Printable View
I agree. Secret ballot is for the fairies as the state cross references the ballot paper number with your voting card. If I voted for someone considered by the state to be on the margins I would be nervous about what that state intended to do with that information. In reality the barricades would long be up before the ballot box if the country ever got into this situation so don't engage with democracy with fear. This isn't Russia!Quote:
Originally Posted by Organ Morgan.
Ta for responding. There was a big push to get people to vote post the 2001 General Election when abstainers accounted for just 0.1% less than the percentage Blair's victorious Labour Party attracted and the PTB realised the whole shebang's legitimacy was in peril. It had no effect on me as I had concluded voting was a futile exercise years prior. We'll never know for sure whether each vote is checked but it's reasonable to assume they are as a true secret ballot would be simple to institute. As for the fear factor, if that was the issue then I certainly wouldn't post stuff here or elsewhere re Bilderberg, Kalergi, The Protocols, the intriguing Kamloops affair featuring dear old Liz and Phil and the like.
Thanks Jon. I wouldn't place too much store in figures from two and a half years ago, but am heartened by the ones from the Independent article. Unless the sample size is very small, the sort of margins talked about with some of those policies seem clear cut enough to me for Labour to assume their popularity - especially if they are backed up by their own polling.Quote:
Originally Posted by jon1959
The negative side of it is that the conclusion I would make is that Labour would have been far better served by doing something similar to 1997 when they produced a card with a list of six policies they would be held to account on if they weren't achieved. I'm not saying that this would have changed the outcome, but the attitude seemed to be that as each poll showed them still lagging a long way behind, they felt they could come out with one more policy which would make all of the difference and so they were not taken seriously by large sections of the electorate.
Electorally, one of the best things Blair did was that pledgecard. Under-promising is probably better than over-promising as it sounds more believable and you're less vulnerable to "Well how are you going to pay for all this?"Quote:
Originally Posted by the other bob wilson
YipQuote:
Originally Posted by Rjk
YipQuote:
Originally Posted by SLUDGE FACTORY
Attachment 3414
Labour were in an impossible place with Brexit they would have lost votes by picking a side. They tried to play it down the middle and pleased nobody.
It seems to be this and the general dislike of Corbyn (nicely cultivated by relentless negative press coverage) that are the main factors.
The policies much lower down
I agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rjk
Also the thing with that poll is that a good number of the 'blue' responses could also be mainly about Brexit. Amazing that 'reports in the media' got a 1. How else did the majority of respondents form their opinions about the man - opinions that changed from 2017!
The problem with the pledge card idea is that the (much better funded) Tories would have swamped Labours with a single pledge card that said 'Get Brexit Done!' - which was the single biggest issue in the election. I think Labour started the campaign genuinely thinking that a full and costed (even if that is disputed) manifesto would make the policy-free Tory version look out of touch and lacking ambition. Instead the policy proposals got very little traction - both parties were accused of wish listing - but the Tories had one single overwhelming policy focus and Labour appeared to be churning them out without thought, priority or a real price tag. But as far as the manifesto proposals went, I think they were still a positive and not a reason for Labour's losses. Brexit was, and Corbyn was (unlike in 2017 - so something changed).Quote:
Originally Posted by the other bob wilson
Sir Keir Starmer at centre of Wikipedia 'millionaire' row ahead of expected Labour leadership bid ?? is it true ,is he too middle class to Lead Labour ?
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/poli...-a4317411.html
Media got sucked in at the time in 2017 , May wasn't trendy enough , media wanted to appear in tune with young popular folk likeQuote:
Originally Posted by jon1959
, Stormsy , Festival Goers , students , it is was fine when he was riding the wave of populism , and it sounded new , then it dawned on folk he wasn't really new politics, he was the same and perhaps worse than a lot of MP 's .
Now he has brought upon us Boris and a bloody big majority, well done the current narrow thinking Labour , job well done for the Tory PR machine , simply not smart enough , would my end of term comment
So are you saying (?) that the media were supportive of Corbyn in 2017 (really?) but changed their position by 2019 - and (this was the point of my comment) that most people who changed their mind on Corbyn (the subject of the poll Rjk put up) did so because of what they watched or read from the media?Quote:
Originally Posted by life on mars
If not did they change their opinions because of personal experience of meeting Corbyn (!) or from some other source (maybe social media or friends/family?).
I am certain that the impact of the media on a change in perception from pro to anti-Corbyn over that period has to be much more than 1% of the explanation. Not all of it - but a major part.
