Topic: Doesn't matter who you vote for as long as it's for the right reasons!

[Wilmo]

Its not like me at all, but fuck me - I'd take a progressive alliance by any means right now.

Getting rid of the c*nts in power is all that matters.

Those on the Left - going on about a supposed 'Pure Left Candidate' - you can have that conversation when we have power.

Power is all that matters right now. People depend on it.

100% behind this, well said

[Red-Soldier]

More shock and horror:

Johnson’s pick to run Greensill inquiry is a former Tory member

Exclusive: revelation that Nigel Boardman stood in council election prompts calls for inquiry to be abandoned

The solicitor appointed by Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson to run an independent inquiry into the Greensill lobbying scandal is a former Conservative party member who stood as a council candidate, the Guardian can reveal.

Nigel Boardman, whose appointment prompted concerns that he may be perceived as being too close to the Tories and the government, tried to become a councillor for the party in Islington, London, in 1986.

The disclosure, after weeks of government denials that Boardman is too close to the Tories to conduct an inquiry into conflicts of interest, has prompted calls for the inquiry to be abandoned.

Johnson appointed Boardman, 70, in April to run an independent investigation into government contracts and lobbying involving a number of senior Conservative politicians including the former prime minister David Cameron, the chancellor, Rishi Sunak, the MP and former health secretary Matt Hancock and the peer Francis Maude.

It appeared that the supply chain financier Lex Greensill had been given privileged access to Downing Street when Cameron was prime minister and Jeremy Heywood was cabinet secretary. After leaving government, Cameron became an adviser to Greensill Capital and lobbied ministers including Sunak for access to government-backed loans.

Boardman’s appointment was criticised because he is a paid non-executive director to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS), and is a long-term adviser to the law firm Slaughter and May, which was awarded £7m in government contracts over the last year. He is on the board of Arbuthnot bank, which has close ties to the Conservative party. His father, Lord Boardman, was a former government minister and Tory party treasurer under Margaret Thatcher.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/jul/02/johnsons-pick-run-greensill-inquiry-former-tory-member-nigel-boardman


It's a bit like wondering why there's a constant stream of raw sewage being pumped into our rivers, when the water companies are "self-regulated."

[TepidT2O]

Fuckwitted Pob lookalike Michael Gove and Sarah Vine are to split up.

Such a shame, couldn’t happen to a more lovely couple.

[Crosby Nick]

Fuckwitted Pob lookalike Fuckwitted Pob lookalike Michael Gove and Sarah Vine are to split up.

Such a shame, couldn’t happen to a more lovely couple.

Not that I’m one for tittle tattle...but I saw a bit of a storm on Twitter last week because she wrote some column about the Hancock affair and seemed to insinuate that must politicians in the public eye end up with marriages harmed or something. Didn’t want to click on the article obviously but think there were a few hints in it that all wasn’t rosey.

[Welshred]

Hancock was hard to take but if Gove has managed to find two women to shag him whilst I'm still single I'm giving up on dating.

[Dr. Beaker]

Hancock was hard to take but if Gove has managed to find two women to shag him whilst I'm still single I'm giving up on dating.

Try having your chin removed.

[Commie Bobbie]

Well,

https://twitter.com/HackneyAbbott/status/1408852539202752514?s=19

[Wabaloolah]

There is little to no hope of this.

It would take a swing of almost unprecedented proportions

That's not true, they would require a swing in excess of Tony Blair's 1997 swing to win a majority (circa 10%) but I wasn't talking about a majority, that's highly unlikely to happen, particularly with Scotland the way it is but a more realistic uniform swing of around 3% would deprive Johnson of his majority.  Working with the opposition as a progressive alliance makes this far more likely to happen than all parties simply going it alone and taking votes off each other.

