General Election December, 2019 (U.K.)

Letwin_Larry

my advice to corbyn. Never take up poker, or chess. stick to Ludo.

Farage on the other hand ...
he certainly deserves something, having sacrificed himself & his party in order to allow Boris to romp home.

US ambassador perhaps, or perhaps a role negotiating UK exit from the EU?

Chips Lovell

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.

If you look at the number though, this isn't really the case. Some ex-Labour voters did this, but a lot more just didn't vote for Labour and either stayed at home or voted for parties other than Labour or the Conservatives. The Conservatives gained 300,000 votes, Labour lost 2.6 million.

Christy42

Bannasidhe wrote: »

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 are starting to vote Tory - the same mining towns decimated by Thatcher.

They want to be decimated again. It is the only logical conclusion. The UK has long neglected many parts of the country and this will only get worse when EU funding stops. London will not make up for the shortfall.

Instability is a nonsense reason to vote conservative. They are promising the most instability. While I don't think he will Boris could take this result and run for an actual hard brexit.

bren2001

Bannasidhe wrote: »

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.

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 are starting to vote Tory - the same mining towns decimated by Thatcher.

They have 3 choices. Stay where they are, move further left, or move closer to the centre. Which should they pick?

Corbyn took on a dysfunctional Tory government who were actively working against May. He couldn't win that election. He then took on a right-wing xenophobic leader. He couldn't win that election. Staying in their current position would be a mistake.

I see no appetite to move further left.

I think moving back towards the centre is what the public want. Centre politics usually win out. Blair is the only Labour leader ever to win 3 elections (I could be wrong). I think it's fair to suggest that moving back in that direction may make some sense. The political landscape has not changed that much in 10 years. The LP have just been incredibly ineffective in that time.

They are the only 3 options.

bren2001

Deleted User wrote: »

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.

If Brexit pans out the way you think it will. It will be almost impossible to see Labour winning in 2024.

If Brexit pans outs the way I think it will, a floppy dildo will be able to beat the Tories. Considering how effective Labour are, it'll be tight.

Christy42

Chips Lovell wrote: »

If you look at the number though, this isn't really the case. Some ex-Labour voters did this, but a lot more just didn't vote for Labour and either stayed at home or voted for parties other than Labour or the Conservatives. The Conservatives gained 300,000 votes, Labour lost 2.6 million.

This is a good point. Do labour need take conservative voters back or just be more tactical? The British system is not well designed to represent the will of the people.

Letwin_Larry

bren2001 wrote: »

They have 3 choices. Stay where they are, move further left, or move closer to the centre. Which should they pick?

Corbyn took on a dysfunctional Tory government who were actively working against May. He couldn't win that election. He then took on a right-wing xenophobic leader. He couldn't win that election. Staying in their current position would be a mistake.

I see no appetite to move further left.

I think moving back towards the centre is what the public want. Centre politics usually win out. Blair is the only Labour leader ever to win 3 elections (I could be wrong). I think it's fair to suggest that moving back in that direction may make some sense. The political landscape has not changed that much in 10 years. The LP have just been incredibly ineffective in that time.

They are the only 3 options.

Every Tory will be sorry to see Jeremy go. he was one of their greatest assets for sure and will be sadly missed.
maybe he could find it in his heart to stay on, hug a few more terrorists, and move Lab further towards a 1970s marxist style agenda.

eventually the workers will realise it's the best thing for them, and jump on board.

devnull

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.

There was no big voter swing from Labour to the Conservatives though.

Share of the vote changes
Tory (1% increase)
Labour (8% decrease)
Lib Dems (4% increase)
SNP (1% increase)
Brexit (2% increase)

The story here is not a big increase in votes for the Tory party from Labour, it's a collapse of Labour support with many different factions deserting Labour. Remainers going to Lib Dems and SNP, Brexiters to Conservative and Tory party etc. This is where the fence sitting by Corbyn has backfired.

With a FPTP voting system, if one parties vote collapses and the swing away from their vote is scattered among many different parties, it means the numbers needed to win the seat get reduced therefore the Tories can make little to no gain on vote share and still vastly increase their number of seats and that has happened here.

joe40

bren2001 wrote: »

They have 3 choices. Stay where they are, move further left, or move closer to the centre. Which should they pick?

