I mean, he’s not absolutely wrong. The election was between one party with straightforward, explicit and fully costed policies (that nevertheless was accused of relying on a “money tree” despite their entire program fitting within the existing budget) ; and the other making vague promises, apocalyptic predictions that “only we can save X” (when they’ve been in power for 9 years and killing X themselves), repeatedly and demonstrably lying about many things including things the entire public cares deeply about (like not selling off the NHS for parts to get a copy of the wonderful US insurance system the world envies to be sure)… And yet the latter won.
Most elections are usually between plague and cholera, in this instance it was between plague and chocolate-covered puppies… yet plague won decisively. It is concerning in and of itself, just like Trump getting elected and governing from a different reality altogether (and evidently taking his supporters along for the trip) is a concern.
It’s not so much that they were rewarded, as that Labour was punished more for its perceived failings. Labour lost 2 million votes; the Tories put on roughly 300 thousand, and, crucially, in constituencies where it counted. Overall, the Tories still got fewer people out to vote for them than stayed at home.
Given that the voting system isn’t going to be changed any time soon, the question is, how to respond to those perceptions of Labour’s failings, win back those 2 million voters and get more of the non-voters as well - and how to drop the sectarianism and work together with other non-Johnsonians.
Answer: lie more, create your own fake news, take Russian money and help to manufacture it all, and indulge voter fantasies about the Empire and British pluck.
We had one party that ran a disinformation campaign full of lies, propaganda, and mis-truths. And we had another party that…didn’t.
Can you guess which party won?
This was apost-truth election and the post-truth party won. The Tories went full-idiocracy and it worked.
This election *was *different. It wasn’t just that Labour lost. They weren’t even in the game. They were competing with one-hand-tied-around-their-backs. The lies were contextualised into digestible talking points (think “her emails” or “deplorables”) and it is extremely difficult to counter this if you don’t recognize that it is happening. You can’t defeat post-truth with normal campaigning. Because the post-truth party have “hacked” the way information gets distributed and amplified and everyone is just playing along. Even some of the analysis in this thread: the " over-reacting ever so slightly to your side losing an election" type of responses completely misses what it was that happened here.
President Trump is indicating that he probably won’t be doing any debates with the Democratic challenger next year. These are the sort of post-truth tactics that the Democrats are going to have to figure out how to counter if they are going to be able to defeat Trump in 2020. Because at the moment they are really unprepared for what is going to happen next year.
Just realise that a big part of elections is simple popularity, and Johnson was more popular than Corbyn. Johnson comes across as a cheerful buffoonish intellectual. Corbyn mostly comes across as uptight. Labour probably should have attacked Johnson’s character. They chose not to do so. If a political parties is behind on popularity, then they have to win on message and policy. Johnson’s message was “Get Brexit Done”. It clicked with the huge majority of people, which includes a lot of Remainers, who want the Brexit chaos over with. What was Labour’s message again? I think half the time it was “It’s Time For Real Change” and the other half it was “For the Few, Not the Many.” I realise there’s more to a party’s message than its election slogans, but Labour’s slogans were hardly memorable and many times the messages behind the slogans didn’t back them up. Which leaves policy. Labour’s policies were big spending, big government, and a continuation of the Brexit process. I think it’s perfectly credible to believe that a majority of voters disliked those policies. Theresa May got her arse handed to her two years ago when she tried to reform pensions and elderly care and voters disliked those policies. So really, nothing exceptional happened in this election. One side was better than the other and won the election. I don’t want to give the Conservatives a pass on dishonesty or dirty tricks, or give Johnson a pass on his character flaws that voters ignored. But the Conservatives didn’t win because of those things. They won based on electoral fundamentals.
You missed the IMO best (well, worst) part about that story : the BBC reported on it. The BBC is supposed, by British law, to be impartial in election matters. But their headline for that story was “General election 2019: Ads are 'indecent, dishonest and untruthful”, in a happily clickbaity way to say “both sides do it”. The story itself tells the truth, but you couldn’t tell it from the headline.
And it’s not like it’s an isolated thing - not only has the media as a whole been consistenly biased against Labour & Corbyn, but they’ve mostly been dishonest about it. It’s no great surprise to read that the Daily bloody Mail has represented his views fairly or accurately 0% of the time, because it’s, yanno, the Daily Mail ; but when even The Guardian manages to report his views without alteration, open criticism and with context 27% of the time, something’s gone a bit wonky, or manky, or both.
I note there is absolutely no genuine reflection on why the Tories won other than thin accusations that include the media, the public being really dumb - all in the face of superb and brilliant and morally ethical and correct policies proposed by Labour.
You’ve justified that on BJ being stupid - yet he has achieved a swing of around 10%, so by default Labour are not stupid. Really do you actually believe that? Really?
Very few of us were ever convinced by the magic money tree to sped spend spend - especially given the overspend by the previous Labour administration - the claimed ‘fully costed’ is rubbish because it relies on heavy government borrowing and increased taxation - great way to pump up the economy by taking money out of it. Given the indebtedness of the public - especially on mortgages just how well do you think the prospect of interest rate rises would be to them who are already geared on their mortgage at 5 and 6 times annual double income salary? Just a half percent rise due to Labour policies would simply sink tens of thousands and cause greater hardships for millions more.
