2015 post UK election discussion

[davek]

Or, in a nutshell, you should stop trying to reinvent a long forgotten and almost irrelevant class war, and understand that the majority of the electorate, in England, less so in Scotland, do not like a left wing, "we know better", government.

Like you say, Blair got it. And ironically, Ed was there when Blair won.

I can tell you, as someone in Middle, (well, southwest) England, it was nothing to do with bacon sarnies or selfies or engraved pledges. It was that Labour/Ed just did not give me/us much reason to vote for them/him. Lob in the SNP factor, and that was that.

But a great post nevertheless.

Is that bit serious? The SNP were offering policies way left of the weak gruel version of 'leftism' that Miliband was offering down here...and it was endorsed by over half the voting population and gained 56 of 59 seats.

Doesn't sound like a rejection to me.

 

[Mrk]

Pretty limited appraisal there. People buy those rags because often they have superior sports/entertainment/society coverage, NOT because they identify with the market worshipping philosophy of their editors/columnists.

And those rags dont reflect dominant social attitudes either and then mirror it to audiences. Social surveys often find that the attitude of the public to a range of issues are more often what could be described as 'anti-market or 'anti-neo liberal' on the spectrum.

So basically we are left with the reality of a newspaper industry mostly owned by billionaires domestic and foreign (or else by wealthy shareholders) and those turkeys dont for Christmas. TV has moved in line with this bias in recent years...again, owned by the rich or else controlled through financing by the British government - an institution also now in thrall to the market.

But again, people choose to buy them. If they didn't like the political leanings of a paper, they are free not to buy it. Do the Sun really provide superior sports/entertainment/society coverage to the Mirror? I doubt it, they're both terrible newspapers, but at the end of the day, more people go with the former.

 

[daylightrobber]

But what is wrong about someone voting for someone because they dont like the thought of the SNP calling the shots? Or if they think that Ed was not speaking to or for them?

As I said last night, I really wanted to find a solid reason to vote Labour, I really did. (Wouldnt have made a difference where I live anyrate), But the hectoring style he adopted, the faux sincerity, the SNP factor, the absolute belters he started coming out with about the NHS, and the inference, repeated by your post, that not voting for him meant I was in favour of killing poor people and that food banks are great, quite frankly, put me off.

And for the record, I am neither rich, nor earn tons. In fact, I probably earn below the minimum wage. Called being self employed.

I explicitly stated that I didn't believe anyone was voting for food banks. There was no inference of the otherwise.

 

[roydo]

Thing is, I don't even think Miliband's labour was particularly left wing. It was pretty much centre.

Maybe not, in a technical way, but it seemed to be. The clincher was the SNP. Sorry, but that was the single biggest reason why I could not vote Labour. Closely followed by Balls, ironically!

It must be odd, I get that, that folk from the North/Cities dont get the fears and hopes of folk like me, (South, rural, get jack from neither party really), dont buy into the "vote me and we will save the NHS" or "vote me and we will lock the Tories out of power for a generation" stuff that was pumped out.

Both were central to the LP and the SNP, (although not agreed I accept), but the combination of 1. A blatant rewriting of history, and 2. A hectoring, Scottish, MSP who didnt even stand in the election, was, a very unattractive combination to a lot of people.

Well it was to me.

 

[davek]

But again, people choose to buy them. If they didn't like the political leanings of a paper, they are free not to buy it. Do the Sun really provide superior sports/entertainment/society coverage to the Mirror? I doubt it, they're both terrible newspapers, but at the end of the day, more people go with the former.

They do buy them for the sports/entertainment coverage yes. There's no tight fit between the readership and the political leanings of the owners...as you pointed out yourself re the Independent.

 

[roydo]

I explicitly stated that I didn't believe anyone was voting for food banks. There was no inference of the otherwise.

Soz mate.

 

[Seanjd]

Maybe not, in a technical way, but it seemed to be. The clincher was the SNP. Sorry, but that was the single biggest reason why I could not vote Labour. Closely followed by Balls, ironically!

It must be odd, I get that, that folk from the North/Cities dont get the fears and hopes of folk like me, (South, rural, get jack from neither party really), dont buy into the "vote me and we will save the NHS" or "vote me and we will lock the Tories out of power for a generation" stuff that was pumped out.

Both were central to the LP and the SNP, (although not agreed I accept), but the combination of 1. A blatant rewriting of history, and 2. A hectoring, Scottish, MSP who didnt even stand in the election, was, a very unattractive combination to a lot of people.

Well it was to me.

Fair enough, but for myself, none of that could have been worse than a Tory government. Also, we knew that the SNP would have had about as much power with a minority Labour gov than they will do now - they would have simply voting Labour policies through. It can't be denied that the Conservative's campaign was incredibly negative compared to the rest. Their insistence of alienating the Scottish and claiming they would have been disastrous clearly worked for many, including yourself. Like. I said though, the reality would have been far from it, they wouldn't have had any 'power as such', and Miliband knew that.

 

[Mrk]

They do buy them for the sports/entertainment coverage yes. There's no tight fit between the readership and the political leanings of the owners...as you pointed out yourself re the Independent.

Indeed, and if somebody of a centre-left persuasion finds the Sun's mocking of Miliband distasteful, they can buy the Mirror and read their mocking of Cameron instead.

 

[chewee]

Genuinely fantastic post. I disagree with some of your views, but I can't doubt the reasoning behind them.

As for calls for Labour to lurch to the left - I do have a strong suspicion that the far-left of the Labour party and many of the Unions are playing some long-game in favour of the Tories, because pretty much every time they open their mouthes, it is to call for something that will only make Labour more unelectable.

