logo
Labour's 'lanyard class' has made it a 'hostile environment' for working class voters, party grandee warns

Labour's 'lanyard class' has made it a 'hostile environment' for working class voters, party grandee warns

Daily Mail​07-05-2025

Labour 's woke leadership has made the party a 'hostile environment' for working-class voters, a senior Labour peer claimed yesterday.
Maurice Glasman said the 'lanyard class' had alienated traditional supporters who are now flocking to Reform UK instead.
His intervention came as Keir Starmer faced a growing Labour backlash over the loss of votes to Nigel Farage 's party in last week's local elections and in the Runcorn and Helsby by-election, in what was one of the party's safest seats.
The 45-strong Red Wall group of Labour MPs also called for a change of direction, including restoration of the winter fuel payment, saying the Prime Minister's pledge to go 'further and faster' in the same direction had 'fallen on deaf ears'.
And another Labour MP last night told the under-fire leadership that he would 'swim through vomit' to vote against their benefit cuts.
Lord Glasman, founder of the Blue Labour movement that has attracted interest from some senior government figures, said many self-styled 'progressives' had been too quick to condemn legitimate concerns about immigration, grooming gangs and other issues as being 'far Right'.
The life peer said: 'For 20 or 30 years now, Labour culture has been a hostile environment for working-class people. If you say what you think, then you get condemned. The inability to let people express their grief. We see people in pain and we call them far Right or populist or racist or sexist – they are just speaking.'
Lord Glasman said last week's results showed Labour would get turfed out in an election unless it starts to listen to ordinary voters.
'Reform is a working-class insurrection against the progressive ruling class,' he said. 'The only way to counter it is for the Government to lead the insurrection.'
Lord Glasman told a New Statesman event at the Policy Exchange think-tank in London a 'battle is fully ongoing' within No 10 about whether to change course to try to reconnect with the party's traditional roots.
The peer, who is close to the PM's chief of staff Morgan McSweeney, warned that doing so would involve 'doing something that has never been done, which is turning things round in office'.
He savaged the Government over its refusal to hold a national public inquiry into the grooming gangs scandal, describing the rape of mostly young white girls by gangs of predominantly Pakistani origin men as 'the ultimate desecration of human life'.
Calling for televised trials of those involved in perpetrating and covering up the scandal, he said it was 'a festering wound'.
Lord Glasman also criticised the Labour leadership for embracing wokery, saying future generations would look back on this time as a 'period of progressive insanity' where 'you could lose your job for saying completely normal things'.
Lord Glasman did not spell out what he meant by the 'lanyard class' of professionals but he suggested it included those running big HR departments who have introduced woke culture into workplaces.
'There has got to be a culture change,' he said.
'This thought policing of what is acceptable discourse, the power of HR departments, has got to be targeted to create a political space in which people who created our movement are allowed to speak.'
Cabinet Office minister Pat McFadden warned Labour MPs about Reform, telling a behind- closed-doors meeting of the Parliamentary Labour Party: 'A new fight is taking shape. It's a fight between our values and a nationalist politics of the Right. It's a battle for the very heart and soul of our country.'
A string of Labour MPs suggested they could rebel over the Government's plan to cut disability benefits by £5billion.
Left-winger Ian Byrne claimed he was ready to 'swim through vomit' to vote in the Commons against the plans.
He said the cuts would be 'devastation for disabled people'.
In the Commons, Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch challenged Sir Keir to reinstate the winter fuel payment, saying: 'Even his own MPs are saying it's wrong. He's refused to listen to me on this, will he at least listen to his own party and change course?'

