wing economic alternative to social liberalism.

Nonsense. The ground that Labour has made up is the result of taking votes primarily from UKIP, not the Conservatives, after Corbyn effectively promised Hard Brexit. The public are fed up and want change and Labour are the only party promising it after the Conservatives made the mind-bogglingly stupid decision to campaign on "strong and stable" which roughly translates as 'same old shit'. And even then May at peak buffoonery is still more popular than Corbyn.

 

[Jockney]

Nonsense. The ground that Labour has made up is the result of taking votes primarily from UKIP, not the Conservatives, after Corbyn effectively promised Hard Brexit. The public are fed up and want change and Labour are the only party promising it after the Conservatives made the mind-bogglingly stupid decision to campaign on "strong and stable" which roughly translates as 'same old shit'. And even then May at peak buffoonery is still more popular than Corbyn.

The data says the exact opposite.

the Conservatives lost votes in places that were very pro-Remain, but gained votes in places that were very pro-Leave. However, it was only in the most staunchly Leave areas where their gains outstripped those made by Labour.

In and of itself the core Conservative election strategy – to target UKIP voters with their hard Brexit rhetoric – was a resounding success. Ashcroft polls conducted around polling day suggest that 57% of former UKIP voters switched to the Tories. In addition, we ran a simple regression analysis relating UKIP losses to the change in Conservative vote share across all English and Welsh constituencies (in constituencies where UKIP did not stand in 2017, the loss was measured as their 2015 share of the vote in the same constituency). We found that for every percentage point that UKIP lost in a constituency, the Conservatives gained 0.95 of a percentage point, i.e. almost all.

So, far from bringing in the UKIP crowd, it actually looks more likely that Labour brought in brand new voters, a small percentage of Tory voters and the mass of people who would otherwise vote Lib Dem or Green.

We're also not America; we have a parliamentary system, so I don't know why you keep harping on about Corbyn like he is Bernie Sanders. He is but one representative of an old-age tradition within the Labour Party; one might say a tradition closer to the spirit of the party's origins than any other faction in the coalition.

 

[Jockney]

Interesting graph on 2017 election data by personal income. Don't know the sample size, though.

 

[JaseTheVillain]

The rich vote for Conservatives shocker. Next you'll be telling us old people do too!

 

[Look Out There Are Llamas]

It would mean more if it was broken down by region IMO.

 

[ThisTinpotLeague]

I thought we all voted according to our age

 

[The Paranoid Pineapple]

Nonsense. The ground that Labour has made up is the result of taking votes primarily from UKIP, not the Conservatives, after Corbyn effectively promised Hard Brexit. The public are fed up and want change and Labour are the only party promising it after the Conservatives made the mind-bogglingly stupid decision to campaign on "strong and stable" which roughly translates as 'same old shit'. And even then May at peak buffoonery is still more popular than Corbyn.

This really doesn't appear to be true at all. In addition to what Jockney's posted above here's a write-up on some data recently released by the British Election Study - http://www.britishelectionstudy.com...general-election-in-ten-charts/#.WYDSQ4jyuUl2.

Some of the main findings of the study are as follows:

• Cons retained the vast majority of their Leave vote (plus a chunk of Labour leavers) and picked up over half of the UKIP vote whereas 18% of UKIP Leaver voters moved to Labour.
• Labour did very well among Remain voters. Around a third of Remain voting Tories drifted away from the party, either to Labour or the Lib Dems. Labour also successfully picked up a decent chunk of the '15 Lib Dem vote and most of the Green vote.
• There was a lot of interesting movement in voter intention during the election campaign. This is not, in itself, particularly unusual, but in previous elections any "churn" hasn't particularly been to the benefit of any one party, often cancelling itself out. In this election voters moved overwhelmingly towards Labour, with little movement away from the party.
• There were particularly significant movements in terms of leadership ratings. May's collapsed, Corbyn's steadily increased. Shifting (more favourable) perceptions of Corbyn enabled Labour to win votes from other parties.

Incidentally, back when in the aftermath of the GE I was looking at all sorts of stats and graphs electoral nonsense (as I am wont to do) and rather enjoyed a graphic from the New York Times here. It's the "Change from 2015" graphic which clearly illustrates the movements to/from Labour in this General Election and there are some really impressive swings. Really good performance from Labour in the South bar the odd anomaly (eg UKIPPY Thames estuary), slightly more mixed in the North and Midlands although still a very strong performance in the metropolitan areas (esp NW) and their suburbs. Still a little concerned about the numbers for a majority though, I must say. The Tory Scottish revival, coupled with a Lib Dem failure to regain seats in the South West, seems to limit Labour chances to me, but it's interesting stuff nevertheless.

