General Election December, 2019 (U.K.)

Infini

Infini wrote: »

The thing is that England is all Toryville while Scotland is practically an Independence Party country right now and of course for the first time Nationalist MP's outnumber the Unionist ones. Lets face it the UK is polarised with the parts that opposed Brexit now leaning towards leaving the UK in the medium to long term in terms of Independence/Reunification.

The SNP have certainly benefitted from FPTP. They may have won 45 of 59 seats, but with only 45% of the vote.

Does this equal a mandate? Obviously the SNP will claim it does, but they would claim one seat was a mandate for a referendum.

newport2

BarryD2 wrote: »

Where do you get that there is Nationalist majority in Northern Ireland in these elections?? Alliance don't identify as nationalist or unionist, so could be counted either way - more accurate to say a 50/50 split.

SF and SDLP have 9 between them, DUP have 8.

As you say, Alliance are neutral.

Professor Moriarty

Bannasidhe wrote: »

But they had centerists - Brown and Milliband.
Brown lost 97 seats and there was a 6.2% swing against the party.
Milliband lost a further 29 seats in 2015.

So under 2 centerists the LP went from winning 355 seats in 2005 to 258 seats in 2010 to 232 seats in 2015.

It isn't as simple as saying the LP need a to move back to the centre as this implies the rot started with Corbyn. It didn't. It started at the end of Blair's leadership and has continued ever since.

Laying at blame at Corbyn's feet is papering over the deep divisions within the party. They just don't know who they are. Are they 'New' Labour or 'Old' Labour?

And the electorate don't know who they are either.

True. It will take a seismic reshaping of the non-Tory parties in England to provide credible opposition. One that provides a centre Left alternative that people will vote for. My preference would be a Lib/Lab merge while washing Momentum out. But that won't happen. And so, because there is, and will be, no credible opposition, the Tories have the country by the balls and they won't be letting go.

BarryD2

Robert2014 wrote: »

The Lib Dems may have thought they had the wind in the sails with the results from the European elections in the summer and recent high-profile additions to the party. I think it was the Revoke Article 50 policy that was their major downfall. Whatever about the referendum in 2016, to revoke Article 50 and ignore the referendum result without at least having a second referendum was insulting to a lot of people that consider themselves democrats. It was a foolish policy as well as talking about having a majority in the House of Commons. A sensible second referendum may have worked better for them, although may not that much by yesterday's result.

Pity too to see Jo Swinson lose her seat. There'd be many others who would have deserved that far more. I'm not a great fan of the PC agenda of sweeping gender rights etc., but it was a breath of fresh air to see a younger woman with considerable energy leading one of the potentially larger parties. A loss for the political system over there.

robinph

Robert2014 wrote: »

The Lib Dems may have thought they had the wind in the sails with the results from the European elections in the summer and recent high-profile additions to the party. I think it was the Revoke Article 50 policy that was their major downfall. Whatever about the referendum in 2016, to revoke Article 50 and ignore the referendum result without at least having a second referendum was insulting to a lot of people that consider themselves democrats. It was a foolish policy as well as talking about having a majority in the House of Commons. A sensible second referendum may have worked better for them, although may not that much by yesterday's result.

Yet their vote went up in every region of the country by an average of 5%? Can't have been that rubbish an idea.

bren2001

Bannasidhe wrote: »

But they had centerists - Brown and Milliband.
Brown lost 97 seats and there was a 6.2% swing against the party.
Milliband lost a further 29 seats in 2015.

So under 2 centerists the LP went from winning 355 seats in 2005 to 258 seats in 2010 to 232 seats in 2015.

It isn't as simple as saying the LP need a to move back to the centre as this implies the rot started with Corbyn. It didn't. It started at the end of Blair's leadership and has continued ever since.

Laying at blame at Corbyn's feet is papering over the deep divisions within the party. They just don't know who they are. Are they 'New' Labour or 'Old' Labour?

And the electorate don't know who they are either.

The end of the Blair era coincided with the global economic crash. Nearly every sitting government in Europe was effected by this. Solely blaming it on Blair is a tad bit unfair. Brown had no chance of getting a government, Cameron strolled to that election. I actually think Brown did a pretty decent job considering it all.

