UK Politics Omnishambles: Page 77 - The Arsenal discussion community: One More in the Tolly

UK Politics Omnishambles

Mirth

goon wrote:
And arguably the most relevant example is probably Labour in the 2017 GE.

Good point. And of course most newspapers have been fighting declining readership levels all decade anyway.

Really shows how bad May was though.

JazzG

I see Corbyn still hasn't stepped down, as many feared him he along with his/momentum followers won't let go that easily. They showed that after 2017 as well, they've got their claws in deep. Will probably hand pick his successor, they'll lose heavily again and find something else to blame it on.

They need to get rid of that toxic group and rebuild again, I think someone like Ken Starmer is probably the best choice to lead with.

Qwiss

Mirth wrote:
jones wrote:
The UK is a big mistake.

If there's anything to be "learnt" from this result its that social media still doesn't hold a candle to classic media. Does anyone believe the people really have an issue with Corbyns plans to nationalise key industries, increase public spending or raise taxes on corporations? If the middle man doesn't want you in you won't get in, and for most of the UK that middle man isn't some Blog online but still the Sun, Daily Mail etc

I really don't buy that. That isn't to say they don't have a voice - they do - but you've granted them a disproportionate level of influence. You can just see the rise of Lib Dems (early 2010s), UKIP, Brexit and the SNP over the past decade to realise that parties have come about against what the establishment wanted. I could understand if it was a hung parliament or a close result but blaming labour worst result since 1935 on the Sun and the Daily Mail is way too convienent. I may as well blame the Russians or Skynet.

You'd have to be blind not to see the massive influence and one sidedness of the UK media. Brexit had way more backing from the UK media than Corbyn ever had.

Qwiss

JazzG wrote:
Blair is the only Labour leader who has won a general election for Labour since 1974. Apart from his fuck up with the wars he was a popular leader, which is why he won three elections.

And he got Rupert Murdochs backing, which is what makes politicians in England "a popular leader".

And "fuck up with the wars" is an interesting way to gloss over killing half a million people and lying to cabinet and the public to make it happen.

Beyond that he introduced tuition fees, started the privatisation of parts of the national services, deregulated, etc all which laid the ground work for recession and austerity.

Blair may have been a popular leader at the time but the effects of his leadership have turned that on its head.

Mirth

Qwiss! wrote:
Mirth wrote:
I really don't buy that. That isn't to say they don't have a voice - they do - but you've granted them a disproportionate level of influence. You can just see the rise of Lib Dems (early 2010s), UKIP, Brexit and the SNP over the past decade to realise that parties have come about against what the establishment wanted. I could understand if it was a hung parliament or a close result but blaming labour worst result since 1935 on the Sun and the Daily Mail is way too convienent. I may as well blame the Russians or Skynet.

You'd have to be blind not to see the massive influence and one sidedness of the UK media. Brexit had way more backing from the UK media than Corbyn ever had.

I feel that, at best, we're both being blind then. Of course the media influenced the final votes and is certainly a factor but - really - blaming the result on the media when Labour made massive gains against the same backdrop in 2017 is a bit much. Labour are the third biggest party in Scotland! That can't be on the Sun now can it? I'm not even sure the same version of the Sun and the Mail runs in Scotland come to think of it.

Particularly since goon and I and most others on the ground were much more cautious about how this election could play out prior to yesterday. The warning signs were there.

jones

Qwiss! wrote:
Mirth wrote:
I really don't buy that. That isn't to say they don't have a voice - they do - but you've granted them a disproportionate level of influence. You can just see the rise of Lib Dems (early 2010s), UKIP, Brexit and the SNP over the past decade to realise that parties have come about against what the establishment wanted. I could understand if it was a hung parliament or a close result but blaming labour worst result since 1935 on the Sun and the Daily Mail is way too convienent. I may as well blame the Russians or Skynet.

