General Election 2019

[Bjornebye]

1 minute ago, viRdjil said:

The people want to leave. The referendum result showed that and the election confirmed it. They should’ve put a lot more energy and focus on promoting ‘Lexit’. As it is, no Brexit voters will vote for Labour IMO.

52% voted for it. Thats not enough to call it 'the people'. 

[TheHowieLama]

5 minutes ago, Scooby Dudek said:

 

I read your initial post as Bloomberg (and maybe Clinton) were entering the race because Biden was falling and they fear a left candidate getting thumped in the election.  

I think the exact opposite and posted polls of the two leading left candidates, to back up my claim. 

 

Apologies if my post came across as condescending, it was not intended. 

 

 

No worries -- the left candidates are down though. Numbers are easy to trick up -- the fact that Mayor Pete has gone from nowhere to polling number one in Iowa suggests that any lean in the Dems will be to the center. Cuz that helps.

 

A general poll has a Dem winning cuz that has happened each time -- an electoral college poll is a different biscuit.

[TheHowieLama]

Just now, Bjornebye said:

52% voted for it. Thats not enough to call it 'the people'. 

It is actually 4% more people than the other people.

[Bjornebye]

1 minute ago, TheHowieLama said:

It is actually 4% more people than the other people.

Landslide 

[TheHowieLama]

1 minute ago, Bjornebye said:

Landslide 

Take it to the music thread.

[Denny Crane]

Some comments from the CBI which should be bread and butter for a Tory leader right? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Brownie]

1 hour ago, Barry Wom said:

I am not sure several of labours headline grabbers can be seen as centre left. Nationalising openreach, abolishing private schooling (although I believe the manifesto will back away from that), taking 10% of the shares of companies and giving them to the staff and there's more that aren't jumping in to my mind at the moment. Lots of the policies are centre left, lots are not. Coupled with who the leader is, gives the policies no chance of oxygen. 

Nationalising some services as part of a mixed economy, is centre left. Profit sharing and workers representation on boards, is centre left. Removing tax loopholes to realign spend in education, is centre left. The private school stance is backed by lunatics such as Ed Miliband and Clive Lewis no-less.

 

I'm afraid we have a different view on what constitutes "centre-left".

[Brownie]

If the EU referendum result had been reversed the other way (52-48 to Remain) then the right reaction would have been to look at reforming our relationship with Europe. You can't ignore people's views, even if you think they may be misguided.

 

The problem is, the people in control of the government are hell bent on a hard Brexit which again completely ignores the fact that so many support the relationship with Europe.

 

The only two realistic outcomes are either a soft Brexit or Remain but with reform.

 

I believe that is Labour's policy, in a nutshell.

[Megadrive Man]

28 minutes ago, Brownie said:

If the EU referendum result had been reversed the other way (52-48 to Remain) then the right reaction would have been to look at reforming our relationship with Europe. You can't ignore people's views, even if you think they may be misguided.

 

The problem is, the people in control of the government are hell bent on a hard Brexit which again completely ignores the fact that so many support the relationship with Europe.

 

The only two realistic outcomes are either a soft Brexit or Remain but with reform.

 

I believe that is Labour's policy, in a nutshell.

Agreed.

 

Labours plan is actually by far the most sensible, because it actually is a plan.

 

The only reason nearly all Brexiteers are lining up behind the BJ deal is because they want to avoid any chance of remain and create a BJ deal vs no deal scenario in 12 months time. 

[Denny Crane]

Good read from Peter Oborne. A snippet.

 

A big reason for Johnson’s easy ride is partisanship from the parts of the media determined to get him elected. I have talked to senior BBC executives, and they tell me they personally think it’s wrong to expose lies told by a British prime minister because it undermines trust in British politics. Is that a reason for giving Johnson free rein to make any false claim he wants?

 

 

 

 

https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/nov/18/boris-johnson-lying-media?__twitter_impression=true

 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

7 hours ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

I’m not, not significantly anyway, but even then I’d much sooner have a Labour government than a Labour opposition. After all, it’s the first step. And I’d much prefer New Labour - which seems to be what people think I’m arguing for - to these Tories. I shouldn’t have to list all the progressive things New Labour did, and how much the Health and Education of the nation improved via services that people on here, including me, smacked the Coalition for canning. 
 

I have a hard job understanding the view that being out of government and letting the Tories run riot is better than getting a majority and then pushing through things after. 

Exactly who is arguing that being in opposition is better than being in Government?

 

You appear to have convinced yourself that Labour’s not-yet-published manifesto will be packed full of radical pipe-dreams and over-idealistic leftie extremism that will terrify the electorate into making Johnson Life President. 

 

Needless to say, I think you are wrong. 

[Brownie]

27 minutes ago, Denny Crane said:

Good read from Peter Oborne. A snippet.