Ed was the incorrect choice and was a poor leader. The rot started with him (imo) as I've said several times on this thread. Specifically with the lowering of membership fees to £5.

I think you're looking at Blair in 2007 and saying that is what I, and others, are calling for. It's not. He was politically toxic at that stage. The Blair of 1994 was a breath of fresh air and moved the party into power. If you want to get very specific, I actually think Labour need someone more like Kinnock to clean the party up before someone like Blair.

Corbyn moved very far to the left. It is so abundantly clear that there is little appetite in the UK for a party of this position. To get back into power, Labour must move more to the centre. This is the worst Labour showing since 1935. A lot of blame has to lie with Corbyn. Surely its logical to move back towards the winning formula?

Duke of Url

newport2 wrote: »

SF and SDLP have 9 between them, DUP have 8.

As you say, Alliance or neutral.

I think that will be interesting in the Future for the Alliance Party.

It would be nice to see the Alliance party hover up seats from both sides if thats possible going forward.

10000maniacs

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

It would be a massive leap from 24%. Also, Wales would tank economically if they actually became independent.

Then again the SNP were on single figures 20 years ago. They were third behind the Lib Dems in 2005.
Once the agricultural tariffs start hitting hard in Wales, and the EU subsidies run out, that 24% could easily change.

BarryD2

newport2 wrote: »

SF and SDLP have 9 between them, DUP have 8.

As you say, Alliance are neutral.

50/50 would be a more logical view but regardless it's pointless as the SF refuse to represent their voters in Westminster, a fact which the SDLP hammered home in Derry.

Christy42

bren2001 wrote: »

The end of the Blair era coincided with the global economic crash. Nearly every sitting government in Europe was effected by this. Solely blaming it on Blair is a tad bit unfair. Brown had no chance of getting a government, Cameron strolled to that election. I actually think Brown did a pretty decent job considering it all.

Ed was the incorrect choice and was a poor leader. The rot started with him (imo) as I've said several times on this thread. Specifically with the lowering of membership fees to £5.

I think you're looking at Blair in 2007 and saying that is what I, and others, are calling for. It's not. He was politically toxic at that stage. The Blair of 1994 was a breath of fresh air and moved the party into power. If you want to get very specific, I actually think Labour need someone more like Kinnock to clean the party up before someone like Blair.

Corbyn moved very far to the left. It is so abundantly clear that there is little appetite in the UK for a party of this position. To get back into power, Labour must move more to the centre. This is the worst Labour showing since 1935. A lot of blame has to lie with Corbyn. Surely its logical to move back towards the winning formula?

I am not sure it was his leftist policy that killed them. He simply didn't take a stance on the single most important issue up for debate. There is a strong very left base to be hoovered up like Conservatives have done on the right.

10000maniacs

newport2 wrote: »

SF and SDLP have 9 between them, DUP have 8.

As you say, Alliance are neutral.

Yes, and in terms of vote count, there is less than 10,000 between Unionism and Nationalism when you count in the fringe parties on both sides.

bren2001

Christy42 wrote: »

I am not sure it was his leftist policy that killed them. He simply didn't take a stance on the single most important issue up for debate. There is a strong very left base to be hoovered up like Conservatives have done on the right.

If he came out for or against Brexit, he wasn't getting any extra seats.

I think his stance was the correct one but suicidal politically.

bren2001

bren2001 wrote: »

If he came out for or against Brexit, he wasn't getting any extra seats.

I think his stance was the correct one but suicidal politically.

Exactly. He was pissing into a tempest.

bren2001

bren2001 wrote: »

If he came out for or against Brexit, he wasn't getting any extra seats.

I think his stance was the correct one but suicidal politically.

That does not compute.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

That does not compute.

If he decides to revoke Article 50 he'll be massacred for being anti-democracy.

If he decides to crack on with Brexit he'll be massacred by his party for betraying the remain voters.


The only thing he could do was try get a compromise of a second referendum which would have dragged Brexit on even longer than it already is (and will continue to be).

bren2001

Deleted User wrote: »

That does not compute.

