Despised: Why the Modern Left Loathes the Working Class

by Paul Embery

The typical contemporary Labour MP is almost certain to be a university-educated Europhile who is more comfortable in the leafy enclaves of north London than the party’s historic heartlands. As a result, Labour has become radically out of step with the culture and values of working-class Britain. Drawing on his background as a firefighter and trade unionist from Dagenham, Paul Embery argues that this disconnect has been inevitable since the Left political establishment swallowed a poisonous brew of economic and social liberalism. They have come to despise traditional working-class values of patriotism, family and faith and instead embraced globalisation, rapid demographic change and a toxic, divisive brand of identity politics. Embery contends that the Left can only revive if it speaks once again to the priorities of working-class people by combining socialist economics with the cultural politics of belonging, place and community.

No one who wants to really understand why our politics has become so dysfunctional and what the Left can do to fix it can afford to miss this authentic, insightful and passionate book.

Genres: Politics, Nonfiction, Society, Economics, Cultural, Philosophy, Political Science

216 pages, ebook

First published November 18, 2020

Reviews

[Geevee · Rating 3 out of 5]

I have many books on UK politics and political figures, notably from the 30s to the 80s, but also a growing collection from the 1990s up to today. This one appealed to me as it [the title] struck a cord in what I have read, seen and listened to over the last few years in respect of the Labour party and its relationship with the working class of Britain.

In essence, Paul Embery's book is a short polemic, and that can be seen by the breadth of reviews on GR, including those who are deeply critical and are not swayed by his views. For me, Mr Embery clearly and ably constructs his arguments around the disconnection with and then loathing that well describes the university-educated metro left who disparage and detest the "thick, racist and xenophobic" traditional Labour voter.

The author uses his own background and community in Dagenham to show the reasons and impacts recent politics have delivered and created. These include unchecked/unplanned immigration, globalisation, and "Liberal wokedom." All of these have created change that has been unplanned, has happened at great speed and has seen traditional working class values of home, family, community, common interest and aspects such as patriotism denounced as old-fashioned, racist, backward and rearward looking [to Empire and the glory days of WWII].

Embery shows that these traditional and key aspects have been impacted and also that for many, the Labour party has failed to take note of/consider the traditional working class's values and opinions.
He also ably describes why these people are not racist or rearward looking but rather forward looking and accepting of change but challenged by failing services, depressed wages, reduced social mobility and a very real and deliberate move to push views and values that go against theirs: housing priority for immigrants over longstanding community members, gender/ LBGTQ+ / DEI culture and priority and supressing valid alternative views [not anti/phobic but ones that challenge in sensible and reasoned ways] to these; and the continued and continuing suggestion that voters of Brexit and supporters of an English identity are racist, stupid and didn't know what they voted for.

For all of these points, one need only look to social media and MSM comment forums to see the above aspects and points Embery makes as accurate and founded on clear and visible tweets, threads, and articles.

Embery then offers his view on how Labour need to reconnect with the working class by considering the views and wants they have but also as a way of rallying support to win the next GE in 2024.

Whilst, there is much here that I agree with having seen these points above acted out since 2016, and I also look at the current Labour party under Keir Starmer - the book was written in 2021 - to see that there has been some reconnection, but many of the issues Embery cites and states still exist. As Labour likely become our next government on 4th July [2024], Labour should realise that they are receiving working class votes not because Labour has changed wholesale but that the Conservatives have been so poor. This next term in office for Labour may be a healer, but equally, it could indeed be a straw that breaks the camel's back.

[Don · Rating 1 out of 5]

Paul Embery’s account of the state of modern left wing politics rests on more myths than the Quest for the Golden Fleece. It is difficult to list them in any order of priority since each one seems equally egregious as another. But let us dive in anyway.

The framework for his story is provided by the idea of a ‘gathering storm’ which apparently broke as recently as 23 June 2016, when the result of the referendum on UK membership of the EU became clear. The Brexit vote had, we are told, been driven by a working class preference for place and community and the cultural politics which cemented these together. It expressed a deep opposition to the globalism of previous decades, which had placed the transactional values of the market in the place where the desire for human association should have been preeminent.

This elides over the fact that the campaign for Brexit was led by the likes of Nigel Farage, Boris Johnson, Michael Gove and was bankrolled by a segment of financial and industrial capital who were every bit as committed to global markets as the pro-Remain ‘progressives’ being rallied by Cameron, Blair and their followers among the captains of industry. A case for Lexit was touted by individuals who looked to the line promoted in the Morning Star or Socialist Worker, but that line of argument had no discernible traction in the England-outside-London and Wales which swung the vote to Leave. It would be more accurate to say that, rather than seeing it as a rejection of globalisation, the vote or Brexit measured the hope that the plebian voters of Britain could make themselves bigger winners from neoliberalism than they had been able to be in as members of the EU.

But Embery offers nothing in the way of evidence that his idealised working class was as committed to the values of community as he claims, beyond reminiscence about growing up and living in the east London neighbourhood of Dagenham. He tells us that the culturally conservative values of the folk on the Becontree Estate were as firmly espoused on that fateful day in 2016 as they were when it was established as new homes for displaced East Enders by the London County Council in the 1920s. Homes, high streets, churches, pubs, and jobs at the Ford Motor Company locked working class families together and provided them with the social identity that was expressed by consistent support for Labour across all those long years. Until 2006 that is, when a large faction of them defected to support the neofascist British National Party.

Apparently, it was as recent as the 2000s, when “Car production at the Ford plant was on its last legs, and what was once a stable, cohesive and enduring community was suddenly [my emphasis] by social instability and fragmentation.” In fact, the dislocation of community harmony had started long before that date. The great experiment of pushed forward by the visionaries of the LCC should properly be seen as a victim of its own success, and the signs of fragmentation had become visible by the late 1960s and 1970s. Embery represents these years as a fall from grace that had nothing to do with the Becontree Estate and similar working class communities, but instead was all about the emergence of a counter-culture of consumerist individualism driven forward by an ideology of personal liberation.

You would not know it from Despised’s account of the period, but it was during these years that powerful currents emerged from within the working class that were largely aligned with counter-culturalism, with youth and women being in the vanguard, which pushed back against the stifling horizons provided by community and place. It did not need the outside influence of the progressive middle class to incite the generation born in the 1950s and after to reach for things other than the home, hight street, church, pub and local factory. This was happening in Dagenham and in many other working class neighbourhoods, where apprenticeships were viewed less favourably than the chance to study for A-levels or business studies at a local FE college, topped off with a British Rail train ticket to somewhere where the lights were brighter and jobs more varied and plentiful.

I worked in Fords in the mid-70s, when the plant had a workforce of around 35,000 people, of whom a diminishing number lived in Dagenham. The PTA plant, where I put in 8 hour shifts bolting driver seats to the floor pan of Consuls and Marinas, had already by that time become workplaces for a majority immigrant workforce, with the latest arrivals of Asians from Kenya and Uganda were taking their places alongside an older generation of West Indians. If the Becontree Estate could delude itself that the neighbourhood was ‘cohesive and enduring’ – i.e. white – then this was because council tenancy rules didn’t favour the growing majority of Ford plant workers, whose recently-arrived immigrants status precluded access to council housing.

