[Oldmanmatt]

I think the social media angle is misleading.

There are numerous examples of very similar activities, delivering of misleading information through trite and deliberately selective snippets (memes, if you will) since both the dawn of the printing press and that of democracies (I’d argue, one begat the other; in fairly “literal” (sorry) sense).
Social media is just the latest delivery method. I’m not wholly convinced it is actually more pervasive or any more likely to “alter” an opinion, than a leaflet; both of which I’d characterise as “reinforcing” existing dispositions.
I don’t believe there has been a huge swing in numbers/voting splits amongst the population; post SM introduction, to indicate mass brain washing.
The middle ground swings. Ultimately the voters are split 50/50 Conservative to Progressive. (Pretty sure I’ve said that before and evidenced it). They always are. The key difference is that the progressive vote is split. It always is.
Statistically, mathematically, reducing the likelihood of a progressive government.

As history shows.

We’re all aware that Bojo’s “massive” majority is an artefact of the electoral system and not an accurate reflection of public sentiment. At least, anyone who can add up and has looked, must be aware.

So the brainwashing cabal, is a pretty thin and flimsy bogeyman.

Looking at the numbers.

[ali k]

I think the key difference between social media and the print press of old or leaflets with misleading information is the degree to which the message can be micro-targeted for that particular individual.

With mass distribution of leaflets or newspaper articles the message is constrained by the fact that the same leaflet/article will be viewed many different demographics so they can’t be too offensive for fear of alienating one or other group. But with social media that’s not a concern. You could send contradictory messages directly to two members of the same family and get them both to vote for you.

[mrjonathanr]

I think the key difference between social media and the print press of old or leaflets with misleading information is the degree to which the message can be micro-targeted for that particular individual.

This. The important issue isn’t how many voters you reach, it is which ones are influenced and current technology facilitates this with a previously unseen sophistication.

I’d concur with most of Offwidth’s points in his last post too.

[seankenny]

Meanwhile an alternative way of thinking is thus...
There is/ was effective opposition but that kind of opposition is not ‘allowed’ to exist by the powers that be.  By capitulating with the mainstream narrative and working within the limited parameters of ‘allowed’ for discussion this will always be the case.  Those that continue to regurgitate this line are effectively shooting themselves in the foot if they truly believe in a fairer society and truly believe that climate change must be combatted immediately.
The empty term ‘effective opposition’ in this view means compromised opposition, for to have the approval of the powers that be and thus be deemed ‘effective’ requires the removal of values that don’t support the vested interests of those with power. 
The hardest thing for anyone to admit is that they are being ‘led’, that there own thinking could possibly be affected by the information thrown at them.  Ironically, many of those that deny this possibility would also suggest that those that voted for Brexit were manipulated in this way.

The problem with this line of argument is essentially why have YOU seen through this to the reality beyond, whereas clearly I am still a misguided fool? In short, what makes you so damn special and insightful?

Why do I always feel such statements are not arguments intended to persuade me, but statements of faith designed to reassure the true believers? I mean, when one is reduced to saying things like:

Effective politicians gain power. Ineffective ones don’t.

  Quite a statement, depends what effect you’re looking for.  Things are much more complex than this and I am sure you’re well aware of that.

This is some gnostic/angels on the head of a pin stuff.

[BrutusTheBear]

I am the special one! 
Sean tbf your approach to me has been aggressive and dismissive from the off, that starting point is hard a place to gain any sort of understanding or hold any kind of sensible conversation from.  I am as much a product of my own upbringing, my background, my education, my community, my peers, the information sources I use etc. as you or anyone else.  My views aren’t an exception there are plenty of folk in the world that draw similar conclusions and share common ground with me. I choose to share my thoughts when you, previously, have effectively told me to shut up and go away because I refuse to be bullied into silence.  I’m very willing to learn, to apologise when an apology is due, to discuss what I think openly and to accept criticism that is balanced and delivered with an element of care and empathy.  Understanding that each and everyday we are all bombarded with information intended to affect our decision making is not the same as thinking that others are misguided fools.   To be honest I don’t even know what is meant by ‘gnostic angels on pin heads’??

[TobyD]

I thought this was an interesting article.

BBC News - Do voters need therapy?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-51510106

[Offwidth]

As a counterpoint try a John Naughton review of a new book on US online propaganda https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/feb/17/antisocial-how-online-extremists-broke-america-andrew-marantz-review.

In the end political argument becomes irrelevant if one side cheats as much as Trump and Boris have and the mainstrem media can do too little about it. The 'angry difference' is no longer a cognitive distortion about a one sided view of politics when it becomes serious concerns about bigger picture non-partisan issues like honesty, democracy and press freedom. In such a context the professor's discussion might even be another distracting liberal red herring.

