The Hung Like a Donkey General Election December 2019 Thread

[TheAuthority]

 

15 hours ago, bannedfromHandV said:

The media won the election, all hail the media.

Same could be said about every election ever, everywhere.

5 hours ago, colhint said:

Why on earth not. people are still called Brexiteers, People still think negotiations will go on for donkeys years. In years to come people will still be saying not all brexiteers are racist but all racists voted for brexit.   I think both terms will be used for ages yet. 

It's almost as if everyone had been conditioned to be divided and not see the other sides point of view so that they could then be ruled more easily.

[Awol]

4 hours ago, bannedfromHandV said:

That’s because it’s absolutely 100% true, it’s not an opinion, or a derogatory term, it’s a fact.

Of course it is, apart from those Remain voting anti-Semites in the Labour Party. But that doesn’t fit the script. 

[Awol]

8 hours ago, Lichfield Dean said:

Naionalising only those parts of the country's infrastructure that would benefit from not being profit-driven. Not "nationalising everything in sight" as the Daily Mail would have you believe.

Not "seizing" 10% of all company shares, just redistributing a small part of the ownership of the very largest companies to the employees, making the workers better off and more invested in their work.

Borrowing 100s of billions? Maybe, but to invest in the country and its infrastructure and thus increase output and ultimately generate money. Speculate to accumulate and all that. A country with dysfunctional health, education and transport systems is going nowhere.

The arguments you present are simplistic and completely avoid the reasons *why* the policies were in the manifesto. Unfortunately it seems like most of the country couldn't understand why these things were being suggested either.

Taking assets that belongs to other people without their consent is called theft, not redistribution. That’s why we have the rule of law, not rule by law, to prevent government’s arbitrarily going on the rob. Today, the shares of multinationals, tomorrow?  Whatever takes the regime’s fancy. 

Also, blaming the electorate for not understanding what’s good for them?  Hilarious. 

[Dodgyknees]

10 hours ago, colhint said:

Why on earth not. people are still called Brexiteers, People still think negotiations will go on for donkeys years. In years to come people will still be saying not all brexiteers are racist but all racists voted for brexit.   I think both terms will be used for ages yet. 

Not the same. 

The gammon, which I am using as you agree it's good to give insulting names based on views, call those who disagree with the Russian funded result, remoaners, because god forbid people want to remain.

Although with the moaning about anybody non white, maybe the real moaners aren't remain.

See, we can name call too.

[colhint]

I'm sorry I don't get your point.

[snowychap]

1 hour ago, Awol said:

Taking assets that belongs to other people without their consent is called theft, not redistribution. That’s why we have the rule of law, not rule by law, to prevent government’s arbitrarily going on the rob. Today, the shares of multinationals, tomorrow?  Whatever takes the regime’s fancy.

There appears to be a misunderstanding here about how this was supposed to work.

The IOF suggestion was not about 'taking assets that belong to other people without their consent'. It was to require (some) companies, over time, to transfer a percentage of their shares (up to a maximum of 10%) to these funds either by diluting the current shareholding or to purchase that amount of shares at market value.

There may be many failings in the idea but let's criticise the actual idea not an invented one.

Edited December 14, 2019 by snowychap

[PompeyVillan]

1 hour ago, Awol said:

Taking assets that belongs to other people without their consent is called theft, not redistribution. That’s why we have the rule of law, not rule by law, to prevent government’s arbitrarily going on the rob. Today, the shares of multinationals, tomorrow?  Whatever takes the regime’s fancy. 

Also, blaming the electorate for not understanding what’s good for them?  Hilarious. 

I fkin loath this. It's pathetic, and it fails to understand that politics isn't a moral crusade for everyone. It also fails to understand why Labour got trounced in this election. 

My reflection is that the tone of Labour's message on poverty and inequality has been patronising. Its why it appeals to metropolitan, liberal middle classes. But it doesn't always hit the spot with those 'working classes' on lower wages. 

What the Conservatives offer is a message of aspiration. People don't want things to be gifted to them, they want to feel like they've earnt them. Which is why the guy who was posting about his brother being pissed off about the McDonalds campaign for higher wages. It misses the point completely, but the message is about being aspirational. It's all bollucks by the way, the Conservatives don't really care about social mobility, they believe that if you don't make it, it's your fault. Anyway...

Labour have said some brain-dead things. "We don't think there should be billionaires". I tend to agree with that somewhat, as in, I would rather wealth was more evenly distributed. But for most people, that message is far too socialist and anti aspiration. "Why not, I want to be a billionaire". Or more likely, it's a message that doesn't resonate with people who just want to work hard to improve the quality of life for themselves and their families, they don't there to a ceiling on that, regardless of how high that ceiling is.

The country isn't populated by a majority of raging socialists. To telling them they need full blown nationalisation plans is ridiculous. Labour were far too idealistic. They promised everything at once and more. Their manifesto reads like a utopian socialist vision of the future, not a realistic plan for getting election and government. Again, I liked the manifesto policies. But even I was uneasy about the level of ambition. 