So, no immigrants for the time being, but as the 1970s moved into the 1980s, and a real process of fragmentation was put underway which had working class households as its most fervent supporters. The right to buy scheme led over the years to 48,500 homes in the borough of Barking and Dagenham being transferred from the council sector into private ownership. Appreciation in the value of these assets went to finance the mobility of working class families, whose attachment to the area had declined as workplaces shifted from the Ford site down by the river to central London or Essex county jobs accessed by road or the District tube line. Community connections weakened by property values hiked ever upwards, the next predictable step was to cash in on housing values by offering former council houses for sale or rent to the denizens of over-crowded inner London. It took the immigrants a long time to move from being the stock labour force in what was still the borough’s largest private sector employer to people who actually lived there, but when it happened it seemed sufficient cause to register a silent protest by voting for a racist, neofascist party.

The myths that Embery spins around the reasons for Brexit, the innocence of the working class in the counter-cultural movements of the 1960s, and developments within his own working class community are compounded by the disdain he obviously he obviously feels for those sections of the population who committed themselves to some version of antiracism across these years. Partially exempted are the segments of youth swept up into enthusiasm for Rock Against Racism and the Anti Nazi League – he was indeed among their number. But someone, or something let him down because the arguments he was furnished with to wage that fight seemed, to him, to be painfully inadequate. Solidarity with the Oppressed across the planet? Whoever is going to buy into that? Only the middle classes, who in any event are ‘people from nowhere’ pitched against ‘people from somewhere’, it seems.

In ploughing his chosen field in order to reap a crop of ‘culturally conservative’ folk prepared to chance their luck with an economically leftist political party Embery register the very emotional response which he condemns his opponents with – despising people who stand in a very different tradition of left wing politics. I count myself among them. Like many people of my generation, born and raised in declining northern English towns, the option of remaining in our ‘enduring’ communities didn’t seem all that attractive. For some of us, as well the economic decline of our native cities, the notable events of the time included the war against American imperialism in Vietnam, the anti-apartheid struggle, the attempt by the British state to suppress the civil rights movement in Northern Ireland, solidarity with second-wave feminism and the burgeoning gay liberation movement, and revulsion against the speeches of Enoch Powell and his co-thinkers on the right wing of British politics.

It was this experience of life across the final quarter of the 20th century which was the crucible of a politics that combined a class perspective with an internationalist commitment to solidarity, and made us deeply sceptical about the supposed virtues of community and national patriotism. That legacy is being taken up and given new vitality by a millennial generation that has already taken new directions forward in campaigns against austerity, for migrant and refugee rights, and black lives matter. It is likely to feel complete indifference to the charges made against it during the course of Embery’s tendentious mythologising.

[Mat Davies · Rating 5 out of 5]

One of the most important political books that I have read this year. I don't agree with everything in it, but what it contains matters and needs to be discussed. There is, I think obviously, a failure on the left to listen and connect with people beyond the cosmopolitan and graduate groups that enjoy putting issues such as the importance of pronouns as core political issues and cancel heretics who think otherwise.

The author here offers a narrative that I am confident will resonate with many reasonable people who find themselves in a political void. Perhaps they feel like there are things that they cannot discuss in fear of cancellation, or perhaps artists who doublethink their artistic choices wondering if they have been diverse enough. After the decimation of the Labour Party in 2019, there has never been a more important time to discuss these issues.

Solid!

[Mal Shah · Rating 1 out of 5]

This book was recommended to me by a friend, and not because he thought it’d change my mind hugely. In fact, the opposite – I think he thought I’d largely agree with it. And for what it’s worth, some of the conclusions here are undeniable (e.g., that the turn to New Labour constituted, as the name suggested, a break with traditional Labour practices, and it did so for the worse). But those arguments don’t make up the heart of the book. Most of it is, I think insufficiently evidenced, logically incoherent, and sometimes patently disingenuous. I recognise that these are bold claims, so will lay out the evidence for them below. What I’d really like to do is a point-by-point refutation, but that isn’t something I have the time for – and, more importantly, it wouldn’t make for an interesting read. But I will go into some specifics because I think only in the specifics is the debate actually worth having. I will also make some remarks about the scholarship of the book (i.e. the research conducted and the book’s academic integrity), but there is plenty to go on even otherwise.

Let me offer a quick summary of the book: Paul Embery is a Blue Labour (economically left-wing and socially conservative) advocate, and he takes similar attitudes to be representative, at least, in large part, of the working class in Britain. The working class, is, according to him, mostly the lower income, non-graduate, post-industrial class (and he notes the break with the economically defined Marxist notion of the working class: anyone who has nothing to sell but their labour-power). He thinks the modern Left (a term I’ll come back to) has turned its back on the working class, going so far as to use the word ‘betrayed’, and for the following reasons: the ‘modern Left’ has embraced internationalism (or market globalisation – Embery only makes the distinction very late in the book), derides any discussion of immigration as racist, ostracises those who adhere to ‘traditional values’ such as ‘family’, ‘work’, and the ‘social bonds’ that are forged in ‘national community’. He lays some of the blame at 1960’s counterculture, which advocated free love, saw traditional ‘personal morality’ and religion as oppressive, and was largely critical of notions of borders and immigration control. He then advocates a return to national values of the nation-state, restrictions on immigration, and a defence of ‘freedom of expression’, while the modern Left is currently embroiled in ‘groupthink’. The reader will note my excessive scare-quoting. That’s because Embery doesn’t offer anything by way of definition of any of these terms. But I’ll come back to this, as I said.

The first question I want to raise is “who is this book directed towards?” Embery, in the rare occasions he provides quotes, often derides New Labour neoliberals (and rightly so). But besides that, a lot of the anger seems to be directed towards ‘Twitter’. I don’t know what Embery means by ‘the modern Left’, but it seems to be the disjunction of people who respond to him on Twitter and the neoliberal ascendency. Why these people are singled out and not, say, the Labour Left (i.e. Corbynites) is fairly clear. He doesn’t really have a bone to pick with the latter, and it wouldn’t make for good writing. But the other two groups – i.e. opinionated teenagers on Twitter, and the Blairite ‘movement’ that was rejected almost wholesale by two party leadership elections (the second time with more vigour than the first) – are written as if they’re representative of the entire Left. Now, none of this is actually disclosed. It is instead left to the reader to work out what Embery actually means by the Left. I suspect, as with a good deal of the book, it’s rather easy to fill in the gaps with this sort of thing if you already agree with the conclusions. Actually reflecting on the use of the words is a lot more telling. A lot of Embery’s arguments trade on ambiguities like this (a typical feature of post-modern political soapboxing that is more interested in provocative titles that sell well than it is in genuine sober analysis).

