A common refrain heard from the left of Labour during the Corbyn era was that ‘left-wing policies are popular’. This was a reference to the fact that when polled, policies such as rail nationalisation turned out to have widespread approval. Yet this was not the silver bullet the Corbynistas always thought it was because it immediately prompts the question: if Labour policies are incredibly popular, then why aren’t Labour doing better electorally?
The water is muddied somewhat by the fact that a lot of policies which could be considered rightfully left-wing really are popular, but other left-wing policies are certainly not. For instance, the four-day week doesn’t poll well, mostly because people have worked out that it might lead to job losses – it could lead to fewer people doing fewer things, meaning fewer positions in the workforce. But I don’t think this is really the crux of Labour’s electoral problem. The public is in a ‘spend more’ mood and has been for a few years now and a left-leaning economic platform should do well, whatever weaknesses its constituent parts carry.
You could say the problem was Corbyn’s personality and the fact that people just didn’t like him. While this was certainly a factor in why Labour lost so badly in 2019, I don’t think this is the whole problem either. If it was, Labour would be ahead in the polls now.
No, I think the real problem is that the part of the electorate that Labour wants to win back and who are attracted to the economically left-wing policies are relatively socially conservative. In other words, they don’t like the woke stuff, very broadly speaking, and it puts them off Labour, particularly when there is already a big spending Conservative party in office. This is the bit that the left of Labour continues to fail to understand.
By the way, I’m not telling them not to believe in what they want to believe in. I would just suggest that while rail nationalisation is popular, ‘children are born without sex’ is definitely not. Saying this out loud, it’s really obvious, but yet this is perhaps the biggest thing the left still do not understand. The idea that the culture war stuff really hurt Corbyn is obvious to the point of tedium to me, and yet I’ve never heard a prominent Corbynista publicly admit this.
The most interesting thing about the recent European football championships was that it demonstrated how easy it is to blindside the right on culture war shit; how simple it is for the left to find themselves on the correct side of it all, from a public popularity point of view, for once. People in England like the England football team way, way more than any politician and certainly more than any political party. They are also broadly not racist and feel defensive of English footballers when they are being racially abused. Beyond even that, the fact that a multi-ethnic England team managed to get to the finals being supported by 98% of the country demonstrated beautifully how English patriotism – not even British, but English – could be mixed with a progressive idea of what England actually is these days.
Yet the Labour party has yet to fully embrace the gift that was the Euros, particularly following how badly the Tory frontbench handled the whole thing, because the frontbench of that party still doesn’t know how to handle the culture war stuff. But at least in comparison to the Corbynistas, they know that they do have to find a way to deal with it all in order to stand any chance of a parliamentary majority. Say what you want about Starmer, it’s clear that he understands what a problem this is for the Labour party. If there were nothing else about him that was an improvement on Corbyn, the fact that he doesn’t go and support gender self-ID and then wonder why the rail nationalisation shtick isn’t cutting through would be enough. He knows the problem, which is at least half the battle.
Now, people on Labour’s left will shoot back, ‘Things like trans activism are more important than winning elections’. That’s a perfectly defensible position to take, intellectually speaking. But again, don’t then wonder why not enough of the electorate like what you’re buying. I would like the Labour party to be more openly pro-European, taking at least a rejoining the single market stance, but they aren’t because they want to win back the red wall seats. Trans activism is at least if not more harming to Labour’s chances of winning in these seats in the near future than wanting to rejig Brexit, so the left of Labour should stop using the ‘But electoral popularity’ argument if they want to keep doing the culture warrior stuff to the degree that they do.
While I’m here, I’ve got a new book coming out in the autumn entitled The Patient. It’s about a woman who goes into the hospital to give birth to her child, being two weeks overdue….and ends up staying in the hospital for a year, still pregnant the whole time. If you want to find out more, here’s where you can have a better look.