Yes I am saying the media courted him in a different favorable light , than he has been in this election ( where he got exposed and found out ),Quote:
Originally Posted by jon1959
I was bought into how different he sounded , the soundbite of a will do a different politics , reading out peoples cry for help letters in PMQ's , “ for the many, not the few” plastered across the media , attending festivals , singing oh Jeremy Corbyn shown on TV , at the time it was favorable reporting , if it wasn't how would I and other know about his activities and reasoning ?????????
As I remember at the time there was a lot more bad media at the time of an anti May type joking about her running through hay fields, eating gone off jam , how many times was she going to present he withdrawal bill ,and the fact she was badly positioned as a remainer negotiating a brexit deal, not liked anywhere i her part Europe , Europe leaders snubbing her at events .
It does seem you only see one side of a story , it very much like the current Labour party everyone fault but but theirs and its always the media , success it about good policy ,correct leadership and organisation ,you cant win an election on woe is me
We will have to agree to disagree. I don't think the media courted Corbyn in 2017. I do think they upped their attacks on him in 2019.
Boris Johnson had a much easier ride from the media than Theresa May. Both got an easier ride than Corbyn by a mile.
I'm sorry, but the idea that Labour had favourable reporting in 2017 is laughableQuote:
Originally Posted by life on mars
This was the front page of the most read paper in the country on election day
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/...eg?imwidth=480
Here's some other front pages from that campaign
https://inews.co.uk/wp-content/uploa...AL-960x540.jpg
http://www.electionanalysis.uk/wp-co...newspaper2.jpg
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/d...eg?imwidth=480
https://www.varsity.co.uk/images/dyn...0/0/18528.jpeg
Even Dimbleby said Corbyn hadn't received fair treatment
https://www.radiotimes.com/news/2017...-of-the-press/
Corbyn was portrayed as a terrorist sympathiser who supported the IRA and Hamas. That is not favourable reporting.
The TV media were under strict rules not to show bias to either side (rules they seemingly forgot about this time), it wasn't favourable reporting, it was fair reporting.
Ludicrous planning by Labour if true;-
https://twitter.com/Gabriel_Pogrund/...03645584666626
I have no idea if this is true or not - but surely the underlying accusation is that Labour set out to try to win the election rather than just to minimise losses? That was a mistake with hindsight - or a mistake if the polls were believed which apparently they were not - but is it really a crime? If decisions on use of resources and people was influenced by which sitting MPs were pro or anti the leadership that would be another fair criticism of the strategy. But the two charges seem to be mutually exclusive. Labour were either naive in planning to win seats from the Tories (and not concentrating on defending existing seats) or they were devious in trying to reshape the PLP in defeat. Can they really have been doing both at the same time?Quote:
Originally Posted by the other bob wilson
For what it's worth I think Seamus Milne and Carrie Murphy should move on. Other staff with less responsibility are losing their jobs, the two of them are lightning rods for a hostile Labour right, and the party needs a clean sweep of leadership team and key staff.
Timothy and Hill walked (or were pushed) very soon after the 2017 election.Quote:
Originally Posted by jon1959
So should Milne and Murphy
And loose , Jon Lansman , Momentum and uncle Len , they should all be taken down with haste and retired to thier wealthy properties , or it will another 14 years in the wilderness ,surely it's obvious to most this politics is not universally liked .Quote:
Originally Posted by jon1959
The ordinary voter doesn't really know these names or its aims , it simply doesnt buy into the project
Im sure if i had your uploading skills we would find many anti piss taking May and Boris comments , its convenient your not showing the reports of Corbyns early rise to popularity , seeing off May and Cameron moments ,or were those images of him surrounded by folk singing "oh Jeremy Corbyn " at rallies and Glasto type festivals false news ??Quote:
Originally Posted by City123
Really? The only thing preventing anyone from posting a similar number of anti-tory front pages from the election day is lack of uploading skills?Quote:
Originally Posted by life on mars
Over to you LOM.Quote:
Originally Posted by City123
No but there was a clip of people singing 'oh Jeremy corbyn' and there wasnt one of them singing 'oh Theresa may' so the media are biased towards labour.
