[mrjonathanr]

On Sunday the Observer’s pollsters Opinium reveal their own analysis of the reasons people rejected Labour: 43% cited the leadership, 17% its policy on Brexit, and 12% its economic policies. Among Labour defectors – those who voted Labour in 2017 but didn’t this time – 37% mentioned the leadership, 21% Brexit and 6% its economic policies.

Even if you think the Guardian has a jaundiced view of Corbyn's leadership, polling suggests it may not be alone in that.

[andy popp]

There's seems to be a strong rush to frame the result of this election as a damning referendum on more progressive politics as well as on the leadership, and Corbyn especially. I'm not fully convinced that's right.

As an aside, I haven't moved right at all as I've got older, possibly moved further left (at the very least my politics have been reinvigorated, largely because of moving to the US).

(Phew, I've only just thought to check, Halton [the constituency I would have voted in if I'd got it together] remained Labour, albeit with a reduced share of the vote, at 63%, down from 73%. Tories were down in absolute numbers but up 0.6% in share. The bulk of Labour's loss seems to have gone to Brexit Party on 8%)

[Oldmanmatt]

I saw an interesting static where they broke the voting down into the age of voters. Basically nearly all over 60s voted tory, and nearly all under 30s voted Labour. With the NHS suffering like it is, there may be a very different voting population in 5 years.

I looked at age split, but I’m really skeptical of the figures, since they can’t be any more accurate than the exit poll.

I also suspect they’re not far from the mark, anyway.

I’d agree with Andy about moving left with age. There’s a huge gulf opened between my Jan ‘89 Naval class. All anti-Thatcher, many of us disciplined for taking part in the Poll Tax protests.
Now, we’re utterly split.
I could delineate the split, clearly, on how far people progressed post Navy. Those who went back to Uni, or otherwise into senior roles: Left leaning centrists. Those who went Offshore or continued to the end of their 22 year contract: Right wing to full on BF nutters.

Products of their environment and contrary to Brutus’ assertions I might add.

[Will Hunt]

Actually, Brutus, what you're proposing isn't democracy, it's dictatorship. You're saying that you would like to see a niche ideology rolled out to all across the nation with no compromise, despite it not being able to command popular support. Democracy requires popular support, most often possible through compromise. If you can't accept that then you are simply not a democrat.

[andy popp]

I think Brutus is saying that he'd like to make that niche ideology (if that's what it is) into something able to gain widespread popular support. I haven't seem him anywhere say he wishes to circumvent the electoral process.

[tomtom]

Can we please Logpile this thread? It’s where I’d like the election to go

[petejh]

The traditional call for PR by every second place party ever (and 3rd, 4th, 5th etc.)

Labour could have won the same huge majority the Conservatives did, if the relevant number of people thought they were a credible party of government.

Not being one for committees (take minutes and lose hours etc..) I'm not sure how I feel about PR. It could lead to us mostly or always having coalition governments which I imagine to be the mother of all dithering committees. Depending on the issues at large though that could be a good or a bad thing. It could be good to have a large single party majority when people just want stuff to get done. On the other hand it seems wrong that there isn't a system that represents significant numbers of votes for minority parties.
I'd certainly vote for what someone mentioned earlier - scrapping the ridiculous house of lords and reforming it into a second chamber run under PR.


The Labour 'landslide' victory of 1997, number of seats represented by outer ring, would look like the inner ring under PR. Maybe we wouldn't have gone into a disastrous war based on lies under PR..:

[Will Hunt]

Regardless of the hopeful sentiment about the Iraq war, any and all predictions of what a parliament would have looked like under a different voting system are always wrong - probably very. The votes would have fallen entirely differently and, arguably, turnout in safe seats would be greatly increased.

[Oldmanmatt]

Pete, to me it’s simple, you shouldn’t be able to hold a massive majority in government, having received a minority of the vote.
I struggle to understand how you can possibly frame it as a “sour grapes” argument, when the majority of the population did not achieve (and have rarely ever) adequate representation. It’s a system that forces you to vote for the least worst, currently.
Oddly enough, the rest of Europe, by and large, manages to “get things done” without our antiquated system.
France, for instance, has a superior record on large infrastructure development (despite constant strikes, riots and arguing etc).
And, Brutus, that’s been very much a partnership between Industry (that’s what you call “Shadow”) and state (that’s actually “the people” in any democratic country).

