advertisement


Election night 2019 / aftermath II

Funk said:
One encourages progression, self-improvement and work, the other discourages it because if you just get given everything, why try harder?
Click to expand...

So are you implying that people doing what society expects of them, with full time jobs and trying to raise families who are still struggling and need help aren't "trying hard enough"?

Cemeteries up and down the land are chock full of poor people who worked harder than most Tories all their lives, just trying hard has Jack all to do with it.
 
Funk said:
It's also paradoxical that areas struggling with severe deprivation keep on voting in the same politicians who've been ineffective about improving things locally for them.

As a (small c) conservative I didn't want to 'vote for Boris' - the man is a buffoon and I don't really trust him. The problem is that there is no way on earth I could've voted Labour with many of the crazy policies they were pitching - it's all well and good promising eleventy thousand new this or that or money for whatever but the reality is that almost every Labour policy can be eviscerated by simply asking how they plan to pay for it. Labour have proven time and again that they are excellent at running out of other peoples' money.

One of the fundamentals I also disagree with is promising 'equality'; equality of what? There's a world of difference between equality of outcome and equality of opportunity. One encourages progression, self-improvement and work, the other discourages it because if you just get given everything, why try harder?

In the end I shut out all the noise and reduced it to one simple question - who do I think will best represent my constituency in the HoC? That's the basis I voted on.
Click to expand...
This is the challenge that Labour faces, intelligent people who fall completely for the media spin and bias. Local government funds have been decimated. The Labour manifesto was badly, scattergun presented but at least costed unlike the others’.

The old line that the poor just don’t work hard enough is blinkered and inexcusable.
 
A GE is usually a verdict on a government’s record but this one too easily became a verdict on the opposition. Mainly because the Tories having changed leader were able to easily deflect from their own record. Johnson of course denied it had anything to do with him and people were willing to buy that.

The point that keeps getting lost in this fiasco is that they call it Boris’s great gamble. It was actually the opposition who gambled - they granted Johnson an election he wanted before he had delivered anything that could be assessed. A very dangerous gamble for an opposition led by a popular leader. Criminal tactics in this situation. A split opposition with competing priorities and only one of them (Sturgeon) with anything to gain by that timing.

Brown made that error in reverse, spurned an election while he was riding high and could capitalise on a perceived ‘freshness’.

It’s going to get interesting because Johnson has made a raft of incompatible promises and if the good folk who ‘lent’ him their vote think their situation is going to trump (sorry) his hedge fund backers and media barons, they may be in for a disappointment.
 
Joe Hutch said:
Plus, of course, social media was regarded as 'A Good Thing' when it enabled the rapid growth in Labour Party membership around the time when Corbyn became leader. The other side have now cottoned on to this. It's like an arms race; any new weapon will only win battles until the enemy either duplicates it or finds something better.
Click to expand...

There is a clear difference in truth and honesty though. Social media in itself is a remarkably powerful and useful new tool, though I’d argue political parties should be held to exactly the same standards of false-advertising etc as businesses, corporations etc. If an advert was not truthful or honest the responsible party should be sued to hell IMHO. Obviously there is a level of content that exists beyond the party’s control and is purely fan-based, but again if a direct financial or whatever link can be proved (e.g. in the fraudulent Leave.EU campaign) then the responsible party or backer should be sued to shit.
 
Seanm said:
Phillips is a passable stand-up but she's already demonstrated her leadership skills by spending the last 4 years sh_t-talking the people whose support she needs. I've no real idea of her politics: they might be consistent with her work on women's equality or they might not. Having said that I'm not opposed to her in principle, as all we really need right now is someone who can attack Johnson while not providing cover for the right to tear up the policy program, and not reaching for the racism dial. Nominally left candidate Angela Raynor not to be trusted on the latter score so I really don't know. Sure, Phillips, why not.

On socially illiberal traditional Labour supporters, it's these people who Labour have in the past used to justify immigrant-bashing etc. and that's already being wheeled out again as the answer. This is what we have to watch, as even if it were not completely unacceptable in principle it's been demonstrated not to work. Long term solution here is institution building and reforming local councils but that really is loooooong term. Short term f___ knows. We tried to put forward an economic offer rather than New LAbour's culture war offer and that obviously didn't work either. I'd rather keep hammering that line though in the hope that it can get through. Phillips might be able to help there, might not.
Click to expand...
What makes you say that about Rayner, Sean? I think she has potential: a great "story" that's a shining example of what access to decent public services can enable; easy for the kinds of voters we want to win back to relate to (so she's well-placed to counter the anti-immigrant shite); and (I believe) less alienating to the centre-right of the party than (e.g.) Burgon or Long-Bailey.

