He's still saying it today.
I think we knew it was effective, we laughed at how empty it is, but that's all the people fucking care about. I wish the left could have something like that for an election.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
UK General Election 12th December 2019 |OT1| Hindsight is 20/19 (Tory majority confirmed)
- Thread starter Uzzy
- Start date
- Status
He's still saying it today.
I think we knew it was effective, we laughed at how empty it is, but that's all the people fucking care about. I wish the left could have something like that for an election.
Labour backed Brexit in the previous election it would have meant a compromise for the worse but wouldn't have been a change in known labour policy and kept them more competive in marginals at the cost of safe seats. More importantly they would have had a say in the crucial brexit period rather than no say at all.
If the Tories honour infrastructure spending commitments in the north, even if projects aren't yet finished, I can see them retaining many new voters in the next election.
Yep.
My mate who is in favour of pretty much everything being ripped up and started again, and would even like mobile phones as a state provided service was saying that you can't just go all the way in one hit.
The quality of the discussion is just frustrating as fuck. The answer isn't going Lib Dem, and it isn't keep going as they were. There has to be compromise, it's inevitable in politics.
I mean if we're honest we all knew how effective it would be before the election. It polled well in key labour marginals and throughout the election there was not a single piece of good news coming out from them. We were hoping Labour's campaigning would be good enough to counter this but instead they were a liability.
The issue is that Labour never managed to explain why their deal would be better for the Leave voters. And it was surely not better than revoke for the remain voters. So they were offering a middle ground that nobody wanted in fact. That's even before going to the referendum.
I don't think there's going to be one from the sound of the argument, each wing has one slider for everything and that's that. Also everyone on the opposite wing is scum but should stay and vote for them.
They did. It's just that people don't want a close alignment with the EU post-Brexit. They don't want a CU. That isn't real Brexit to them.
They want freedom of movement to stop.
But that's my point, Labour deal wasn't a better deal for Leave voters anyway.
They backed it in terms of not opposing the referendum result and vaguely offering a better Brexit deal than May but were able to steer the conversation away from it. Passing Johnson's deal would have been getting a hard Brexit over the line. There's no distracting from that point. Labour support would collapsed and they could have passed a motion for an election.
I don't understand how the feet on the ground were so badly used, it sounds like an utter shambles of arrogance. I thought that was meant to be the one thing we could count on.
get brexit done was only so powerful because the 2017 parliament blocked brexit for so long and kept trying to overturn the result. this strategy created a hard remain block, it created a huge leaver backlash that drove thursday's mess and it alienated from politics anyone who could buy into a vision radical change (as they can't even do brexit) which was meant to be the corbyn pitch.
this was due to a tacit alliance between corbyn's leadership who wanted to use a short term strategy based around may failing to deliver brexit damaging the tories reputation and swinging labour into government (blew up in their face, ended in huge tory majority) and remainers who got high on their own supply, decided they didn't actually lose the last referendum because of a bus and agitated for a completely ridiculous policy that was never going to get majority consent in an election (blew up in face, ended up with the hardest brexit).
they both went down hand in hand as victims of their own incredible incompetence, outplayed by mark francois.
this was due to a tacit alliance between corbyn's leadership who wanted to use a short term strategy based around may failing to deliver brexit damaging the tories reputation and swinging labour into government (blew up in their face, ended in huge tory majority) and remainers who got high on their own supply, decided they didn't actually lose the last referendum because of a bus and agitated for a completely ridiculous policy that was never going to get majority consent in an election (blew up in face, ended up with the hardest brexit).
they both went down hand in hand as victims of their own incredible incompetence, outplayed by mark francois.
Probably the people on the ground were also paying attention more to Dr. Moderate than the people there.
Doesn't really matter how good it was because there being a referendum meant it would be poison to leave voters which is why they didn't bother and focused on the policy they did well on (the NHS).
In an ideal scenario Corbyn would have left before the election and Labour bothered to argue to the public why they're spending plans reasonable and didn't go into detail about all their tax increases that would be poison to the middle class.
Still would have lost but maybe not as catastrophically.
This. They were arguing a Leave deal which protects jobs, environmental and labour standards etc etc but the problem was go the average leaver they probably thought how is that any different to the deal Boris had. A deal which many said would never get done.
Not forgetting Labour were promising a deal in 6 months and then a referendum. On the flip side Johnson already has a deal ready to leave. Just impossible for leave voters to get behind that knowing also that the actual party wanted to remain.
