Snap General Election called

[Mellsblue]

Labour of course had a great chance to change the voting system back under Blair, but with a lot of internal pressure (with the left and Prescott to the fore) they didn't make a move to alter FPTP. So it does feel a little daft for Labour to complain now about the lack of PR, frankly Farage has more of a point

And again when the AV referendum happened - having both main parties shit on it from a height killed it dead.

Frankly, I'm in the uncomfortable position that I might soon be agreeing with Farage if he keeps his word about campaigning for electoral reform after Brexit is "done".

Puja

I was never a massive fan of PR (I like the idea of a local link for politicians) but I'm becoming warmer to the idea. There are too many safe seats where a vote for anyone but the incumbent party is just wasted whilst smaller parties struggle to win votes as that is also seen as a waste.

On the down side, the likelihood of seats won by the Brexit Party, UKIP, BNP or far left parties various is increased but that might be a price worth paying.

Keeping the HoC as is and having a PR elected upper chamber may be the compromise.

[Sandydragon]

Mells,

The HOL needs reform. What bothers me is that trying to reform it in isolation risks a real upset. The commons has primacy, if the Lords is elected what does that mean for what it actually does? An unelected review chamber has some value (actually appointing experts would be the ideal) but if directly elected the the relationship needs a review completely.

[Digby]

I'm very cautious about bringing in voting for the HoL. I really like there's a revising chamber, but in advance I worry about adding to their legitimacy to go further than they currently can, and I worry that would transpire if the Lords wasn't merely an appointed chamber

[Mellsblue]

Mells,

The HOL needs reform. What bothers me is that trying to reform it in isolation risks a real upset. The commons has primacy, if the Lords is elected what does that mean for what it actually does? An unelected review chamber has some value (actually appointing experts would be the ideal) but if directly elected the the relationship needs a review completely.

I don’t see why the relationship between the two has to change just because it becomes elected. I love the fact it’s stuffed full of experts rather than career politicians. That wealth of knowledge is a very valuable part of our legislature. I’d want to retain that as far as possible. So, I’d have something along the lines of ten year terms, with a max of two terms, and nobody who has been a politician at say principal authority or has been paid to carry out a councillor role. I’d also probably rule out anyone who has been on a political party payroll. I’ve nowhere near thought it all through but that sort of place I’d like it to end up.

[Stom]

I’m definitely in favorite of SM. It would have produced a different parliament this time round with a much smaller majority.

[Son of Mathonwy]

So you reject my and most non shadow cabinet mp arguments <to be clear my contention was that brexit strategy was only one part of the failure>

, and also seem to imply it wasnt even brexit policy. What is your analysis for why Labour lost 2m voters and were hammered?

A number of things. Would love to have a whole lot of stats to back this up and help me to rank these issues, but anyway, here's my take:

1) First and foremost, the first past the post system. Had we a PR system like most democracies, we would now have a Corbyn-led coalition of Labour, the Lib Dems, SNP, Greens and Plaid, and Brexit would not be happening, indeed it would never have begun. And the most extreme policies of Labour would not be implemented. And we'd be taking the first meaningful steps to stopping the climate catastrophe.

But, back to the world we actually live in, unfortunately...

I honestly don't know which of 2) and 3) was the most significant. Labour defectors say it was 2), but without input from everyone who did and did not vote for Labour, we can't be certain:

2) The perception of Corbyn. Part of this is due to the man himself (less charismatic than his opponent, struggled to project his message, appeared indecisive, the anti-semitism problem, old). Part of it is due to the unending character assassination performed by 5 national newspapers (and not much help from the Independent and Guardian until recently, if we're honest), abetted by more subtly negative coverage from the BBC. That most of the newspapers chose to vilify Corbyn rather than the dishonest, racist, homophobic, snobbish, misogynistic liar Johnson just shows how tough a job the Labour leader had. But ultimately, Corbyn's general unpopularity was a massive problem for Labour. They hoped they could turn it around again in the campaign, but this did not happen to a significant degree.

