The Death of Labor in the UK

ladydeburg
Community Member

An excellent article by Brendan O'Niel, who as  as always, cuts to the very core of the Labor debacle in the UK. A journalist who spent quite a bit of time in Australia and was highly thought of by many journalists and was a Q&A faveorurite, of even though he is of the left of politics.

 

This will not be pretty reading for most on here, the unvarnished truth of what happened in the UK is on show in this country every day with the Shorten populism politics, the "oh but we'll be so much kinder to you, will give you more, not like the other mob" type of populism he espouses every day, the hollow talk of nannyism and spending, the denial of any fiscal responsibility.

 

 

Also a big congrats to Lynton Crosby for his masterly work in the campaign: The Wizard of OZ as he's called after the Scottish referendum and now the UK general election. A stunning effort.

 

 

 

As you’d expect, the General Election results reveal a lot about the state of modern Britain and the standing, or lack of standing, of traditional party politics. But there’s one thing in particular they tell us, one thing worth dwelling on, possibly the most striking story of this mass trek to the ballot box of about 65 per cent of the British demos. And that is that Labour has transformed from a party of the trade unions into a party of the metropolitan, largely London-based opinion-shaping set and new clerisy.

 

A party that was born to represent working people’s interests is now little more than a kind of political safe haven for a new elite that feels cut off both from traditional politics and the masses. This is the real story of the 2015 General Election: the reduction of Labour to a middle-class machine, which speaks to a bigger and profound hollowing out, even death, of social democracy as we knew it.

 

The most revealing moments on TV and Twitter last night, as the exit-poll results were unveiled and the first results came in, involved the utter incomprehension of liberal observers and Labourites.

 

They couldn’t believe what they were seeing. ‘But the opinion polls said we would do well’, they all said, confirming that these politicos and observers no longer rub shoulders, or anything else, with the masses and have thus become completely reliant on opinion pollsters as a kind of conduit to the little people: modern-day tea-leaf-readers who might reveal what They are thinking.

 

The Twitterati — the time-rich, mostly left-leaning set, consisting of cultural entrepreneurs, commentators and other people who don’t work with their hands and can therefore tweet all day — were especially dumbfounded by the results. Boiled down, their pained cry was: ‘But everyone I know voted Labour.’ They know nothing of the world beyond Twitter, the world outside the Guardianista colonies of London, out where people work rather than tweet.

 

These politicos’ incomprehension summed up why Labour did so badly: because it is now hugely, irreparably disconnected from both the public in general and from its traditional grassroots supporters.

 

To look at a map of the results is extraordinary. Labour, at the time of writing, has won 229 seats, a loss of 26 seats since 2010. The Tories have won 325 seats. The Lib Dems, meanwhile, have been wiped out, becoming almost insignificant overnight: they’ve lost 47 seats and currently have only eight. But as startling as these figures are, a map showing the spread of results is more striking still. What it confirms is that Labour has lost Scotland, an entire country, the country where Labour has much of its roots and from which some of its earliest leaders hailed, where it had 41 MPs in 2010 and now has only one.

 

And it shows that Labour has pockets of support in the north of England and the south of Wales: old traditional Labour strongholds. Vast swathes of the UK are now Labour-free zones. With one very striking exception: London. Here, Labour did better than in 2010. It has won 45 of the city’s 73 parliamentary seats. In the words of the Evening Standard, ‘Labour has increased its control of London… despite heavy losses elsewhere in the UK.’

 

This collapse of Labour in Scotland and growth of Labour in London is about so much more than last year’s independence referendum (some are blaming Labour’s decision to align with the Tories in that referendum for its poor showing now) or the fall of the Lib Dems everywhere (which created the space for Labour gains in London). It tells a bigger, longer, more historic story about what is becoming of Labour: it is shifting from being an outlet for the expression of trade unionist and working people’s interests to being a kind of encampment for the chattering classes, a safe space, if you like, for a secular, pseudo-liberal clerisy.

