The Forde Report what should happen now?

People (on phone-ins and general comments, not necessarily on here) can't seem to decide what class the LP cabinet should be. Angela Rayner is too 'common', Kier Starmer is a 'Sir' (no matter that he earned his title and came from a modest background) so is 'elite'.

Why does it matter? It should be the policies that count, not the wealth or 'social standing' of the individuals. It's such a regressive way of thinking, and I think it holds the UK back such a lot. It is perfectly possible to be a suitable PM with a regional accent, just as it is perfectly possible to sympathise with the poor without having experienced poverty yourself.

Or the majority of people think the words urban elite are meaningless.

Grany

The Labour Party is making a terrible mistake if it ignores the Forde report

inews.co.uk/opinion/forde-report-labour-party-mistake-1750876?ito=twitter_share_article-top

Is this the Labour Party that’s many points ahead of the Conservatives and is now hopefully, going to be facing Liz Truss as Tory leader. So let’s try to rip the party apart so they can be in permanent opposition dreaming about a socialist state that, for some reason, the people who most need it don’t seem to vote for. Maybe those in society that do need the most help need a government full of the urban elite ( which is probably how you’d describe my family) who are prepared ( as we always have been) to be worse off knowing that other people in society will be better cared for.

Galaxy

Or the majority of people think the words urban elite are meaningless.

Well they are, really.

The right wing of the party still seem to be treating the left with contempt though, (see the comments towards Grany).
A problem might be that there may be a lack of activists to knock on doors etc, if too many people are driven away, as people with strong views are more likely to be energetic and passionate.

Someone needs to bring the party together and although that is what Keir Starmer said he was going to do, it does not seem to be happening. Wouldn't a less adversarial approach be more effective.

Urban elite. Labour prime ministers

Clem Attlee, son of a solicitor, private prep school, Oxford university.

Harold Wilson, son of a chemist, Oxford university,

Tony Blair, son of law lecturer, private education, Oxford university.

I don't understand your point Anniebach are you saying that Labour prime ministers should all have been to Oxford.

I named the three who won general elections and their fathers
occupations, no coal miner or mill worker ,

I am sure that annie can speak for herself but for me the origins of the leader are of no interest to me, urban elite or rural (whatever the opposite of elite is), as long as they win elections I dont care. It's a weird spin off of identity politics that acheives nothing.

Agree Galaxy but seems some think differently.

Oh and they should be able to spell achieve

Ilovecheese

The right wing of the party still seem to be treating the left with contempt though, (see the comments towards Grany).
A problem might be that there may be a lack of activists to knock on doors etc, if too many people are driven away, as people with strong views are more likely to be energetic and passionate.

Someone needs to bring the party together and although that is what Keir Starmer said he was going to do, it does not seem to be happening. Wouldn't a less adversarial approach be more effective.

I’m going to be honest. I am feeling adversarial, I’m frustrated with the dogma that comes from the left of the party, the failure to recognise that it could be forever unelectable due to the activists, because they are unable to see the impact of their rhetoric and actions on the rest of the voting public and the need for the party to change. I also admit to getting hacked off with people who are blinkered to reality, and more so with those who consistently lift other peoples words and post them with no personal filter employed. I resent being tarnished with that pathetic phrase ‘Tory lite’ when it’s not remotely true - I just don’t think the left/residual Corbyn way forward has any chance of electoral success. Some Labour supporters need to wake up and smell the coffee, and it’s not those of us who are in the centre of the party - obviously being in with the urban elite we are all coffee connoisseurs anyway, that goes without saying.

So are you saying that only the children of professionals should ever be party leaders "Anniebach"?
Or only people who have been to Oxford?
I just don't understand your point.

Ilovecheese

So are you saying that only the children of professionals should ever be party leaders "Anniebach"?
Or only people who have been to Oxford?
I just don't understand your point.

Well, I know what she means.

Oh o.k. then Casdon.
I also don't understand your remark about lifting other people's words.

Ilovecheese

So are you saying that only the children of professionals should ever be party leaders "Anniebach"?
Or only people who have been to Oxford?
I just don't understand your point.

She is pointing out that many Labour PMs could be classified as belonging to the 'urban elite', which really didn't seem to bother voters.

Corbyn is decidedly middle class.

And what about that well known and admired socialist, Viscount Stansgate?

This 'urban elite' thing is utterly ridiculous.

I can't stand coffee, Casdon

That 'working people' have the ability and intelligence to enter politics is clear - there have been many examples over the years. I do think it is harder for them though. The problem for many is the matter of needing to make a living between finishing their education and making it in politics. If you don't have political (or media) contacts, your parents can't help out financially, and you don't have access to a trust fund, it's a lot more difficult.

Politics, until you get to Cabinet level, is a risky business - getting voted out and losing your income on a regular basis is a lot easier for those with a financial cushion, particularly in the child-rearing years. Also, being taught to debate, to speak in public, to have the confidence that an Eton/Oxbridge education is a huge advantage, and inevitably those from backgrounds that provide those things will outnumber those who don't.

It's a shame that we don't have a system that better nurtures the minds and ambitions of more of the 'non-elite' or 'working class', but as it stands we don't. I do resent the idea that living in Islington, knowing your way around a wine list or having an Oxbridge degree means that you are out of touch, though. It's just reverse snobbery. It's no more true than the idea that if you just have a few O levels, lived in a council flat and had a baby in your teens you are stupid.

Unfortunately, too many people take notice of accent and things like which school/university someone went to, rather than what they have to say. It's utterly depressing, but it pervades British society.

Thank you MaizieD I couldn’t include Keir Starmer son of a
tool maker, not yet our PM

Ah, now I understand the posts were saying that it doesn't matter to the electorate whether the party leaders were part of the "liberal elite" or not.

It’s what people believe and their vision for this country that matters, not where they came from or who their family were.

That is true but not everyone thinks that way MayBee70 some people seem to think they are just born to rule, even if they have no vision and no care for the country.

And it is true what Doodledog says here:
"Unfortunately, too many people take notice of accent and things like which school/university someone went to, rather than what they have to say. It's utterly depressing, but it pervades British society."

I certainly do not believe the voting public check where a candidate was educated,

I cannot speak of the present but I when I canvassed for Neil Kinnock and Gordon Brown some did say ‘the Welsh/Scots
accent irritates me, or worse.

Never in many years of canvassing was I asked where the candidate was educated.

That is true but not everyone thinks that way MayBee70 some people seem to think they are just born to rule, even if they have no vision and no care for the country.

Do you think that is true of some in the LP, Ilovecheese?

It's not something I would associate with them.

Does Starmer saying 'I just want to see the country run properly' indicate that he's elitist who thinks he's born to rule? Or is it just the heartfelt feeling of someone who s tired of the chaos of the last few years?

Glorianny

MayBee70

If there’s only limited finance doesn’t it make more sense to use it where there’s more chance of winning the seat. Also, didn’t people who were canvassing say that many people said that Corbyn was the reason why they wouldn’t vote for Labour: something his supporters seem to disagree with.

Surely if a seat is a safe seat it doesn't really require extra finance whereas marginals do. If you already have a majority of voters you don't need to persuade more to vote for you.

But you do need to keep the ones you've got and that can be hard work, and expensive.