 

A big reason for Johnson’s easy ride is partisanship from the parts of the media determined to get him elected. I have talked to senior BBC executives, and they tell me they personally think it’s wrong to expose lies told by a British prime minister because it undermines trust in British politics. Is that a reason for giving Johnson free rein to make any false claim he wants?

 

 

 

 

https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/nov/18/boris-johnson-lying-media?__twitter_impression=true

 

Just read that myself. You’d like to think that stuff like this and the Channel 4 piece where traditionally right leaning institutions like the Financial Times are calling for “Capitalism to be revamped” would cut through to the voters.

 

Not going to happen though. 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

5 hours ago, Brownie said:

Absolutely. It’s supported via polling and also anecdotally.

 

I know plenty of people who aren’t voting Labour purely because of Corbyn, even though they generally support the policies.

The irony is, I doubt Labour would have the policies which boost their electoral chances without the leader who (we are told) damages their electoral chances.

 

Any potential Labour leader who supports the kind of policies we now have - particularly things like reversing privatisations and recognising Palestine  - would have faced the same degree of pressure from the right-wing of the PLP (not to mention the media). I can't see anyone who I can confidently say wouldn’t have buckled and ceded ground on important policy issues.

[Numero Veinticinco]

14 minutes ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

Exactly who is arguing that being in opposition is better than being in Government?

 

You appear to have convinced yourself that Labour’s not-yet-published manifesto will be packed full of radical pipe-dreams and over-idealistic leftie extremism that will terrify the electorate into making Johnson Life President. 

 

Needless to say, I think you are wrong. 

You’ve made that up, unfortunately. I said exactly the opposite. So not only have I not convinced myself of something, you seem to have convinced yourself of something in spite of me saying the opposite. 

[Megadrive Man]

3 hours ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

Yep, that’s exactly what it is. Some here seem to be continually thinking I’m suggesting a lurch to the right. I’m suggesting, firstly, be better at winning elections, be better at selling a vision, be better at politics, be likeable to massive amounts of people. Even if that means waiting on some things. But you shouldn’t think that people hate Corbyn’s agenda. At least not all of it, it wasn’t Blair’s social policies that made him hated. A lot of what he and Brown did was very popular. They made life a lot better - even if I spent a decade ripping them apart for other things - and Corbyn’s policies would too. 
 

Corbyn seems a genuinely caring person, with an agenda that’s generally not radical, even if I think some of it lacks political aptitude, and policies that are generally well supported. What he isn’t is a good political leader who can win a majority. That’s... a big problem. 
 

This is the same sort of argument that Alastair Campbell makes.

 

Do you think that Labour would have got in and stayed in if they hadn't sold their souls to Rupert Murdoch and co?

 

At least by having the current Labour opposition it attracts new people in to politics and puts pressure on the government about the policies that they strongly support.  

 

 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

2 hours ago, viRdjil said:

The people want to leave. The referendum result showed that and the election confirmed it. They should’ve put a lot more energy and focus on promoting ‘Lexit’. As it is, no Brexit voters will vote for Labour IMO.

Maybe Labour need to get on the front foot on Brexit. It needs to be made clear to working class Brexit voters that Johnson is offering only a Hard Brexit which will make them much worse off or a No Deal which will be even worse; if they want a chance to leave the EU on terms which do not drastically impoverish themselves, then Labour is their only choice.

[aRdja]

4 minutes ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

Maybe Labour need to get on the front foot on Brexit. It needs to be made clear to working class Brexit voters that Johnson is offering only a Hard Brexit which will make them much worse off or a No Deal which will be even worse; if they want a chance to leave the EU on terms which do not drastically impoverish themselves, then Labour is their only choice.

Or at the very least when asked, Corbyn should tell the journalists that he’d campaign for his deal if we were to have a second referendum.

[Brownie]

3 hours ago, mattyq said:

I think it's fairly clear that Lab's Brexit policy is going to be a big vote loser.

It''l lose them seats in London and the Midlands... it's suicidal. 

People want clarity and Lab offers confusion 

This doesn't make any sense to me... if the strategy is one that leads to defeat then it is definitely wrong.

I think Corbyn is a big problem 

I like his and Labour policies with the exception of Brexit but he is a poor leader and lacks the communication skills and nous to break through to win new supporters and convert Brexiteers

I think he's a decent man doing his best which won't be good enough

The only clarity he can offer results in the same defeat. If he says that we’re definitely leaving then the party itself turns on him and he’s finished before the election even starts.

 

If he says we’re remaining and therefore revoking article 50 then those London results are far more catastrophic and he also loses more seats in Scotland.

 

The only chance they have ever had is by trying not to piss off a huge great swathe of people on either side, problem is that risks pissing off half on each side which results in a similar result.

