UK elections

[laPapessaGiovanna]

What I don't understand is the brexit thing. Do Britons want it or not? What did the remainers vote? They were more or less half the electorate, how could they vote for fool Johnson?

[Syriana]

31 minutes ago, laPapessaGiovanna said:

What I don't understand is the brexit thing. Do Britons want it or not? What did the remainers vote? They were more or less half the electorate, how could they vote for fool Johnson?

A lot of remain voters were utterly terrified of a Corbyn government - there was no chance that the Lib Dems would become the largest party so there would have had to be some inter party co-operation.  This election can be distilled to 3 big issues: Brexit, Corbyn and antisemitism (specifically Corbyn's refusal or inability to deal with it within his party).  There are many other issues - a good number of them which ought to have been treat far more seriously than they have been - but those were the 3 that were raised time and time again on the doorstep.

Corbyn is toxic to the Labour party, there were a lot of voters looking at voting tactically to keep him out.  The parliamentary labour party knew this, but they weren't able to remove him.

[laPapessaGiovanna]

59 minutes ago, Syriana said:

A lot of remain voters were utterly terrified of a Corbyn government - there was no chance that the Lib Dems would become the largest party so there would have had to be some inter party co-operation.  This election can be distilled to 3 big issues: Brexit, Corbyn and antisemitism (specifically Corbyn's refusal or inability to deal with it within his party).  There are many other issues - a good number of them which ought to have been treat far more seriously than they have been - but those were the 3 that were raised time and time again on the doorstep.

Corbyn is toxic to the Labour party, there were a lot of voters looking at voting tactically to keep him out.  The parliamentary labour party knew this, but they weren't able to remove him.

I get that Corbyn lost many votes (even if I don't really understand how since he didn't lose so much against May, quite the contrary and he hasn't been in government so he surely can't be blamed for things going wrong), but you'd expect that those votes would be gathered by either the SNP, as actually happened in Scotland, or by Lib Dems, but the Lib Dems lost badly too, so it seems that the votes lost by Labour were effectively gained by Johnson. This would mean that BoJo actually managed to convince the majority of Britons of... I don't even know of what. It's not like conservatives have a clear record about antisemitism and BoJo's many lies and radical approach to Brexit forecast a dire future. How can people in front of this situation go from Labour to Tory just because they don't like Corbyn? It sounds a reasoning a bit trivial for such a big change. Especially since basically everything of the last years shitshow can be safely blamed on Tories. 

Probably I don't get it because I know very little about Corbyn, or maybe because I didn't understand the depth of anti-EU sentiments in the UK.

[Syriana]

1 minute ago, laPapessaGiovanna said:

I get that Corbyn lost many votes (even if I don't really understand how since he didn't lose so much against May, quite the contrary and he hasn't been in government so he surely can't be blamed for things going wrong), but you'd expect that those votes would be gathered by either the SNP, as actually happened in Scotland, or by Lib Dems, but the Lib Dems lost badly too, so it seems that the votes lost by Labour were effectively gained by Johnson. This would mean that BoJo actually managed to convince the majority of Britons of... I don't even know of what. It's not like conservatives have a clear record about antisemitism and BoJo's many lies and radical approach to Brexit forecast a dire future. How can people in front of this situation go from Labour to Tory just because they don't like Corbyn? It sounds a reasoning a bit trivial for such a big change. Especially since basically everything of the last years shitshow can be safely blamed on Tories. 

Probably I don't get it because I know very little about Corbyn, or maybe because I didn't understand the depth of anti-EU sentiments in the UK.

The whole thing is a complicated mess!  

I've been looking at some of the actual vote data and the Lib Dems did increase their vote share, but not enough.  The remain vote is also an interesting point because it was heavily consolidated in Scotland and London (58/74 seats in the greater London area voted remain).  The Lib Dems did manage to grab 2 remainer seats from the Cons but lost out to the SNP so net loss over all.

What seems to have happened is that Bojo has consolidated a large chunk of the leave vote, plus a fair few remainers who are just 'over' the whole Brexit mess, sick of the pathetic arguments and want to move on (there were also a number who voted remain, but accepted that the majority voted leave and believed that the vote ought to be respected).  The Lib Dems failed to break Labours traditional stranglehold on the Greater London area, Labour's vote plummeted by 6.4 % but it wasn't enough to cause a switch.

