Photo ID will be necessary to vote in future. Very important as it will prevent people without driving licences or passports from voting, that’s roughly about 3 million people. Very necessary to stop the huge wave of electoral fraud (one case of impersonation in the 2017 election). I trust you’re reassured.
How the filthy rich get even dirtier: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/dec/19/hedge-funds-hacked-into-bank-of-england-briefings
Being pedantic it was Major government that introduced the accursed PFI. Sadly Blair and Brown made it worse.
The public don't like extremes and I feel some people were scared off by where they thought Corbyn and Co were, but I don't think centre left is unelectable. The right candidate and a well managed campaign would give Labour a fighting chance I believe. There are other factors to take into account as well, when Blair got elected it followed a lengthy spell of Conservative government. The time for change to the right candidate was needed and he fitted the bill, who's to say that a centre left candidate (which Blair was thought to be) at the next election won't be a popular choice? I can recall Blair introducing the minimum wage and his involvement in the Good Friday Agreement. Both very good achievements but I also remember him introducing student fees, not repealing any of the Thatcher union reforms and of course the Iraq war. The Iraq war is regarded as his legacy for which most people remember him. Taking your country to war is in my opinion the most serious of any decisions that a Prime Minister could make, yet Blair proceeded resulting in the deaths of an estimated 500,000 people incuding 179 uk military personnel. The war was described as illegal by the UN and no WMD were found. This is why in my eyes he is detestable and a discredited politician. I don't recall what Blair did for pensioners or improved education. I'm not saying it didn't happen just that I don't recall them. Tell me what they were, genuinely, I'd like to know.
The public were led to believe that Labour’s policies were extreme left-wing, which of course they weren’t, and that Corbyn was somewhere between Joseph Stalin and Genghis Khan. Most other European countries have a mixed economy of private and public ownership in varying degrees, and there was nothing revolutionary about any of it. The problem is that the public have been slowly, drip by drip, cut by cut, been led to accept the lowest state pensions in a Europe, the highest train fares, and steadily worsening standards in the NHS. As an illustration of that, when I retired 6 years ago, breaching the 4 hour target in A&E was rare enough (well under the 5% target) to warrant a full-scale investigation. Now more than 25% of patients breach 4 hours and nobody has the time any more. The point of all my waffle is that people believe what they are told by and large. Don’t forget that one of Blair’s biggest achievements before the 1997 election was getting Rupert Murdoch on his side, which he had done by ditching any remaining vestiges of socialism in the manifesto. The propaganda value of the Sun, the News of the World, and the Times and Sunday Times was far greater in 1997 than it is today, so that was a huge coup. Nowadays of course Corbyn had not just the written press but even the BBC ranged against him, not to mention all the bots on Facebook and Twitter. The Tories seem to have all those bases covered, which definitely needs sorting out, whoever becomes the next Labour leader.
I think that the traditional notion of left/right no longer apply. Had Corbyn combined the nationalist rhetoric with his socialist stance, he would have won that wall that turned against him. It would likely have cost the left in other areas and still led to defeat but that's the problem. And in fact, that's what Corbyn kind of did do. It's how he got power and moved things leftward (temporarily) to begin with. But in the end his platform lost for the same reason that May lost. You had a Brexit sympathizer representing a party that was largely for remaining, and a remainer on the Tory side that was largely for leaving. There were therefore reason to doubt both their commitments to Nationalism, and that's why they lost. Both of them thought they could sort of straddle the fence on the EU and instead win based on pushing the traditional viewpoints. I know I keep harping on this, but the left still sees the game as government intervention to help the poor vs free market/capitalism and that is not the problem at all. The people deserting the left would happily vote in a literal National Socialist. But wait, you'll say, we did that and the Nazis were really Socialist in name only. Of course. Just like Johnson is not going to live up to any of his promises to help out the workers. We know he doesn't care. But the key is that they believe he will help them, and they will continue to believe this even as he screws them over because they don't care about economic policy. They care about "British identity." As long as the right continues to deliver on "British Identity" or in the US "Making America Great Again" they'll keep winning. It was a Brexit election, and Brexit clearly won. It's amazing that your talking heads continue to lambast Corbyn for being wishy-washy on Brexit and losing, without understanding that he was wishy-washy because he knew he was on the wrong side. Labour lost those areas not because they weren't firmly Remain, but because they weren't firmly Leave. In the upcoming months you'll be inundated with BBC reporters interviewing people from Manchester or Sheffield or wherever, and they'll hopefully ask like "Hey, Boris Johnson promised you a bunch of stuff and he's kind of ****ing you over." "Yeah, he's really killing us with a lot of his policies." "Will you reconsider your vote?" "No, not until Labour stops putting the interests of foreigners above our own." If they do somehow turn against Johnson, Rees-Mogg or Farage or someone will be there to pick up the pieces. They'll reject the person, but not the underlying "nationalist" philosophy. That's the battle. You can be right or left to any degree and win those old school industrial areas as long as you support "nationalism." And you can be right or left and you will lose those areas as long as you don't.
