General Election December, 2019 (U.K.)

Lefty Bicek

sid waddell wrote: »

Are you talking about economic liberalism or social liberalism?

Social liberalism is merely another name for respecting people's rights, treating them with dignity - treating others as you would like to be treated.

It is quite astounding that so many people see this as a negative thing.

Vast swathes of those voters do have racist tendencies. Brexit was an essentially racist project. That's telling it like it is.

I have sympathy for the conned, I have no sympathy for the con artists. They are cynical opportunists.

A lot of people on the right talk about an "entitlement" culture and "free speech", but feel entitled to voice racist dog whistles or outright racism without challenge.

That's gross hypocrisy.

What is the difference that you see between -

a) 'Brexit the Essentially Racist Project',

and on the other hand,

b) the strand of Euroscepticism in UK politics, that predates Bill Cash et al, and goes back to, say... the 1983 Labour Party Manifesto ?

Aidric

Lefty Bicek wrote: »

I think many people voted for a leader, rather than a party. A worrying thing in a way.

Johnson is the furthest thing from a Leader I could imagine. I'd expect a leader to be a person of principle and integrity, someone with a clear vision for their country.

This is a man who wrote 2 newspaper opinion pieces depending on the result of an election that was going to split a country. Give me a break!

PeadarCo

sid waddell wrote: »

A mass movement party representing workers is a brilliant idea and an idea of the present and the future, as well as the past. It's an idea for any moment, and especially now.

The problem is not the idea, it's the execution. It has to be a broad church party, but it also needs coherence in terms of leadership and message.

New Labour may have won elections, but it took its eye off the ball big time at grass roots level, The Democrats in the US did the same.

The Republicans in the US now are winning because they made a conscious decision decades ago that the best way to build was from the bottom up, by getting Republicans into every two-bit local position and all the way up from there. Clinton and Obama might have won elections, but at the lower level the Democrats were asleep, and letting their grass roots movement wither away.

The US and UK political systems are very different in the way they work in this regard, but the principle is the same. You can't neglect the grass roots, but you also have to have real leadership at the top, leadership that can carry a mass movement.

The whole workers thing as a mass movement is outdated and I'd argue doesn't match reality. You can't split the world cleanly into "workers" and "non workers". Everyone with a private pension sits in both categories. However that's another discussion.

In terms of the rest of your post I think it oversimplified the situation to a large degree. In the US for example Clinton won the popular vote and only lost the electoral college by a tiny margin. And in the case of the Labour relatively speaking they had a decent vote however as I mentioned in the post FTP is all or nothing. That has to be factored in as a large swing can happen due a small swing in constituencies that may not be representative of the overall electorate. Then again from memory labour supported FTP in the referendum to change it. So they made their own bed.

I think its rich to blame "New Labour"(which just backs up my point about treating moderates as the enemy) for taking the eye of the ball with grass roots. The best example of the Labour Party membership ignoring the grass roots was electing Corbyn and keeping him in power. From reading all the analysis so far a recurring theme is that Corbyn cost Labour a large number seats. It seems to be the biggest reason for Labours poor performance. It's also borne out by how unpopular he has been in opinion polls. Being more unpopular than a known liar like Johnson is a genuine achievement.

If Labour really wants to reconnect with the grass roots all the evidence suggests getting rid of Corbyn before doing anything else changing policies etc.

Lefty Bicek

Aidric wrote: »

Johnson is the furthest thing from a Leader I could imagine. I'd expect a leader to be a person of principle and integrity, someone with a clear vision for their country.

This is a man who wrote 2 newspaper opinion pieces depending on the result of an election that was going to split a country. Give me a break!

Says it all about the alternatives then, does it not ?

A 'clear vision' does not necessarily require a shred of 'principle and integrity'.

Gimme a German word for 'Leader' ?

Chips Lovell

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

Boris will go down in history as the person who had the courage to take it on and try and put some order on it. he has now succeeded where most were simply unable to even try. .

No. That’s it now. We have reached peak Johnson and it’ll be all downhill from here. He won a majority against an unelectable opponent by promising the impossible. History will not be kind to him. There’s only so long he can dance around the truth before it rears up a bites him in the ass.

joe40

Lefty Bicek wrote: »

Says it all about the alternatives then, does it not ?

A 'clear vision' does not necessarily require a shred of 'principle and integrity'.

Gimme a German word for 'Leader' ?