This is the most important thing, preventing the Tories getting an OM and it is a realistic goal too

[Wabaloolah]

Only a sideshow I know, but nice to see the far right cranks all lose their deposits*

*Lucas ‘unluckeeee’ meme

Aside from Ryan Stephenson

[TepidT2O]

Well,

https://twitter.com/HackneyAbbott/status/1408852539202752514?s=19

Given that Abbott isn’t really one to make personal swipes like that, it struck me at the time that there might be something in this

[red_Mark1980]

Lad at work is from Oldham, he's 3 years younger than me and it shocked me just how poor an area it was, tin baths in front of the fire until he was about 17 ffs. He was telling us a few years ago about the tensions in places like Glodwick and I just thought the last thing Oldham needs is a twat like Galloway stirring it up again, the BNP were bad enough a few years ago, they'll be straight back up there causing chaos.

Chills me whenever I go back. I've completely drifted away from my school friends but you see people are free and easy with their opinions on a lot of things.

The thing is when I was growing up in the 80's and 90's my school was culturally diverse.

There were never huge racial issues. In fact most "fights" were with other schools.

It's terrible there now really

[So… Howard Philips]

Given that Abbott isn’t really one to make personal swipes like that, it struck me at the time that there might be something in this

And the state of some of the comments!

[Zeb]

That's not true, they would require a swing in excess of Tony Blair's 1997 swing to win a majority (circa 10%) but I wasn't talking about a majority, that's highly unlikely to happen, particularly with Scotland the way it is but a more realistic uniform swing of around 3% would deprive Johnson of his majority.  Working with the opposition as a progressive alliance makes this far more likely to happen than all parties simply going it alone and taking votes off each other.

This is the most important thing, preventing the Tories getting an OM and it is a realistic goal too

Problem with it is that it doesn't. When it made sense was when there was a very binary issue playing out before the electorate in Brexit and parties were taking a very simple line on that issue. In normal elections it gets messier. You get Tory voters who'll vote Lib Dem but won't go near Labour - in 2019 there was a large number of Tory Remainers who didn't go Lib Dem because they viewed it as a way of letting Corbyn (and it was the person) into Downing Street. Even in this by-election yesterday there'll be a movement from Tories into Lib Dems and from Lib Dems into Labour. The first doesn't happen if there's no Lib Dem candidate. Likewise take the Greens, it's a party with a distinct single issue identity and so pulls voters from all over the spectrum who are concerned about that issue. Nats are the same. Remove the candidate from that party and there's no guarantee they shift over.

In normal times, seems better to me to do what Davey, Starmer, and Lucas (I know she's not their leader) are doing on the national/constituency level. They're not knocking lumps out of each other, they're being canny with where they put their efforts for byelections so they're not jumping on each other's toes, and they're giving the quiet signal better the Tory out. It's what Ashdown and Blair did back in the mid-90s.

[Wabaloolah]

Problem with it is that it doesn't. When it made sense was when there was a very binary issue playing out before the electorate in Brexit and parties were taking a very simple line on that issue. In normal elections it gets messier. You get Tory voters who'll vote Lib Dem but won't go near Labour - in 2019 there was a large number of Tory Remainers who didn't go Lib Dem because they viewed it as a way of letting Corbyn (and it was the person) into Downing Street. Even in this by-election yesterday there'll be a movement from Tories into Lib Dems and from Lib Dems into Labour. The first doesn't happen if there's no Lib Dem candidate. Likewise take the Greens, it's a party with a distinct single issue identity and so pulls voters from all over the spectrum who are concerned about that issue. Nats are the same. Remove the candidate from that party and there's no guarantee they shift over.

In normal times, seems better to me to do what Davey, Starmer, and Lucas (I know she's not their leader) are doing on the national/constituency level. They're not knocking lumps out of each other, they're being canny with where they put their efforts for byelections so they're not jumping on each other's toes, and they're giving the quiet signal better the Tory out. It's what Ashdown and Blair did back in the mid-90s.

they have to come up with a way, whichever way they do it, it is not as difficult as it might seem. A 3% swing is the Tories dropping to around 41% and Labour increasing to around 33%>

Yes it may not be as binary as I said but the problem is there is only one party sweeping up the votes on the right now that Frottage and UKIP are dead but the left of centre votes are split between Labour and Lib Dems and the Greens in some areas.

