UK General Election - 12th December 2019 | Con 365, Lab 203, LD 11, SNP 48, Other 23 - Tory Majority of 80

[Redlambs]

Remember, I'm not British. I don't give a feck about Corbyn, I don't even know a lot about him. If he is out on his arse tomorrow, so be it. I have about as much attachment to him as to the president of, I don't know, Germany. And I don't even remember who that is right now.

My point is that the left is facing similar issues and difficulties everywhere and it would be a mistake to conclude that this election turned on nothing but Corbyn. You pointed out several times in this thread that the 2017 election result for Labour wasn't a success - I'm saying that in the current environment, that's the best they could have hoped for on Thursday. And that it's not worth giving up leftist ideals for that. And again, I do not equate Corbyn with leftist ideals. Labour can kick Corbyn to the curb and represent actual leftist values at the same time, no problem. Just, you know, it shouldn't become a second Lib Dem party. The first is pointless enough on its own.

Basically, I believe Labour lost the election because it's not on the right. And they can't change that. If by getting rid of Corbyn they can position themselves as a more credible and serious leftist party then they should do that, absolutely. Just don't expect miracles from it, and don't expect that there is some magical centrist idea that can rally the nation.

No one is expecting that though! But what we did expect, and got, was a Corbyn led defeat.

And if it's ever to change, the way the world is going, we need real solutions no? And one of those solutions is definitely not looking at places like here or social media and thinking Labour only lost because they are on the left. They have real problems in this country, problems they refuse to come out of their bubble and acknowledge.

 

[Siorac]

I'd say the Labour party should seperate what it says from what it does. Find some means of letting their core supporters know to ignore the election slogan that doesn't fit them that well. The conservatives will certainly consider privatising the NHS and i'd say a lot of their supporters know it, but they'd never admit it during an election campaign.

I mean, from a pragmatic perspective, you might be on to something but this is all a little depressing, isn't it? "Learn to lie well to get elected" is not a message I particularly care for.

 

[Redlambs]

I mean, from a pragmatic perspective, you might be on to something but this is all a little depressing, isn't it? "Learn to lie well to get elected" is not a message I particularly care for.

Nor me.

But it's better than watching the world slide further to the right and sitting on a moral perch letting it burn...

 

[caid]

I mean, from a pragmatic perspective, you might be on to something but this is all a little depressing, isn't it? "Learn to lie well to get elected" is not a message I particularly care for.

It is a bit. But pragmatism would probably be a healthy habit to embrace in other areas. The system we operate in just is a long way off perfect and i'm coming to the conclusion its not that helpful to be in opposition to it on every front. Learn to pick the battles. The media, marketing and the electorates knowledge of policy are all lacking. We're losing badly to liars and cheats and the moral high ground is little consolation.

 

[Lentwood]

I conpletely agree that it's not so much about what Corbyn represents. But it IS about how he and momentum have handled the past 10 or so years, no?

And that's where the wires should become uncrossed, where we can make more sense of each other's side. Hopefully

Honestly, I don’t know - I’m hoping that’s what they mean about the “period of reflection” i.e. they are going to be focusing on how the message has been promoted, how differences of opinion have been handled (I suspect badly!) and whether the Party has become too dogmatic.

I’ve never actually met a Momentum member, I’ve heard they can be pretty militant but that’s only second/third hand accounts

Saw David Lammy tweet something I thought was very relevant earlier - clearly the Labour Party needs to heal, become a broad church again and try to create some kind of shared identity young, old, rich, poor can get behind. The Conservatives identity is clear, what’s Labours? At the moment, you might say the perception is that it’s the Party of the shouty intellectual, the ideologues and the “liberal elite” - and clearly that needs to change!

 

[Redlambs]

It is a bit. But pragmatism would probably be a healthy habit to embrace in other areas. The system we operate in just is a long way off perfect and i'm coming to the conclusion its not that helpful to be in opposition to it on every front. Learn to pick the battles. The media, marketing and the electorates knowledge of policy are all lacking. We're losing badly to liars and cheats and the moral high ground is little consolation.

Yep.

And those without the stomach for the fight, yet bleat on about how the world is going, should really stop acting all high and mightly. Because they are part of the long term problem. (definitely not aimed at you @Siorac btw )

 

[Siorac]

No one is expecting that though! But what we did expect, and got, was a Corbyn led defeat.

And if it's ever to change, the way the world is going, we need real solutions no? And one of those solutions is definitely not looking at places like here or social media and thinking Labour only lost because they are on the left. They have real problems in this country, problems they refuse to come out of their bubble and acknowledge.