Or maybe says a lot about the electorate. I know the old adage, "every democracy gets the government they deserve", is well used but maybe apt here.
I do feel sorry for the many decent Brits that see the whole Brexit fiasco for what it is, an exercise in English nationalism. The Scots and NI rejected it resoundly.

Thargor

Interesting video of Alan Johnson tearing into the Momentum leader for anyone that missed it:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/video/2019/dec/13/i-want-momentum-gone-alan-johnson-slams-labour-left-video

amacca

Aidric wrote: »

Johnson is the furthest thing from a Leader I could imagine. I'd expect a leader to be a person of principle and integrity, someone with a clear vision for their country.

This is a man who wrote 2 newspaper opinion pieces depending on the result of an election that was going to split a country. Give me a break!

Ah yeah but its not so much what you do as how you are perceived by people that feel forced to vote for you because you are the only option....the man could probably have shat himself live on air and won that election.

I wouldn't worry, unless something unusual happens then when the **** hits the fan and Brexit doesn't turn out to be the magical fairytale land it was supposed to be the public will turn on him......the torys will only get to blame the EU for so long until business and the media turn on them like a pack of rabid dogs when the bottom line gets affected

Theres no bogeyman/corbyn man to blame now, they are going to have to own this one......tbh it might be good for everyone this happened its not like the man has a spine imo.....it might end up being the least brexity of brexits possible...imo Boris will feed the electorate a remain in all but name and as long as its close to business as usual most will breathe a sigh of relief the thing is over and the lunatic fringe will slowly be sidelined as good old divide and conquer gets deployed again....if he doesn't get to do that then theres a good chance he will be gone long before the end of that 5 year term.

TheRiverman

So Corbyn is not resigning until a new Leader is elected.It will be some farce seeing him across the despatch box from Boris next week.

Dyr

sid waddell wrote: »

Are you talking about economic liberalism or social liberalism?

Social liberalism is merely another name for respecting people's rights, treating them with dignity - treating others as you would like to be treated.

It is quite astounding that so many people see this as a negative thing.

Vast swathes of those voters do have racist tendencies. Brexit was an essentially racist project. That's telling it like it is.

I have sympathy for the conned, I have no sympathy for the con artists. They are cynical opportunists.

A lot of people on the right talk about an "entitlement" culture and "free speech", but feel entitled to voice racist dog whistles or outright racism without challenge.

That's gross hypocrisy.

That's what the hysterics on the left have been all about with their intersectional nonsense, screaming racism, sexism, transphobia at anyone who doesnt share their extremist views. It's just about respecting rights.

Enjoy that cul-de-sac. The voters finally walked away and you can't even comprehend why. They must be racist or something.

Lefty Bicek

joe40 wrote: »

Or maybe says a lot about the electorate. I know the old adage, "every democracy gets the government they deserve", is well used but maybe apt here.
I do feel sorry for the many decent Brits that see the whole Brexit fiasco for what it is, an exercise in English nationalism. The Scots and NI rejected it resoundly.

They did indeed.

Perhaps it's time for them to go their separate ways.

Aidric

amacca wrote: »

Ah yeah but its not so much what you do as how you are perceived by people that feel forced to vote for you because you are the only option....the man could probably have shat himself live on air and won that election.

It's almost as if the public has deserted scrutiny of their elected politicians in favor of a cheap slogan rammed down their throats by a cabal of charlatans.

Letwin_Larry

TheRiverman wrote: »

So Corbyn is not resigning until a new Leader is elected.It will be some farce seeing him across the despatch box from Boris next week.

yes i'm looking forward to that.
most people would squirm if they were in his position, but i believe Jeremy is so delusional i don't think the enormity of this defeat and his part in it has truly sunk in yet. it probably never will.

he'll go to his grave mumbling under his dying breath about the right-wing conspiracy that cost him his 'rightful' place in history.

hotmail.com

sid waddell wrote: »

A mass movement party representing workers is a brilliant idea and an idea of the present and the future, as well as the past. It's an idea for any moment, and especially now.

The problem is not the idea, it's the execution. It has to be a broad church party, but it also needs coherence in terms of leadership and message.

New Labour may have won elections, but it took its eye off the ball big time at grass roots level, The Democrats in the US did the same.

The Republicans in the US now are winning because they made a conscious decision decades ago that the best way to build was from the bottom up, by getting Republicans into every two-bit local position and all the way up from there. Clinton and Obama might have won elections, but at the lower level the Democrats were asleep, and letting their grass roots movement wither away.

The US and UK political systems are very different in the way they work in this regard, but the principle is the same. You can't neglect the grass roots, but you also have to have real leadership at the top, leadership that can carry a mass movement.