Picking a side was always a problem for Labour due to so many leave voters and so many remain members but they had to pick one. It was either brexit or go full on remain. Trying to please both just wasn't possible.
Lol, they just go where they are told, and it seems to have been not where they were needed, even when people were begging for help.
I really don't think the policies themselves are what sunk Labour. Sure, some of them didn't help one bit, but going by what studies we've seen so far is due to Brexit and the total lack of confidence in Corbyn.
Talking about not losing catastrophically, picking one side of Brexit and sticking with it (especially the remain side) would have guaranteed that.
not if they're a leftist extremist, we should never see them on TV again
Longer
Kinda. People didn't trust Labour to deliver on its policies since they were wildly ambitious and relied on massive taxation of the top earners who can afford better tax lawyers than HMRC. And the four day working week sounded too much like the winter of discontent for a lot of older voters.
Labour were definitely fucked either way on Brexit and I think their policy was probably the best they could do without forever alienating traditional Labour leavers or uber-progressive remainers.
I think Labour need to be very careful and try to find a leader and policies that are left wing, but not ridiculously so. Demographic shift is coming, but probably isn't enough to change things in 5 years. If Labour go full Jo Swinson/Tony Blair centrist and chase the Lab-Con switchers, they'll lose the young progressives. But they need to avoid being seen as lefty loonies and regain voters' trust.
Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP are a good model. They have left-wing policies but their optics are not so left-wing. They are careful to portray their left-wing policies (high-rate tax and public ownership) as being driven by hard economics and common sense, rather than due to some lefty ideology about seizing the means from evil billionaires.
The only silver lining is that Boris's Labour leave switchers are probably only lending their votes to Boris for Brexit. When that goes tits up, they could easily switch back.
remain identity didn't have to be based around a second referendum. that was no-where in mid 2017, it was only elevated from lib dem policy to the dominant remain demand due to labour's overly cautious strategy and the weird conditions of a hung parliament. it was perfectly possible to sell them both a softer brexit.
the second referendum was uniquely toxic, it was pissing in the faces of everyone who voted leave. if we respected their vote and acted in a way to deliver it from 2017 onwards then labour could have got a hearing for discussing the trade-offs in the future relationship and cut off the hard remain vanity project before it could fester.
the second referendum was uniquely toxic, it was pissing in the faces of everyone who voted leave. if we respected their vote and acted in a way to deliver it from 2017 onwards then labour could have got a hearing for discussing the trade-offs in the future relationship and cut off the hard remain vanity project before it could fester.
I think Tories fighting among themselves over brexit was fine. Don't interrupt an enemy when it's making a mistake but eventually Corbyn had to make a move. After May's deal failed to get through parliament 3 times the window of opportunity for a 2nd referendum was open.
That was the time to sell to leavers what a mess the whole brexit situation was and the only solution was to ask the people again.
Instead Labour continued to sit on the fence criticising the tory brexit mess but not offering any alternate solution.
Yeah, I don't get the doom, it isn't a normal election result, it is the popping of a boil, it might clear up pretty quickly if Boris fucks it up enough, the fun has been had.
you'd think they'd be in full support of the bbc considering everything running up to the election
seems like the bbc can't win, lefties and righties hate 'em
The four day work week was such a disaster of a policy for them. Which is insane because it's a thing that every single study has shown is better for productivity, for mental health and just in general better. But any time Labour were asked about it they fumbled and had no answer for questions. Like "How will the NHS work with a 4 day work week?" the easy answer is "We'll be increasing funding and number of doctors and nurses so that the overlap means you'll always have access to health care and also the health care professionals you see will be less overworked and tired."
Done, easy. Instead every time it came up they dropped the ball and had no answer. It was a policy that apparently nobody in the party actually knew how to sell.
The policies are wrapped in the Corbyn socialist fear that he would steal their money and bankrupt the nation. They didn't trust Corbyn which I believe is why a lot of Remain Labour voters bounced.
Corbyn's approval rating has always been low and that's in part due to the backed in red scare and anti-british smears.
The fact he was in fact promising a heavy tax increase for a sizeable section of the upper and some middle class added to belief it was a choice between two bad options.
second referendum would have likely worked a lot better with a different electoral system like the spanish or the danish. Heck, even Australia"s ranked choice voting might have helped a bit. With britains FPTP and distribution of seats? no fucking way
Yep. The idea in principle was fine but nobody could argue the benefits with it.
