General Election December, 2019 (U.K.)

sid waddell

Lefty Bicek wrote: »

Pity they didn't listen to anyone who pointed to Corbyn as the liability that he is.

We have some evidence before us that it is the Corbyn factor that was primary, not Brexit.

Yes, but you yourself have just said that Labour didn't listen to people.

Now you're saying Corbyn was the problem.

You're shifting position, in other words.

sid waddell

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

He did make certain noises about freedom of movement coming to an end and respecting the referendum result. They also had the disaster that was Theresa May and her Dementia tax.

Now though, Johnson and Cummings are different beasts... They knew what they were doing.

Might as well just call it for what it was, so - a vicious smear campaign.

Anybody who thinks the next Labour leader won't be vilified in a similar manner is deluded.

That's the right's modus operandi.

Shelga

sid waddell wrote: »

Yet Corbyn wasn't a particular problem in 2017.

So what has changed?

He didn't win in 2017 though. The Tories still took 45 more seats than Labour. I really don't know why 2017 is seen as this massive Labour victory.

But yes, he is seen as more toxic now. I suppose being seen as betraying Brexit voters hurt him, but I don't think anyone particularly loved him in 2017 either. He alienates anyone who wants a strong UK defence force, loves the royal family, and who doesn't see themselves as a victim needing Uncle Jeremy's helping hand. This covers vast swathes of UK voters.

Personally, I thought the Labour stance on Brexit was the best of a bad bunch, but there was clearly no appetite for another referendum.

Letwin_Larry

sid waddell wrote: »

Yes, but you yourself have just said that Labour didn't listen to people.

Now you're saying Corbyn was the problem.

You're shifting position, in other words.

Jeremy is a fine upstanding man of principles. sadly in today's social media world of quick soundbites and instant news, there's little place for intelligent, longterm policies that benefit the poorest and advance society.

Lefty Bicek

sid waddell wrote: »

Yes, but you yourself have just said that Labour didn't listen to people.

Now you're saying Corbyn was the problem.

You're shifting position, in other words.

I'm not saying Corbyn was the problem.

I'm saying that the evidence says he was.

Do you see the difference ?

sid waddell

Shelga wrote: »

He didn't win in 2017 though. The Tories still took 45 more seats than Labour. I really don't know why 2017 is seen as this massive Labour victory.

But yes, he is seen as more toxic now. I suppose being seen as betraying Brexit voters hurt him, but I don't think anyone particularly loved him in 2017 either. He alienates anyone who wants a strong UK defence force, loves the royal family, and who doesn't see themselves as a victim needing Uncle Jeremy's helping hand. This covers vast swathes of UK voters.

Personally, I thought the Labour stance on Brexit was the best of a bad bunch, but there was clearly no appetite for another referendum.

Well, 53% of people voted for Remain or second referendum parties, so I'm not sure how people can say there was no appetite for another referendum.

All these things about Corbyn were already well known in 2017 and Labour got 261 seats. Sure they didn't win, but that was a gain of over 30 seats.

You say Labour's position on Brexit was the best of a bad bunch, and I'd agree, yet others say they needed to be firmly pro-Leave and others say they needed to be firmly pro-Remain.

You can't have a policy that pleases all of those people because there are three positions there and all are very different.

sid waddell

Lefty Bicek wrote: »

I'm not saying Corbyn was the problem.

I'm saying that the evidence says he was.

Do you see the difference ?

So you are saying Corbyn was the problem.

Yet you're also saying Labour needed to listen to people.

Flesh that out, please.

sid waddell

sid waddell wrote: »

So you are saying Corbyn was the problem.

Yet you're also saying Labour needed to listen to people.

Flesh that out, please.

Let's flesh out the differences.

Corbyn in 2017 was about ending free movement and respecting the result of the referendum. It was also about Mrs. May and her catastrophically bad campaigning and the dementia tax, avoiding all debate and scrutiny.

Fast forward to 2019, we have the Labour Party voting for maintaining or even extending free movement, demanding that Labour voters go back and "think again" about their 2016 vote.