Corbyn took on a dysfunctional Tory government who were actively working against May. He couldn't win that election. He then took on a right-wing xenophobic leader. He couldn't win that election. Staying in their current position would be a mistake.

I see no appetite to move further left.

I think moving back towards the centre is what the public want. Centre politics usually win out. Blair is the only Labour leader ever to win 3 elections (I could be wrong). I think it's fair to suggest that moving back in that direction may make some sense. The political landscape has not changed that much in 10 years. The LP have just been incredibly ineffective in that time.

They are the only 3 options.

I'm not sure if it would have mattered what labour party policy, this election was fought under the Spectre of Brexit and unfortunately labour was the most divided party on this issue.
By not embracing the simplistic "get Brexit done" they alienated a lot of traditional labour voters.
Maybe Corbyn was a liability but I think any labour leader would have faced an impossible task to keep all factions of the party on board during this election.
This wasn't politics as normal.

Bannasidhe

tdf7187 wrote: »

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

Yes, he was.
He certainly isn't a socialist.

And from the high of 1997 Blair lost seats at every single GE and the decline continued when he became so toxic he stood down. Brown was handed a poisoned chalice.

In 2017 under Corbyn and the move away from Blair's legacy the LP gained 30 seats including winning back 5 in Scotland.

Corbyn messed up around Brexit - absolutely. Although I believe the LP position was pragmatic given the division between Leave/Remain in their electoral base. They utterly failed to sell it.
The lack of unity within the LP and the very public undermining of the leadership by the Blairites certainly had people thinking how can this man run the country when he can't even run his own party?

Lemming

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.

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?

Seeing the BBC constituency breakdown map, I'm aghast at how so much of the north of England voted Tory given what the Tories have consistently and repeatedly inflicted upon the north of England through the 1980s and early 90s, and through the last decade. It blows my mind.

I've heard the sentiment "anyone but Corbyn" echoed more than a few times within earshot too, so it's not all about Brexit. Oh well, the country is in for an incredibly harsh lesson or two at current trajectory.

Agricola

Lemming wrote: »

Seeing the BBC constituency breakdown map, I'm aghast at how so much of the north of England voted Tory given what the Tories have consistently and repeatedly inflicted upon the north of England through the 1980s and early 90s, and through the last decade. It blows my mind.

I've heard the sentiment "anyone but Corbyn" echoed more than a few times within earshot too, so it's not all about Brexit. Oh well, the country is in for an incredibly harsh lesson or two at current trajectory.

Guy of 32 from Birmingham on with James O Brien this morning who works for Jaguar Landrover. Member of a union, safe labour seat, he himself labour since he got the vote and he voted Tory because of Corbyn's fondness for the IRA!

An awful lot of people swallowed the anti Corbyn tabloid media diatribe hook line and sinker. Simple as that.

Infini

Lemming wrote: »

Seeing the BBC constituency breakdown map, I'm aghast at how so much of the north of England voted Tory given what the Tories have consistently and repeatedly inflicted upon the north of England through the 1980s and early 90s, and through the last decade. It blows my mind.

I've heard the sentiment "anyone but Corbyn" echoed more than a few times within earshot too, so it's not all about Brexit. Oh well, the country is in for an incredibly harsh lesson or two at current trajectory.

Human Stupidity is the cancer of existence. They've gone and allowed the clown and his shifty friends to sell the UK down the toilet and all they'll get for it is for things to just degrade further and further all while empowering the party who helped to cause it all to retain power.

sid waddell

Bannasidhe wrote: »

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.

Labour lost Scotland because the 2014 referendum unleashed the huge force of nationalism.

Same as the Irish Parliamentary Party were routed in 1918 because the huge force of Irish nationalism had suddenly been unleashed.

At least in Scotland, it's lucky that nationalism is curated by a moderate, reasonable social democratic party.

The 2016 referendum unleashed the forces of English nationalism, and that's way, way more toxic than Scottish nationalism.

It's DUP/Trump like, it isn't a nationalism that harks for freedom from a colonial power, it's the nationalism of a colonial power furious that it no longer is such, and which has indulged in the utter fantasy that it itself is the victim of colonisation.