It's not like there's a load of left wing billionaires and corporations waiting to set up a channel, the Tories don't have real media worries.
The BBC will always be naturally left leaning because of the people that work in that industry. Yes, they've done heel turn recently in News but that was very much an enforced top-down editorial decision. Liberal, multi-cultural values pervade the organisation organically in most other areas.
leavers didn't think brexit itself was a mess because of the political chaos, they thought politicians were making a mess of it and embarrassing the country by going around in circles. it's why may and corbyn became even more hated since 2017.
then on thursday they voted incredibly effectively and tactically for a clear option to get it done over a chance to have a sensible rethink and ask again.
remainers think brexit was inherently stupid and don't acknowledge how that argument was lost in 2016, just repeating the losing arguments again from a worse position doesn't change that
I think you're still thinking of the old BBC that did everything in house and had a culture of its own, long gone and dead.
Because people perceived the policies as being Corbyn's utopia instead of well reasoned ideas. The messenger matters sometime more than the ideas themselves. Great ideas fail all the time because the one who should sell them is not able to do that properly.
That's not very different to what ended up happening, the problem is people by and large actually really did want Brexit which is an unavoidable fact. There's no way a second election ticket would would result in a hung parliament it was simply a question of how big the majority was going to be. This was an unwinnable election for labour. The only way to minimise the damage was to change the game one way or another.
Yeah, dead might have been a bit much, but it's still not the BBC that I grew up with. Some departments cling on, but it's a trough for the private sector to raid.
BBC presenter being very defensive here. I don't think the message is getting through.
it's gonna be a long 5 years
it's gonna be a long 5 years
Labour needs to find a way to split the difference now. Keir Starmer will be an obvious frontrunner for many but I genuinely believe his Remain / Second Referendum platform will only come back around to bite him on the ass in the wake of this election.
Whatever your take on Momentum, that movement isn't going anywhere and I genuinely believe that the party can have electoral success on the platform built in 2017 with a stronger Leaders' Office and a balls-of-steel media strategy. Ideally I would like to see one of the fresher faces from the left as the face, but backed by a Chancellor who can put forward sensible progressive policies without being seen as "too radical."
Both wings of the party need to reach a compromise.
Whatever your take on Momentum, that movement isn't going anywhere and I genuinely believe that the party can have electoral success on the platform built in 2017 with a stronger Leaders' Office and a balls-of-steel media strategy. Ideally I would like to see one of the fresher faces from the left as the face, but backed by a Chancellor who can put forward sensible progressive policies without being seen as "too radical."
Both wings of the party need to reach a compromise.
I think the manifesto was good, but agree that the messaging didn't work. It was just too much (not too much in practice, but in messaging) - no single idea had a real chance to permeate. I'm happy with the ideas, but I think we need to pick ~5 and drive them home throughout a campaign. They were all popular, but they all felt quite fleeting within the campaign.
Keir Starmer may well look good at PMQs and get the respect of Guardian columnists, but he would be a completely wrong move. We can't have someone who was so 'People's vote' - I think that has to be a hard line. I think a Northern woman who wasn't strongly behind any people's vote campaign is important.
Those policies are poisonous to the upper class and upper middle class regardless who made the arguement (and a lot of people like to think their are or will do better financially than they currently are). That's their purpose and Labour made no attempt to hide this. If it wasn't for Brexit the majority of those types wouldn't vote for Labour in a million years.
There were substantial tax increases for capital gains and shares. That means anyone with any notable assets whatsoever would be hit unless they were in an extremely low tax band. Those policies were popular but that doesn't tell you everything because I'd bet good money the 30-40% that didn't like them were people who believed they would get hit.
Last edited:
This is a good thing though, surely? It's ridiculous that you can go to jail for not paying a bloody tv license. And I can only imagine that it's poor people that end up in this situation because let's face it, I can't see many better off people willing to risk jail for £12.83 per month.
CU does not allow freedom of movement, being in the single market does. Turkey is in the Customs Union too and Turkish citizens cannot move to EU countries freely. Being neither in the single market nor in a customs union with the EU is the hardest of Brexits.
90 in 2017 apparently, but that was for non payment of the fine/s
It's a bit daft, it probably cost a shitload of cash to do that, i would prefer it got funded via taxation but I'm not so sure I care about the BBC anymore, I like the idea of not funding their shitty royal family arse licking sessions.
- Status