As caid said above, the best idea for the left for now seems to be to campaign on something other than what they actually believe, while reassuring their core voters that they'll do what they actually believe once they're in power. It's a bit shit.

I'm a little bit frustrated with the "they have real problems in this country that they refuse to acknowledge" line, and not because of Labour specifically. I don't know what problems you refer to in regards to them but I keep hearing the same thing in Hungary and I keep reading the same thing regarding US politics.

Let me give you the Hungarian example. One of the sticks the opposition is beat with by its critics is that "it doesn't have a credible answer to immigration". Fidesz, the governing party, has it: we don't want it, we want to be left alone to be Hungarians without having to see people who are not as Hungarian as we are. It's VERY VERY hard to counter that message because Hungary has basically no immigration. Like seriously, it's negligible. With our birthrates, we would actually need it, otherwise the strain on social safety nets will be unbearable in the foreseeable future. But saying that would be a complete and utter disaster for any politician. Saying that immigration is a non-issue is either ignored or dismissed with conspiracy theories ("you're only saying that because Soros pays you to throw us off our guard so you can let all the migrants in"). Basically Fidesz created a narrative in which they cannot lose: as long as people believe it is a real issue, their answer wins. Their only choice is shifting the narrative, like how Labour tried to make this election about the NHS - and they are about as successful with it as Labour was.

Similarly, the Democrats in the US are often accused of being out of touch with the rural population. But what can they do? The cultural chasm is too wide and it doesn't seem to matter that their actual policies would probably help a lot of people in deep poverty - many of whom live in deeply red (as in Republican, fecking US politics with their inverse colours) states, in those rural communities.

It's all a bit fecked, honestly. I'm sure there is a way out of this and it's just that I can't see it. At least the American right was stupid enough to elect someone as clearly awful as Trump. He is so polarising and just so all around terrible that he might manage to squander his considerable advantages. That would be good news for the rest of the world, too.

 

[Drifter]

 

[Lentwood]

Remember, I'm not British. I don't give a feck about Corbyn, I don't even know a lot about him. If he is out on his arse tomorrow, so be it. I have about as much attachment to him as to the president of, I don't know, Germany. And I don't even remember who that is right now.

My point is that the left is facing similar issues and difficulties everywhere and it would be a mistake to conclude that this election turned on nothing but Corbyn. You pointed out several times in this thread that the 2017 election result for Labour wasn't a success - I'm saying that in the current environment, that's the best they could have hoped for on Thursday. And that it's not worth giving up leftist ideals for that. And again, I do not equate Corbyn with leftist ideals. Labour can kick Corbyn to the curb and represent actual leftist values at the same time, no problem. Just, you know, it shouldn't become a second Lib Dem party. The first is pointless enough on its own.

Basically, I believe Labour lost the election because it's not on the right. And they can't change that. If by getting rid of Corbyn they can position themselves as a more credible and serious leftist party then they should do that, absolutely. Just don't expect miracles from it, and don't expect that there is some magical centrist idea that can rally the nation.

Good post

 

[BusbyMalone]

So i’ve been perusing Twitter the last day or two (i know, i know - that’s my first mistake) since the election results, and the prevailing view on there seems to be that Labour lost due to one thing and one thing only: Jeremy Corbyn.

Now, i’m not a Corbynista - far from it, in fact, i voted Labour reluctantly due to party allegiance and the thought of the Conservatives being in power for anther couple of years was truly nightmarish - but i just can’t accept this notion that it was all down to Corbyn. He’s disked, he’s hated, he’s not trusted, he’s despised. I get it. I don’t care for the man much myself. But the idea that it was all on him, just doesn’t ring true to me.

Especially when you consider the absolute mouth-breather he was up against. This is a man who wears all of his foibles, his racism, his xenophobia, his misdemeanours - whatever else you want to throw at him - on his sleeve. He proudly displays all this, yet he can still absolutely destroy the opposition. Despite all of his lies and demagoguery he still crushed it.

Now, you can use all this and say “well, that just goes to show how bad Corbyn was”. And you’d probably be right to a certain extent, but that can’t be the sole reason for it. People are literally saying “it’s as that simple. No more, no less. It was all down to Corbyn”.

Again, this is not meant to absolve Corbyn at all - i don’t like the guy myself and he should go immediately - but i can’t help but think that even if someone else was in charge of the Labour party, we would still end up with the same result. Not as emphatic, perhaps, but still a win for the Conservatives.