3) Brexit. This is clearly an unusual situation. It cuts across normal allegiances, disrupting core support. However this is also true for the Tories. The problem for Labour was that it could not attract all of the remain supporters while the Tory-Brexit Party deal meant that the Conservatives took most of the leave vote. Labour failed to stop the splitting of the remain vote because it decided on its Brexit policy much too late. Had it decided on that policy in April this year (before the local elections on 2nd May) the Lib Dems would not have seen a resurgence and would probably have seen their vote fall even further in the election. (And Corbyn would have seemed more decisive.)

4) Failing to make an electoral pact with the other remain parties, particularly the Lib Dems, cost them a number of seats. Once Farage made his deal with the Tories, this should have been done. Frankly it's disgraceful that it didn't.

5) The Media's tolerance of dishonesty. It goes without saying that most of the newspapers were a channel for Tory propaganda, but the fact that the BBC would not call out blatant lies (and use the word "lie") meant that the Tories could and did repeat them freely. And since the Tories were being staggeringly more dishonest than their opponents, this was a big problem for Labour.

6) I will mention economics, just to say that I don't think this was a problem for Labour. Sure, some people didn't like it, but some people did. Without seeing the stats, who knows if it was a vote loser or gainer?

(1- This ignores the impact of tactical voting in a FPTP system perhaps; on Brexit, are you saying had that alliance existed at the time of the referendum, then Remain would have won? If so, of course- it would only have taken Corbyn/Labour to be enthusiastic about Remaining imo for a different first result (people forget somehow that Remain was Tory policy til the referendum). As you say its moot. )

2- One man's perception is another man's reality. IMO the man is a hopeless leader, wedded to the past, and one who appears 'unpatriotic'; I know patriotism isn't popular in the metropolitan areas, but its a big thing in the former heartlands. Your take is the press destroyed him, my take is that he made that easy, simply by being. He's no doubt principled, but weak, stubborn and naive- yet a convenient front man for the left.

3- Agreed, Labour was in a corner and then took several wrong strategic decisions, which left them in that corner.

4- Interesting- pact may have won them seats, but conversely could also have lost them too? They certainly should have got their collective sh8t together, see point 3, and also in parliament before all this.

5- It was an election of lies and hyperbole, and many heads should be hanging in shame; the Tory social media stuff was especially egregious. I agree generally that the Tories were amoral, but also that there is so much information flying around 'these days' that nothing much sticks. For example, there was that student halls fire, which Corbyn tried to link to Grenfell on twitter, which disappeared in less than a day; the terrorist attack, where both Labour and Tories tried to make political capital (to their shame), seemed like it would be big politically, but soon got overtaken as a political story; even the Leeds General Infirmary and Johnson's awful phone snatch story washed away relatively quickly; ditto interview-gate, and Morgan and Corbyn's car crashes on TV; the TV debates, big hoo-ha, no impact. The media built a lot of 'stuff up', but ultimately the polls at the start of the campaign, in lead terms, pretty much reflected what happened in the end. Perhaps the electorate figured out it was all noise; for example, 'victory' on social media was claimed in some quarters for Labour, and indeed the vibe on FB and Twitter was of a late Labour surge and a repeat on 2017.

6- We will have to disagree here- left wing economics and the policies espoused have always turned what is a very conservative electorate off, and the big true working class Labour vote can be included in that. You have a point in that its a bit convenient for me to quote a number of Labour MPs in isolation saying this was a big issue for their constituents, as it may have hurt in Blyth Valley but helped in Putney! It is very important for Labour to get this part right though, as ditching Corbyn, but retaining Corbynism may prove unfruitful.

The one comment that seems indisputable- this was Corbyn's campaign, he got what he wanted. Next steps will be fascinating.

1) No, I mean that the referendum would never have been called in the first place because the government would have been a coalition involving the LibDems.

2) A point I didn't stress enough is that in 2017 it was Corbyn v May, Corbyn was the winner on charisma that time. This time, although not a bad speaker, Corbyn was definitely the loser.

4) Stepping aside would have lost no seats directly since parties would only have done so in seats they had no chance of winning. A less quantifiable effect would be the implicit (or explicit) endorsement Labour would have given the Lib Dems, which might have boosted Swinson's overall performance, which might have been negative for Labour. IMO worth risking this in this critical election.

