General Election December, 2019 (U.K.)

sid waddell

PeadarCo wrote: »

The whole workers thing as a mass movement is outdated and I'd argue doesn't match reality.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.

What Labour has to be is a party that promotes economic justice and social justice. Otherwise it has no purpose.

The majority of people are workers, everybody else depends on workers. The Anglo-American economic model has failed. It it hadn't failed, we wouldn't have Brexit.

We know it failed because many, probably most of the people who voted for Brexit tell us it failed.

Then when it comes to the election, we're told, "no, hang on a second, we may have told you before that the model failed but now we're telling you it works".

Labour needs to be about fair wages, good working conditions, fair taxes. It needs to be about sensible redistribution of wealth so that public services improve and that there is a decent safety net for those who fall through the cracks.

The Tory candidate on Wakefield on C4 News tonight mentioned the word "aspiration", it's a word Tories use a lot.

But the Tories are not the party of aspiration, they are the party of desperation.

What Labour needs to be is the party of aspiration, but through a genuine left alternative that can benefit society.

Sensible redistribution of wealth doesn't kill aspiration, it enables aspiration.

Underfunded schools promote desperation, well funded schools promote aspiration.

The knowledge you might have to bankrupt yourself to get a college degree promotes desperation, the knowledge you won't have to bankrupt yourself promotes aspiration.

Poor wages and working conditions promote desperation, fair wages and good working conditions promote aspiration.

High rents, astronomical house prices and poor living conditions promote desperation, fair rents and better living conditions promote aspiration.

A society in which there is sensible redistribution of wealth means better opportunities for businesses, or for people to start businesses.

The way you really promote aspiration is by giving people the opportunity to make the most of themselves - not pulling the ladder up. The ladder has been pulled up. That does not promite aspiration. That promotes a birth lottery.

The Democrats are only now rebuilding from the ground up, they let the Republicans rule the roost at local level.

Corbyn was elected by the grass roots. You can debate whether Labour's leadershp election system is wise or not but it is the grass roots. US candidates at every level are selected via the primary system, and grass roots voting. It was the Democratic grass roots that selected Hillary Clinton.

What New Labour wanted and had was a carefully choreographed operation in which all the power lay within three or at most four people.

Obviously any party leadership has to have executive authority, but New Labour didn't care about the grass roots and membership declined to it's lowest level ever under them. Political engagement in general dropped to its lowest level ever under them. That isn't a hugely positive legacy in these regards.

Labour needs to unite the various wings of the party and that will now be difficult bceause there is so much mutual suspicion. The centrist wing has to see mass membership as an opportunity, not a threat. It has to stop vilifying Corbynites. But the Momentum wing also has to stop treating the centrists as the enemy and has to stop vilifying people for what it sees as a lack of ideological purity.

It will take a particularly skilled operator to do all that.

Lefty Bicek

Sid, you earlier referred to Brexit as a racist project.

What in it's genesis makes Brexit a racist project, ie that cannot be more easily explained by a long tradition of British Euroscepticism ?

Or to put it another way - if there were not a longstanding semi-detached attitude by the British towards Europe, could Brexit ever have gotten off the ground ?

I take it as given that, eg Tony Benn, was no racist.

Bannasidhe

Don't know if this has already been posted by C4 did a wee experiment to see what the results would have been under a PR voting system.

Interesting - Worth a watch.

https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-what-might-have-happened-under-proportional-representation?fbclid=IwAR3Wtvf51U1ENZS6JsIrYUyDgNkW7Tigc9moglCyyTva8snWrX5eKE3Rw8k

Tories still have a majority but.... *no spoilers *

liamtech

quokula wrote: »

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.



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.



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.


He did.



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.


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.

This is the sad reality of this situation - you and i are probably on the same side - but now we are in disagreement - anyway

1 - No, Labours brexit policy clearly cost them votes - it was not credible to refuse to answer questions on where he stood on Brexit - we ALL KNOW he used to be in favor of it - More Importantly explain why BOJO's brexit is bad - why not explain his 'theoretical' brexit plan - why not actually be able to say

• Here is a Labour Brexit withdrawal agreement proposal
• Here is why its better
• You will get to decide

Instead - dodge after dodge after dodge - and repeated assertions that this election is NOT about brexit

2 - I dont hate labour - im not even angry at this stage that you are accusing me of hating them, im emotionally drained. Im a lefty - a quick look at my posts will tell you that. I just dont share YOUR view, of the disaster we have just witnessed - and i dare say i probably dont share your view of where the party goes from here

