Kudos for Left Luggage and his critiques by holding a mirror to the Left showing us that its reflection ain’t pretty.

Your point doesn’t “still stand”, “lichen”. You have yet to address any substantive point contained within it, nor within my comments. You have merely launched a couple of disparaging volleys in the direction of Left Luggage and myself. You choose to attack my writing style and makes claims about my ability to interact with ordinary people for which you have no evidence, rather than addressing any of the points I raise. This doesn’t stand up your points, unless we’re using playground rules.

To be honest, I’d be very interested to hear what vocabulary and strategy you think the left needs to adopt, “lichen”. It seems you and Left Luggage agree on the necessity of finding alternatives. At least they are attempting to engage in this discussion, however, whereas you are simply sniping from the sidelines without any points of substance.

As for ideological blinders, clearly everyone has their view of the world, but I am comfortable with engaging in serious debates and having my ideas challenged, and changed in fact. Actually, personally I prefer this form of interaction over launching ad hominem attacks on writers’ and posters’ characters, intentions, and politics. Clearly you are otherwise inclined.

So, “lichen”, have you got anything serious to contribute to the debate, or are you still lost for words?

Of course there is a degree of generalisation in the article. Any broad discussion of the views of any social group based on a small sample will inevitably contain this. However, that does not invalidate the evidence gathered here; such qualitative methods are standard fare in social science research.

In any case, the polling data to which Left Luggage refers is quantitative evidence of the highest order, and what’s more it should be extremely worrying for the Left. It is a truism to say, as “lichen” does, that “most people in high school haven’t solidified their political views yet”. Of course, and this is admitted in the article. But at the same time, to ignore the impact of long-term changes in political culture and ideology and the reproduction of such ideas is patently absurd. Why was it “common sense” in the 1940s that Britain needed a welfare state and a national health service, whereas it is “common sense” now that corporate models are more efficient and deliver better value for “customers” i.e. public service users? Such things are due to changes in how people view the field of political possibility over time, shaped by economic and social factors. And Thatcherism/neo-liberalism has undoubtedly left a deep imprint on British political and social culture in visible ways; all studies show there has been a breakdown in community culture in the last 30 years and increasing atomization of society. Naturally young people who have only experienced such a political culture will have different views of the world as compared to grandparents who saw the construction of the welfare state and lived through a time when trade union and community culture was stronger. To dismiss this and simply to imagine that young people will “grow into” left-wing views is a dangerously naive and simplistic view of history and social change.

Also, dismissing the article as “more anti-youth drivel” seems a little absurd given that it is patently written by a teacher in East London who is attempting in a seemingly honest fashion to describe his first-hand experience of young people and their views. It is frankly offensive and ill-considered to accuse someone who chooses to teach in one of the most deprived parts of the UK, with one of the highest rates of youth violence and social problems, as “anti-youth”. I wonder what “lichen”’s experience of young working class (or, as he says, “poor”) people is?

With his comments regarding child labour laws and a “working class” of minors in the UK, “lichen” betrays the fact that he does not regard class as fundamental to a left-wing analysis of society. Again, a fairly fundamental concept in the social sciences and in the theoretic apparatus of most successfull progressive social movements. But nevermind, why would one worry about about how society or the economy functions, let alone taking a moment to consider how to connect with the vast majority of ordinary people. Why on earth would the left want to do that, “lichen”?!

Times will change.

Aside from this misinterpretation, most of your comment contains no substantive reference to anything in the article, let alone the main points: 1) that young working class people in Britain have been influenced by the values of Thatcherism, and have adopted many of these values (on the surface at least) 2) that the Left needs to recognise this if it has any hope of winning support for its values and 3) that forms of community politics may offer a solution to this problem.

Perhaps you could put forward your views on these points?

Your suggestion that the kids referred to in the article were willfully misrepresenting their views is interesting. Do you also think that the people who participated in the poll (cited in the article – it showed that young people were more opposed to redistribution of wealth than older people) lied about their views? Perhaps it was only the young people polled who lied…

Of course it is comforting to tell ourselves that working class young people are budding revolutionaries but, at least in Britain, there is no evidence for this whatsoever.

You make some rather patronising comments about how I must have had the wool pulled over my eyes by the kids I teach. Maybe you have experiences of working with young people you’d like to tell us about?

Left Luggage

Television! i.e. The Media

Transcends class, colour, creed, everything! and is a great factor in all of the woes described above. Time for everyone to do a Kieth Moon me thinks.

He consistently “talks down” to the working class, whose failure to follow the lead of their betters is a “problem” to be “tacked”. The young are to be “involved” in “community organisations” (run by Guess Who!) and have taught to them that “altruism and collectivism are possible”. The “Left” are to “build on the elements of the views of working class young people that have progressive potential”. Such elements, no doubt, to be selected by their middle class betters! If you think all this is starting to sound like the Hitler Youth, it gets even better: “ideas about personal responsibility should be nurtured”. “We” should try to broaden the notion of success to include non-material and intrinsic goals. And “unless community and political organisations can successfully intervene …”

Most of his misperceptions stem from that “little brown brother” mentality and to turn his own words against him, he casts working class young people as passive victims without agency. The young are not selfish. In fact, the young of today are highly idealistic and totally lucid. They just cover their idealism with cynicism. And they love to be shocking! I would guess that they find Mr Luggage totally ridiculous, have identified what he wants them to say and are saying the opposite, just to “pull his chain”, so to speak.

Radical suggestion: let the working class decide what is in their best interests and then butt out and let them get on with doing it.