I know people who’ve voted Labour their whole lives and if you told them 10 or 15 years ago that they would be voting for Conservative in the future they would’ve laughed in your face after politely telling you to feck off. But they did. And it wasn’t down to Corbyn, either. They didn’t like him that much, but they didn’t like Johnson, either. It was one issue: Brexit.

Again, not a defence of Corbyn at all, merely suggesting that the overwhelming amount of people i see on social media saying that it’s as simple as Corbyn and nothing else, just doesn’t ring true for me. Could be wrong, but just my opinion on it.

 

[stubie]

The cronies are leaving the party then

I do believe this is the kick up the arse Labour needs. It now needs to go back to its roots and maybe in 5 years time be in a much stronger position to convince its traditional voters to return their vote to them

 

[sammsky1]

One of the things I noted after Hilary's defeat to Trump was how pathetic her communications and media strategy was. In her election defeat, she outspent Trump by 400%, and yet while everyone could instantly repeat Trump's policies like 'Build the wall', 'deporting illegal immigrants' and 'Muslim travel ban', literally nobody could repeat any of Hilary's.

The same has happened in our 2019 election. Everyone knows Boris Johnson wants to 'Get Brexit Done' but isn't quite so single mindedly sure about what Corbyn would do. For example, I only found out yesterday that Labours manifesto was entitled 'Its Time For Real Change' (I have no idea what that means). I thought it was 'for the many and not the few'.

C onservatives communications plan was brilliantly disciplined and achieved all of its objectives. Labour's was inconsistent, sporadic and obviously being run by a team of unqualified idealists. All Trump and the Conservatives did is strictly follow the rules of advertising, invented in 1920s Chicago, and applied for decades by the likes of Proctor & Gamble, Unilever, Mars. Hilary and Labour didn't.

Perhaps it's do with Right wing party's being comfortable using private sector techniques, while people on the left think anything to do with capitalism is some kind of illegal voodoo sorcery.

So many momentum types (even on the board) have immediately blamed the media for their defeat. I'd suggest they look closer to home before they start throwing stones at other people.

 

[DavidDeSchmikes]

I am very very angry with them. They have lost my trust, perhaps forever.

I stopped watching election coverage on BCC perhaps 5 days before election. Even on election night, i only switched over during ads on Sky or for brief interludes.

those last two parargraphs
His logic is we are not allowed to criticise Laura Kussenberg

 

[CassiusClaymore]

Some truly awful cnuts with wind in their sails at the moment.

 

[horsechoker]

One of the things I noted after Hilary's defeat to Trump was how pathetic her communications and media strategy was. In her election defeat, she outspent Trump by 400%, and yet while everyone could instantly repeat Trump's policies like 'Build the wall', 'deporting illegal immigrants' and 'Muslim travel ban', literally nobody could repeat any of Hilary's.

The same has happened in our 2019 election. Everyone knows Boris Johnson wants to 'Get Brexit Done' but isn't quite so single mindedly sure about what Corbyn would do. For example, I only found out yesterday that Labours manifesto was tilted 'Its Time for real Change'. I thought it was "for the many and not the few'.

As a media communications plan, conservatives was brilliantly disciplined and achieved all of its objectives. Labour's was inconsistent, sporadic and obviously being run by a team of unqualified idealists. All Trump and the Conservatives did is strictly follow the rules of advertising, invented in Chicago in the 1920s, and applied by the likes of Proctor & Gamble, Unilever, Mars etc for decades. Hilary and Labour didn't.

Perhaps it's do with with Right wing party's being comfortable in using private sector techniques, while people on the left think anything to do with capitalism and the private sector is some kind of illegal voodoo sorcery.

So many momentum types (even on the board) have immediately blamed the media for their defeat. I'd suggest they look closer to home before they start throwing stones at other people.

I think Alastair Campbell would actually be very effective in the current climate. Wasn't he behind some of Blair's best lines such as "tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime" and "education, education, education"

Labour should look for someone who can just spam one liners. In any case they need to get fight dirty, tell everyone that Boris will shag your mum if he's elected again.

 

[Redlambs]

As caid said above, the best idea for the left for now seems to be to campaign on something other than what they actually believe, while reassuring their core voters that they'll do what they actually believe once they're in power. It's a bit shit.

I'm a little bit frustrated with the "they have real problems in this country that they refuse to acknowledge" line, and not because of Labour specifically. I don't know what problems you refer to in regards to them but I keep hearing the same thing in Hungary and I keep reading the same thing regarding US politics.