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Kemi Badenoch refuses to kick Liz Truss out of Conservative Party
Kemi Badenoch refuses to kick Liz Truss out of Conservative Party

BreakingNews.ie

time16 minutes ago

  • BreakingNews.ie

Kemi Badenoch refuses to kick Liz Truss out of Conservative Party

Kemi Badenoch has refused to kick former UK prime minister Liz Truss out of the Conservative Party. The Tory leader suggested such a move would be 'neither here nor there' for voters' perception of the party. Advertisement In a speech on Thursday, shadow chancellor Sir Mel Stride sought to distance the Conservatives from Ms Truss' mini-budget, saying the party needed to show 'contrition' to restore its economic credibility. In a furious response, Ms Truss accused Mr Stride of having 'kowtowed to the failed Treasury orthodoxy' and being 'set on undermining my plan for growth'. Asked by the BBC on Friday whether she would consider throwing former prime minister Ms Truss out of the Conservatives in a symbolic break with her short-lived, turbulent time in No 10, Mrs Badenoch replied: 'Is she still in the party?' Ms Truss, the former Conservative MP for South West Norfolk, is understood to be a Tory party member still. Advertisement Speaking to the BBC, Mrs Badenoch said: 'What is really important is what Mel was saying yesterday. What he was saying was that the mini-budget did not balance. It wasn't tax cuts, it was the … £150 billion of spending increases on energy bills that did not make sense.' Pressed whether she believed the mini-budget had damaged the Conservative brand, Mrs Badenoch said: 'Well, look at what happened, people didn't understand why we had done that, and so our reputation for economic competence was damaged.' Tory leader Kemi Badenoch said the party needed to 'focus on how we're going to get this country back on track' (Stefan Rousseau/PA) When asked again why she would not consider kicking Ms Truss out of the party, the Tory leader said: 'It is not about any particular individual. I don't want to be commenting on previous prime ministers. 'They've had their time. What am I going to do now? Removing people from a political party is neither here nor there in terms of what it is your viewers want to see.' Advertisement After insisting Ms Truss was not in Parliament anymore, Mrs Badenoch said her party needed to 'focus on how we're going to get this country back on track'. 'What we have right now is a Labour Government, it's Keir Starmer. We need to stop talking about several prime ministers ago and talk about the Prime Minister we've got now and what he's doing to the country,' the Tory leader said. Ms Truss this week appeared in a video to promote the Irish whiskey brand of bare-knuckle fighter Dougie Joyce, who was once jailed for attacking a 78-year-old man in a pub in 2022.

JD Vance breaks his silence on Trump and Musk feud after seeing Elon's Epstein tweet during Theo Von interview
JD Vance breaks his silence on Trump and Musk feud after seeing Elon's Epstein tweet during Theo Von interview

The Independent

time20 minutes ago

  • The Independent

JD Vance breaks his silence on Trump and Musk feud after seeing Elon's Epstein tweet during Theo Von interview

Vice President JD Vance's first reaction to Elon Musk 's Trump-Epstein tweet was caught Thursday on Theo Von's podcast. On the 'This Past Weekend w/ Theo Von,' episode released Saturday, Von showed Vance one of the most viral tweets from the pair's feud, in which the Tesla CEO claimed, '@realDonaldTrump is in the Epstein files. That is the real reason they have not been made public.' 'Ok, wow. I haven't even seen this one,' Vance said, explaining he was on a plane amid Musk and Trump 's online exchanges. 'First of all, absolutely not. Donald Trump didn't do anything wrong with Jeffrey Epstein,' Vance said. 'Whatever the Democrats and the media says about him, that's totally BS.' The social media exchange came just a week after Musk left his DOGE role in the Trump Administration. Vance chalked Musk's online outbursts up to him 'being new to politics' and frustrations that his 'businesses are being attacked non-stop' since he joined the White House. Musk's departure followed a Wall Street Journal report citing insiders who claimed that even Trump was getting frustrated with Musk and was doubtful whether his goals within DOGE could be reached. Musk has since spoken out about his disapproval of the Trump-backed One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which includes various policy changes, including tax cuts, welfare reform, and infrastructure investments. 'Elon is entitled to his opinion,' Vance told Von on the podcast. 'I'm not saying he has to agree with the bill or agree with everything that I'm saying. I just think it's a huge mistake for the world's wealthiest man — I think one of the most transformational entrepreneurs ever — to be at war with the world's most powerful man, who I think is doing more to save the country than anybody in my lifetime.' Vance added, 'I just think you've got to have some respect for him and say, 'yeah, we don't have to agree on every issue.' But is this war actually in the interest of the country? I don't think so.' Despite Musk going 'so nuclear' online, Vance is hopeful that he can 'come back into the fold' within politics. 'I know the president was getting a little frustrated, feeling like some of the criticisms were unfair coming from Elon,' Vance said. 'But I think it has been very restrained, because the president doesn't think that he needs to be in a blood feud with Elon Musk. And I actually think that if Elon chilled out a little bit everything would be fine.'