5) You have to accept that the level of Tory lying far exceeded Labour - 40 new hospitals, 50000 more nurses, Labour's £1.2TN manifesto, the punch, FactCheckUK, the fake manifesto website, the fake Twitter story alleging that the hospital photo was fake, the no checks between NI and GB, the doctored Starmer video etc.

[Son of Mathonwy]

Labour of course had a great chance to change the voting system back under Blair, but with a lot of internal pressure (with the left and Prescott to the fore) they didn't make a move to alter FPTP. So it does feel a little daft for Labour to complain now about the lack of PR, frankly Farage has more of a point

And again when the AV referendum happened - having both main parties shit on it from a height killed it dead.

Frankly, I'm in the uncomfortable position that I might soon be agreeing with Farage if he keeps his word about campaigning for electoral reform after Brexit is "done".

Puja

I was never a massive fan of PR (I like the idea of a local link for politicians) but I'm becoming warmer to the idea. There are too many safe seats where a vote for anyone but the incumbent party is just wasted whilst smaller parties struggle to win votes as that is also seen as a waste.

On the down side, the likelihood of seats won by the Brexit Party, UKIP, BNP or far left parties various is increased but that might be a price worth paying.

PR doesn't need to lose the local link. MPs can be voted in locally and then numbers topped up (from the most popular losing candidates) to make up the right proportions in the HoC.

We'd need to reduce the number of constituencies (say to 400?) in order to keep the HoC at a manageable size.

[Banquo]

A number of things. Would love to have a whole lot of stats to back this up and help me to rank these issues, but anyway, here's my take:

1) First and foremost, the first past the post system. Had we a PR system like most democracies, we would now have a Corbyn-led coalition of Labour, the Lib Dems, SNP, Greens and Plaid, and Brexit would not be happening, indeed it would never have begun. And the most extreme policies of Labour would not be implemented. And we'd be taking the first meaningful steps to stopping the climate catastrophe.

But, back to the world we actually live in, unfortunately...

I honestly don't know which of 2) and 3) was the most significant. Labour defectors say it was 2), but without input from everyone who did and did not vote for Labour, we can't be certain:

2) The perception of Corbyn. Part of this is due to the man himself (less charismatic than his opponent, struggled to project his message, appeared indecisive, the anti-semitism problem, old). Part of it is due to the unending character assassination performed by 5 national newspapers (and not much help from the Independent and Guardian until recently, if we're honest), abetted by more subtly negative coverage from the BBC. That most of the newspapers chose to vilify Corbyn rather than the dishonest, racist, homophobic, snobbish, misogynistic liar Johnson just shows how tough a job the Labour leader had. But ultimately, Corbyn's general unpopularity was a massive problem for Labour. They hoped they could turn it around again in the campaign, but this did not happen to a significant degree.

3) Brexit. This is clearly an unusual situation. It cuts across normal allegiances, disrupting core support. However this is also true for the Tories. The problem for Labour was that it could not attract all of the remain supporters while the Tory-Brexit Party deal meant that the Conservatives took most of the leave vote. Labour failed to stop the splitting of the remain vote because it decided on its Brexit policy much too late. Had it decided on that policy in April this year (before the local elections on 2nd May) the Lib Dems would not have seen a resurgence and would probably have seen their vote fall even further in the election. (And Corbyn would have seemed more decisive.)

4) Failing to make an electoral pact with the other remain parties, particularly the Lib Dems, cost them a number of seats. Once Farage made his deal with the Tories, this should have been done. Frankly it's disgraceful that it didn't.

5) The Media's tolerance of dishonesty. It goes without saying that most of the newspapers were a channel for Tory propaganda, but the fact that the BBC would not call out blatant lies (and use the word "lie") meant that the Tories could and did repeat them freely. And since the Tories were being staggeringly more dishonest than their opponents, this was a big problem for Labour.

6) I will mention economics, just to say that I don't think this was a problem for Labour. Sure, some people didn't like it, but some people did. Without seeing the stats, who knows if it was a vote loser or gainer?

