Who will be the next Labour leader?

[redsquirrel]

I think Starmer will have to offer something to Nandy and Long-Bailey but can't see it being anything big. Maybe Environment for RLB - connects with the green new deal - but basically minor.

Abbott obviously gone. Maybe Cooper at Home? There's been some journalist chatter about that cunt Reeves coming back

EDIT: The names suggested rather illustrate where Starmer is on the political landscape.

 

[kebabking]

Communities and LG for Nandy?

DEFRA might be a decent job for RLB, it's green, and the post-brexit land use thing is going to be detail heavy.

 

[Mr Moose]

Have you even read it? It builds on previous studies that show that social mobility has decreased since the 70s/80s.
We got into this via your evidence free dismissal of the real social mobility that occurred during the 70s.
For you to talk about prejudices when you've not supplied a single piece of evidence for any of your claims (and for the third time - are you still claiming that was "almost no social mobility" in the 70s?) when I and others have supplied significant pieces of evidence that make it clear that social mobility has declined is fucking ludicrous.

Like with the far right you don't have a clue what you are talking about - which is fine but then don't pretend that you are talking anything but your own prejudices.

What on Earth are you wittering on about the far right for?

One day I hope we’ll have a conversation where you try to understand an alternate POV without feeling the need to win as priority number one.

 

[redsquirrel]

One day I hope we’ll have a conversation where you try to understand an alternate POV without feeling the need to win as priority number one.

I absolutely understand your view - "there was almost no social mobility" - is not a hard concept to grasp. I just dismiss it as it is clearly false.

 

[Shechemite]

i can see Keeley staying on in her role. Who else would do it?

Marsha De-Cordova might stay on as shadow disability minister. From all I’ve seen she’s a good advocate on her brief, but also politically naive. I would imagine her links to corbyn/RLB wouldn’t appeal to starmer

 

[Proper Tidy]

Difficult to be arsed who will be in shadow cabinet really isn't it. In many ways I'm looking forward to the semi-hope of '15-'19 being done and dusted so we can all unequivocally get back to thinking all labour politicians are cunts

 

[redsquirrel]

Difficult to be arsed who will be in shadow cabinet really isn't it. In many ways I'm looking forward to the semi-hope of '15-'19 being done and dusted so we can all unequivocally get back to thinking all labour politicians are cunts

You think that will happen?
I think more than a few have invested so much that they will not be able to break away (we already have people defending Labour councils attacking workers for example). Which was always the danger. In theory I can understand the line - the LP is the best tool to advance class interests - in practice it's been shown time and time again that people get swallowed by the party.

 

[Spandex]

I find it hard to believe that in the 50s, 60s and 70s it was more likely that a working class person would become part of managment, the judiciary, on a board, set up their own business etc than more recently.

Social mobility in the 60s & 70s wasn't about working class people getting jobs as judges or on the boards of companies. Those jobs were still reserved for the upper middle/upper class. But it was the time of big state owned companies, jobs for life and unionised manufacturing in the UK. A young working class lad (and it probably would be a man - women were still mostly secretaries or teachers or staying home to bring up the kids) could get a low level job in a big company and over the years get promoted to middle management, moving to the lower middle class. Big companies might pay for them to get a degree (maybe through the open university) to skill them up. It was still possible to get on the housing ladder.

These days jobs for life are mostly a thing of the past, so the possibility for that advancement is reduced. Unions are eviscerated and companies don't put the money into developing staff. Shit, most places are quite happy to get rid of long term staff to replace them with younger, cheaper people. Many big industries have disappeared overseas. There aren't the same opportunities for social mobility as there used to be.

 

[The39thStep]

Difficult to be arsed who will be in shadow cabinet really isn't it. In many ways I'm looking forward to the semi-hope of '15-'19 being done and dusted so we can all unequivocally get back to thinking all labour politicians are cunts

All cats are grey

 

[Smokeandsteam]

This is significant stuff. Leaving aside the guff about Starmer being the British Sanders (I mean, seriously) this is the key section;

“Starmer says he is not just in the business of uniting a fractured party at Westminster, but broadening its base in the country. Cultivating new support across class and ethnic divides has put Sanders on the road to the Democratic nomination, and Starmer believes that the same approach can put Labour back on the path to power: keep left, rebuild a diverse coalition of voters, and look beyond the red wall”

If anyone on here continues to harbour any doubts about where Starmer wants to take Labour - down the route of socialism without the working class, the restoration of the primacy of the narrating class in policy and cultural terms, to marginalise unions, to double down on meritocracy sheened in faux left language - then here it is.