Didn't the Democrats win the popular vote by 2 million votes or something in 2016?

Letwin_Larry

Lefty Bicek wrote: »

They did indeed.

Perhaps it's time for them to go their separate ways.

if NI goes i think the vast majority of Britons will consider themselves well rid, and i couldn't disagree with them.
Scotland's departure would be a different matter, but that's not going to happen anytime soon.

Strazdas

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

if NI goes i think the vast majority of Britons will consider themselves well rid, and i couldn't disagree with them.
Scotland's departure would be a different matter, but that's not going to happen anytime soon.

Scotland will go first IMO and will lead to NI's departure. I don't see NI leaving the union first.

Letwin_Larry

Strazdas wrote: »

Scotland will go first IMO and will lead to NI's departure. I don't see NI leaving the union first.

i cant see either happening inside the next 30 years.
people forget there is a very large percentage of people in the Republic who want nothing to do with NI.

it's all very well singing "A Nation once again" after half a dozen pints, but explain to those same people the following day that their taxes are going to have to go up &/or their standard of living is going to take a hit ....

i think you'll find their singing voices will be a tad out of tune.

Lefty Bicek

Strazdas wrote: »

Scotland will go first IMO and will lead to NI's departure. I don't see NI leaving the union first.

Perhaps.

On the other hand, Faslane and offshore resources make Scotland strategic. And Boris is determined not to give them IndyRef2.

liamtech

Anyone watching question time - its an election special

sid waddell

Thargor wrote: »

Interesting video of Alan Johnson tearing into the Momentum leader for anyone that missed it:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/video/2019/dec/13/i-want-momentum-gone-alan-johnson-slams-labour-left-video

That video of Johnson proves my point about how the Blairites saw only ever saw Momentum and the increased membership of the party as a threat, not an oppportunity.

Fintan O'Toole used a strange framing of the word "ambition" in his article about Corbyn last week.

"Ambition" was framed purely through the prism of winning elections, rather than policy ambition. Real ambition of course encompasses both of those things.

But what has been clear since 2015 is that the centrist wing of the Labour party has never had any ambition whatseover to win an election under Corbyn, they declared civil war on him from day one. It has never had an ambition to build Labour as any sort of grass roots movement, only to force Corbyn out.

It is the Blairite, centrist wing of the party that has thrown away any sense ambition at all.

Their behaviour has been reminiscent of the Tory Euro-sceptics in the 1990s under John Major.

Letwin_Larry

liamtech wrote: »

Anyone watching question time - its an election special

Wandsworth. interesting venue. i'm sensing a lot of angry middle-class socialist remainers.

liamtech

sid waddell wrote: »

That video of Johnson proves my point about how the Blairites saw only ever saw Momentum and the increased membership of the party as a threat, not an oppportunity.

Fintan O'Toole used a strange framing of the word "ambition" in his article about Corbyn last week.

"Ambition" was framed purely through the prism of winning elections, rather than policy ambition. Real ambition of course encompasses both of those things.

But what has been clear since 2015 is that the centrist wing of the Labour party has never had any ambition whatseover to win an election under Corbyn, they declared civil war on him from day one. It has never had an ambition to build Labour as any sort of grass roots movement, only to force Corbyn out.

It is the Blairite, centrist wing of the party that has thrown away any sense ambition at all.

Their behaviour has been reminiscent of the Tory Euro-sceptics in the 1990s under John Major.

Ambition needs to be tempered by pragmatism - and realism

Labour should not have run against Lib Dem Marginals, or the exiled tory independents

Labour should not have run against Plaid, or the Greens

Labour should have HAD a brexit policy

Corbyn needed to apologize for the dithering on Antisemitism

There is a way to sell socialism with a human face - Corbyn and his ilk are incapable of doing this

and now

Corbyn Needs to RESIGN - ASAP

If momentum dont accept that - then i really fear we are watching the labour party, die.. in slow motion

sid waddell

liamtech wrote: »

Ambition needs to be tempered by pragmatism - and realism

Labour should not have run against Lib Dem Marginals, or the exiled tory independents

Labour should not have run against Plaid, or the Greens

Labour should have HAD a brexit policy

Corbyn needed to apologize for the dithering on Antisemitism

There is a way to sell socialism with a human face - Corbyn and his ilk are incapable of doing this

and now

Corbyn Needs to RESIGN - ASAP

If momentum dont accept that - then i really fear we are watching the labour party, die.. in slow motion

His time is up no doubt and he should go now.