The conservatives have certainly had their own problems with racism and antisemitism, but Corbyn and his complete failure to deal with it has prompted a serious backlash from the Jewish community - and that community has been vocal in the run up to this election (rightly and understandably so).

Jeremy Corbyn...it's hard to explain the response so many people have to him.  People don't just dislike him, they're flat out terrified of what he would have done had he got in.  He's so far left of centre that he's alienated or pushed out many of the moderate left, he's considered by some to be a terrorist sympathiser and he lacks any kind of credibility because many of his own MP's blatantly don't trust him.  The number of people I spoke to who when asked gave a response along the lines of 'I usually vote labour, but I won't while Corbyn is leader' was unreal (I was campaigning for an independent candidate) I must have heard variations on that theme hundreds of times and other campaigners were saying the same thing.

 

 

[fraurosena]

7 hours ago, Smash! said:

What will his next purchase be?

He's doing his damnedest to get a foothold in my country right now. There's this movement that is calling itself 'Unheard Netherlands' (Ongehoord Nederland) that is garnering signatures to start a media company with television/radio rights. They say this is necessary because the mainstream media is filled with leftist propaganda and fake news. They are extremely rightwing and agitating the public against immigrants, refugees and the EU. They deny climate change and the nitrogen crisis, and call the government untrustworthy and biased against them.

Sound familiar?

 

[formergothardite]

I am so sorry. I feel like we are headed towards some sort of global collapse of democracy. Especially if Trump and the GOP win America next year. Let's hope we can eventually come out of this a better world but this is going to be one hell of a ride. Living through dramatic world history really isn't that fun. 

[Dandruff]

2 hours ago, Syriana said:

Jeremy Corbyn...it's hard to explain the response so many people have to him.  People don't just dislike him, they're flat out terrified of what he would have done had he got in.  He's so far left of centre that he's alienated or pushed out many of the moderate left, he's considered by some to be a terrorist sympathiser and he lacks any kind of credibility because many of his own MP's blatantly don't trust him.  The number of people I spoke to who when asked gave a response along the lines of 'I usually vote labour, but I won't while Corbyn is leader' was unreal (I was campaigning for an independent candidate) I must have heard variations on that theme hundreds of times and other campaigners were saying the same thing.

This reminds me of folks I spoke to in the US who voted for Trump because they couldn't stand Hillary.  I blame the Democratic party to some extent for the loss, while acknowledging that there was election interference from outside.  I believe the Party should have better gauged the public's visceral sentiments toward their candidate, independent from the issues being debated, and responded accordingly.  The issues matter a lot, of course, but people have a hard time reacting in a positive way (i.e., voting) for people who completely rub them the wrong way and this needs to be factored into any campaign's calculations...if they really want to win.

I have sympathy for any candidate, anywhere, who's working (not just token talk) against antisemitism and think twice about voting for candidates who appear to tolerate it.  I'm Jewish and it's a pretty big deal to me.  Antisemitism is rising.  I continue to marvel at Trump's ability to get substantial amounts of both the white supremacist and ultra-religious Jewish votes.  One group is creating the problems that encourages votes for him from the other group.  Pretty clever, if you ask me.

I wonder to what extent opposing parties help "support" potential candidates on the other side, prior to primaries.  For example, in the US the Democratic party will benefit from an ultimately unpalatable Republican candidate and vice versa.  Who or what kept Corbyn in the game in the UK?

[Ozlsn]

10 hours ago, laPapessaGiovanna said:

I hope not. But not because I think my countrymen wouldn't be stupid enough in the electoral box, because we would. I put my hopes in our legendary unruliness.

Forgive me but I just had the best mental image of Putin losing it because his carefully managed plan to take over the Italian elections has been ruined by infighting within the coalition needed to form government. (Mind you a good back up plan would be to encourage infighting and paralyse the government...)

[Smash!]

2 hours ago, fraurosena said:

They are extremely rightwing and agitating the public against immigrants, refugees and the EU. They deny climate change and the nitrogen crisis, and call the government untrustworthy and biased against them.

Sound familiar?

Yes, unfortunately too familiar :( In the USA it was proven that the elections were manipulated. In Europe I'm not quite sure (apart from the UK) yet. I believe that the polarisation of the parties and the lack of a mediating centre also leads to such excesses. Climate change, immigration and refugees are good examples where it is important to find a solution that everyone can support and not disadvantage one population group.
To what extent the Russian troll factories and Facebook (I don't trust Zuckerberg) play a role here can probably only be judged in the future.