It was also about a charismatic Johnson honing in on Brexit alone and correctly framing the impasse in UK politics as his being prevented from Getting Brexit Done courtesy of parliamentary shenanigans. He also participated in far more debates - and won them all.

Night and day difference. In other words, it's not an either/or Corbyn versus policy; it can well be both.

Letwin_Larry

This whole clamour for Jeremy to somehow eat humble pie is nauseating imo. he did his best. it's not his fault the electorate is so misinformed, and uneducated they decided to vote for an extreme right wing Tory Govt. led by an Etonian.

Lab needs to double down and drive home their Socialist message, the masses will eventually realise it's for their own good.

sid waddell

Deleted User wrote: »

Let's flesh out the differences.

Corbyn in 2017 was about ending free movement and respecting the result of the referendum. It was also about Mrs. May and her catastrophically bad campaigning and the dementia tax, avoiding all debate and scrutiny.

Fast forward to 2019, we have the Labour Party voting for maintaining or even extending free movement, demanding that Labour voters go back and "think again" about their 2016 vote.

It was also about a charismatic Johnson honing in on Brexit alone and correctly framing the impasse in UK politics as his being prevented from Getting Brexit Done courtesy of parliamentary shenanigans. He also participated in far more debates - and won them all.

Night and day difference. In other words, it's not an either/or Corbyn versus policy; it can well be both.

But the question was, who should Labour have been "listening to"?

Exactly who are these people?

suicide_circus

sid waddell wrote: »

But the question was, who should Labour have been "listening to"?

Exactly who are these people?

their heartland voters apparently

sid waddell

sid waddell wrote: »

But the question was, who should Labour have been "listening to"?

Exactly who are these people?

The point is that if in 2017, Labour voters opted to support Labour and, then 2 years later, Labour renege on 2017 policies, it shouldn't come as any surprise that these voters will switch to the Conservative Party and/or Brexit Party.

There are some voters who will always opt for Labour. The "floating voter" was the Brexit voter; 5 million of whom opted to Brexit in 2016.

sid waddell

suicide_circus wrote: »

their heartland voters apparently

Which "heartland" voters?

Such a phrase assumes singularity of thought.

We have Anna Turley, who MP for Redcar, saying that Labour ddidn't listen to Remainers.

Then we have Caroline Flint and Gloria De Piero, who were MPs for Don Valley and Ashfield, saying Labour didn't listen to Leavers.

Who's right and who's wrong?

Because it can't be both.

Labour's Brexit policy showed it did actually listen to both sides.

LuckyLloyd

Lefty Bicek wrote: »

'The anger that is coming' does not take priority over the anger that is now, just because their opponents have a lower opinion of the people who have screamed for change this week, and who have upended English political discourse this week.

So let's have some consideration of the past and present faults of those whom the voters have rejected, before gliding on impatiently to the future faults of anyone.

The best thing Labour can do now to get their own house in order, is to actually shut up and listen for a change.

I’m just fascinated to see “Brexit” become Brexit, and also for a half decade of unfettered Johnsonian domestic policy. No point talking about the past - let’s see what is delivered with that whopping majority. Can the next half decade be all things to all people? Will be some achievement if they pull it off!

Shelga

sid waddell wrote: »

Well, 53% of people voted for Remain or second referendum parties, so I'm not sure how people can say there was no appetite for another referendum.

All these things about Corbyn were already well known in 2017 and Labour got 261 seats. Sure they didn't win, but that was a gain of over 30 seats.

You say Labour's position on Brexit was the best of a bad bunch, and I'd agree, yet others say they needed to be firmly pro-Leave and others say they needed to be firmly pro-Remain.

You can't have a policy that pleases all of those people because there are three positions there and all are very different.

53% of people voted for Remain or 2nd referendum parties, but some votes for Labour would have been from Leavers, and maybe even a few Tory Remainers voted Conservative just because that's the only way they could imagine voting.

There's no way of knowing exactly what percentage of people want another referendum. I'd say there's also a small but growing number of people who are so fed up of the whole thing that they wouldn't call themselves either Leave or Remain anymore.