You'd have to be blind not to see the massive influence and one sidedness of the UK media. Brexit had way more backing from the UK media than Corbyn ever had.

Exactly. The "establishment" isn't a monolithic bloc, it is entirely possible for the wealthy and powerful to have divergent interests. All of the parties and movements you named - as far as I can tell from abroad - might have faced some animosity from parts of the media but they also have powerful backers.

Corbyn has barely anybody aside from some columnists at the Guardian and even from there he was torn down loads of times. It's obvious he wouldn't find anyone in power to side with him because he freely says he's their enemy and whatever you might think of him it's clear enough he can't be bought.

Since you seem to think Corbyn is at fault himself Mirth - what exactly could he have done differently? Bit simplified but the whole topic Brexit is a poisoned chalice and there's basically no winning there whatever position he would have taken, in secret he probably would have wanted to publicly back Lexit because he rightly resents the EU but good luck getting that across to anybody. His stated policies are ambitious and would benefit the vast majority of the country while the whole antisemitic garbage is clearly instigated from the outside. If anything him losing by a landslide (plus goon's graph on the last page) is only more proof that Corbyn's hands were pretty much tied.

jones

JazzG wrote:
Blair is the only Labour leader who has won a general election for Labour since 1974. Apart from his fuck up with the wars he was a popular leader, which is why he won three elections.

He's a war criminal. Everything else shouldn't really matter, popularity or not what's the point of having a Labour leader who's well liked by Joe Public while he's one of the main reasons more than a million people died in Iraq and God knows how many more due to the massive influx of weapons and instabilisation in the greater region.

Very poor form to call that a "fuck up".

Proof

JazzG wrote:
jones wrote:
If the middle man doesn't want you in you won't get in, and for most of the UK that middle man isn't some Blog online but still the Sun, Daily Mail etc

How can you say for sure that people don't have a problem with Corbyn's policies?

Great point JazzG!

That's a typical leftist logic: The reason that an election goes against their ideas is never because the populace rejects those ideas. It’s always because the populace is too racist and too dumb to appreciate their progressive ideology.

goon

JazzG wrote:
I see Corbyn still hasn't stepped down, as many feared him he along with his/momentum followers won't let go that easily. They showed that after 2017 as well, they've got their claws in deep. Will probably hand pick his successor, they'll lose heavily again and find something else to blame it on.

They need to get rid of that toxic group and rebuild again, I think someone like Ken Starmer is probably the best choice to lead with.

Momentum could be a really valuable tool in any election but they need to stop being so territorial. They're more than influential enough that even the centrists in the party will pitch to them. Looking at the likely candidates, there's not really many Corbynites to choose from. Rebecca Long-Bailey would be a disaster. Angela Rayner maybe, I've always found her to be quite impressive.

jones

Proof wrote:
JazzG wrote:
How can you say for sure that people don't have a problem with Corbyn's policies?

Great point JazzG!

That's a typical leftist logic: The reason that an election goes against their ideas is never because the populace rejects those ideas. It’s always because the populace is too racist and too dumb to appreciate their progressive ideology.

Nevermind that I never said anything in your dumb simplification. Why do you think does the populace reject plans to turn away from austerity increase spending on downtrodden public institutions and finance it by increasing taxes on the ultrarich?

y va marquer

Labour’s offer failed to convince voters in old coal, steel and manufacturing towns. The so-called “red wall”, made up of seats such as Bolsover, Rother Valley, Blyth Valley, Darlington and Redcar turning Tory indicated a severing of Labour allegiances that in some cases span back 100 years.

The offer which included"free care for the elderly, free university tuition fees, reducing the voting age to 16 and payouts for Waspi women".

According to a Labour spokesperson "free broadband was really unpopular. We hadn’t spent two years making the case for it and we just dumped it on them … so people thought ‘this is a weird luxury, why on earth are we being offered this?”

Maybe people just don't believe that Labour would deliver.

