efests Exit Poll

[mattiloy]

True. I know. Sorry- snide of me but I feel very snidey rn. 

But why is that Corbyn’s fault? Shouldn’t the question be, why are people believing that, and how can we beat a party who is prepared to just lie and cheat their way into office and use any means possible?

Imagine it was someone else, Chuka Umunna who’d won that leadership election, and he’d put forward a load of centrist policies vs all those Tory lies and Boris’ get brexit done shtick, would it have fared better? Dubious. We’re into a new age. Barring any catastrophe Trump will win next year, put your house on it.

[zero000]

12 minutes ago, Yassmin said:

If you are not Scottish then you cannot possibly claim to know what you are talking about.

I’m Welsh and we have almost identical arguments from Plaid Cymru all the time: https://nation.cymru/opinion/wales-faces-decades-of-conservative-rule-will-the-left-wing-majority-back-independence/

 

There are parallels. Left leaning nationalism is still nationalism. 

[Matt42]

39 minutes ago, mattiloy said:

True. I know. Sorry- snide of me but I feel very snidey rn. 

But why is that Corbyn’s fault? Shouldn’t the question be, why are people believing that, and how can we beat a party who is prepared to just lie and cheat their way into office and use any means possible?

Imagine it was someone else, Chuka Umunna who’d won that leadership election, and he’d put forward a load of centrist policies vs all those Tory lies and Boris’ get brexit done shtick, would it have fared better? Dubious. We’re into a new age. Barring any catastrophe Trump will win next year, put your house on it.

I guess mate it just goes off too much into hypotheticals at that point. I think corbyn presented a load of policies from the 70s that people didn’t want then and don’t want now. Students who haven’t seen it fail have no idea.

I’m also feeling that the inevitable trade deal between the UK and US has pricked some ears. I think a lot of senior economists think that this could be better for the UK than the EU ever was. Of course, what give and take has to occur with that trade deal will all be seen.

Edited December 14, 2019 by Matt42

[mattiloy]

First off. I live in Stockholm now, but used to live in Liverpool and to suggest that Labour takes Liverpool for granted it a joke. The connection between the party runs deep, the conference has been in Liverpool  2016 and 2018. I’ve been at Corbyn rallies at the adelphi and st Georges where thousands of people have turned up. I know that the MPs, activists and councillors across the city all work hard and play a part in making Liverpool the greatest city in the country. There are complaints of course, mainly centred on the council selling off assets for development in the city Centre but, in fairness, they are absolutely starved of funds thanks to the central govt cuts. Liverpool embodies the labour party.

80k p.a. is roughly 200% more than the median salary so why not tax it a little more. Income inequality is associated with basically every negative policy outcome going - spirit level is a good book for detail.

The net growth effect of the policies I don’t know for sure, but the recovery from the financial crisis in different economies provided a nice kind of A/B test in macro policy - countries that invested more and didn’t pursue austerity recovered faster and sustained that growth better than those that did pursue austerity policies.

Labour’s spending tab would have brought govt spending in line with most of the rest of europe. It wasn’t as out there as portrayed. But now it seems like it’ll become the 51st state. What is the point of economic growth if people’s living standards dont improve?

 

*edit: and sorry Benji yeah the downvotes you keep mentioning, feel free to fire them back my way. I couldnt give a fuck, its an internet forum downvote

Edited December 14, 2019 by mattiloy
Edit

[mattiloy]

2 minutes ago, Matt42 said:

I guess mate it just goes off too much into hypotheticals at that point. I think corbyn presented a load of policies from the 70s that people didn’t want then and don’t want now. Students who haven’t seen it fail have no idea.

I’m also feeling that the inevitable trade deal between the UK and US has pricked some ears. I think a lot of senior economists think that this could be better for the UK than the EU ever was. Of course, what give and take has to occur with that trade deal will all be seen.

Which policies were they? And which senior economists think that?

[H.M.V]

Opinion polls on why people didn't vote Labour. Overwhelmingly Corbyn. 