Poverty and inequality rankle with me, and I'm on board with a Labour that is more left than Blair. But I'm also on board with a Labour government that can actually get elected. 

I posted a quote the other day which eluded to the fact that in first past the post politics, you won't find a party that perfectly matches your own politcs. But you have to pick one that is the best fit. Labour have always liked to say that they are a broad church, but this election proves that they are not. 

I'm a member of Unison, so I will be voting in the next Labour leadership election. And I was a Labour member. I left way before the election because I was exasperated at the hounding out of the 'Red Tories'. I would definitely consider myself as part of the left of the movement, but I also consider myself a pragmatist, there needs to an electoral appetite and a credible arguement to implement socialist policies.

The more moderate voices in Labour have been bullied and hounded out by Corbynistas, who have diseased the party into an intolerant echo chamber. Guess what Corbynistas,  some of the  'Red Tories' voted for the Tories. And guess what, we have a Tory government.

"Oh Jeremy Corbyn"

I was also disgusted that they allowed the anti Semitism issue to boil over. It's actually really easy to not be considered racist, isn't it? You deal with racism. Kick them all out, whether they're your mates or high profile figures. Get rid, talk to the community and heal the wounds. Corbyn messed up.

I don't believe that Labour have lost the 'hearts' of their traditional supporters, but they have definitely started to lose the minds of them. Some of them have 'lent' their votes to the Conservatives to 'get Brexit done'. They might be able to win them back again in 5 years but not with anything that resembles Corbynism. Some of the good stuff needs to rebadged, because of Corbyn unpopularity. 

I'm not suggesting that Labour go full realpolitik, but they do need to get real. This election has been a disaster for them. 

I did think for quite a long time that Corbyn had moved to he party in the right direction and I think that is true to an extent, because they have been dangerously close to the Conservatives at times.

Meh, it's hard. This election was also going to be difficult for any Labour leader, whichever way they swung on Brexit they were going to lose voters to other parties. It has however been a monumental failure of leadership to allow an election to happen in such circumstances and a difficult pill to swallow. 

As daft as this sounds, this election is a little bit like a big club getting relegated from the Premier League. It's awful, and it'll be hard. But it gives you a chance to rebuild. It forces you to rethink. 

Anyway, that was a lengthy rant, coming back to the original point I highlighted, to win an election you have to win the argument. What won't help though is blaming the electorate for losing the arguement.

Edited December 14, 2019 by PompeyVillan

[Xann]

1 hour ago, Awol said:

Taking assets that belong to other people without their consent is called theft

That's what I think when public assets are (massively under)sold to the private sector, then the profits salted away overseas.

Great Britain? We're being run like a banana republic.

[bannedfromHandV]

1 hour ago, Awol said:

Of course it is, apart from those Remain voting anti-Semites in the Labour Party. But that doesn’t fit the script. 

Wow man, the BBC have really done their work on you. 

Hope it’s worth the license fee.

[Dodgyknees]

33 minutes ago, colhint said:

I'm sorry I don't get your point.

Remoaner is an insult

Brexiteers proudly call themselves brexiteers.

 

 

 

[colhint]

So what all I said that terms like Brexiteer and Remoaner and Gammon will be around for ages.

[Dodgyknees]

3 minutes ago, colhint said:

So what all I said that terms like Brexiteer and Remoaner and Gammon will be around for ages.

I think Gammon reflects more than just Brexit.

Actually, I have no issues with people wanting to exit the EU, that's cool, but when I ask for reasoning and they tell me it's because of the Muslims, or other faiths, then I know who I am dealing with.

Remainers are not moaners for countering the rhetoric about "foreigners taking our jobs" or defending the NHS, jobs, trade. 

[HanoiVillan]

Post-mortem:

What this means in practice is that about 1% of the total electorate switched directly from LAB-CON. They must each have spoken to a vox popper several times!

In the end, the 'Labour were squeezed' story is basically right, but the effects of that squeeze weren't even; in two-way northern seats Labour were squeezed by the Tories and lost the seats, but then there were other seats, particularly in the south, where they were squeezed by both Tories and Lib Dems/Greens (Stroud and Kensington for example) and that also lead to Tory victories. EDIT: meant to add, the majority of this squeeze is simply down to turnout, not direct switching.

One very important lesson that people should take from this is that tactical voting completely failed, in an election where people were talking about it much more than usual. I hope we never have to see another postcode voting site.

Edited December 14, 2019 by HanoiVillan

[PompeyVillan]

15 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

Post-mortem:

What this means in practice is that about 1% of the total electorate switched directly from LAB-CON. They must each have spoken to a vox popper several times!