Blair was a leader that had a project that people could buy into, Labour either need a leader like that or an alternative way of doing things.

The 80 seat majority is more wobbly than you might think

[Red_Mist]

Aside from Ryan Stephenson

Lol. I was expecting someone to say that. Thanks for not disappointing me

[Zeb]

they have to come up with a way, whichever way they do it, it is not as difficult as it might seem. A 3% swing is the Tories dropping to around 41% and Labour increasing to around 33%>

Yes it may not be as binary as I said but the problem is there is only one party sweeping up the votes on the right now that Frottage and UKIP are dead but the left of centre votes are split between Labour and Lib Dems and the Greens in some areas.

Blair was a leader that had a project that people could buy into, Labour either need a leader like that or an alternative way of doing things.

The 80 seat majority is more wobbly than you might think

Your 3% is a theoretical rainbow coalition which would struggle to pass English specific legislation and would have to pay whatever price the SNP set to be in government in the first place. That's if they or the Lib Dems don't follow precedent and either go into coalition with the largest party (2015) or force it to sit as a minority government.  Different story under a PR system though heh.

The perception that voters will neatly be herded to just the one candidate doesn't, to me, seem quite as plausible as the advocates of a coalition (now) believe. And I'm nowhere near convinced that it's a unique answer which relies upon Labour improving its appeal to voters across the electorate in the exact same way as wouldn't need a formal coalition to reach the same place. If it's just not lobbing shells at each other, with the Tories in the middle looking up and watching them go by, then that's an improvement from even 2019 when there were serious efforts to try and do it.

edited cos long day and sense was there none in part of original.

[Wabaloolah]

Your 3% is a theoretical rainbow coalition which would struggle to pass English specific legislation and would have to pay whatever price the SNP set to be in government in the first place. That's if they or the Lib Dems don't follow precedent and either go into coalition with the largest party (2015) or force it to sit as a minority government.  Different story under a PR system though heh.

The perception that voters will neatly be herded to just the one candidate doesn't, to me, seem quite as plausible as the advocates of a coalition (now) believe. And I'm nowhere near convinced that it's a unique answer which relies upon Labour improving its appeal to voters across the electorate in the exact same way as wouldn't need a formal coalition to reach the same place. If it's just not lobbing shells at each other, with the Tories in the middle looking up and watching them go by, then that's an improvement from even 2019 when there were serious efforts to try and do it.

edited cos long day and sense was there none in part of original.

3% ends the Tory majority though, I can't see either the SNP or the Lib Dems backing the Tories, if Sturgeon did that it would be political suicide, the Lib Dems did once and it killed the party.

The SNP price would be a referendum on Scottish independence of course.

That's if it's a 3% thing, the larger the swing, the more the numbers work.

Pipe dream maybe but what's the alternative, continued Tory rule?

[Zeb]

3% ends the Tory majority though, I can't see either the SNP or the Lib Dems backing the Tories, if Sturgeon did that it would be political suicide, the Lib Dems did once and it killed the party.

The SNP price would be a referendum on Scottish independence of course.

That's if it's a 3% thing, the larger the swing, the more the numbers work.

Pipe dream maybe but what's the alternative, continued Tory rule?

Realistically, it's the same thing to get more than the 3% swing in either case, Labour needs to appeal to more voters and convince them a Labour government is the way forward? Which boils down, in the most immediate and pressing problem, to making sure the decline at the rate under Corbyn is stopped/slowed significantly (and that includes a much longer decline which goes back to the 70s in part too) in about 60 seats Labour currently holds and using that as a way to push for several dozen similar seats the Tories currently hold. Labour aren't winning seats like Leigh back without winning over 2019 Tory voters and getting the Labour vote out who stayed at home in 2019. The Lib Dem vote there is already eaten up there by the Tories and Labour in the past decade.