Jeff says
Many ‘red-wall’ voters won’t forget Labour’s Brexit betrayal anytime soon. “Rejoining the single market” is not ‘rejigging Brexit’; it’s overturning the Referendum decision to fully leave the EU.
It was made abundantly clear prior to the referendum that a vote to leave meant leaving the ‘single market’ and that was accepted by both sides – for the remain campaign it was their “key issue”.
The correct name for the ‘single market’ is the EU Internal Market. It means EEA membership. As the Norwegian’s discovered this requires being subject to around THREE-QUARTERS of all EU law…
‘We pay, but have no say: that’s the reality of Norway’s relationship with the EU’:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/27/norway-eu-reality-uk-voters-seduced-by-norwegian-model
And, however popular with the voters, it won’t allow the railways to be renationalised…
‘Norway: Rail workers hold national strikes over EU rail privatisation’:
https://labourheartlands.com/norway-rail-workers-hold-national-strikes-over-eu-rail-privatisation/
Martin says
Jeff the Brexiter:
Why did so many in the Leave campaign cite Norway and Switzerland as examples to emulate and also claim that there was no question of leaving the Single Market. They dismissed these sort of consequences as ‘project fear’.
We know what happened no matter how desperately you try to rewrite history.
Jeff says
Why did so many in the Leave campaign cite Norway and Switzerland as examples to emulate and also claim that there was no question of leaving the Single Market.
NOT during the Referendum campaign. A few people had cited those countries in earlier years most notably in promoting Dr. Richard North’s Flexcit plan which advocated using the EEA as a stepping stone to smooth the path to leaving. That idea was dropped well before the Referendum campaign.
The proposition for Leave was clearly encapsulated in three words: “Take Back Control”. It’s not possible to take back control of our money, borders, laws, and trade while being in the ‘single market’ – the EEA. We’d have to pay (Norway paid more per head than we did), we’d have ‘free movement’ of EU workers through our borders, we’d have to obey three-quarters of all EU law with no say, and we wouldn’t be able to operate an independent trade policy – risible for the World’s fifth largest market.
They dismissed these sort of consequences as ‘project fear’.
‘Project fear’ was the term used to describe the Treasury forecast for the two years following a vote to Leave.
We know what happened no matter how desperately you try to rewrite history.
This is what happened…
1. The government sent a leaflet to every household which mentioned the “single market” 21 times and exhorted us to vote to remain within it. It was the central economic issue of the campaign.
‘Why the government believes that voting to remain in the EU is the best decision for the UK’:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/why-the-government-believes-that-voting-to-remain-in-the-european-union-is-the-best-decision-for-the-uk/why-the-government-believes-that-voting-to-remain-in-the-european-union-is-the-best-decision-for-the-uk
2. The Prime Minister, David Cameron, stated in parliament what each vote meant…
Prime Minister’s Questions: 15 June 2016: Answer to Nigel Adams:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2170&v=9BjtP00IRPA
3. The remain campaign saw leaving the ‘single market’ as the “key issue”…
‘Brexit vote was about single market, says Cameron adviser’ [November 2016]:
http://www.politico.eu/article/brexit-vote-was-about-single-market-says-cameron-adviser/
Jeff says
Why did so many in the Leave campaign cite Norway and Switzerland as examples to emulate and also claim that there was no question of leaving the Single Market.
Not during the Referendum campaign. A few people had cited those countries in earlier years most notably in promoting Dr. Richard North’s Flexcit plan which advocated using the EEA as a stepping stone to smooth the path to leaving. That idea was dropped well before the Referendum campaign.
The proposition for Leave was clearly encapsulated in three words: “Take Back Control”. It’s not possible to take back control of our money, borders, laws, and trade while being in the ‘single market’ – the EEA. We’d have to pay (Norway paid more per head than we did), we’d have ‘free movement’ of EU workers through our borders, we’d have to obey three-quarters of all EU law with no say, and we wouldn’t be able to operate an independent trade policy – ludicrous for the World’s fifth largest market.
