General Election December, 2019 (U.K.)

Strazdas

quokula wrote: »

The EU would have been angered by the UK potentially remaining? Really?

If he had said to them "I wish to negotiate a new WA with you....but I will not support it in public or campaign for it", they would have replied "Why should we negotiate anything with you at all?".

Letwin_Larry

MPFGLB wrote: »

I must say I dislike immensely all this defammation of both Corbyn and Swinson characters on here

Saying they are arrogant or dont like the UK is just ridiculous

If anything they were naive and ill informed but both had the best of intentions for there heartland

That some people feel they can deride their characters when Boris Johnson is a know liar and racist is just ridiculous

Vitriol is rotten

maybe you ought to go to places like Blyth Valley, Workington or Doncaster and tell them to cop themselves on.

good luck with that.:rolleyes:

Jess Philips would be a good choice as next Labour leader.

Hilary Benn, perhaps?

I just find Keir Starmer so negative, miserable, and pessimistic - I can't see him "connecting" with the electorate.

Chuka Umuna would have been the best choice, had he remained in Labour and won his seat.

There is no chance in hell that Rebecca Long-Bailey would outmatch Johnson.

Nody

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

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?

Sacrificed what exactly? He took seats from Tories that they would have won; he took some seats from Labour that Labour would have won. His net effect was pretty much zero and did not really increase overall votes.

In addition being US ambassador only works if Trump is in the office, once Trump is out he'd be a liability there.

liamtech

Aegir wrote: »

Personally I don't feel like a winner. My hope from all of this was that there was Tory majority so that the WA can get approved. I don't want the UK to leave the EU, but I fell it needs to now, otherwise it will never move on from the stagnation for the last two years. I do also believe the outcome of the referendum needs to be respected.

I am by no stretch of the imagination a true blue Tory, I would consider myself a floating voter, but there was no way I could imagine the UK going back to the 1970s, which is what Corbyn's politics seemed to be. I have nothing against him as such, parliament needs Jeremy Corbyns around the place, but not as prime minister. He should be somewhere in the background applying pressure, not setting policy. The momentum faction that seems to have taken over the party though just reminds me too much of Militant. It made Labour un-electable thirty years ago and seems to have done the same again. where the next Neil Kinnock is going to come from though, god only knows.

Well look its done now - the chat will continue of course - but there does need to be a solid conversation on Labour's Future

The argument seems to have split between

• It is all Socialism's fault
• Its all Corbyn's Fault
• It's all Brexit's fault

My own view is more nuanced - it was primarily Brexit, Corbyn's APPROACH to brexit, and Corbyn refusing to be pragmatic - he is not realistic - and he needs to go now

but i do NOT endorse a - 'BRING BACK BLAIRISM' campaign - No way - no thanks - been there, done that, buried the t shirt

Left Wing politics can and do work - and this is where the thread sometimes gets messy - and we start shouting at one another - im devoid of energy today - politics is my bread and butter, but last night was horrid, and depressing, and humiliating

And ask people to just bare that in mind today

And i congratulate the winners - which has to be done

ILoveYourVibes

MPFGLB wrote: »

I must say I dislike immensely all this defammation of both Corbyn and Swinson characters on here

Saying they are arrogant or dont like the UK is just ridiculous

If anything they were naive and ill informed but both had the best of intentions for there heartland

That some people feel they can deride their characters when Boris Johnson is a know liar and racist is just ridiculous

Vitriol is rotten

Boris is a liar and a racist. Corbyn is arrogant.

I mean the choice was still lab....but still ...awful people the lot of them.

MPFGLB

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

maybe you ought to go to places like Blyth Valley, Workington or Doncaster and tell them to cop themselves on.

good luck with that.:rolleyes:

I am talking about you and your ridiculous posts not about the election
So why I would need to go anywhere when here you are

liamtech

liamtech wrote: »

but i do NOT endorse a - 'BRING BACK BLAIRISM' campaign - No way - no thanks - been there, done that, buried the t shirt

Just to be clear, the one strategy that won Labour 3x elections in a row over the past 40-50 years is being rejected in favour of a strategy that has been responsible for the 2 worst electoral defeats in recent history?

It doesn't matter what you personally believe. What matters is what the electorate believe. They are the ones who determine policy and are outright rejecting your proposed form of politics.

If you keep ignoring the electorate, don't be surprised if they don't vote for you.

joe40

Why all this talk of Corbyn been toxic, the same Corbyn did well in 2017 denying an overall Tory majority.
The only difference was this time around the labour party was remain leaning or at least second referendum.
That was too much for the labour leavers so the labour vote declined. There was no significant rise in the Tory share of the vote.
This election was all Brexit, other politics didn't get a look in.
It does show the strength of the leave which I'll admit it didn't think would be as strong after the events of the last two years.
Still a massive mistake for me but that seems to be where UK public opinion is.

Bit cynical

Strazdas wrote: »

If he had said to them "I wish to negotiate a new WA with you....but I will not support it in public or campaign for it", they would have replied "Why should we negotiate anything with you at all?".