Long-Bailey’s shift to attack mode shows what awaits Starmer if he wins | Patrick Maguire

Keir Starmer wants to emulate Bernie Sanders by building a diverse coalition. But it won’t be easy, says political correspondent Patrick Maguire

www.theguardian.com

 

[Shechemite]

Difficult to be arsed who will be in shadow cabinet really isn't it. In many ways I'm looking forward to the semi-hope of '15-'19 being done and dusted so we can all unequivocally get back to thinking all labour politicians are cunts

Fair point, but I think everyone has already agreed this thread is academic.

 

[redsquirrel]

Having recently finished Wood's Retreat from Class (which I can strongly recommend) I see a number of parallels with then (1986) - the removal of class, or at least it's compression to something very different, so that "socialism" can be equated with social democracy, "radical democracy" or "progressivism". You can absolutely see many of the same steps being repeated.

the NTS proposes that, because there is no necessary correspondence between economics and politics, the working class can have no privileged position in the struggle for socialism. Instead, a socialist movement can be constructed by ideological and political means which are relatively (absolutely?) autonomous from economic class conditions, motivated not by the crude material interests of class but by the rational appeal of ‘universal human goods’ and the reasonableness of the socialist order

 

[Smokeandsteam]

Social mobility in the 60s & 70s wasn't about working class people getting jobs as judges or on the boards of companies. Those jobs were still reserved for the upper middle/upper class. But it was the time of big state owned companies, jobs for life and unionised manufacturing in the UK. A young working class lad (and it probably would be a man - women were still mostly secretaries or teachers or staying home to bring up the kids) could get a low level job in a big company and over the years get promoted to middle management, moving to the lower middle class. Big companies might pay for them to get a degree (maybe through the open university) to skill them up. It was still possible to get on the housing ladder.

These days jobs for life are mostly a thing of the past, so the possibility for that advancement is reduced. Unions are eviscerated and companies don't put the money into developing staff. Shit, most places are quite happy to get rid of long term staff to replace them with younger, cheaper people. Many big industries have disappeared overseas. There aren't the same opportunities for social mobility as there used to be.

One of the most notable changes in this period was the rapid increase of women into the workforce with battles around equal pay and eventual legislation on it. As a marker of social mobility and freedom I can’t think of a better example in this period.

The other point I’d make is that it was possible for working class people to move upwards. In every aspect of society - economic, culture, art and politics we see this.

What was remarkable about the period was that these changes were taking place alongside rising wages, narrowing levels of inequality and growing disposable income levels. However, the 70’s is also the decade when the tensions and contradictions of the post war period bubble over

 

[Shechemite]

You think that will happen?
I think more than a few have invested so much that they will not be able to break away (we already have people defending Labour councils attacking workers for example). Which was always the danger. In theory I can understand the line - the LP is the best tool to advance class interests - in practice it's been shown time and time again that people get swallowed by the party.

What role do you think the Labour Party has played in the (resistance to) the ongoing long term (and horrific) psychiatric institutionalisation? Or on the attacks on those reliant on social security? Or the ever increasing Thatcherite bullshit in the NHS?

I mean their overall record is crap, but it’s accurate to say the LP has done nothing good in these areas?

 

[Shechemite]

Having recently finished Wood's Retreat from Class (which I can strongly recommend) I see a number of parallels with then (1986) - the removal of class, or at least it's compression to something very different, so that "socialism" can be equated with social democracy, "radical democracy" or "progressivism". You can absolutely see many of the same steps being repeated.

Thanks for the insight/excerpt

Don’t see corbynism as being about appealing to universality though (apart from it’s rhetoric)

 

[Shechemite]

It feels a bit late 1980s in a desperate eurocom/desperate and angry tankie sense.