As to your remarks on standing aside - its called co-operation and sitting down - working out which constituencies to step aside in - Luciana Bergers- most of scotland - west wales - and yes the seats where the Lib Dems had a better chance

And then the Lib Dems could have returned the favor - and we might not be staring down the barrel of 5 years of Tory Brexit in our nearest neighbor. Corbyn ARROGANTLY believed he could win a majority - and he is today ranting and droning ON AND ON - about universal support for his manifesto

its pathetic

3 - in response to your assertion that Labour had a Brexit policy - they didnt have a credible one - see point one

4 - yea he apologized - too little to late - all he had to do was have something prepared for the Andrew Neil interview. He KNEW that would be about Antisemitism,l it came hours after the Chief Rabbi's remarks

5 - from one left winger to another - for god sake please - dont parrot a momentum line that their policy was accurately and solidly sold to the public - christ its painful enough for us to be ARGUING - we should be on the same side - You cannot blame the media for this - If it was media ALONE< the majority would be MUCH tighter - honestly - please

6 - he should go - immediately - leave Diane Abbot in charge on a temp basis - and take Lansman with him preferably - im not saying ditch momentum - but have some pragmatic realistic goals - instead of useless platitudes -

Labour are responsible for the poorest in society - and said people are now at the hands of the Tories for 5 years

this is all horrible, cause Tory supporters must be loving this - Please if you respond - dont accuse Obvious Labour and Left Supporters of 'Hating the party' -

Eric Cartman

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Don't know if this has already been posted by C4 did a wee experiment to see what the results would have been under a PR voting system.

Interesting - Worth a watch.

https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-what-might-have-happened-under-proportional-representation?fbclid=IwAR3Wtvf51U1ENZS6JsIrYUyDgNkW7Tigc9moglCyyTva8snWrX5eKE3Rw8k

Tories still have a majority but.... *no spoilers *

sadly they didnt include the brexit party there, i reckoned theyd fare better under PR.

I think Labour should have had "Lets do Brexit better" as their election slogan.

Stress what a mess the Tory's have made of it. Stress how many Brexit secretary's there's been. Stress how much time and money has been wasted on it.

The plan would still be to renegotiate the WA, and put it to a referendum.

And when pressed on anything, just keep repeating, "Let's do Brexit better"

It's a better slogan than, "For the many, not the few" anyway.

liamtech

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Don't know if this has already been posted by C4 did a wee experiment to see what the results would have been under a PR voting system.

Interesting - Worth a watch.

https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-what-might-have-happened-under-proportional-representation?fbclid=IwAR3Wtvf51U1ENZS6JsIrYUyDgNkW7Tigc9moglCyyTva8snWrX5eKE3Rw8k

Tories still have a majority but.... *no spoilers *

No question FPTP is hideous - if only Lib Dems had stood their ground and insisted on reform, as opposed to a ref - thats another debate though

Torys lost the popular vote - but they are in government - worst fears from 6 weeks ago confirmed:(

Rjd2

Eric Cartman wrote: »

sadly they didnt include the brexit party there, i reckoned theyd fare better under PR.

Farage always been a big fan of PR, in 2015 UKIP got 3.8 million votes and had 1 MP to show for it,,,I loath the man but that was a damning indictment of the current system.

Letwin_Larry

well folks it's time to put me feet up and enjoy a nice bottle of Chateau de Chateau. this has been a most enjoyable thread.

job done. and what a resounding success it turned out to be.
Brexit now a certainty. all the doubters, the nay-sayers have been seen off. Boris in true Churchillian style has confounded his critics, pulled victory from the jaws of defeat.
he ran a fantastic campaign. a few small hiccups yes, as is to be expected, but all in all a brilliant victory. Cummings' decision to avoid Andrew Neil drew much criticism, but has proven to be a masterstroke. one of many from him.

the cherry on top? (as if we need one) Lab has been severely wounded, and are now left with the quandary of either the virus that is 1970s corbynite-Marxism is killed or it will surely kill it's host. that will be fun to watch and imho deserves a separate thread.

cometh the hour, cometh the man!

Let the healing begin!

sid waddell

Lefty Bicek wrote: »

Sid, you earlier referred to Brexit as a racist project.

What in it's genesis makes Brexit a racist project, ie that cannot be more easily explained by a long tradition of British Euroscepticism ?

Or to put it another way - if there were not a longstanding semi-detached attitude by the British towards Europe, could Brexit ever have gotten off the ground ?

I take it as given that, eg Tony Benn, was no racist.

The Leave campaign shamelessly used racism and xenophobia to motivate voters.

And Eurosceptics engaged in lie after lie after lie to create the fantasy of imagined oppression at the hands of a foreign "empire".