Even if he said he would support it, still very little incentive for the EU to negotiate since the worst that would happen is that the UK would withdraw A50 (which would still be in extended mode). Or else put it to the people who would reject it and again A50 would be withdrawn.

I think this is what the electorate saw when they delivered their verdict.

sid waddell

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(!)

I think if you look at the sort of people that parties of the perceived left, or even liberal tendency tend to get elected, they usually have to be a sort of perceived "Superman" variety - in the US, Kennnedy, Clinton, Obama, in the UK Blair, in France Macron (not left-wing but it almost felt that way last time because of what he was up against). They need a messianic quality.

The likes of Lula, Hugo Chavez, Evo Morales, Rafael Correa, Lopez Obrador in Mexico and Cristina Fernandez in Argentina won because they were seen to be of a similar type in their cultural context.

Nelson Mandela was perceived almost as a sort of "Superman" figure.

The cult of personality still rules. But in this decade we've seen the emergence of "fictional" candidates, ie. Trump, Johnson, Farage, who are effectively TV characters, they're literally playing a character. Yer man Zelensky in Ukraine won by playing in real life the character he played in a television comedy series. I find that sort of stuff incredibly worrying, because at a time when the world needs good leadership in a global context more than at any time since World War II, we have the worst collection of global leaders since the time of World War II, people who are playing characters and have absolutely no answers to improve the lives of people.

There are massive forces at work internationally which these leaders completely ignore, global inequality, intra-state inequality, I mean climate change is an existential threat to our world - and that's without even mentioning the unintended side effects of it, like real, genuine mass migration on an unimaginable scale due to parts of the world becoming uninhabitable. Who knows where it all ends up but insularity, illiberalism, ethno-nationalism, racism and a child-like approach to politics which too many of our current global leaders embrace sure isn't going to solve any of it, it will only make it a lot worse.

Dyr

Deleted User wrote: »

Jess Philips would be a good choice as next Labour leader.

If you're a tory she is because she'd never win an election.

Joe_ Public

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Jess Philips would be a good choice as next Labour leader.

Hilary Benn, perhaps?

I just find Keir Starmer so negative, miserable, and pessimistic - I can't see him "connecting" with the electorate.

Chuka Umuna would have been the best choice, had he remained in Labour and won his seat.

There is no chance in hell that Rebecca Long-Bailey would outmatch Johnson.

Jess will put her name in the hat along with probably up to 20 others. Will be a long saga, make the tory leadership contest look tame. Starmer is a name on manys lips but he's untested, hasnt actually done a huge lot as an mp to earn his reputation. Unlike jess he does have a serious chance but impossible to call at this stage.

ILoveYourVibes

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

Boris is a liar and a racist. Corbyn is arrogant.

I mean the choice was still lab....but still ...awful people the lot of them.

Is he really though?..I kind of think that calling him that willy-nilly could be considered dirty politics..I kind of think the whole "People who voted for brexit are stupid and racist" idea that has been pushed since the brexit referendum is what has given us the result yesterday..

MPFGLB

It beggars believe when you read that Dennis Skinner donated a year's salary to the 1984-5 miners' strike fund. He didnt even take his full salary at Westminster and Bolsover have now turned against him, and have given his seat to the Tories.

This has got to hurt

People of here or sways of North east or midlands who only voted Labour for generations I believe have made a mistake

Buy hey ho that there is democracy

sid waddell

Deleted User wrote: »

Just to be clear, the one strategy that won Labour 3x elections in a row over the past 40-50 years is being rejected in favour of a strategy that has been responsible for the 2 worst electoral defeats in recent history?

It doesn't matter what you personally believe. What matters is what the electorate believe. They are the ones who determine policy and are outright rejecting your proposed form of politics.

If you keep ignoring the electorate, don't be surprised if they don't vote for you.

There was a Blairite party in this election.

They won 11 seats.

10000maniacs

joe40 wrote: »

Why all this talk of Corbyn been toxic, the same Corbyn did well in 2017 denying an overall Tory majority.
The only difference was this time around the labour party was remain leaning or at least second referendum.
That was too much for the labour leavers so the labour vote declined. There was no significant rise in the Tory share of the vote.
This election was all Brexit, other politics didn't get a look in.
It does show the strength of the leave which I'll admit it didn't think would be as strong after the events of the last two years.
Still a massive mistake for me but that seems to be where UK public opinion is.

The difference was Corbyn hadn't played his hand on Brexit prior to the 2017 election apart from voting it through in 2016.

liamtech

Deleted User wrote: »

Just to be clear, the one strategy that won Labour 3x elections in a row over the past 40-50 years is being rejected in favour of a strategy that has been responsible for the 2 worst electoral defeats in recent history?

It doesn't matter what you personally believe. What matters is what the electorate believe. They are the ones who determine policy and are outright rejecting your proposed form of politics.

If you keep ignoring the electorate, don't be surprised if they don't vote for you.

