General Election December, 2019 (U.K.)

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

The Left on the other hand want the perfect candidate.

I think this is a fair point.

Even look at Dáil Éireann, we've a half dozen left wing parties that cannot/refuse to make a compromise and join together. You very rarely (if ever) see such division on the right.

hotmail.com

droidus wrote: »

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

Labour spent more on social media ads than the Tories in the campaign.

Not everything revolves around social media.

Letwin_Larry

hotmail.com wrote: »

Brexit isn't a cult.

The majority have legitimate reasons for leaving the EU.

This kind of language is part of the problem.

Lab have just suffered the worst election result in 84 years, and they still don't get it.

as Don Maclean would sing "perhaps they never will"

hotmail.com

Britain changed during the Thatcher era. The old left wing socialism died out and became a minority opinion.

A man like Jeremy Corbyn was not the man to resurrect socialism in the UK, he neither had the charisma or the intelligence to bring it about. On so many occasions, he failed to convey what it was he was hoping to do and why it was good for the people.

I get the impression he knows that himself.

hotmail.com

hotmail.com wrote: »

Britain changed during the Thatcher era. The old left wing socialism died out and became a minority opinion.

A man like Jeremy Corbyn was not the man to resurrect socialism in the UK, he neither had the charisma or the intelligence to bring it about. On so many occasions, he failed to convey what it was he was hoping to do and why it was good for the people.

I get the impression he knows that himself.

Johnson has killed socialism in the UK for decades to come.

Only a total and completely inept party would, after seeing these election results, move to Corbyn Mark II, or an even further Left, Corbyn-on-Steroids.

ancapailldorcha

Deleted User wrote: »

Johnson has killed socialism in the UK for decades to come.

Only a total and completely inept party would, after seeing these election results, move to Corbyn Mark II, or an even further Left, Corbyn-on-Steroids.

Or a party choked by a Socialist cult which controls the process of selecting a new leader.

X111111111111

schmittel wrote: »

A lot of posters on here around the time Johnson became Tory leader were quite emphatically describing Boris Johnson as a "failed politician"

Presumably nobody thinks that anymore?

Seems to me like his strategy has paid off perfectly from his point of view. Could not really have been any more successful.

That was just hopeful thinking a lot like the hopeful thinking the UK is going to fall apart after Brexit. I travel for work in the UK several times a year and tbh the result of this election doesn't surprise me in the slightest from interacting with normal everyday people over there. Shock horror most aren't backward racists or bigots and just want the democractic will of the people enacted.

Boris played on that with the get Brexit done stuff and shows he's a very intelligent guy.

Russman

hotmail.com wrote: »

Brexit isn't a cult.

The majority have legitimate reasons for leaving the EU.

This kind of language is part of the problem.

Well its been 3 years or more, and from what I've seen, nobody has come up with even one yet.

Chips Lovell

I think it was more a case of Corbyn killing socialism. It really says something when people who consider themselves socialists can't bring themselves to vote for him.

awec

Deleted User wrote: »

Johnson has killed socialism in the UK for decades to come.

Only a total and completely inept party would, after seeing these election results, move to Corbyn Mark II, or an even further Left, Corbyn-on-Steroids.

He has done nothing of the sort. This election wasn't a rejection of Corbyn's policies, it was a rejection of Corbyn and of Labour's wishy-washy half-arsed stance on Brexit.

hotmail.com

Russman wrote: »

Well its been 3 years or more, and from what I've seen, nobody has come up with even one yet.

Ones that you agree with you mean.

Letwin_Larry

SkyNews interviewing traditional Lab voters in Blyth Valley who voted Tory for the first time in their lives.
if Boris can deliver something, anything to these people Lab are finished as a power up there.
Corbyn and his trendy Islington marxist twaddle went down like a bucket of snot.

Letwin_Larry

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

SkyNews interviewing traditional Lab voters in Blyth Valley who voted Tory for the first time in their lives.
if Boris can deliver something, anything to these people Lab are finished as a power up there.
Corbyn and his trendy Islington marxist twaddle went down like a bucket of snot.

Leading socialists make a lot of money. They don't like to tell you that they themselves are deep into the Top 5%.

Corbyn himself makes 143,000 pounds per year as leader.

Furthermore, he will receive a 1.3 million pound pension.

His estimated net worth is 3 million pounds.