[Will Hunt]

Effective politicians gain power. Ineffective ones don’t.

  Quite a statement, depends what effect you’re looking for.  Things are much more complex than this and I am sure you’re well aware of that.

This is a critical misunderstanding. All those things that you want, Brutus, can't come about without a Labour government. If Labour don't win elections (and they generally don't) it leaves us at the mercy of the Conservatives who are cruel and not afraid to mete out misery and punishment on those who are not like them. Most Conservative voters would not recognise these qualities in themselves, but that is what the people that they elect do.

Take a look at this literature that you get when you join the Labour party.



Notice that all the amazing things that Labour have done have occurred when they are in power. Under Corbyn, Labour's achievements have been to increase membership of the party (this has made no difference whatsoever to the lives of the unfortunate people that you want to help), and losing the 2017 General Election by a smaller margin than they lost the previous General Election.

The exception to the rule that you need to be in government to effect change is if you can offer significant challenge to the incumbent government at the ballot box. This is what UKIP/BP did to the Conservatives. Labour under Corbyn have never offered any threat to the Tories.

No single person or group is ever going to get all of what they want unless they implement an autocracy. I'm afraid that if you want Labour to help people, you are going to have accept that they will need to compromise on the radical socialism in order to attract swing voters from the middle. If the membership of the party doesn't let them do that, they usher in continued Tory rule and all that goes with it.

[andy popp]

The power at any cost line argument can eventually end in absurdity. I'm currently watching my more progressive Democrat friends being lectured by moderates on social media about how they have to fall in line and vote for Michael Bloomberg if he's the nominee - "vote blue no matter who" as the saying goes. They have to do no such thing, especially if they are black or brown. Bloomberg is a republican with a record of deeply problematic policing as mayor of NYC. Saying that anything is better than Trump is based in a fatuous and complacent of reading of the situation, as if everything will go back to nice apple pie America if only we get rid of Trump. Fine if you're comfortably off and white and don't really have to think about or experience the deeply unequal and oppressive power structures that dominate American life. Get rid of only Trump, who is as much symptom as cause, and all of that is left in place.

The situation is not the same in Britain because of different systems of government and elections. Moreover, all of the current Labour Party leader candidates clearly belong somewhere in the Labour tent. But as I began by saying, taken to its extreme this line of argument can end up in being faced with having no choice but to vote for the marginally lesser of two evils. No wonder people resent being told they have to get in line.

[BrutusTheBear]

Indeed AP, I very much resent being told to get into line and am not alone amongst fellow LP activists.

1948. The creation of the NHS..  Clement Attlee was the prime minister to finally make it happen but it was the hard work and activism of socialists that laid the path which he followed to it’s conclusion.  Attlee was smeared from all angles from within the Labour Party, of course by the Conservatives and consistently within the mainstream press.  The timing may have been right but it was activism ‘on the ground’ that countered the negative publicity and brought the LP to power with a mandate that was portrayed as being very radical.  The level of ‘infighting’, the smearing, the naysaying, the usual statements about socialists wanting to take your money etc. etc. was by all accounts next level. If he and his supporters had not stood firm there would be no NHS. Not a victory for the centrist movement at all.(Sound familiar?).

2016 membership surpassed half a million - Who was leading the party the largest political party in Western Europe? ( Watch what happens to membership if as is expected Starmer is elected leader.)

I agree that of course you can’t create change without having power but am arguing that the change we need will not be won through capitulation.  Rather that the LP needs desperately to get savvy to counter the tirade and present it’s vision through propaganda to persuade the masses (an increasingly difficult mountain to climb in these times).  Perhaps, as with Attlee we need the times to be right and maybe after 5 years of the nonsense we are about to endure they will be.  I actually worry that in 5 years time a ‘centrist’ party in bed with the establishment won’t cut against the populism that exists.

WH As I have said above it is looking increasingly likely that you will have your wish and we will see how it plays out.  I hope to goodness that you are able to say ‘I told you so’ to me but I am not holding my breath.

Radical socialism?  Let’s have some specifics, which bits of our most recent manifesto do you think are radical?

[tomtom]

Indeed AP, I very much resent being told to get into line and am not alone amongst fellow LP activists.

I very much resent being told to get into line by Corbyn zealots - that seem to have taken over everything (or tried to) over the last 4 years.. I too am not alone amongst fellow LP members!

Its been three years of emporers new clothes - watching King Jezza prancing around naked and trying not to look too embarassed that I'm a member of the party he led. Good riddance - and I welcome change from the farce.