Let me give you the Hungarian example. One of the sticks the opposition is beat with by its critics is that "it doesn't have a credible answer to immigration". Fidesz, the governing party, has it: we don't want it, we want to be left alone to be Hungarians without having to see people who are not as Hungarian as we are. It's VERY VERY hard to counter that message because Hungary has basically no immigration. Like seriously, it's negligible. With our birthrates, we would actually need it, otherwise the strain on social safety nets will be unbearable in the foreseeable future. But saying that would be a complete and utter disaster for any politician. Saying that immigration is a non-issue is either ignored or dismissed with conspiracy theories ("you're only saying that because Soros pays you to throw us off our guard so you can let all the migrants in"). Basically Fidesz created a narrative in which they cannot lose: as long as people believe it is a real issue, their answer wins. Their only choice is shifting the narrative, like how Labour tried to make this election about the NHS - and they are about as successful with it as Labour was.

Similarly, the Democrats in the US are often accused of being out of touch with the rural population. But what can they do? The cultural chasm is too wide and it doesn't seem to matter that their actual policies would probably help a lot of people in deep poverty - many of whom live in deeply red (as in Republican, fecking US politics with their inverse colours) states, in those rural communities.

It's all a bit fecked, honestly. I'm sure there is a way out of this and it's just that I can't see it. At least the American right was stupid enough to elect someone as clearly awful as Trump. He is so polarising and just so all around terrible that he might manage to squander his considerable advantages. That would be good news for the rest of the world, too.

That's because your views in the rest of your post. Views, which I don't see as wrong as such, but aren't as clear cut as you seem to think.

I mean I've said a lot about Labour problems, I could say more but then I'd be shouted down on here as always. People read way too much into opinion polls and online stuff, which is fine and all, but anyone who tries to speak against them are shut down. Labour, and seemingly the likes of the dems, have lost a lot of the plot largely down to the people in them being no different to those in the opposition. They mostly all lie at times, all have skeletons and all at some point or another are seen as untrustworthy. The thing is, the Right use that dirt because they are horrible people. But instead of fighting back, not with so much venom but expecting it and turning it around, they just take it. Corbyn literally just stood there at times and took it.


One of the biggest problem the left have is the whiter than white bullshit look they portray. Like they have total control of the moral high ground and never slip. I mean come on, read any dem supporter on twitter and instead of talking about how they hate trump and the reasons why, they always have to throw in how Hilary is better, or this senator is or that one. Then someone posts a video of something shit that person has said, and around we go.

Also, for another, the idea that they are largely portrayed both too weak to do anything, and to superior to actually get dirty and try. And time and again, it kind of looks that way.

It's easy to twist stuff like that in people's minds, they are easy targets for people to get the gullible to look into. Also, if you want one more, all this "voters are stupid" stuff people aim at the right with bile. Well duh, yeah. Hardly any percentage of people actually look as deep into politics as some do, and to expect everyone to is ridiculous. That's why YOU NEED real speakers who can get points across properly, history has taught us that all too well. But you say that to the left, and you get endless comments back about "oh that shouldn't matter!". Now who's being dumb? Because it does matter, it matters because for whatever reason (IQ, ignorance, time, lack of resource access, etc,etc) most people around the world just don't have the knowledge to make informed decisions on every little aspect. It's a problem that's never going to away, so it may as well be acknowledged and tackled. But we don't, we think it's beneath us and what politics should be. And it is, but that isn't ever changing so we have to use it. The right do all over the world and they are winning.

They are battering us.

 

[caid]

As caid said above, the best idea for the left for now seems to be to campaign on something other than what they actually believe, while reassuring their core voters that they'll do what they actually believe once they're in power. It's a bit shit.

That kind of seems like how the establishment in general have been campaigning forever basically. Its a hard trick to flip on its head. I'm not sure how you can reassure the diconnected millions while keeping the established power structure ignorant of your intentions. Not to mention that getting them elected is a pretty small step towards forcing change through that structure.
Maybe its easier now? Avoid any talk of policy and just make a couple of catch phrases about baby yoda or some other meme. Maybe leave a trail of sorts via what stupid thing you reference.

 

[Skills]

I think Alastair Campbell would actually be very effective in the current climate. Wasn't he behind some of Blair's best lines such as "tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime" and "education, education, education"

Labour should look for someone who can just spam one liners. In any case they need to get fight dirty, tell everyone that Boris will shag your mum if he's elected again.