 

[.V.]

This really doesn't appear to be true at all. In addition to what Jockney's posted above here's a write-up on some data recently released by the British Election Study - http://www.britishelectionstudy.com...general-election-in-ten-charts/#.WYDSQ4jyuUl2.

Some of the main findings of the study are as follows:

• Cons retained the vast majority of their Leave vote (plus a chunk of Labour leavers) and picked up over half of the UKIP vote whereas 18% of UKIP Leaver voters moved to Labour.
• Labour did very well among Remain voters. Around a third of Remain voting Tories drifted away from the party, either to Labour or the Lib Dems. Labour also successfully picked up a decent chunk of the '15 Lib Dem vote and most of the Green vote.
• There was a lot of interesting movement in voter intention during the election campaign. This is not, in itself, particularly unusual, but in previous elections any "churn" hasn't particularly been to the benefit of any one party, often cancelling itself out. In this election voters moved overwhelmingly towards Labour, with little movement away from the party.
• There were particularly significant movements in terms of leadership ratings. May's collapsed, Corbyn's steadily increased. Shifting (more favourable) perceptions of Corbyn enabled Labour to win votes from other parties.

Incidentally, back when in the aftermath of the GE I was looking at all sorts of stats and graphs electoral nonsense (as I am wont to do) and rather enjoyed a graphic from the New York Times here. It's the "Change from 2015" graphic which clearly illustrates the movements to/from Labour in this General Election and there are some really impressive swings. Really good performance from Labour in the South bar the odd anomaly (eg UKIPPY Thames estuary), slightly more mixed in the North and Midlands although still a very strong performance in the metropolitan areas (esp NW) and their suburbs. Still a little concerned about the numbers for a majority though, I must say. The Tory Scottish revival, coupled with a Lib Dem failure to regain seats in the South West, seems to limit Labour chances to me, but it's interesting stuff nevertheless.

Will be interesting to see if Labour can retain those remain voters, given they seem pretty intent on a hard Brexit.

 

[Aber gas]

Crikey
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/893241526133903360

 

[Aber gas]

Some interesting polling from YouGov in Scotland. Winning back Scotland from the nationalists would be massive.
https://twitter.com/aaronbastani/status/894366346968006657

 

[Jockney]

Yeah, polling good. He has disappointed me in recent weeks, though. Trying to operationalise reactionary rhetoric about immigration like the left-wing core of his base wouldn't realise, then offering a pathetic equivocation on Maduro (either support him against US imperialism or shut up). I suppose it's a necessary reminder that Westminster is not the left's telos.

 

[Aber gas]

Yeah, polling good. He has disappointed me in recent weeks, though. Trying to operationalise reactionary rhetoric about immigration like the left-wing core of his base wouldn't realise, then offering a pathetic equivocation on Maduro (either support him against US imperialism or shut up). I suppose it's a necessary reminder that Westminster is not the left's telos.

The immigration stuff was fucking tripe and I'd thought we'd moved on from listening to " legitimate concerns". Corbyn's stance on venuezala is frustrating. We all know he wants to say the " opposition" are fascists that burn starving people's food and lynch black people at the behest of the CIA with the intention of furthering US imperialist ambitions. He doesn't though cos " sensible" Not what got him here in the first place tbh.

 

[Jockney]

The immigration stuff was fucking tripe and I'd thought we'd moved on from listening to " legitimate concerns". Corbyn's stance on venuezala is frustrating. We all know he wants to say the " opposition" are fascists that burn starving people's food and lynch black people at the behest of the CIA with the intention of furthering US imperialist ambitions. He doesn't though cos " sensible" Not what got him here in the first place tbh.

I'm no Maduro fan, but the Bolivarian Revolution is clearly a very strong structural and processual influence on Corbyn's own vision of popular democracy. Like you say, more than a little troubling that he won't defend it even though he is in a strong position, he is in opposition and it's fairly obvious that attacks on his foreign policy positions only play well with people who wouldn't ever vote for Labour anyway.

 

[AFCB_Mark]

Some interesting polling from YouGov in Scotland. Winning back Scotland from the nationalists would be massive.
https://twitter.com/aaronbastani/status/894366346968006657

The SNP are sinking, there's plenty of scope for both Labour and as we saw at the election even the Tories to capitalise.