Brexit and the identity politics which drove it are the politics of perpetual victimhood allied with the peddlers of rapacious, unregulated capitalism which has no compunction in creating an alternative reality world of lies.

If this proves to be a permanent thing, and it may well do - because Brexit will be a slow car crash which likely results in those who voted for it looking not inwards or at the politicians which dog whistled for Brexit for blame, but outwards at "the peole who tried to stop it", Labour will find it very difficult to win most of those seats back.

What's happening here is an Americanisation of UK politics, it couldn't be more obvious. It's the complete replacement of policy with "identity" as a motivating force. Identity was always a strong motivating force for northern Labour voters, but it was identity borne of policy and class politics, not ethno-nationalism.

facehugger99

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Yes, he was.
He certainly isn't a socialist.

And from the high of 1997 Blair lost seats at every single GE and the decline continued when he became so toxic he stood down. Brown was handed a poisoned chalice.

In 2017 under Corbyn and the move away from Blair's legacy the LP gained 30 seats including winning back 5 in Scotland.

That's certainly an 'interesting' way of presenting the facts.

or alternatively, you could say that Corbyn's best performance in a GE was to win over 150 seats less than Blair managed.

Wow - that suddenly doesn't sound so good does it?

Even Blair's worst performance was nearly 100 seats better than Corbyn's best

devnull

joe40 wrote: »

I'm not sure if it would have mattered what labour party policy, this election was fought under the Spectre of Brexit and unfortunately labour was the most divided party on this issue..

As someone who works in the UK quite a bit, I can tell you that I know far more people who didn't vote Labour because of Corbyn rather than because of Brexit and there was some who for both things together, meant that they couldn't vote for Corbyn.

I would be a staunch remainer in the UK but I could never bring myself to vote for Corbyn either and I know plenty of other people in the same boat who voted Lib Dems,which is reflected in the vote share percentage where it appears half of the 8% vote share loss by Labour, was hoovered up by the Lib Dems.

10000maniacs

devnull wrote: »

There was no big voter swing from Labour to the Conservatives though.

Share of the vote changes
Tory (1% increase)
Labour (8% decrease)
Lib Dems (4% increase)
SNP (1% increase)
Brexit (2% increase)

The story here is not a big increase in votes for the Tory party from Labour, it's a collapse of Labour support with many different factions deserting Labour. Remainers going to Lib Dems and SNP, Brexiters to Conservative and Tory party etc. This is where the fence sitting by Corbyn has backfired.

With a FPTP voting system, if one parties vote collapses and the swing away from their vote is scattered among many different parties, it means the numbers needed to win the seat get reduced therefore the Tories can make little to no gain on vote share and still vastly increase their number of seats and that has happened here.

The election wasn't really a move from Labour to Tory. It was basically a re-run of the Brexit referendum. The cult of Brexit.
Corbyn and Labour should have read this election for what it was and stuck to their 2016 endorsement of the vote.
The sheer stupidity of Corbyn's plan to negotiate a deal and put it to the people with remain sunk him.
Having a referendum on such an important issue was flawed to begin with, but the genie was well and truly out of the bottle in 2016.

bren2001

joe40 wrote: »

I'm not sure if it would have mattered what labour party policy, this election was fought under the Spectre of Brexit and unfortunately labour was the most divided party on this issue.
By not embracing the simplistic "get Brexit done" they alienated a lot of traditional labour voters.
Maybe Corbyn was a liability but I think any labour leader would have faced an impossible task to keep all factions of the party on board during this election.
This wasn't politics as normal.

I don't really disagree with you.

For me, Corbyn didn't keep the party united, didn't form some type of pact with the Lib Dems etc., and allowed the election to become about Brexit. He was completely outmaneuvered by Boris, Cummings, etc.

The Tories did an excellent character assassination on him (as they do with every LP leader) and the mantra of "anyone but Corbyn" developed.

Did Labour not get elected solely due to their policies? No, of course not. Did their quite left policies help them? No. For example, on the Waspi women he took a moral stand point but he exposed a 58 billion hole in the manifesto. Did it win him a single seat? No. It just opened himself and the party up to criticism.

They have to do something. I think that something is moving to the centre because I believe that's what the British public want. If they stand still, they are toast.

A Dub in Glasgo

Aegir wrote: »

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.