Sorry if this a bit raw for some - but his leadership has been an absolute fucking joke and a disaster for the party - and country.

[andy popp]

I hope I made clear that I do think the situations in the US and the UK are very different. I just wanted to point out the absurd position the Democrats might find themselves in. Corbyn, on the other hand, was obviously a very ineffective leader.

[i.munro]

I am baffled by this conviction that moving to the right would have gained Labour more votes.
There was a self-proclaimed 'centrist' party available and hardly anyone voted for them - sadly just enough to ensure a Tory victory.

[teestub]

I am baffled by this conviction that moving to the right would have gained Labour more votes.
There was a self-proclaimed 'centrist' party available and hardly anyone voted for them - sadly just enough to ensure a Tory victory.

You think if Labour had made themselves appealing to the unnamed centrist party voters, they would have risked losing a load of votes on the left to the Socialist Party?

[i.munro]

No, although possibly to the greens, but something I heard a lot during the election campaign was "well things were no better when you lot were in power" so I suspect they might well have lost votes that way.

[Oldmanmatt]

I am baffled by this conviction that moving to the right would have gained Labour more votes.
There was a self-proclaimed 'centrist' party available and hardly anyone voted for them - sadly just enough to ensure a Tory victory.

They are always there.

The winning party is that which attracts enough to their side on the day.
Although,  in actuality, should Labour win an election, what happens is that a percentage of Tories slip to the centrist party and a few on the left of that centrist party slip to Labour. The centrist % remains almost unchanged.
Labour cannot win without attracting some from the middle ground and, moreover, they cannot win unless the Tories lose to the centrist.
Do you imagine a significant number of Tories will up and vote Labour?
The fixed, are fixed. The swing voters, only swing so far.
The entire election process is determined by the centrists.
The fact that the LibDems were so weak this time, should have been good for Labour.
Labour were not able to persuade enough from the left of the LD’s, but the Tories kept enough on side. That’s all there was to it.

[i.munro]

The fact that the LibDems were so weak this time, should have been good for Labour.
Labour were not able to persuade enough from the left of the LD’s, but the Tories kept enough on side. That’s all there was to it.

Or the LDs were so weak because they had moved so far to the right as part of the coalition.
Or because there simply is no support anymore for the "centrist" politics that have brought both the environment and economy to the point of collapse - looking across Europe that would seem to be the case everywhere.
The pattern of voting you describe may well have gone away forever - looking at the UK results it looks rather as if the Tories have managed to persuade a small but significant number of Labour voters to switch sides in part of the country.
In other parts Labour has clearly managed to persuade Tories to switch the other way  - they won in Putney FFS and probably would have taken Kensington if not for some dodgy websites pushing the LDs as the best "remain" option.
The party of the wealthy and privileged is losing in the wealthiest and most privileged areas in the country while winning elsewhere. Your L/R analysis is either outdated or oversimplistic.

[Davo]

Radical socialism?  Let’s have some specifics, which bits of our most recent manifesto do you think are radical?

Hi Brutus

I think this is a good question. Personally I thought that most of the recent manifesto was actually fine. I would have preferred less nationalisation and just generally less in there (similar to 2017 would be my preference) but overall I did not have a significant problem with the policies. Okay, I thought it very unlikely they could achieve everything and thought it was more of a wish list but in general that actual policies were not an issue for me. (disclaimer: I voted Labour but am not a Labour Party member).

I think it is perfectly possible not to have an issue with any of the actual policies and still think that Corbyn was a bad leader (in fact really terrible). I am not talking about how he was portrayed by the popular press: I am mainly thinking about how bad he was when being interviewed by the BBC on Radio4 and how crap he was in the debates against Johnson. Also I think about how he failed to stop anti-semitism being an issue and let this drag on for so long. The way the manifesto was presented was also an issue for me: despite being in favour of the majority of the policies it just can across as a desperate wish list - I can only imagine what it looked like to anyone less left leaning.

You may well disagree with this but I really think that there were abundant opportunities for him to perform well and bring people round and hold the conservative govt to account but at each turn he could not do it. The debates were a prime example of this where he really couldn’t cut through and skewer Johnson. I can only think what a field day Blair would have had in those debates...

Lastly I think it is also reasonable to accept that the job of a political leader is to win and be acceptable to the electorate. Corbyn simply came with too much baggage and too little political skill and stayed around too long. Possibly it would have been better if he had recognised his own weaknesses and moved aside for someone better suited once he had moved the party left (this is the one thing that I think has been good about his leadership).

Cheers

Dave

[teestub]

The party of the wealthy and privileged is losing in the wealthiest and most privileged areas in the country while winning elsewhere. Your L/R analysis is either outdated or oversimplistic.