 

[Jockney]

Sarah Champion cannot remain as Shadow Women's and Equalities Junior Secretary after her comments today.

 

[The Paranoid Pineapple]

Lolz. Let's not scrutinise Maduro and refuse to countenance any topic that may have racial/cultural undertones. Labour will go far, I'm sure.

 

[Jockney]

Lolz. Let's not scrutinise Maduro and refuse to countenance any topic that may have racial/cultural undertones. Labour will go far, I'm sure.

1) Venezuela is not a politically salient issue for voters.

2) are you defending her comments, PP?

 

[The Paranoid Pineapple]

1) Venezuela is not a politically salient issue for voters.

2) are you defending her comments, PP?

1) So what? If the left/Labour want to ask the Tories searching questions about foreign policy eg why they're still arming the Saudis despite their obvious terror links, one needs to be prepared to answer questions on Venezuela.

2) So far as I gather, she's raised an issue as to whether a fear of being accused of racism is preventing authorities from adequately investigating child sexual abuse. Is this an unconscionable suggestion? I'm not sure personally, but if it is, let's debunk it. You're the one suggesting she be removed from her post. Why?

 

[Jockney]

1) So what? If the left/Labour want to ask the Tories searching questions about foreign policy eg why they're still arming the Saudis despite their obvious terror links, one needs to be prepared to answer questions on Venezuela.

Corbyn can make very good arguments for supporting Maduro against imperialism. I would actually prefer that he did so instead of "condemning both sides." But that isn't the point, is it? Both Labour voters and potential voters are well aware of his anti-imperialist views on foreign policy and do not see an issue that does not affect the country directly of being of critical importance. On the contrary, he would almost certainly come out looking better if he took a stronger position on it in public.

2) So far as I gather, she's raised an issue as to whether a fear of being accused of racism is preventing authorities from adequately investigating child sexual abuse. Is this an unconscionable suggestion? I'm not sure personally, but if it is, let's debunk it. You're the one suggesting she be removed from her post. Why?

That is a very selective representation of what she said. Even the excerpts posted on the BBC make it clear that she has identified fear of accusations of racism as being the reason why the authorities cannot come to the conclusion that there are cultural factors at the root of attacks — a conclusion that, she implies, should be obvious.

Richard Seymour does a far better job of explaining why the narratives that try to establish a link between race/culture and grooming gangs is faulty. As well as erroneously ascribing a unifying culture to a mythical 'British Asian Man', Seymour notes that the individual members of these gangs come into association with each other in their day-to-day (or rather night-to-night) occupations. In other words, British Asian Man who is a taxi driver strikes up a friendship with British Asian Man who is a delivery driver for a fast food restaurant, and they notice that women on their own at night are vulnerable. So a clearer picture emerges: one that instead positions men as the group far and away most likely to commit sexual violence. I don't think that's a particularly contentious claim.

I can't relay the depth of research that has gone into this topic (especially not while I'm typing on my phone), and I certainly can't write with anywhere near the skill and elegance that Seymour can, so here's the article in full.

https://www.patreon.com/posts/racism-and-abuse-13783883

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

You're doing yourself a disservice there Jockers I think. He commits all the same logical fallacies that he bemoans in order to do the mental gymnastics necessary to pin ethnic over-representation on racism. It's the same old story. The multiculturalist (not multiracialist) experiment must be protected at all costs, which means the premise of any argument must always be that culture is never a factor (unless it's racist White culture). If he's right then any investigation will prove as much, so shame on him for trying to stifle it because it could potentially uncover an ideologically inconvenient truth.

 

[Ian_Wrexham]

2) So far as I gather, she's raised an issue as to whether a fear of being accused of racism is preventing authorities from adequately investigating child sexual abuse. Is this an unconscionable suggestion? I'm not sure personally, but if it is, let's debunk it. You're the one suggesting she be removed from her post. Why?

Weird how fear of being called racist doesn't stop the cops harassing black kids all the time.
Weird how fear of being called racist doesn't stop the public performance of "anti-terror raids" after an attack, that almost never result in actually catching any terrorists.
Weird how, despite the vast majority of sex offenders being white (even considering it relative to the population) the vast majority of sexual offences go either unreported or unpunished.

So that's bullshit - the cops aren't scared about being called racist (if they were maybe they'd stop being racist)

Sarah Champion also said that we need to consider how "race and culture" relate to CSA. But this is bullshit too - firstly race is not a real thing - secondly, the perpetrators of the most recent case were from a variety of different cultures. Beyond an Orientalist creation of a uniform culture that somehow includes Turkish people and Bangladeshi (there's another case coming up including Indian Sikhs) how is a consideration of "culture" actually going to work?

