The Chairman Mao resembling, Monarchy hating, threat to Britain, Labour Party thread

[snowychap]

I'm aware how the preference votes worked but again, the other 3 candidates barely got a quarter of votes between them. With David getting the most votes overall in every round except the final round it does make sense that Ed fared better with other preference votes.

Earlier:

...no it's hardly "daft" to assume that Ed would fare better in other preference votes..

 

Isn't it kind of obvious that Ed would fare better in other preference votes given that David was ahead for first preference votes?

 

Your original 'point' was that it was apparently obvious that one party would fare better in the other preference votes (for the reason that they hadn't come first in the first preference votes) and then not daft to make that assumption - this then becomes that it makes sense that it happened because the figures tell us this.

I think I know where to file this 'discussion'.

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

I was surprised when the election post-mortem suggested Labour had lost a considerable amount of votes to the ukips. These voters wouldn't be won back by Labour moving left.

 

UKIPs, beyond Farage, use populist economics like FN in France to win working class voters. That people have bought into their rhetoric of blaming immigrants for society's ills is an issue that can only be solved by turning their attention to the real problem - those with the money and the power. Absurdly UKIP aren't far from the truth when focusing on the EU, but their argument falls short of highlighting that the EU, as it is, facilitates the shoveling of wealth and power to the elite; instead they focus on jingoist bollocks and blaming immigrants. Their rhetoric is regurgitated by many and that should be acknowledged and tackled. I think it would be a grave and sad mistake to simply accept it as a given and appeal to it.

 

Anyway I don't think Labour are the answer and I'd certainly never vote for them after Iraq. I also don't think any left-wing party can make a difference without PR and that won't happen. So we're stuck with centrist middle-England calling the shots, which is bollocks.

Edited May 20, 2015 by CarewsEyebrowDesigner

[Mantis]

 

 this idea that Labour only loses elections because it's not left-wing enough.

well, that just plainly isn't the case. Thatch moved the goalposts, sadly, and so Labour had to adapt to that, or risk dying out. The uber left wing 1983 campaign was a bit if a disaster, and 1997 was slightly better as they moved further right. 1992 again an improvement, as again they moved further right. They then become full on Tory lite in 1997, and won massively. They then won 2 more elections on the Tory Lite ticket.

 

Red Ed took them a little (not much) further to the left, and they lost (though that IMO was more to do with the incompetence of Red Ed and his team, and his lack of personal appeal)

 

Seems to me that not enough of the voting public want a left wing guvmint. They want a right wing or centre-ist guvmint with a heart. Sadly, IMO, this Tory party lacks the latter.

 

That was exactly my point - Labour of course doesn't lose elections for not being left-wing enough yet nonetheless this idea persists that if only Labour went further to the left then they'd start winning more seats.

 

I was surprised when the election post-mortem suggested Labour had lost a considerable amount of votes to the ukips. These voters wouldn't be won back by Labour moving left.

I've spoken to quite a few UKIP voters and a lot of them aren't as right-wing as Farage et al. Obviously the largest chunk of defectors are from the Tories but there are considerable numbers which have come from Labour too. I actually thought that if Farage kept his word and stepped down like he said he would then the party might go leftwards a bit (that isn't to say I think they'll ever actually be left-wing before I get my head bitten off) because outflanking the Tories on the right clearly hasn't worked.

 

Your original 'point' was that it was apparently obvious that one party would fare better in the other preference votes (for the reason that they hadn't come first in the first preference votes) and then not daft to make that assumption - this then becomes that it makes sense that it happened because the figures tell us this.

I think I know where to file this 'discussion'.

 

It has been pretty ridiculous - I didn't think there'd be so much controversy over such an obvious fact (that the unions helped swing the leadership election Ed's way).

Edited May 20, 2015 by Mantis

[tonyh29]

 

 

 this idea that Labour only loses elections because it's not left-wing enough.

well, that just plainly isn't the case. Thatch moved the goalposts, sadly, and so Labour had to adapt to that, or risk dying out. The uber left wing 1983 campaign was a bit if a disaster, and 1997 was slightly better as they moved further right. 1992 again an improvement, as again they moved further right. They then become full on Tory lite in 1997, and won massively. They then won 2 more elections on the Tory Lite ticket.

 

Red Ed took them a little (not much) further to the left, and they lost (though that IMO was more to do with the incompetence of Red Ed and his team, and his lack of personal appeal)

 

Seems to me that not enough of the voting public want a left wing guvmint. They want a right wing or centre-ist guvmint with a heart. Sadly, IMO, this Tory party lacks the latter.