I don't particularly disagree with your post Chilcs. The only reason I included Corbyn was that Osvaldorama had said that the country had proved it doesn't want a left wing government and I was trying point out that they perceived Corbyn as extreme and a relative moderate on the left could still be elected. We've already discussed fully how they might have got that perception, we know each other's position. I also agree that Blair got the media of the day on his side and with favourable timing he grabbed his opportunity.
My point about what you can't do in opposition is a parliamentary one and is very specifically about policies and legislation which you need a parliamentary majority Changing the 'political landscape' is another thing, but ... You say that basically when they **** it up it will be Labour's opportunity, but they have already been ****ing it up and got returned with a big majority At the moment, we 'progressives' are all preaching to the converted While a lot of the working class are reading the right wing press and voting for the guy in the smart suit wh tells them the other lot are Marxists, basically I share your desires, so let's find the common ground, but I'm struggling to find your optimism ... and I'm usually a fully paid up optimist This is what Labour has to sort out, should they get into power with a "Blair Mk2" and then shift the agenda based on improving peoples lives or should they convince everyone they're being shafted and should vote for something more radical (which the media will call Marxism or some such thing) I think the dice are loaded and the 2nd option is probably not feasible
I have seen references to the points made in this report, but they were almost always presented as individual events, rather than brought together in one piece, like this. It really is quite scary seeing it laid out so clinically. Politically I don’t think this being general knowledge prior to the election would have made any difference, as we seem to be, as a nation, going through a period of self harm, so premature death probably won’t even register with some, or that it is avoidable.
I honestly believe that it is easier to “steal” someone’s vote via postal voting. It is easy to register on someone’s behalf, if you share the same address, and equally easy to intercept their mail and complete the voting form for them. I also expect that many voters with dementia or other illnesses, had there voting forms completed by AN Other, with no way of knowing if the vote reflected what the person would have chosen. Yes I know they have to sign the form, but if they aren’t in full possession of their faculties, they could easily sign anything put in front of them. Alternatively you could forge their signature. Maybe postal votes should be more closely investigated, but then as the majority of postal voters are elderly, and generally conservative, this will never change.
This is interesting. As I understand it Portugal also followed a path of austerity, following the recession, but have actually improved, I believe, in recent years following the introduction of a centre left socialist government. https://borgenproject.org/poverty-in-portugal/
I agree that finding common ground is definitely the thing to do, and by the way I'm a pessimist by nature so you already have the advantage. With Brexit no longer a future election issue like it has been this time, Johnson and his cohorts really don't have much to offer. The Labour message was confusing, they had a leader people didn't trust and they were vilified in the traditional media and ripped to shreds on the new digital platforms. They couldn't overcome those things in what has been the most negative and dirty election in our history. Labour have to reach back to their roots, create a manifesto that is realistic, affordable and does not alienate people. They need new, bright and articulate people that connect with and inspire us. A softer more approachable leadership that doesn't look like just another collection of out of touch dreamers spewing out promises they have no chance of fulfilling. They need to move on from the hard left Momentum set but not reject the socialist beliefs and policies this country is going to desperately need in the coming years. Labour need to be seen to be normal ordinary people just like us, with no wacky out of touch ideas and nothing that the Tories can use as an easy target. Labour can do this and they can carry the country with them but they have to get back to ground level and be there when the bits really start falling off the already dilapidated fabric of our society. People are tired of politics, tired of politicians and tired of the way there has been no way to escape from it for years. Most people just want a normal stable life with the things they know to remain pretty much as they always have been. Labour have to find a way to be the 'normal' that people will want because when this Tory government start gearing up it is going to get bloody scary.
I have at least 5 separate families living in our road that tend to meet up usually about once a month/6 weeks. Actually 9 voters in all..........They vary in ages from around 65 to 79. They were at my home this afternoon (tea and bickies) talking about the election and how shocked they were that the tories got such a large margin. As it transpired all but one couple were indeed postal votes..............Without asking they mostly told us how they voted. one for the tories (Oldest one)6 for labour two declined to say (My wife and I interestingly) If that is anything to go by the majority you mention would not necessarily be tory voters.......Interesting sample though don't you think?
Sorry Beddy but you are bang out of order by clearly breaking your own rules, and bringing biscuits into the Political forum. The next thing will be biscuits will spread to other parts of the forum, such as Art and Literature