Possible too that their fuzzy position on Brexit didn't help as they lost seats in both strong "Leave" and strong "Remain" areas?

goon

Labours manifesto was popular on the whole. But they went to far with the 4 day week and free broadband. In fairness they had to go radical to break through the Brexit factor, but from my experience on the ground when you push ideas that instinctively feel to far, regardless of whether or not you’d benefit, you lose credibility.

JazzG

Qwiss! wrote:
And he got Rupert Murdochs backing, which is what makes politicians in England "a popular leader".

And "fuck up with the wars" is an interesting way to gloss over killing half a million people and lying to cabinet and the public to make it happen.

Beyond that he introduced tuition fees, started the privatisation of parts of the national services, deregulated, etc all which laid the ground work for recession and austerity.

Blair may have been a popular leader at the time but the effects of his leadership have turned that on its head.

I'm not defending Blair, don't really like the guy but at the end of the day he won three elections. Corbyn has suffered two heavy losses in general elections, had a vote of no confidence passed on him and fucked up the European elections so that path is not going to work. So you can either shout from the sidelines or you need to choose a different path.

No leader is perfect and all good looking at what Blair did wrong but he did plenty right as well which is why people voted for him twice after he was elected. It is rather condescending to just put down to doing a deal with Murdoch. Which explains why so many on the left are at a loss as to why Labour lost so heavily. I've seen people on twitter calling everyone who voted Conservative a racist, homophobic, an Islamophobe, a nazi among other things, then blaming the elderly for ruining the younger generations future prospects. Not really going down with grace, maybe some people need to look inwards and see where it went wrong rather than just blaming the opposition and those who voted for them. Those who knocked on doors and on the ground have known for weeks what was coming, social media bubble says otherwise but that is now how things work. Places like Wrexham which have been with Labour for nearly 85 years they couldn't hold, this isn't just down to the media influencing them.

As for the War, I'm not glossing over anything. The biggest reason I lost faith in Blair and his government. At the time I was against it and still am, one of the biggest mistakes made in history and has completely fucked up the middle east and still this to date we along with those in that region are suffering due to it.

jones wrote:
He's a war criminal. Everything else shouldn't really matter, popularity or not what's the point of having a Labour leader who's well liked by Joe Public while he's one of the main reasons more than a million people died in Iraq and God knows how many more due to the massive influx of weapons and instabilisation in the greater region.

Very poor form to call that a "fuck up".

Well the world and people/politics isn't black and white is it? Look at the current Labour leader and what he supports, anti Semitism rife in his party under his watch in the past openly supports IRA, Hamas etc. Not exactly a saint is he?

I agree re his actions in the middle east, him and Bush/Cheney in particular have made the world a much worse place to live in.

Proof wrote:
Great point JazzG!

That's a typical leftist logic: The reason that an election goes against their ideas is never because the populace rejects those ideas. It’s always because the populace is too racist and too dumb to appreciate their progressive ideology.

Even now they still can not see what they've done wrong. Everything is just everyone else's fault, not down to their policies just down to Brexit. They knew this hammering was coming, on social media their game is strong but that does not win you elections. More polls coming out today showing that the reason they lost was their leader but still people putting it down to Brexit. People just did not believe or buy into their policies. All good promising free things but their policy on Brexit and immigration was as clear as mud. When it came to all this nationalising industries and promising free broadband, this is a party which can't get to grip with the anti Semitism in it's ranks you think they could deliver all of that?

Corbyn today not taking full responsibility of one of the worst campaigns ever by Labour. If he had any shame he would have resigned. Ed Miliband didn't do this bad and was out the next day, have some fucking shame man. Wes Streeting was seething today with his criticism and spot on, Corbyn and his people had everything they wanted and still took the party backwards. They had one gain in the whole of the country and that was Putney.