They dismissed these sort of consequences as ‘project fear’.
‘Project fear’ was the term used to describe the Treasury forecast for the two years following a vote to Leave.
We know what happened no matter how desperately you try to rewrite history.
This is what happened…
1. The government sent a leaflet to every household which mentioned the “single market” 20 times and exhorted us to vote to remain within it. It was the central economic issue of the campaign.
‘Why the government believes that voting to remain in the EU is the best decision for the UK’:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/why-the-government-believes-that-voting-to-remain-in-the-european-union-is-the-best-decision-for-the-uk/why-the-government-believes-that-voting-to-remain-in-the-european-union-is-the-best-decision-for-the-uk
2. The Prime Minister, David Cameron, stated in parliament what each vote meant…
Prime Minister’s Questions: 15 June 2016: Answer to Nigel Adams:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2170&v=9BjtP00IRPA
3. The remain campaign saw leaving the ‘single market’ as the “key issue”…
‘Brexit vote was about single market, says Cameron adviser’ [November 2016]:
http://www.politico.eu/article/brexit-vote-was-about-single-market-says-cameron-adviser/
Alex Macfie says
Most people don’t give a Castlemaine about trans issues. It’s not that they oppose trans activism, because they are just as turned off by the noisy people on the other side of the debate as well. It’s just that in the scheme of things it’s not especially important for the average voter, and the whole debate seems to be angels-dancing-on-a-pinhead stuff. Besides, views on trans issues are actually pretty diverse on the Left, including many anti-trans people.
What turned people off Corbyn’s Labour wasn’t trans activism or any other so-called “woke-ism” (and a recent survey found that about 1/3 of people don’t even know what “woke” means), it was the outdated student revolutionary BS — the knee-jerk anti-westernism, indulgence of left-wing tyranny, obsession with Israel~Palestine (and resulting very selective concern for human rights in the Middle East), rigid class-war analysis and intolerance of political diversity. This didn’t just turn off Red Wall voters, it turned off mainstream centre-left voters and well as centre-right pro-EU people who voted Tory instead of Lib Dem for fear of letting Corbyn in.
M says
What turned people off Corbyn’s Labour wasn’t trans activism or any other so-called “woke-ism” (and a recent survey found that about 1/3 of people don’t even know what “woke” means), it was the outdated student revolutionary BS — the knee-jerk anti-westernism, indulgence of left-wing tyranny, obsession with Israel~Palestine (and resulting very selective concern for human rights in the Middle East), rigid class-war analysis and intolerance of political diversity.
You do realise that you’ve just written ‘What turned people off Corbyn’s Labour wasn’t trans activism or any other so-called “woke-ism”, it was [a list of things that characterise the woke]’?
Wokism isn’t a defined set of policies, it’s a worldview (that is repulsive to most people); and the fact that most people don’t know what the word means doesn’t mean that they can’t spot the worldview, even if they use a different label for it or don’t label it at all beyond ‘those silly ranty students’.
Alex Macfie says
M: No they’re not, they’re chcracteristic of the ideological hard left, which many so-called “wokists” actually loathe. Get out more, you might learn that most people who care about social justice really have no truck with the reactionary politics of the Corbynite left.
M says
You gotta love that narcissism of small differences.
Alex Macfie says
Pretty fundamental differences actually. The OP recently wrote an article for the Spectator about Labour politicians deending left-wing dictatorships. This is something you won’t find Lib Dems doing (nor mainstream Labour TBF — it’s principally the ideological far Left). BTW in case you are minded to bring up Vince Cable’s recent comments on China, he doesn’t speak for his party, and his stance seems more like the “realpolitik” typically espoused by traditional Tories. Tim Farron, as Lib Dem leader, was pretty scathing about Fidel Castro after the cigar-chomping Cuban dictator’s death.