How? I agreed with his view on it. It was a responsible line but was never going to resonate with voters. It's the stance I would like a PM to take but it's political suicide.

If he came out for Brexit, he'd alienate the massive Labour remain support base and push them Lib Dem.

If he came out against Brexit, he'd alienate the northern Labour voter base that voted to leave.

He had to move the focus of the GE away from Brexit and onto other issues. He utterly failed to do this.

FrancieBrady

Speaking just now on television - Nicola Sturgeon is the standout UK politician of the age IMO.

Shelga

Still struggling to understand how people actually cross that space between not liking Corbyn, and actually putting that X in the box for the Tories.

James O'Brien is giving it a good go at explaining on the radio now though. About how Corbyn seemed to paint everyone as either a villain, or a victim. He was also incredibly stubborn.

But what do Labour voters actually want? What would the policies of a more centrist Labour leader look like? Genuine question. Yes, Corbyn's free-for-all, "vote for us and you'll have £6000 in your pocket tomorrow and the evil billionaires will pay" lines were ridiculous.

But how do you vote for the people who've screwed you relentlessly for a decade? How?

Bannasidhe

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

True. It will take a seismic reshaping of the non-Tory parties in England to provide credible opposition. One that provides a centre Left alternative that people will vote for. My preference would be a Lib/Lab merge while washing Momentum out. But that won't happen. And so, because there is, and will be, no credible opposition, the Tories have the country by the balls and they won't be letting go.

Don't forget that in 2005 the Conservatives won 198 seats which was a gain of 32 (Hague's CP only got 166 in 2001). The Tories were down but not out. I see no reason why it won't be the same with the LP as these peaks and troughs are 'normal' in the UK - the big difference now is will Brexit change the whole political landscape?

Labour need to decide who they are - the division between the New and the Old was pathetically played out in public - yeah, we got that the 'New' didn't like Corbyn or his move to the left (when they themselves had been part of Blair's move to the right) and by publicly undermining him at every opportunity they played a part in this result. Some unity might have helped.

There is also the utter collapse of the Scottish Labour vote - 1 seat was it (Murray in Edinburgh) ?

The SNP have been chipping away at the LP in Scotland and that can't be laid at Corbyn's feet either. In 2010 LP had 41 Scottish seats and the SNP had 6. Under Miliband that completely flipped with SNP winning 56 and LP (And CP & LibDems) on a miserable 1 each.

sid waddell

bren2001 wrote: »

The Blair of 1994 was a breath of fresh air and moved the party into power. If you want to get very specific, I actually think Labour need someone more like Kinnock to clean the party up before someone like Blair.

That Labour needed Blair to win is a bit of a myth. They were routinely posting poll leads of up to 25% under John Smith in 1993 and 1994 and would have romped the 1997 election had he lived.

Blair came in at a time when the Tories were in civil war and crucially, John Major wasn't a teflon charlatan like Johnson is, he was a good decent man - quite like Corbyn in temperament actually - somebody that was showing all the stresses and strains of being a leader whose very own party was out to destroy him politically.

bren2001

sid waddell wrote: »

That Labour needed Blair to win is a bit of a myth. They were routinely posting poll leads of up to 25% under John Smith in 1993 and 1994 and would have romped the 1997 election had he lived.

Blair came in at a time when the Tories were in civil war and crucially, John Major wasn't a teflon charlatan like Johnson is, he was somebody that was showing all the stresses and strains of being a leader whose very own party was out to destroy him politically.

Neil Kinnock moved the LP into a great position. Blair reaped the benefits and kept a government together winning 3 elections. That's brilliant leadership. To downplay Blairs political acumen is pure revisionism imo. Similar to what is kinda happening to Cameron now.

Sardonicat

sid waddell wrote: »

That Labour needed Blair to win is a bit of a myth. They were routinely posting poll leads of up to 25% under John Smith in 1993 and 1994 and would have romped the 1997 election had he lived.

Blair came in at a time when the Tories were in civil war and crucially, John Major wasn't a teflon charlatan like Johnson is, he was somebody that was showing all the stresses and strains of being a leader whose very own party was out to destroy him politically.

