lol what do you think political analysts do?
what till you find out what academics do...
Show me a political analyst that has cracked how the Brexit disaster could have been averted once it was set in motion?
lol what do you think political analysts do?
what till you find out what academics do...
Not all people are the same and has the same topics as priorities. There are different realities and people live different lives. If they had voted Labour forever and decided to swing the Labour party should ask why instead of blaming swingers they hadn't understood Corby's programme.
More likely: on the one hand you had a clear message "Get Brexit Done". On the other hand you had a very confusing and not inspiring message.
Tories changing their additives towards gay people is an example of a party adopting a new position due to changing political and social tides in order to protect their other interests.I think this is probably broadly true, but isn't really the answer to why Labour lost when the Tories basically ran with a manifesto of "get Brexit done" scrawled on the back of a napkin in crayon
Brexit was the thing that determined the election, and Labour were in an unwinnable position, due to a mix of FPTP, and Labour voters being much more willing to go Lib Dem to stop Brexit than Tory voters being willing to go LD/Labour than stop the Tories winning.
I don't think this is true at all. There will be young people drifting towards the Tories, but that is a consequence of support being so strong for Lab/SNP, naturally there is only really one way for aggregate support to drift. But unless the Tories suddenly do a 180 and reverse their policies on wealth redistribution, climate change, and treatment of minorities, the trends will hold.
People's beliefs change with generations, and the parties have to change to chase them. Just look at how the Tories were forced to start considering gay people to be human beings under Cameron vs what they did in the 80s, the idea that people get more Conservative as they age is looking at it the wrong way.
The analysis of "if only old people would die already we'd have our socialist paradise" assumes that people don't change their votes throughout their life time. The truth of the matter is that some of these >50 year old voters were Labour voters in the past, and that at least some 18 year olds who voted Labour today will vote Tory in the future. It's not static.
Tories changing their additives towards gay people is an example of a party adopting a new position due to changing political and social tides in order to protect their other interests.
That's exactly what a politically savvy party does, adapt. Not double down on failing tactics.
The takeaway for people in the UK, US, and many other western nations isn't about Sanders, it's about the horrible, very bad, no good electoral theory that was attempted here and which utterly fell apart when it moved from podcasts, tweets and reddit comments to the real world.
Ok, but how do Labour solve the Brexit problem then?
It made the election fundamentally unwinnable for Labour, as I have explained in previous posts in this thread, including the one you replied to.
Corbyn's unpopularity was a immensely gigantic albatross that was going to hurt Labour badly no matter the approach, but this strategy, rather than trying to help stem the bleeding, ensured they were going to be magnifying the effects.
All I see when I read takes like this is "Labour should fuck off POCs"
I mean, the election plan detailed here contains a list of issues that could have been addressed without telling POC to "fuck off" or needing to "solve" Brexit.Ok, but how do Labour solve the Brexit problem then?
It made the election fundamentally unwinnable for Labour, as I have explained in previous posts in this thread, including the one you replied to.
Ok, but how do Labour solve the Brexit problem then?
It made the election fundamentally unwinnable for Labour, as I have explained in previous posts in this thread, including the one you replied to.
Labour had a comprehensive plan to not only regenerate left behind towns but to empower people in rural areas. The only thing that mattered was Brexit and we're going to be poorer as a result.
The correct stance was a people's vote, but that doesn't work in England which seems to be Brexit unhinged. Labour did the correct thing, in the end, but got punished anyway because British people are actually scared of democracy when told people might change their mind.
Look at Scotland, we've never to get another chance to leave the UK because if you say no once what democracy actually means is never being allowed to change your mind in the future. Even if things completely fucking change.
I mean, why do we even have elections to change Governments? Tories furiously trying to find a way to stop elections every 5 years and stay in charge forever! The British people spoke in 2019, never again should the UK be able to say it wants another Government.
What do you mean you want to divorce your partner because 10 years in they treat you like shit? God said marriage was forever.
I mean, the election plan detailed here contains a list of issues that could have been addressed without telling POC to "fuck off" or needing to "solve" Brexit.
The problem with all-or-nothing thinking is very rarely does an all-or-nothing approach to any situation lead to the most desirable outcome.
You can see the issues Labor had here and address much of them without throwing the baby out with the bath water.
Not spend 2 years doing "constructive ambiguity" and when they finally come out with a stance they can parrot on TV, not pick the one that alienates both sides.
This is the "ITS A SMEAR" response nonsense all over again.
The strategy used by Labour here was actively terrible. Could Labour have won this election? Very unlikely, their best shot at a governing coalition was the prior election and the politics around Brexit were now a huge issue. But this strategy to quadruple down on areas that ended up swinging massively against them while ignoring areas they needed to defend or which contained MPs that clashed with party leadership was a combination of leaving their internal political opponents out on the vine while going embracing the utterly nonsensical "Left Politics will overcome racism, it's just that those awful horrible people in charge previously were too corrupt to do it!" point of view that chooses to deliberately ignore how racism has completely and directly trainwrecked implementation of those policies for generations. Yes, the electorate sucks. But that doesn't excuse embracing political tactics that actively self-destruct your own party.