(1- This ignores the impact of tactical voting in a FPTP system perhaps; on Brexit, are you saying had that alliance existed at the time of the referendum, then Remain would have won? If so, of course- it would only have taken Corbyn/Labour to be enthusiastic about Remaining imo for a different first result (people forget somehow that Remain was Tory policy til the referendum). As you say its moot. )

2- One man's perception is another man's reality. IMO the man is a hopeless leader, wedded to the past, and one who appears 'unpatriotic'; I know patriotism isn't popular in the metropolitan areas, but its a big thing in the former heartlands. Your take is the press destroyed him, my take is that he made that easy, simply by being. He's no doubt principled, but weak, stubborn and naive- yet a convenient front man for the left.

3- Agreed, Labour was in a corner and then took several wrong strategic decisions, which left them in that corner.

4- Interesting- pact may have won them seats, but conversely could also have lost them too? They certainly should have got their collective sh8t together, see point 3, and also in parliament before all this.

5- It was an election of lies and hyperbole, and many heads should be hanging in shame; the Tory social media stuff was especially egregious. I agree generally that the Tories were amoral, but also that there is so much information flying around 'these days' that nothing much sticks. For example, there was that student halls fire, which Corbyn tried to link to Grenfell on twitter, which disappeared in less than a day; the terrorist attack, where both Labour and Tories tried to make political capital (to their shame), seemed like it would be big politically, but soon got overtaken as a political story; even the Leeds General Infirmary and Johnson's awful phone snatch story washed away relatively quickly; ditto interview-gate, and Morgan and Corbyn's car crashes on TV; the TV debates, big hoo-ha, no impact. The media built a lot of 'stuff up', but ultimately the polls at the start of the campaign, in lead terms, pretty much reflected what happened in the end. Perhaps the electorate figured out it was all noise; for example, 'victory' on social media was claimed in some quarters for Labour, and indeed the vibe on FB and Twitter was of a late Labour surge and a repeat on 2017.

6- We will have to disagree here- left wing economics and the policies espoused have always turned what is a very conservative electorate off, and the big true working class Labour vote can be included in that. You have a point in that its a bit convenient for me to quote a number of Labour MPs in isolation saying this was a big issue for their constituents, as it may have hurt in Blyth Valley but helped in Putney! It is very important for Labour to get this part right though, as ditching Corbyn, but retaining Corbynism may prove unfruitful.

The one comment that seems indisputable- this was Corbyn's campaign, he got what he wanted. Next steps will be fascinating.

1) No, I mean that the referendum would never have been called in the first place because the government would have been a coalition involving the LibDems.

2) A point I didn't stress enough is that in 2017 it was Corbyn v May, Corbyn was the winner on charisma that time. This time, although not a bad speaker, Corbyn was definitely the loser.

4) Stepping aside would have lost no seats directly since parties would only have done so in seats they had no chance of winning. A less quantifiable effect would be the implicit (or explicit) endorsement Labour would have given the Lib Dems, which might have boosted Swinson's overall performance, which might have been negative for Labour. IMO worth risking this in this critical election.

5) You have to accept that the level of Tory lying far exceeded Labour - 40 new hospitals, 50000 more nurses, Labour's £1.2TN manifesto, the punch, FactCheckUK, the fake manifesto website, the fake Twitter story alleging that the hospital photo was fake, the no checks between NI and GB, the doctored Starmer video etc.

1- ok- you mean the 2015 GE election would have led to a Labour coalition (led by Milliband) under PR? Not sure where Corbyn comes in that scenario?
2- and? I think a dustbin has more charisma than May, who also ran a dire campaign and was also de-railed by her lack of human reaction to eg Grenfell. She was a terrible leader, doesn't mean Corbyn wasn't as well.
4- exactly
5- yes, I did. ->the Tory social media stuff was especially egregious. I agree generally that the Tories were amoral. But Labour did their bit too.

[Mellsblue]

Long-Bailey and Rayner to stand on a joint ticket. I’d imagine they’ll be heavy favourites.

[Banquo]

Not sure if this lightens the mood....

[Banquo]

Long-Bailey and Rayner to stand on a joint ticket. I’d imagine they’ll be heavy favourites.

body-shamer.

Doubling down though.

[Which Tyler]

And so it begins

https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top-st ... -1-6425258
Tory MP calls for social care insurance for 'those who can afford it'

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 48611.html
Boris Johnson could ditch promise to protect workers' rights and environmental protections after Brexit, No 10 suggests

[Digby]

Not sure if this lightens the mood....