 

That was exactly my point - Labour of course doesn't lose elections for not being left-wing enough yet nonetheless this idea persists that if only Labour went further to the left then they'd start winning more seats.

 

I was surprised when the election post-mortem suggested Labour had lost a considerable amount of votes to the ukips. These voters wouldn't be won back by Labour moving left.

I've spoken to quite a few UKIP voters and a lot of them aren't as right-wing as Farage et al. Obviously the largest chunk of defectors are from the Tories but there are considerable numbers which have come from Labour too. I actually thought that if Farage kept his word and stepped down like he said he would then the party might go leftwards a bit (that isn't to say I think they'll ever actually be left-wing before I get my head bitten off) because outflanking the Tories on the right clearly hasn't worked.

 

Your original 'point' was that it was apparently obvious that one party would fare better in the other preference votes (for the reason that they hadn't come first in the first preference votes) and then not daft to make that assumption - this then becomes that it makes sense that it happened because the figures tell us this.

I think I know where to file this 'discussion'.

 

It has been pretty ridiculous - I didn't think there'd be so much controversy over such an obvious fact (that the unions helped swing the leadership election Ed's way).

 

[tonyh29]

I was surprised when the election post-mortem suggested Labour had lost a considerable amount of votes to the ukips. These voters wouldn't be won back by Labour moving left.

 

but ...but ..we were told UKIP was a right wing branch of the Tory party and that labour voters wouldn't countenance such things ..

[coda]

 

I was surprised when the election post-mortem suggested Labour had lost a considerable amount of votes to the ukips. These voters wouldn't be won back by Labour moving left.

 

but ...but ..we were told UKIP was a right wing branch of the Tory party and that labour voters wouldn't countenance such things ..

 

 

Looks like all the rhetoric blaming Johnny Foreigner worked.

[mjmooney]

I don't quite understand the argument of refusing to vote Labour because of the Iraq war. They were totally backed by the Tories, so how are they any better?

[Condimentalist]

Yes, I don't think union influence had any major bearing on the election result. I don't see the point in fussing over it, unless you subscribe to the Tory line that unions are evil and their leaders are commies out to inconvenience your daily commute. Big bad Len, two letters short of Lenin. Coincidence? I think not.

It seems that what done it for Labour wasn't so much their failure to pander to the middle class, but the abandoning of their traditional voters to appeal to the Waitrose crowd. A good number of those traditional voters either turned to UKIP or didn't bother voting at all. Talking about fiscal responsibility may please a floating voter in Surrey, but it is far from the politics of change that many want. If Labour want to do well they need to win that crowd back and inspire people to get out and vote.

What is the politics of change that you think people want? People voted for the Conservatives because they were worried about the economy. Now there are a whole number of problems that I could list with that idea in itself, but putting that to one side, if you think people are up for radical change I think you are misguided. People moan about politics not working for them, but when it comes down to it they are reluctant to back moves away from the status quo.

Where people have moved away from Labour at this election it was to UKIP? Why? Because the leader drinks pints and talks about immigration.

The 'old left' is all but dead. You or I may wish that weren't the case but it is. Leftists won't win power in England outside of coalition arrangements, which is why I would argue that politically disruptive union leadership is great news for the Tory party and a menace to their own members.

[hippo]

Think youre all barking up the wrong tree here - The reason labour lost and lost so badly ......Lynton Crosby ! - Never mind the leader - Labour need someone like him....there was a brilliant article which I haven't been able to find since - but some of what he did was:-

 

Massive polling in the marginal seats (not the 1000 from you gov populus etc)

From this they built up a profile of the 'Don't Knows'

Using this profile on social media, they found out what would influence the don't knows

Then released sound bites accordingly

They even let out a false story that labour was winning the ground war !

 

 

They didn't have a national campaign as such, and he wanted to keep the tory's off the front page (let labour make the mistakes) - not all his decisions were popular with the tories (He chaired strategy meetings - even when Cameron was present)

 

Basically when I read it - you just realise Labour never had a chance, the Labour approach was amatuer by comparision, the tories for example were monitoring social media 24/7 - , the daily briefings started at 5am - ready for 7am as the days news broke - Labour didn't start there strategy meetings until 7am

 

Crosby is a total proffesional - he goes around the world winning elections for fee - nothing illegal - just an approach labour needs to adopt..

[coda]

They also had Obama's campaign chief. Labour had #millifandom 

[Condimentalist]

They also had Obama's campaign chief. Labour had #millifandom

Labour had Obama's campaign chief.