Or take antisemitism. Nick Tyrone seems obsessed with comparing Layla Moran with Rebecca Wrong-Daily, but a fundamental difference between the two is that you would never catch Layla sharing an antisemitic trope. Layla has also distanced herself from anti-Israel extremists, meaning that they tend to regard her as a “sell-out”.
The far Left are notorious for jumping on progressive bandwagons; the SWP in particular having a very noisy and visible presence at demos and marches. But they were conspicuous by their absence from the anti-Brexit marches, the cause of remaining in the EU directly contradicting their view of the EU as a capitalist conspiracy. Sometimes, though, they are caught in their own contradictions. The far Left threw its weight behind George Galloway in the Batley & Spen by-election. Galloway was not above making an issue of the Labour candidate’s sexuality, playing to socially conservative Muslims. For many far Leftists, settling scores with mainstream Labour and supporting anti-western foreign policy positions trump any support for LGBTQ rights. This is not an issue for poeple from the mainstream centre-left, who want nothing to do with that sort of posturing or cosying up to Islamists, and in particular wouldn’t touch “Gorgeous” George with a bargepole.
The tendency of the far Left to cosy up to conservative Muslims both within and without this country can be contrasted with its tendency to support Serb militants in former Yugoslavia against the (mainly Westernised Muslim) Bosniaks and Kosovans, and to subscribe to the bizarre pro-Serb conspiracy theories propagated in outlets such as LM (reborn as Spiked). (I call the LM✓Spiked crowd the Left-Right, because the one thing they’re not is liberal). This seems to be linked to the far Leftist support for Putin.
Martin says
M merely confirms that ‘woke’ is whatever he or anyone else wants the term to mean. I am happy to self identify as among the 1 in 3; ‘woke’ is obviously a meaningless term, so it makes sense not to have an understanding of its meaning.
If M wants to consider this response as ‘woke’ then so be it inside his own head.
M says
Pretty fundamental differences actually.
Sigh. Okay then, we’ll do this. Let’s go though what you listed, one by one.
1. the knee-jerk anti-westernism,
Definitely woke: the idea that the West is the cause, due to imperialism, is the cause of all the world’s ills, is behind all the calls to ‘decolonise’ things, to topple statues, and the assertion that all Western societies are irredeemably ‘structurally racist’. Their founding texts are things like Said’s,knee-jerk anti-western Orientalism. Hard to think of something more fundamental to wokery than knee-jerk anti-westernism, except point 5.
2. indulgence of left-wing tyranny,
Okay, you have a point with this one, but only because wokies spend so much effort hating the West that they barely acknowledge that the rest of the world exists. When they do though they automatically side with whoever is against the West: which usually means left-wing dictatorships.
3. obsession with Israel~Palestine (and resulting very selective concern for human rights in the Middle East),
Again, this is pretty characteristic of the wokies: see the woke wing of the Democratic party in the USA which is stridently anti-Israel or, indeed, pretty much any woke student union in the UK, who will have passed an anti-Israel motion. The reason is that fundamental to the woke worldview is the binary division of the world into oppressors (evil) and oppressed (good), and guess which side the put the Israelis and the Palestinians on respectively?
4. rigid class-war analysis and
Wokies are all about the rigid class-war analysis. They call the classes ‘oppressors’ and ‘oppressed’ rather than ‘capital’ and ‘workers’, but it’s the exact same simplistic binary good/evil analysis, just with identity classes rather than economic classes.
5. intolerance of political diversity.
Nothing is more characteristic of workery than intolerance of political diversity! What do you think, say, their constantly trying to cancel J.K Rowling is about if not intolerance of political diversity?
So of your five points, that’s four and a half apply perfectly to the wokerati.
Alex Macfie says
M; Never herd of this Said or his/her/their “Orientalism”. The same is likely to be true about the vast majority of people. The political worldview that you are describing and characterising as “woke” is actually one that is confined to the fringes of the extreme left, who attack anyone on the left who doesn’t support it as sell-outs (which means that virtually all of the centre and left are sell-outs as far as far as they are concerned).
