Fun and games with ballot papers

[Andy Freude]

I don’t think Johnson was popular at all

I didn't say he was popular, but they voted for him. In fact he was the only leader, including Farage, whose level of popularity was matched his level of unpopularity. Corbyn and Swinson were much less popular than they were popular.

In comparing the actual number of votes, don't forget that the electorate now is now greater than it was in 1997, I think by about 8%. So more votes doesn't necessarily mean more popular or a greater achievement. It's the share of the popular vote that is the valid measurement.

[Andy Freude]

Hard fact? No.

Hard fact in that the electorate didn't vote them. Fact. And that was what was hard.

"He was right, dead right, as he drove along,
But just as dead as if he'd been wrong."

[LMcD]

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 )

I believe it was actually written as the results came in.

[ardcarp]

I say the following holding my nose. Boris has some charisma, and unfortunately in this age of game-show hosts, social media, likes and dislikes, a 'personality' of some description has become a sine qua non for anyone hoping to win the public's...er... affection. Many people, including (regrettably) some of my friends, found in the bumbling yet slightly anarchic Bojo a relief from the sheer boredom that politics had become. It's hysterically funny IMO that the neglected working classes of the North seek to be governed by a toff. It's almost feudal.

[LMcD]

I say the following holding my nose. Boris has some charisma, and unfortunately in this age of game-show hosts, social media, likes and dislikes, a 'personality' of some description has become a sine qua non for anyone hoping to win the public's...er... affection. Many people, including (regrettably) some of my friends, found in the bumbling yet slightly anarchic Bojo a relief from the sheer boredom that politics had become. It's hysterically funny IMO that the neglected working classes of the North seek to be governed by a toff. It's almost feudal.

I think BoJo and his advisors skilfully emphasized the startling differences in the personalities of him and his predecessor in Downing Street, so he benefited from being neither Jeremy Corbyn nor Theresa May. Her entrance onto the conference platform as the Dancing Queen was 100 times more embarrassing and stupid than any of his gaffes.

[Frances_iom]

I have a suspicion that Johnson will be out as leader by end of 2020 once either the shape of a EU trade deal is clear or, as may be more likely we have exited on those much hyped WTO terms - probably some personal behaviour will be publicised to aid his removal so the real right wing can take over.

[Joseph K]

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.)

He could have said that, I think he has apologised a fair few times, and led to Labour adopting the putative code of antisemitism - IHRA, with a few caveats. But I don't think it would have stopped the mainstream media from creating this shadow you mention. I think you underestimate the lengths the establishment will go to crush socialists. There is so much poison and disinformation now, and this election was very dirty - the Tories online ads were mostly lies, while Labour's were pretty much all accurate, which mirrors accurately their respective leaders! I'd like to think someone in Labour will come along with similar policies to Corbyn, but be better at presenting them, and perhaps not have what was perceived as Corbyn's historic baggage, but then I am currently quite pessimistic and think that plutocrats and media barons will stop at nothing in crushing any kind of dissent from neoliberal capitalism, so that the Labour left-wing group of MPs is now guilty by association with Corbyn.

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/general-election-boris-johnson-conservatives-labour-corbyn-facebook-ads-a9241781.html

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

In comparing the actual number of votes, don't forget that the electorate now is now greater than it was in 1997, I think by about 8%. So more votes doesn't necessarily mean more popular or a greater achievement. It's the share of the popular vote that is the valid measurement.

- Blair 2005 = 35.2% (win); Corbyn 2017 = 40% (didn't)

[Andy Freude]

I think you underestimate the lengths the establishment will go to crush socialists.

That's one of your more tenable assertions. The media reported everything - the fake websites, the doctored videos, the pro-Tory Facebook ads that were removed. It made no difference.

But we live in a different social environment from back in Attlee's day. If I were going to blame the BBC for anything, it would be in fostering populist entertainment, the mass media near hysteria for celebrities, Strictly Come Dancing, EastEnders, The Apprentice, rather than educating the public about the real world. After years of being battered by popular entertainment, the brain-damaged public only care about personalities and being entertained.

But that's not just the BBC - it's a BBC under attack by political forces and social change.

[Andy Freude]

- Blair 2005 = 35.2% (win); Corbyn 2017 = 40% (didn't)

And of course, turnout - only 61% in 2005 and the LDs were led by Kennedy who was very popular (they won 62 seats and 22% of the PV). For Labour in 2019 it was more of a straight fight. A closer analogy with 2005 would be 1983 when the Alliance won 23 seats and 25% of the PV, and Labour lost with only 28%.