But he had six choices as regards Brexit - advocate Leave as per Johnson's deal, win the election and pass a Labour Brexit with no second referendum, advocate a second referendum and campaign to either leave or remain or pledge to stay neutral, or advocate revoke a la the Lib Dems.

I think all six of those choices were terrible ones and would have cost the party seats.

ancapailldorcha

Mod: Serious posts only please. A post has been deleted.

sid waddell

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

i cant see either happening inside the next 30 years.
people forget there is a very large percentage of people in the Republic who want nothing to do with NI.

it's all very well singing "A Nation once again" after half a dozen pints, but explain to those same people the following day that their taxes are going to have to go up &/or their standard of living is going to take a hit ....

i think you'll find their singing voices will be a tad out of tune.

A unification referendum would be a slam dunk in the south.

The problem is that one in the north would unleash unbearable tensions, especially if held too soon.

Realistically, polls should show a 55% majority for unification for at least three years before one should be held.

A sense of inevitablity about the result is essential if a return to violence is to be avoided.

As regards Scotland, it's a different situation, and one that is not as delicate in that it is unlikely to precipitate violence.

What is certain though is that the SNP absolutely do have a mandate to hold another referendum, and another one after that if they like.

And the one surefire way of radicalising the people of Scotland towards independence is Boris Johnson and a far right Tory government refusing one.

It's basic history.

amacca

sid waddell wrote: »

A unification referendum would be a slam dunk in the south.

Really? I'd have thought a majority would be in the hell no camp

Once they realise it could end up costing them

nuac

MPFGLB wrote: »

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..

Very good post, imho.

I see sheep

UK now a laughing stock on a par with the U.S.

liamtech

MPFGLB wrote: »

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..

We can reflect on it - The media damaged Labour - yes

Was it way over the top - Yes

Does the media's bias explain why Labour have been literally annihilated - No

I think labour is in serious trouble now - and i am gutted that we are now GUARANTEED brexit

But i think Labour supporters need to stop coming up with excuses - honestly. Its tedious - Im a leftie, and the only reason i was in any way cheerful last night was the DUP and Swinson losing seats - otherwise i would have been in pieces

Corbyn Lost this election for Labour - thats the resounding message today

It wasnt that BoJo fought an amazing campaign - it was that Corbyn was inept, and not credible

quokula

liamtech wrote: »

Ambition needs to be tempered by pragmatism - and realism

And labour had the most pragmatic and realistic manifesto, compared to the claim that Brexit will be over and done with in January, and the all the claims about nurses and hospitals etc that were false to begin with, before even taking into account the damage Brexit will do to the economy.

Labour should not have run against Lib Dem Marginals, or the exiled tory independents

Labour should not have run against Plaid, or the Greens

I get that you have an irrational hatred of Labour, but this makes no sense at all. The Greens comfortably won the only seat they were ever going to win. There was maybe 2 seats in the country where Labour should have stepped down and the Lib Dems could have won - Cheltenham and Esher & Walton. But there were dozens of seats the Lib Dems should have stood down in that could have given Labour the seat - particularly egregious was parachuting a high profile candidate into Kensington where a Labour MP was set to win a comfortable majority, but the Lib Dems poured tons of resources into splitting the vote and handed the constituency to the Tories on a plate. This was just one of a number of Lab/Con marginals the Lib Dems parachuted big names into and campaigned heavily, as if they wanted the Tories to win. There was not one single Lib/Con marginal where Labour behaved similarly recklessly. There were also no cases of Labour publishing misleading leaflets trying to get progressive voters to vote tactically in the wrong direction, unlike the Lib Dems who did so in multiple constituencies.

Labour should have HAD a brexit policy

They did. It was a second referendum. It's what cost them the election. I don't think there was any possible Brexit policy they could have campaigned on when up against Boris' "I already have a deal" in a country where all the important marginal seats were pro-Brexit.

Corbyn needed to apologize for the dithering on Antisemitism

He did.

There is a way to sell socialism with a human face - Corbyn and his ilk are incapable of doing this

There is and they did. Unfortunately with the extremely warped media landscape in the UK, combined with the Tories' endless spending on heavily targeted misleading campaign ads online with impunity. When they went low, Labour went high. Independent fact checkers found 88% of Tory's ads were lies and none of Labour's were. But lies are what win elections now.

and now

Corbyn Needs to RESIGN - ASAP

He has. A new leader will be chosen. You're really clutching at straws trying to criticise him for not just walking out before there is a replacement.