[Madyaker]

Also, the “fuck everyone who voted Tory” attitude needs to go out the window as it will only perpetuate the divide and play into the hands of said tories.

[H.M.V]

9 minutes ago, Madyaker said:

Also, the “fuck everyone who voted Tory” attitude needs to go out the window as it will only perpetuate the divide and play into the hands of said tories.

What's the craic at home. With the outcome and dup seats. Any rumblings for uniting the island of Ireland? 

[FuzzyDunlop]

2 hours ago, Madyaker said:

Also, the “fuck everyone who voted Tory” attitude needs to go out the window as it will only perpetuate the divide and play into the hands of said tories.

Whilst that is 100% correct, in the initial aftermath I dont mind a bit of a "fuck you" attitude. Then, dust ourselves down & go again with a more measured approach.

[kalifire]

I think it's difficult to pinpoint why Labour did so badly, and I'm minded to believe it was a perfect storm of:

• General exasperation over Brexit and parliament's failure to sort it out
• A leader - Jeremy Corbyn - who displayed little charisma or likeability outside of the bubble
• A Labour membership utterly disconnected from the voting public and too distracted with themselves and their vision
• A disunited shadow cabinet and PLP
• The movement towards political extremes and the vacation of the centre ground

I don't think it was Labour's manifesto that did it, and I'd hate for those policies to be abandoned. If Labour stand for fairness and equality and get beaten every time, that's preferable to compromising their principles to get power.

That said, Momentum have to go along with Corbyn. If there's mass membership cancellations, so be it. They've been poison to the party.

Edited December 14, 2019 by kalifire

[Homer]

6 hours ago, H.M.V said:

Opinion polls on why people didn't vote Labour. Overwhelmingly Corbyn. 

And, funnily enough, nowhere do I see 'the situation in Israel' or 'the fact I have to pay for my broadband' on that list of concerns. You can slag off 'Get Brexit done' all you want, but it is clearly a direct message that speaks to the largely disinterested on the doorstep in a way that two of the main issues/policies that were associated with Labour/Corbyn were ever going to. The main reason being that the average person is not staying awake at night worrying about Israel or the price/availability of broadband.

For those not advocating change and a move back to the centre - we could always stick to our guns, put McDonnell in and see what happens. Or we could save ourselves five years, start being realistic now and do what should have been done even before this election and shift away from a form of politics that wasn't that popular even in the 1980s.  

Edited December 14, 2019 by Homer

[Homer]

1 hour ago, kalifire said:

I think it's difficult to pinpoint why Labour did so badly, and I'm minded to believe it was a perfect storm of:

• General exasperation over Brexit and parliament's failure to sort it out
• A leader - Jeremy Corbyn - who displayed little charisma or likeability outside of the bubble
• A Labour membership utterly disconnected from the voting public and too distracted with themselves and their vision
• A disunited shadow cabinet and PLP
• The movement towards political extremes and the vacation of the centre ground

I don't think it was Labour's manifesto that did it, and I'd hate for those policies to be abandoned. If Labour stand for fairness and equality and get beaten every time, that's preferable to compromising their principles to get power.

That said, Momentum have to go along with Corbyn. If there's mass membership cancellations, so be it. They've been poison to the party.

I agree with pretty much all of this apart from:

"I don't think it was Labour's manifesto that did it, and I'd hate for those policies to be abandoned. If Labour stand for fairness and equality and get beaten every time, that's preferable to compromising their principles to get power."

Although I may be conflating your stance on principles with the manifesto. The principles I agree should be maintained, the manifesto less so.

[fatyeti24]

2 hours ago, kalifire said:

I think it's difficult to pinpoint why Labour did so badly, and I'm minded to believe it was a perfect storm of:

• General exasperation over Brexit and parliament's failure to sort it out
• A leader - Jeremy Corbyn - who displayed little charisma or likeability outside of the bubble
• A Labour membership utterly disconnected from the voting public and too distracted with themselves and their vision
• A disunited shadow cabinet and PLP
• The movement towards political extremes and the vacation of the centre ground

I don't think it was Labour's manifesto that did it, and I'd hate for those policies to be abandoned. If Labour stand for fairness and equality and get beaten every time, that's preferable to compromising their principles to get power.