Smaller parties may not back the Tories but the convention is that the largest party also gets to decide if it wants to try and govern in the minority. And then it's when that falls apart and how it's perceived. 2019 should give people pause about rushing into general elections against a government claiming it's being frustrated for lack of a majority. For Labour to be the largest party would take the Blair sized swing next general election, a majority of just one would take a swing never seen before in one election. Kind of why I think the Tories will be in for another few years at least and getting rid of them is going to take a couple of elections.

[Red-Soldier]

getting rid of them is going to take a couple of elections.

I agree.

I also think if there's any chance whatsoever of ousting the Tories (now or in the future), there needs to be an opposition alliance.

Seems obvious to me.

Under FPTP, who's going to be the more likely winner between a single right wing party, or three parties on the left??

Where was the Lib Dem and Green vote in Batley and Spen? What happened to the Labour and Green vote in Chesham?

Do you think Galloway took some of the nutter vote away from the Tories??

[thejbs]

Given that Abbott isn’t really one to make personal swipes like that, it struck me at the time that there might be something in this

Their statement says they drifted apart. Surely, they meant to say “slithered?”

[TepidT2O]

Their statement says they drifted apart. Surely, they meant to say “slithered?”

Oozed?

[Yorkykopite]

Thinking about the result at Batley and Spen again. The 'Asian' vote has always been a bit of mystery in Britain, ever since the early 60s. It's predominantly Labour of course and always has been, but no one knows for sure why. Is it class, is it race, is it ideology, is it foreign affairs, is it anti-fascism, is it the mysterious working of communal politics and the overbearing impact of powerful individuals or institutions that deliver bloc votes to the party? Perhaps there are some posters on here who have an insight into this?

One encouraging thing about Batley was that women's voices from the Asian communities began to be heard. Galloway hates women of course, being a misogynist as well as all the other horrible things. Many will remember the vile things he said about Naz Shah. Well, maybe the women are now fighting back. Those self-important and puritanical young men, full of fury about gays and Palestine and Kashmir, and bawling into Kim Ledbetter's face say they are speaking for 'the community'. Happily, it turns out they aren't.

Almost ten years ago Galloway's equally poisonous campaign against Labour in Bradford West ended in victory for him. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2012/mar/30/ed-miliband-galloway-bradford-byelection . That time around Galloway had the explicit support of Jeremy Corbyn (who celebrated the Labour loss). He also had the tacit backing of Labour MPs like Diane Abbott. Interestingly, this time around they put distance between themselves and Galloway. A sign, I think, of how thoroughly beaten they are.

[west_london_red]

The Labour Party since the 60’s and 70’s and wider left in general has stood should to shoulder with Asians, other ethnic minorities and the LGBTQ community, both in terms of representation and legislation. The other lot gave us Enoch Powell and that unforgettable slogan ‘if you want a nig*er for a neighbor, vote Labour.

It’s really not complicated.

[Sangria]

The Labour Party since the 60’s and 70’s and wider left in general has stood should to shoulder with Asians, other ethnic minorities and the LGBTQ community, both in terms of representation and legislation. The other lot gave us Enoch Powell and that unforgettable slogan ‘if you want a nig*er for a neighbor, vote Labour.

It’s really not complicated.

From what I've gleaned, the more vocal of the British Pakistani males seem to be even more conservative, culturally, than their urban counterparts in Pakistan. Maybe the latter forumites have been self-selected for easier access to the internet and hence are more educated and correspondingly more liberal. But in the cricket forum where I got this impression, I was surprised by how frequently British posters would defend the hardline conservative position, whereas Pakistani posters would look to reconcile their culture with the modern world.

