UK election thread

[Gromovnik]

That is such an ignorant statement

Why? The north of the island is still under colonialist occupation.

[95thrifleman]

Look's like we just had our second referendum on Brexit

[nhytgbvfeco2]

Why? The north of the island is still under colonialist occupation.

It is no more occupied than London or Bristol.

[Abdülmecid I]

Overall, I'm quite happy about the result, because, although Boris the Buffoon won decisively, the end of Corbyn's political career means that there's one populist fewer to distort the political discourse. Moreover, I'm definitely open to the possibility of even more oppressed countries and royal provinces imitating the example of the Republic of Ireland and leave the Commonwealth for the paradise of OIF.

As May found out in 2017, if you attack or ignore your core voters you will be punished. The Labour Party could and should have set out a socialist/leftist version of Brexit; it could and should have compromised on migratory policy; and it could and should have been more robust in challenging antisemitism. Instead, it offered a transparently rigged 2nd. referendum on Europe, continued to insist on an open-door approach to migration, and turned a blind eye to the persistent denigration of Israel by party activists.

That's a pretty cynical advice and I'm not sure it will pay off. Some times it works, but only for opportunist governments, like the Danish example demonstrates. If a party notices that each potential voters are upset by issues that are not covered by its ideological platform, then the more appropriate approach should be to educate its would-be supporters about why their views are inaccurate and how the promised policies of the party would actually benefit them. In fact, I'd argue that one of the reasons Corbyn failed so spectacularly was his cowardly position towards the Brexit question.

He essentially tried to appease both camps, but actually failed to attract either. Moderate centrists who normally oppose Brexit were alienated by the paranoid narrative of Bolsheviks nationalising their laundry and Corbyn's struggle against the right-wing faction inside his party, while more radical activists presumably didn't appreciate the discrepancy between his fiery anti-establishment rhetoric and his mild and timid policy towards what was generally perceived as the most serious issue of the legislative elections.

[Aexodus]

https://amp.theguardian.com/politics...longer-gripped

An hour later, once the declaration had been made, the severity of the defeat still hadn’t sunk in as the Labour leader began his acceptance speech. It was a disappointing night, he said. A setback, nothing more. If his manifesto had had a flaw, it was that it had been too good for the country. It had been the country’s fault that Labour had not won the election. The people had allowed themselves to be manipulated by the mainstream media into being distracted by Brexit.

However, even though he took no responsibility for Labour’s defeat, Corbyn did concede that he wouldn’t lead the party into another glorious general election. He would stand down, but in his own time. Only after he had been able to engineer a suitable replacement who would build on his magnificent legacy and lead Labour to an even more crushing humiliation. The few Labour party supporters around the country who weren’t already paralytically drunk, each downed an entire bottle of scotch.

I have to say this is pretty much the same as what I’ve seen from Labour supporters on Twitter. Refusing to take responsibility for defeat, comparing Tory voters to Turkeys voting for Christmas and being obnoxiously self-righteous.

Meanwhile I hope the moderates in the party get rid of the Corbyn crowd and make a sensible center-left alternative that doesn’t cater mainly to urban/suburban liberals and instead to the people Labour is meant to represent.

[Cope]

That's a pretty cynical advice and I'm not sure it will pay off. Some times it works, but only for opportunist governments, like the Danish example demonstrates. If a party notices that each potential voters are upset by issues that are not covered by its ideological platform, then the more appropriate approach should be to educate its would-be supporters about why their views are inaccurate and how the promised policies of the party would actually benefit them. In fact, I'd argue that one of the reasons Corbyn failed so spectacularly was his cowardly position towards the Brexit question.

He essentially tried to appease both camps, but actually failed to attract either. Moderate centrists who normally oppose Brexit were alienated by the paranoid narrative of Bolsheviks nationalising their laundry and Corbyn's struggle against the right-wing faction inside his party, while more radical activists presumably didn't appreciate the discrepancy between his fiery anti-establishment rhetoric and his mild and timid policy towards what was generally perceived as the most serious issue of the legislative elections.

You act as if the Labour Party hasn't been trying, for nigh on 15 years, to "educate" its provincial constituents of the benefits of mass migration and the European Union. Hitherto, not only have they been incapable of convincing anyone of this newfangled, post-Cold War internationalism, but over the years they've actually managed to increase resistance toward it.

On the question of Brexit, and as we saw in the 2017 election, the party did well when it sought to unite its leave and remain factions behind a so-called "soft" withdrawal. This strategy had the advantage of neutralizing the Conservatives' Brexit monopoly whilst offering a credible compromise which didn't reek of a stitch-up. Had Corbyn perused such a strategy (perhaps by arguing for an exit which retained the United Kingdom's membership of the Customs Union) the Conservatives wouldn't have found it so easy to hoover up leave voters in traditional Labour areas.

[Aexodus]

If a party notices that each potential voters are upset by issues that are not covered by its ideological platform, then the more appropriate approach should be to educate its would-be supporters about why their views are inaccurate and how the promised policies of the party would actually benefit them.

I’m sorry but this is the attitude that lost Labour the election. You’re supposed to appeal to what voters’ want, not patronise them. If your reaction as a hypothetical Labour member to this defeat is that ‘the voters were wrong’ you need to take a look at your political platform.

Labour luckily didn’t include this in the manifesto, but their membership overwhelmingly voted at their conference against immigration caps, meaning they would be okay with unlimited immigration, and to ‘extend’ free movement and in all likelihood, immigration, as well as giving foreign nationals the vote and close detention centres for illegal immigrants. The Shadow Home Secretary indicated all this would be adopted as party policy as per the Guardian. If this isn’t an example of being out of touch with the country at large I don’t know what is.