"Bad Faith" does not mean "Says critical things about people I like."So this thread was made in bad faith. Thanks for clearing that up.
The moment they went to supporting a 2nd ref the Lib Dems immediately switched to supporting Revoke outright. I don't have the stats to hand, but iirc Remain voters did end up mostly (not entirely, there were a few seats with extremely annoying Lab/LD splits of the remain vote where combined they have enough to beat the Tory candidate) voting as they should have (tactically to beat the Tories), the problem was Labour leave votes going Tory and Brexit party
You're right about England though. And I don't know what to do about it. I don't think there is a policy Labour could have done this election to change things while Brexit was still an unresolved issue.
the idea that this election was unwinnable due to a variable that corbyn was entirely able to control is very silly. there was nothing stopping him agreeing to support the passing of a basic withdrawal agreement to respect the result of the referendum and campaigning to later negotiate a closer future agreement. there was nothing actually wrong with may's deal.
they chose to not to do that and instead play twelve dimensional chess to derail may's plan through parliament because they thought undermining the government over brexit would make them unpopular and hand labour power.... and it blew up in their faces.
it alienated leave voters by refusing to honour their vote, it eroded trust in the potential of any serious radical change by creating gridlock, trashed corbyn's reputation for integrity by playing both sides for cynical political gain, and the rhetorical vacuum allowed for the growth of destructive extremist groups like the people's vote campaign to rot away labour's core support.
i hate all the remainiacs who show zero contrition and act like they were vindicated by the result despite them gambling away a softer brexit on a reckless double or nothing gamble to overturn a nationwide democratic vote...it was a pure indulgence and they've screwed a lot of people's lives, but corbyn fucked them over with his incompetence too.
Labour had a comprehensive plan to not only regenerate left behind towns but to empower people in rural areas. The only thing that mattered was Brexit and we're going to be poorer as a result.
None of that has anything to do with the proper provisioning of tangible party resources during an election, which this plan shows an incredible failure of.You can't though. Labour lost too many votes because they weren't pro-leave enough, you can see this by opinion polling dropping loads for Labour with the votes on May's and Johnson's deals being blocked. And if Labour had been a pro-leave party, their supporters would have left on a massive scale, and the Lib Dems would have taken a load of their seats in the major cities.
Labour should never have gone along with the election. If you're going to run an election basically on Brexit it should have been a referendum. Let the Government stagger along with their minority, if they eventually got their bill through then fine, let them own it for a couple of years. Labour were arrogant, head in the clouds.
"There was nothing actually wrong with may's deal" come on mate, it was totally unacceptable to both remain and leave supporters, that's why it lost so badly in parliament.
Voting it through would have been much better than what we will get with Johnson now, but Labour couldn't have supported that deal and retained their membership and the support of the major cities.
It's a lot easier to say this with the benefit of hindsight than what was going on at the time.
That is the policy that pissed off the least amount of people, come down stronger either way and they lose loads more. Labour couldn't win here with a strong statement and the way the way their supporters are distributed in FPTP
This time around the Conservatives managed to boost their vote share amongst Leave voters to three quarters (74%) while the Labour Party actually reduced their share of Remain voters to just under half (49%)
The Conservatives managed to keep hold of almost all (92%) of their 2017 voters who were on the Leave side in 2016. Labour were able to hold onto 8 in 10 (79%) of their 2016 Remain voters, although 12% deserted the party in favour of the Liberal Democrats.
Despite their strong stance on leaving the EU, the Conservatives managed to convince two thirds (65%) of their voters who backed remain in 2016 to stick with them this time round. 22% voted Lib Dem, while 8% moved to the Labour party.
Only half (52%) of those who voted leave in 2016 and Labour in 2017, stuck with the Labour party in 2019. A third (33%) moved directly to the Conservatives, while 6% voted for the Brexit party.
Many people that had been voting Labour for decades swung. The Labour party leaders should ask themselves why instead of blaming those people.
Citation needed. Pre-election polling showed abstention or pro-leave would actually piss off the most amount of people and post-election surveys show Labour did worse at retaining both Remainers and Leavers from 2017 than the Tories.
They were targeting leave seats. They were trying to win over the racists that had a party that backs leave to vote for. Yeah, voters are shit, but there comes a time where you also have to recognize mistakes made.A better strategy would most definitely have been, appeal to the racists, back Brexit fully (including reinforcing poor people will be better off without immigrants) and behave like Red Tories, in general.
They were targeting leave seats. They were trying to win over the racists that had a party that backs leave to vote for. Yeah, voters are shit, but there comes a time where you also have to recognize mistakes made.