They need to realise that a party standing on left-wing polices has not won a majority in the UK since 1974. Yes, Nineteen Seventy Four. Over 40 years ago.

The further left Labour get dragged, the more the Tories celebrate. If that doesn't tell Labour something, I don't know what will.

I believed in Miliband and as someone who leans left I was genuinely excited by his manifesto. I was very active for the party in the run up to the election and being wrapped in the Labour bubble of hype with so many like minded people it was hard for me to find fault in our campaign. Only after such a crushing defeat and a clear rejection by the electorate do you sit back and take stock.

The last 48 hours have certainly altered by own political views - I hope those central to helping the party rebuild have learned lessons to.

 

[Seanjd]

But again, people choose to buy them. If they didn't like the political leanings of a paper, they are free not to buy it. Do the Sun really provide superior sports/entertainment/society coverage to the Mirror? I doubt it, they're both terrible newspapers, but at the end of the day, more people go with the former.

It's also worth noting that the Sun is owned by the Murdoch empire and lots more money is put into it. Advertising and so on.

 

[davek]

Indeed, and if somebody of a centre-left persuasion finds the Sun's mocking of Miliband distasteful, they can buy the Mirror and read their mocking of Cameron instead.

Yes, that balances matters out in the media doesn't it?

*sigh*

 

[Mrk]

I believed in Miliband and as someone who leans left I was genuinely excited by his manifesto. I was very active for the party in the run up to the election and being wrapped in the Labour bubble of hype with so many like minded people it was hard for me to find fault in our campaign. Only after such a crushing defeat and a clear rejection by the electorate do you sit back and take stock.

The last 48 hours have certainly altered by own political views - I hope those central to helping the party rebuild have learned lessons to.

It's an easy trap to fall into. I know a few Tories (unfortunately none of them are rich toffs) who dislike Cameron a lot, but they campaigned for him and now that he's won a stunning victory, he's a messiah and he walks on water.

Labour will only win elections from the centre ground. Until Labour get that bit right, they're just pissing in the wind.

 

[roydo]

Is that bit serious? The SNP were offering policies way left of the weak gruel version of 'leftism' that Miliband was offering down here...and it was endorsed by over half the voting population and gained 56 of 59 seats.

Doesn't sound like a rejection to me.

I did say "Less so in Scotland", meaning they are traditionally more left leaning than (Middle) England. But, for some discussion maybe, lifted from the Telegraph admittedly;

The "Yes" in the referendum was 1.6m. The total vote in the GE for the SNP was 1.4m (yeah, I know 16-18 year olds maybe). The SNP had 50% of the turnout, or 35% of the total electorate, with 95% of the seats won.

Not a point about PR btw. Just interesting really.

But without a doubt, in the FPTP system, they nailed it. Fair play.

 

[Clint Planet]

Yes, that kind of thinking might have meant sommat forty or fifty years ago when Britain was replete with a manufacturing base and the shipyards, steel foundries and car plants were employing thousands upon thousands of people and even the most dim witted among us could leave school at 15 and make a life for himself in one of them.

The days when lads started working with proper plumbing companies, electrical contractors or glazing companies and emerged after a five year apprenticeship as an accomplished tradesman who maybe eventually started his own small business.

But your sentiments and your thinking are pure bunkum in this day and age where successive governments made it easy for multi national companies to leave these shores so they could exploit third world labour and render our industrial base devastated.

That is a hand wringing post and you don't even know what you are saying.

The key word is "aspiration".

Every poor kid on the sink estate "aspires" to do better but long gone are the opportunities to lift themselves out of it.

Every homeless person dossing down in a shop doorway "aspires" to having a place to call home.

It us quite disgusting for chaps to smugly imply that the only thing necessary to lift oneself from poverty is the "aspiration" so to do.

No, my friend.

What people really need to rise out of poverty is the "opportunity" to do so.

And there is precious little of that in this once industrial powerhouse of a country.

The best most of these poor kids can hope for is minimum wage Mac Jobs, zero hour contracts or agency jobs with the council or in old people's homes without any kind of job security.

Job security.

That is another old fashioned concept which had gone out the window since Thatcher started her attack on industrial Britain and those people who depended on it to lift themselves out of poverty ......and to "stay" out of it.....and raise a family.

Oscar Wilde once said that we are all in the gutter. But some of us are looking at the stars.

Ponder on that and think of the hopelessness of kids who long to reach for the stars but lack the opportunity to do so.

Top post.

And, as I once asked Bruce (though he never answered), what if everyone decided to put their minds to it, pull themselves up by their bootstraps and "escape" their poverty? Would everyone really manage to "escape"? I'd argue that the opportunities simply aren't there for everyone. Essentially, the Right do blame the poor for their own circumstances because they see Poverty as a natural economic punishment for the indisciplined and idle amongst the working class. Anyone with anything about them, in the neo-liberal theoretical model of the world, would work their way out of the poverty they find themselves in. Anyone who doesn't is demonised as feckless and a drain on society.

Despite so many, many unemployed people showing - over and over again - how desperate they are for the dignity and security of regular work at a decent wage level; despite the glaringly obvious fact that the vast majority of people dependent on benefits have absolutely no wish to be so, they are still demonised by the Right - the very people who's policies have created much of the hardship in the first place.

Honestly, you couldn't make it up, could you?

 

[Mrk]

It's also worth noting that the Sun is owned by the Murdoch empire and lots more money is put into it. Advertising and so on.

I'd rather he didn't advertise the Sun because it is an absolute rag, but he has every right to do that. And, let's be honest, when you go into a shop, they are literally right next to each other, so you don't need to be a brain surgeon to choose the one that best suits your views.