In some ways I share your indifference to the leadership question - what does it matter as long as the core principles are defended? Unfortunately, I don't trust Jess Phillips on this, and can easily see her caving in to the "reasonable concerns" brigade. As you say, beyond her fierce and admirable commitment to women's rights, her politics are hard to discern.

My prescription, for what it's worth: stick with something close to the current policy platform (it's fundamentally sound, and necessary); a younger, more dynamic and (I say this reluctantly) more aggressive leader; and a Blair/Campbell-style psychopath in charge of communications and message-discipline.
 
Joe Hutch said:
Plus, of course, social media was regarded as 'A Good Thing' when it enabled the rapid growth in Labour Party membership around the time when Corbyn became leader. The other side have now cottoned on to this. It's like an arms race; any new weapon will only win battles until the enemy either duplicates it or finds something better.
Click to expand...

It wasn't all one way traffic in this election, either. Neil basically called Johnson a coward. Even Kuenssberg's postal vote bodge (which called the result quite accurately, as it turned out) would, I think, have spurred on Labour supporters to go out and vote, and increased complacency in Tory voters.
 
SteveS1 said:
The point that keeps getting lost in this fiasco is that they call it Boris’s great gamble. It was actually the opposition who gambled - they granted Johnson an election he wanted before he had delivered anything that could be assessed. A very dangerous gamble for an opposition led by a popular leader. Criminal tactics in this situation. A split opposition with competing priorities and only one of them (Sturgeon) with anything to gain by that timing.
Click to expand...

Although it was the LibDems who chose that because they thought the European elections meant they were going to win 100 seats. Which forced Labour to follow a few days later.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PsB
matthewr said:
Although it was the LibDems who chose that because they thought the European elections meant they were going to win 100 seats. Which forced Labour to follow a few days later.
Click to expand...

Yes I know. Part of the split opposition with competing priorities. An extension of the rather shambolic attempts at co-operation in HoC. Swinson’s hubris was a major factor, no doubt about it. But Corbyn showed little interest in co-operating over seats which is very galling when you see how many Tories won seats where a couple of thousand votes squandered on a no hope third place could have unseated them.
 
Marchbanks said:
I find it interesting that Labour haven’t won an election since Facebook and Twitter became widely available (2006).
Click to expand...
Budget helps. The perceived wisdom is one reason Labour did quite well in 2017 is they tapped into it better. Not this time I guess but I didn’t really look.

I also believe that, despite the young never voting much, many are now wrapped up in social media echo-bubbles, focused on bigger issues like the planet and love island without necessarily troubling themselves with a trip to the voting booth. I didn’t drag my kids to vote but without my encouragement they probably wouldn’t have bothered.
 
Brian said:
Swinson actually thought the LibDems could win a majority, she thought she could be PM. They helped Johnson to a majority.
Click to expand...

They kind of have to say that though. Their internal polling said about 100 seats based on the Euro results. At least according to the Graun reporting.
 
droodzilla said:
What makes you say that about Rayner, Sean? I think she has potential: a great "story" that's a shining example of what access to decent public services can enable; easy for the kinds of voters we want to win back to relate to (so she's well-placed to counter the anti-immigrant shite); and (I believe) less alienating to the centre-right of the party than (e.g.) Burgon or Long-Bailey.

In some ways I share your indifference to the leadership question - what does it matter as long as the core principles are defended? Unfortunately, I don't trust Jess Phillips on this, and can easily see her caving in to the "reasonable concerns" brigade. As you say, beyond her fierce and admirable commitment to women's rights, her politics are hard to discern.

My prescription, for what it's worth: stick with something close to the current policy platform (it's fundamentally sound, and necessary); a younger, more dynamic and (I say this reluctantly) more aggressive leader; and a Blair/Campbell-style psychopath in charge of communications and message-discipline.
Click to expand...
The personal story's great but then there's the white-working-class-are-losing-out-to-the-ethnics interviews with The Spectator, her break with Corbyn over his defence of free movement, the arms industry cheerleading, the voting against Iraq War inquiry. Not saying she's a fanatical Blue Labour member or anything but amongst the things we have to defend right now are Labour's antiracism and antiwar positions. This is what the right are already attacking in lieu of any actual ideas and we need a leader who isn't already half way down that road already. I'd rather Philips TBH.

Agree on the prescription, although it has to go deeper. We need to address the rot in local councils as a priority - need a strong national offer for the May local elections.
 
