Fun and games with ballot papers

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Very funny in places. But maybe half of this could have been writtten before Election Day. e.g. I think we knew Jo Swinson wasn't heading for No.10.

Yes - I suspect that a lot of possible material was ditched once the results came in.


(Rather what I suspect will happen in the Labour Party )

[Joseph K]

I might not recollect properly, but didn't Ed Milliband unlock the electoral keys to Mc Luskey/Momentum and their disastrous grip on the NEC/party by enabling a vote for anyone who cared to take Labour to the left (perceived as far left) for only an few pounds and no proper membership?

I haven't followed the twists and turns in any meaningful sense since. Like David Milliband decided, the sensible thing is to go away and do something more constructive and less frustrating for the next 10 or more years. I have maintained membership (I am an impure socialist, I am a working class roots anti Tory) with the purpose of voting for an electable leader in the centre right, and with a very different NEC, shadow cabinet and senior "advisors"/strategists.

Living in their fantasy land, and sheer incompetence, has let the poor, the vulnerable, the huge number of "just about managing" to the mercy of Johnson and his faction. Pigs might fly - he might be one nation, he might ameliorate the suffering - that's all I have to hope for, for the next 5 (10?) years.

I remember reading about social-democratic parties generally being in decline over Europe, and I found this:

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/09/12/swedish-election-highlights-decline-of-center-left-parties-across-western-europe/

I think many of these parties have become similar to New Labour.

The problem was - or is - Blairism died after the financial crash of 2008, and austerity was born. Milliband tried austerity-lite and failed. Where do you go from there? Become in the main indistinguishable from the Tories, become simply a different brand from the Tories, with only cosmetic differences? In which case what's the point if both parties to varying degrees is going to trample on the poor and vulnerable?

[teamsaint]

Whether Labour's policies were 'correct' or not in an abstract sense, the evidence is that they were wrong for this moment in the country's political situation. That's the hard fact. Heads and brick walls come to mind.

But all the anecdotal evidence suggests that it was Corbyn's persona as presented in the media, Brexit issues, and perhaps a manifesto perceived as over ambitious that were significant contributors to the defeat, rather than the quality or direction of policies.

I think Labour is going to have to keep looking in the direction of the radical,probably in a more targeted way, and in particular on the environment ,and its relationship with the economy, to find a place where it can be true to itself, and also find a wider base of support.

[Joseph K]

Whether Labour's policies were 'correct' or not in an abstract sense, the evidence is that they were wrong for this moment in the country's political situation. That's the hard fact. Heads and brick walls come to mind.

Hard fact? No. The Tories lied repeatedly about what Labour's policies were. I think it was more to do with how Corbyn was perceived, about the perception of the Labour 'brand'. Labour's policies are popular, its leader wasn't popular.

[eighthobstruction]

I might not recollect properly, but didn't Ed Milliband unlock the electoral keys to Mc Luskey/Momentum and their disastrous grip on the NEC/party by enabling a vote for anyone who cared to take Labour to the left (perceived as far left) for only an few pounds and no proper membership?

I haven't followed the twists and turns in any meaningful sense since. Like David Milliband decided, the sensible thing is to go away and do something more constructive and less frustrating for the next 10 or more years. I have maintained membership (I am an impure socialist, I am a working class roots anti Tory) with the purpose of voting for an electable leader in the centre right, and with a very different NEC, shadow cabinet and senior "advisors"/strategists.

Living in their fantasy land, and sheer incompetence, has let the poor, the vulnerable, the huge number of "just about managing" to the mercy of Johnson and his faction. Pigs might fly - he might be one nation, he might ameliorate the suffering - that's all I have to hope for, for the next 5 (10?) years.

1)Yes
2) me too
3)Thank goodness for Food Banks (please give a few things with weekly shop, most supermarkets have a basket)....hopefully not soup queues next - but I do like soup....


Knew it was going to be weird , when JMcD held up his Little Red Book in parliament and offered it to Osborne. Almost as STUPID as Liam Burn leaving that "The money is all gone" note for the 2010 Tory Tresury team....Little Red Books were given away free JMcD, because no one would ever have bought one.....

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

I think it was more to do with how Corbyn was perceived,

And, to be fair, how he presented himself - he could (for example) have simply said "No, I never watch The Queen's Speech on Christmas Day", but, possibly scared of further questioning about his views on the royal family, he squirmed and said something that was palbably a fib, and so came across as simultaneously shady and incompetent on a popular morning TV programme. A tiny example - a trivial one - but one of many such trivial incidents which accumulated in the viewers memories and their subsequent perception of him. (And not-so-trivial incidents, of course - had he said 2 years ago something on the lines of "Anti-semites are scum, and anyone who holds anti-semitic views has no place in the Labour Party and should [be off with themselves] to the Tories where they belong" there would not have been this serious shadow over his leadership.)

... about the perception of the Labour 'brand'.

Which demonstrates the necessity for the next party leader to "Media Savvy": having strong policies, AND the ability to recognise the tricks of Media interviewing, and turning these to his/her advantage - coming across as a strong "personality", unfazed by unexpected and leading questions - and able to use the Internet to put their case without interruption from interviewers. That Labour lost historic seats in the North-East to the Tories is the strongest possible evidence that, no matter how strong/valid/legitimate its policies and arguments, if the Party doesn't seize the white heat of the Information Technological revolution, it will continue to keep losing this five-yearly ballot box game.

[Andy Freude]

But all the anecdotal evidence suggests that it was Corbyn's persona as presented in the media, Brexit issues, and perhaps a manifesto perceived as over ambitious that were significant contributors to the defeat, rather than the quality or direction of policies.