But he never tells you this. There's nothing worse than Corbyn talking about the rich Tories, when he himself would fit into that bracket just fine.

In the US, Bernie Sanders is a multimillionaire etc.

The list goes on...

seamus

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.

This is functionally always the issue with the left. It's why there's always jokes about the next schism in <insert lefty party here>.

Conservatives tout themselves as being strong-moralled and principled, but are far more willing to compromise their beliefs and do whatever it takes in achieving their aims. The end justifies the means. The left tends to go the opposite way - the end never justifies the means. So when a candidate has "troublesome" opinions on a topic, or there's a chance they'll have to compromise some principles to achieve a goal, those on the left are unwilling to back it.
Thus "right" parties tend to hold their noses and coalesce to achieve an aim by any means necessary, "left" parties fracture in disagreement over the best way to do it.

Conservatives know this and push the button all the time. The first thing they do is try to character assassinate someone on the left because they know it's what the left doesn't want to hear. If you character assassinate someone on the right, they don't really care. They could have had fifty abortions and abused children, but if they promise to outlaw abortion, conservatives will support them. Did blackface once when they were 19 or made a risqué joke about Muslims in the 1980s, and half of the left will abandon them.

awec

Deleted User wrote: »

Leading socialists make a lot of money. They don't like to tell you that they themselves are deep into the Top 5%.

Corbyn himself makes 143,000 pounds per year as leader.

Furthermore, he will receive a 1.3 million pound pension.

His estimated net worth is 3 million pounds.

But he never tells you this. There's nothing worse than Corbyn talking about the rich Tories, when he himself would fit into that bracket just fine.

In the US, Bernie Sanders is a multimillionaire etc.

The list goes on...

What on earth are you waffling on about? Corbyn's salary is no secret, never has been. He has never pretended to be poor, or on some meagre salary.

Corbyn, Sanders etc, their problem is not with people being rich. It's with people being rich and not paying their fair share of tax. It is with people being absolutely filthy rich while children suffer on universal credit. Socialism has no real problem with rich people, it just believes that nobody should be dirt poor.

bren2001

Deleted User wrote: »

Leading socialists make a lot of money. They don't like to tell you that they themselves are deep into the Top 5%.

Corbyn himself makes 143,000 pounds per year as leader.

Furthermore, he will receive a 1.3 million pound pension.

His estimated net worth is 3 million pounds.

But he never tells you this. There's nothing worse than Corbyn talking about the rich Tories, when he himself would fit into that bracket just fine.

In the US, Bernie Sanders is a multimillionaire etc.

The list goes on...

In fairness, it's hard to attack Corbyns integrity. His integrity is one of the main reasons he lost. The Tories dragged this election into the gutters and he refused to fight them there. If you want to win, you've to show you're capable of having the battle on any and every level.

The fact he is rich cannot really be held against him. What do you want him to do with the cash?

Lefty Bicek

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?

Some people voted as they did because, irrespective of the box it required them to tick, they were protesting the condescension towards them of people who couldn't accept the result of the referendum, or tried to claim that 'they didn't know what they were voting' for, or were obviously mindless xenophobic/racist, or whatever else.

Even if people are all those things, you aren't going to get them onside by being insulting.

FrancieBrady

bren2001 wrote: »

In fairness, it's hard to attack Corbyns integrity. His integrity is one of the main reasons he lost. The Tories dragged this election into the gutters and he refused to fight them there. If you want to win, you've to show you're capable of having the battle on any and every level.

The fact he is rich cannot really be held against him. What do you want him to do with the cash?

I seen a figure quoted last night where they spent 1,300,000 on ads attacking him personally. It worked.

Nody

VinLieger wrote: »

For an idea of how broken FPTP truly is consider the Tories got only 44% of the vote but manage to get 56% of the seats.

How is that democracy?

People had a free choice of whom to vote for with multiple parties on the list to choose from with different views and agendas, there were no state enforced or party enforced physical intimidation or control, there was no large scale voter fraud (at least to date) and no reports from any observers about tampering with votes. Now you may disagree with how the system is setup but the voters voted down in 2011 a change to it; hence while not a direct democracy it does fulfill any western definitions of democracy.

looksee wrote: »

As a 'long time gone' Brit I am depressed by the result. Ireland needs to take care of itself now, Britain deserves its government.

By all accounts though the Pound has soared, why is that?