The SNP want PR but when they play by the same rules as the other parties, they are de-legitimised becasue they have not won the popular vote therefore no mandate for anything they are standing on

Remind me how the Tories got on

A Dub in Glasgo

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Delightful

https://twitter.com/jimwaterson/status/1205337825186594817?s=19

The reactions are something else. They get offended by that but live in a country that gave Boris a majority.

Swinson was defeated by a 27 year SNP party member (Amy Callaghan) who survived cancer when she was younger - that is the reaction Sturgeon is giving rather than the fact that Swinson was defeated. If Swinson was defeated by Labour or the Tories, the reaction from Sturgeon would hardly have registered

beggars_bush

didn't know the IRA were back on the agenda in the UK. they really don't know anything about the world outside of blighty

do they not know they've disarmed and gone down the peaceful route?
thanks to the likes of Corbyn actually meeting and talking to them decades ago

sid waddell

bren2001 wrote: »

I think moving back towards the centre is what the public want. Centre politics usually win out.

This theory only is ever applied to parties perceived to be of the left though.

The evidence shows that far right politics is winning elections all over the place.

Yet nobody ever says that "elections are won from the centre" about right-wing parties.

It's quite easy to work out why that is.

Anything that threatens even a mild redistribution of wealth for the betterment of society is absolutely vilified by the media, which is owned largely by billionaires and staffed overwhelmingly by white, middle class people.

For the media, certianly in the UK, US, Ireland, and other English speaking countries such as Australia, and clearly in places like Brazil, Russia and Turkey too, far right racist politics which does not threaten wealth is infinitely preferable to mild social democracy.

Communism was a failed system, but it did provide a counter balance to rapacious capitalism for many years. Now there is no such counter balance and the gravitational pull of political systems everywhere is only coming from the right.

Woe betide anybody who tries to push back against it.

ancapailldorcha

Well, that was unexpected. I'd braced myself for a Johnson win but I'd be lying if I expected one of this magnitude.

I stayed up most of the night watching the results roll in. Just catching up on sleep now.

I think that's it to be honest. I'm somewhat optimistic as Johnson is now free to pivot to the centre should he so choose. He's always packed light in ideological terms. In any case, the deal will be passed in January. Since he was able to present Theresa May's deal as a win where she couldn't' then it stand so reason that there is a possibility that he will settle for a very soft Brexit. If the past five years have shown anything, it's that the Conservative party will not stay united for long.

The big winners are English, Irish and Scottish Nationalism. As a Unionist, I actually hope that Ireland reunifies. Ulster Unionism has shown itself to be nothing more than a toxic and venal force in British politics. If the UK is to leave on harder terms then the people of Ireland should be able to have their say in a border poll.

Ditto for Scotland. Nicola Sturgeon has played a blinder and I sincerely hope she is able to find some way to run an independence referendum so she can free Edinburgh from London and rejoin the EU should the Scots so desire which it seems certain they do.

England and Wales wanted Brexit so the UK should now break up so that the democratic wishes of the four constituent member nations can be fulfilled.

The other big lesson from tonight is that Metropolitan Socialism will not win elections. The best thing Jeremy Corbyn can do now is to resign. If Momentum and the Labour left do not give up their hold on the Labour party and allow it to return to the centre then it will remain in the electoral wilderness. The English clearly prefer an ethnic nationalist Conservative party over a Socialist Labour party. The sooner this lesson is learned and implemented the better. Corbyn failed to learn from David Cameron's mistake. You cannot abandon a long standing stance of being Eurosceptic and then expect the public to take you in good faith. Labour needs a fresh leader who can unite the party and push a positive pro-EU and liberal message, not an aged Socialist with baggage.

The Lib Dems have somehow managed to be worse off than after the 2017 election. Thankfully, Swinson has been rejected for an SNP MP.

Now it looks like the UK will finally start the Brexit process...

LuckyLloyd

tdf7187 wrote: »

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

An Iraq war based on lies. MP Expenses scandal. A severe financial shock based on dodgy unregulated banking practices.

bren2001

sid waddell wrote: »

This theory only is ever applied to parties perceived to be of the left though.

The evidence shows that far right politics is winning elections all over the place.

Yet nobody ever says that "elections are won from the centre" about right-wing parties.