Seanm said:
No, from activists in the north who are screaming at London that they've been trying to tell them this for a long time. It's the extreme end of a not uncommon feeling in some places that Labour actually represent the status quo and Boris represents a change. It doesn't make people thick: it's based on the reality of Labour having been in local power for decades, and Boris representing their voice on Brexit. We'll need an audit of the Conservative campaign but I suspect they recognised this and it shaped their strategy: targeted Facebook ads supported by Sajid JAvid and Priti Patel saying Labour caused all this homelessness, Labour caused all this child poverty. When they said this everyone just went WTF are these people on but seems now to have been deliberate, coordinated .
Click to expand...

So the Tories used sophisticated campaigning techniques on credulous Northerners* to create a new voting phenomenon?

I think it’s far more rational to believe that what we have here is blame-shifting excuses by activists added to Johnson benefiting from the well-known phenomenon of the political honeymoon period. And the fact he could offer a claimed resolution of Brexit, which was becoming a bore.

As wise old political heads, such as (I’m afraid) T Blair, predicted, the pre-Brexit election was a trap. See also Steve Richards: "Historians will wonder with good cause why J Corbyn and J Swinson gave B Johnson an election on the date he wanted and at the height of his prime ministerial honeymoon. They were leaders in a hung parliament with considerable powers to determine an election timing and much more. 8:05 AM · Nov 17, 2019" https://twitter.com/steverichards14/status/1195976223270281216 No wonder Cummings was reportedly so desperate for an election.

Plus, and it’s the very, very big plus (as the post-election polls showed), Jeremy Corbyn was a deeply unpopular prospect as Prime Minister.

* See 1:42 in particular…

 
notaclue said:
Burgon more or less confirmed on Sky this morning that the Momentum dream team will be Long-Bailey as leader and Burgon as deputy. So that's probably what we are going to get.
Click to expand...

Boris ‘Two Term’ Johnson it is then...

PS Burgon would be overstretched as a door stop IMO.
 
notaclue said:
So the Tories used sophisticated campaigning techniques on credulous Northerners* to create a new voting phenomenon?

I think it’s far more rational to believe that what we have here is blame-shifting excuses by activists added to Johnson benefiting from the well-known phenomenon of the political honeymoon period. And the fact he could offer a claimed resolution of Brexit, which was becoming a bore.

As wise old political heads, such as (I’m afraid) T Blair, predicted, the pre-Brexit election was a trap. See also Steve Richards: "Historians will wonder with good cause why J Corbyn and J Swinson gave B Johnson an election on the date he wanted and at the height of his prime ministerial honeymoon. They were leaders in a hung parliament with considerable powers to determine an election timing and much more. 8:05 AM · Nov 17, 2019" https://twitter.com/steverichards14/status/1195976223270281216 No wonder Cummings was reportedly so desperate for an election.

Plus, and it’s the very, very big plus (as the post-election polls showed), Jeremy Corbyn was a deeply unpopular prospect as Prime Minister.

* See 1:42 in particular…

Click to expand...
That’s literally the opposite of what I said but carry on.
 
It is good to see that the Left took a whole day to reflect upon the thrashing they received at the hands of the thick scum racists.

And the measured response that they have come up with ?

More of the same only harder the next time.

Yep...that'll work. :rolleyes:
 
Here's John McDonnell on Jess Phillips:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50799792

'He said Ms Phillips was "really talented", but added: "I want someone who actually has been really solidly involved in the development of existing policy - that's why Becky and Angie and Dawn and others have been so good."

Surely what Labour needs is someone who was not involved in the development of existing policy? 'Yes, we lost our last game 10-0, so ideally for our next game we want someone who was involved in our tactical approach.'
 
droodzilla said:
What makes you say that about Rayner, Sean? I think she has potential: a great "story" that's a shining example of what access to decent public services can enable; easy for the kinds of voters we want to win back to relate to (so she's well-placed to counter the anti-immigrant shite); and (I believe) less alienating to the centre-right of the party than (e.g.) Burgon or Long-Bailey.

In some ways I share your indifference to the leadership question - what does it matter as long as the core principles are defended? Unfortunately, I don't trust Jess Phillips on this, and can easily see her caving in to the "reasonable concerns" brigade. As you say, beyond her fierce and admirable commitment to women's rights, her politics are hard to discern.

My prescription, for what it's worth: stick with something close to the current policy platform (it's fundamentally sound, and necessary); a younger, more dynamic and (I say this reluctantly) more aggressive leader; and a Blair/Campbell-style psychopath in charge of communications and message-discipline.
Click to expand...

That's exactly what the Tories want you to think. PS welcome back.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top