It is a shame the Labour party is so weak right now, those in the centre don't feel represented.

jones

JazzG wrote:
jones wrote:
He's a war criminal. Everything else shouldn't really matter, popularity or not what's the point of having a Labour leader who's well liked by Joe Public while he's one of the main reasons more than a million people died in Iraq and God knows how many more due to the massive influx of weapons and instabilisation in the greater region.

Very poor form to call that a "fuck up".

Well the world and people/politics isn't black and white is it? Look at the current Labour leader and what he supports, anti Semitism rife in his party under his watch in the past openly supports IRA, Hamas etc. Not exactly a saint is he?

This is the worst whataboutism I've seen in a while. Untrue, grossly distorting reality and has nothing to do with the fact that you called causing millions of deaths a fuck up. Funny that in the same post you talk about people not going down in grace.

Burnwinter

JazzG wrote:
Well the world and people/politics isn't black and white is it? Look at the current Labour leader and what he supports, anti Semitism rife in his party under his watch in the past openly supports IRA, Hamas etc. Not exactly a saint is he?

Read everything the Campaign Against Antisemitism has on Corbyn—all 24 charges—and you'll see most of them rely on the clauses of the International Definition of Antisemitism that overlap far too much with anti-Zionism. In a forty year parliamentary career he's stood on a platform a few times with a Palestinian who has withering things to say about Israel—meanwhile in the CAA's own report many Palestinian activists are branded as "terrorists".

I would never claim there's no antisemitism on the left, but it's honestly hard to imagine any anti-Zionist of public note not being vulnerable to similar charges.

It's hard to overstate the ludicrousness of comparing Corbyn's principled support of Palestine and Gaza, or IRA prisoners, with Blair backing up the Powell dossier that manufactured consent for a war with a body count in the hundreds of thousands whose repercussions remain brutal today. To think that way you have to weigh those half a million lives at nothing.

With all respect, if you're about to argue with it just stop for a moment and think what you're about to say and how little sense it makes and how many families have had to be destroyed, how many parents have had to shed bitter tears for it to be said.

It's only been a few days since WaPo published an exposé revealing the US military has known Afghanistan was an abject failure all along. Corbyn crossed the floor to fight against all these wars, one of the vanishingly few that did despite two thirds of the public agreeing with him, and he's branded a security risk because he might have stopped arms shipments to Saudi Arabia..

Meatwad

being against an apartheid state makes you an anti-semite now. it's no coincidence that israel was also a big backer of the south african apartheid regime. birds of a feather flock together. good thing the SA whites weren't jewish or the regime might still exist today.

JazzG

jones wrote:
This is the worst whataboutism I've seen in a while. Untrue, grossly distorting reality and has nothing to do with the fact that you called causing millions of deaths a fuck up. Funny that in the same post you talk about people not going down in grace.

Give it a rest, I was answering your point about the Labour Leader and the principles you think they should hold. Blair is a scummy individual and caused a lot of harm in that region. Also stop putting words in my mouth, at no point have I said calling millions of deaths a fuck up. I generally made a point that going to war was a fuck up.

Burnwinter wrote:
It's hard to overstate the ludicrousness of comparing Corbyn's principled support of Palestine and Gaza, or IRA prisoners, with Blair backing up the Powell dossier that manufactured consent for a war with a body count in the hundreds of thousands whose repercussions remain brutal today. To think that way you have to weigh those half a million lives at nothing.

Where have I compared anything? All I've said is Corbyn is no saint and stand by that. Most politicians are scummy individuals who usually have some skeletons in their closet or some very bad views hence my not black/white point.

Mirth

jones wrote:
Qwiss! wrote:
You'd have to be blind not to see the massive influence and one sidedness of the UK media. Brexit had way more backing from the UK media than Corbyn ever had.

Exactly. The "establishment" isn't a monolithic bloc, it is entirely possible for the wealthy and powerful to have divergent interests. All of the parties and movements you named - as far as I can tell from abroad - might have faced some animosity from parts of the media but they also have powerful backers.