This particular article has nothing to do with putting in a Tony Blair, but the leadership decisions. Like, let me put it this way, Hillary made more than one mistake but her biggest weight during 2016 was the fact that she had low approval going into the election because of decades of attacks. Doesn't mean you should ignore the other mistakes.Corbyn is gone, there is supposedly the biggest mistake away. Yet now we're getting told Labour are going to try and seek the glorious Tony Blair days again and in the north, not that it really matters, Scottish Labour have decided their ongoing plans are great (be Tory lite in Scotland) and they'll continue.
It's almost as if it won't really end up anything to do with Corbyn, overall, but it's Labour Centrism and Red Tories just wanting the party back to chase the crumbs of Conservative England.
This particular article has nothing to do with putting in a Tony Blair, but the leadership decisions. Like, let me put it this way, Hillary made more than one mistake but her biggest weight during 2016 was the fact that she had low approval going into the election because of decades of attacks. Doesn't mean you should ignore the other mistakes.
So... there should be no examination of the strategies employed by Labour because you're afraid of people using it to push a point? It's not like the article is making shit up here.This article like most being critical of Labour, for whatever truths there are, will largely be used by the English electorate, the papers and many already on Era to discuss "both sides" and why those who just voted for the Tories didn't know any better and have never to be called pieces of shit for what they just unleashed on the UK.
Corbyn, with his extremely low favorables, being PM was part of the strategy. Like, reverse this for someone you're willing to attack. Hillary was a bad candidate, shouldn't have been run. Because that's true let's ignore the fact that she spent massive money in the wrong states while ignoring ones integral to the election.-> Corbyn was never going to win
-> Labour's strategy cost them the election
????
So... there should be no examination of the strategies employed by Labour because you're afraid of people using it to push a point? It's not like the article is making shit up here.
And, yes, voters are shit, believe me I know.
I mean, accounting for how idiotic and gossipy the electorate is is kinda something that should be done, and the best part about that is what the ideology of the person on top is doesn't really matter so long as they play the stupid gossip game and target the right areas.But then again I'm not a fucking sociopath and things like that matter more to me than how Labour leaders eat bacon sandwiches or whether they were educated at Oxford.
Corbyn was far more unpopular in 2019 than in 2017. By like 30% or something. He went from a little less popular than may to "Makes Hilary look like Obama" territory.This article does not explain 2017 results. A less convoluted explanation is that Jeremy shouldn't have changed his position on Brexit.
Who knew Corbyn and his followers understand shit-all about how to win an election? *surprisedpikachuface.jpg*
I mean, accounting for how idiotic and gossipy the electorate is is kinda something that should be done, and the best part about that is what the ideology of the person on top is doesn't really matter so long as they play the stupid gossip game and target the right areas.
Anyway, there was a chance for labour to at least maintain their seats or get another hung parliament. What happened was the worst possible result.
Maybe England should also pay attention to how it's middle-aged decide to fuck the country a bit younger than in Scotland
No surprises above.
Look at England as you get older
Most notably 50-64. Scotland is still very yellow, England is well on its way.
The final conclusion surprises no one.
As I said once the Queen is dead and hopefully less British unionist nonsense is with the youth, some of the English classism might start to die off. The 50-64 year old vote in England is fucking the country hard. Much like they probably fuck their Queen pillows and reminisce about British colonialism.
Hence it's a 20~30 year battle for England in my eyes, you need to wait on more of your 50+ category dying off, and with them, hopefully more of the absolute insane rule Britannia nonsense that has plagued the UK since WW2.
I mean, they got those seats during Brexit so I'm not very convinced of that. The graphic several posts up makes it very clear that their both-sides stance on Brexit didn't help them. Tories managed to keep a similar percentage of remainers as Labour was able to keep leavers despite a hard stance, but Labour bled the remain vote.Brexit was never going to allow it. The English majority are in love with Brexit. Add to that even the BBC running Communism propaganda and thinking Labour could have managed a hung parliament was simply dumb.
I mean, they got those seats during Brexit so I'm not very convinced of that. The graphic several posts up makes it very clear that their both-sides stance on Brexit didn't help them. Tories managed to keep a similar percentage of remainers as Labour was able to keep leavers despite a hard stance, but Labour bled the remain vote.
Direction and policy do not get through to the public. That should be very clear by now. They have no bearing whatsoever on election results.You can't remotely compare though. For all the wailing and gnashing of teeth about Corbyn, his direction and his policies were popular when put to the public. The relentless character assassination not so much. There was no one else in the Labour camp who had a better chance of winning that Corbyn was keeping out.
Clinton could've still won despite being a crap candidate. Corbyn wouldn't have won with a better strategy because ultimately people voted based on Brexit and hating Corbyn cos of 4 years of media attacks.
Glad I don't have Tory friendsPeople get more Tory the older they'd get. Most of my 30+ friends were labour but have voted Tory in the last two. The older tories will be replaced by those getting older.