1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

2015 anti Cons: Where did it all go wrong?

Discussion in 'UK politics, current affairs and news' started by paolo, May 8, 2015.

  1. free spirit

    free spirit more tea vicar?

    ok, but at the same time surely you're not saying that the massively biassed media didn't have any influence over the election?

    Even the independent's now in the hands of an oligarch who was probably none too impressed with labour's stance on non-doms.

    It's going to be an uphill task for any party to win in the face of that sort of media situation even without the missteps - the media multiply the impact of any missteps such as the pink bus thing, and play down the impact of any tory errors. Just as they did with Kinnock falling in the sea etc.
    Greebo likes this.
  2. free spirit

    free spirit more tea vicar?

    here they were relying on paid for leaflet distribution, had to pay out £2k in damages to the lib dem MP and print and distribute 15000 apology leaflets, for 2 lies they'd printed about his voting record, and only managed to get verge boards around half the constituency.

    Not surprising they didn't win it really, though the Lib Dem campaign machine in the last few days was pretty awesome tbf, they managed to swamp our Green campaign in 3 out of the 4 wards, though we got 32% in our strongest ward (headingley) and won a town councillor in Otley, where the Lib Dem's otherwise swept the board with not a single labour candidate elected.

    The tactical voting thing here actually seems to have worked to favour the lib dems, as if council votes were taken across the ward we'd have been on 13.5%, and the Lib Dems would have just scraped home with a majority of just over 100, but they got a lot of votes from us in the general elections where we were only on 7% in the end.
    Greebo likes this.
  3. frogwoman

    frogwoman Whatever's meant to go here.

    Lol, wasnt just a misstep. The entire campaign came across as incompetent and labour a disunited party that said right or left wing stuff depending what day of the week it was.
  4. andysays

    andysays Defiantly non-premium member

    I'm going to make a wild guess that you are unaware of the quote from which the reference to Tories as vermin comes
    Said by Aneurin Bevan, Labour Health Secretary, in 1948.

    Some might say that if the Labour party had a few like him around, they might not be in quite the desperate state they're in now...
  5. Quartz

    Quartz Eclectic contrarian plebeian

    You're wrong; I'm well aware of it, thank you. He was wrong then and he's wrong now (well, he would be if he were alive).
    Greebo likes this.
  6. Jeff Robinson

    Jeff Robinson Well-Known Member

    There are actually some problems with calling Tories vermin. Firstly, the correct quote is lower than vermin. Secondly, when people say 'vermin' you tend to think 'rats'. Rats are pro-social and empathetic creatures and that's more than you can say for Ian Duncan Smith or Michael Gove.
    Last edited: May 11, 2015
  7. Quartz

    Quartz Eclectic contrarian plebeian

    Indeed, but it's the contemptuous sentiment that is important.
  8. kabbes

    kabbes "A top 400 poster"

    In my constituency, the voting panned out as 61% Tory, 15% Lib Dem, 11% UKIP, 8% Labour and 5% Green ("Jacquetta Fewster" lol).

    I think that in the same way as the average voter in this constituency has literally no idea what real life is like for so many people in this country, a lot of the people on this message board have literally no idea what drives the voters in this constituency.

    Just to pick one example: it's not that voters here have active hostility towards those on benefits. It's not even that they don't "care", exactly. People on benefits are just not even on their radar. If pushed for an opinion, they might make a vague comment one way or ther other -- whether that be sympathetic, apathetic, patronising or condescending. But this is not what is in their minds at all when it comes to voting. They don't approve or disapprove of £12bn of welfare saving, it just doesn't mean anything to them. Those on benefits have simply become totally invisible to the wealthier end of the middle classes. I'm struggling to articulate it, but I think there is such a division in society that has been created that it has become easy for many on one side of that division to close the curtains and just forget that problems on the other side exist at all.