It is possible to believe that the UK would be better off outside the EU and not be a racist or a xenophobe, yes, but the campaign unleashed huge forces of racism and xenophobia in the UK and was always going to do so.

And so it has continued, with a huge increase in racism and hate crimes since 2016.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-48692863

Racism and Brexit were always indivisible - there could have been no Brexit without racism.

And when Brexit doesn't work it out, it'll likely get worse.

Kermit.de.frog

Johnson has the numbers now to go for a much softer Brexit. Does not need the Moggites any more.

hotmail.com

sid waddell wrote: »

The Leave campaign shamelessly used racism and xenophobia to motivate voters.

And Eurosceptics engaged in lie after lie after lie to create the fantasy of imagined oppression at the hands of a foreign "empire".

It is possible to believe that the UK would be better off outside the EU and not be a racist or a xenophobe, yes, but the campaign unleashed huge forces of racism and xenophobia in the UK and was always going to do so.

And so it has continued, with a huge increase in racism and hate crimes since 2016.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-48692863

Racism and Brexit were always indivisible - there could have been no Brexit without racism.

And when Brexit doesn't work it out, it'll likely get worse.

Do people still think Brexit was about racism? Even many of the remainers don't say this anymore.

liamtech

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Johnson has the numbers now to go for a much softer Brexit. Does not need the Moggites any more.

Why would he do that? would make ZERO sense

ancapailldorcha

liamtech wrote: »

Why would he do that? would make ZERO sense

It'd be much less damaging to the British economy. His new Northern base is far from solid and he knows that.

droidus

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

well folks it's time to put me feet up and enjoy a nice bottle of Chateau de Chateau. this has been a most enjoyable thread.

job done. and what a resounding success it turned out to be.
Brexit now a certainty. all the doubters, the nay-sayers have been seen off. Boris in true Churchillian style has confounded his critics, pulled victory from the jaws of defeat.
he ran a fantastic campaign. a few small hiccups yes, as is to be expected, but all in all a brilliant victory. Cummings' decision to avoid Andrew Neil drew much criticism, but has proven to be a masterstroke. one of many from him.

the cherry on top? (as if we need one) Lab has been severely wounded, and are now left with the quandary of either the virus that is 1970s corbynite-Marxism is killed or it will surely kill it's host. that will be fun to watch and imho deserves a separate thread.

cometh the hour, cometh the man!

Let the healing begin!

He had the advantage from the start, lied constantly, avoided interviews, stole a phone and hid in a fridge. If anyone deserves credit its his strategists, the establishment media and the corrosive influence of unregulated social media on democratic societies.

Crow if you must, but his government will be a disaster for the UK in the medium term. Britain has elected a Trump and it will be one of the last nails in the coffin of the UK and will mean immiseration and death for the poor, sick and disabled.

liamtech

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

It'd be much less damaging to the British economy. His new Northern base is far from solid and he knows that.

Ok i should have been clearer - when Kermit stated

Johnson has the numbers now to go for a much softer Brexit. Does not need the Moggites any more.

My response was meant as - Why would he - he has no obligation to do so - he has successfully won a massive majority for his deal - to seek to change it now would be politically damaging - yes he could do it - but why would he!

Obviously i would love a softer Brexit - but i think there is almost zero chance at this stage - far more chance that he goes for harder in my view- but way more likely that the Withdrawal Agreement as it stands - is done

As to his northern base - i honestly dont believe this man cares to do so - we almost had no deal in October

hotmail.com

droidus wrote: »

He had the advantage from the start, lied constantly, avoided interviews, stole a phone and hid in a fridge. If anyone deserves credit its his strategists, the establishment media and the corrosive influence of unregulated social media on democratic societies.

Crow if you must, but his government will be a disaster for the UK in the medium term. Britain has elected a Trump and it will be one of the last nails in the coffin of the UK and will mean immiseration and death for the poor, sick and disabled.

It was a party vote, the UK doesn't have a presidential system.

The Tories are extremely popular in the UK and win elections.

The comparison with Trump is just silly.

The Irish obsession with labelling everything about Trump without actually examining history is quite something.

hotmail.com

liamtech wrote: »

Ok i should have been clearer - when Kermit stated

Johnson has the numbers now to go for a much softer Brexit. Does not need the Moggites any more.

My response was meant as - Why would he - he has no obligation to do so - he has successfully won a massive majority for his deal - to seek to change it now would be politically damaging - yes he could do it - but why would he!

