Monday 16th December 2019
Posted: Mon 16 Dec, 2019 7:01 am
Morning all.
Thank you. I sometimes need to read someone articulate to make sense of what I feel...gilsey wrote:
AnatolyKasparov wrote:Free broadband is hardly "tinkering" - its a potentially trans formative policy.
And doing away with public schools wasn't actually in the manifesto.
The real mistake, as I said yesterday, may have been being *too* ambitious and not concentrating on a few key messages as in 2017.
I was shocked that a lot of people think that the government and Parliament is the same thing.citizenJA wrote:I think gilsey's post on yesterday's thread here regarding the incongruity of voters rebelling against governmental leadership by voting for the same government is worth re-reading. The linked quote suggests the voter didn't realise which party was in government. Willow904's response helped make some sense of it but I'm staggered it's possible convincing some a different party were in government.
Willow904 wrote:Hi citizenJA.
There is, of course, another, far more depressing, explanation. That the Tory tactic was to basically admit that Tory governments deliberately target Labour held areas with bigger cuts than Tory held areas and that as long as Labour had someone as useless as Corbyn in charge who could never get elected the only way these areas could ever hope to get a bigger slice of the pie was to have a Tory MP. The fact a Tory majority government and crash out Brexit will result in such a smaller overall pie, that having a bigger slice will be barely worth having is something that eluded enough voters to tip the seat the Tories' way, alongside the more understandable, though equally delusional, desire to "get Brexit done".
It was easy to see that these voters were targeted with a specific message not seen by the rest of us, but it's taken me a little longer to get the gist of what that message was. It will have been phrased differently from what I have put above but I suspect that is the essence of what a combination of messages probably added up to.
Was Farage the midwife delivering Johnson’s victory? The Brexit Party and the size of the Conservative majority
These are the nuts and bolts that need looking at. How Labour performs at all levels, rather than just at the top. Doing a good job locally, making a practical difference in people's lives, however small.AnatolyKasparov wrote:Add to that the unfortunate crapness of several long standing Labour councils, and you can certainly see how the above would have been a winning message. Sadly.
The Tory message here was in the West Midlands was 'Getting Brexit Done'.Willow904 wrote:Hi citizenJA.
There is, of course, another, far more depressing, explanation. That the Tory tactic was to basically admit that Tory governments deliberately target Labour held areas with bigger cuts than Tory held areas and that as long as Labour had someone as useless as Corbyn in charge who could never get elected the only way these areas could ever hope to get a bigger slice of the pie was to have a Tory MP. The fact a Tory majority government and crash out Brexit will result in such a smaller overall pie, that having a bigger slice will be barely worth having is something that eluded enough voters to tip the seat the Tories' way, alongside the more understandable, though equally delusional, desire to "get Brexit done".
It was easy to see that these voters were targeted with a specific message not seen by the rest of us, but it's taken me a little longer to get the gist of what that message was. It will have been phrased differently from what I have put above but I suspect that is the essence of what a combination of messages probably added up to.
A lot of resources go into maintaining ignorance. The Tory party don't have a history of good things recommending support of their party for most people.Lost Soul wrote:I was shocked that a lot of people think that the government and Parliament is the same thing.citizenJA wrote:I think gilsey's post on yesterday's thread here regarding the incongruity of voters rebelling against governmental leadership by voting for the same government is worth re-reading. The linked quote suggests the voter didn't realise which party was in government. Willow904's response helped make some sense of it but I'm staggered it's possible convincing some a different party were in government.
Our local council is a coalition with almost equal numbers of Labour, Tory and Independent Councillors. The configuration has been that way, more or less, for at least ten years.Willow904 wrote:These are the nuts and bolts that need looking at. How Labour performs at all levels, rather than just at the top. Doing a good job locally, making a practical difference in people's lives, however small.AnatolyKasparov wrote:Add to that the unfortunate crapness of several long standing Labour councils, and you can certainly see how the above would have been a winning message. Sadly.
Thanks for this, I'd not seen it prior writing about ignorance. I'll read it.Lost Soul wrote:Willow904 wrote:Hi citizenJA.
There is, of course, another, far more depressing, explanation. That the Tory tactic was to basically admit that Tory governments deliberately target Labour held areas with bigger cuts than Tory held areas and that as long as Labour had someone as useless as Corbyn in charge who could never get elected the only way these areas could ever hope to get a bigger slice of the pie was to have a Tory MP. The fact a Tory majority government and crash out Brexit will result in such a smaller overall pie, that having a bigger slice will be barely worth having is something that eluded enough voters to tip the seat the Tories' way, alongside the more understandable, though equally delusional, desire to "get Brexit done".
It was easy to see that these voters were targeted with a specific message not seen by the rest of us, but it's taken me a little longer to get the gist of what that message was. It will have been phrased differently from what I have put above but I suspect that is the essence of what a combination of messages probably added up to.