 

The shrinking of Labour in Scotland and other parts of the country at the same time as it is consolidating in London expresses physically what has been happening politically for many years: Labour, having ditched its old principles and lost its old supporters, has become a shell that has slowly but surely been taken over by a new middle-class, professional, media-based, mostly London set.

 

Bereft of its founding mission and traditional support base, Labour has been turned into little more than a shield for this new post-class, post-traditionalist clerisy, a PR machine for the pursuit of the narrow professional ambitions and petty moralism of a section of the cultural elite.

 

What the election has fundamentally exposed is the existence of Two Britains. No, not a Labour Britain vs a Tory Britain — that old divide has been flagging for years. Not poshos vs workers, as Labourite commentators like to fantasise. And it’s not even England vs Scotland. Yes, that divide will undoubtedly be the source of instability in the coming months, but even it is merely a strange expression, an accidental by product, of the real Two Britains.

  

Which is, on one side, the Britain of the moral clerisy, which is pro-EU, multicultural, anti-tabloid, politically correct and devoted to welfareism and paternalism as the main means through which to govern the masses, and, on the other side, the Britain of the rest of the us, of the masses, of those people increasingly viewed by the cultural elite as inscrutable, incomprehensible, and in need of nudging, social re-engineering and behaviour modification. Those people whose votes, whose temerity in rejecting Labour, made so little sense to the observing classes. This is the true story of the shifting map, the geographical shrinking of Labour, and the shocked response of opinion-makers to the results.

 

And of course, the more Labour comes to be occupied by influential but unrepresentative middle-class professionals, the more contemptuous it becomes of the Other Britain, the lesser Britain, the stupid Britain that won’t obediently vote Labour even though Labour only wants to care for it and nudge it towards health and decency.

 

We have seen this already in the few hours since the results started coming in: Neil Kinnock musing over the ‘self-delusion’ of the electorate; Polly Toynbee, grand dame of knackered Labourism, speaking of the ‘mind-blowing ignorance’ of some of the electorate, who are ‘weak readers’ and don’t know what is in their best interests (which is Labour, obviously); Russell Brand and other celeb Labour-backers blaming Murdoch and his tabloids’ fearmongering for losing Labour votes — in short, tabloid readers are like animals, following their master’s orders.

 

The Labour machine’s disgust for the masses grows in direct proportion to its continuing decay and its takeover by a new elite.

 

This is a story, ultimately, of the rise of new oligarchies, the decline of any real engaged politics, and the crisis of social democracy. That movement, which commanded so much support in the twentieth century, is no more. It’s been waning for years; it is now on its last breath. But we shouldn’t mourn it. Those of us,  who consider ourselves radical and progressive should recognise that Labour was always a barrier to the realisation of a new world of plenty and liberty. Whether it was selling out workers’ uprisings in the twentieth century or subjecting the poor to the yoke of welfarism and nanny statism in the twenty-first century, Labour has long been a distraction from the serious debate we need about how to create a more humanistic, future-orientated world.

 

Its collapse is a great thing. Now we just need to challenge the secular clerisy that has occupied its husk, and put the case for a new politics that really means something.

 

 

Brendan O’Neill 

 

 

Message 1 of 64
Latest reply
63 REPLIES 63

Re: The Death of Labor in the UK

Profoundly right wing are the words you used.

 

The actual article was from a BBC exec, her words exactly, so methinks you got that all wrong,  trying to blame the actual comment  content on right wing papers. Laughable and that’s all I have to say about your  response.

Message 31 of 64
Latest reply

Re: The Death of Labor in the UK


@the_great_she_elephant wrote:

@icyfroth wrote:

@the_great_she_elephant wrote:

@baybizz wrote:

 

As a Brit I'd say that article is a pretty accurate.  One thing not mentioned was the (taxpayer funded) BBC - the whispering megaphone spiritual home of the UK Liberal Left:


www.dailymail.co.uk/article-1308215/yes-bbc-biased-admits

 

www.telegraph.co.uk/bbc/10158679/bbc-deep-liberal-bias

 

 


Both the links you have provided are from proudly right wing  papers. Don't you think your argument might carry a little more weight if you were able to back it up with articles from less biased sources.


like more leftits, leftist leaning papers you mean? Woman Very Happy


The words I used were "less biased" Do you:

1) not understand what less biased actually means?