M says
The political worldview that you are describing and characterising as “woke” is actually one that is confined to the fringes of the extreme left,
If only that were true! But think of how many people have, for instance, been involved in trying to cancel J.K. Rowling. Are you saying they are all on ‘the fingers of the extreme left’?
Alex Macfie says
M: You are talking about a very small, noisy set of people operating mostly on social media. Most people don’t give a stuff one way or the other. The actions and words of a few keyboard warriors do not represent any sort of mainstream political thought. There is, in any case, a wide diversity of opinion among the mainstream centre and left on trans issues.
So actually I don’t think the far left necessarily care much about trans rights as such, except as another bandwagon to jump onto as Matt (Bristol) mentions. They were quite happy to set it aside when supporting George Galloway.
M says
M: You are talking about a very small, noisy set of people operating mostly on social media.
Yes, I am. But my point is that they aren’t, as you claimed, just ‘on the fringes of the extreme left’. They are wokies, who are distinct from the extreme left, but who share with it most of the characteristics (knee-jerk anti-westernism, the rigid class-war analysis, the intolerance of opposing views, etc) which you identified.
Most people don’t give a stuff one way or the other.
Indeed, which is why embracing it is such potent electoral poison.
So actually I don’t think the far left necessarily care much about trans rights as such,
Indeed, which is yet more evidence that you are wrong to say, ‘that’s just the fringes off the extreme left’. It’s not: it’s a distinctive strain of politics, which the general electorate may not be able to name, but they recognise it and they well not vote for a party which gives the impression of being in thrall to it.
Alex Macfie says
No, once again hose characteristics I listed are EXCL;USIVE to the reactionary pseudo-revolutionary hard Left, the ones who are always fighting yesterday’s battles seemingly unaware that the world has moved on. The mainstream centre and left have no truck with it.
As Matt points out, the electorate are intelligent enough to know the difference between campaigning for social justice and infantile shouty political posturing. It seems, however, that youi are not. While a lot of extreme “wokery” is silly, it’s only on trans issues that the “anti-woke” right has gained any traction, and that’s because it’s only a few shouty fanatics who are going on about it, while the mainstream centre and left are mainly leaving the issue alone. The anti-wokists are just as shouty as their caricature opponents, and it isn’t particularly popular with the electorate either; otherwise the likes of Laurence Fox would have polled much better in elections.
M says
No, once again hose characteristics I listed are EXCL;USIVE to the reactionary pseudo-revolutionary hard Left
They’re not, though, because I went through your five points and explained that four of them apply perfectly to the wokies, and the remaining one does when they notice.
As Matt points out, the electorate are intelligent enough to know the difference between campaigning for social justice and infantile shouty political posturing.
Yes they are, which is why they don’t vote for any political party which aligns itself with the woke agenda.
it isn’t particularly popular with the electorate either; otherwise the likes of Laurence Fox would have polled much better in elections.
Indeed; the electorate mostly is turned off by both those pushing wokitude and those who define themselves against it, and will vote mostly for parties which ignore it. Currently that’s only the Conservatives, as Labour and the Liberal Democrats have both been colonised by the wokerati (the Greens, of course, have always been woke).
But hey. Don’t let me stop you losing elections. Keep pushing wokeness and I will enjoy seeing the Lib Dem MPs reduced to single figures at the next general election.
Alex Macfie says
Martin would appear to be right. “Woke” means whatever the person using the word wants it to mean. M seems to be defining it to mean some sort of London trendy lefty, a type of left-winger commonly found in Labour and the 57 Varieties of left-wing splinter groups, and perhaps among the Green Party as well, but certainly not the Lib Dems. It’s a political class I actually despise, and the same is true of all sensible Lib Dem members. None of the 5 characteristics of trendy lefties apply to the vast majority of Lib Dems; indeed they are why a lot of us are in the Lib Dems and not Labour.
