UK Election!

Just looking at scotroutes quoting ernie from miles up there^^^, does that mean Ernesto is getting off the thread??

Yeah I did get off the thread because it is obviously impossible to have a sensible discussion when people are contributing nothing more than personal insults.

At least wrap-up your personal insults with some sort of vague political point ffs. The joys of trading personal insults with people that you have an issue with left me at school. 

But thanks to scotroutes quote I see that I am now described as a free member, no idea why – I still have all the benefits associated with being a full member. Still, it won’t be the first time that I have been misrepresented :yes:

No Tj, you mainly got called out for implying she was fake and putting on a performance of being northern and working class.

It seemed you believed that as soon as you earn money you need to change your personality and behaviour

Ply – its the generally accepted socio economic classes. I have just been trying to explain and defend myself from attacks folk are making where they invent things I am supposed to have said or meant.

Once again – she is bright, able and an asset to the country and government.

~Are you going to call out the creepy sexualisation of her by some posters?

that is very damaging and that anyone leftish should oppose

So is private land-lordism. I didn’t pay any stamp-duty on my house purchase when I bought it a couple of years ago because of a Tory policy. I don’t feel that it has compromised my political outlook. Some find ourselves financially benefitting from situations that we’d otherwise condemn.

Intent I think, is the ultimate arbitrator here, whether we find ourselves doing things because of happenstance or calculation.

Your assumption (a very middle class view if I may say so!) is that earnings equate to class

Class and wealth are two different scales. There is overlap, but they are fundamentally different. An aristo who is broke does not suddenly become working class, a cleaner who wins the lottery does not become upper class.

No Tj, you mainly got called out for implying she was fake and putting on a performance of being northern and working class.

It seemed you believed that as soon as you earn money you need to change your personality and behaviour

and there is the attack for something I didn’t say

and another one

Your assumption (a very middle class view if I may say so!) is that earnings equate to class

I have just been trying to explain and defend myself

I’d stop if I were you.

Probably a good idea NIckc 🙂

Here are the normal definitions of class used in the UKJ

https://ukgeographics.co.uk/blog/social-grade-a-b-c1-c2-d-e

“A parliamentary pal tells me: “the register of financial interests is retroactive to one year before members take their seats. As of today Farage and Tice have 28 days to make a complete declaration”” https://bsky.app/profile/ottocr.at/post/3kwtl3ds5gy22

Might be interesting.

MY objection to Raynors buying and selling of a council house is NOT due to all the nonsense around  the legality of it.  that was obvious made up nonsense by the tory press.  Its the morality of benefiting from a Tory policy that is very damaging and that anyone leftish should oppose.

it’s a Tory policy which Labour continued throughout their years and SNP kept for most of theirs!

the problem isn’t fundamentally right to buy – it’s that the councils took the capital that right to buy gave them and didn’t use it to add more housing stock.

A house for sale does not cover the gap in housing provision left by the loss of a council house.  You cannot buy a house when yo are on benefits

no but try to imagine what the housing landscape might look like today if thatcher had never enacted those policies.  Either the people that bought them would still be living in them on cheap rent whilst working (they must be as they wouldn’t get the mortgage for right to buy without) and paying that rent the rest of their lives – depending on pension arrangements possibly reverting back to benefits OR they would have been aspirational and bought a private house – but where? With no equity behind them that’s a massive leap.   What about the late twenty someonething aspirational middle class kids looking to buy? Many of them buy the ex council properties that come to market – potentially that helps social cohesion.  I’m no Thatcherite but without right to buy I think “council estates” would be ghettos far more than they are – they would be the place society puts its unfortunates whilst the successful buy in other areas.

what you are saying is that anyone who bought their council house can’t claim to be left wing?  Really in fact anyone who is truly a left wing conviction politician must always now, and at every point in their life before now, have believed that the should never act in their own personal interest if it could be to the detriment of those less well off?  How are you getting on with the deed to transfer your private landlord property to the council free of charge for them to house some less well off people in?

it feels like not only are YOU defining working class, but YOU are defining left wing and the rules for entry to both.  And they sound like they are at the communism end of the scale!

I think many of them are true to themselves.  I think Raynor plays up the northern gobshite shtick and maybe believes it – but she left her background ago a long time ago.   Its just phoney

OK tj, care to justify this then……. your words quoted.

