General Election December, 2019 (U.K.)

seamus

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

i disagree. it's a case of wait 'n see what he delivers.
i mean you have to give him a chance before you start spouting on about fallout, otherwise you are just exposing your own inherent bias.

For some reason I doubt you would be so generous giving Corbyn the benefit of the doubt had he been elected.

Johnson has a long track record of promising everything and delivering nothing.

Anyone who gives him the benefit of the doubt at this stage deserves what's coming.

Bannasidhe

Joe_ Public wrote: »

I dont think either conclusion put forward is mutually exclusive in that corbyn had debilitating weaknesses and made mistakes but also that the media and establishment forces against him were pretty shoddy and alarming. Both positions have truth. Like i said here before, if the general perception is created that all of them are lying - which the media is happy to promulgate - then the voters will likely go for the clown that at least offers entertainment value.

I agree completely.
But those queuing up to dance on the grave of the Labour Party (many of whom would never have voted left anyway) would have it that it was all Corbyn and his Momentum cultists fault - ignoring that the 'successful' Tory campaign was one media unchallenged lie after another.

The Tories lied.
The media colluded.
Labour tore itself apart.

Between the lot of them they have built a house of cards on shaky foundations.

Letwin_Larry

seamus wrote: »

For some reason I doubt you would be so generous giving Corbyn the benefit of the doubt had he been elected.

Johnson has a long track record of promising everything and delivering nothing.

Anyone who gives him the benefit of the doubt at this stage deserves what's coming.

Boris is nothing if not adaptable and mercurial, and will change his mind to suit circumstances. he is highly intelligent, gifted with a razor sharp intellect. his adversaries have made the mistake of being taken in by his buffoonish antics. just ask all those unemployed ex Lab MPs if you doubt me.

i cant see into the future nor can you, so i reckon we'll just have to wait and see.

Christy42

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

Boris is nothing if not adaptable and mercurial, and will change his mind to suit circumstances. he is highly intelligent, gifted with a razor sharp intellect. his adversaries have made the mistake of being taken in by his buffoonish antics. just ask all those unemployed ex Lab MPs if you doubt me.

i cant see into the future nor can you, so i reckon we'll just have to wait and see.

Adaptable and mercurial is a great way of saying serial liar. He will do what it takes to get and keep power. Certainly many labour mps misjudged him but I suspect so do most of his followers.

Joe_ Public

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I agree completely.
But those queuing up to dance on the grave of the Labour Party (many of whom would never have voted left anyway) would have it that it was all Corbyn and his Momentum cultists fault - ignoring that the 'successful' Tory campaign was one media unchallenged lie after another.

The Tories lied.
The media colluded.
Labour tore itself apart.

Between the lot of them they have built a house of cards on shaky foundations.

It was just perfect storm for corbyn, everything that could be used against him was flung with relentless vigour and mcdonnell's efforts to deflect with a caych-all manifesto were well meaning but ultimately ended up exacerbating the problem. If brexit wasnt in the mix, i still have to sadly conclude a tory majority, albeit a smaller one, would still have been the most likely outcome.

Just listening to jenny chapman, beaten in Darlington, speaking on bbc and its very sad. She's blaming corbyn but not in a vindictive or knife wielding way like some others. Says a lot of the treatment of him was unfair but that was the reality they had to deal with on the doorstep and it was too much.

Letwin_Larry

Joe_ Public wrote: »

It was just perfect storm for corbyn, everything that could be used against him was flung with relentless vigour and mcdonnell's efforts to deflect with a caych-all manifesto were well meaning but ultimately ended up exacerbating the problem. If brexit wasnt in the mix, i still have to sadly conclude a tory majority, albeit a smaller one, would still have been the most likely outcome.

Just listening to jenny chapman, beaten in Darlington, speaking on bbc and its very sad. She's blaming corbyn but not in a vindictive or knife wielding way like some others. Says a lot of the treatment of him was unfair but that was the reality they had to deal with on the doorstep and it was too much.

i said at the beginning of the GE campaign that his past "associations" with IRA HAMAS and others would be raised and thrown at him.
however posters poopooed that as a non-event, saying it "would have no bearing" on voters as they had "much more important things to be concerned about".
personally i think the cumulative effect was devastating, and left voters seeing him as unpatriotic and even traitorous to some.

sadly one should never underestimate the mob's capacity to swallow tripe and to get themselves all riled up in the process.

jimmycrackcorm

Water John wrote: »

The framing of a law to leave, no matter what at the end of 2020 is not a good signal from Johnson. If he had confidence in his own ability to lead, he wouldn't do it.