Now, to return to the discussion of values. I’ll pick one example, but the point generalises. Embery writes at length about how the Left should ‘return’ to wanting families to stay together and oppose the trend in which ‘families fragment’ – it should embrace an ‘explicitly pro-family stance’, and stop identifying ‘family values’ with right-wing ones. All I can say to this is ‘duh.’ What Embery does is use vague terms like ‘family values’ that have no clearly defined content (not that he’s looking to provide a definition), so you’d be a fool to disagree. Obviously, I don’t want families to fragment – that sounds awful. What follows is then what appears to be an argument but is really a collection of weasel words, misleading you into believing something concrete is being said – sound and fury signifying nothing, et cetera. As I said, soapboxing. So what remains is a picture of the Left who are committed to things unthinkable like the destruction of families. What evidence is provided that anyone actually believes these things? None. They’re taken to be common sense, as if that should pass in a book that purports to provide a respectable view of the political situation.

Some brief remarks about the scholarship. Embery seems to have some kind of chronic aversion to referencing. Sometimes he’ll even say things like ‘the evidence is all around us.’ Cite it then, if it’s so easy. Sometimes the ‘evidence’ is backed up by citation to editorials. Sometimes, sentences will be included in quotation marks but aren’t followed by a citation, where polemically convenient. This violates standards one is familiar with from virtually childhood. All of this contributes to the general posturing attitudes of the book – some kind of role-play of actual rational analysis is apparent, without actually doing much of the work required. The majority of the evidence (where Embery decides it’s important to include) is anecdotal at best. ‘I know this, because they told me so.’

This is all to say nothing about facts that are neglected where they don’t fit in with Embery’s polemical point. Take for instance, religion. Embery seems to take it that the working class are religious. In fact, Britain is a majority non-religious country as of 2019, as documented in British Social Attitudes surveys. His discussion of immigration is worse – it isn’t that he provides no citations, I think it approaches dishonesty. For what it’s worth, I don’t think anyone asking questions about immigration is a racist. But I do think it’s flatly disingenuous to fail to mention crucial facts in certain contexts as the following. Embery argues that immigration is problematic as it puts an additional strain on public services such as the NHS. He mentions the left-wing argument that this is due to rampant underfunding, not due to immigration, but dismisses it as being only part of the whole picture (no argument provided for that). What he fails to mention is that a quarter of NHS workers aren’t even UK nationals (this will then be a proper subset of non-UK ethnicity, i.e. even more than that are immigrants in general). Likewise with his discussion of Japan – he mentions that Japan has a relatively coherent national attitude, and we should strive to be more like them. ‘The Japanese’, he writes, ‘do not, it would appear, wish to see their country turned into a place that no longer resembles Japan. It is hard to sustain an argument that it is any the worse for that.’

Turning instead to the facts, we find that Japanese immigration laws are actually quite lax. A sizeable majority of Japanese citizens actually support importing labour. The question to ask is why people don’t migrate to Japan as much, and the answers there aren’t too difficult. Migration to Japan is actually not popular within people considering migrating – it is not that it is disallowed by the Japanese, as Embery asserts. What’s even more interesting is that this is all very well documented – indeed, there’s Wikipedia pages about it. Embery’s entire discussion is so divorced from any research that a Google search dismantles it (and indeed, the discussion contains not one citation). Facts are routinely ignored in service of Embery’s moralising conclusions.

Another interesting case is Embery’s discussion of the role of police in ‘freedom of expression’ cases. He thinks that the role of the police has expanded beyond reasonable standards (I suspect, the conclusion taken verbatim is actually correct). His reasoning for this conclusion is, at times, troubling. He goes on about the ‘totalitarian’ attitudes of ‘the Left’ (historically, famous supporters of the police force…) with respect to same-sex marriage, gender pronouns, and sexual harassment. He says what is now condemned as falling under harassment would once upon a time would have been looked at as ‘mild flirting’. I don’t know how to respond to this, other than by saying that calling out sexual harassment is hardly some object of freedom of expression. One would do well to bear in mind that freedom of expression holds for opinions in particular, and not for any language whatsoever. ‘Flirting’ (or harassment) is not an expression of an opinion. Where he does discuss opinion, it’s to do in particular with homo-/transphobia, where he complains that anyone who disagrees is branded a homophobe or a transphobe. Well, what his genuine complaint there is, I don’t know. Is it that someone called him a homophobe? Surely that falls under their freedom of expression by the same token. It’s hardly like someone has been arrested for voicing the opinion that gay people should not marry.

His mention of Sam Smith is equally embarrassing – he writes “Though still relatively tiny, the number of people declaring themselves ‘non-binary’ […] has increased in recent years […] One such was the award-winning singer and songwriter Sam Smith, who came out as non-binary in 2019. Needless to say the entire media and cultural establishment fell in line and, in accordance with Smith’s wishes, began using neutral pronouns when referring to him [sic]”. What his point was (other than to deliberately provoke, or come off contrarian and edgy) evades me. And worse yet, it’s patently false: the entire media did not fall in line. Take for example, Joanna Williams writing for The Times. The article, titled “Declaring your pronouns is pure narcissism”, is filled with these sorts of jabs: “Kae [Tempest – a poet and musician] follows in the footsteps of the Grammy award-winning singer and songwriter Sam Smith, once “he”, now “they/them […] I’m all for denying biology. I pretend I’m not getting older and can still drink too much without suffering the next day. I pretend I can fit into clothes I bought 20 years ago. But I don’t insist other people confirm my delusions. Demanding to be called they/them rather than he/she is to insist that the rest of the world share in your fantasy.” Embery, of course, doesn’t care about the fact that this represents a good deal of the media establishment. He wants to look like the underdog, and so (like before, lacking any citations), just doesn’t mention any of this.

Embery’s argumentation is equally lacking. Take, by way of example, his discussion of 1960’s counterculture. With its embrace of sex, drugs, and John Lennon, he thinks a good deal of today’s teenage pregnancy, drug abuse, so on, can be attributed to this. If such a causal connection exists, no work is done to establish it, and thereby inferring causation from correlation (or really, not even correlation – just precedence in time). Again, mistakes one is warned about in middle school are repeated. He does mention alternative explanations (say, the destruction of the working class by rampant de-industrialisation, but dismisses them out of hand as inadequate – no argument needed). Arguments in the book are often like this. Embery will make some bold claim, mention some contrary explanation – claim it doesn’t see the whole picture (sans reasoning) and carry on as if it’s irrelevant. To take an example from the immigration chapter, he, while regaling us about the flaws of immigration, says it would be ‘absurd’ to suggest immigration has no benefits (not that he mentions any of the benefits, of course), and carries on. Mentioning alternative explanations and doing nothing with them doesn’t make your argument any more nuanced than not mentioning them at all. At least in the second case you can claim ignorance.