Here are the normal definitions of class used in the UKJ

Can you see anything in here that relates to class?:-

The Social Grade model has been based on  Occupational Code 2010 code, Employment status, Qualification, Tenure and whether respondents work Full time, Part time or not working.

I didn’t know that Chris Philp had retained his seat in Croydon South when the polls gave him a 1% chance of doing so.

Any informed comments from the London Massif?

He’s my MP. Yes he was predicted to lose his seat both on election night and in the polls long before July 4th. I don’t know why he wasn’t a Tory casualty, although the Tories have always held the seat.

Labour did target it but turnout fell. The Green candidate did well, relatively speaking, and the LibDem candidate who I thought was really excellent and was backed by the Muslim Vote (ex army, served in the Middle East, very pro-Palestine) did surprisingly badly, he seems to have been squeezed by people voting tactically to kick out Chris Philp.

Although Labour saw their share of the vote increase very significantly in Croydon South in an obvious attempt to unseat a Tory government minister they didn’t do well in the rest of Croydon – the two sitting Croydon Labour MPs Sarah Jones and Steve Reed both saw their votes fall fairly significantly.

See Monbiot’s 12 minute explanation on the previous page how voters voted against the Tories but not necessarily in favour of Labour, the evidence is overwhelming. Or else just do Nigel Farage a favour and ignore that unpalatable fact at your, and everyone’s, peril.

Yeah I did get off the thread because it is obviously impossible to have a sensible discussion when people are contributing nothing more than personal insults.

You posted repeatedly within hours after saying youd get off thread. You can do what you like, but we have very different definitions of the phrase “get off the thread”.

the evidence is overwhelming

In Croydon.

Just to repeat what I last put in the Starmer thread (sorry)… risking winning by less in seats in London (and parts of other big cities) is a price that had to be paid to win over people in seats elsewhere. Being seen as a party of the whole of the UK, not just the big English cities, was the monumental task ahead of Labour five years ago.

Ply – its the generally accepted socio economic classes. I have just been trying to explain and defend myself from attacks folk are making where they invent things I am supposed to have said or meant.

assume that was meant for me… but the problem is there are no generally accepted definitions of socio economic class that define working class!  Social geographers have loads of sub classes and labels but they are not working/middle/upper probably because they don’t work.  Look at Wikipedia – it gives multiple definitions depending on context etc.  one of those definitions is working class = all income comes from selling their labour, which I image is pretty much the case for her.  She doesn’t have a property portfolio, if she goes to an IFA it will be for a mortgage rather than for wealth management advice.  She doesn’t have inherited wealth.  If she loses her seat at the next election she’ll need to find another job.

Once again – she is bright, able and an asset to the country and government.

But you have singled her out for criticism because she’s not really as Northern and working class as you think she makes out?

~Are you going to call out the creepy sexualisation of her by some posters?

Unfortunately as I need to earn a living (does that make me working class!) I don’t read every post on here.  I’ll happily call out, or even report, creepy sexualised posts whether they are about cyclists, politicians or celebrities.  Lurid comments are inappropriate but don’t distract from trying to create some sort of class war within the left about who is the most true to Marx!

Anyone going to call out the creepy sexualisation of Raynor?

Graham – yes those are my words and they do not say what you claim.  Where does it say that “putting on a performance of being northern and working class.

It seemed you believed that as soon as you earn money you need to change your personality and behaviour”

thats just something you made up.  What I said was that I get irritated by folk claiming to be working class when they left it a long time ago.  the only thing I think she should change is the self descriptor of “working class”

with that I bow out

Obviously they are no longer “working class” earning several times the national average in a white collar job.  they can still have “working class roots”  I find this reverse snobbery of folk claiming to be working class when they are not irritating.  

Ok let me explain a bit.  The terms ‘working class’ and ‘middle class’ have no real meaning in the UK other than as a casual observation about someone’s behaviour or background.  It’s very mixed up – you can be poor and middle class, rich and working class, or you can be both working and middle class at the same time.  So don’t get hung up on it.  She has a working class background, that is the only relevant piece of information here.

You posted repeatedly within hours after saying youd get off thread. You can do what you like, but we have very different definitions of the phrase “get off the thread”.

Sorry to disappoint but yeah I did get off thread for several hours because trading personal insults has no appeal. I doubt that I am the only one who finds political threads often abandoning politics just to concentrate on personal insults instead.

Which is exactly what has happened now. Any political comment or observation to make alongside your little personal dig about the definition of getting off the thread? So probably time to get off the thread again – enjoy!