[Yorkykopite]

The Labour Party since the 60’s and 70’s and wider left in general has stood should to shoulder with Asians, other ethnic minorities and the LGBTQ community, both in terms of representation and legislation. The other lot gave us Enoch Powell and that unforgettable slogan ‘if you want a nig*er for a neighbor, vote Labour.

It’s really not complicated.

It is far more complicated than that. Even Powell is complicated. First he was immediately sacked by Ted Heath from the Tory shadow cabinet (never to get back) the moment he made the Rivers of Blood speech. Secondly, his biggest, most visible support came from the white working class, many of them in the TGWU. Check out footage of the dockers' march to Westminster the day after Powell was sacked. There hadn't been such a spontaneous political strike on the London docks since 1920 when the union refused to load munitions to the White Armies fighting the Bolsheviks.

Besides, my question isn't why ethnic minorities tend not to vote Tory. That's well known. What I was interested in was weighing the various reasons why they vote Labour, and how those might be changing over time. I gave a few - class, race, anti-fascism, foreign affairs (especially tinder box issues like East Pakistan/Bangladesh in '71, Kashmir and Palestine today) and patronage. Which factor is most important?  Is it always broadly the same?

When I joined the Labour party in Huddersfield as a kid, it was already known, for example, that the large Punjabi community (both Indian and Pakistani) voted Labour.  Their support was, as everyone used to say 'solid'. So solid that it didn't need canvassing. But there were perhaps only 5 or so active members of the Huddersfield Labour party from those communities.  All men. All businessmen too, so far as I can remember. The idea was that these chaps would get the vote out and that every Punjabi would listen to their 'orders' to vote Labour. In return these figures became the exclusive 'voice' of their communities to the Labour party - and through them to the Labour council that invariably ran Kirklees. Patronage politics big time. More like Daley's Chicago machine than anything hitherto in British politics.

That was 1978-80. I live far away now. Has this changed? If so, how?

[Sangria]

It is far more complicated than that. Even Powell is complicated. First he was immediately sacked by Ted Heath from the Tory shadow cabinet (never to get back) the moment he made the Rivers of Blood speech. Secondly, his biggest, most visible support came from the white working class, many of them in the TGWU. Check out footage of the dockers' march to Westminster the day after Powell was sacked. There hadn't been such a spontaneous political strike on the London docks since 1920 when the union refused to load munitions to the White Armies fighting the Bolsheviks.

Besides, my question isn't why ethnic minorities tend not to vote Tory. That's well known. What I was interested in was weighing the various reasons why they vote Labour, and how those might be changing over time. I gave a few - class, race, anti-fascism, foreign affairs (especially tinder box issues like East Pakistan/Bangladesh in '71, Kashmir and Palestine today) and patronage. Which factor is most important?  Is it always broadly the same?

When I joined the Labour party in Huddersfield as a kid, it was already known, for example, that the large Punjabi community (both Indian and Pakistani) voted Labour.  Their support was, as everyone used to say 'solid'. So solid that it didn't need canvassing. But there were perhaps only 5 or so active members of the Huddersfield Labour party from those communities.  All men. All businessmen too, so far as I can remember. The idea was that these chaps would get the vote out and that every Punjabi would listen to their 'orders' to vote Labour. In return these figures became the exclusive 'voice' of their communities to the Labour party - and through them to the Labour council that invariably ran Kirklees. Patronage politics big time. More like Daley's Chicago machine than anything hitherto in British politics.

That was 1978-80. I live far away now. Has this changed? If so, how?

First generation immigrant communities tend to look to set up their families economically, and look to representatives who look after their interests so they don't have to. The pre-eminence of reps is even more marked when you consider that the UK is rare to have had such a long history of democracy, and the places that these immigrants come from more often than not do not have a democratic tradition. Things are different now, generations on from the post-colonial break.