Embery also makes wildly unsubstantiated claims about the intentions of people talking about, say, critical theory. Now, I’m actually sort of in the field of philosophy, and I don’t take critical theory seriously. But I don’t think for a moment that anyone talking about it is just trying to signal the fact that they’re enlightened because they went to university – and if they are, I expect some evidence. Otherwise, you’re just assuming bad faith on the part of people who disagree with you. But what I find more troubling about this is the deep patronisation implicit in it. If talking about philosophical issues must mean you went to university, you’re implying that you can’t talk about these things if you didn’t. Whereas in truth, you can walk into any Waterstones and pick up a copy of Foucault and interpret it for yourself. Compare this attitude to the one you find in Jonathan Rose’s “The Intellectual Life of the British Working Classes”, a well-researched history of the reading habits of working people in the UK. You find that many working people were regularly involved in thinking about political and philosophical issues. It isn’t just ivory tower liberals who think about these things, and Embery, in all his condescension, seems to think it is.

As you can tell, I’m not impressed. Now, I should note, I doubt all of the conclusions of the book are false. What arguments for those conclusions exist aren’t to be found here though. I expect a lot of the people who are rating this book so highly already agree with it and so don’t realise how much work exactly they’re doing interpreting Embery’s undefined terms and filling in all the gaps in his reasoning. Embery seems to think that anyone who disagrees with him must be divorced from the attitudes of the British working class. Maybe I am, I don’t know. It’s obvious though, that this kind of argument serves a moralistic conclusion more than it serves a factual one. Indeed, Embery’s interest in the facts seems to wax and wane. Unfortunately, I can’t offer any deep moral insight, as Embery seems to think he can, but if you happen to think the facts are relevant, I think one ought to look elsewhere.

[Tom · Rating 5 out of 5]

Wrote a full review for a publication 👇🏼

https://mallarduk.com/book-review-pau...

[Macafelly · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fantastic

A timely, and thoroughly welcome, critique of the modern left, the labour movement and the Labour Party from someone on the inside.

Paul's is a voice of reason in a sea of madness. One can only hope there are many more like him, quietly resenting the modern Labour's lurch away from the bread and butter working-class issues to the woke, middle-class, student politics style party it has now become.

Unless it heeds the warnings in this book and acts upon some of the suggestions of how it can reclaim the working-class of England and the UK in general, the Labour Party is finished as a party of government.

[Alan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Although the title of this book might evoke the tone of a Fox News polemic, it is, in fact, a thoughtful critique by a traditional working-class, left-wing Labour Party member and trade unionist. The author, Paul Embery, draws on his personal experiences to chart the British left's shift from a movement centred on the working class (WC) to one increasingly preoccupied with radical student activism and fringe identity politics. His analysis offers valuable insights for anyone on the left seeking to understand its recent failures and chart a path to renewal.

Embery argues persuasively that the working class broadly aligns with small-c conservative values—such as hard work, community solidarity, and patriotism—while supporting economically progressive policies. However, the Labour Party's embrace of neoliberalism in the 1990s led it to neglect the WC's legitimate concerns about globalisation, including rapid demographic change, declining job security, and the erosion of national autonomy. Instead of addressing these issues, party elites dismissed them as inevitable side effects of progress. A striking example is former Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s infamous dismissal of a WC Labour supporter’s polite question about immigration as the words of a "bigoted woman," which Embery cites as emblematic of this detachment.

More troubling, the new generation of leftists—focused on identity politics and minority rights—has not only ignored WC concerns but often displayed outright hostility toward them. These communities, bearing the brunt of globalisation’s downsides while seeing little of its benefits, find their traditional values derided by a middle-class, student-driven faction that dominates the modern Labour movement. Figures like Clement Attlee and Tony Benn, once giants of the Labour tradition, might today be dismissed as reactionary imperialists for their national pride. Benn, in particular, would likely be vilified for his opposition to open-door immigration and the European Union. Even Jeremy Corbyn, whose radical egalitarian policies resonated with many WC voters, struggled to maintain their support amid the cultural disconnect between his leadership and the modern left.

As Embery convincingly demonstrates, this alienation culminated in Labour’s near-total collapse in the most recent General Election. The party cannot hope to rebuild without regaining the trust of the WC, yet this would require the predominantly middle-class, student-oriented membership to compromise on some of their priorities—a prospect Embery views as unlikely.

This book is a vital read for anyone on the British left who wishes to understand the movement’s estrangement from its roots and reflect on what it will take to reconnect with the people it once claimed to champion. Embery's critique is not always comfortable, but it is a necessary contribution to the debate over Labour’s future.

[Steve Birchmore · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is aimed at the Labour Party, of which the author is a long time member. The author, Paul Embry, clearly despairs at what the Labour Party and the British left in general have become. In particular, the book addresses the alienation from the Labour Party and the modern Left of the Labour Party's traditional support and who it was created to represent: the working class, or more clearly, the traditional working class.

The descriptions of the British traditional working class and its values are excellent. I consider myself one of the traditional working class and I think it very unusual and striking to read a book that describes and knows what I consider to be my tribe so well. There are very few books that I have read that resonate with me so strongly, David Goodhart's 'Road to Somewhere' or 'The Likes of Us: A Biography of the White Working Class' by Michael Collins, come to mind, but in many respects, I think Paul Embery's book is the best.

At times the book made me think of George Orwell's 'Lion and the Unicorn' which the book references. I think if Paul fails in his desire to make the Labour Party electable again, a future as a contemporary George Orwell is a definite possibility.

I think it unlikely that the Labour Party and the modern Left will change. I used to vote Labour but was never a member. I am quite sure that were I to join the Labour Party, I would be made to feel unwelcome. I don't think my attitudes and values are unusual, one of the great things I got from reading this book, was of reading of people like me, being so well described and known. I strongly suspect that patriotic ghastly oiks from council estates who didn't go to university when they were 18, whose opinions of many controversial topics have been formed from actual experience rather than Cultural Marxist theory, would not be wanted, other than as a token, who will play the victim role, who could be seen, but definitely not heard.

But I wish Paul well. As he wrote, if the Labour Party will not represent the interests of the traditional working class who else will?

[Josh Lloyd-Jones · Rating 2 out of 5]

Some good points throughout the book, raises important reasons about why Labour lost the last election so badly and makes some good economic suggestions. However the parts about the rights of Trans people and “wokedom” just seemed to complete miss the point of those causes IMO.

The biggest disappointment was when the author referred to cases of sexual harassment as mild flirting....

[Simon · Rating 5 out of 5]

I have watched with amazement and dismay the British tear themselves apart over Brexit, immigration, BLM. Street crime, Metoo, climate change , wokeness, the rape gangs of English towns ans cities, the bias of MSM and BBC etc etc over the past 10 years. I have frequently felt that if I were to publicly air my views I should be shouted down as bigot, racist , homophobe, stuck in the past etc .

Here comes a book which explains to me what has been going on and why so many of us Brits have been feeling like nobody represents us.

In a nutshell. the social changes caused by mass fast immigration caused communities around the UK to shatter as Blair’s multi cultural experiment took shape.
When anybody challenged the situ they were branded racist or bigot .