It's quite easy to work out why that is.

Anything that threatens even a mild redistribution of wealth for the betterment of society is absolutely vilified by the media, which is owned largely by billionaires and staffed overwhelmingly by white, middle class people.

For the media, certianly in the UK, US, Ireland, and other English speaking countries such as Australia, and clearly in places like Brazil, Russia and Turkey too, far right racist politics which does not threaten wealth is infinitely preferable to mild social democracy.

I agree, its a line for left wing parties not right wing.

I think if the LP want to move further left, you've to be in Government and move your voter base with you. Boris did it with Brexit to the right. Corbyn jumped and it left many people behind.

Its one of the reasons why I think they should move back towards the centre.

Saying that, I would be as left as Corbyn is (give or take). I just don't think it wins elections from their current position.

sid waddell

sid waddell wrote: »

This theory only is ever applied to parties perceived to be of the left though.

The evidence shows that far right politics is winning elections all over the place.

Yet nobody ever says that "elections are won from the centre" about right-wing parties.

It's quite easy to work out why that is.

Anything that threatens even a mild redistribution of wealth for the betterment of society is absolutely vilified by the media, which is owned largely by billionaires and staffed overwhelmingly by white, middle class people.

For the media, certianly in the UK, US, Ireland, and other English speaking countries such as Australia, and clearly in places like Brazil, Russia and Turkey too, far right racist politics which does not threaten wealth is infinitely preferable to mild social democracy.

Communism was a failed system, but it did provide a counter balance to rapacious capitalism for many years. Now there is no such counter balance and the gravitational pull of political systems everywhere is only coming from the right.

Woe betide anybody who tries to push back against it.

As a lefty myself I think the difference between the Left and Right is that Right-wingers are just better at winning. They can organise themselves. In America people with nothing will vote for someone promising them nothing good but to ban abortion. The range of people voting Republican, all diametrically naturally opposed one would expect, is huge. The Left on the other hand want the perfect candidate. Toys get thrown out of prams when they don't get it. They don't use their vote as effectively.
The Right get their votes out where they need them. They can lose the popular vote but win the election. Young people can't be relied upon to vote but the Left parties tend to target them, oh if only this one time it actually works(!)

LuckyLloyd

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

An Iraq war based on lies. MP Expenses scandal. A severe financial shock based on dodgy unregulated banking practices.

"Centrism" is a political framework, not some sort of history that is bound to repeat from any politician who espouses it.

What you are criticizing is politicians who happened to be Centrists.

It's perfectly feasible, in other words, to be a Centrist and not support wars and expenses scandals.

It would be absurd to reject Centrism as a political ideology on those grounds. It would be the equivalent of me saying that, if Corbyn had an expenses scandal, that's the basis of my argument against socialism.

Tom Mann Centuria

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

An Iraq war based on lies. MP Expenses scandal. A severe financial shock based on dodgy unregulated banking practices.

Don't forget Cash for Honours and PFI.

droidus

Deleted User wrote: »

As a lefty myself I think the difference between the Left and Right is that Right-wingers are just better at winning. They can organise themselves. In America people with nothing will vote for someone promising them nothing good but to ban abortion. The range of people voting Republican, all diametrically naturally opposed one would expect, is huge. The Left on the other hand want the perfect candidate. Toys get thrown out of prams when they don't get it. They don't use their vote as effectively.
The Right get their votes out where they need them. They can lose the popular vote but win the election. Young people can't be relied upon to vote but the Left parties tend to target them, oh if only this one time it actually works(!)

The difference is, and always has been, money ruthlessness and resources, and in this era, unregulated billionaire owned social media poisoning of the polity.

hotmail.com

10000maniacs wrote: »

The election wasn't really a move from Labour to Tory. It was basically a re-run of the Brexit referendum. The cult of Brexit.
Corbyn and Labour should have read this election for what it was and stuck to their 2016 endorsement of the vote.
The sheer stupidity of Corbyn's plan to negotiate a deal and put it to the people with remain sunk him.
Having a referendum on such an important issue was flawed to begin with, but the genie was well and truly out of the bottle in 2016.

Brexit isn't a cult.

The majority have legitimate reasons for leaving the EU.

This kind of language is part of the problem.