[west_london_red]

From what I've gleaned, the more vocal of the British Pakistani males seem to be even more conservative, culturally, than their urban counterparts in Pakistan. Maybe the latter forumites have been self-selected for easier access to the internet and hence are more educated and correspondingly more liberal. But in the cricket forum where I got this impression, I was surprised by how frequently British posters would defend the hardline conservative position, whereas Pakistani posters would look to reconcile their culture with the modern world.

I’m sure your aware of this but most Asians are not Pakistanis although in the wider media the two seems to have become interchangeable which is always frustrating (especially when it comes to things like ‘Asian’ grooming gangs where 99% of the perpetrators are Pakistanis) so you have to keep that in mind whenever talking about Asian voters, Indians, Pakistanis and Bangladeshis are not that same, and even within those groups you have huge differences ie within the Indian community a Punjabi Sikh like myself is generally very anti-Modi, Gujarati Indians are generally very pro-Modi because he’s one of their own and then there’s even how they arrived here; if they came from India in the 60’s and 70’s like my parents they tended to be relatively uneducated, and worked blue collar jobs over here (and remain Labour loyalists) but then a lot of Indians came via East Africa (such as the parents of Rishi Sunak and Priti Patel for example) who were more educated, middle class and have drifted over time to the Tories. Likewise my good friend whose family hail from Karachi are very liberal, his whole family drink, he’s married a non-Muslim and his Mrs has had had all 3 kids baptised, if that was one of my friends from Kashmir let’s say none of that would fly.

As for the conservative views of those who live here, I’ve always suspected a lot of that’s to do with a lack of identity, British people think your Asian, Asian people think your British and so there’s an overcompensation to prove how Asian you really are, and an idealism that they get from family, the media etc as to what it’s like to live in a very conservative society against what it’s really like, but that’s not unique to Pakistanis, I’m probably exactly the same to a degree. My parents and grandparents came here with a moral compass that froze the day they left India, and while even rural Punjab has moved on my parents haven’t and a lot of that inevitably passes on to the kids.

[Zeb]

My ward and the ward next door were suspended for a times for an 'irregular pattern' to the numbers of new members joining due to some internal politicking within the CLP between certain community leaders. I'd like to think things have improved in the ten years since. And the 15 years since it was suspended for it the time before. Enforcing quotas and representation has been a good thing, in my view, in offering women especially an opportunity to take a lead in the broader community. Want to be clear though that what's an issue within a ward meeting nominating for an even bigger CLP one isn't particularly likely to scale to putting three councillors on the council, let alone an MP in Parliament, here.

[Elmo!]

It is far more complicated than that. Even Powell is complicated. First he was immediately sacked by Ted Heath from the Tory shadow cabinet (never to get back) the moment he made the Rivers of Blood speech. Secondly, his biggest, most visible support came from the white working class, many of them in the TGWU. Check out footage of the dockers' march to Westminster the day after Powell was sacked. There hadn't been such a spontaneous political strike on the London docks since 1920 when the union refused to load munitions to the White Armies fighting the Bolsheviks.

Besides, my question isn't why ethnic minorities tend not to vote Tory. That's well known. What I was interested in was weighing the various reasons why they vote Labour, and how those might be changing over time. I gave a few - class, race, anti-fascism, foreign affairs (especially tinder box issues like East Pakistan/Bangladesh in '71, Kashmir and Palestine today) and patronage. Which factor is most important?  Is it always broadly the same?

When I joined the Labour party in Huddersfield as a kid, it was already known, for example, that the large Punjabi community (both Indian and Pakistani) voted Labour.  Their support was, as everyone used to say 'solid'. So solid that it didn't need canvassing. But there were perhaps only 5 or so active members of the Huddersfield Labour party from those communities.  All men. All businessmen too, so far as I can remember. The idea was that these chaps would get the vote out and that every Punjabi would listen to their 'orders' to vote Labour. In return these figures became the exclusive 'voice' of their communities to the Labour party - and through them to the Labour council that invariably ran Kirklees. Patronage politics big time. More like Daley's Chicago machine than anything hitherto in British politics.