The Labour Party has been a liberal London group and they have come to despise the working and middle class communities most affected by immigration - hence the Red Wall that voted Tory at the last election. Although I am massively simplifying the message, the key to it is that ordinary people place great importance on stability of community, and feel a patriotic pride for their country. Today’s Labour Party has not connected with this.

Emberys message is that the Labour Party must become less liberal London elite , connect with ordinary working class people in the towns across England or face disintegration .

I might just vote for them myself

This is a brilliant analysis of what has been going on. It explains things I have observed but not understood and it presents a sort of earthy patriotic socialism, grounded in love of community and country which I find very appealing . It would solve much division and be a good way forward

[Alan Draycott · Rating 5 out of 5]

If I could write, then this is the book I would write. 98% of it reflects my experience of politics of the people who live in red wall seats that I have lived 45 of my 52 years. For those on the left who think that Embury is somehow right wing, a tory, or for some a Brown shirt, read this book . It clearly shows how and why the majority of todays left are so out of touch with real working people who want politics for the family. Embury drafts a book with a programme of action that if it had come out in 1978 would have been entirely uncontroversial, that it causes so much difficulty for so many shows how far Labour needs to change unless of course it is planning in uniting the "educated" and the underclass to try and defeat the tories who will mop up the working people in ever greater numbers unless there is some change.
So to the book. Yes I agree with its politics but also its a great clear read. It explains the impact of various changes in society in the past 25 years. It is not to academic, very readable very logical, super piece of political writing. I have not read a more accurate portrayal of politics today than this. If you are on the left and are bemused by voting patterns over the past few years, this book provides the answers.

[Oliver Bateman · Rating 5 out of 5]

A concise, cogent book that uses English politics - particularly the Labour disaster in 2019 and the Brexit debacle in 2016 - to offer a series of correctives in key areas: respect for intra-Labour differences, grudging acceptance that immigration issues can't be reduced entirely to "open borders," a national economic policy geared toward full employment, the creation of a specific English regional parliament to match the other devolved parliaments, and a foreign policy that promotes the nation-state as a player within shared international objectives (but not a mere piece of some supranational body).

When Bernie Sanders' 2016 campaign launched, I assumed that this is the meat-and-potatoes Labour democracy we'd get, and perhaps Sanders did too based on various comments and policies he spent the latter half of that campaign and all of 2020 "walking back." This is a good book to share with fellow travelers on the Left, since Embery has no intention of leaving Labour despite the disdain many of their members have for him (he's a firefighter, a union man, and no more susceptible to "crypto-rightoid" charges than any other Blue Labour person might be).

[Lynette · Rating 5 out of 5]

I didn’t know what to expect from this. I’d seen the author on TV and thought he spoke really well. Then I heard his story about how the fire brigade union treated him and was immediately impressed by what I heard.

I am not a loyal labour voter, though I have at times given them my vote. I have no loyalty to any party for that matter. But like many I’ve increasingly wondered in recent years who it is they seem to feel they represent now. They get so wrapped up in fringe issues they seem to have lost touch with what most people care about in every day life. This book looks at this very issue and nails down the journey of the Labour Party in the last 30 years.

Excellent research and writing. Have to say if he was leading the party he’d have my vote.

[Bradley Endsor · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a great book, if you are on the left, and want to be relevant again read this book! If like me, you are on the right, and believe in having a decent opposition in our great democracy read this book! Yes i disagreed with Paul's analysis of the economic situation but as a free marketeer what do you expect. Final book of 2020 and it was a good one. Clear, precise and accurate and thic book should be reccomended reading in all politics class and every Labour MP should have to read this TWICE!!!!

[James Gowland · Rating 1 out of 5]

please don’t read this book unless you, like the author of this book, lack the ability to critically evaluate your own argument.

i went into this book with an open mind, willing to expand my intellectual horizons. i was terribly disappointed to find that the author had no genuinely valuable input on the current political climate besides labour having to ‘go back to its roots’. apparently labour’s roots are transphobia and thinly veiled racism.

[Ken Sampson · Rating 4 out of 5]

[02 Jun 2025] What an amazingly insightful, informative and useful book. Paul Embery, a life-long and passionate Labour supporter has thought long and hard about why support for Labour had collapsed and his conclusion is startling. Although he never uses the phrase 'Champagne socialist' he brilliantly describes how the core of the party has been transformed by increasing numbers of middle class, university-educated, liberals who are London and the South-east based and in turn have alienated hundreds of thousand of traditional working-class, manual workers from the North and coastal towns. Essentially leaving them politically homeless. This was compounded by a marked divergence in thinking that effectively meant their supporters were not listened to, felt abandoned and as a result they have grown angry. Labour voters were traditionally and instinctively proud and patriotic about the Britain that their work and the work of their ancestors had forged. They were also wary of the increasing handing over of sovereignty to the EU. Increasingly senior Labour officials in ever larger numbers and more vocal manners were massively passionate for Britain to Remain in the EU and were fairly derogatory of those who voted Leave. The Labour party actively worked to thwart the Leave result for two-years. They also developed a anti-colonial, re-writing history agenda and openly spoke of the shame they felt for the Britain of the past. Another conflict was Labour's policy of mass immigration, while the vast majority of its supporters wanted tighter border control. The party lead the way in supporting 'woke' causes such as trans-rights etc - again without mass grass-roots support.

He does of course have his blind spots - austerity and Thatcher etc., but does not go too far off track. Unfortunately - his final Chapter where he describes what the party should do to regain trust is simplistic and full of aspiration and reading it makes you think - yes they should do this, but do they even understand what the problem is ?

Unfortunately now out of date - as Labour were returned to Government in 2024, largely as a result of the abject failure of the Conservative party as opposed to a great enthusiasm for them or any evidence of learning or changing on their part and one year in it looks like the evidence is that indeed they have learned nothing and other parties are starting to actively listen to their ex-supporters with dramatic and unprecedented results. A very informative, easy read that makes a lot of sense, but is also sad that a once great political movement has lost its way so badly.

[Lothario · Rating 5 out of 5]

The book discusses how the Labour coalition has is been usurped by the broadly speaking white collar middle class.The book may piss a lot of people off in the Labour movement however it's a conversation that needs to held in the upper echelons of the party or they will lose the support of the working class who built the party.

Embery's account of cultural change in his local area, stigmatisation of certain professions as 'menial', the snootiness towards working class communities, the iconoclastic attack on history for the sake of it, feelings over facts, and hedonistic individualism over social solidarity, are quite telling of the predicament that Labour are in and the bridges that need to built. Although this is not impossible it is likely to take years to build trust and needs to have substance behind it

It was good reading a book by an author from a similar background with similar values around social solidarity, patriotism, cultural and economic factors, it was very relatable, more voices from working class backgrounds are required to rebalance the political order

[Evan Bertschy · Rating 3 out of 5]

Some of the points in here were very well constructed and concise some still felt almost too abstract and “grasping for straws”. As someone who doesn’t have a full grasp of the nuances of British politics and obviously not the ‘traditional working class’ either I may not understand the perspective fully and often connected it to what I do know. I think a much better critique would be of the electoral system rather than the individual party. If the Labour Party does make concessions to the ‘traditional working class’ then would they not disenfranchise the ‘woke’ faction?