You may have already read these
Articles from 'The Conversation'
UK election 2019: public resistance to factchecking
Conspiracy theories: how belief is rooted in evolution – not ignorance
link below
https://theconversation.com/uk/?utm_med ... nversation" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
On fact-checking :-- Labour's claim that a US FTA would cost the NHS £500m a week sounded very wild to me !Lost Soul wrote:Willow904 wrote:Hi citizenJA.
You may have already read these
Articles from 'The Conversation'
UK election 2019: public resistance to factchecking
Conspiracy theories: how belief is rooted in evolution – not ignorance
link below
https://theconversation.com/uk/?utm_med ... nversation" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Yes.adam wrote:On a day when the conservatives are running with the utter absurdity that the BBC are biased against them, Labour could have done much much better with a dispassionate forensic response instead of this headline bleating.
The problem I have with this is that the government, and apparently a very large proportion of the public, simply don't care about detail. I completely agree that the answer to the nonsense the government come up with should be a detailed response but people just don't seem to care, and there is nothing to suggest that the government would engage at all in any kind of reasoned debate, and nothing to suggest that the press are interested in holding them to account.gilsey wrote:Yes.adam wrote:On a day when the conservatives are running with the utter absurdity that the BBC are biased against them, Labour could have done much much better with a dispassionate forensic response instead of this headline bleating.
I think this would be excellent advice for those thinking about the next leader too, we're not going to be talking about public services and child poverty, BJ's going to do just enough to keep those things out of the news.
Labour need someone who can oppose his agenda now. FTAs with the EU and or the US, nasty tinkering at the HO and DFiD, shaking up the civil service, boundary reforms, Scotland. Page 48 of the manifesto. We know BJ only does broad brush, Labour need someone to do the detail. At this point I think 'vision' isn't really going to help much. I expect this is not a widely held view in the party. May not be here either.
" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;Heather Parry
@HeatherParryUK
The success of the right wing media and the propaganda campaigns of the Conservatives & UKIP in the last while has been convincing Northerners that a fully costed, workable, radical manifesto that would save their regions was untenable—and magical Brexit would save them instead.
I was going to come back to my post and add that the other problem with reason is that you can't reason people out of positions that they haven't reasoned themselves into.gilsey wrote:I saw this comment today which I agree with, but what struck me most was how much they'd managed to fit into these few words, it would take me half a page to say the same thing.
Heather Parry
@HeatherParryUK
The success of the right wing media and the propaganda campaigns of the Conservatives & UKIP in the last while has been convincing Northerners that a fully costed, workable, radical manifesto that would save their regions was untenable—and magical Brexit would save them instead.
All this, if I thought grasp of detail was what really mattered there is no doubt I would be supporting Starmer as next leader (London seat or not)adam wrote:The problem I have with this is that the government, and apparently a very large proportion of the public, simply don't care about detail. I completely agree that the answer to the nonsense the government come up with should be a detailed response but people just don't seem to care, and there is nothing to suggest that the government would engage at all in any kind of reasoned debate, and nothing to suggest that the press are interested in holding them to account.gilsey wrote:Yes.adam wrote:On a day when the conservatives are running with the utter absurdity that the BBC are biased against them, Labour could have done much much better with a dispassionate forensic response instead of this headline bleating.
I think this would be excellent advice for those thinking about the next leader too, we're not going to be talking about public services and child poverty, BJ's going to do just enough to keep those things out of the news.
Labour need someone who can oppose his agenda now. FTAs with the EU and or the US, nasty tinkering at the HO and DFiD, shaking up the civil service, boundary reforms, Scotland. Page 48 of the manifesto. We know BJ only does broad brush, Labour need someone to do the detail. At this point I think 'vision' isn't really going to help much. I expect this is not a widely held view in the party. May not be here either.
You're right, but I don't see a viable alternative until much nearer the next election.adam wrote:The problem I have with this is that the government, and apparently a very large proportion of the public, simply don't care about detail. I completely agree that the answer to the nonsense the government come up with should be a detailed response but people just don't seem to care, and there is nothing to suggest that the government would engage at all in any kind of reasoned debate, and nothing to suggest that the press are interested in holding them to account.
Elect that someone to leadership now and they'll be trashed by the media long before 2024. IMO.AnatolyKasparov wrote:We need someone who can connect to those seduced by "post truth" politics.
Very well put.Willow904 wrote:the only way these areas could ever hope to get a bigger slice of the pie was to have a Tory MP.
They haven't been in any way at all pragmatic about how the nature of a future relationship might feed into the WA, and they have not been in any way at all pragmatic about what might be achievable in an FTA negotiation, nor in how long it might take. I know that the point of having such a bullshitter as Johnson in charge is that he could do almost anything, but everything he has done so far suggests that there is really no pragmatism there.AnatolyKasparov wrote:I wouldn't exactly "hope" for that, but given that as we know many see our formally leaving the EU at the end of January as "GETTING BREXIT DONE" it would not be a massive surprise to see some Tory MPs - if not the PM himself - becoming rather more pragmatic once that has occurred.