Why Britain must not recognise Palestine
Why Britain must not recognise Palestine

Telegraph

time26 minutes ago

  • Telegraph

Why Britain must not recognise Palestine

The West Bank was never taken from the Palestinians. When Israel conquered the territory in 1967 it was from the Jordanians, who had occupied it since 1948 before trying their luck at a genocide of the Jews. Regardless, if Jerusalem gave up the land in return for peace, it would make Israel just nine miles wide at its centre. Known as the 'Hadera-Gadera rectangle', that narrow waist holds half the population and much of the country's vital infrastructure, including Tel Aviv. A new Palestinian state would lie just over the border. After October 7, would you do it? The Palestinian leader, Mahmoud Abbas, is famously incompetent, and is currently enjoying the 20th year of the four-year term to which he was elected in 2005. He presides over a system of corruption and brutality; he holds a PhD in Holocaust revisionism from a Moscow university; and he offers cash incentives to those convicted of terror offences, with higher payments awarded for more serious crimes. Fancy the odds? When Israel pulled out of Gaza in 2005, it was in the naive belief that, from then on, even a single rocket from the Strip would meet with international condemnation, since the settlements and 'occupation' were no more. So that worked out well. A two-state solution would see the same policy applied on the West Bank. What could possibly go wrong? Sir Keir Starmer presumably thinks it's a great idea, because in nine days' time, Britain will join France and the Saudis in New York in talks about recognising a state of Palestine. Far easier to gamble with the lives of someone else's children than your own, I suppose. This would form the natural culmination of Britain's escalating hostility towards our ally, as it battles to defeat the jihadi group that carried out that orgy of butchery, mutilation and rape two years ago and has vowed to do the same again. Hostages are still in the catacombs. Yet Sir Keir dreams of a state of Palestine. War is hell. Israel – which neither wanted it nor started it – evacuates civilians before attacks and provides them with aid. Yet in Parliament last week, amid nods from MPs who have never known the inside of a bomb shelter, the Prime Minister branded Israel 'appalling'. As ever, Starmer's petty politicking blinds him to his own moral bankruptcy. Unilaterally recognising a state of Palestine is a contemptuous proposal. Dismissing Israel's existential security concerns is insult enough, but providing a reward for October 7 creates awful incentives for the future. Worse still, perhaps, is the narrative it would create. Britain's official policy would be to blame Israel for the lack of a Palestinian state, when the historical truth is the opposite. The Palestinians were first offered self-determination in 1947, but rejected it in favour of attempted genocide. They were offered it again during the Oslo Accords in the 1990s, but derailed it with a spate of suicide bombs that claimed the lives of many Israelis. In 2000, at Camp David, they were offered 96 per cent of the West Bank but turned it down. In 2008, prime minister Ehud Olmert offered 94 per cent of the territory with land swaps for the remainder, East Jerusalem as a Palestinian capital, and the Old City turned over to international control. Again, Abbas rejected it. Why? Because the true problem is the very existence of a Jewish country, which is seen as a rebuke by some to Arab honour. The Palestinians don't want a state alongside Israel. They want a state instead of it. This is what Britain would be supporting.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store