This is why a GE to 'sort Brexit' was stupid, however it has paid off handsomely in Johnson's favour.

sid waddell

Deleted User wrote: »

The point is that if in 2017, Labour voters opted to support Labour and, then 2 years later, Labour renege on 2017 policies, it shouldn't come as any surprise that these voters will switch to the Conservative Party and/or Brexit Party.

Yet that's not what the Blairites said. The Blairites said that Labour didn't renege nearly enough on 2017 policies.

And now we have people all over the place saying that a return to Blairism is the way forward - including yourself - you said that Labour should adopt "neo-Blairism".

All while your profile says "Marine Le Pen - Boris Johnson - Donald Trump".

So you're saying that Labour should have been simultaneously Blairite while keeping their 2017 policies, all while saying that Le Pen, Johnson and Trump are the way forward.

I'm sorry, that makes zero sense.

sid waddell

Shelga wrote: »

53% of people voted for Remain or 2nd referendum parties, but some votes for Labour would have been from Leavers, and maybe even a few Tory Remainers voted Conservative just because that's the only way they could imagine voting.

There's no way of knowing exactly what percentage of people want another referendum. I'd say there's also a small but growing number of people who are so fed up of the whole thing that they wouldn't call themselves either Leave or Remain anymore.

This is why a GE to 'sort Brexit' was stupid, however it has paid off handsomely in Johnson's favour.

My guess is that the amount of Leavers who voted Labour and the amount of Remainers who voted Tory roughly cancelled each other out, because the amount of people who voted for Remain or second referendum parties was pretty much exactly in line with what the polls had been showing as regards how people would have voted in a second referendum.

sid waddell

sid waddell wrote: »

Yet that's not what the Blairites said. The Blairites said that Labour didn't renege nearly enough on 2017 policies.

And now we have people all over the place saying that a return to Blairism is the way forward - including yourself - you said that Labour should adopt "neo-Blairism".

All while your profile says "Marine Le Pen - Boris Johnson - Donald Trump".

So you're saying that Labour should have been simultaneously Blairite while keeping their 2017 policies, all while saying that Le Pen, Johnson and Trump are the way forward.

I'm sorry, that makes zero sense.

This election result spells the end of Marxism - possibly for decades to come, just as Mr. Foot was roundly defeated in the early 80s. Corbyn is a modern clone of Mr. Foot.

With a majority, Johnson is not beholden to the ERG. He can now move back to the centre-ground and cater more to the needs of the Labour voters who lent them his support.

To compete, Labour must also drive their politics back to the centre-left; what I referred to as Neo-Blairism -- not Blairism itself, but a term that describes the shift to the centre and caters to the needs of voters in 2019.

If Labour can accept that Brexit is now inevitable, and if they can move back to the centre-ground with realistic policies, then they will become fantastically more electable than they are now. Add to the mix a somewhat charismatic leader who communicates well, you have a potentially winning formula.

Momentum must be destroyed, along with the anti-Semitism that has plagued the party since Corbyn took over.

My support for Trump or Farage has nothing to do with this analysis. I'm simply analyzing Labour in terms of the direction I believe they need to go. If they opt for another Corbyn clone, nothing will change and they'll become even more unelectable in 2024, particularly if Johnson sufficiently carers to the needs of those Labour voters he gained in this election.

Sam Russell

Also, the Labour vote was down 2.3 million votes, but the Tories were only up 300,000. So 2,000,000 labour voters did not vote Tory. They may have voted BP, or LibDems, but not Tory.

The Labour message was too muddled.

sid waddell

Personally I think the reasons Labour lost are as follows, in no particular order:

Corbyn: - his lack of outward charisma and lack of a messianic personality a la Blair or Bill Clinton or Obama, the vicious four year long smear media campaign against him - Corbyn not coming across as a "leader" is "his fault", but the smear campaign wasn't

Brexit: The fundamental schism between Labour's two heartlands - urban Remainers and semi-rural/rural midlands/northern Leavers, meaning there was no policy that could have possibly kept everybody happy

The mutual suspicion between the Corbynite/Momentum wing of the party and the Blairite/centrist wing of the party - I believe that the Blairites were more at fault here but the Corbynite/Momentum wing take a fair share of blame too

The grotesquely imbalanced media coverage, which massively favoured Johnson

Labour going too far on their manifesto, further than 2017

It was all of those things.