Eskimo all i can say is this - the two narratives doing the rounds today seem to be

• Get Rid of Corbyn and everything he stood for and bring back Blairism
• Elect a new Corbyn and keep fighting the good fight

Im saying im horrified by both ideas - and for the 4th time i think - i can honestly suggest that we need a separate discussion on Labour - perhaps not today (im going to get drunk)

But soon - im horrified by the idea of Corbyn hanging about for the next year or so - and having a slow transfer of power to an anointed successor

CORBYN NEEDS TO GO - 12 HOURS AGO

Professor Moriarty

Strazdas wrote: »

The EU would have been angered by such a thing and might well have told him to get lost.

And rightly so.

Chips Lovell

Going back to Blairism would be almost as disastrous as what they've just tried, reverting to 1970's style socialism.

You don't win elections by recreating the past. You win by reinventing yourself.

Cameron didn't regain power by reverting to Thatcherism. Johnson hasn't reinvigorated the Tories by reverting to Cameronism or Thatcherism.

sid waddell

seamus wrote: »

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.

Left-wingers actually care about things like principles and morals, and by morals I mean genuinely believing in things which will bring a more prosperous, more equal society for all.

Right-wingers generally don't care a hoot for any of these things. They care about money, and power exercised in the service of money.

Lefty Bicek

Nody wrote: »

Sacrificed what exactly? He took seats from Tories that they would have won; he took some seats from Labour that Labour would have won. His net effect was pretty much zero and did not really increase overall votes.
...

Well, Michael Gove missed the chance to point that out last night on the BBC.

He was prompted by Emma Barnett on Radio 4, to thank Farage who was sitting beside him, for the help Farage's party gave to the Tories.

Richard Hillman

With the amount of people that joined the Labour Party to vote and retain Corbyn, don't be surprised if its another hard left leader. Corbyn was long odds before he was elected leader.

MPFGLB

Lily Allen saying that UK is racist and that s why Boris Johnson won

If you look at the case of Skinner then one does wonder if many of the poor in the north would prefer the Tories to any more east Europeans moving in ??

lalababa

Sentiment by liberals I've been talking to is that the UK and by that I mean England have buggered themselves twice in a row and there is no empathy for them. UK to get a hard deal or no deal, Scotland to pressurise a break off, followed by NI. And 5 years of a messy unentanglement followed by 10yrs of economic contraction & catch up.
All because of personality politics & media bias. The rich get richer etc.....

Professor Moriarty

sid waddell wrote: »

Left-wingers actually care about things like principles and morals, and by morals I mean genuinely believing in things which will bring a more prosperous, more equal society for all.

Right-wingers generally don't care a hoot for any of these things. They care about money, and power exercised in the service of money.

Principles and morals are just a nice idea if you don't have power. Can make for an interesting chat over a few pints.

Rule number one: Get elected. Rule number two: Get elected.

sid waddell

MPFGLB wrote: »

Lily Allen saying that UK is racist and that s why Boris Johnson won

If you look at the case of Skinner then one does wonder if many of the poor in the north would prefer the Tories to any more east Europeans moving in ??

Just wait for the same self styled "free speech warriors" try to shut down this talking point.

Off limits.

ILoveYourVibes

Deleted User wrote: »

Is he really though?..I kind of think that calling him that willy-nilly could be considered dirty politics..I kind of think the whole "People who voted for brexit are stupid and racist" idea that has been pushed since the brexit referendum is what has given us the result yesterday..

I didnt mention brexit. I mentioned Corbyn and Boris. Awful people.

If you look at the case of Skinner then one does wonder if many of the poor in the north would prefer the Tories to any more east Europeans moving in ??

One might wonder why they think brexit is going to give them a job rather than lose them one....and why they think the Tories would EVER sacrifice the cheap labor of eastern europeans.

This much is true though. Lab has zero idea of what the hopes and aspirations of working people are. They make mountains out of issues like palestine ...spending on social welfare. They want designer gear..they don't care where their avocados were flown from

They don't have middle class guilt.



Lab are SO classest they think ALL WORKING CLASS PEOPLE THINK OF IS SOCIAL WELFARE.

Working class people dont want social welfare they want jobs ..good ones ..they want to be able to buy massive houses like middle class people they don't want social housing.

Shock horror.

Chips Lovell

Chips Lovell wrote: »

Going back to Blairism would be almost as disastrous as what they've just tried, reverting to 1970's style socialism.

You don't win elections by recreating the past. You win by reinventing yourself.

Cameron didn't regain power by reverting to Thatcherism. Johnson hasn't reinvigorated the Tories by reverting to Comeronism or Thatcherism.

That's why I call it Neo-Blairism - not what Blairism was, but how it can be modified to meet the political needs of 2019.

Letwin_Larry

just watched Jeremy on TV.
i was expecting a bit of mea culpa, a bit of humility, a bit of realism.

no not a hint of it. don't know if he's in denial or if it's shock, or is it just good old fashioned arrogance or possibly resentment that the people foolishly have not swallowed his marxist 1970s agenda.

and who said Friday the 13th was bad luck?