Any sexualisation is wrong.

I think you need to reassess how your words come across then.

Have a nice break from the thread,  maybe think about some of the good policies coming out rather than focus on identities. It does help and is healthier

~Are you going to call out the creepy sexualisation of her by some posters?

OK then, as balance is important in politics threads; Does anyone else think Starmer looks like a great hugger?

I’m still enjoying the policy role out. Levelling up, a phrase I can’t stand as it is forever associated with doing the bloody opposite, now gone.

Much more importantly, far more powers being devolved into local government, hence all the mayors at number 10 today.

I’m sure we are all used to policy being drawn up on the back of fag packets and dropped days later. It’s obvious that a lot of work has been going on behind the scenes for some extended time.

Labour are far better prepared for government than I dared hope for.

I’ll never get what I want in totality of course because every person in the UK has their own wishlist but I still believe Labour will govern for the majority, rather than for their donors or self interest.

Couldn’t agree more @Poopscoop.

When we were out door knocking, we were told to stress that a major part of Labours offering was the geniune devolution of power to the regions so that people on the ground in areas made the important decisions, rather than faceless bureaucrats in Whitehall who couldn’t find these areas on a map. This coming after a government that used ‘Take Back Control’ to centralise then hoard power like never before, but to little effect.

For some reason this got zero press coverage, but it went down well on the doorstep, somewhat unsurprisingly. Could it be that the media are equally as London-centric and far more interested in Westminster tittle-tattle than actual issues. Look at all the acres of print dedicated to the complete irrelevent soup opera of Dianne Abbot and Jeremy Corbyn. People said Labour had no policies. They had plenty, as the last few days have shown. Policies that look like they’ve been fleshed out with real detail and thought

Anyway, it looks like a long overdue return to a government that actually DOES stuff, rather than just posture for tomorrow mornings Daily Mail headlines. Though by the sound of Suella Bravermans latest unhinged outbust, it looks like the Tories are going to be doubling down on their culture war nonsense and we can expect more of the same from them, and probably little else.

MY objection to Raynors buying and selling of a council house is NOT due to all the nonsense around  the legality of it.  that was obvious made up nonsense by the tory press.  Its the morality of benefiting from a Tory policy that is very damaging and that anyone leftish should oppose.

The policy itself wasn’t “damaging”, it was their actions (not building more) that caused the “damage”.

thats just something you made up.  What I said was that I get irritated by folk claiming to be working class when they left it a long time ago.  the only thing I think she should change is the self descriptor of “working class”

so when did she leave it?  There must be a point where you think she’s can’t claim that any more.  I’m not her biographer but presumably it was some point after she left school at 16 with a baby and no qualifications?  Was it when she left college with an NVQ in Social Care?  Was it when she got a job as a carer with the council?  Was it when she became the union rep?  Or when she started working full time for the union? Or only in 2015 when she got elected as an MP?  Perhaps it was when she married and we really are in the 1920s when your social standing was determined by your husband? But then she has separated so does she get her own status back? Perhaps being a granny under 40 would have been a useful bit of evidence for her working class claims or having borrowed money for cosmetic surgery…

I do get that plenty of people claim to be working class when really they mean “my parents were working class but I’ve spent my whole life trying to be better than that”.  I’m just not sure that’s true here.

and there is the attack for something I didn’t say

TJ no one is attacking you, they’re just disagreeing with your position. You really need to get a thicker skin on here. Not everyone is out to get you! ?

BTW I don’t really think those socio-economic categories the govt uses equate to the traditional description of working or middle class. As I said earlier, it is possible to be well off and be working class. Go ask a typical electrician or plumber. I prefer to follow a combination of background (ie where you grew up and the culture there) and your relation to the means of production. If you need to work to live, you’re working class. If you derive income from non-work activities (rent, investments, trust funds etc), then you’re almost certainly middle class.

Despite her now exalted position I’d still describe Angela Rayner as working class, even if she does have some fancy clothes. As for the sexualisation issue I remember some on here some time back said she wasn’t suitable to be the Labour leader due to her rumoured sexual proclivities. Is that what you’re talking about?

Labour are far better prepared for government than I dared hope for.

Yes – its been impressive

Labour are far better prepared for government than I dared hope for.