That said, Momentum have to go along with Corbyn. If there's mass membership cancellations, so be it. They've been poison to the party.

How far do you take this though?  You can't achieve much for those you wish to be fair and equal to if you never see power.  Would a Labour compromise be better than what we've now got five years of?  I find it difficult to imagine it could be any worse.

[CaledonianGonzo]

The Overton Window's shifted so far right that anything even resembling your basic post war consensus now looks unthinkable.  The Labour manifesto wasn't anything to spook the horses from my POV, but the majority of the country still seemed to see it as dangerous and extreme.  

[Homer]

3 minutes ago, CaledonianGonzo said:

The Overton Window's shifted so far right that anything even resembling your basic post war consensus now looks unthinkable.  The Labour manifesto wasn't anything to spook the horses from my POV, but the majority of the country still seemed to see it as dangerous and extreme.  

Well, if that’s the case, labour need to be on top of that sort of info and adjust. And the type of socialism they are peddling won exactly 0 elections in the 80s, it’s not going to wash now or in the 20s either. 

[Homer]

32 minutes ago, fatyeti24 said:

How far do you take this though?  You can't achieve much for those you wish to be fair and equal to if you never see power.  Would a Labour compromise be better than what we've now got five years of?  I find it difficult to imagine it could be any worse.

100% right 

[CaledonianGonzo]

If 'more centrism' is the answer then you'd have thought the Lib Dems would have done better.  Or indeed the TIG and Chuka Umunna types.

Edited December 14, 2019 by CaledonianGonzo

[FuzzyDunlop]

Just now, CaledonianGonzo said:

If 'more centrism' is the answer then you'd have thought the Lib Dems would have done better.

There is a complete lack of trust in the Libs over the coalition. They were not helped by saying they'd just "pull Brexit" too. It is something even most remainers found undemocratic. 

 

[CaledonianGonzo]

So Labour should take up their place in the centre right?

I'm not saying that they shouldn't to become electable, but it's certainly depressing as fuck.

[eFestivals]

10 minutes ago, CaledonianGonzo said:

The Overton Window's shifted so far right that anything even resembling your basic post war consensus now looks unthinkable.

I'd say that's overstated. 40 years of Labour not-saving the NHS at every election and it's still here.  

We still have free ever-expanding healthcare, free ever-expanding education, state pensions, and state benefits.

The disagreement between parties is about the levels of funding for them and their structures, and not whether they should exist at all.

Other stuff has often changed because of changes within society as much as anything else. Adding 20% to school years can't be done on the same funding and 500% more people can't go thru uni on the same funding, so something had to give.

And standards of living are hugely higher than in the past, all the way down the economic scale.

That doesn't mean everything has been done right, it means some people like to talk stuff up for their own benefit and not necessarily because it's true or beneficial for people to go with - and people will vote with the narrative they recognise.

[Homer]

Just now, CaledonianGonzo said:

So Labour should take up their place in the centre right?

I'm not saying that they shouldn't to become electable, but it's certainly depressing as fuck.

No - centre-left. Like when they won elections 

[eFestivals]

7 minutes ago, CaledonianGonzo said:

If 'more centrism' is the answer then you'd have thought the Lib Dems would have done better.  Or indeed the TIG and Chuka Umunna types.

why would tories switch to the LibDems for centrism when it would make (their view) an extremist and not a centrist the PM?  

[Matt42]

Socialism is not something the UK can get behind. People don’t trust politicians as it is - and they are supposed to believe that all this money going into the government will end up exactly where it is promised instead of mysteriously disappearing. 
 

When Labour drops socialism they will be a viable opposition again. They will also become a viable party again when they stop calling anyone anti-socialist “evil”.