And from the issues we've just been talking about...Some early analysis from Datapraxis suggests that nearly half of the Labour seat losses could be attributed to losing more remainers to other parties than the size of the Tory majority in leave seats.
So, do you need to tell clear lies rather than complicated truths?Displaying precisely the message discipline that Labour lacked, the Conservatives’ offer of 20,000 more police officers, 50,000 more nurses, and 40 new hospitals was judged more believable, even if each false claim could be easily debunked
How about Labour get peoples' positive attention somewhere somehowgilsey wrote:You're right, but I don't see a viable alternative until much nearer the next election.adam wrote:The problem I have with this is that the government, and apparently a very large proportion of the public, simply don't care about detail. I completely agree that the answer to the nonsense the government come up with should be a detailed response but people just don't seem to care, and there is nothing to suggest that the government would engage at all in any kind of reasoned debate, and nothing to suggest that the press are interested in holding them to account.
Labour have got so much flak for 'not opposing'.
One of my top 3 reasons why Labour lost is that they've got scruples, the tories haven't, and the MSM won't call it out.
I don't want the first part of that to change, so imo they should do the right thing even if nobody cares, while we await 'events'.
That's why I'm all for a more lateral organisation right now. Don't have one leader. A series of administrative leads for short periods of time regularly changing.gilsey wrote:Elect that someone to leadership now and they'll be trashed by the media long before 2024. IMO.AnatolyKasparov wrote:We need someone who can connect to those seduced by "post truth" politics.
(cJA bold)Willow904 wrote:No, you have to tell people what they want to hear. They already wanted to vote Tory, the nurses and hospitals was just to help them feel OK about it.
Brexit.citizenJA wrote:(cJA bold)Willow904 wrote:No, you have to tell people what they want to hear. They already wanted to vote Tory, the nurses and hospitals was just to help them feel OK about it.
What the hell for? Why? What was so compelling?
I think it's a very insightful and fair reading of what happened. And as to going forwards, I very much agree with this:AFinch wrote:Hi
Very unusual for me to post here at this time on a monday.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... t-election
I generally find Tom Kibasi both intelligent and decent.
A "titan" was the actual word I used, but this was essentially my take too. Right now is too dangerous a moment to entrust the Labour party to an "up and coming", however promising. We need someone with experience, if not directly in proper political roles, at least in the world more generally. Much as I loved Ed, the SpAd criticism wasn't entirely unfair. Although the new leader needs to be supportive of the move to the left, a Corbyn/McDonnell protegy is the last thing Labour needs, though I suspect that's what Labour will get.The party needs a leader of stature
Do you have someone in mind?Willow904 wrote:I think it's a very insightful and fair reading of what happened. And as to going forwards, I very much agree with this:AFinch wrote:Hi
Very unusual for me to post here at this time on a monday.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... t-election
I generally find Tom Kibasi both intelligent and decent.A "titan" was the actual word I used, but this was essentially my take too. Right now is too dangerous a moment to entrust the Labour party to an "up and coming", however promising. We need someone with experience, if not directly in proper political roles, at least in the world more generally. Much as I loved Ed, the SpAd criticism wasn't entirely unfair. Although the new leader needs to be supportive of the move to the left, a Corbyn/McDonnell protegy is the last thing Labour needs, though I suspect that's what Labour will get.The party needs a leader of stature
I'm not sure there even is anyone, tbh. They'd be leaping out if there were, yet the runners and riders so far aren't very convincing. I like Keir Starmer, but I'm unsure if he's quite right. If he puts himself up for the role it will be interesting to see how he comes across, a definite maybe. I also like Angela Rayner, but she hasn't enough experience, I think. The rumour is she will go for deputy which I think she'd be very good at. Other than that....I don't know.citizenJA wrote:Do you have someone in mind?Willow904 wrote:I think it's a very insightful and fair reading of what happened. And as to going forwards, I very much agree with this:AFinch wrote:Hi
Very unusual for me to post here at this time on a monday.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... t-election
I generally find Tom Kibasi both intelligent and decent.A "titan" was the actual word I used, but this was essentially my take too. Right now is too dangerous a moment to entrust the Labour party to an "up and coming", however promising. We need someone with experience, if not directly in proper political roles, at least in the world more generally. Much as I loved Ed, the SpAd criticism wasn't entirely unfair. Although the new leader needs to be supportive of the move to the left, a Corbyn/McDonnell protegy is the last thing Labour needs, though I suspect that's what Labour will get.The party needs a leader of stature
On itcitizenJA wrote:be ethical and bewitching