I'm with you there (though, for example, Swinson's public performance was held to be responsible - by commentators - to have contributed to the LibDems failing to reach the widely held expectations), and Johnson was publicly mocked. I can't say more than that it wasn't the policies (I voted Labour), it was that Corbyn was the gift that kept on giving. And the policies were perceived as being 'Corbynism'. He was a weak leader, as was Foot. Where Labour goes from here is entirely up to the party membership and leadership.

I think I said this before … the problem was that Corbyn's portrayal repelled, the media portrayal of Johnson - which was hardly complimentary - attracted. But the fault, dear Brutus … "Not this man", they shouted, "but Barabbas." It has a long history.

[eighthobstruction]

The problem was - or is - Blairism died after the financial crash of 2008, and austerity was born. Milliband tried austerity-lite and failed. Where do you go from there? Become in the main indistinguishable from the Tories, become simply a different brand from the Tories, with only cosmetic differences? In which case what's the point if both parties to varying degrees is going to trample on the poor and vulnerable?

....

....blairism failed /was besmirched in the eyes of the left leaning at the point UK joined US in Iraq....Blairism was not the reason for Global Crash 2008....Milliband - the New Labour band wagon had had its time come 2010. There was nothing wrong with New Labour idea at 1997 point -i.e denim rubbing up against pinstripe with a result of financing Social Care/Social Justice after 18 years of Tory Thatcherism and drawing back expenditure....the left leaning were more than in favour of New Labour....and MINUS BLAIR - millions still are....I dispute that Labour Manifesto was popular. Some good stuff, popular stuff, but a great deal that made one raise ones eyes , then roll them, then close them and sigh....policy incontinence....AND yes Media Bias OK ok ok....its ESTABLISHMENT BIAS mate....what do you expect....

Corbynism (as a brand) has alienated the masses....destroyed the careers of 200 PLP Mps, a great loss in many but not all cases, and we were left with the nobodies , the whatsisnames, that sat on the Corbyn seats....and still the (lets call it poison for arguments sake, for that has been its result) poison is there, in parliament and constituencies and NEC etcetc. AND Dennis Skinner had had his time IN PLENTY....87 , in parliament since 1970....overstayed Dennis .....

[eighthobstruction]

And, to be fair, how he presented himself - he could (for example) have simply said "No, I never watch The Queen's Speech on Christmas Day", but, possibly scared of further questioning about his views on the royal family, he squirmed and said something that was palbably a fib, and so came across as simultaneously shady and incompetent on a popular morning TV programme. A tiny example - a trivial one - but one of many such trivial incidents which accumulated in the viewers memories and their subsequent perception of him. (And not-so-trivial incidents, of course - had he said 2 years ago something on the lines of "Anti-semites are scum, and anyone who holds anti-semitic views has no place in the Labour Party and should [be off with themselves] to the Tories where they belong" there would not have been this serious shadow over his leadership.)


Which demonstrates the necessity for the next party leader to "Media Savvy": having strong policies, AND the ability to recognise the tricks of Media interviewing, and turning these to his/her advantage - coming across as a strong "personality", unfazed by unexpected and leading questions - and able to use the Internet to put their case without interruption from interviewers. That Labour lost historic seats in the North-East to the Tories is the strongest possible evidence that, no matter how strong/valid/legitimate its policies and arguments, if the Party doesn't seize the white heat of the Information Technological revolution, it will continue to keep losing this five-yearly ballot box game.

[muzzer]

Blair won another election after Iraq, of course. A fact often conveniently ignored. Miliband D is twice the politician of Miliband E, a fact also of course known to McLuskey when he backed the lesser brother. And look what that led to. The longest slow motion car crash in history. Which still looks ongoing, judging from the magic grandads’ latest pronouncements.

[eighthobstruction]

Blair won another election after Iraq, of course. A fact often conveniently ignored. Miliband D is twice the politician of Miliband E, a fact also of course known to McLuskey when he backed the lesser brother. And look what that led to. The longest slow motion car crash in history. Which still looks ongoing, judging from the magic grandads’ latest pronouncements.

[LHC]

I'm with you there (though, for example, Swinson's public performance was held to be responsible - by commentators - to have contributed to the LibDems failing to reach the widely held expectations), and Johnson was publicly mocked. I can't say more than that it wasn't the policies (I voted Labour), it was that Corbyn was the gift that kept on giving. And the policies were perceived as being 'Corbynism'. He was a weak leader, as was Foot. Where Labour goes from here is entirely up to the party membership and leadership.

I think I said this before … the problem was that Corbyn's portrayal repelled, the media portrayal of Johnson - which was hardly complimentary - attracted. But the fault, dear Brutus … "Not this man", they shouted, "but Barabbas." It has a long history.

I don’t think Johnson was popular at all; he had some of the lowest personal ratings of any Tory leader, and certainly lower than May’s personal ratings in 2017. He didn’t need to be popular, he just needed to be less unpopular than Corbyn.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Blair won another election after Iraq, of course.

With 750,000 fewer votes than Corbyn's party achieved in this election (and 3.2 million fewer than Corbyn in 2017).

[eighthobstruction]

....one has to hope that such as Priti Patel are dislodged from the Cabinet AND look out Ester McVey is back in town as MP for Tatton....

[eighthobstruction]

With 750,000 fewer votes than Corbyn's party achieved in this election (and 3.2 million fewer than Corbyn in 2017).

Yes maybe....but the Tories only needed a 1% swing [I believe- tell me if I'm wrong] to cause all the destruction......and funnily enough 'Remainer' Parties overall vote was slightly higher than Leave leaners 51%-49%....