It's a warning shot over the bow to the EU about trying to conclude trade negotiations by next year end.

It's a poker bluff. Laws can be repealed if needed. But the UK still hasn't learned anything after the last three years, still presuming that the EU will blink at the last minute.

Given BJs history of lying, who in the EU is going to believe this bluff even if it was possible to do a trade deal in that timeframe.

Bannasidhe

Joe_ Public wrote: »

It was just perfect storm for corbyn, everything that could be used against him was flung with relentless vigour and mcdonnell's efforts to deflect with a caych-all manifesto were well meaning but ultimately ended up exacerbating the problem. If brexit wasnt in the mix, i still have to sadly conclude a tory majority, albeit a smaller one, would still have been the most likely outcome.

Just listening to jenny chapman, beaten in Darlington, speaking on bbc and its very sad. She's blaming corbyn but not in a vindictive or knife wielding way like some others. Says a lot of the treatment of him was unfair but that was the reality they had to deal with on the doorstep and it was too much.

TBH - I think blaming 'Corbyn' is just a shorthand for the civil war in Labour that is the real root of their problem.

Many, many people left the LP when it became 'new' Labour - feeling that they, as socialists, had no place in this shiny new centerist party. Added to that there was a lot of resentment among grassroots members about how Blairite candidates were parachuted into constituencies etc etc.
The decline in the vote began in those years but is masked by what an utter disaster the Tories were at the time.

Corbyn was a 'joke' candidate for leadership. No one thought he would win - but he did because he became the figurehead for the socialist fight back to regain control of the LP - note regain, not gain, the LP is meant to be a socialists party, that is what it was founded to be. Socialists began to rejoin/join the Party
Corbyn won due to the grassroots membership but the majority of the parliamentary party were Blairites. That fight is still being played out.

The Blairites did not accept the will of the grassroots. Now they are blaming Corbyn - for being Corbyn - and ignoring that the LP was already in freefall.
The internecine war just exacerbated it and instead of listening to the public they were too busy at each other's throats.

Should Corbyn have been leader - probably not. He simply doesn't have the right kind of personality and there was too much backstory that could be spun against him. But should the LP have a socialist leader? I think yes - because it is supposed to be a socialist party, not a centerist one.

droidus

Johnson will announce a victorious departure from the EU at the end of January attempt to bluff and threaten his way to a favourable deal, fall flat on his face and we'll end up with a very hard Brexit. The effects will be blamed on the EU, and Britain will be parcelled up and sold off. Scotland will secure a second referendum and leave within 3-4 years, leaving the Tories with a permanent majority, securing Johnson's main objective - power.

Joe_ Public

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

i said at the beginning of the GE campaign that his past "associations" with IRA HAMAS and others would be raised and thrown at him.
however posters poopooed that as a non-event, saying it "would have no bearing" on voters as they had "much more important things to be concerned about".
personally i think the cumulative effect was devastating, and left voters seeing him as unpatriotic and even traitorous to some.

sadly one should never underestimate the mob's capacity to swallow tripe and to get themselves all riled up in the process.

Yeah, fair enough, but it was cumulative as you correctly point out. It wasn't any one thing. All that ira/hamas stuff was thrown with gusto in 2017 and didnt really stick then. Doesnt register so much with younger voters i think, but it was older/working class votes that counted anyway. A nephew of mine who doesn't know anything about politics was asking me how come corbyn tanked when he and his friends perceived he was very popular on social media and the answer, i think, is being popular on social media doesnt count in the ballot box. Those early morning queues in London last thursday morning seemed very encouraging but dont think they were replicated anywhere else and merely resulted in some london labour mps being returned with bigger majorities than would otherwise have been the case.

Strazdas

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

It's a warning shot over the bow to the EU about trying to conclude trade negotiations by next year end.