In the end, the 'Labour were squeezed' story is basically right, but the effects of that squeeze weren't even; in two-way northern seats Labour were squeezed by the Tories and lost the seats, but then there were other seats, particularly in the south, where they were squeezed by both Tories and Lib Dems/Greens (Stroud and Kensington for example) and that also lead to Tory victories. EDIT: meant to add, the majority of this squeeze is simply down to turnout, not direct switching.

One very important lesson that people should take from this is that tactical voting completely failed, in an election where people were talking about it much more than usual. I hope we never have to see another postcode voting site.

 

Edit, I think I've misread the stats.

Edited December 14, 2019 by PompeyVillan

[chrisp65]

58 minutes ago, Xann said:

That's what I think when public assets are (massively under)sold to the private sector, then the profits salted away overseas.

Great Britain? We're being run like a banana republic.

Ah yes, taking back what was stolen for profit is theft. Brilliant re writing of history, I never know if someone believes it or repeats the mantra for others to believe. It probably depends on whether they are one of the 10% that get rich on under selling our assets to themselves, or one of the 41% persuaded if they sit nicely under the table there will be trickle down crumbs.

 

 

[Dodgyknees]

More of this:

Quote

Chris Lee, from Birmingham, suffered multiple health issues, as well as some financial problems, before his successful property company folded and he was forced to sell all his worldly possessions

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/i-went-having-5-bed-21095287

Here is the news. It can happen to ANYBODY.

[Dodgyknees]

34 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

Post-mortem:

What this means in practice is that about 1% of the total electorate switched directly from LAB-CON. They must each have spoken to a vox popper several times!

In the end, the 'Labour were squeezed' story is basically right, but the effects of that squeeze weren't even; in two-way northern seats Labour were squeezed by the Tories and lost the seats, but then there were other seats, particularly in the south, where they were squeezed by both Tories and Lib Dems/Greens (Stroud and Kensington for example) and that also lead to Tory victories. EDIT: meant to add, the majority of this squeeze is simply down to turnout, not direct switching.

One very important lesson that people should take from this is that tactical voting completely failed, in an election where people were talking about it much more than usual. I hope we never have to see another postcode voting site.

Good analysis. 

[WhatAboutTheFinish]

1 hour ago, avfcDJ said:

I think Gammon reflects more than just Brexit.

Actually, I have no issues with people wanting to exit the EU, that's cool, but when I ask for reasoning and they tell me it's because of the Muslims, or other faiths, then I know who I am dealing with.

Remainers are not moaners for countering the rhetoric about "foreigners taking our jobs" or defending the NHS, jobs, trade. 

If those on the remain side were countering with positive arguments about the benefits of staying in the EU instead of a continual stream of negative and patronising rebuttals then they probably wouldn't have picked up the moniker. There has been a complete lack of humility on the remain side and a failure to accept responsibility for their inability to effectively convey what they see as the benefits of EU membership, choosing instead to blame their woes on political opponents. I'm sorry, it does come across as moaning.

[Risso]

11 hours ago, His Name Is Death said:

 

Huh, I thought we already have an 'insurance type system', Damian? People pay in money that is pooled together and is used to pay costs of health-related claims for eligible citizens.

I believe it is called taxation. What 'insurance type system' could you be thinking of, I wonder...? 

(Didn't even take them 24 hours.)

He's talking about old age care, not the NHS.

These were his comments:

"On LBC, Green said that under general taxation, those currently in their 30s, 40s and 50s will be paying both towards the care of the present older generation as well as towards their future care. 

He said: "We all accept there has to be more money to go into the system. You can pay it just out of general taxation and say it's all free, but that means that people who are currently taxpayers - that are currently 30, 40, 50s now - will have to pay towards their own care at the end of life but also they'll instantly start paying for the older generation's care as well, which I think to put it mildly has fairness implications to it.

"Or you can try some kind of insurance system so that those who can afford to take out an insurance policy should be encouraged to do so, which will buy them peace of mind."

https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top-stories/damian-green-social-care-insurance-lbc-1-6425258

[markavfc40]

1 hour ago, HanoiVillan said:

 

One very important lesson that people should take from this is that tactical voting completely failed, in an election where people were talking about it much more than usual. I hope we never have to see another postcode voting site.

It should never have even been a discussion.

Labour have been in opposition for almost 10 years. 10 years in which the Tory government has failed millions of people and decimated our public services. A Tory party so rotten to the core it went into this election with Boris Johnson as its leader.

Labour should have been in a position to wipe the floor in this election. We should have been seeing a landslide Labour victory up there with 1997. Instead the best anyone of sane mind or outside the Corbynista movement hoped for was a hung parliament.

I am so angry that Labour has failed the millions of people who desperately needed their help. Not the nasty Tories, not the biased media, not the Brexit issue but Labour for failing to convince enough people, after 10 years of destructive Tory rule, to vote for them. 

The sooner those of the wing now running Labour own their failings instead of blaming outside influences the quicker the party can start to get themselves into a position to be in power rather than forever in opposition.