 

I think in years to come, when the dust has settled, rational people will look back upon this election as un-winnable from the start based on Labours hand in the game.
 

The problem is, the immediate reaction will probably be a jump back to centrism.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

On 16/11/2019 at 11:06, Numero Veinticinco said:

Yeah, I don't think they will either. I don't think they need to. I just think it's going to end them as a party of government for a very, very long time if they put idealism ahead of electability once again. I don't think they're interested in pragmatism, they're interested in ideology and idealism. Well, that's fine. Absolutely respect their democratic right to do whatever they want to do, but they'll be dead as a party of government if they get the next party leader wrong. So they can select their ideal and put up with their hated enemy being in government and setting the agenda. What they'll end up this time, for all their talk of nationalisation and Brexit for workers is more privatisation and Brexit for the few. Ideal. 

Who is this masked stranger, with his talk of Labour "putting idealism before electability"?

[Numero Veinticinco]

1 minute ago, MegadriveMan said:

This is the same sort of argument that Alastair Campbell makes.

 

Do you think that Labour would have got in and stayed in if they hadn't sold their souls to Rupert Murdoch and co?

 

At least by having the current Labour opposition it attracts new people in to politics and puts pressure on the government about the policies that they strongly support.  

Sold their souls. What, exactly, does that mean? What, exactly, are you talking about? Which agreements, which policies, etc; what exactly was the details of this Faustian pact? But yes, winning support of influential media publications is important.  
 

I’ve heard this ‘pressure on the government about policies’ thing. Firstly, which policies? Also, in what way will it impact a Johnson-led Tory majority? The reality is we will likely have a Tory government with Tory policies. Again. 

[Numero Veinticinco]

13 minutes ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

Who is this masked stranger, with his talk of Labour "putting idealism before electability"?

Well, I can only assume you are trying to say that means ‘Labour’s not-yet-published manifesto will be packed full of radical pipe-dreams and over-idealistic leftie extremism that will terrify the electorate into making Johnson Life President‘, in which case you’re wrong; it doesn’t. Neither does this, which I’ve said a number of times before. 
 

4 hours ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

Corbyn seems a genuinely caring person, with an agenda that’s generally not radical

[Jose Jones]

15 minutes ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

Sold their souls. What, exactly, does that mean? What, exactly, are you talking about? Which agreements, which policies, etc; what exactly was the details of this Faustian pact? But yes, winning support of influential media publications is important.  
 

I’ve heard this ‘pressure on the government about policies’ thing. Firstly, which policies? Also, in what way will it impact a Johnson-led Tory majority? The reality is we will likely have a Tory government with Tory policies. Again. 

Dude, the first thing Blair did when elected leader was fly off to see Murdoch, and say "what do I need to do to get you to support me?"

I am presuming old Rupert's answer wasn't "I'd like you to goose my wife", but you never know.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

7 minutes ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

Well, I can only assume you are trying to say that means ‘Labour’s not-yet-published manifesto will be packed full of radical pipe-dreams and over-idealistic leftie extremism that will terrify the electorate into making Johnson Life President‘, in which case you’re wrong; it doesn’t. Neither does this, which I’ve said a number of times before. 
 

Then help a brother out - in what way are the Labour Party putting idealism before electability?

[Duff Man]

Wasn't the deal basically that Blair's government would leave News Corp alone (which is essentially all Murdoch wants; the freedom to pursue his business interests without any interference).

 

I doubt Murdoch just warmed to Blair personally, and then decided to give Labour a go. I think he saw the pendulum was swinging in that direction, and once he had assurances that Blair wouldn't tread on his toes, happily backed the favourite. If Smith had fought that election I doubt there'd have been the same relationship and subsequent backing.

 

Anyway, rumour has it that Blair paid him back twenty-odd years later by boffing his wife, so swings and roundabouts ay, Rupert.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

19 minutes ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

Sold their souls. What, exactly, does that mean? What, exactly, are you talking about? Which agreements, which policies, etc; what exactly was the details of this Faustian pact? But yes, winning support of influential media publications is important.  
 

I'd suggest that the soul of the Labour Party is the trade union movement. 

 

Blair maintained Thatcher's restrictions on trade unions and refused to support, for example, Liverpool's sacked dockers.

 

The many, many privatisations, the tuition fees, the racist scapegoating, the increasing authoritarianism and - of course - the wars were all far from the spirit of the best Labour traditions.

 

For all that, your main point is right - any Labour Government is better than a Tory one.  At its worst, the New Labour Government acted in accordance with what the Tories would have done. The difference is that New Labour also brought in Sure Start, the Minimum Wage, the Good Friday Agreement, the Human Rights Act, etc. It's just a shame that they weren't bolder, because they could have done so much more.