It's a poker bluff. Laws can be repealed if needed. But the UK still hasn't learned anything after the last three years, still presuming that the EU will blink at the last minute.

Given BJs history of lying, who in the EU is going to believe this bluff even if it was possible to do a trade deal in that timeframe.

It's an insane way of negotiating a trade deal though. Two parties negotiating a trade deal don't normally do so by issuing threats and imposing deadlines etc. The idea of a mammoth deal being concluded in under 12 months seems totally far fetched, not with a loose cannon like the UK at the table.

PeadarCo

Bannasidhe wrote: »

TBH - I think blaming 'Corbyn' is just a shorthand for the civil war in Labour that is the real root of their problem.

Many, many people left the LP when it became 'new' Labour - feeling that they, as socialists, had no place in this shiny new centerist party. Added to that there was a lot of resentment among grassroots members about how Blairite candidates were parachuted into constituencies etc etc.
The decline in the vote began in those years but is masked by what an utter disaster the Tories were at the time.

Corbyn was a 'joke' candidate for leadership. No one thought he would win - but he did because he became the figurehead for the socialist fight back to regain control of the LP - note regain, not gain, the LP is meant to be a socialists party, that is what it was founded to be. Socialists began to rejoin/join the Party
Corbyn won due to the grassroots membership but the majority of the parliamentary party were Blairites. That fight is still being played out.

The Blairites did not accept the will of the grassroots. Now they are blaming Corbyn - for being Corbyn - and ignoring that the LP was already in freefall.
The internecine war just exacerbated it and instead of listening to the public they were too busy at each other's throats.

Should Corbyn have been leader - probably not. He simply doesn't have the right kind of personality and there was too much backstory that could be spun against him. But should the LP have a socialist leader? I think yes - because it is supposed to be a socialist party, not a centerist one.

I think sums up the problem for Labour. The best example of Labour not listening to their grassroots was electing Corbyn. If Labour wants to be a pure socialist party grand but don't expect to be ever in a position to implement any sort of policy. Or put it another way by saying that Labour should be a pure socialist party you are saying you would prefer a Tory government that implements policies completely against the aims of the Labour Party.

In the UK they don't have the benefit of proportional representation that results in hard core/extreme socialists/communists being confined to the margins while centerist parties steal/implement their best ideas. It's all or nothing under FTP. Which means Johnson is not even a week in the job and he has managed to out do May when it comes to tieing the UKs hands behind their own backs in Brexit negotiations. This is what Labour lost to.

serfboard

Joe_ Public wrote: »

the obama "when they go low, we go high mantra?"

IIRC, this was from a speech by Michelle Obama - who was never elected to any office.

Letwin_Larry

the new speaker of the House as favoured by the Tories appears to be a good humoured down to earth, even-handed Northerner, unlike his predecessor so favoured by Lab/Lib Dems who was a pompous, self-important, biased, jumped up, little man with an inflated view of his own importance.

oh! how the tables have turned.

Professor Moriarty

Bannasidhe wrote: »

And there, in a nutshell, is why Corbyn lost.
He doesn't believe the end justifies the means.

tbh - neither do I. Too many people become collateral damage when one pursues that philosophy.

I think it's more nuanced than that though. Corbyn doesn't believe the end justifies the means - fine. The Tories do, however. They went low and Corbyn stayed high. Mistake.

Because Corbyn didn't believe the end justifies the means, there now is a de facto Tory dictator in power for five long years who will destroy the lives of those that Corbyn claimed to represent. So what was Corbyn's end? And how much does it matter now?

Joe_ Public

Good speech from Lisa Nandy there. Not sure what to expect when corbyn gets to his feet. Johnson gloating away predictably enough.

Joe_ Public

serfboard wrote: »

IIRC, this was from a speech by Michelle Obama - who was never elected to any office.

Yes, that is correct. Just the principle of the thing more i was referring to.

Bannasidhe

PeadarCo wrote: »

I think sums up the problem for Labour. The best example of Labour not listening to their grassroots was electing Corbyn. If Labour wants to be a pure socialist party grand but don't expect to be ever in a position to implement any sort of policy. Or put it another way by saying that Labour should be a pure socialist party you are saying you would prefer a Tory government that implements policies completely against the aims of the Labour Party.