The ring of the current Tory landslide, would very much look to be the negative of the last Labour landslide etc etc and so on ad infinitum.

I had a quick scooby back over the popular vote for several elections, back as far as the ‘70s. It’s much of a much. That’s why I keep saying “the people” are actually, year on year, election after election, are pretty much evenly divided with a ~7% swing each way, at maximum. Generally, the government formed, does not represent the majority of the popular vote. Ever. Pretty much, you can say, if you bag more than 40%, you’re on for a majority gov. Bag that in the right distribution of seats and it’s a landslide.

I can’t see any logical way that’s “right”.

I understand your point on committees, I hate them too, but ultimately they’re necessary. Jesus, if you go high enough, even the military is run by committees, and that’s about the most autocratic division of Western society.

Actually the Lords proposal, I think, would work better the other way around; given the powers currently invested in the upper house.

[BrutusTheBear]

I think Brutus is saying that he'd like to make that niche ideology (if that's what it is) into something able to gain widespread popular support. I haven't seem him anywhere say he wishes to circumvent the electoral process.

This minus the word niche, in order to gain widespread popularity  it needs a fair hearing.. The playing field is controlled by the billionaires though so it’s incredibly hard to break through all the flack that is thrown our way.  To escape the flack we would have to get into bed with the likes of Murdoch which is exactly what Blair and co. did.  A better functioning democracy would give differing ideologies an equal hearing, equal scrutiny and somehow prevent money being the major deciding factor in who wins elections.

[petejh]

I struggle to understand how you can possibly frame it as a “sour grapes” argument..

I haven't? I've said it's what the losing parties in a majority election result always call for. It is.

[Oldmanmatt]

I think Brutus is saying that he'd like to make that niche ideology (if that's what it is) into something able to gain widespread popular support. I haven't seem him anywhere say he wishes to circumvent the electoral process.

This minus the word niche.

It is though, isn’t it.
Certainly a minority position, if you remove the labour moderates. How small a percentage of the population, holding that strict view, do you need for the word niche to apply?
10%?
Or are you roping everyone who vote Lab into the Momentum bracket? Because, if you are, then you should just change the party name to Momentum and make it clear that it’s a “Red or Dead” club.

I know you don’t actually mean that. You are well known, around here,(possibly not to the UKB massive) for being a very caring individual and you chose a working life that reflects that. Plenty of vulnerable people rely on people like you, and you sure as hell aren’t in it for the money!
But, assuming the rest of us, or even the wealthy, are in league with “The Shadow” is a bit much.
I mentioned the whole “rich people run everything” fallacy somewhere else, have spent many years working for them, so just a short bit now.
They’re a bunch of self absorbed wankers, mainly, not interest in us, as long as we don’t interfere with their circle jerk they call a social  life.
Not, I repeat, not, the Illuminati.
Unless they’re incredibly good at playing dumb.

[Oldmanmatt]

I struggle to understand how you can possibly frame it as a “sour grapes” argument..

I haven't? I've said it's what the losing parties in a majority election result always call for. It is.

Well, that sounds a bit like a “sour grapes” type of statement, don’t you think? I mean, can you not see why it might be interpreted as such? Anyway, most PR supporters have been banging on about it for decades, before, during, after and between elections, regardless of which party they support. Or do you think there are no PR proponents who vote for the Cons or Lab? 

[largeruk]

Re PR. The German system seems to have served them pretty well for the last 75 years.

Each voter has 2 votes. The first vote is a direct vote for a member of parliament in that constituency, similar to Americans voting for a congressional reprentative in their district. There are 299 constituencies in Germany, so direct votes make up roughly half of the seats in the Bundestag.

The second vote is for a political party. Parties in Germany’s 16 states put together lists of candidates; the results from the second votes determine which candidates make it off the lists to the remaining 299 seats in parliament. Parties need to receive at least 5% of the second votes in a state to qualify for a seat - makes it harder for extremist groups to have influence or get in power.

