Slightly off thread, but politics does play into why the bigotry of low expectations is corrosive to all.
Well this is where me and many other conservatives would say, that there is a clear difference between those like yourself who identify more with the ideals of post war old Labour. "A country fit for everyone", and those who have and continue too propose for socialism, only there as a prerequisite to the adoption of communism.
I have meet more people who while supporting Labour are not motivated by envy and tend too hate communism and what it has done, we debate and at best come to some middle ground or at worst too agree to disagree about things such as nationalisation vs. strategic control of the nations assets and all of the other things that you mention. I dont consider your ideas to be evil just wrong and by wrong I mean that for some of them to work we need a population that wont deviate... Human nature is the single point of failure in most things.
Sadly I believe that you and the many others like you have and are ignored by the Labour party and will continue to be. The Labour parliamentary party today seem more determined that other to play the, race and race baiting, gender, sexual orientation cards for political advantage and worst of all a disdain for the nation and its history regardless of good and bad.
Why does the Labour party focus on so much on race, why do they so vigorously court the minority block vote... To gain power, i have no doubt.
They celebrate often the first BAME man, woman whatever be appointed to such or such a position, as if positive discrimination polices have made it happen, and thus we must go continue to discriminant to end discrimination. Rather than celebrating that someone worked hard to gain whatever the position, they paint a picture that an immutable characteristic define the person rather than their character and ability. Talk about subverting Dr Martin Luther King Jnr, for political advantage.
I dont have a decent answer to how you can bring Labour back to a position where it can represent a differing view of how the nation should be best governed but still think this nation is a good nation with much to be proud of in our past and much to be able to achieve in its future.
I have always believed that there is an absolute need for there to be political parties of opposite to the government of the day, it need not be a mirror opposite to conservatism. It should oppose in debate and oppose in action, on principle not for political advantage.
There are many who are not white but are conservatives, why are they called race traitors, and various other pejoratives by political opponents in some cases... Why do they do that? Switch the immutable characteristic and party of such type of behaviour and it would be considered a HATE Crime.
p.s. the whole Hate Crime Legislation and associated nonsense is a divisive crock of shite.
You silver tongued old fox, you have hit a number of good points again.
The rot set into Labour in the 70's as it became more entwined with Marxism, etc. and move away from traditional British socialist ideas.
Why does Labour keep pushing identity politics and a hand full of hard left ideas? I think it is because we as a nation have all ready created a very fair and just country to live in. I don't think their is anything my grandparents campaigned for in the 40's, 50's, and 60's has not been delivered with the exception of gay rights which came much later. Labour now uses identity politics as a unique selling point to make them different from the conservatives. It also gives them a stick to bash people with.
Identity politics is easy to do, compared with actual political debate.
If we are all equal why focus on what makes us different?
Hopefully KS will do a better job as leader than JC and listen to us moderate Labour members.
(I left Labour when Blair was in power, and rejoined when JC announced he would resign.)
As for racially profiling voters on which party they MUST vote for makes my teeth itch. It is racism, they are judging someone by the colour of their skin, and yes they should be called out on it and punished.
Nationalisation is always a contentious subject. The State tends to buy out failing companies, fix them, then sell them in the nation's interest. I am all for profit, and I think a nationalised rail service could be very profitable for exchequer....and those profits could be used to ease the tax burden of the people. Not your normal Marxist view on nationalisation, but a more realistic one. Profit driven SOE's and national assets. ;0)