That was 1978-80. I live far away now. Has this changed? If so, how?

If you know why they don't vote Tory, then in a FPTP system in most places there isn't really an alternative in most places other than Labour.

[Sangria]

I’m sure your aware of this but most Asians are not Pakistanis although in the wider media the two seems to have become interchangeable which is always frustrating (especially when it comes to things like ‘Asian’ grooming gangs where 99% of the perpetrators are Pakistanis) so you have to keep that in mind whenever talking about Asian voters, Indians, Pakistanis and Bangladeshis are not that same, and even within those groups you have huge differences ie within the Indian community a Punjabi Sikh like myself is generally very anti-Modi, Gujarati Indians are generally very pro-Modi because he’s one of their own and then there’s even how they arrived here; if they came from India in the 60’s and 70’s like my parents they tended to be relatively uneducated, and worked blue collar jobs over here (and remain Labour loyalists) but then a lot of Indians came via East Africa (such as the parents of Rishi Sunak and Priti Patel for example) who were more educated, middle class and have drifted over time to the Tories. Likewise my good friend whose family hail from Karachi are very liberal, his whole family drink, he’s married a non-Muslim and his Mrs has had had all 3 kids baptised, if that was one of my friends from Kashmir let’s say none of that would fly.

As for the conservative views of those who live here, I’ve always suspected a lot of that’s to do with a lack of identity, British people think your Asian, Asian people think your British and so there’s an overcompensation to prove how Asian you really are, and an idealism that they get from family, the media etc as to what it’s like to live in a very conservative society against what it’s really like, but that’s not unique to Pakistanis, I’m probably exactly the same to a degree. My parents and grandparents came here with a moral compass that froze the day they left India, and while even rural Punjab has moved on my parents haven’t and a lot of that inevitably passes on to the kids.

Most British Asians are not Pakistanis. But most British Asian Muslims identify with Pakistan, in my experience. I speak mostly about Pakistan when talking about British Asian Muslims, as it's a Pakistani forum that I browse (for cricket info).

[west_london_red]

It is far more complicated than that. Even Powell is complicated. First he was immediately sacked by Ted Heath from the Tory shadow cabinet (never to get back) the moment he made the Rivers of Blood speech. Secondly, his biggest, most visible support came from the white working class, many of them in the TGWU. Check out footage of the dockers' march to Westminster the day after Powell was sacked. There hadn't been such a spontaneous political strike on the London docks since 1920 when the union refused to load munitions to the White Armies fighting the Bolsheviks.

Besides, my question isn't why ethnic minorities tend not to vote Tory. That's well known. What I was interested in was weighing the various reasons why they vote Labour, and how those might be changing over time. I gave a few - class, race, anti-fascism, foreign affairs (especially tinder box issues like East Pakistan/Bangladesh in '71, Kashmir and Palestine today) and patronage. Which factor is most important?  Is it always broadly the same?

When I joined the Labour party in Huddersfield as a kid, it was already known, for example, that the large Punjabi community (both Indian and Pakistani) voted Labour.  Their support was, as everyone used to say 'solid'. So solid that it didn't need canvassing. But there were perhaps only 5 or so active members of the Huddersfield Labour party from those communities.  All men. All businessmen too, so far as I can remember. The idea was that these chaps would get the vote out and that every Punjabi would listen to their 'orders' to vote Labour. In return these figures became the exclusive 'voice' of their communities to the Labour party - and through them to the Labour council that invariably ran Kirklees. Patronage politics big time. More like Daley's Chicago machine than anything hitherto in British politics.

That was 1978-80. I live far away now. Has this changed? If so, how?

You accept why they don’t vote Tory, so that leaves few alternatives, so that’s one part of it. Race and anti-racism (or who was less racist even in some quarters of the Labour Party in the 60’s) is for me the single largest factor. Foreign affairs I’m not too convinced about as the tendency to vote Labour was the same for both Indians, Pakistanis and Bangladeshis whose home countries have very conflicted foreign policies. The other factor is as Sangria suggests economic self interest, and which who was going to best help keep those first generation immigrants settled in the country and keep their heads above water.