FGS they haven’t done anything yet. It’s all PR. Very slick PR I agree, but then they have had months/years to organise the messaging and campaign for their first few days in govt. I get that you’re all excited at not having a tory govt, as am I, but maybe a bit of boring realism is necessary? The proof of the pudding will be how they deal with crises when they arise, rather than something they’ve had a very long time to prepare for.

Do you ever get bored of your relentless miserablism mate? 🙂

FGS they haven’t done anything yet.

If you were facing deportation without due process, you might not agree.

If you work in onshore renewables, you might not agree.

If you work in the prison or criminal justice system, you might not agree.

If you are in any form of devolved administration, you might not agree.

I’m looking forward to the King’s Speech, which makes a change.

As for the sexualisation issue I remember some on here some time back said she wasn’t suitable to be the Labour leader due to her rumoured sexual proclivities. Is that what you’re talking about?

No – some discussion about a picture of Raynor in shorts.  Creepy as eff

Hardly miserabalism binners, just a small dose of realism. I suppose I’m hardwired to be non-conformist, and one thing I’ve never been is a bandwagon-jumper.

When Labour do something good, I’ll applaud them. They’ve beaten the tories, which is fantastic, but so far haven’t done anything else other than issue a load of press releases.

If you work in onshore renewables, you might not agree.

If you live in an area where its wild places are about to be destroyed by a wind farm which will not save any carbon due to the destruction of deep peat and will only make loads of money for the landowner and a bunch of saudi-backed private equity investors, then you might conclude that the end to the ban on onshore wind is a very bad thing. But then I know what side of the argument you’re on with this issue despite clear scientific evidence to the contrary.

The proof of the pudding will be how they deal with crises when they arise, rather than something they’ve had a very long time to prepare for.

Yes and no. I agree that how they handle any foreign war suddenly erupting, or a scandal will be a litmus test for basic competency, but the day to day management of policies that will ‘make things better for people’ is going to have more impact. Wes Streeting (boo hiss etc etc) has already suggested that more of the NHS budget needs to go to GPs, so from my perspective that’s a move in the right direction and to be welcomed, even if it’s just to recognise that there is a imbalance in where NHS budget is spent its a step forward.

But then I know what side of the argument you’re on with this issue despite clear scientific evidence to the contrary.

Green NIMBYs cherry picking their evidence in the face of an immediate need to transform our energy production. Plenty of examples of that across the UK right now… and more to come as we accelerate the UK’s shift away from gas.

They’ve beaten the tories, which is fantastic, but so far haven’t done anything else other than issue a load of press releases.

I’m sorry mate, but thats utter nonsense. Its difficult to imagine how they could have had a more proactive 5 days. ITS BEEN 5 DAYS IN POWER FFS!!! I suppose you think they should have built a few hundred thousand houses by now?

Dropping the illegal Rwanda plan is a good thing.  No ifs or buts.

The signals over co operation with the devolved bodies are a good thing.  We await actions not words

Lammys foray into building bridges internationally are a good thing – no ifs and buts

Maybe if we moved away from the ridiculous adherence to the class system and stop putting people in boxes…

So much this – seems to be used by people on all sides to create artificial barriers and divisions and/or prove some theoretical point when it’s really not helpful to the wider debate. Just creates bigotry in both directions.

The only two “classes” that matter are “Dicks” and “Not Dicks”. Membership of either is not dependent on birth, wealth or perceived social station.

@tjagain I will declare myself guilty of the sexualisation accusations you are making, having posted that link last night. And I apologise unreservedly for any offence I have caused to anyone. It was done without any deep thought or consideration and meant as a bit of lighthearted fun as I assumed were the previous posts by others in the same vein. In the cold light of day I can see the error of my ways.

Mods please remove my previous post!

As for Raynor, I have no creepy thoughts about her but I do admire her immensly as a politician and think she is a great assest to the Labour party and hopefully to the nation going forward. As for the “schtick” you mentioned. Is she not just being her genuine self? I have no reason to doubt her.

Wes Streeting (boo hiss etc etc) has already suggested that more of the NHS budget needs to go to GPs, so from my perspective that’s a move in the right direction and to be welcomed,

I saw that and tho you may not believe me ( 🙂 ) I have listened to what you and a couple of the GPs on here have said about this stuff so this does seem like a good development.  I did laugh tho at the “return to having a family doctor” stuff.  Its just one of those nonsense things like ” bobbies on the beat”

I’m still glad tho that streeting will have no power beyond budget over the Scots NHS tho I will bet he tries to grab some.  I do not trust him an inch.