Sad indictment of society. Most of us probably now work in industries where we don't decide to take a piss (figuratively) without using hard data to drive the decision making.

Yet we still elect our governments primarily driven by bullshit catchy statements, that can't even be quantified/verified.

 

[The Firestarter]

How close is your lot to a V for vendetta dystopia?

 

[Damien]

No lessons learnt then:

It is clearly an account taking the piss, probably set up by a Conservative voter/sun_tzu. Just one glance at the tweets on the timeline makes it clear.

 

[Redlambs]

How close is your lot to a V for vendetta dystopia?

Considering the majority voting with the evil overlords, and the opposition can never seem to actually do anything, I'd say pretty far away

 

[The Firestarter]

Considering the majority voting with the evil overlords, and the opposition can never seem to actually do anything, I'd say pretty far away

So you mean pretty close? I meant the Orwellian style regime.

 

[Redlambs]

So you mean pretty close? I meant the Orwellian style regime.

Ha, I thought you meant the rebellion.

In that case, right on top of it.

 

[caid]

I'd say 1984 is here now and has been for a while.

 

[Fiskey]

Well obviously you can't take Labour out. They weren't a pro brexit party.

They weren't pro remain either, so when comparing pro Brexit Vs pro remain you take them out.

 

[Sweet Square]

 

[CassiusClaymore]

They weren't pro remain either, so when comparing pro Brexit Vs pro remain you take them out.

I wasn't comparing anything, merely responding to your assertion that the result showed there was a majority who wanted the government to get on with things.

 

[sammsky1]

Sad indictment of society. Most of us probably now work in industries where we don't decide to take a piss (figuratively) without using hard data to drive the decision making.

Yet we still elect our governments primarily driven by bullshit catchy statements, that can't even be quantified/verified.

Persil, McDonalds and Tesco are under stricter regulations in UK advertising than any of the political party's were in this election or the BrExit referendum.

I agree about an election claims verification body which is established and enforced in commercial advertising. I don't know how one sets that up for politics but it's now a clear necessity.

The bit I disagree on is the notion of 'bullshit catchy statements'. It's this type of arrogance from Momentum types that made their communications so sporadic, difficult to understand and remember. There is tonnes of research starting from decades ago which proves how people absorb complex messaging.

 

[sullydnl]

Certainly seems the distribution of their support is a problem. One of many, really.

 

[sammsky1]

I can spin this stat in both ways: Eg: It was incredibly unfair Labour got that many seats in 2005 vs 2019

This is like Hilary complaining on how she won more of the popular vote. Everyone knows the rules, its pitfalls, blind spots and loopholes. It's a very well oiled machine for all involved. So these stats are kind of meaningless.

 

[The Cat]

If this point has been discussed then I apologise for missing it but I wanted to ask the question.

The Leeds photo about the child - if you look at it the bag is on the floor and no Nurse would ever forget that it needs gravity to actually work.

Just wanted to ask the question - if this has already been disproven then fair enough I've missed it.

 

[sammsky1]

I think Alastair Campbell would actually be very effective in the current climate. Wasn't he behind some of Blair's best lines such as "tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime" and "education, education, education"

Labour should look for someone who can just spam one liners. In any case they need to get fight dirty, tell everyone that Boris will shag your mum if he's elected again.

Have you read Campbell's biography? Its a masterclass in his use of political messaging and advertising.

It's interesting to remember how Blair never saw big business as the enemy, courted the media and was innovative in his communications strategy. He fought the tories claim for claim and went dirty when needed.

 

[Sweet Square]

Certainly seems the distribution of their support is a problem. One of many, really.

Yep this sadly seems to be the case.

I can spin this stat in both ways: Eg: It was incredibly unfair Labour got that many seats in 2005 vs 2019

This is like Hilary complaining on how she won more of the popular vote. Everyone knows the rules, its pitfalls, blind spots and loopholes. It's a very well oiled machine for all involved. So these stats are kind of meaningless.

I only posted it because it was somewhat interesting.

 

[balaks]

If you ignore the Blair years, Labour have not been in power for 50 years.

 

[nickm]

Voters are largely dumb cnuts and should be treated as such from here on out. How did Blair win? He stuck 5 simple promises on a card and hammered them home until people remembered them.

The Tories just won by managing to be totally consistent in their barefaced lying in the face of any attempted fact checking or correction. Also with their endless repetition of their shitty little ‘get Brexit done’ line. In interviews with voters, they kept repeating back that the Tories would ‘get Brexit done’. The slogan worked, it influenced voters.