In the UK they don't have the benefit of proportional representation that results in hard core/extreme socialists/communists being confined to the margins while centerist parties steal/implement their best ideas. It's all or nothing under FTP. Which means Johnson is not even a week in the job and he has managed to out do May when it comes to tieing the UKs hands behind their own backs in Brexit negotiations. This is what Labour lost to.

Firstly - Corbyn was elected by the grassroots so how could they have not been listening to the grassroots?

If you mean the voters who are not members of the Labour Party then perhaps. But why did those voters not join the LP and have their say in deciding who was leader? That option was availanle to them.
Over 40,000 people joined and they wanted a socialist. Were they not the proper kind of grassroots?


Secondly, you are putting words in my mouth.

I said the Labour Party was founded to be a Socialist Party. It is the reason it exists. I have no idea what the hell a 'pure' socialist party is meant to be but I imagine you intend it was some sort of backhanded dig.
If the LP it no longer socialist it is, quite simply, no longer the Labour Party - in the same way as if the Tories moved radically left from their current position they would not be the Conservative Party any more.

The Irish Labour Party moved a bit right - where are they now?
Sinn Fein has outflanked them on the left.

If people have a problem with the LP being a socialist party then perhaps they shouldn't join it. And that is not a dig btw - it's the same thing as saying if people have a problem with neo-liberal politics than the CP would not be for them.

There is already a centerist party- the Lib-Dems are bang in the centre - little bit to the right on some issues, little bit to the left on others - yet they have spectacularly failed to be anything more than a junior partner in one coalition government and that was a disaster for them. So perhaps the centre is not that attractive to the majority of voters.

The problem in the Labour Party is that there are people there - in the parliamentary party in particular - who do not want to be members of a socialist party - which begs the question why did they join the Labour Party in the first place?
I reckon it's because that was the easiest route to getting elected and had the option of being elected as a Lib-dem been available they would have gone there.

Some here seem to think being a socialist is the same as being a Marxist. If they genuinely believe that that just show a complete ignorance about the various political philosophies - it's like saying a neo-liberal is a fascist. They are not the same things.

Nor is socialism inherently wrong as others insist.
No one will ever convince me that giving pensions to the elderly is wrong.
That providing free education is wrong.
That having affordable healthcare is wrong.
That looking after the vulnerable in society is wrong.

The left should have a voice, just like the right.
There are extremists on both sides, but the vast majority are not extremists - they are on one side or the other of a political divide and both should be heard.

Letwin_Larry

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Good speech from Lisa Nandy there. Not sure what to expect when corbyn gets to his feet. Johnson gloating away predictably enough.

in fairness i couldn't blame him for gloating, but he appears to be very business-like, no flaffing about and waffling on interminably like the member for Islington North.

Bannasidhe

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

in fairness i couldn't blame him for gloating,

Not very conducive to healing tho is it?

Lefty Bicek

Bannasidhe wrote: »

TBH - I think blaming 'Corbyn' is just a shorthand for the civil war in Labour that is the real root of their problem.

Many, many people left the LP when it became 'new' Labour - feeling that they, as socialists, had no place in this shiny new centerist party. Added to that there was a lot of resentment among grassroots members about how Blairite candidates were parachuted into constituencies etc etc.
The decline in the vote began in those years but is masked by what an utter disaster the Tories were at the time.

Corbyn was a 'joke' candidate for leadership. No one thought he would win - but he did because he became the figurehead for the socialist fight back to regain control of the LP - note regain, not gain, the LP is meant to be a socialists party, that is what it was founded to be. Socialists began to rejoin/join the Party
Corbyn won due to the grassroots membership but the majority of the parliamentary party were Blairites. That fight is still being played out.

The Blairites did not accept the will of the grassroots. Now they are blaming Corbyn - for being Corbyn - and ignoring that the LP was already in freefall.
The internecine war just exacerbated it and instead of listening to the public they were too busy at each other's throats.

Should Corbyn have been leader - probably not. He simply doesn't have the right kind of personality and there was too much backstory that could be spun against him. But should the LP have a socialist leader? I think yes - because it is supposed to be a socialist party, not a centerist one.

But what does it mean to say that Labour is 'supposed' to be a socialist party ?