[ardcarp]

.....populist entertainment, the mass media near hysteria for celebrities, Strictly Come Dancing, EastEnders, The Apprentice, rather than educating the public about the real world. After years of being battered by popular entertainment, the brain-damaged public only care about personalities and being entertained.

Rather my point in #591.

I have a suspicion that Johnson will be out as leader by end of 2020 once either the shape of a EU trade deal is clear or, as may be more likely we have exited on those much hyped WTO terms - probably some personal behaviour will be publicised to aid his removal so the real right wing can take over.

You may be right, F-i. But this raises a point about our so-called constitution. A party with a thumping majority can just dump a PM and foist another one on us without our say-so. I've always been uncomfortable about that.

[oddoneout]

That's one of your more tenable assertions. The media reported everything - the fake websites, the doctored videos, the pro-Tory Facebook ads that were removed. It made no difference.

But we live in a different social environment from back in Attlee's day. If I were going to blame the BBC for anything, it would be in fostering populist entertainment, the mass media near hysteria for celebrities, Strictly Come Dancing, EastEnders, The Apprentice, rather than educating the public about the real world. After years of being battered by popular entertainment, the brain-damaged public only care about personalities and being entertained.

But that's not just the BBC - it's a BBC under attack by political forces and social change.

And might that have something to do with the 'appeal' of Johnson? It is I think human nature to be fascinated by bad behaviour(bad boys/girls at school, outrageous individuals in the arts, etc), and it isn't always easy to resist the lure to be around such individuals or exercise any kind of critical faculty about their behaviour. Now that bad behaviour is what seems to drive TV shows in many cases, making celebrities of their participants, is it any wonder that so many can set aside what they know to be wrong about the man and want to join his gang. Trouble is, governing a country isn't a TV show....well not quite yet.

[Serial_Apologist]

That's one of your more tenable assertions. The media reported everything - the fake websites, the doctored videos, the pro-Tory Facebook ads that were removed. It made no difference.

But we live in a different social environment from back in Attlee's day. If I were going to blame the BBC for anything, it would be in fostering populist entertainment, the mass media near hysteria for celebrities, Strictly Come Dancing, EastEnders, The Apprentice, rather than educating the public about the real world. After years of being battered by popular entertainment, the brain-damaged public only care about personalities and being entertained.

But that's not just the BBC - it's a BBC under attack by political forces and social change.

The leopard does not change its spots, nonetheless! The system, unless constrained by countering its free operation or until replaced, still favours competition to survive - primarily between firms, secondarily individuals or social groups - which leads to short-termism, in direct conflict with the need to save precious resources and protect the ecosphere, and from there to the shaping up the public mentality for consumerism, and from following through the foregoing, identity politics to complete the loop. So-called social change, defined in the system's terms, is just there to speed up the process. It never breaks down in its entirely, of course, because there are always the forces of law & order to keep things in check when the going gets really rough - which it always is at the edges - and because beside the rich always getting away with it, their friends can always finger wag at others not quite like us (identity politics) as being the ones to blame. I once drew up a chronological list of scapegoats, starting with Jews (one of the oldest), today probably ending up with Greta Thunberg supporters, though we're not quite there yet. As long as people fail to look at systemics and then at those who not only profit disproportionately by them but gain commensurate power and influence thereby, which is why they should be the scapegoated ones, the world will go on sliding downhill, with exported wars, pollution, poverty and the human waste of unemployment the only outlets for discharging the consequences.

[Serial_Apologist]

And might that have something to do with the 'appeal' of Johnson? It is I think human nature to be fascinated by bad behaviour(bad boys/girls at school, outrageous individuals in the arts, etc), and it isn't always easy to resist the lure to be around such individuals or exercise any kind of critical faculty about their behaviour. Now that bad behaviour is what seems to drive TV shows in many cases, making celebrities of their participants, is it any wonder that so many can set aside what they know to be wrong about the man and want to join his gang. Trouble is, governing a country isn't a TV show....well not quite yet.

That if I may say so is the Judaeo-Christian conscience speaking. Surely it is more constructive, and has some empirical back-up, to see humans as innately social beings, doing our bit in our place in nature's balance to fit in, using faulty tools handed down by history and culture?

[Dave2002]

I think BoJo and his advisors ....

Weren't they actually his minders - desperate not to actually let him out or say anything? I think Dead Ringers got it pretty much right recently.