They also have a few “overhang” and “balance seats.” Those are extra seats in the Bundestag that ensure every candidate who was directly elected gets a seat while political parties are still proportionally represented based on the number of votes they received. A German state’s population is taken into consideration when votes are converted into seats. After Germany’s 2013 parliamentary elections, there were 631 seats in the Bundestag, including 33 overhang and balance seats.

Re the voting profile by age group. https://lordashcroftpolls.com/2019/12/how-britain-voted-and-why-my-2019-general-election-post-vote-poll/ while clearly only indicative, seems to confirm the view that the younger you are the more 'progressive/left wing' your views are and that these move to the right as we age - generally.

[BrutusTheBear]

I think Brutus is saying that he'd like to make that niche ideology (if that's what it is) into something able to gain widespread popular support. I haven't seem him anywhere say he wishes to circumvent the electoral process.

This minus the word niche.

It is though, isn’t it.
Certainly a minority position, if you remove the labour moderates. How small a percentage of the population, holding that strict view, do you need for the word niche to apply?
10%?
Or are you roping everyone who vote Lab into the Momentum bracket? Because, if you are, then you should just change the party name to Momentum and make it clear that it’s a “Red or Dead” club.

I know you don’t actually mean that. You are well known, around here,(possibly not to the UKB massive) for being a very caring individual and you chose a working life that reflects that. Plenty of vulnerable people rely on people like you, and you sure as hell aren’t in it for the money!
But, assuming the rest of us, or even the wealthy, are in league with “The Shadow” is a bit much.
I mentioned the whole “rich people run everything” fallacy somewhere else, have spent many years working for them, so just a short bit now.
They’re a bunch of self absorbed wankers, mainly, not interest in us, as long as we don’t interfere with their circle jerk they call a social  life.
Not, I repeat, not, the Illuminati.
Unless they’re incredibly good at playing dumb.

For context: I have worked with young people and their families for most of my working life, as a youth worker and more recently as a SEN teacher specialising in Autism.  I have worked in some of the poorest communities in the UK.  I have oodles of first hand knowledge of the impact of government policy  (national and local) on real people and their communities.  I don’t accept half measures or excuses or reasons for anyone to be living in poverty when there is so much wealth in this country.  I know that I will be called an idealist because of this, I know that others will think people like me are pissing on their party and fucking everything up.  On this very channel I have been accused of destroying a political party, asked to apologise for my views, told to put on my tin foil hat etc... Some folk can’t accept the possibility that a billionaire controlled media and a state owned broadcaster heavily linked to a political party could control the narrative and affect the views of a large proportion of our population (even harder to accept that your own consent could be manufactured).  Or for that matter how government controls the education system and the kind of thought we encourage.  No conspiracy or Illuminati here just an acceptance that we are manipulated.  Here’s the thing, the world needs people like me and people like me are everywhere.  We are the ones who look after and care for your children, your family.  That put love and hope back into the world one person at a time.  These are my biggest political acts and I make them each day of my life.  I refuse to accept that living in a world that has care for others at it’s core is an impossible task and I will do all I can to further that agenda for all of my life.  You all need people like me because if we didn’t exist, to be frank, you’d be fucked.

[BrutusTheBear]

Indeed virtue is nothing without power but it would appear that in order to achieve power we have to let go of our virtues which defeats the object.  If you want the power of wealth ergo the media behind you, you will have to let go and concede the very things you believe are just.  ...our democracy is fucked.   

Do you believe wealth and virtue are mutually exclusive Brutus? Are you Appollonius?

(I mean in Shark's case obviously yes, but as a general rule)

😂 Absolutely not, plenty of virtuous wealthy folk out there but I’d hazard a guess that in order to reach billionaire status you may have to let a few virtues go.

[webbo]

Do you know I think I can smell burning flesh. 

[Oldmanmatt]

Brutus, I know.
I’ve been down there.
I was lucky enough to have the ability and opportunity to claw my way back out of it.
But it was a close run thing and it was acts of charity that, quite literally, save me (actually, some of that was support from people on this forum and one of them was Tom (Sloper) and you don’t get much further to the right than him).
The thing is, when you’re up to your neck in shit, surrounded by shit, struggling to help other people, too overwhelmed to keep their heads above said shit, under a government that couldn’t even give a shit; it’s easy to start thinking no one gives a shit.

Actually, most people are just drowning in different shit and plain don’t understand the other shit. If they did, they probably would and do give...