2) Understand perfectly well, but like to pretend ignorance?

3) Assume that anything not biased to the right must be left leaning?



None of the above.

 

Assume that any "less biased" source showing anything even slightly favourable to the right would be seen as "proudly right wing" by you.

Message 32 of 64
Latest reply

Re: The Death of Labor in the UK

Profoundly right wing  papers is incorrect.

 

Also the member who  agreed with the article is a Brit and has on ground local knowelege so is he/she "profoundly right wing"?  therefore to be discredited?.

 

The papers reported on the comments made, they didn't make it up but if the Guardian or the Age had done the same thing would that then be "profoundly left wing papers?" therefore more credible? would they then be less biased to suit you?.

 

 

Message 33 of 64
Latest reply

Re: The Death of Labor in the UK


@ladydeburg wrote:

Profoundly right wing are the words you used.

 

The actual article was from a BBC exec, her words exactly, so methinks you got that all wrong,  trying to blame the actual comment  content on right wing papers. Laughable and that’s all I have to say about your  response.


Proudly right wing were the words I used.

Message 34 of 64
Latest reply

Re: The Death of Labor in the UK

if the Guardian or the Age had done the same thing would that then be "profoundly (sic) left wing papers?" therefore more credible? would they then be less biased to suit you?.

 

An article in The Guardian  accusing the BBC of being too left wing, would obviously carry more wieght with me than one in The Telegraph, just as an article criticising Margaret Thatcher would carry more weight with me if it was published in The Telegrph rather than The Guardian. 

 

I would have thought that was basic common sense.

Message 35 of 64
Latest reply

Re: The Death of Labor in the UK

 Assume that any "less biased" source showing anything even slightly favourable to the right would be seen as "proudly right wing" by you.

 

And on what do you base that assumption?

Message 36 of 64
Latest reply

Re: The Death of Labor in the UK


@the_great_she_elephant wrote:

 Assume that any "less biased" source showing anything even slightly favourable to the right would be seen as "proudly right wing" by you.

 

And on what do you base that assumption?


oh just the general run of your comments.

Message 37 of 64
Latest reply

Re: The Death of Labor in the UK


@icyfroth wrote:

@the_great_she_elephant wrote:

 Assume that any "less biased" source showing anything even slightly favourable to the right would be seen as "proudly right wing" by you.

 

And on what do you base that assumption?


oh just the general run of your comments.


too true icy,  the constant bias for everything that is not left wing is tiring and tedious and dangerous.

 

It smothers debate and is part of the insidious secular clericy that has now infested everything, shuts people down, especially speakers of note who don't suit the ideaology of the left, they actually forcefully shut speakers down by violent protest.

 

Secular clericy needs more debate so I'll be posting an article on it next week. It's something the unwitting and innocent debaters have no idea of, its frightening and undemocratic in every way.

Message 38 of 64
Latest reply

Re: The Death of Labor in the UK

 

UK election: Riot erupts in London against re-election of Conservative prime minister David Cameron

 

A protest has erupted in central London against the re-election of Britain's Conservative prime minister David Cameron, with demonstrators throwing bottles, cans and smoke bombs at riot police.

 

Scuffles broke out when the anti-austerity demonstrators, blaring hooters, banging pots and chanting obscenities, confronted lines of police outside the gate leading to the prime minister's Downing Street residence.

At one point a bicycle was hurled at police.

 

Police arrested 17 people, and four police officers and one member of police staff were injured during the protest, a Scotland Yard spokesman said.

 

Entire Article Here

 

 

 

 

Message 39 of 64
Latest reply

Re: The Death of Labor in the UK

pretty typical of the Lefties, their handouts are under threat

I know that you believe you understand what you think I said, but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Message 40 of 64
Latest reply