Lefty Bicek

sid waddell wrote: »

So you are saying Corbyn was the problem.

Yet you're also saying Labour needed to listen to people.

Flesh that out, please.

Again, I am not saying Corbyn was the problem. The data say so, as was presented here earlier.

The second point flows obviously from the first. Though only if the Labour Party wants to be electable of course.

I mean 'listen' as in - realise that the Labour vote did not swing to the Tories, it just collapsed. Full stop.

For many of the traditional base of voters Jeremy Corbyn is not acceptable, and never would be acceptable. Despite the nobility of a lot of his causes and stances over the years.

sid waddell

Deleted User wrote: »

This election result spells the end of Marxism - possibly for decades to come, just as Mr. Foot was roundly defeated in the early 80s. Corbyn is a modern clone of Mr. Foot.

With a majority, Johnson is not beholden to the ERG. He can now move back to the centre-ground and cater more to the needs of the Labour voters who lent them his support.

To compete, Labour must also drive their politics back to the centre-left; what I referred to as Neo-Blairism -- not Blairism itself, but a term that describes the shift to the centre and caters to the needs of voters in 2019.

If Labour can accept that Brexit is now inevitable, and if they can move back to the centre-ground with realistic policies, then they will become fantastically more electable than they are now. Add to the mix a somewhat charismatic leader who communicates well, you have a potentially winning formula.

Momentum must be destroyed, along with the anti-Semitism that has plagued the party since Corbyn took over.

My support for Trump or Farage has nothing to do with this analysis. I'm simply analyzing Labour in terms of the direction I believe they need to go. If they opt for another Corbyn clone, nothing will change and they'll become even more unelectable in 2024, particularly if Johnson sufficiently carers to the needs of those Labour voters he gained in this election.

But sure in your previous post you said that Labour strayed away from its 2017 manifesto and that's why they lost.

Now you're saying it's because they weren't Blairite enough.

Again, this makes no sense.

sid waddell

Lefty Bicek wrote: »

Again, I am not saying Corbyn was the problem. The data say so, as was presented here earlier.

The second point flows obviously from the first. Though only if the Labour Party wants to be electable of course.

I mean 'listen' as in - realise that the Labour vote did not swing to the Tories, it just collapsed. Full stop.

For many of the traditional base of voters Jeremy Corbyn is not acceptable, and never would be acceptable. Despite the nobility of a lot of his causes and stances over the years.

But if you're to accept the data, you are saying Corbyn was the problem.

You still haven't fleshed out what you mean by "Labour needs to listen".

Listen to who exactly?

And how did they not listen?

Who did they not listen to?

sid waddell

sid waddell wrote: »

But sure in your previous post you said that Labour strayed away from its 2017 manifesto and that's why they lost.

Now you're saying it's because they weren't Blairite enough.

Again, this makes no sense.

No, I'm saying that both are true.

I'm not saying that Labour should have been Neo-Blairite in this election, but that's the direction they need to go to win the next election.

sid waddell

Deleted User wrote: »

No, I'm saying that both are true.

I'm not saying that Labour should have been Neo-Blairite in this election, but that's the direction they need to go to win the next election.

You're saying that Labour needed to go with their 2017 manifesto in 2019, which you have said was "Marxism" (it wasn't).

In future you say they should go with Blairism.

So "Marxism" was the way to go in 2019, but Blairism in 2020.

I'm sorry, that makes less than no sense.

sid waddell

sid waddell wrote: »

You're saying that Labour needed to go with their 2017 manifesto in 2019, which you have said was "Marxism" (it wasn't).

In future you say they should go with Blairism.

So "Marxism" was the way to go in 2019, but Blairism in 2020.

I'm sorry, that makes less than no sense.

