General Election December, 2019 (U.K.)

liamtech

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 ??

No no

She actually said 'Its not Fair, and i think They're Really Mean.. i think they're really mean'

And yet apparently Boris johnson does make her scream???

:pac:

Im sorry :P

joe40

10000maniacs wrote: »

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

Yes exactly, he still had leave credentials in 2017 whick kept labour leavers on board.
Labour were divided on this which has cost them dearly this time.
I don't think it has anything to do with leftist policies, or Jeremy Corbyn. Those things were all still at play in 2017.
This election was a defacto EU referendum, everything else was a sideshow.
The way the Tories gobbled up the Brexit party shows this.

sid waddell

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

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.

The problem is that when the so called "electable" centrists get elected on behalf of the left, they tend to change very little.

That's because they tend to be pretty light on principle themselves.

sid waddell

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.

Believing in something but acting in a way to make things worse (in your view) isn't noble.
Looking at the US in the 3 smallest wins for Trump Jill Stein's votes would have carried the election for Clinton. Obviously Gary Johnson is a factor too. However just look at the turnout for age groups, the "why vote, they're as bad as each other?" from socialists and progressives. If you want a 5 bedroom house but can only afford a 4 bedroom house is it noble to burn both down and live on the street because you're not getting exactly what you want?

ancapailldorcha

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 ??

Most places that voted for Brexit experienced the least levels of immigration though:

Letwin_Larry

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.

what about Ken?
is he still in the game. he would go down well with a lot of the party faithful, charismatic and always provocative.

ILoveYourVibes

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Most places that voted for Brexit experienced the least levels of immigration though:

Actually i remember a youtuber i watch saying that exact thing.

She said most people in the places that voted for brexit most probably haven't come across diversity its all just white people.

MPFGLB

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Most places that voted for Brexit experienced the least levels of immigration though:

But maybe its the type of immigration

In London there s lots of immigration which is needed in service industry and in high tech

But in N England then maybe its more lower level workers competing for the few jobs ...

Blame and the British press is a big part of the issue

dfx-

newport2 wrote: »

Instead of relying on tactical voting, if the Lib dems and Labour had tactically run candidates, they probably would have a majority between them now. A split remain vote between two parties Vs Tories in FPTP was never going to work. Only themselves and their egos to blame.

The ambition of the smaller opposition parties and political greed has sent them into 10-15 years of political wilderness. The SNP had more power with 35 seats in a hung parliament than 55 in a huge Conservative majority. Boris can ignore them and there's no Scottish Conservatives to make their point for them to him.

Lib Dem trying to go from third to first in this political atmosphere is a horrendous failure to read the room and go for personal achievement of the leader mostly.

Whatever about Labour returning to power, these two have thrown it away.

Letwin_Larry

Dom Cummings at the doorstep of No.10 looking deservedly smug & self-satisfied.
Boris talking now.

Let's get it done!

stirring stuff indeed.

Professor Moriarty

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

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.

Not necessarily. While the Greens haven't been hugely successful in electoral terms they have (arguably disproportionately) influenced policy across Europe. Again the issue is that people will take an attitude that only their way is good enough and they're willing to oppose someone who is 90% in agreement even if that means allowing someone 100% opposed to take power.

Professor Moriarty

sid waddell wrote: »

The problem is that when the so called "electable" centrists get elected on behalf of the left, they tend to change very little.

That's because they tend to be pretty light on principle themselves.

I wouldn't agree. Just because one has a centrist perspective doesn't mean one is less principled than, say, Jeremy Corbyn, Seumus Milne, John McDonnell or Len McCluskey. Those people, with their principles, facilitated a hard right Tory government with a massive majority who will now further destroy the lives of ordinary people. That is unprincipled.

Lefty Bicek

MPFGLB wrote: »

But maybe its the type of immigration

In London there s lots of immigration which is needed in service industry and in high tech

But in N England then maybe its more lower level workers competing for the few jobs ...

Blame and the British press is a big part of the issue

But if what you're saying is true, then that in itself is a rational voting decision.

In other words, 'blame and the British press', is not a big part of the issue, but the material conditions of people in the North of England are.

