I guess the question is whether people voted for SNP to have another referendum or did so in order to give a big middle finger to Labour.

Scotland is drifting away from England politically, so there doesn't seem to be a point for Labour, or Conservative party's there anymore. This mirrors Northern Ireland, where there are none.

Following this debacle the independence of both from the UK has dramatically increased.

Are you familiar with British politics?

I thought you were being rhetorical.

Johnson got into power on the backs of the poor, to whom he made populist promises. — Punshhh

Not familiar enough to know if this is true or not. Though they do seem to have picked up a lot of Labour seats. However in elections I tend to think people vote against a party when they vote. So, the blue collar voters were very unhappy with what Labour stood for or the ideas they embraced. Either a mistake on Labour’s part or the blue collar voters no longer believe they are represented by Labour.

It can be difficult to convey the subtleties of a situation to people looking in from elsewhere. The Tory party is the sort of party which always returns to the centre and consolidates with pragmatism following the crisis. The only reason that they lurched to the right was due to the failure of Theresa May to secure a majority in 2017. This left her a lame duck dependent on NI politicians and held hostage by the ERG ( the hard right anti EU faction in her party, there are about 20 or 30 of them).

Now Johnson has total freedom and clear space to fashion and restore a "one nation" Conservative party in the centre ground.

Also I should point out that Johnson will turn on a sixpence on any of his promises, if it suits his purpose and everyone knows it. He now has free reign for a number of years, or at least until he gets snarled up in the EU negotiations etc.

I really do think the blue collar workers are waking up to things. The problem for them is that you don’t realise that they are.

Edit: so much so that we can’t even define them.

the blue collar workers are waking up — Brett

The problem is that there is little blue collar work. Large masses of people working in the same place and able to communicate, form bonds and recognise common interests no longer exist. The solidarity of Northern mining communities has not survived the closure of the mines and steelworks. Nobody wears a blue collar any more.

What there is instead are heartless, crumbling communities full of toxic masculinity - chavs and perverts. Corbyn does not appeal to men who depend on their racer-boy drug- pushing image for their sense of worth; Johnson is much more their style.

And the women?

Of course I never asked what the SNP ran on. And I know you don’t have magical powers — NOS4A2

So not knowing that you can then perhaps start to see why your "question" is the wrong one.

I really do think the blue collar workers are waking up to things. The problem for them is that you don’t realise that they are.

Edit: so much so that we can’t even define them.

Yes, you have a point, in the constituencies we are discussing the situation is complex. Because the large industries they used to work in have gone and some people have picked themselves and their communities up and become more prosperous, but many haven't. Others think their deprived neighbourhoods are the normality with no idea of the large belts of prosperity in the affluent areas, predominantly in the south.

It is imerging that the reason these areas supported Johnson is, apart from "get Brexit done", is that they feel that the Labour Party has moved away from them moving further to the left with a metropolitan ideological socialism and don't anymore represent them.

Your observation of my ignorance is misplaced, I am well aware of the situation. I have been putting the case from the position that leaving the EU is a bad idea, that the Tory party was incompetent in carrying it out and that a more left wing government would be a good idea at the moment, following 10 years of austerity. I'm not partisan.

Your observation of my ignorance is misplaced, — Punshhh

Yes, fair enough.

And the women? — Brett

Yes, and the women. I'm characterising the culture as was and the radical economic change; women have never been unionised labour to the same extent, but they partake of the community that results.

What there is instead are heartless, crumbling communities full of toxic masculinity - chavs and perverts. Corbyn does not appeal to men who depend on their racer-boy drug- pushing image for their sense of worth; Johnson is much more their style. — unenlightened

I meant do you regard the women in the same light?

I meant do you regard the women in the same light? — Brett

No, I think men and women are different and have different histories. The psychological problem of these communities is that the masculinity of the working man has become toxic. I think you are displaying with your questioning a middle-class sensibility to equality language. Toxic masculinity is a problem for women; ask Boris's exes. But what is your point?

Perhaps I should explain some. In the good old days, men went down the pit and knew they were the salt of the Earth, the engine of civilisation, the forge of Empire, and the repository of all good things. They formed trade unions, working men's clubs, cooperative societies, public libraries, and the Labour Party, from their communal existence at work. In essence, Socialism was founded on a positive image of the worker as valuable derived from fact, and thus realistic. This becomes a conscious power in the community because of the proximity of the workplace.

The pit has closed, and the source of positive identity and of social solidarity is no more. Positive masculinity has become functionless; bravery and strength are useless. One is left with senseless empty machismo expressed in driving fast and loudly nowhere, and other feats of strength. No social good can come of such a hollow fantasy of an identity.