Conservatives are certainly not “ignoring” the “woke” debate, they are aggressively pushing the culture war, probably because they know they have little else. As for elections, how does one explain Chesham & Amersham? One factor is is thet the voters there are turned off by the Tories’ culture war rhetoric.
M says
Martin would appear to be right. “Woke” means whatever the person using the word wants it to mean. M seems to be defining it to mean some sort of London trendy lefty,
Sounds about right.
a type of left-winger commonly found in Labour […]but certainly not the Lib Dems.
Yeah right. Have you seen the Lib Dems on Twitter?
It’s a political class I actually despise, and the same is true of all sensible Lib Dem members.
I guess the sensible ones are too sensible to be on Twitter then. Which actually makes a lot of sense, but the thing is, even if the crazies on Twitter are a minority in the party, they are the ones the general public notices, so they’re the ones the Liberal Democrats will get judged on come the next election.
<i€Conservatives are certainly not “ignoring” the “woke” debate, they are aggressively pushing the culture war,
They’re really not. Boris, for example, is taking every opportunity he can not to say anything about any culture war issues.
As for elections, how does one explain Chesham & Amersham?
What needs explained? There was a protest vote, the Conservatives will regain it at the next election, just like Brecon. Same as usual.
Alex Macfie says
M: As far as what LIb Dems think goes, you don’t have the slightest idea what you are talking about. We are NOT trendy lefties. We DON’T take knee-jerk anti-western foreign policy positions. We DON’T praise left-wing dictatorships. We DON’T take extreme pro-Palestinian positions or cosy up to Palestinian terrorists, and we certainly don’t tolerate antisemitism under the cloak of criticising Israel (or for any other reason). We DON’T take a class-based or simplistic victim-oppressor analysis, instead focusing on the individual. Nor do most of us obsess about trans issues.
So I don’t see the point in carrying on this discussion. Either you are a troll or you don’t know what you are talking about. As for whether we’ll hold C&A at the next GE, let’s just wait and see. We hold onto some; others we don’t. A lot depends on the political circumstances at the time, both national and local.
M says
As far as what LIb Dems think goes, you don’t have the slightest idea what you are talking about. We are NOT trendy lefties. We DON’T take knee-jerk anti-western foreign policy positions. We DON’T praise left-wing dictatorships. We DON’T take extreme pro-Palestinian positions or cosy up to Palestinian terrorists, and we certainly don’t tolerate antisemitism under the cloak of criticising Israel (or for any other reason). We DON’T take a class-based or simplistic victim-oppressor analysis, instead focusing on the individual. Nor do most of us obsess about trans issues.
I guess it depends on who ‘we’ is. The Liberal Democrats on Twitter certainly do do those things. Maybe they are unrepresentative of the quiet majority in the party (I guess the result of the last leadership election suggests so); but how is someone not in the party supposed to know that? Those not in the party can only judge on what they see.
But I note you’ve shifted the goalposts. I pointed out that your five points apply to the wokerati; you’re now arguing that they don’t apply to the majority of Liberal Democrats. So even if you’re correct about that, all you’ve proved is that the wokies haven’t totally infiltrated the Liberal Democrats, it that your five points didn’t totally describe the woke worldview (they did).
As for whether we’ll hold C&A at the next GE, let’s just wait and see. We hold onto some; others we don’t
I make it out of six by-election gains by the Liberal Democrats this century, they’ve held two at the next election. So the odds are in the favour, I think.
Alex Macfie says
M: I have seen plenty of Lib Dems on Twitter (not that I pay much attention to Twitter), and virtually NONE of them subscribe to the Loony Left worldview. But in any case most people don’t get their political knowledge from Twitter, so what any random Lib Dem might say on Twitter is pretty irrelevant. The outcome of the last Lib Dem leadership candidate tells you nothing about Lib Dem positioning either, as neither of the candidates had or have any truck with the Loony Left.