Obviously i would love a softer Brexit - but i think there is almost zero chance at this stage - far more chance that he goes for harder in my view- but way more likely that the Withdrawal Agreement as it stands - is done

As to his northern base - i honestly dont believe this man cares to do so - we almost had no deal in October

There seems to be a view that Johnson wants to win a second election and in order to achieve this, he will need to get a softer Brexit.

The view is that he may move to the centre now once he has his mandate and hopes to stay PM for a decade.

ancapailldorcha

liamtech wrote: »

Ok i should have been clearer - when Kermit stated

Johnson has the numbers now to go for a much softer Brexit. Does not need the Moggites any more.

My response was meant as - Why would he - he has no obligation to do so - he has successfully won a massive majority for his deal - to seek to change it now would be politically damaging - yes he could do it - but why would he!

Obviously i would love a softer Brexit - but i think there is almost zero chance at this stage - far more chance that he goes for harder in my view- but way more likely that the Withdrawal Agreement as it stands - is done

As to his northern base - i honestly dont believe this man cares to do so - we almost had no deal in October

Why would he? Because the Conservative party is just as riddled with factions as before. Because businesses will be lobbying hard to protect JIT supply chains and single market access.

In addition, the public have proven themselves willing to accept a lot from Johnson. He successfully sold them on Theresa May's deal as if it were some sort of breakthrough. If he successfully convinces them that Brexit is done and actually makes some progress on the economy, especially in the North then it makes more sense for him to do this to retain his fragile new support base there than pandering to the dozens of ERG disaster capitalists whose windfalls from a no deal Brexit will be theirs alone.

The last Parliament overwhelmingly rejected no deal multiple times. The new one is not so different to suggest that this will not continue to be the case. Johnson must now juggle a disunited party. The best way for him to do this is to govern such that he can convince people that Brexit is done and that the Tories are improving the country via their pledges on the NHS, social care and policing. His proroguing of Parliament may have been more about getting his deal through than crashing out with no deal.

Of course, there is a wild card at play. Labour. If they somehow amputate their toxic socialist wing and elect a viable leader then this could shatter Johnson's plan. A happy populist is much less dangerous than a stressed, unhappy one. We do not know how the US will feel about a trade deal when/if Trump is not re-elected next year. A trade deal with them, especially given that the Democrats despise Johnson and control the Ways and Means Committee is not imminent.

droidus

hotmail.com wrote: »

It was a party vote, the UK doesn't have a presidential system.

The Tories are extremely popular in the UK and win elections.

The tories are only 1% more popular than they were last election in which they couldn't manage a majority.

The comparison with Trump is just silly.

The Irish obsession with labelling everything about Trump without actually examining history is quite something.

Yeah it's just crazy to compare a racist, sexist, lying, right wing politician to Trump.

Lefty Bicek

sid waddell wrote: »

The Leave campaign shamelessly used racism and xenophobia to motivate voters.

And Eurosceptics engaged in lie after lie after lie to create the fantasy of imagined oppression at the hands of a foreign "empire".

It is possible to believe that the UK would be better off outside the EU and not be a racist or a xenophobe, yes, but the campaign unleashed huge forces of racism and xenophobia in the UK and was always going to do so.

And so it has continued, with a huge increase in racism and hate crimes since 2016.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-48692863

Racism and Brexit were always indivisible - there could have been no Brexit without racism.

And when Brexit doesn't work it out, it'll likely get worse.

I'm not disagreeing that bad people have been emboldened to do bad things on the streets.

Surely though, in a direct sense, Brexit came about because of pressure on Cameron by, (apart from Tory Eurosceptics and UKIP), 'The People's Pledge' movement. A movement which was cross-spectrum from the outset, and which according to Wiki (yes, I know)...

did not take a view on whether the UK should stay in, or leave, the EU; simply that the expansion of the EU's powers and influence over government since the 1975 'common market' referendum merited people being consulted again on continued membership.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Pledge

That's a Euroscepticism which is very recognisable to anyone who remembers Tony Benn's speech to The Commons, November 1991.

It's an argument about democracy and sovereignty, not about imagined oppression. And it is a central part of the Brexit genesis.

People we find unsavoury may well be manipulating for their own ends, but they may not be the reason people vote the way they do. The question of correlation and cause. While a campaign like Brexit may well express forces of racism and xenophobia, it doesn't cause it.

I think it's all a bit 'shooting the messenger', and I don't believe that people voted for Brexit because they were told what to think by elites. They're well aware of their own material conditions, and they kicked their 'betters'. Especially when their 'betters' added insult to injury by telling them that they got it wrong, they didn't understand, blah blah blah.

On the same theme, I think it just as likely that, amongst other things, people are pi%%ed off with being called 'racist' and 'xenophobe' (standard tactic of the Left) when they dare to question eg immigration.