I'm not sure exactly why you're finding this confusing.

Labour reneged on their 2017 voters; asking them to vote again with no credible Leave option. As a result, those voters flocked to Conservatives/BXP. Furthermore, such is the scale of defeat -- worst for Labour since 1935 -- that this result was not just a vote on the issue of Brexit, but also the issue of the type of politics and political direction that Corbyn and his acolytes wish to take.

You can firmly believe that Corbyn Mark II will win a 2024 election. You're fully entitled to that view. I think that would be catastrophic for Labour and they would lose even more seats in 2024.

That's why a shift to Neo-Blairism is what's needed. You may not like that conclusion, but what matters is what voters think -- and if they are unwilling to vote for a Corbyn-like figure with that type of politics, then the Party must reflect what the voters want, not the other way around.

Strazdas

sid waddell wrote: »

Personally I think the reasons Labour lost are as follows, in no particular order:

Corbyn: - his lack of outward charisma and lack of a messianic personality a la Blair or Bill Clinton or Obama, the vicious four year long smear media campaign against him - Corbyn not coming across as a "leader" is "his fault", but the smear campaign wasn't

Brexit: The fundamental schism between Labour's two heartlands - urban Remainers and semi-rural/rural midlands/northern Leavers, meaning there was no policy that could have possibly kept everybody happy

The mutual suspicion between the Corbynite/Momentum wing of the party and the Blairite/centrist wing of the party - I believe that the Blairites were more at fault here but the Corbynite/Momentum wing take a fair share of blame too

The grotesquely imbalanced media coverage, which massively favoured Johnson

Labour going too far on their manifesto, further than 2017

It was all of those things.

I was reading an article too about Labour remain voters in northern rural England : these were often likely to be of the "I voted remain but now I want Brexit implemented" variety ie. likely to be swayed by cheap populist propaganda by the hard right telling them it was undemocratic to oppose Brexit.

Lefty Bicek

sid waddell wrote: »

But if you're to accept the data, you are saying Corbyn was the problem.

I don't know why you are cavilling about this. Clearly I am making a distinction between a personal opinion of my own, and a position I take based on evidence. If you think that an unimportant distinction, that's fine, we can leave it at that.

When you say

Personally I think the reasons Labour lost are as follows, in no particular order:

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=112024379&postcount=5751

Do you have a problem with the data ? Because it is suggesting that there is a very strong case for putting one issue above others at the very top of the order. So why not do that ?

beggars_bush

Deleted User wrote: »

This election result spells the end of Marxism - possibly for decades to come, just as Mr. Foot was roundly defeated in the early 80s. Corbyn is a modern clone of Mr. Foot.

With a majority, Johnson is not beholden to the ERG. He can now move back to the centre-ground and cater more to the needs of the Labour voters who lent them his support.

To compete, Labour must also drive their politics back to the centre-left; what I referred to as Neo-Blairism -- not Blairism itself, but a term that describes the shift to the centre and caters to the needs of voters in 2019.

If Labour can accept that Brexit is now inevitable, and if they can move back to the centre-ground with realistic policies, then they will become fantastically more electable than they are now. Add to the mix a somewhat charismatic leader who communicates well, you have a potentially winning formula.

Momentum must be destroyed, along with the anti-Semitism that has plagued the party since Corbyn took over.

My support for Trump or Farage has nothing to do with this analysis. I'm simply analyzing Labour in terms of the direction I believe they need to go. If they opt for another Corbyn clone, nothing will change and they'll become even more unelectable in 2024, particularly if Johnson sufficiently carers to the needs of those Labour voters he gained in this election.

I must have missed the auld Marxists running the UK for the last 20 years

LuckyLloyd

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Fair enough, we can agree to disagree. I think we’ll find that the “anti - semitism crisis” magically disappears about five minutes after Corbyn is gone.

Boris calls Muslim women letter boxes, British media don't really go after him in any significant way. Corbyn said what exactly that could be considered anti semitism? Yet the entire media establishment go after him relentlessly for months before the election.

Totally politically motivated.