This is where I heavily connected it to Canadian politics and envisioned a system that allows for more voices and truer representation. How novel? We see places with MMPR see how people are better represented. Having more parties and more diverse voices is far superior. “What about fringe parties?” That’s democracy! Anyways I’ll end this rant. Book is just okay. And doesn’t even mention or acknowledge this perspective.

[Martin Brabazon · Rating 4 out of 5]

Published in 2020 at a time of a large Tory majority and before the Partygate scandal broke, this book probably seemed insightful.

However, reading it towards the end of 2024, a lot of its arguments have been superseded by the fact that we have a Labour government with a huge majority and a prime minister who has emphasised public service and country before party. As a result, some of the important points made within the book that are relevant and that need to be listened to (however uncomfortable they may be) have lost some of their credibility and risk being ignored because of the new political landscape.

[F. · Rating 4 out of 5]

A perspective that should not be ignored. Food for thought.

[Bob Wigin · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book will become more prescient as the years after Brexit pass. Emebry hits all the nails on the head. For anyone on the left to ignore the vital message in this book would be pure, wilful ignorance.

[Sarah Lee · Rating 3 out of 5]

Despised: Why the Modern Left Loathes the Working Class by Paul Embery is not my usual reading matter but it seemed an interesting book and as someone who has always voted Labour I thought that it would be a good read. Modern Labour has changed a lot from the Labour party that I grew up with, my mum was a trade union rep who later became a Labour councillor. I often wonder what she would think of the Labour party now.

Embrey claims that a typical Labour MP is now more to be an university educated Europhile more comfortable in the cities and London, than in a typical working class town. He claims that Labour has become completely out of set with grassroots communities and this is why the Brexit vote and the last general election came as such a shock to many within the Labour party. He writes well, drawing on his experience as a firefighter and trade unionist and claims that the Labour party have become to despise the traditional working-class values of patriotism, family and faith and instead have embraced globalisation, rapid demographic change and a toxic, divisive brand of identity politics.

He explores what he sees as the reasons why the Labour party have become so disconnected with its traditional voters and proposes ways in which they need to change to win them back. Whilst I do not agree with all the views expressed by Embrey in this book, I do agree with some. It is a well researched and written book, with some certainly thought provoking arguments.

[Harry Willis · Rating 5 out of 5]

Essential reading for anyone interested in politics. Perfectly encapsulates the abandonment of the working class by the Labour party and demonstrates the Cosmopolitan Elite's sneering contempt for ordinary people

[Hristos Dagres · Rating 5 out of 5]

Ο P. Embery στέλεχος των Εργατικών και μέλος των "Blue Labor" συνεισφέρει στην γενικότερη κατανόηση του καρκινώματος του πολιτισμικού και πολιτικού ΚοΖμοπολιτιΖμού που έχει πλήξει την τελευταία δεκαετία τα προηγμένα κράτη της Δύσης και του Βορρά με ιδιαίτερη σφοδρότητα. Βάζει στο κέντρο του κάδρου τις πολιτιστικές, ακαδημαϊκές και πολιτικές ελίτ - και από τους δύο χώρους που μέχρι σήμερα είναι γνωστοί ως Αριστερά και Δεξιά- και πολύ μεθοδικά ανατέμνει τον ψευτοηθικιστικό τους λόγο για να δείξει τι ακριβώς κρύβεται κάτω απ'τους παχείς βερμπαλισμούς για "ανεχτικότητα", "ανοιχτότητα" και άλλες τέτοιες μπούρδες.

Η ουσία των ψευτοπροδεφτικών ρητοριών είναι η ανάδειξη ρατσιστικών, διαιρετικών πολιτικών, που αποδυναμώνουν την κοινωνική συνοχή, ενότητα και αλληλεγγύη, δείχνουν ελιτίστικη υπεροψία, ψευτοεπιστημονικό "ξερολισμό", υπερφιλελεφτερισμό (κοινωνικό και οικονομικό - αυτά τα δύο είναι αλληλένδετα και αχώριστα), και τελικά οδηγούν σε ενδοκοινωνικό πόλεμο. Επίσης σημαντική είναι η προσφορά του στην ανάδειξη της βαθειάς και ουσιαστικής ΑντιΔημοκρατικότητας αυτών των προσεγγίσεων και τον πατερναλιστικό χαρακτήρα όσων ισχυρίζονται ότι δρουν στο όνομα των φτωχών και των κατώτερων οικον. τάξεων αλλά απορρίπτουν τις αρχές και τις αξίες που έχτισαν και ανέπτυξαν τις κοινότητες όσων υποτίθεται ότι προστατεύουν.

Οι τίτλοι των κεφαλαίων του βιβλίου "Τα επιχειρήματα υπέρ του Έθνους-Κράτους", "Φιλελέ Wokedom: η νέα κρατική θρησκεία" και "Πρέπει να μιλήσουμε για τη Μετανάστευση", είναι ενδεικτικά των θεμάτων που επιλέγει να θίξει και του γεγονότος ότι δεν αποφεύγει να μιλήσει για τον πυρήνα του προβλήματος: τη ριζοσπαστική, αριστεροφιλελέ προοδεφτίλα. Οι τίτλοι των υποκεφαλαίων είναι ακόμη πιο εύγλωτοι: "η μισαλλοδοξία των ανεχτικών", "η ελευθερία της έκφρασης σε κίνδυνο", "συμπιέζοντας τους μισθούς" κ.α. Η ανάλυση των κινήτρων, των μεθόδων και των πραγματικών στόχων των Woke, αριστεροφιλελέ ακτιβιστών είναι μεθοδική, επαρκώς υποστηριγμένη από επιχειρήματα και πλήρως διαφωτιστική. Πολλές πληροφορίες ίσως είναι ήδη γνωστές στον αναγνώστη όμως είναι σημαντικό ότι μπαίνουν σε πλαίσιο και λειτουργούν συνδυαστικά με άλλες πληροφορίες για να αποκαλύψουν την ευρύτερη εικόνα.