Corbyn’s win in 2015, and the 2016 brexit vote - after 4 decades of neoliberalism - brought together a strange set of coalitions on the left.

 

[Smokeandsteam]

Having recently finished Wood's Retreat from Class (which I can strongly recommend) I see a number of parallels with then (1986) - the removal of class, or at least it's compression to something very different, so that "socialism" can be equated with social democracy, "radical democracy" or "progressivism". You can absolutely see many of the same steps being repeated.

That quote from Wood is absolutely on the money. I think it’s exactly where Starmer and Mason and others are seeking to move Labour. It’s a very dangerous moment and given his likely victory one which deserves a serious debate on here

 

[Shechemite]

Socialism (or whatever) as an identity. Or you’re a traitor.

 

[Smokeandsteam]

Socialism (or whatever) as an identity. Or you’re a traitor.

It’s partly that. But it’s more about erasing class from the picture - for poltocal and psephological reasons

 

[redsquirrel]

I mean their overall record is crap, but it’s accurate to say the LP has done nothing good in these areas?

I think the good the LP (or any political party) has done in those areas arises not from the LP but from the working class. The LP is a very flawed tool, IMO so flawed that people would be better off not involving themselves with it, but in the past it has been used as a tool by the working class to advance their interests and may still be used occasionally in that way today. I'm not sure how good an answer that is. I'll see if I can give something clearer tomorrow when I'm a bit brighter.

Don’t see corbynism as being about appealing to universality though (apart from it’s rhetoric)

Maybe not but I think there's a definite element of "socialism" as a sort of identity, a mental construct (or discourse as the new true socialists would have e put it) rather than something related to material interests. All the stuff about the new young generation that is being hyped fits in here.

 

[Shechemite]

That quote from Wood is absolutely on the money. I think it’s exactly where Starmer and Mason and others are seeking to move Labour. It’s a very dangerous moment and given his likely victory one which deserves a serious debate on here

Shouldn’t we start from not knowing whether the labour leadership stuff is any danger/opportunity in class struggle? (eg: Is a Labour Party as it should be something we should work towards? What would this look like?)

 

[Shechemite]

It’s partly that. But it’s more about erasing class from the picture - for poltocal and psephological reasons

Part and parcel of the same phenomenon

 

[Shechemite]

The relationship between ‘The disabled peoples movement’ and the Labour Party over the last 5 years has been particularly damaging (for pretty much everyone)

 

[redsquirrel]

Don't just want to quote the whole of the book but I think it probably is worth quoting the propositions Wood summaries that indicate the trend she opposes

1) The working class has not, as Marx expected, produced a revolutionary movement. That is, its economic situation has not given rise to what was thought to be an appropriate corresponding political force.
2) This reflects the fact that there is no necessary correspondence between economics and politics in general. Any relation between class and politics is contingent. In other words, ideology and politics are (relatively? absolutely?) autonomous from economic (class) relations; and there are no such things as ‘economic’ class interests that can be translated a posteriori into political terms.
3) More particularly, these propositions mean that there is no necessary or privileged relation between the working class and socialism, and indeed that the working class has no ‘fundamental interest’ in socialism.
4) Therefore, the formation of a socialist movement is in principle independent of class, and a socialist politics can be constructed that is more or less autonomous from economic (class) conditions. This means two things in particular:
5) A political force can be constituted and organized on the ideological and political planes, constructed out of various ‘popular’ elements which can be bound together and motivated by purely ideological and political means, irrespective of the class connections or oppositions among them.
6) The appropriate objectives of socialism are universal human goals which transcend class, rather than narrow material goals defined in terms of class interests. These objectives can be addressed, on the autonomous ideological and political planes, to various kinds of people, irrespective of their material class situations.
7) In particular, the struggle for socialism can be conceived as a plurality of ‘democratic’ struggles, bringing together a variety of resistances to many forms of inequality and oppression. In fact, it may even be possible to replace the concept of socialism with the notion of ‘radical democracy’. Socialism is a more or less natural extension of liberal democracy; or at any rate ‘democracy’ as it exists, albeit in a limited form, in advanced capitalist societies is in principle ‘indeterminate’ and capable of extension to socialist democracy.
8) Some types of people are more susceptible than others to the universalist and rational discourse of socialism, more capable of commitment to universal human goals as distinct from narrow material – or what Bentham used to call ‘sinister’ – interests; and these form the natural constituency of the socialist movement.