Which brings us neatly to Dodgy Dave and one of the few interesting things he ever said - namely, that state multiculturalism has failed.

And he was right about that. Dead right. It is BS and not only has it failed, it has a huge amount to answer for.

Certain conditions which excuse nothing, have been bubbling just below the surface for a long time.

Brexit is just the messenger of all that.

IMO

Rjd2

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/general-election-results-2019-jeremy-corbyn-labour-leadership-a9246311.html

Anna Turley of Labour who lost her Redcar seat article.

None of this will come out in the forthcoming analysis of why Labour lost. If it does, it will be Corbyn – destroyed by the evil mainstream media and stabbed in the back by treacherous Blairites – not Corbynism that takes the blame.

To blame Brexit is to miss the point. There would be no Brexit if Labour had had credible leadership in the 2016 referendum, standing up for our party’s values of cooperation, internationalism and partnership. Instead, we had a guy who dressed up in a fur coat to go on The Last Leg and give the EU “seven and a half out of ten”. No one put forward an argument to working-class Labour communities about why the EU mattered to them, because the leader didn’t believe that it did. Ever since, instead of strong leadership and a clear position, then we have had three years of U-turns, triangulation and dancing on pinheads. I have never been able to tell my constituents what Labour’s Brexit position truly was – only my own.

sid waddell

Bambi wrote: »

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.

I think it's pretty obvious which of us is extreme is and which isn't.

Shelga

I, like most people, have been reflecting more on the result over the last 36 hours. I suppose a large Tory majority at least means that they will have to completely own Brexit now, and that things will at least move forward- even if that is in a hideous direction.

Corbynism is clearly not appealing to the wider British public. They didn't do so terribly in 2017, so I can only conclude that Labour's stance on Brexit is what really finished them off.

But even if Brexit wasn't a thing, Corbyn-style socialism is never going to win more than around 270 seats. And Momentum need to admit that, and have the humility to loosen their grip on the LP, and do what is best for the country. I agree with everything Alan Johnson said in that clip- I don't blame him for being angry. I don't know how the Labour Party was constantly able to talk about 2017 as if it was some huge victory- they didn't win!- and Corbyn should have resigned after it.

But I know a lot of working-class English people, and them voting Tory still makes me feel sick. They have voted for easy soundbites, for complete, utter lies, and let's face it- it is them being driven by their baser fears. I know these people. If they're not racist, they're definitely insular, inward-looking and selfish- I've been told repeatedly that they couldn't care less about the fate of NI or Scotland.

Why do I have to respect that? Why does anyone?

Brexit is, and always will be, a moronic act of self-harm, on an epic scale.

If I had been one of these English voters, who couldn't stick Corbyn, I would have voted for Green, Independent, Lib Dem- literally anyone other than Tories or the Brexit Party. If more people had done this, it would least have started a conversation about electoral reform.

It all comes down to Brexit though, doesn't it. Incredibly depressing stuff.

171170

Shelga wrote: »

Why do I have to respect that? Why does anyone?

Indeed.

But why are you asking us?

Are you incapable of making up your own mind without the assistance of others?

Letwin_Larry

could this be the end of the union as we know it?
i think it could well be.
they are about to lose 15% of their annual budget. German economy is in recession. they may soon have a vibrant, dynamic low-tax economy in their frontyard.

worrying times for the mr. barnier & co.

Shelga

171170 wrote: »

Indeed.

But why are you asking us?

Are you incapable of making up your own mind without the assistance of others?

It was a rhetorical question. I was referring to this sense of "well the voters are obviously right, and in hindsight that result was exactly what was going to happen" that always hangs around in the media like a bad smell, in the days following an election.

Voters have a responsibility to educate themselves. I have zero sympathy for anything that happens to poor and deprived communities in the north, as a result of this right-wing government.

Wanderer78

Shelga wrote:

Voters have a responsibility to educate themselves. I have zero sympathy for anything that happens to poor and deprived communities in the north, as a result of this right-wing government.

Humans don't tend to think logically when angry and desperate

Letwin_Larry

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Humans don't tend to think logically when angry and desperate

indeed you just have to look at how the Lab party is tearing itself apart in the wake of this electoral disaster.
i mean in all sincerity could anybody have predicted an 80 seat majority. not since Maggie.
5 years of Tory power, and Brexit a certainty.

not bad going for Boris the bufoon. eh?
Cummings is a genius.

Shelga

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Humans don't tend to think logically when angry and desperate

Well what can be done then? If people use their vote in a way that will actively harm their best interests?