The market don't like uncertainty; this leads to an end to Brexit part 1 and does not threaten a no deal crash out.

bren2001

bren2001 wrote: »

In fairness, it's hard to attack Corbyns integrity. His integrity is one of the main reasons he lost. The Tories dragged this election into the gutters and he refused to fight them there. If you want to win, you've to show you're capable of having the battle on any and every level.

The fact he is rich cannot really be held against him. What do you want him to do with the cash?

First, if he's going to complain about the wealthy Tories, he himself should declare his own wealth and that he is in the same category. It never gets mentioned because it's an inconvenient truth.

Second, if he truly believes in wealth redistribution, then he should act on that of his own volition and voluntarily take a cut. If he expects other wealthy people to take a cut, if he is a man of principle he would do it irrespective of whether it's law or not.

Bannasidhe

facehugger99 wrote: »

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

I am not 'presenting' facts in any way as I have no agenda - although you might.

I am simply saying that looking for another Blair is not the panacea for the problem's of the LP that some here are claiming.

Awful lot of looking back at Blair through rosy tinted glasses. He left the LP unelectable - how do we know? Simple - they can't get elected.

Blair came in on a landslide against a Tory party ripping itself apart and left having lost seats in every subsequent GE. In 1997 LP won 418 seats (Major's imploding CP got 165!), lost 5 in 2001, lost 48 in 2005.
His successor, who was very much part and parcel of Team Tony, lost another 97 in 2010. Brown's successor lost a further 26.
The LP went from 418 seats in 1997 to 232 in 2015.
This are not facts I am 'presenting'. They are simply facts.


Corbyn didn't fix the rot. He even made it worse as he was too left wing (in the Labour Party... imagine that!) for the Blairites and they openly opposed him. Shades of how the Conservatives were (with Thatcherites working against Major's 'Wets') when Blair swept in.

But it is lazy to point at Corbyn and blame him for a decline that began long before he became leader as if simply replacing him with a Tony Clone will fix everything.

It won't.

It won't win back Scotland, it won't win back the Mining Towns unless the LP starts listening to what people are saying to them now.

They lost the Leave Voters - the Leave the UK and the Leave the EU.
They failed to convince the Remainers in enough numbers.

L1011

About a thousand posts ago I wondered who the 1 "OTH" expected to have a seat was in the exit poll. The Speaker, of course - who only got 67% in a three horse race. Not as low as Bercow last time out but I think its one of the lower results for an English seated Speaker. SNP stood against Martin which brought him lower.

awec

Deleted User wrote: »

First, if he's going to complain about the wealthy Tories, he himself should declare his own wealth and that he is in the same category. It never gets mentioned because it's an inconvenient truth.

Second, if he truly believes in wealth redistribution, then he should act on that of his own volition and voluntarily take a cut. If he expects other wealthy people to take a cut, if he is a man of principle he would do it irrespective of whether it's law or not.

"If you care about wealth redistribution then redistribute your own salary". We're hitting playground level stuff here now.

It seems some of our wannabe-tory types are having a hard time comprehending the idea that someone on a decent wage packet wants to do something about income inequality.

Richard Hillman

You can see the next general election being fought on the basis that Labour are the London Party.

liamtech

Corbyn didnt lose this election because he is a socialist
Corbyn didnt lose this election because he is Antisemitic
Corbyn didnt lose this election because he is 'extreme'
Corbyn didnt lose this election because of Brexit ALONE

Corbyn lost this election because he is an Arrogant fool.

Co-operation was necessary between Anti-Tory/Brexit Parties. Look at constituencies like Luciana Berger's - and combine the Anti-Brexit Vote - easily a remain coalition LANDSLIDE - But Corbyn's arrogance in ruining/splitting the Anti Tory vote, in the fantastical belief he would win a Majority - handed the election to the Tories

Swinson didnt help, i admit that - and im delighted she is gone - But Jeremy has to go now - and momentum needs to take a long hard look at itself

Corbyn was aweful in the campaign - aside from a few high points in the head to heads - but lets be honest a bumbling careerist like Johnson - my 10 year old could beat him in a debate

We can complain about FPTP and that was always going to make this harder - but FPTP wasnt dropped on the UK overnight - it IS the system - and it Politicians need to be PRAGMATIC