Who presumably found it a lot easier working with Obama than Ed Miliband - there could hardly 've a starker contrast in credibility.

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

Certainly the 'old left' and 'traditional working class' are not what they were. Instead of workers in coal and steel industries we have graduates on a minimum wage in Starbucks, and the large 'unskilled' workforce that has been left behind completely. It's a different world to the 80s and going back there would be a mistake and I doubt anyone would. TBH what people want from a 'new politics' will vary. For me at least the aim, at the moment, is for a 'sensible' redistribution of wealth (i.e. not doing what Labour did which was create a dependent class of unskilled labour, which solved nothing) & a significant move toward green energy.

[coda]

 

They also had Obama's campaign chief. Labour had #millifandom

Labour had Obama's campaign chief.

Who presumably found it a lot easier working with Obama than Ed Miliband - there could hardly 've a starker contrast in credibility.

 

 

I'm on about Jim Messina. Didn't know Labour were also using Obama's people.

[Condimentalist]

Me too CED. Personally I thought the Lib Dems were the best chance of that, certainly in a coalition with Labour, but they were decimated. Instead we have a Tory party with almost no redeeming features whatsoever.

[Condimentalist]

They also had Obama's campaign chief. Labour had #millifandom

Labour had Obama's campaign chief.

Who presumably found it a lot easier working with Obama than Ed Miliband - there could hardly 've a starker contrast in credibility.

I'm on about Jim Messina. Didn't know Labour were also using Obama's people.

I'll be honest with you, I've never even heard of Jim Messina. David Axelrod is the man who really engineered Obama's initial victory, not sure if he was so involved second time around.

[Jon]

Certainly the 'old left' and 'traditional working class' are not what they were. Instead of workers in coal and steel industries we have graduates on a minimum wage in Starbucks, and the large 'unskilled' workforce that has been left behind completely. It's a different world to the 80s and going back there would be a mistake and I doubt anyone would. TBH what people want from a 'new politics' will vary. For me at least the aim, at the moment, is for a 'sensible' redistribution of wealth (i.e. not doing what Labour did which was create a dependent class of unskilled labour, which solved nothing) & a significant move toward green energy.

I'd vote for that, mr Eyebrows.

[tonyh29]

I don't quite understand the argument of refusing to vote Labour because of the Iraq war. They were totally backed by the Tories, so how are they any better?

 

you must have missed the bit where a fabricated dossier was presented to the Tories and others  (by Blair) as the justification for invasion   

[bickster]

I don't quite understand the argument of refusing to vote Labour because of the Iraq war. They were totally backed by the Tories, so how are they any better?

 

you must have missed the bit where a fabricated dossier was presented to the Tories and others  (by Blair) as the justification for invasion

Actually my point on that was more along the lines of refusing to vote Labour does not indicate a vote for the Tories. Certainly not in my case

[tonyh29]

 

Yes, I don't think union influence had any major bearing on the election result. I don't see the point in fussing over it, unless you subscribe to the Tory line that unions are evil and their leaders are commies out to inconvenience your daily commute. Big bad Len, two letters short of Lenin. Coincidence? I think not.

It seems that what done it for Labour wasn't so much their failure to pander to the middle class, but the abandoning of their traditional voters to appeal to the Waitrose crowd. A good number of those traditional voters either turned to UKIP or didn't bother voting at all. Talking about fiscal responsibility may please a floating voter in Surrey, but it is far from the politics of change that many want. If Labour want to do well they need to win that crowd back and inspire people to get out and vote.

What is the politics of change that you think people want? People voted for the Conservatives because they were worried about the economy. Now there are a whole number of problems that I could list with that idea in itself, but putting that to one side, if you think people are up for radical change I think you are misguided. People moan about politics not working for them, but when it comes down to it they are reluctant to back moves away from the status quo.

Where people have moved away from Labour at this election it was to UKIP? Why? Because the leader drinks pints and talks about immigration.

The 'old left' is all but dead. You or I may wish that weren't the case but it is. Leftists won't win power in England outside of coalition arrangements, which is why I would argue that politically disruptive union leadership is great news for the Tory party and a menace to their own members.

 

 

 the Ashcroft survey  [links to pdf file] shows some interesting info, taken after the voting

Edited May 20, 2015 by blandy
link is a pdf

[HanoiVillan]

Tristram Hunt has dropped out. Why not enjoy a ditty to the tune of 'Postman Pat':

 

'Tristram Hunt, Tristram Hunt

Is an ignorant ______'