Very true. John Smith was an incredibly popular Labour leader. I lived in the North of England at the time. There was a genuine sense if loss when he died. People publicly crying when the news of his death broke.

facehugger99

Shelga wrote: »

Still struggling to understand how people actually cross that space between not liking Corbyn, and actually putting that X in the box for the Tories.

People didn't 'not like Corbyn', a large proportion of people mistrust him and would be fearful of any government that he headed - rightly so IMO.

Better the devil you know with Boris and the Tory's.

newport2

Shelga wrote: »

But how do you vote for the people who've screwed you relentlessly for a decade? How?

By buying into the mantra that it's the EU's fault.

tdf7187

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Blair?
His legacy is toxic so the last thing the LP needs is another Blair.

Labour hasn't won an GE since 2005, by 2007 Blair had become a liability so he resigned as leader and it has been a catalogue of electoral defeat since - Brown and Milliband were centerists so it can't all be laid at the feet of Corbyn.

Miliband was not a centrist. What do mean by saying Blair's legacy is toxic?

Bannasidhe

bren2001 wrote: »

Surely its logical to move back towards the winning formula?

I disagree.

I think Corbyn tried to 'move back' to a previous type of LP - the days of Atlee and Wilson but the UK (and the world) is a very different place now, it is also a different place to 1997. Edit to add - also the LP actually lost seats in every election they won after 1997.

The LP needs to listen and move forward, not back.

It needs to look at why they have lost Scotland - that's 40 seats they used to be able to count on. Was that Miliband's 'fault' or was it because the SNP judged the mood of the Scottish electorate correctly and went from a minority party to the dominant party in the space of one election cycle?

They need to look at why the mining towns are starting to vote Tory - the same mining towns decimated by Thatcher.

Sardonicat

facehugger99 wrote: »

People didn't 'not like Corbyn', a large proportion of people mistrust him and would be fearful of any government that he headed - rightly so IMO.

Better the devil you know with Boris and the Tory's.

I think this is it. People are tired of the uncertainty and afraid of the instability it could cause. I think many voted Conservative whilst holding their noses.

Labour need to transform away from Marxism into Neo-Blairism.

The reality is that parties must reflect the public appetite. There is no appetite for Corbyn, or McDonnell, or any of these extreme Marxists. This election, and to some extent, the 2017 election, has conclusively established this fact.

To win an election, Labour need to move back to the centre-left with a credible, serious, and somewhat charismatic leader. Until that happens, Labour will struggle to win any future election. If Boris can transform the Tory Party to keep as many Leavers on board as possible, it will be a monumental task in 2024 for the next Labour leader.

To do this, the party needs to unify. Johnson, whether rightly or wrongly, has relatively unified his party behind a single message. Labour need to do the same - and mean it, not just covering disagreements up and hoping for the best. Otherwise, the party should split.

sid waddell

Deleted User wrote: »

That does not compute.

It very much does compute.

Labour could have moved explicitly to the dog whistle politics of racism and campaigned on an explicitly Leave platform. It might well have won all those northern constituencies. Would it have bene the right thing to do? Of course not.

And it would have lost all its southern seats by doing that.

Had it campaigned on an explicitly Remain platform, it might have got more southern seats but it would probably have lost more northern seats to balance that out.

The 2017 Labour vote was a very uneasy coalition of overwhelmingly Remain-supporting urban voters and a lot of northern leavers whose heads had been turned by the right-wing identity politics and ethno-nationalism of Brexit.

That's a conundrum that no Labour leader would have been able to solve in this election, because those two groups of voters are fundamentally in opposition to each other.

There are only 242 constituencies that voted Remain, only 160 or so in England - yet in this election Remain or second referendum parties got over 50% of the votes.

There's a mismatch between the election system and the referendum system whch is very difficult for Labour to square.

Sardonicat

Sardonicat wrote: »

I think this is it. People are tired of the uncertainty and afraid of the instability it could cause. I think many voted Conservative whilst holding their noses.

And the markets reflect this. They can handle change, what markets don’t like is uncertainty.