The idea of renationalisation of certain industries has unwelcome echoes of the Marxist Clause IV and certainly reinforces the left wing communist credentials of the Labour leadership.
As far as the majority of posters here are concerned this election loss is because the Tory voter is dumb, easily swayed. has no morals etc etc.
Keep up with that attitude and Labour will lose then next election, and several after that.
What you are doing is being emotionally involved and you seem to have very little objectivity - as far as you are concerned the public got the vote wrong either through stupidity, naivity or perhaps even self interest.
You need to understand that in electoral terms, the public are always right - unless you want Godwinise this thread and completely lose the debate altoether.
You have convinced yourselves and your social circle of the total rightness of your cause
Keep believing that folks- you still don’t get it.
So you prefer the Tory manifesto, which is not costed at all ? I mean, what the honest fuck. How can you accuse the other party of the “money tree” when your own party deliberately doesn’t disclose how they’re planning on paying for *anything *?
Because that’s kind of the Big Thing - you get to quibble over the “money tree” because they’ve told you exactly how they’re gonna use the money and where they’re going to get the money from. The Tories have made zero such factual claims, and as such haven’t opened themselves to any fact-based rebuttal of their many promises. But they still sound more trustworthy to you ?!
Say, I happen to own a very lucrative option on the Eiffel Tower which I’d like to sell to you for a pittance, and
OK, let’s go : the public voted for Hitler. Not the absolute majority of the public, but a sizeable enough portion of it that he had to be appointed Chancellor as an olive branch.
The public can **absolutely **be a stupid, self-defeating cunt.
You have got to be shitting me? Clause IV is the notorious Labour Constitution paragraph that requires the nationalisation of all assets ‘for the benefit of the people’ In other words total centralised control of the economy - which , as you should be aware, is very much the mantra of all communist parties everywhere and whose abject and utter failure has led to the deaths of hundred of millions of people due to terror and starvation.
For any supporter of the Labour cause not to at least have some awareness of this clause really shows a lack of historical political knowledge, probably a great deal of youth, and a real disconnect from the majority of the population over 45 years of age who likely are well aware of it, expecially anyone on either side of the debate with any political nous.
So, for you here is it
To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service.***
Suggest you read this link to understand exactly why the current Labour leadership are considered to be a left wing threat to this country - and why that alignment has cost Corbyn and his parasitic growth of acolytes so dearly in the election - please note this is not media distortion and was actually Labour policy for many generations
No, I mean what the fuck renationalizations you were talking about.
I’ll let your inane diatribes about Labour (or the Left in general) craving planned economies stand for themselves because, fuck me, mate, that’s a few cards short of a full deck.
Also, maaaaaybe you should deal with the policies and politics of today rather than those of 45+ years ago. I ain’t sayin’, I’m just sayin’. Case in point :
Is it Labour policy now ? Is it Jeremy Corbyn’s specific policy ? Detail your answer, show your work. You have four hours.
Oh, and I’m not a supporter of Labour, you reflexive so-and-so. I’m bloody French. You know, a “turd” ;).
You are mistaking me for a Tory supporter, merely because I am confronting you with uncomfortable views for your tender Labour ears.
You also make the accusation that Tory is ‘my’ party, which in turn implies that Labour is ‘your’ party.
Straight away you have engaged in one of the biggest political mistakes you can make - because you are now involved in identity politics instead of policy politics, in other words you are loyal to a political party because of who you feel yourself to be, instead of what you actually want out of your politicians.
In other words you insist on party loyalties - well the world isn’t like that and the proof of that is those ‘loyal’ Labour seats that have switched hands. Their vote was taken for granted instead of cultivated.
Loyalty in politics has changed dramatically, if you cannot understand that then Labour will never win another election again.
If Labour happens to represent my interests and values then I will return, just like millions of other former Labour voters - right now it does not, I am quite astute enough to identify liars, fools and resent the condescending attitude of the RIGHT ON brigade who have decided in their own heads they have the right to my support.
Its not the media that did it, I’ve been around a long time, I know how the game is played - you completely underestimate the electorate, keep doing that and you will keep the Tories in power.
Clearly for one so upset over the way the election went, you are seriously uninformed about the Labour campaign - especially such a major plank of their platform, and since this is the case I cannot see how you could make any meaningful judgement about the position of any of the parties.
How on earth can you arrive at the view that Labour policies were fully costed if you don’t even know what those polices were?
That’s an “a” there. It’s from the Goetia. I was interested in demons before they went mainstream and into politics.
Why do you think I’m particularly upset ? I an’t give a shit - not my circus, not my monkeys, and they’re not the Shakespeare typewriting monkeys even. Y’all shoot your own feet all day long if you like. I’m busy grousing about being trapped in my stupid suburb while supporting the blokes trapping me in it.
Ah,so it was about British rail. The thing that works way worse and costs a whole lot more since it’s been privatized ? What utter dinks Labour are, thinking that was a bad idea in retrospect. Communists, the lot of 'em !