As for “shifting the goalposts”, well it’s you who decided to define the so-called “wokerati” (whatever that is) in terms of the sort of outdated 70s/80s trendy lefty (aka “Loony Left”) politics that was embraced by the Labour leadership under Jeremy Corbyn (and was a major turn-off to voters considering Labour), but is in no way shape of form part of mainstream progressive politics. But taking this definition, you have chosen to ascribe Loony Left views to virtually anyone you choose to see as “woke”, because that’s what the word means according to you. So I shall take no lectures from you on goalpost shifting thank you very much.
On by-election wins and holds: it’s not a lottery. Remember that the Lib Dems weren’t even supposed to be on course to winning e C&A by-election according to nearly all the poltical commentariat (including, infamously, the OP). Some of us made a packet from the bookies on the back of that result.
M says
But in any case most people don’t get their political knowledge from Twitter, so what any random Lib Dem might say on Twitter is pretty irrelevant.
That was true before ‘X suffers a Twitter backlash after saying ’ became a legitimate story to lead the BBC national bulletins.
The outcome of the last Lib Dem leadership candidate tells you nothing about Lib Dem positioning either, as neither of the candidates had or have any truck with the Loony Left.
Didn’t one of them declare themselves ‘pansexual’? So that’s pretty looney.
On by-election wins and holds: it’s not a lottery. Remember that the Lib Dems weren’t even supposed to be on course to winning e C&A by-election according to nearly all the poltical commentariat (including, infamously, the OP). Some of us made a packet from the bookies on the back of that result.
Oh, okay then. Go back to your constituencies and prepare for government.
Alex Macfie says
M: So just being openly LGBT is “loony left” is it? I think I now know your level. Clause 28 was abolished 20 years ago. This discussion is over.
M says
So just being openly LGBT is “loony left” is it? I think I now know your level. Clause 28 was abolished 20 years ago. This discussion is over.
And that is why you’ll lose.
(Being lesbian, gay or bisexual isn’t looney. But making up new words like ‘pansexual’ because those old ones didn’t make you feel interesting enough certainly is, and is a surefire indicator of wholesale embracing of a whole bevy of other crazy opinions — and the general population, ie the ones outside the echo bubble, have cottoned on.)
Matt (Bristol) says
Alex Macfie has a point that the neo-70s hard-leftism pseudo-ideological approach to politics is the major turnoff for people with Labour at the moment — whether they are on left or right, people don’t like being shouted at, or treated like ideas or things or enemies (which is also a turnoff with regard to the ideological right or centre).
But I think it is true that the hardline ‘shoutiness’ of the trans rights / gender-critical debate has so far enabled the Right and the Right media (who were more attuned to some of this due to their radar leaning that way through cultural conservatism) being able to link this aspec of the ‘woke’ construct with the hardline-70s-ishness in the popular mind.
The attempt to do this with other aspects of the ‘woke’ construct (eg anti-racism) has by and large failed apart from on the ‘defund the police’ point. But people appear intelligent enough to make a distinction between ‘defund the poliice’, ‘reform how we are policing racial flashpoints’ and ‘black lives matter’ as a broad ethical agenda. (possibly the public is more able to do this than leftwing activists who latch onto every possible fellow-travelling agenda as evidence of their imminent victory). To me ‘defund the police’ does have parallels with the slogan of ‘transwomen are women, transmen are men’. Some highly motivated people believe these slogans and the policies that might flow from them are the answer to resolving a legacy of prejudice and isolation and victimisation. However, others will rationally point out that imposed as hardline what-it-says-on-the-face-of-it policies, these oversimplified ideas have logic gaps and unforeseen consequences. Labour (and the Lib Dems’) problem is to find ways to achieve the broad policy agenda without isolating themselves from the overall social consensus or just ending up with bland fence-sitting fudge that will be seen through in seconds. They may not be able to do so without alienating themselves from said highly motivated activists, whose energy and passion they are quite keen to recruit. Ah, opposition politics.