Looks like they still did pretty well in the Home Counties, Cotswolds etc. aren’t these the real areas of wealth and privilege, whereas the London boroughs have more mixed demographics and can therefore have more differing results?

[BrutusTheBear]

Fair point Davo.  Given that the first time in our lifetime there was a politician that is willing to go against the grain and represent true socialist values as leader of LP, the enthusiasm for him is understandable.  So do we shift to the right because the accepted view is the leader was no good?

[Davo]

Fair point Davo.  Given that the first time in our lifetime there was a politician that is willing to go against the grain and represent true socialist values as leader of LP, the enthusiasm for him is understandable.  So do we shift to the right because the accepted view is the leader was no good?

Hi Brutus

Thanks for the message. No I would suggest that most of the policies are fine (possibly just go back to the 2017 manifesto or fairly close to that?) it is mostly about presentation and having a leader more suited to the actual job of being a leader of a large political party in the modern age. I personally think that with the right leader Labour would do very well.

[TobyD]

The party of the wealthy and privileged is losing in the wealthiest and most privileged areas in the country while winning elsewhere. Your L/R analysis is either outdated or oversimplistic.

Looks like they still did pretty well in the Home Counties, Cotswolds etc. aren’t these the real areas of wealth and privilege, whereas the London boroughs have more mixed demographics and can therefore have more differing results?

Very generally,  I thought it was now taken that the more relevant trend is that metropolitan areas tend to have stuck with Labour,  and the small towns and countryside have more or less stayed,  or become Conservative. 
I think that the whole left right thing is rather an outdated red herring  since it fails to meaningfully distinguish between the more contentious political arguments now, rather than the ones of the last century.  However you want to frame it, there are people broadly pro globalisation which tends to be allied with an enthusiasm for inclusivity and multiculturalism. There are others whose outlook focuses more on a sense of national identity and pride, and would say that they value community and hard work. 
I'd argue that the story of the 2019 election was that people who were Labour voters in the 20th century aren't any more,  as, for example,  (generally)  small town industrial areas in the Midlands and North aren't pro globalisation,  or at least they're put off by strongly global policies, as it's often seen to harm communities. 
The idea of the workers vs the landowners just doesn't really seem relevant any more.  For a start data and ideas are worth more than land, and hardly anyone (on a national level)  makes things like steel anymore.  Our biggest manufacturing industry is cars, but it wont be in twenty of thirty years time. 

In many ways its merely two different outlooks on how itd be best to try to improve the country,  seeing the other side as some evil force just doesn't seem very helpful. 

[Somebody's Fool]

The manifesto overreach in 2019, including its strung out delivery, must be considered in light of it being a futile attempt to keep the agenda off Brexit.

Labour's Brexit position was disastrous in terms of the way the media framed the election. Once Labour made the move towards remain, running it as a second referendum through FPTP (Two thirds of seats were Leave) was a masterstroke from the Tories and their media backers. It's what Theresa May wanted to do in 2017, but Labour's Brexit position then prevented the tactic from taking hold. I find it baffling that people believe Owen Smith, Yvette Cooper or Jess Phillips could have done better.

Labour were desperate not to have the election, but were bounced into it by the LDs and SNP. I suspect they knew they were fucked from the moment the election was called. I also think this would explain Corbyn's increased peevishness and general lack of enthusiasm compared to 2017 campaign.

Further to Toby's point about small towns. I would say that these areas, and therefore FPTP as a whole, are overly represented by propertied pensioners as younger working people tend to move to cities. So you essentially need a housing crash to change the government under our current system.

[TobyD]

No I would suggest that most of the policies are fine (possibly just go back to the 2017 manifesto or fairly close to that?) it is mostly about presentation and having a leader more suited to the actual job of being a leader of a large political party in the modern age. I personally think that with the right leader Labour would do very well.

Whether or not you think that the policies were fine depends on who you want to vote for you.  With reference to my post above,  if that's say Burnley or rural Derbyshire,  they'll be put off by people talking about free movement,  whereas students or metropolitan professionals in Sheffield or London will be all for it. I'm not saying that the people put off by free movement are xenophobic or anything close to it, but that there are things which they value more.

[TobyD]

Further to Toby's point about small towns. I would say that these areas, and therefore FPTP as a whole, are overly represented by propertied pensioners as younger working people tend to move to cities. So you essentially need a housing crash to change the government under our current system.

That's a good point.  I wouldn't disagree,  I can't see Labour winning the next two or three elections at the moment,  barring the conservative government suffering an intrinsic or extrinsic cataclysm.