Το τελευταίο κεφάλαιο περιλαμβάνει τις προτάσεις του Embery. Είναι θετικό ότι ο Embery προσφέρει πρακτικές και ρεαλιστικές προτάσεις σε επίπεδο μικροκοινωνιών και κοινοτήτων ενώ δεν διστάζει να αναφερθεί σε θέματα και προτάσεις τις οποίες οι ριζοσπάστες αχτιβιΖτές προσπαθούν να απονομιμοποιήσουν και αποκρύψουν. Ωστόσο, πρέπει να αναφερθούν δύο σημαντικά μειονεκτήματα:

Πρώτον, σε επίπεδο μακροπολιτικής, ο Embery φαίνεται να παρασύρεται (όχι σπάνιο σε πολιτικούς αριστερής προέλευσης) από τον βολονταρισμό του και να επιμένει σε μία προσέγγιση η οποία δεν θεωρώ ότι είναι εφικτή, ότι δηλαδή είναι εφικτή μία νέα συμμαχία μεταξύ των κοινωνικά συντηρητικών, εθνοκεντρικών κοινοτήτων της εργατικής τάξης και των διανοουμενίστικων, ευκατάστατων ελίτ όπως συνέβαινε πριν μερικές δεκαετίες! Το τρένο αυτό έφυγε και δεν ξαναγυρνά. Οι έννοιες "Αριστερά" και "Δεξιά" δεν έχουν κανένα πλέον περιεχόμενο. Οι νέες συμμαχίες πρέπει να αναζητηθούν στον άξονα Εθνικός Κοινοτισμός εναντίον Σοσιαλίμπεραλ ΚοΖμοπολιτιΖμού, μεταξύ των ανθρώπων με ρίζες, ιστορία, παράδοση και καταγωγή "από κάπου" και των ανερμάτιστων αθυρμάτων των πολιτών "από παντού" (δλδ, από πουθενά).

Δεύτερον, οι προτάσεις τους πάσχουν σε επίπεδο θεσμικό-πολιτιειακό. Πέραν της πρότασης για εθνικό κοινοβούλιο των Άγγλων (όπως έχουν Β.Ιρλανδοί, Σκώτοι και Ουαλοί) δεν υπάρχουν άλλες προτάσεις για θεσμικές αλλαγές. Θεωρώ ότι η μόνη λύση για την υπεράσπιση της Δημοκρατικότητας των κοινοτήτων είναι η υιοθέτηση θεσμών Άμεσης Δημοκρατίας και Αναλογικής Εκπροσώπησης, έτσι ώστε να γλιτώσουν οι κοινότητες και οι πολίτες από τον ασφυκτικό κλοιό των πολιτικών εξαπατητών της "Λευκής Επιταγής" που δήθεν τους εκπροσωπούν αλλά στην πραγματικότητα υπηρετούν τα συμφέροντα του Πολιτικού Καρτέλ τους. Τα παραδείγματα αυτής της αντιδημοκρατικής κατάχρησης εξουσίας είναι πολλά και τα παρουσιάζει ο ίδιος στα πρώτα 4 κεφάλαια. Η λύση είναι Άμεση Δημοκρατία με Δημοψηφίσματα και Νομοθ. Πρωτοβουλίες Πολιτών σε κορπορατιστική βάση όπως στην Ελβετία.

[Jo Herlihy · Rating 3 out of 5]

On a descriptive level, Embery seems to capture aspects of the marginalisation of a large section of society that was once firmly labour. He links the dramatic losses from the Labour to Tory in 2019 and draws on his own upbringing on an estate in Essex to illustrate what he believes to be the key factors that account for this heavy defeat.

My first observation is that Embery at least attempts to take account of these losses by confronting a number of thorny issues such as immigration and nationalism alternative influences on society.

There are other areas he identifies but I think they could do with being reposed or need further examination. Here are the four that seem most important:

Woke and its origins in the Counter culture - Embery gives the 1960s radical left too much credit. More focus needed on the failure of the liberal establishment to provide any positive account of the various gains made and their own defensiveness and inability to respond in any effective way to the radical challenges made to their institutions and traditions. This would help explain how ideas that became narrowly focused on the self, identity, sexual behaviours have become so dominant. Without this balance it is hard to explain why these ideas have become so influential

- The social conservatism of the working class. There may well have some truth to it - and, from personal experience, is why young people took the opportunity to move away from their working class estates. However, the social conservatism seems somewhat overstated as I am not convinced that is how people experienced values around nationalism, tradition, custom, familiarity or how deeply held these were by communities. It may be that the narrative provided by Embery is, itself, a construction under the influence of identity politics. In fact, it struck me during reading this how quickly identities form - think of the stable community Embery describes which developed in the space of just 50 years from the migration out of London in the 1920s...then the movement again from the 1970s of families to new homes further afield in Essex. I am acutely aware of the changes communities have undergone, and some of the cynical reasons behind policy encouraging immigration was deeply problematic. However, despite my reservations, it is important that this issue is openly discussed and debated - Embery is correct to say that by politicians avoiding difficult discussions, assuming racism where often this was frustration, has undoubtedly contributed to divisions in society.

The decline in wages and pressure on services - The period of mass immigration from the EU countries is viewed as particularly problematic for the impact on the working class - compared to the earlier waves of immigration. This raises many issues but the key issue here, if Embery is attempting do a radical stock-take, is that that neither Labour or Tory have been able to look in the face the problem of more deep-seated economic decline. Productivity really began to fall from the 1970s and wages from the 1980s. This suggests that one major problem is the lack of radical ambition for the economy and no amount of discussion about immigration or resetting a balance is going to address this.

The family and the nation - Embery locates the importance of the family and of the nation as key pillars that need to placed as central to any future success of the LP. I would suggest a recasting of these two areas which are important for any new project (of any shade of party). The first, the family should instead be the renewed separation between our private and public lives and second, the emphasis on the nation is one necessary for the practical workings of democracy and accountability.

[Stephen · Rating 3 out of 5]

Why does the working class vote Conservative? This is a tricky question that many on the Left struggle to answer. The labour Party was originally established to defend and promote the interests of the working class, and yet the working class have largely abandoned it. The author has an idea why that might be. He claims that the working class didn't abandon the Labour Party, but the Labour Party abandoned the working class.

This is an argument that is reasonably well rehearsed by now. The Labour Party used to reflect the working class it sought to represent. It has been subject to a degree of institutional capture by progressive elements - the financially secure, well educated, urbane, social liberals positioned in the middle class - and the party now reflects those priorities. Those priorities are at variance to the working class values, which created a degree of alienation. The alienated drifted until the populists - Nigel Farage at first, and then Boris Johnson - were able to scoop up that support.

This narrative fits the sequence of events. David Cameron was too liberal for many working class voters, which is why he failed to gain too much traction here, but Nigel Farage, especially on the politics of place, was able to capture this alienation and discontent, leading to the rise of UKIP. This rise of UKIP effectively knocked the UK out of the EU. The vacillation of Teresa May over delivering Brexit, combined with an unforced error in the 2017 general election, created the space for Boris Johnson to fill. 'Get Brexit done!' was a simple election slogan that appealed to the disaffected working class. A Left leaning Corbynite Labour Party was almost wiped out in the face of this.

So what? Does a permanent realignment of British politics matter? I think that it does because the current Conservative administration is floundering to face the challenges of the 2020s. If it's not up to the job, then Labour needs to regain power. What needs to happen to ensure this? That is the question where the book pays for itself. In the final chapter, the author attempts to chart a way forward. Much of what he says is common sense, but is antithetical to much of the nonsense that is current Labour policy. If Labour merely represents a slightly redder hue of Conservativism, electoral success is unlikely to follow. The author suggests that the Labour party rediscovers its working class roots. He has a point.