"What about women?", you say. And my response is that this is what has become of socialism; it has become identity politics, but a negative identity politics of a fantasy solidarity of the oppressed, where the disabled, women, immigrants, the working-class itself, are supposed to be united by their negative self-images as 'the oppressed'. And as an image it does not appeal the way 'salt of the Earth' does.

I can have a look later, but I thought people think that a snap referendum would be 52/48 the other way. Media commentators have been saying this for over a year. Also why are the brexiters so vehemently against it and have been saying that the people who were making the case for a confirmatory vote, where doing it to stop Brexit. Surely they wanted more democracy now that we are better informed. — Punshhh

The speculation of commentators is not hard evidence. Given that all the forecasts were for the 1st ref to vote Remain, and at the last minute Leave won, a 52/48 forecast would presage an exact rerun.

Brexiteers are scared they might lose, not convinced they would. They also see a 2nd ref as an affront to democracy, which, despite being a Remainer, I have to agree with..

Anyway, as Heseltine admitted today, that battle is lost.. :fear: Time to move on.

It is imerging that the reason these areas supported Johnson is, apart from "get Brexit done", is that they feel that the Labour Party has moved away from them moving further to the left with a metropolitan ideological socialism and don't anymore represent them. — Punshhh

I think that's too sophisticated. The reasons, besides Brexit, for Labour's loss of northern working-class voters I have heard from Labour MPs and voters alike are:

• They disliked Corbyn as a leader, also seeing him as a possible security risk and not a good ambassador for the UK internationally.
• They did not believe Labour's huge spending promises could ever be paid for.

What's galling is the huge arrogance of the left-wing leadership in refusing to accept this. They are blaming solely Brexit; as ever remaining convinced their socialist idealism is right, and the world just has to be coached in realising it. It's just like the way Corbyn refuses to even address the issue of anti-semitism beyond bland restatements of his anti-racist credentials. The likes of Margaret Hodge, Straw, Mandelson are crying out for the party to change and remove this Momentum clique, but will it? I think a new Blair figure needs to appear to catalise the change first..

They disliked Corbyn as a leader — Tim3003

They who? Some of 'them' revered him as an almost Christ-like figure. Remember how the party membership increased. An analysis needs to account for both sides. I strongly suspect that the antisemitism thing cut little ice on the red wall, and what they objected to in Corbyn was the pacifist wimpy effeminate image. No one with any objection to racism would have voted Tory on that principle. Au contraire, Rotherham man, I suspect, rather liked the Yorkshire bluntness of 'letterboxes' and 'piccaninnies'.

It's the economy, stupid, as they say. We used to have a working class in manufacturing, and now we have a working class in service industries. We need a rhetoric that valorises and validates service and servants, and a organisation that can represent them. Trade Unions never did, and caring has no status.

They who? Some of 'them' revered him as an almost Christ-like figure. Remember how the party membership increased. — unenlightened

'They' who the Labour MPs and activists talked to on the doorsteps and who said they were voting Tory or Brexit Party for the first time ever..

Yes the membership is 500,000. But it is mainly made up of the hard-left, not the millions of lifelong voters up north and is out of touch. For example the membership is predominently Remain, well out of kilter with the balance of Labour voters generally.

Well said.
I hark from Yorkshire, but have picked up the southern sensibilities and to a degree live amongst the privelidged classes now. I am a bit out of touch with the north, my knowledge now is of the east. There is not much depravity around here compared to the midlands and the north. However there is a profound difference from the truly privelidged regions of Surrey, Berkshire, Hampshire etc. Here the issue is more to do with the influx of Polish people. I suspect that over 90% of the voters who voted in my polling station voted leave and primarily for this reason. On reflection I realise that socialism of the kind proposed is not favoured by many outside metropolitan Labour supporters.

the membership is 500,000. But it is mainly made up of the hard-left, — Tim3003

No, I don't think so. Left, sure, but not hard. They are not ex Socialist Workers Party, but ex apathetics by and large.What I am coming to think is that the economic policy was popular, but the images were insulting. "Vote for the cripples dossers and loonies party because we are all oppressed, and only a middle-class do-gooder can save us." There's no dignity in that.

They disliked Corbyn as a leader, also seeing him as a possible security risk and not a good ambassador for the UK internationally.
They did not believe Labour's huge spending promises could ever be paid for.

I agree with this. I was discussing a slower long term shift of the traditional Labour heartlands away from traditional socialism.

Yes I heard Heseltine, I agree with him and have already moved on. For me I will benefit from continued Conservative government to the extent of a six figure sum, from a heafty inheritance. Which I would almost certainly not have had if Corbyn had got in and removed the tax free allowance. But for me it was worth the sacrifice if the health of the society were to be restored. I am not all that concerned about Brexit provided a sensible approach is adopted*. I was expecting it to happen at some point, perhaps in another 10 or 15 years. But I still think it is a mistake and a poor strategy for our long term future. I agree with the your assessment of the Labour front bench, but I don't see them as any worse than the Tory front bench, just the opposite side of the political divide.