I'd never ever vote for Corbyn but totally agree the media has done a job on him for a few years now, he does give them the ammunition.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric Cartman
Its not him in isolation its tte Labour party being rejected time and time again , 14 years four elections all down the media , nah I don't think so . In the last election I clearly remember Labour being overjoyed by its clever social media campaign and ability to reach the young , where have the young and messages gone ,nowhere I'd suggest the project is no longer believed or plausible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nelsonca61
Labour won the social media war in 2017 (whilst being swamped by Tory traditional advertising and by pro-Tory print and to a lesser extent broadcast media). In 2019 the Tories had learned that lesson and closed the gap in social media impacts (paid and non-paid) to Labour. The Labour social media advantage in 2019 was negligible.Quote:
Originally Posted by life on mars
https://inews.co.uk/news/general-ele...t-vote-1320368
I think some of the young of 2017 just didnt bite this time and the newness of Corbyn, got a bit tainted between 2017 and 2019.Quote:
Originally Posted by jon1959
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-a9256491.htmlQuote:
Originally Posted by jon1959
Corbynism in a nutshell - he sees the Labour Party as some sort of resistance movement.
"2019 has been quite the year for our country and for our labour movement. And now we are not just entering a new year but a new decade. And the period ahead could not be more important.
It will be crucial if we are to stop irreversible damage being caused by the climate crisis and the particular effects that has on people in the global south.
If we are to stop the pain plaguing our country: food banks, poverty and people struggling to get by. If we are to protect our precious NHS.
It won’t be easy. But we have built a movement. We are the resistance to Boris Johnson. We will be campaigning every day. We will be on the frontline, both in parliament and on the streets.
Protecting our public services. Protecting healthcare free at the point of use. Protecting our communities, in all their brilliant diversity. And standing up for internationalism, global solidarity and co-operation, and working with movements and parties seeking social justice and change all over the world.
And make no mistake, our movement is very strong. We are half a million people and growing. We are in every region and nation of our country.
We’re not backed by the press barons, by the billionaires or by the millionaires who work for the billionaires. We’re backed by you. We are by the many, for the many.
2020 and the years ahead will be tough. No one is saying otherwise. But we’re up for the fight. To protect what we hold dear. And to build to win and to transform.
The fight continues. There is no other choice.
So if you’re with us already, I can’t wait to meet the challenges ahead together. But if you’re not, join us. Join Labour today. Together we can bring about real change for our country, for the many and not just the few."
Talk about burying your head in the sand!
Corbyn is right to describe Labour as a movement - one comprised of individual members, trade union affiliates, and campaigners, community groups and other parties who have some shared objectives - and Councillors/MPs/MEPs.
He is right to emphasise the role of the movement is not just to be foot soldiers in elections (or cheerleaders and funders of elected representatives), but to campaign in many different ways to defend the achievements of the past and to push for change where government or society could be better. He is also right to point out that we are part of a wider world and have a stake in the outcome of wars, poverty, climate change and an interlinked global economy.
Where he doesn't say enough is around the failure to win governmental power to enable the party to do the things it set out in the manifesto - to prioritise the interests of the majority. To do that Labour need to understand why they have been out of government for almost a decade and the reasons their electoral support has reduced and changed.
Whatever Corbyn says in a New Year message to members and supporters, that debate is already underway. Some really are saying that nothing needs to change now the route to a Tory Brexit has been settled. Others (a lot of them - and many in the media and PLP) are using the election defeat as the green light to roll back everything that has changed in the past 4 years. Most I think are somewhere between those poles and talking about the party's roots and a need for reconnection, active presence in communities between elections, review of policies, better communications and the type of leadership (the leader and the leadership team of elected members and paid staff) needed to be more successful in the future.
It's worse than that, it's so dated , thier support is just a protest movement , strangely and ironically they have no momentum?Quote:
Originally Posted by the other bob wilson
A different leader and a Brexit policy which.was less of a fudge on 12 December and the Government majority would have been slashed - I doubt it if it would have been to the extent that we'd now have another minority Government, but Corbyn and the way that his so called neutrality influenced Brexit policy were Labour's biggest vote losers - he comes over as thinking all his party need to do is keep on repeating a few slogans and the voters will realise the error of their ways.Quote:
Originally Posted by life on mars
I agree Corbyn and the Brexit position were the biggest vote losers - although whilst Corbyn could have been a much more effective leader he was certainly stabbed in the back as well as the front in the lead up to the election, and I'm not convinced there was a better stance for Labour to take on Brexit if it wanted to increase its' vote. Sitting on the fence may have been the least worst option!Quote:
Originally Posted by the other bob wilson
I have said before that Corbyn was not a good leader - that takes skills and personality he doesn't have. Although he was a very good stump campaigner, and was seen up to and through the 2017 election as a new, honest and mould breaking politician despite the character assassinations.