Corbyn has barely anybody aside from some columnists at the Guardian and even from there he was torn down loads of times. It's obvious he wouldn't find anyone in power to side with him because he freely says he's their enemy and whatever you might think of him it's clear enough he can't be bought.

Since you seem to think Corbyn is at fault himself Mirth - what exactly could he have done differently? Bit simplified but the whole topic Brexit is a poisoned chalice and there's basically no winning there whatever position he would have taken, in secret he probably would have wanted to publicly back Lexit because he rightly resents the EU but good luck getting that across to anybody. His stated policies are ambitious and would benefit the vast majority of the country while the whole antisemitic garbage is clearly instigated from the outside. If anything him losing by a landslide (plus goon's graph on the last page) is only more proof that Corbyn's hands were pretty much tied.

First off, I'm not going to deny that the media has given Corbyn a tough ride. The media certainly is pro incumbent whether it's the Tories or New Labour. Certainly whoever was facing up to Boris Johnson had an uphill task - however the nations expectations were set accordingly. No one expected Labour to land a majority but there was some hope for a hung Parliament or a small Tory majority. So its fair to say that those of us who've now become tired of the way Labour have gone these past few years have also curtailed our expectations and set the bar quite low in light of Labour's uphill task.

Despite that they've lost by a margin not seen since 1935. That's before World War 2! How does the media account for that level of a defeat? They gained in 2017 against that same background, didn't they? Maybe the attacks got a bit more aggressive but I don't think they've gotten that much worse since 2017. Similarly, Labour are now non-existent in Scotland. Why is that? Scotland's media is more left wing and the national sentiment is more anti Tory than anywhere else. Why is the Tory party still larger than Labour there? Why are they simultaneously not the party thats loudest on the Union or Brexit in Scotland? Why has Wales been a place where the Tories have gained? Generations of families have been brought up hating the Tories like children are bought up hating Spurs. Instead of looking at absolutes, I think it's worth reflecting on what changed since 2017 - certainly gaining more ground on the Tories would always been tricky but to totally collapse? I don't know what the answer to that is because that's simplifying things but I know it's not fully on the media.

I know you asked me on what policies I would go for and you can go through this thread with me and goon calling out times Labour haven't been effective opposition. I think since 2017, people expected more from Corbyn in opposition but from where I was standing it felt that he didn't push a weak Theresa May far enough and once Boris Johnson came into power, he fell into every trap the new PM laid for him. It's not that Corbyn can't roll his sleeves up and stoop to that level, Momentum have done exactly that with the Labour Party which was also not seen nationally as a great outcome. By the time the Labour manifesto was announced, it was too late to change that view.

And yeah, being neutral on Brexit was a bad idea. In 2017 Labour took Brexit off as a political topic by matching the Tories. This time around their view was neutral in a subject that was the most polarising. Maybe there was no right answer but I'm willing to bet that backing Remain or Leave would have cost them fewer votes. So maybe they picked the worst option. The precise reason for Boris calling this election was because of Brexit so pretending that the public would be distracted by free broadband was a gamble. It may well be that in 2024, those same policies could work and you'll tear your hair out but Labour prepared for the wrong test this time around.

Mirth

Blair needs to be hauled up for war crimes but he's still the only PM in a generation who was able to walk away on his own terms. It wouldn't be the worst thing this Labour party to learn a trick or two around domestic policy to win an election.

1970s policies got us Margaret Thatcher and now in all likelihood a decade of Boris Johnson.

Tam

I've always been against Scottish independence, for a number of reason I don't think we need to go in to, but I'm struggling to see any other way for Scotland now. It's clear we differ greatly from those in England and have very different priorities.

I can't see Labour troubling the Tories for a very long time, and I'm not sure I could pick a credible leader from those who might stand that would be able to unite the party. Scottish Labour have been disastrous in recent years. I can't believe we've just had an election that's returned one Labour MP in Scotland.

« Previous Page Next Page »