The Labour Party has never been a socialist party. But it has always had socialists in it.

-Tony Benn.

For the moment 'socialist' is tantamount to saying 'unelectable'. So how can it get anything done ?

It's interesting to listen to Peter Mandelson's take on this -

'Labour has got to make up it's mind whether it wants to win... all the things that Labour stands for... and has achieved... over the last hundered years, has been achieved through winning elections... If winning is simply for people who want to compromise... fine, go and join a debating society.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3grOfZ7518&t=414s

ancapailldorcha

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Firstly - Corbyn was elected by the grassroots so how could they have not been listening to the grassroots?

If you mean the voters who are not members of the Labour Party then perhaps. But why did those voters not join the LP and have their say in deciding who was leader? That option was availanle to them.
Over 40,000 people joined and they wanted a socialist. Were they not the proper kind of grassroots?

True but there doesn't seem to be much of a culture, if ever there even was one of people joining political parties en masse. Labour and the Conservatives adopting the policy of allowing the membership to choose the leader was supposed to entice more members.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

The left should have a voice, just like the right.
There are extremists on both sides, but the vast majority are not extremists - they are on one side or the other of a political divide and both should be heard.

I'm not saying that the left shouldn't have a voice but if Labour is going to restrict itself to left wing socialism then it will remain unelectable. Blair moved it in a more socially and economically liberal direction and won elections. That said, the Lib Dems took a pounding so maybe people just wanted Brexit this time.

Letwin_Larry

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Not very conducive to healing tho is it?

well if you cant take it, then you shouldn't hand it out i suppose.
and i dont think Boris was particularly triumphant. in fact he came across as very reserved & magnanimous

LuckyLloyd

It’s worth winning if you can implement the policies you believe will help people and improve the country. If you’re forced to promise a watered down version of your opponents policies - which you don’t believe in and think have been hurting people and contributing to the decline of the country - then you aren’t really winning. You’re just losing in a way that feels good.

Joe_ Public

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

in fairness i couldn't blame him for gloating, but he appears to be very business-like, no flaffing about and waffling on interminably like the member for Islington North.

Yeah he just got on with it, no commiserations for his stricken rival or talk of healing that was part of the weekend narrative, just played to his own crowd which is all he had to do. Corbyns speech was, like, fine. Very dignified but didnt need to be very long as ian blackford showed after.

Lefty Bicek

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Nor is socialism inherently wrong as others insist.
No one will ever convince me that giving pensions to the elderly is wrong.
That providing free education is wrong.
That having affordable healthcare is wrong.
That looking after the vulnerable in society is wrong.

Liberal Party, Old Age Pensions Act, 1908.

Pre-dates the first Labour government by sixteen years.

Professor Moriarty

In 40 years, Labour have won two elections, both under Blair.

L1011

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

In 40 years, Labour have won two elections, both under Blair.

Blair won three elections (97,01,05)

Professor Moriarty

L1011 wrote: »

Blair won three elections (97,01,05)

I stand corrected.

PeadarCo

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Firstly - Corbyn was elected by the grassroots so how could they have not been listening to the grassroots?

If you mean the voters who are not members of the Labour Party then perhaps. But why did those voters not join the LP and have their say in deciding who was leader? That option was availanle to them.
Over 40,000 people joined and they wanted a socialist. Were they not the proper kind of grassroots?

All you are doing is proving my point. So what 40k people joined Labour/voted for Corbyn it's miniscule compared to number of voters that actually voted for Labour in the most recent election. Labour got over 10 million votes and that's them doing bad remember. The people who voted for Corbyn are not representative of the people who vote Labour in general. Just to clarify when I am taking about Labour grass roots I am talking about the electorate in general. These are the people who decide elections not the party membership. Corbyn was the biggest single reason people were put off by Labour. For all the dislike of Tony Blair he lead the most socialist government in decades.

If you look at vote share the Tories share of the vote only increased by about 1%. Most of the votes Labour lost where to more centerist parties. FTP magnified the seat loses. These are votes that the Labour Party shouldn't have lost and whom Labour has appealed in the past and could again in future providing the party doesn't turn in into a Monthy Python sketch. Governing is about compromise and debates about ideological purity such be saved for academics.