And yes Corbyn was smeared it happened - but for GOODNESS SAKE play the game - this is politics - the whole 'i dont engaged in that type of politics' argument does NOT cut it - the Andrew Neil interview - christ i get a shiver down my spine

I think we probably need a thread to discuss where labour go from here - i said that before passing out earlier today. And that is not arrogant presumption on my part. I just think Labour's direction is a topic in itself now, that needs to be examined. Even from the point of keeping a functioning Opposition in place, this debate needs to be had

• I dont want a return to centrism- i want a pragmatic socialism that doesnt fight unnecessary battles
• I dont want momentum GONE - political engagement is something to be proud of - but it needs to reform and embrace pragmatism over principle when necessary- Either Labour is a Lobbying group, or its a political party READY for government in 5-10 years
• I want Corbyn to go - NOW - he should have no part of determining how labour recover - he shouldnt even speak in the debate on Labour's future -

To users like Aegir and Eskimohunt - Im gonna say to you we will never agree on policy, and brexit. But You won. And i congratulate you, honestly and genuinely. Its a stunning victory, i dare say beyond your own expectations perhaps - But you won and i genuinely congratulate you. And for what its worth i hope i am totally wrong about brexit, and Johnson - because he won - YOU won

This is a difficult post for me to write because im emotional, and angry - and i dare say i probably wont make any friends today - and if im ignored so be it - but to the victors go the spoils - so well done

Letwin_Larry

Deleted User wrote: »

Leading socialists make a lot of money. They don't like to tell you that they themselves are deep into the Top 5%.

Corbyn himself makes 143,000 pounds per year as leader.

Furthermore, he will receive a 1.3 million pound pension.

His estimated net worth is 3 million pounds.

But he never tells you this. There's nothing worse than Corbyn talking about the rich Tories, when he himself would fit into that bracket just fine.

In the US, Bernie Sanders is a multimillionaire etc.

The list goes on...

and then when ordinary folk reject their trendy Islington marxist twaddle, the 'intelligentsia' (forgive me if i laugh here) call them dumb, uneducated, illinformed, because they didn't get to study sociology in a polytechnic like us!

fair play to them for rejecting corbyn and his nonsense.

awec

Agree, Labour don't need to lurch back to the centre, especially not given the next election is likely to be after 5 years of Boris, in a post-Brexit world, when there'll be no more hiding behind words when it comes to talking about how brilliant the UK is doing outside of the EU.

Labour just needs to soften a few of it's policies and pick a leader that has appeal across the base.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Leading socialists make a lot of money. They don't like to tell you that they themselves are deep into the Top 5%.

Corbyn himself makes 143,000 pounds per year as leader.

Furthermore, he will receive a 1.3 million pound pension.

His estimated net worth is 3 million pounds.

But he never tells you this. There's nothing worse than Corbyn talking about the rich Tories, when he himself would fit into that bracket just fine.

In the US, Bernie Sanders is a multimillionaire etc.

The list goes on...

This is a nonsense argument because if a poor person wants to tax the rich they're just jealous, or need to work harder.

If a rich person thinks rich people should be paying more in taxes, they're hypocrites, champagne socialist, etc...


You can spin it any way you want depending on who you're talking to.

Chips Lovell

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

SkyNews interviewing traditional Lab voters in Blyth Valley who voted Tory for the first time in their lives.
if Boris can deliver something, anything to these people Lab are finished as a power up there.
Corbyn and his trendy Islington marxist twaddle went down like a bucket of snot.

Blyth Valley says a lot about this election and Sky kind of missed the real story here.

The Tories gained 1,500 votes. But Labour lost 7,000. So where did the rest of the Labour votes go. Well the Brexit party went from 0 to 3,394 votes. And turnout was down by 1,600, many of whom were likely Labour voters who stayed at home.

Corbyn being wishy-washy on Brexit completely backfired on him. He was apparently on the fence because he didn't want to lose his votes in Leave voting constituencies. But they deserted him anyway.

Interestingly, while the Brexit party didn't make much of an impact nationally, and didn't do much better than UKIP in 2017, it did seem to make an impact in several swing seats.

seamus

Chips Lovell wrote: »

Interestingly, while the Brexit party didn't make much of an impact nationally, and didn't do much better than UKIP in 2017, it did seem to make an impact in several swing seats.

Which would have been part of the strategy - to capture Labour voters who absolutely won't vote Tory, but still want to back a Brexit-friendly candidate.