It will providing people accept Pie is part of the joke

[onlynameleft]

Long-Bailey and Rayner to stand on a joint ticket. I’d imagine they’ll be heavy favourites.

RL-B makes Corbyn look like Thatcher. I used to work with her. She spent all her day trying to persuade the secretaries to do less work. She used to be Jake Berry’s trainee.

[Banquo]

Looks like a young and diverse new intake, which can only be good. Though 'its like starting at Hogwarts with the death-eaters in charge' as a quote is interesting . Johnson will need a touch of the Harry Potters to deliver I guess!

[Sandydragon]

Long-Bailey and Rayner to stand on a joint ticket. I’d imagine they’ll be heavy favourites.

RL-B makes Corbyn look like Thatcher. I used to work with her. She spent all her day trying to persuade the secretaries to do less work. She used to be Jake Berry’s trainee.

She might appeal to Momentum, but I don't see her having much appeal to the wider electorate. Perhaps less baggage than Corbyn but otherwise not much difference.

[Mellsblue]

Long-Bailey and Rayner to stand on a joint ticket. I’d imagine they’ll be heavy favourites.

RL-B makes Corbyn look like Thatcher. I used to work with her. She spent all her day trying to persuade the secretaries to do less work. She used to be Jake Berry’s trainee.

She might appeal to Momentum, but I don't see her having much appeal to the wider electorate. Perhaps less baggage than Corbyn but otherwise not much difference.

If a Corbynite does get in, I wonder what the moderates will do. Not that I know how many are left. If 40ish move to LD it puts them on 50ish and Labour on 150ish. Given the size of Boris’s majority, in the practical terms, that isn’t too much difference.

[Puja]

Long-Bailey and Rayner to stand on a joint ticket. I’d imagine they’ll be heavy favourites.

RL-B makes Corbyn look like Thatcher. I used to work with her. She spent all her day trying to persuade the secretaries to do less work. She used to be Jake Berry’s trainee.

She might appeal to Momentum, but I don't see her having much appeal to the wider electorate. Perhaps less baggage than Corbyn but otherwise not much difference.

I think "less baggage than Corbyn" is a) a low bar to trip over and b) a fairly major thing. I'd say having a candidate who is beyond reproach and with nothing that the papers/social media can latch onto is almost more important than their political stance.

Puja

[Stom]

RL-B makes Corbyn look like Thatcher. I used to work with her. She spent all her day trying to persuade the secretaries to do less work. She used to be Jake Berry’s trainee.

She might appeal to Momentum, but I don't see her having much appeal to the wider electorate. Perhaps less baggage than Corbyn but otherwise not much difference.

If a Corbynite does get in, I wonder what the moderates will do. Not that I know how many are left. If 40ish move to LD it puts them on 50ish and Labour on 150ish. Given the size of Boris’s majority, in the practical terms, that isn’t too much difference.

Then they'd just lose their seat in the next general, unless the LD get their finger out of their arse and elect a leader who actually, well, you know, is both liberal and a democrat.

After Clegg's sell out, it's been a pretty piss poor group.

[Mellsblue]

She might appeal to Momentum, but I don't see her having much appeal to the wider electorate. Perhaps less baggage than Corbyn but otherwise not much difference.

If a Corbynite does get in, I wonder what the moderates will do. Not that I know how many are left. If 40ish move to LD it puts them on 50ish and Labour on 150ish. Given the size of Boris’s majority, in the practical terms, that isn’t too much difference.

Then they'd just lose their seat in the next general, unless the LD get their finger out of their arse and elect a leader who actually, well, you know, is both liberal and a democrat.

After Clegg's sell out, it's been a pretty piss poor group.

I suppose you’d need to hedge your bets based on the next leader. I’d rather work under Davey than RLB. There’s also that prior to the GE they could hold their nose under Corbyn knowing they could lay punches on the govt. That has pretty much gone now with this majority.

[Stom]

If a Corbynite does get in, I wonder what the moderates will do. Not that I know how many are left. If 40ish move to LD it puts them on 50ish and Labour on 150ish. Given the size of Boris’s majority, in the practical terms, that isn’t too much difference.

Then they'd just lose their seat in the next general, unless the LD get their finger out of their arse and elect a leader who actually, well, you know, is both liberal and a democrat.