Said it before and I’l say again - people all up and down the economic ladder voted for Tory this time. Equating all of them to being evil will cause further dissolution of the party.

[Superscally]

11 hours ago, Matt42 said:

Stop this. Stop it now.

The working class voted Tory. Not the elite. Not the bankers running the country. The ordinary man nationwide voted for the conservatives.

Why did they do this? Because they see labour as the party for champagne socialism. The fact they’ve gone to Tory to trust for working class issues sees how far labour have fallen. Labour was trying to get people to accept less in the promise that it would eventually get better. Labour didn’t show support for what they voted for in the referendum. Labour supporters who have switched to Tory are sick of this working class saviour narrative that they have over the working class. 
 

Continue to call them misinformed and they will become stronger in their views. They voted conservative because it was the safest option for them to do! Labour need to address the fact they failed and stop with this “our voters are stupid” narrative.

I didn't call them misinformed. I came up with three broad categories and with the exception of those who fall into the typical Tory voter demographic and those who have completed a huge in depth economic analysis of the manifestos (which I imagine is a very small percentage of the electorate countrywide), would be accurate. 

Confused by the huge amount of misinformation and crosstalk.

Frustrated at the alienation they felt by being ignored post referendum and maybe for the last fifty odd years

Or

Desperate for change, any change.

That will make up 95% of the red to blue vote I absolutely bet you. 

Instead, you've read that and come up with me calling people stupid. This is either your inability to read, or a compulsion to take what you want so you can make your point. 

Stop virtue signalling. Stop that now.

10 hours ago, Benja100 said:

Labour have done fuck all for Liverpool, they know they will NEVER vote Tory.  The city center is OK now and by the docks but it has taken what? 35-40 years?  And in earnest I had a guy trying to sell me cocaine at 17:30 outside John Lewis as I was with a mate and he followed us down the street shouting after us all the pricing etc - brazen.  Not seen that anywhere in the UK.  And a mile out of the city centre there are entire boarded up streets.  It can't be healthy for an area. Strong competition in a marginal seat would keep the MPs on their toes surely - fuck up and you know you're gone and you've lost your party a seat.  Tribalism isn't helpful at all.

Benj, come on, to address your earlier point, I didn't say Tory scum. I don't know if you were talking about people in general, but if you were talking about me, that's as bad as Matt. I will stand by what I said though in that a vote for the Tory party, if informed is inherently a selfish one. That's to conserve what you have, to look after number one and to provide an aspirational ladder that should drive the lower echelons of society to climb. The party say that themselves, I'm not painting a red door black here. 

As for Liverpool, your point is too simple. There have been many iterations of Labour and Labour of the eighties were a complete diaster for the city. However, since John Smith, Blair and through to Burnham and Rotherham, we've had some fantastic ambassadors for the city and it all stemmed from the blue giant, Michael Heseltine who pulled Thatcher up by her drawers over the document that said Liverpool should be left to rot in managed decline. Constant lobbying in London and Brussels have led to a huge investment from Europe and that's why the city has changed, not from Westminster. The fact that it took 35-40 years is sad, but not the fact that it did. What is sad is that now that will be removed and it's also sad that other areas of the country, that maybe felt they hadn't benefited from such help but certainly had received less from Westminster are responsible partially for that when they were possibly the next beneficiaries and also the victims of a huge campaign of lies and misinformation.

As for the cocaine thing, I've never seen that in forty years of being in the city, but have had many experiences like that in London, and other cities including Nottingham, Manchester and Amsterdam, but would never to choose to throw that into an argument over whether that city is struggling or not as it's completely circumstantial evidence. 

There are also very, very few boarded up streets and many of them are there as a result of them being cleared for new housing such as the Anfield area, or are indeed being renovated such as the Webster triangle. Of course there is poverty, but that is not the fault of the Labour party of recent years. 

[Homer]

8 minutes ago, CaledonianGonzo said:

If 'more centrism' is the answer then you'd have thought the Lib Dems would have done better.  Or indeed the TIG and Chuka Umunna types.

Or Tony Blair?