So next election let’s forget the myth that a party can have an adult grown up debate with the electorate. Keep it simple, get your slogan right, and don’t be afraid to lie your ass off. People get the politicians they deserve.

I don’t think Blair was being cynical. I think he recognised the reality that most people aren’t that interested in politics so in order for a message to cut thru, it has to be simple.

 

[esmufc07]

If you ignore the Blair years, Labour have not been in power for 50 years.

But we will definitely win the next election!

 

[sullydnl]

So i’ve been perusing Twitter the last day or two (i know, i know - that’s my first mistake) since the election results, and the prevailing view on there seems to be that Labour lost due to one thing and one thing only: Jeremy Corbyn.

Now, i’m not a Corbynista - far from it, in fact, i voted Labour reluctantly due to party allegiance and the thought of the Conservatives being in power for anther couple of years was truly nightmarish - but i just can’t accept this notion that it was all down to Corbyn. He’s disked, he’s hated, he’s not trusted, he’s despised. I get it. I don’t care for the man much myself. But the idea that it was all on him, just doesn’t ring true to me.

Especially when you consider the absolute mouth-breather he was up against. This is a man who wears all of his foibles, his racism, his xenophobia, his misdemeanours - whatever else you want to throw at him - on his sleeve. He proudly displays all this, yet he can still absolutely destroy the opposition. Despite all of his lies and demagoguery he still crushed it.

Now, you can use all this and say “well, that just goes to show how bad Corbyn was”. And you’d probably be right to a certain extent, but that can’t be the sole reason for it. People are literally saying “it’s as that simple. No more, no less. It was all down to Corbyn”.

Again, this is not meant to absolve Corbyn at all - i don’t like the guy myself and he should go immediately - but i can’t help but think that even if someone else was in charge of the Labour party, we would still end up with the same result. Not as emphatic, perhaps, but still a win for the Conservatives.

I know people who’ve voted Labour their whole lives and if you told them 10 or 15 years ago that they would be voting for Conservative in the future they would’ve laughed in your face after politely telling you to feck off. But they did. And it wasn’t down to Corbyn, either. They didn’t like him that much, but they didn’t like Johnson, either. It was one issue: Brexit.

Again, not a defence of Corbyn at all, merely suggesting that the overwhelming amount of people i see on social media saying that it’s as simple as Corbyn and nothing else, just doesn’t ring true for me. Could be wrong, but just my opinion on it.

It definitely wasn't all down to Corbyn. You don't get a result this bad because of one particular factor and anyone analyzing it in that way is being overly simplistic.

Though judging by the opinions expressed by voters in the polling at least, Corbyn was the first and primary factor. His unpopularity was actually astonishing, with him being trusted less than Johnson even on issues like the NHS. Any leader who is that much of a turn off for voters will almost certainly cost you an election.

However, I think you're right that they would have lost anyway (albeit to a much lesser extent) even without Corbyn as Brexit (which seems to register as the 2nd biggest issue that turned people off Labour) would split a lot of Labour votes in key areas while the Conservatives more successfully harnessed leave votes. Of course Corbyn's own extended weaknesses and policy issues on Brexit likely exaggerated that split further but the reality is that even if Labour has magically found the optimum approach to Brexit it would still have split their votes. The political landscape was against them, regardless of who the leader was.

 

[nickm]

Sad indictment of society. Most of us probably now work in industries where we don't decide to take a piss (figuratively) without using hard data to drive the decision making.

Yet we still elect our governments primarily driven by bullshit catchy statements, that can't even be quantified/verified.

You make many of the most important decisions in your life’s on the same basis - what car to buy, what food to get, who to identiify with etc based on similar considerations. Why should politics be any different?

Also, politics has always been like this. Read Cicero.

 

[sammsky1]

I don’t think Blair was being cynical. I think he recognised the reality that most people aren’t that interested in politics so in order for a message to cut thru, it has to be simple.

Blair and Campbell were very pragmatic and empathetic and utterly cynical about the vote bank they required to win. And their communications plan was created with this is mind. I don't have a problem with that. They curated and communicated a manifesto that was designed to win, and not help them sleep at night.

We are probably saying the same thing.

 

[Ubik]

Certainly seems the distribution of their support is a problem. One of many, really.

Distribution is part of it, but the bigger problem is that the Tories are 12 points higher than they were in 2005, and the Lib Dems 12 points lower.