    So these people are presented with four versions of neoliberalism that all concentrate on the all important economy and one of those versions has a more consistent message, has given them five years of things being okay and has an irritating but seemingly basically competent leadership. Any problems created by that version of neoliberalism are literally invisible to them. There's no competition, which is why you get a 61% Tory vote.

    I'm honestly not sure if I can extrapolate this to wider national trends but if this worldview bleeds into more marginal constitutencies, it would explain why there is enough of a Tory vote to hold up a maginal majority.

    The only way that this kind of thing can be reversed is by encouraging all elements of society to actually view themselves as part of a coherent social whole rather than as atomised economic agents. To recognise that this closeting off is harming them more than it is helping them, because it contributes to a society in which every single indicator of wellbeing falls.

    To restate the well-trodden path, this is not going to happen by Labour re-embracing Blairism all over again.
  9. littlebabyjesus

    littlebabyjesus one of Maxwell's demons

    It is. I think he was referring to the Tory party, though, rather than all people who vote for them.

    I think it's an important distinction. There's been the same confusion on the Characterising UKIP thread. I similarly see no problem characterising UKIP leaders/activists as bigots but not necessarily tarring all those who voted UKIP with the same brush.
    Greebo, emanymton and frogwoman like this.
  10. chilango

    chilango *shrugs*

    Yeah. And even within constituencies. I'm constantly surprised at the social segregation I see down here.

    Different schools is just the most obvious illustration of this.

    ...the rich(er) and poor(er) appear to have separate supermarkets, shopping malls, cafes, buses, even different ends of the fucking high street.

    It's easy to live in a bubble.
  11. andysays

    andysays Defiantly non-premium member

    OK, so you are aware of it.

    Are you aware of why he regarded them in this way, and why many of us still do today, or is your knowledge limited to awareness and stopped short of understanding?

    And I'm still not sure if you get the distinction between the Tory party and those who might vote for them, but I don't think it's worth spending any more of my time explaining to you what to most of us is utterly obvious...
  12. kebabking

    kebabking Unfettered ambition

    it might help this discussion if we seperate the political philosophy 'Blairism' from the political methodology 'Blairism' - the political philosophy 'Blairism' certainly massively eroded the 'lefts' (as the Labour party repesenting the Left) view of society as a whole being, but the political methodology 'Blairism' was phenominally successful as a way of gaining and retaining power by talking to, and including, as wide a swathe of society as possible.

    Labour might be well advised to ditch the former, but as non-Blairist (methodology) candidates like Brown and Miliband show, ditching the latter is not such a clever plan.

    Miliband lost because he had absolutely nothing to say to the people you talk about in your consistancy. that doesn't mean he should have given them x, y or z freebies, or had a dozen benefit cheats shot in the market square to show his credentials, but he just didn't talk to them, or indicate that they played any part in his political view of the UK at all. if you weren't 'hard working families' - the working poor as everyone who isn't a politician knows them - or a banker/oligarch you got not one mention in the whole Labour campaign. thats why he lost, and why Blair won - Blair knew he had to include them, even if that inclusion meant talking about public services and social justice but ensuring that they understood that they benefited from then, even if just indirectly.
  13. andysays

    andysays Defiantly non-premium member

    tufty79, Greebo and emanymton like this.
  14. Lo Siento.

    Lo Siento. Second As Farce

    The trouble comes when these two sectors of society have contradictory interests (or perceive themselves to have such), isn't it?
    mather likes this.
  15. Quartz

    Quartz Eclectic contrarian plebeian

    You're absolutely wrong there.

    And thereby you demonstrate my point.
  16. littlebabyjesus

    littlebabyjesus one of Maxwell's demons

    Um, wasn't Blair the first Labour leader to embrace the 'working families' narrative?
  17. Sasaferrato

    Sasaferrato T'agba ta ti de, a ma yo ogunja.