Lots of those principles in evidence today.

 

[Smokeandsteam]

Shouldn’t we start from not knowing whether the labour leadership stuff is any danger/opportunity in class struggle? (eg: Is a Labour Party as it should be something we should work towards? What would this look like?)

I don’t think so. Firstly, historically, the LP has always been an uneasy alliance between middle class liberals and the organised working class. I don’t believe it’s possible to achieve a commonality of interests on the basis of the completely different collective experience of these two groups.

Second, Labourism is about top down solutions delivered, ultimately, by politicians with their supporters passively cheering them on.

 

[Shechemite]

‘Disability activists’ (and to a certain extent ‘mental health activists’ - whatever that means) put ridiculous amounts of energy and trust into campaigning for labour (and on complaining that labour weren’t listening to them) during the Corbyn era.

I can’t see what was gained, and the spread of this weird ‘it’s the disabled or the Jews; pick a side’ bullshit helped to fuck a lot up in both disability and wider labour politics.

Going on about ‘the vulnerable disabled’ are whilst exploiting them for votes and free labour, and using their lives to spread Vanessa Beeley/Grayzone level poison (or at times literally promoting such filth). Vote labour.

 

[Smokeandsteam]

Excellent. Thanks a lot redsquirrel

I’ve just ordered the book.

 

[Shechemite]

Is any of this stuff (eg retreat from class) on audiobook (or whatever)?

 

[Shechemite]

Don't just want to quote the whole of the book but I think it probably is worth quoting the propositions Wood summaries that indicate the trend she opposes

1) The working class has not, as Marx expected, produced a revolutionary movement. That is, its economic situation has not given rise to what was thought to be an appropriate corresponding political force.
2) This reflects the fact that there is no necessary correspondence between economics and politics in general. Any relation between class and politics is contingent. In other words, ideology and politics are (relatively? absolutely?) autonomous from economic (class) relations; and there are no such things as ‘economic’ class interests that can be translated a posteriori into political terms.
3) More particularly, these propositions mean that there is no necessary or privileged relation between the working class and socialism, and indeed that the working class has no ‘fundamental interest’ in socialism.
4) Therefore, the formation of a socialist movement is in principle independent of class, and a socialist politics can be constructed that is more or less autonomous from economic (class) conditions. This means two things in particular:
5) A political force can be constituted and organized on the ideological and political planes, constructed out of various ‘popular’ elements which can be bound together and motivated by purely ideological and political means, irrespective of the class connections addressed, on the autonomous ideological and political planes, to various kinds of people, irrespective of their material class situations.
7) In particular, the struggle for socialism can be conceived as a plurality of ‘democratic’ struggles, bringing together a variety of resistances to many forms of inequality and oppression. In fact, it may even be possible to replace the concept of socialism with the notion of ‘radical democracy’. Socialism is a more or less natural extension of liberal democracy; or at any rate ‘democracy’ as it exists, albeit in a limited form, in advanced capitalist societies is in principle ‘indeterminate’ and capable of extension to socialist democracy.
8) Some types of people are more susceptible than others to the universalist and rational discourse of socialism, more capable of commitment to universal human goals as distinct from narrow material – or what Bentham used to call ‘sinister’ – interests; and these form the natural constituency of the socialist movement.

Lots of those principles in evidence today.

Cheers

 

[redsquirrel]

Excellent. Thanks a lot redsquirrel

I’ve just ordered the book.

Like everything of Wood's that I've read it is absolutely excellent. Clear and brilliantly argued.

Is any of this stuff (eg retreat from class) on audiobook (or whatever)?

I've not seen it available on audiobook but butchersapron posted links to lots of Wood's work on this thread if that is any use?