Others may find that electoral choice unpalatable, but they shouldn't be placated by wheeling out the bad old media as a whipping boy.

Not for a moment saying that media is any great servant of democracy.

Professor Moriarty

Deleted User wrote: »

Not necessarily. While the Greens haven't been hugely successful in electoral terms they have (arguably disproportionately) influenced policy across Europe. Again the issue is that people will take an attitude that only their way is good enough and they're willing to oppose someone who is 90% in agreement even if that means allowing someone 100% opposed to take power.

Perhaps in countries without FPTP. In Britain, winning is all that matters. You now have a rampant hard right Tory party with no opposition. Because they won. They need not listen to any other MP at all. In fact, opposition MPs might as well stay at home for all the influence they will have. In Britain, there is only one rule - Get Elected.

Letwin_Larry

"Let the healing begin"

quite right too. Majority of 80. and if you cant get healed, get .....

prawnsambo

liamtech wrote: »

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

Corbyn was the problem all along. Carried too much baggage and couldn't get away from it. Labour policies were not a major problem, although there was an element of desperation and "whatever you're having yourself" towards the end of the campaign.

Ed Milliband took it on the chin when it went tits up. For every day Corbyn stays on, he's emphasising how bad a choice he was.

BadTurtle

prawnsambo wrote: »

Corbyn was the problem all along. Carried too much baggage and couldn't get away from it. Labour policies were not a major problem, although there was an element of desperation and "whatever you're having yourself" towards the end of the campaign.

Ed Milliband took it on the chin when it went tits up. For every day Corbyn stays on, he's emphasising how bad a choice he was.

Hes the Hillary Clinton of the UK. Damaging his own party endlessly out of ego and power-hunger. If he would cop the **** on and **** the **** off people might consider Labour a viable option again.

MPFGLB

Lefty Bicek wrote: »

But if what you're saying is true, then that in itself is a rational voting decision.

In other words, 'blame and the British press', is not a big part of the issue, but the material conditions of people in the North of England are.

Others may find that electoral choice unpalatable, but they shouldn't be placated by wheeling out the bad old media as a whipping boy.

Not for a moment saying that media is any great servant of democracy.

Its not a credible rationale when the media lie and use fake news ??
Have you seen the hatchet job papers and BBC have done on Corbyn
The papers have done for years on the Eu and how they have worked up the immigration thing with never ending stories about the 'bad' immigrants

To say this is wheeling out the bad old media is totally ridiculous
They are bad in most ways one can be in UK

The poverty up north is a result of Tories governments and their policies so that is why it is incredible that people have bought the brexit message as a solution and that is driven by the media in UK..

sid waddell

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I wouldn't agree. Just because one has a centrist perspective doesn't mean one is less principled than, say, Jeremy Corbyn, Seumus Milne, John McDonnell or Len McCluskey. Those people, with their principles, facilitated a hard right Tory government with a massive majority who will now further destroy the lives of ordinary people. That is unprincipled.

Were Gordon Brown and Ed Miliband unprincipled because they got 29% and 30% of the vote respectively and "facilitated" hard right governments?

Was centrist Hillary Clinton "unprincipled" because she "facilitated" the far right regime of Donald Trump?

To use your logic, anybody who loses an election is "unprincipled" and a "facilitator" of their opposition.

Bannasidhe

kilns wrote: »

I admire Corbyn as he sticks by his principals despite what anyone says. But he is not the guy to lead Labour as his views can be too extreme for some and Labour should have recognised this. Remains to be seen who will replace him

My theory is he 'accidentally' became leader having never really believed for a second he would ever be leader and then events ran away with him while he experienced a rush of blood to the head.

He saw this as his big chance to bring socialism back to the LP. Those supporting him were an echo chamber, those opposing him were (rightly or wrongly) perceived as the embodiment of all that was wrong with 'New' Labour (i.e they aren't 'proper' left, they are Whig left).

The more the Blairites sought to remove him, the more those who were enthused by having an actual left-wing leader again, who is also a man of integrity, dug their heels in. A real life honest politician (oxymoron I know) as it were.