However, the chances of this happening are quite slim. The credentialled middle class have too firm a grip on the Party for that to happen. Instead of promoting working class issues - such as place, and training, and housing, and so on - the Party is absorbed in an orgy of virtue signalling on many issues that are an anathema to the working class. It will make politics interesting in the years to come. The Conservatives deeply unpopular and Labour unable to make a breakthrough.

There is much to commend this book. It has an authentic working class voice, which I liked. It's not particularly well written, but you can't really have authenticity without a degree of awkwardness in the prose. I feel that it is a significant read, especially if labour does badly in the next general election.

[Alex · Rating 4 out of 5]

I found this a very interesting read, an insightful narrative of the failures of the left and more specifically the labour party in appealing to the working class. Against the backdrop of Labour's worst electoral result in nearly a century and a collapse of traditional support in the so called "red wall" seats. Embery seeks to explain and provide some ideas of how to reverse the collapse of appeal to the working class and suggests it is an uphill battle. Rather than suggesting the decline is short term, he in fact suggests it started with the advent of the neoliberal dogma which has blighted the economic landscape of the working class for the past few decades. I find his economic analysis and remedies particularly convincing and think they have the potential to significantly improve the quality of life of the working class in Britain. I also found his more cultural discussions as at times raising very good points such as surrounding immigration and the discussion of a return to more communitarian values. His arguments were sound and based in logic but at times I think he perhaps brushed over them too quickly such as in the discussion surrounding law and order. Whilst it may be true that many in the working class want tougher sentences for criminals and prevention of reoffending, his suggestion that the left tries to always explain the root of crime I thought was unfounded. I think that a lot of crime is down to desperation and a failure of the state to provide an adaquate safeguard in early years, whilst reoffending is an issue, tougher sentencing isn't going to solve the root cause of crime. Secondly, his brief discussion on making the benefits system more robust was slightly flawed in my opinion. Inevitably, there is likely some degree of benefit fraud, but this claim is vastly exagerrated by the right wing press to distract from the much larger scale white collar tax evasion. I think a step to more robustly enforce benefits could be fraught with difficulty and lead to antagonising of legitimate claims and creating a stigma around needing support from the state. This is counter to Embery's overall claim to want to help the working class and whilst it is very important to understand their views as they should be the foundation of the labour party. It is not possible in every realm of policy to reflect what is perceived to be their view in order to gain electoral success, as it could alienate sections of the middle class which he hopes to build a coalition with.

[Kieran Telo · Rating 4 out of 5]

Uncomfortable reading, the author challenges some well established Left totems with gusto; his line of argument is very similar to that which George Orwell was advocating 80 and more years ago. The strongest arguments are those which have attracted most criticism, as far as I can see, his disdain for political correctness at all costs, and the crude way in which communitarian ideals are scorned as intrinsically narrow minded (and worse). This part of his thesis shares surprising amounts of common ground with Owen Jones's "Chav". Jones is a complete twerp, of course.

I do wish I shared the authors enthusiasm for trade unionism as a route back to activism but from what I can see the unions are firmly in the grip of the identity politics mob. I speak from a position of many years' inside experience of Unite and UNISON, who are much more concerned with hoovering up member subs and stroking deals with finance companies than they are with real workplace politics. The smaller unions are not yet beyond redemption, perhaps.

The overriding concern about optics and inclusivity has intensified in the short time since the book was written, in the same way as Kier Starmer's weak capitulation to flag waving and keeping us safe has ceded ground to the authoritarian left. A real shame.

It's a shame too that Paul can't really write, arguments are often circular, and contradictory, and that the prose is bland and repetitive. How many times can the word 'precept' be bandied about, for example? Fewer grandiose claims backed up with zero evidence would make up for this. Was the book proof read? (Are any books, nowadays?)

Despite grave misgivings, this is a worthwhile read and the author deserves respect for tackling some subjects dear to the chattering classes. I like the way he stands his ground. That I disagreed with so much of it says at least as much about my own preconceptions and conditioning as it might of any intrinsic flaws in Paul Embery's arguments. He seems like a top bloke.

[Craig Anderson · Rating 3 out of 5]

It is hard to know how to rate this. It is certainly powerfully written, and much is difficult to disagree with. It is hardly deniable that, in recent years, it has become quite common for figures ostensibly on the left to be quite open in despising the working class. It is fairly predictable that this will lead many working class voters to look for answers outside the traditional parties of the left. Where this book falls down for me is that, ultimately, the observations are all rather obvious (for all that many on the left are seemingly blind to them) and the analysis has a tendency to be fairly superficial.

I want to pick up on one particular point, which is the role of patriotism. Embery is surely correct to point to the importance of patriotism in many people's lives, and to the disparagement to which that patriotism is often subject to from soi-disant intellectuals. What is this patriotism, though? Given that Embery looks for a Labour Party that could "win support from the East End of Glasgow to Middle England" (p. 180), he presumably does not envisage the break-up of the United Kingdom. Nonetheless, the patriotism he talks about is almost entirely English. He does mention (at p. 166) the starkly contrasting support for Remain and Leave in areas of Scotland and England that are ostensibly similar, but this was surely worthy of more sustained analysis than it is given. In a book that has such concern with the role of patriotism in British politics, it is scarcely credible that the SNP merits only the briefest of passing mentions.

All in all, this is worth reading for the challenge it poses to many ideas that are currently given far too uncritical acceptance on the left. However, it is polemic, and suffers from the shortcomings and limitations that that word so often implies.

[Ian Williams · Rating 5 out of 5]

The 1980s saw the destruction of our industrial base by Margaret Thatcher. This resulted in the emasculation of the trade union wing of the Labour movement. The 1990s saw the ascension of Tony Blair and New Labour. This resulted in the political wing of the Labour movement being taken over by middle class professionals. In fact, the entire Labour movement had been hijacked by the middle class.

These university educated middle class professionals knew nothing about the working class and cared even less about them. They totally abandoned them while pursuing their own multiple agenda of woke politics, subservience to the interests of high finance, and with a dogged belief in the benefits of the European Union. All of this worked against the working class. Woke politics was an irrelevance to them, high finance had sold off the industries that had given them gainful employment, and the European Union benefitted only the metropolitan elite. The working class were not only dismissed as racist, misogynist, homophobic, transphobic, and suffering from every other type of phobia, but were openly despised - hence the title of this excellent book. Hillary Clinton would have fitted in perfectly with New Labour.

Paul Embery goes into detail how this happened and how it lead to the working class voting for leaving the European Union in 2016 and the collapse of the red wall in England in the 2020 national election. He then argues for a re-engagement with working class people in order to get the Labour Party (a genuine Labour Party) back into power.

I think he is mistaken. The time of the Labour Party has come and has gone. It is beyond saving. We need a new party that leans right on social issues, left on economic policy, and with a determination to defend the interests of labour. If such a party was created, I would love to see Paul Embery lead it.