Voters hate being called uneducated, they hate being patronised, and this is one of the exact things that I’ve seen UK voters complain about, not just in regard to Labour.

This is just elitism, the idea that The Party™ knows best and a top-down parental governmental attitude instead of a servant-like one. I thought that’s what the entire point of a ‘worker’s party’ was?

[athanaric]

I’m sorry but this is the attitude that lost Labour the election. You’re supposed to appeal to what voters’ want, not patronise them. If your reaction as a hypothetical Labour member to this defeat is that ‘the voters were wrong’ you need to take a look at your political platform. Voters hate being called uneducated, they hate being patronised, and this is one the exact things that I’ve seen UK voters complain about, not just in regard to Labour.

This is just elitism, the idea that The Party™ knows best and a top-down parental governmental attitude instead of a servant-like one. I thought that’s what the entire point of a ‘worker’s party’ was?

Well to be fair, Labour did appease its core voters on the issue of anti-Semitism.


It just turned out that "kill the Jew" is not a majority position in Britain yet, and that's why Labour lost.

[conon394]

It is no more occupied than London or Bristol.

48 seats for SNP seem to suggest otherwise.

[Aexodus]

Well to be fair, Labour did appease its core voters on the issue of anti-Semitism.

It just turned out that "kill the Jew" is not a majority position in Britain yet, and that's why Labour lost.

I think you’re being tongue-in-cheek but Labour don’t appear to have any anti-semitic policies, nor is Jew hatred a widespread problem rather than a radical fringe that has appeared as a result of the party moving further left.

48 seats for SNP seem to suggest otherwise.

Why would the SNP gaining Westminster seats suggest Scotland is under ‘colonialist’ occupation?

[Cope]

I think you’re being tongue-in-cheek but Labour don’t appear to have any anti-semitic policies, nor is Jew hatred a widespread problem rather than a radical fringe that has appeared as a result of the party moving further left.

That "radical fringe" is increasingly dictating the direction of the party. That's the problem.

[Aexodus]

Labour isn’t heading in an explicitly anti-semitic direction.

[nhytgbvfeco2]

48 seats for SNP seem to suggest otherwise.

We were talking about northern Ireland. His previous post said "I sure hope we'll soon see the decolonisation of Ireland."

[Cope]

Labour isn’t heading in an explicitly anti-semitic direction.

The Labour Party doesn't have to be "heading in an explicitly antisemitic direction" for antisemitism to be an institutional problem within the Labour Party.

[conon394]

We were talking about northern Ireland. His previous post said "I sure hope we'll soon see the decolonisation of Ireland."

Ahh missed that sorry

----

Why would the SNP gaining Westminster seats suggest Scotland is under ‘colonialist’ occupation?

I would think controlling almost all the UK seats in Scotland as a nationalist/separatist party would indicate you know a nationalist desire to not be part of the UK but hey consider as you will.

[Aexodus]

I would think controlling almost all the UK seats in Scotland as a nationalist/separatist party would indicate you know a nationalist desire to not be part of the UK but hey consider as you will.

That’s not what occupation is. Don’t throw around that word, because it’s inaccurate and has been used in the past to justify terrorism in Ireland.

[Cohors_Evocata]

Welp, Sturgeon has basically gone and called for a second Indyref to be held ASAP, claiming that while the election results in Scotland give her party a popular mandate to do so, while Tory losses there mean Johnson has no democratic right to prevent it from taking place.

https://www.bbc.com/news/election-2019-50779724

Realistically speaking, there is no chance in hell the Tories will give permission for this (Javid has already come out and said as much), which I assume the SNP hope will further encourage Scottish sectionalism. Still, with a vote share of no more than 45%, I doubt much will come of this in the short run.

On a separate note: Aexodus, if you don't mind me asking, how significant would you rate the seat changes in Northern Ireland? DUP losses mean there's now supposedly a Nationalist majority of seats elected to Westminster, but I don't imagine that'll lead to much changing in the short term, right?

[Cope]

Welp, Sturgeon has basically gone and called for a second Indyref to be held ASAP, claiming that while the election results in Scotland give her party a popular mandate to do so, while Tory losses there mean Johnson has no right to prevent it from taking place.

https://www.bbc.com/news/election-2019-50779724

Realistically speaking, there is no chance in hell the Tories will give permission for this (Javid has already come out and said as much), which I assume the SNP hope will further encourage Scottish sectionalism. Still, with a vote share of no more than 45%, I doubt much will come of this in the short run.

On a separate note: Aexodus, if you don't mind me asking, how significant would you rate the seat changes in Northern Ireland? DUP losses mean there's now supposedly a Nationalist majority of seats elected to Westminster, but I don't imagine that'll lead to much changing in the short term, right?

Westminster has the legal right to prevent another Scottish independence referendum from taking place.

The headache for London is that, as far as the SNP are concerned, all roads lead to independence. It really doesn't matter whether there's a Conservative or Labour government, whether the United Kingdom is in or out of the European Union or whether there has been a recent plebiscite on the issue. Had Labour prevented Johnson from achieving a majority this morning, Sturgeon's price for cooperation would have been another referendum, even if Corbyn's prospective 2nd. referendum on Europe returned a result for remain.

[Ludicus]

Moreover, I'm definitely open to the possibility of even more oppressed countries and royal provinces imitating the example of the Republic of Ireland and leave the Commonwealth for the paradise of OIF.

Hehe.
Well, that's fair...12% of Irish citizens speak the language of Molière.Let's keep in mind that Canada is member of the B. Commonwealth and a member of Francophonie.The EU is a a strategic partner for Canada, ergo Canada should join the EU, why not? I've been thinking about it...

[Vanoi]

Westminster has the legal right to prevent another Scottish independence referendum from taking place.

Whats the legal right? It can't trample over the right of self determination.