As Jockney says there is a pretty obvious reason Asian men are overrepresented in grooming cases and that's because they're overrepresented in the nighttime economy - they have the opportunities to exploit vulnerable kids.

All it's going to do is a) encourage the police to be even more racist b) erase the fact that BAME kids are overrepresented among child abuse victims c) ignore the actual reason that vulnerable children in Newcastle, Huddersfield and Rotherham are preyed upon - because they're vulnerable and hardly anyone, least of all the state, actually cares about them.

The cops fucking love it when they're told by a government minister that they're doing a bad job because of political correctness - it gives them license to stop even paying lip service to demands that they be less racist.

 

[Aber gas]

The Tories are selling weapons to the regime they want Corbyn to denounce
Beyond parody.
https://amp.theguardian.com/politic...over-sales-of-military-equipment-to-venezuela

 

[The Paranoid Pineapple]

That is a very selective representation of what she said. Even the excerpts posted on the BBC make it clear that she has identified fear of accusations of racism as being the reason why the authorities cannot come to the conclusion that there are cultural factors at the root of attacks — a conclusion that, she implies, should be obvious.

Richard Seymour does a far better job of explaining why the narratives that try to establish a link between race/culture and grooming gangs is faulty. As well as erroneously ascribing a unifying culture to a mythical 'British Asian Man', Seymour notes that the individual members of these gangs come into association with each other in their day-to-day (or rather night-to-night) occupations. In other words, British Asian Man who is a taxi driver strikes up a friendship with British Asian Man who is a delivery driver for a fast food restaurant, and they notice that women on their own at night are vulnerable. So a clearer picture emerges: one that instead positions men as the group far and away most likely to commit sexual violence. I don't think that's a particularly contentious claim.

I can't relay the depth of research that has gone into this topic (especially not while I'm typing on my phone), and I certainly can't write with anywhere near the skill and elegance that Seymour can, so here's the article in full.

https://www.patreon.com/posts/racism-and-abuse-13783883

Weird how fear of being called racist doesn't stop the cops harassing black kids all the time.
Weird how fear of being called racist doesn't stop the public performance of "anti-terror raids" after an attack, that almost never result in actually catching any terrorists.
Weird how, despite the vast majority of sex offenders being white (even considering it relative to the population) the vast majority of sexual offences go either unreported or unpunished.

So that's bullshit - the cops aren't scared about being called racist (if they were maybe they'd stop being racist)

Sarah Champion also said that we need to consider how "race and culture" relate to CSA. But this is bullshit too - firstly race is not a real thing - secondly, the perpetrators of the most recent case were from a variety of different cultures. Beyond an Orientalist creation of a uniform culture that somehow includes Turkish people and Bangladeshi (there's another case coming up including Indian Sikhs) how is a consideration of "culture" actually going to work?

As Jockney says there is a pretty obvious reason Asian men are overrepresented in grooming cases and that's because they're overrepresented in the nighttime economy - they have the opportunities to exploit vulnerable kids.

All it's going to do is a) encourage the police to be even more racist b) erase the fact that BAME kids are overrepresented among child abuse victims c) ignore the actual reason that vulnerable children in Newcastle, Huddersfield and Rotherham are preyed upon - because they're vulnerable and hardly anyone, least of all the state, actually cares about them.

The cops fucking love it when they're told by a government minister that they're doing a bad job because of political correctness - it gives them license to stop even paying lip service to demands that they be less racist.

Yes, agree with quite a lot of what you've both written (and thanks for the link, seems a pretty solid rebuttal). Tbh, I probably should have made it clearer that I wasn't seeking to defend her comments, per se - I suspect the reality is an awful lot more complex than she suggests and I think that racialising crime in this manner is problematic to say the least. Furthermore, having had a look back at some of the excerpts, and having seen that she penned an article for the Sun, her comments do seem rather more crass than I initially thought (think I was inclined to give her the benefit of the doubt as she represents an electorate that will understandably be somewhat distrustful of institutional responses to cases of child sexual exploitation).

Was mostly taking issue with the idea that she ought to lose her job. As much as I have my doubts as to how constructive her contribution to the debate is, sacking her would seem to lend credence to her view that "people are more afraid to be called a racist than they are afraid to be wrong about calling out child abuse". I think it's preferable to highlight the flaws in her argument.