You get what I mean.

Look, Murdoch is a twunt, and frig knows why he’s so hell bent on world domination, but, if someone is unaware of his position and influence on his media empire’s output; then they’re not really going to be open to think for themselves, are they?
I mean, most (ish) people know that Paper X, supports wing Y etc etc and that none of the many outlets are without some cant, even the BBC.
Frankly, I think more of the credulous were swayed by BJ’s lies and promises of miracles, than news outlet bias.
And again, the British public doesn’t seem to split very differently, regardless of which party the Sun chooses to support in any particular election (actually I think they just aim to pick the winning side, rather than create it).

 

[tomtom]

From someone’s Twitter

A fella from Scunthorpe has just said on national tv..

"look around you shops are shutting, businesses are closing, the full place is falling down, so I voted for change, that's why I voted Conservative"

Let that sink in....

Yup. Let that sink in. This ain’t a brexit thing - it’s people think Johnson will do a better job than Corbyn - despite being from the austerity party. Enough people didn’t think labour under Corbyn were a credible alternative.

[BrutusTheBear]

In order to change a circumstance people first need to understand it properly, they then need the knowledge and skills to negotiate their way through whatever system it is to affect that change.  Trouble is, as you will know, when you’re  up to your eyes in shit you can’t see where it’s coming from.  On our little island we have big voices telling us where the shit is coming from but they’re not telling the truth and so we blame the wrong people for the shit, hate them for it and make poor choices because of the deception.  .
I have just been reminded of a book and person that changed my perception massively would thoroughly recommend it to anyone seeking positive change..  Paulo Freire - Pedagogy of the Oppressed.

[Oldmanmatt]

I’m not doing this well, am I...

I’m not arguing with you, I’m saying the statistics of the popular vote, the reality (if you will) is a much more hopeful picture than the one you think you see. For a start, more than half the population, never vote Conservative. Every election, more than half the people of this country choose something left of the Conservative moderate (if there ever was an election where more than 50% of voters picked the Cons, it was an anomaly). Add to that, as Shark said, not all Cons are bastards, many are conscientious and socially responsible, but not trusting of Labours perceived Loony Leftism (doing lunch with Terrorists etc). Put together, you get a much warmer picture of “the people”.
Plus, it’s the memes and overly simplistic slogans, plastered on social media, that are having the greatest influence, I expect, and they don’t need billionaires to run.
Anyway, I keep getting told Soros is funding us progressives and controlling the media, according to my right wing friends.
 

[TobyD]

I really disagree with all this blame the media bullshit I'm afraid. Newspapers are bought by people to confirm their established worldview generally. The Daily Mail and the Telegraph didn't suddenly change the views of lifelong Labour party voters did they?

British media is among the, if not the most diverse, rich and genuinely informative in the world. Brutus, your assertion that the Labour party was fighting a state broadcaster (if I read your post correctly)  is plain wrong. The UK has no such thing. Try China for that sort of thing.

[TobyD]

 I've just read that in the observer tomorrow, Corbyn writes that he won the arguments and it was all down to the media and brexit.

I find it absolutely flabbergasting that he's still hanging on, and seems to be displaying not one ounce of contrition.

The Labour MPs who lost their seats must be absolutely livid.

[spidermonkey09]

British media is among the, if not the most diverse, rich and genuinely informative in the world.

  what a crock of shite. The British media is owned almost exclusively by Lord Rothermere, Murdoch and the Barclay brothers. It's biased to an extremely clear degree. Refusing to acknowledge that as bad as Corbyn sticking his head in the sand.

[TobyD]

British media is among the, if not the most diverse, rich and genuinely informative in the world.

  what a crock of shite. The British media is owned almost exclusively by Lord Rothermere, Murdoch and the Barclay brothers. It's biased to an extremely clear degree. Refusing to acknowledge that as bad as Corbyn sticking his head in the sand.

This is totally delusional in itself I'm afraid to say. There are any number of other news sources not owned by those who you mention.
But, more relevantly, the journalists who write for them are not automatons, the Times for example publishes many columnists who are strongly critical of Conservative government, and definitely Johnson personally. The front pages are conservative biased but if you actually read them they tend to put across both sides coherently.