After Clegg's sell out, it's been a pretty piss poor group.

I suppose you’d need to hedge your bets based on the next leader. I’d rather work under Davey than RLB. There’s also that prior to the GE they could hold their nose under Corbyn knowing they could lay punches on the govt. That has pretty much gone now with this majority.

What does Davey stand for, though?

I'd rather someone with a vision rather than another career fucking politician.

That's been the problem since Thatcher, really: career politicians.

I may be ideologically opposite to her, but at least she had a plan and a vision and stuck to it!

BoJo only has himself, Swinson had nothing, Farron just wanted to be Israel Folau, Cameron didn't care for anything, Clegg had no vision other than power...

Useless, all of them. At least Corbyn has had an ideology, even if it's been badly implemented.

[Mellsblue]

Then they'd just lose their seat in the next general, unless the LD get their finger out of their arse and elect a leader who actually, well, you know, is both liberal and a democrat.

After Clegg's sell out, it's been a pretty piss poor group.

I suppose you’d need to hedge your bets based on the next leader. I’d rather work under Davey than RLB. There’s also that prior to the GE they could hold their nose under Corbyn knowing they could lay punches on the govt. That has pretty much gone now with this majority.

What does Davey stand for, though?

I'd rather someone with a vision rather than another career fucking politician.

That's been the problem since Thatcher, really: career politicians.

I may be ideologically opposite to her, but at least she had a plan and a vision and stuck to it!

BoJo only has himself, Swinson had nothing, Farron just wanted to be Israel Folau, Cameron didn't care for anything, Clegg had no vision other than power...

Useless, all of them. At least Corbyn has had an ideology, even if it's been badly implemented.

We could do with less ideology in our politics.

[Mikey Brown]

Ideology seems to be one of those terms that has lost all meaning in recent years, or at least one which people can agree on.

Is it about the driving principles and theory behind what you’re trying to achieve, because you think it is morally right? Or is it just the belligerent, cult-like, narrow mindedness that leads to poor policy/engagement?

[Stom]

I suppose you’d need to hedge your bets based on the next leader. I’d rather work under Davey than RLB. There’s also that prior to the GE they could hold their nose under Corbyn knowing they could lay punches on the govt. That has pretty much gone now with this majority.

What does Davey stand for, though?

I'd rather someone with a vision rather than another career fucking politician.

That's been the problem since Thatcher, really: career politicians.

I may be ideologically opposite to her, but at least she had a plan and a vision and stuck to it!

BoJo only has himself, Swinson had nothing, Farron just wanted to be Israel Folau, Cameron didn't care for anything, Clegg had no vision other than power...

Useless, all of them. At least Corbyn has had an ideology, even if it's been badly implemented.

We could do with less ideology in our politics.

Really? I disagree. I think people should have a vision. When they have a vision and work toward that vision, their actions make sense.

And if you don't agree with that vision...don't vote for them.

The vision of BJ, Trump, etc., is simply POWER! They just want power and are willing to sacrifice anything and everyone around them to get it and hold it.

They don't care about the consequences for the little man. And even more the little woman.

If they're ideologically driven, those things are writ large in their actions.

In response to Mikey, I want to see politicians who have an aim in mind, clearly state that aim, and their policy decisions are obviously tied to that aim.

Thatcher was one. I disagreed with her vision but I can admire her for sticking to it. Since then we've been plagued by career politicians who only want power. They only care about winning elections: Blair, Cameron, BJ, May...

Can anyone say what their principle was? The only one who had a principle was Brown and he got hounded out for making mistakes that snowballed because of outside influences.

[morepork]

RL-B makes Corbyn look like Thatcher. I used to work with her. She spent all her day trying to persuade the secretaries to do less work. She used to be Jake Berry’s trainee.

She might appeal to Momentum, but I don't see her having much appeal to the wider electorate. Perhaps less baggage than Corbyn but otherwise not much difference.

I think "less baggage than Corbyn" is a) a low bar to trip over and b) a fairly major thing. I'd say having a candidate who is beyond reproach and with nothing that the papers/social media can latch onto is almost more important than their political stance.

Puja

That is pretty fucked up. I'm not disagreeing, but it is fucked up. The great dumbing-down continues apace. FML.