I think Corbyn may have developed a bit of a messiah complex and thought he could implement the secret big plan he had in his head since the days of Thatcher.

He is simply out of date, and no-one would - or could - tell him or provide a way to update him

The problem was neither side was willing to meet in the middle. The more the Blairites attacked - the more the left got defensive and tried to shut them out.

Labour needs to find the middle ground within itself.
That place where the socialists - and there is an appetite for socialism even if some don't want to admit that - and the centerists can agree.

And once agreement is reached stop airing the bloody dirty laundry in public!

The reality is Labour membership might be looking for a left of centre leader - but Corbyn isn't that leader, it's just after the Blair years there wasn't much choice. What is undeniable is membership of the party ballooned - so the desire is there and the Blairites need to accept that.

The LP is the membership - not the Parliamentary party, and MPs need to get that into their heads.

crossman47

Lefty Bicek wrote: »

But if what you're saying is true, then that in itself is a rational voting decision.

In other words, 'blame and the British press', is not a big part of the issue, but the material conditions of people in the North of England are.

Others may find that electoral choice unpalatable, but they shouldn't be placated by wheeling out the bad old media as a whipping boy.

Not for a moment saying that media is any great servant of democracy.

I agree the material conditions of people in the North of England drove this vote. The problem is the majority of the press, aided and abetted by politicians of all sides, told them the EU was to blame for those conditions and they voted accordingly. Now at least the government will have no bogeyman to blame.

ancapailldorcha

MPFGLB wrote: »

But maybe its the type of immigration

In London there s lots of immigration which is needed in service industry and in high tech

But in N England then maybe its more lower level workers competing for the few jobs ...

Blame and the British press is a big part of the issue

The press just gave people something to blame for the fact that most of the country has been cruelly abandoned by all three major parties.

Professor Moriarty

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Perhaps in countries without FPTP. In Britain, winning is all that matters. You now have a rampant hard right Tory party with no opposition. Because they won. They need not listen to any other MP at all. In fact, opposition MPs might as well stay at home for all the influence they will have. In Britain, there is only one rule - Get Elected.

That's not what I mean. If you lose an election but your policy is copied by someone else and put into law then is that not a victory of sorts?

sid waddell

Bannasidhe wrote: »

My theory is he 'accidentally' became leader having never really believed for a second he would ever be leader and then events ran away with him while he experienced a rush of blood to the head.

He saw this as his big chance to bring socialism back to the LP. Those supporting him were an echo chamber, those opposing him were (rightly or wrongly) perceived as the embodiment of all that was wrong with 'New' Labour (i.e they aren't 'proper' left, they are Whig left).

The more the Blairites sought to remove him, the more those who were enthused by having an actual left-wing leader again, who is also a man of integrity, dug their heels in. A real life honest politician (oxymoron I know) as it were.

I think Corbyn may have developed a bit of a messiah complex and thought he could implement the secret big plan he had in his head since the days of Thatcher.

He is simply out of date, and no-one would - or could - tell him or provide a way to update him

The problem was neither side was willing to meet in the middle. The more the Blairites attacked - the more the left got defensive and tried to shut them out.

Labour needs to find the middle ground within itself.
That place where the socialists - and there is an appetite for socialism even if some don't want to admit that - and the centerists can agree.

And once agreement is reached stop airing the bloody dirty laundry in public!

The reality is Labour membership might be looking for a left of centre leader - but Corbyn isn't that leader, it's just after the Blair years there wasn't much choice. What is undeniable is membership of the party ballooned - so the desire is there and the Blairites need to accept that.

The LP is the membership - not the Parliamentary party, and MPs need to get that into their heads.

You can certainly argue that theere has been somewhat of an echo chamber within Corbyn's suppport base, but it was more than matched by the echo chamber among Blairites.

They threw their toys out of the pram right from the start and tried to do Corbyn down at every opportunity.

Perhaps if they themselves had genuinely tried to build a broad church party, Labour would not be in this mess.

Momentum has continually been cited as a handicap, yet it has brought half a million people into the Labour party.

Instead of embracing this as an opportunity, the Blairites saw it as a threat. There was no attempt at compromise.