* I will be entitled to a Scottish passport, so I expect to get an EU passport when Scotland leaves the UK.

As an aside I believe that if Heseltine had become PM the world would be a different place now. The best prime minister we never had.

As an aside I believe that if Heseltine had become PM the world would be a different place now. The best prime minister we never had. — Punshhh

I'd choose Kenneth Clarke - or maybe Healey? But I wouldn't vote against MH..

It's a shame that I too, as a disillusioned Remainer am selfishly thinking: 'Oh well, I won't be worse off - my money is global investments (not that that seems to be helping much at the moment!), when the majority who think they have won will almost certainly suffer for it. I sometimes wonder if one-man-one-vote democracy is really the best way. But in the end, I suspect however the 'system' is set up the simple will always be taken advantage of by the unscrupulous clever.

No, I don't think so. Left, sure, but not hard. — unenlightened

Depends how you define 'hard left'. I'd say Corbyn represents it. If he doesn't, who does? Surely the SWP aren't big enough to reserve the term for them alone.

I'd say Corbyn represents it. If he doesn't, who does? — Tim3003

I suggest to you that the hard left is best represented by the red wall, the voters who for generations have voted Labour and found it until now unthinkable to do otherwise. The soft left is the middle-class identity obsessed chattering class who have thought they knew how to run the Labour party and that they could take the poor in the North for granted forever. Nowhere is the North/South divide so extreme as in the Labour party and that is the reason they lost the election. Denis Skinner was hard left, Corbyn is the ultimate softie, and that's why he was defeated by a blustering bully. And now everyone thinks the answer is a woman. Corbyn was already a woman!

I suggest you listen to the Peter Hennessy interview with Heseltine, you can see his vision for the country there.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07m5gwm

Johnson has already said that he wants to model his vision on Heseltine, somehow I don't think he is up to it, but he might well surprise us.

I thought it despicable that Johnson's first celebratory visit was to Sedgfield, Blair's seat. Rubbing salt into the wound like that is not Heseltine's style.

I thought it despicable that Johnson's first celebratory visit was to Sedgfield, Blair's seat. Rubbing salt into the wound like that is not Heseltine's style. — Punshhh

On the contrary. I saw it partly as saying that he thinks he can be as transformative a leader as Blair. So in that respect it was a compliment - albeit a pretty ego-driven one..

Would Heseltine have done that?

Would Heseltine have done that? — Punshhh

I'm guessing not. But give him his due, I think Boris wants to inspire people via optimism and his own leadership qualities. I don't think mean-spirited revenge and triumphalism is his way of thinking. Trump would do it, yes, and for the reasons you give.

But I'm hoping Boris may prove himself a more inclusive Tory leader than any since Churchill. Now that he has his big majority he can dispense with cynical populist tactics if he wants and do whatever he likes. For now I think he does want to reach out to all and become a national hero for uniting the country again. 'Commeth the hour, commeth the man' may well be his motto. Whether events will allow him to do all that remains to be seen.

I think ‘Brexit’ is settled. (What an ugly neologism it has been, by the way.) It’s not done, but it’s decided — Wayfarer

Good riddance!

It is now nothing else but a distraction for the UK and a way to polarize the Brits.

Next its Scotland, would that be Sexit, I wonder.

Yes, Johnson might deliver, I'm sure he has the talent, unlike Trump. However he has a large and difficult brief with some quite excruciating tensions built in. So when push comes to shove, I expect he will put party before country again and push his new converts under the bus. But these people might be the very people he needs to keep onside if he is to save the party. So here is the first tension. Between his traditional support which is privelidged, inward looking, wealth and business oriented and his new support which is crying out for investment, welfare and a wholesale reconstruction of deprived areas. There is more to this tension, but I will leave it at that for now.

Secondly, the issue of the Union, Johnson will be desperate to retain Scotland in the Union, he doesn't give a toss about Northern Ireland, which he said before the election. But in reality the only way he can keep Scotland is to deliver a soft Brexit. While his backers and base want a hard Brexit. If however Northern Ireland unifies with Ireland, that in itself might make keeping Scotland impossible.

Historians still might say that it was the infighting of the Conservative party which broke up the Union.

Looking forward to making you eat this when the Dems win the Whitehouse. :halo: — Baden

I guess it's obviously true that the democracy does not determine truth, meaning it's entirely possible (and often likely) that the voters choose a wrong course, but I do think there's some denial in this thread that perhaps the voters actually voted exactly as they wanted, as they believed, and they did it with their eyes wide open. I'm sure both sides are guilty of this, but trying to describe one's opponents as manipulated and deceived every time they vote in opposition to you appears as a refusal to accept that there might be another legitimate way of looking at things.