    We'll have to disagree on that one. I possibly saw more of her than you did, she was on the Scottish news fairly often. She was dis-insperational (not that there is such a word). She had no 'go' about her at all, was a poor speaker, and simply did not generate enthusiasm amongst the party faithful. Murphy was the better person, but it was far too late in the day when he took over.
    Greebo likes this.
  18. kebabking

    kebabking Unfettered ambition

    he might well be, but Blairs 'working families' did not just include those who were one months pay packet from destitution - he was happy to embrace 'midle england'. miliband was not, so 'middle england' didn't embrace him back.
    Greebo, mack and frogwoman like this.
  19. Pickman's model

    Pickman's model The word of Sin is Restriction

    oh, i thought you meant norman
  20. Lo Siento.

    Lo Siento. Second As Farce

    I think you've mis-interpreted what's usually meant by "working families". In the most recent election both sides used it as a way of saying the usual inclusively classless "ordinary folk".
    littlebabyjesus likes this.
  21. littlebabyjesus

    littlebabyjesus one of Maxwell's demons

    Yeah, this is exactly what Blair did and Milliband tried to do. Only difference I can see is that Milliband also tried some (mild) attacks on the extremely wealthy, such as the mansion tax and non-dom changes, while Blair left them totally alone. I can't believe the Mansion Tax lost Lab the election.

    ETA: It's the US definition of 'middle class', basically, one that includes people most in the UK would call working class.
    Last edited: May 11, 2015
    Greebo and emanymton like this.
  22. Lo Siento.

    Lo Siento. Second As Farce

    Probably not. But I don't think elections are won and lost of specific policies anyway. It's usually something far more general than that (like say, in this case, a feeling of economic security that was felt widely enough in key parts of the country, versus something that was seen as risky)
  23. kabbes

    kabbes "A top 400 poster"

    There's a near-universal view, even amongst those who should know better, that Labour caused the financial crisis by overspending. The Tories have successfully planted that narrative. Why would you vote for the neoliberal austerity party that caused the crash when you can vote for the one that is apparently fixing it?
  24. Sasaferrato

    Sasaferrato T'agba ta ti de, a ma yo ogunja.

    That is over 300k, I wonder how many will renew when they realise that they have wasted their money and their vote.

    The point that seems to being serially overlooked here is the influence of the polls, I'm bloody sure that had people known the true state of the outcome, a good number of votes would have left UKIP, the Greens etc.
    Greebo likes this.
  25. DotCommunist

    DotCommunist my world is fire and blood

    think you'll have to accept that the snappies are now a dominant force in wider Union politcs sass. They aren't going away. Labour had every chance to shore up the scottish vote and they installed some never-done-a-days-work blairite twonk to run things. They fucked themselves
    muscovyduck, Greebo and J Ed like this.
  26. littlebabyjesus

    littlebabyjesus one of Maxwell's demons

    I'm not sure I agree. I think plenty recognise its international nature. What there is, imo, is a widespread misunderstanding of what the financial crisis actually was (overborrowing by the private sector followed by a collapse in borrowing by the private sector).
    Greebo and Belushi like this.
  27. kabbes

    kabbes "A top 400 poster"

    If pushed they might say yada yada banks but in their hearts they blame Labour and they blame spending.
    Greebo likes this.
  28. littlebabyjesus

    littlebabyjesus one of Maxwell's demons

    There's also a misunderstanding about deficits and debt - people moaning about govt borrowing but not seeing its link to their own private pensions, for instance. The idea that a loan has two components - money and time - and that the structure of UK debt is totally different from those of the likes of Italy because there's so much more time in them. The idea that there are cheat ways of reducing debt that actually increase spending - such as pfi initiatives.

    I don't blame people not that interested for getting lost in this stuff. My problem is that the politicians themselves don't understand it, though.
    muscovyduck, Greebo and kabbes like this.
  29. killer b

    killer b Gazing vacantly at a plate of mince

    of course they do.
  30. littlebabyjesus

    littlebabyjesus one of Maxwell's demons

    Some of it, sure. But Osborne, to take the most obvious example? I doubt he understands much of this stuff. This is the man who cheered Ireland's economic miracle the year before the crash, remember.
    Greebo likes this.

Share This Page