Ultimately I think Corbyn's biggest problem was his outward modesty and perceived lack of charisma. He never had the messianic qualities needed to bring large amounts of people with him.

ILoveYourVibes

BadTurtle wrote: »

Hes the Hillary Clinton of the UK. Damaging his own party endlessly out of ego and power-hunger. If he would cop the **** on and **** the **** off people might consider Labour a viable option again.

No ..she was way smarter ...and had proved herself in a job that required skill.

He had never done anything but fringe populism. Student union level stuff really.

Both had same baggage tho....you could argue hers was worse. Only it was her husbands really not hers.

And trump is way worse than boris.

Akabusi

Whilst it might be a tad depressing to see England lunge to the hard right (well the the optics and language are hard right but this is Boris and anything could happen next) at least there is some closure.

ILoveYourVibes

Akabusi wrote: »

Whilst it might be a tad depressing to see England lunge to the hard right (well the the optics and language are hard right but this is Boris and anything could happen next) at least there is some closure.

Yeah. And its not us. And the DUP are gone. Look on the bright side.

liamtech

Bannasidhe wrote: »

My theory is he 'accidentally' became leader having never really believed for a second he would ever be leader and then events ran away with him while he experienced a rush of blood to the head.

He saw this as his big chance to bring socialism back to the LP. Those supporting him were an echo chamber, those opposing him were (rightly or wrongly) perceived as the embodiment of all that was wrong with 'New' Labour (i.e they aren't 'proper' left, they are Whig left).

The more the Blairites sought to remove him, the more those who were enthused by having an actual left-wing leader again, who is also a man of integrity, dug their heels in. A real life honest politician (oxymoron I know) as it were.

I think Corbyn may have developed a bit of a messiah complex and thought he could implement the secret big plan he had in his head since the days of Thatcher.

He is simply out of date, and no-one would - or could - tell him or provide a way to update him

The problem was neither side was willing to meet in the middle. The more the Blairites attacked - the more the left got defensive and tried to shut them out.

Labour needs to find the middle ground within itself.
That place where the socialists - and there is an appetite for socialism even if some don't want to admit that - and the centerists can agree.

And once agreement is reached stop airing the bloody dirty laundry in public!

The reality is Labour membership might be looking for a left of centre leader - but Corbyn isn't that leader, it's just after the Blair years there wasn't much choice. What is undeniable is membership of the party ballooned - so the desire is there and the Blairites need to accept that.

The LP is the membership - not the Parliamentary party, and MPs need to get that into their heads.

I agree with you - would go as far as to say that Corbynism is a counter-revolution to Blairism

But here is the problem, the lines on where to go are no SO BLURRED -

I criticize Corbyn quite a bit but feel i need to qualify my leftie credentials in doing so

In moving forward, and discussing where Labour goes from here, i will feel i will have to qualify everything i say with the caveat - I am NOT a blairist

There has to be something between Corbynism - and Blairism

And by Corbynism i dont mean socialism - i mean a total lack of pragmatism, electioneering, militant enforcement of party lines, and people who dont fully endorse Labour views being labeled Blairites

Akabusi

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

Yeah. And its not us. And the DUP are gone. Look on the bright side.

That is something to warm your heart alright

Bannasidhe

sid waddell wrote: »

You can certainly argue that theere has been somewhat of an echo chamber within Corbyn's suppport base, but it was more than matched by the echo chamber among Blairites.

They threw their toys out of the pram right from the start and tried to do Corbyn down at every opportunity.

Perhaps if they themselves had genuinely tried to build a broad church party, Labour would not be in this mess.

Momentum has continually been cited as a handicap, yet it has brought half a million people into the Labour party.

Instead of embracing this as an opportunity, the Blairites saw it as a threat. There was no attempt at compromise.

Absolutely.

The Blairites refused to accept that the membership had elected Corbyn as leader and set out to remove him. They seem to believe it is their party and the proles in the membership with their £3 should shut up and do as their 'betters' tell them. The arrogance of that is astounding.

The reality is the membership made their choice and it was up to the Blairites to accept and work within that framework or find a home more suited to their politics - like the Lib-Dems.

The Blairites refused to accept the democratic vote of the membership.