2 hours ago, formergothardite said:

I feel like we are headed towards some sort of global collapse of democracy. Especially if Trump and the GOP win America next year. Let's hope we can eventually come out of this a better world but this is going to be one hell of a ride. Living through dramatic world history really isn't that fun. 

That's what I think, and it shocks me immensely. I did not expect my lifetime so see democracy falling apart in the Western world. I took it for granted. I was so sure that the experiences the world had in WWII would be so deep that something like this wouldn't happen to us so quickly. My grandparents experienced the war and I still can't really realize that less than 100 years later we are at a similar point again. I ask myself, why don't people take to the streets? In our country they demonstrate almost every weekend for the climate but without democracy nothing can be done against climate change. Are the signs so obivious people refuse to see them?

[Ozlsn]

8 minutes ago, Smash! said:

In the USA it was proven that the elections were manipulated. In Europe I'm not quite sure (apart from the UK) yet

I would be surprised if they're not. What concerns me is how malleable they seem to be - Commintern tried very hard in the 20s-40s but was reasonably unsuccessful. Certainly the lack of diversification in mainstream media and the rise of social media help but even so people seem more open to being swayed. Maybe it's just better targeting to people's fear rather than trying to convert them to an idealistic and possibly altruistic future.

[unsafetydancer]

Fuck this! Emigrating to Canada.
Either that or my idea to build a trench at the border still stands.

[laPapessaGiovanna]

1 hour ago, Ozlsn said:

(Mind you a good back up plan would be to encourage infighting and paralyse the government...)

Lol. You just described the last seventy years of Italian politics.

[Cleopatra7]

What I took from the UK elections was this:

1. Electoral politics in Europe and the United States are about appealing to least common denominator. No major party with ruling ambitions is going to go out on a limb to help an unpopular minority group that would make them look bad to the majority population, even (or maybe especially) if it’s the right to do. 

2. The social welfare programs that characterized Western European social democracy in the mid twentieth century should be seen as Bismarckian carrots to preserve the status quo (along with its class and racial hierarchies) with a few concessions in light of the Cold War. With the USSR no longer around, the logic of neoliberalism sees no reason to keep these programs around, since there’s theoretically no alternative, and no need to keep up the appearance of keeping the masses placated. All of this is a long way of saying that the NHS is about to be sold off like a fire sale.

3. The constant blaming of Russia for the failures of Western governments, rather than the elites who actually run said governments prevents meaningful change. Not only does this view give centrist politicians a pass because they embody a false sense of “normalcy,” but it ignores the fact that the CIA has done everything Russia has alleged to have done and more:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2018/02/17/sunday-review/russia-isnt-the-only-one-meddling-in-elections-we-do-it-too.amp.html

““If you ask an intelligence officer, did the Russians break the rules or do something bizarre, the answer is no, not at all,” said Steven L. Hall, who retired in 2015 after 30 years at the C.I.A., where he was the chief of Russian operations. The United States “absolutely” has carried out such election influence operations historically, he said, “and I hope we keep doing it.””

(I can’t seem to quote on my phone)

The article justifies US interference by claiming we only use it to “spread democracy,” which the recipients of our largess would certainly dispute. US interference in Central and South America is why we have these waves of refugees pouring in, so these decisions do have domestic consequences.

Edited December 14, 2019 by Cleopatra7

[Syriana]

On 12/13/2019 at 6:31 PM, Dandruff said:

 Who or what kept Corbyn in the game in the UK?

The simple answer to that is a secret ballot in a ruling executive vote) that put Corbyn on the ballot automatically in the 2016 leadership election as the incumbent (instead of needing support from the parliamentary labour party i.e the MP's who had just voted no confidence in him by 172 to 40) followed by a decisive vote from the wider party membership and affiliate supporters.  That he had to be formally challenged in the wake of that no confidence vote because he refused to resign or call a leadership election speaks volumes!

The more complete answer would (and likely will) fill books; the Labour Party tends to be very pendulum like in its policies, it lurches from the hard left (Michael Foot, Jeremy Corbyn) to the moderate left.  How quickly that change occurs is variable, so is how complete the swing is (Blair was much more centrist than any other Labour Party leader I can think of...and the most successful in terms of being elected).

Corbyn appealed to the hard left and his vision of utopia where everyone has everything they need, money is limitless and the real world doesn't exist appealed to a lot of idealistic youth. 

Edited December 17, 2019 by Syriana
Added the paragraph which somehow went missing