So it is fair to say 'he doesn't get it' if the charge is that he is in denial about a catastrophic loss in the election. He should say more about that even if he doesn't need to come out punching himself in the face. Plenty of others are queuing up for that job. Where i do not agree with the 'he doesn't get it' comments are when they are code for a return to Tony Blair and all his works. His electoral success through a coalition of support (and tiredness with the Tories) must be recreated in some way - but not by throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Will they ever learn
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...66341.html?amp
A potential left-wing candidate for the Labour leadership has come under fire after claiming that Brexit, and not Jeremy Corbyn’s policies, was to blame for the party’s landslide defeat in last month’s election.
Party chair Ian Lavery said Labour had to earn its “right to exist” by rebuilding the trust of its traditional voters in the wake of the 12 December rout, when it shed 59 seats as Boris Johnson romped to an 80-seat majority.
I don't want Ian Lavery to stand but I agree with most of what he said - and disagree with Neil Coyle and Ruth Smeeth. You have avoided previous discussion about whether the Labour manifesto policies were popular or not, but my understanding from the poll evidence is that they were. The defeat was not mainly about the bulk of the manifesto. It was firstly about Brexit (Labour hurt on both sides of the argument) and to a lesser extent about Corbyn himself. If you think Lavery's analysis is wrong - why do you think that?Quote:
Originally Posted by life on mars
I thinkQuote:
Originally Posted by jon1959
Labour's problems were and are many ,
these are my thoughts :
The country doesnt support the current left socialism agenda on offer ( if it did surely after 4 elections and14 years they would be in or close).
The Socalism on offer is dated.
Country doesn't want a Lavery in the same way they didn't want or elect Mr Corbyn
Voters don't like the Monentum agenda.
In Labour's heartlands immigration and Brexit is still a factor , and they view the current party as a very London ethnic supporting party, and have felt marginalised from them for many years, hence losing those Labour safe seats ,some of which they held for decades .
The party conference motion passed on extending free movement, knowing it was an issue was another nail in the coffin for those outside of urban cities.
Trying to nationalise so many utilities was not believable or understood , the headline cost was eye watering and became comedy .
Last minute offers like the WASPI woman didn't play well it looked desperate , even WASPI women struggled to be convinced.
Free Broadband offer and the overall effect to other supliers and jobs wasnt thought through or communicated well , just seemed like another last ditch offer.
Being neutreal on something doesn't show leadership, it was a big mistake and appeared weak,
folk saw through the statement for what it was , a leader not brave enough to state what he really thought and wanted , with his party bending his arm to water down his long standing Brexit views.
They didnt understand the effects of Brexit outside of the multi ethnic London bubble and even today they dont .
Working class old story lines don't factor anymore .
Corbyn became very unlikeable.
Antisemitism and the parties non action or half hearted approach badly effected thier 'inclusiveness 'and 'not for the few' banner headlines you cant margalinse folk and claim the above banners and that goes for centralist views.
The Labour hearlands ,Scotland and slowly Wales are tuning away from Labour .
Thier policy announcements as the election went on sounded desperate and dated .
Incredibly the electorate trusted awful Boris over Labour , that needs examining in depth as its a tragic truth .
The belief that centralist MP's like Cooper , Phillips who have a broader appeal with the electorate cannot make in roads,
factors to the middle ground floating voter again how us that inclusiveness.
I think Labour are in big trouble if they pursue the in denial approach, and dont move to the centre ground .
Small business and thier empoyees didnt buy into there policies either as it could create less jobs .
How many elections does it take for Labour need to be a viable opposition or electable.
As in Alan Johnsons view it appears they are just a party of protest .
Lets not forget they have lost to a pretty inefficient bunch, led by Cameron, May and now Boris.
If you personally think the Labour machine is fit for governing that' s find and I admire your principled stance, however the country doesn't agree , and that is a hard fact .
IMO the two main factors for Labour's electoral defeat were:
1. The classical Labour-supporting "working class man/woman" as defined in the 1900's no longer exists.
2. The "centre ground" has been taken by the Tories so Labour has no where to go.
Think your right and that is a worry as effective opposition makes effective government, just wish Labour could wake up and smell the roses.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gofer Blue
Or coffee.Quote:
Originally Posted by life on mars
'The Labour Party - sponsored by Costa'?Quote:
Originally Posted by Taunton Blue Genie
There are some parts of the Parliamentary Labour Party that wouldn't see a problem!
This is an interesting review of the international picture - rise of right wing populism and collapse of the centre left with a few notable exceptions - by Owen Jones:
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...t-global-trend
If the Labour inquest and leadership election is to avoid passing backwards (Blair) or sideways (European social democracy) and move forward with pace power and accuracy (a reinvented, popular and collaborative but radical Labour Party?) then this sort of review and analysis must be part of the process.