[Yorkykopite]

If you know why they don't vote Tory, then in a FPTP system in most places there isn't really an alternative in most places other than Labour.

True so far as it goes. But it's still possible that a community's pro-Labour views might be stronger than their merely anti-Tory views. And then the question of the relative weight of the various factors creating those pro-Labour views becomes relevant again.

[oldfordie]

True so far as it goes. But it's still possible that a community's pro-Labour views might be stronger than their merely anti-Tory views. And then the question of the relative weight of the various factors creating those pro-Labour views becomes relevant again.

I don't think this just applies to Labour either. call it local communities. call it social pockets or whatever, we see certain areas all supporting opinions strongly. we saw it in the NE over Brexit. we see it in the minorities who hold CT on vaccines, we see it in the US in places like Florida.
The effect of social pockets has a big influence on many peoples opinions. it's who people listen too for guidance on opinions that matters. if locals argue Labour are good for their community then the majority will believe that opinion.

[Wilmo]

Lad at work is from Oldham, he's 3 years younger than me and it shocked me just how poor an area it was, tin baths in front of the fire until he was about 17 ffs. He was telling us a few years ago about the tensions in places like Glodwick and I just thought the last thing Oldham needs is a twat like Galloway stirring it up again, the BNP were bad enough a few years ago, they'll be straight back up there causing chaos.

Same is true of a lot of ex-coal mining areas around Lancashire. We only had one source of heating in the house when I was growing up, it was a coal fire in the front room. We got central heating when I was 17 as well, similar to your mate. Not sure what your mate's circumstances were, but our boiler was broken for several years in my early teens and we didn't have the money to fix it. It wasn't exactly tin bath territory, but we had to get a cheap hot water urn and have to transfer the water to the bath once it had warmed up using this big yellow bucket. It took about 4-5 runs. I'm 31 now, this really isn't that long ago and it really wasn't all that rare.

[Zeb]

Will be a big part of an election at some point not too long from now. Not sure what to make of it. Don't think the youth are onboard with fully automated luxury communism just yet though.




https://redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/third-of-britons-think-taxes-should-generally-be-raised/

More seriously, damage from the failure to make the case against austerity? It's only really with the pandemic that the case against the 'family budget' bullshit has made it into the evening news. Obvious other point to make is Look at the Labour voters... Also look at the Tory split and guess where that's coming from... Mad times for both parties. Kudos to the Lib Dem voters who have taken the right lesson from them actually implementing austerity.

[CornerFlag]

I think it (partially) points to a lack of financial understanding for those in the younger age brackets in that survey too.  Seems natural that, as you get older, you figure out how public spending operates, I know I was exceptionally naive to it until relatively recently.

[Zeb]

There's also a case for it being pure self-interest. Question doesn't specify whose taxes are going up so you get a sliding scale down from pensioners through to school leavers/new grads based on the normal assumption that it means income tax and the effects that would have on their personal finances.

[No666]

Starmer's pitch for patriotic Labour. I like the idea of emphasis on the social consequences of financial decisions.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/jul/03/keir-starmer-takes-on-tories-with-buy-british-economic-plan

[Sangria]

Starmer's pitch for patriotic Labour. I like the idea of emphasis on the social consequences of financial decisions.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/jul/03/keir-starmer-takes-on-tories-with-buy-british-economic-plan

And the usuals are moaning about kissing the flag.

[TSC]

Starmer's pitch for patriotic Labour. I like the idea of emphasis on the social consequences of financial decisions.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/jul/03/keir-starmer-takes-on-tories-with-buy-british-economic-plan

Caught Rachel Reeves getting grilled re this (and other issues) on sky news and Marr earlier.  She handled it all and responded well IMO.