|
Post by Zany on May 27, 2024 21:47:55 GMT
Don't mistake me SRB, I was being sympathetic to you and those who thought the party had returned to its deep socialist principles and they were being stolen away from you. I can understand why it happened. Corbyn lead the party into the 2019 election and got rinsed. So the party faithful say ok we can't get elected with this remit. Along comes a guy with a more central remit and the party moves. I understand who really believe in your socialism, but fact is the country doesn't. For me Sir Kier is brilliant, not because he brings everything I would like, but because like Blair he brings a more central yet acceptable politics than the Tories offer. Actually, polling at the time showed that the country very much did believe in most of the 2017 policies. I have posted links to that polling evidence for you multiple times, though you appear as here to repeatedly display your ignorance of it and likely failure to even look at it. Believing something whilst refusing to look at the evidence that says otherwise is not the basis of an informed argument, merely a desire to believe what you want to believe. It was Corbyn himself and Labour's policy on Brexit that the country didnt like. Not what was on offer policy wise in 2017 So why did they lose so badly?
|
|
Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 2,556
|
Post by Steve on May 27, 2024 22:05:13 GMT
They didn't in 2017
|
|
|
Post by Zany on May 27, 2024 22:30:59 GMT
Sorry I was thinking of 2019 again, but it keeps getting swapped back to 17
|
|
Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 2,556
|
Post by Steve on May 28, 2024 6:32:54 GMT
Time Warp mode?
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on May 28, 2024 7:07:21 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2024 7:32:06 GMT
Actually, polling at the time showed that the country very much did believe in most of the 2017 policies. I have posted links to that polling evidence for you multiple times, though you appear as here to repeatedly display your ignorance of it and likely failure to even look at it. Believing something whilst refusing to look at the evidence that says otherwise is not the basis of an informed argument, merely a desire to believe what you want to believe. It was Corbyn himself and Labour's policy on Brexit that the country didnt like. Not what was on offer policy wise in 2017 So why did they lose so badly? Because in 2019 especially they promised too much, the un popularity of Corbyn and the increasingly successful smear campaign against him and the unpopularity of Labour's policy on Brexit. All the evidence points to them losing in spite of some popular policies and not because of them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2024 7:39:27 GMT
Sorry I was thinking of 2019 again, but it keeps getting swapped back to 17 Well by 2019 the smear campaign against Corbyn had by then had maximum impact, and in part that is Corbyn's own fault for not fighting back. Also by then Starmer had been allowed to engineer an unpopular policy on Brexit in an election where Brexit was the issue much more so than in 2017. Plus Labour slipped in too many additional unfunded promises in 2019. You said the country disliked my brand of socialism. But in policy terms my brand of socialism is much more the 2017 manifesto than the 2019 one. And that is the one whose policies were largely revealed to have wide public support. It wasnt them that the country rejected, but Corbyn himself, Labour's evident disunity, and it's position on Brexit.
|
|
|
Post by Zany on May 28, 2024 7:50:00 GMT
I forget we had an election every 2 years in those days. That and the monthly Prime minister confuses me.
|
|
|
Post by Zany on May 28, 2024 7:54:04 GMT
Sorry I was thinking of 2019 again, but it keeps getting swapped back to 17 Well by 2019 the smear campaign against Corbyn had by then had maximum impact, and in part that is Corbyn's own fault for not fighting back. Also by then Starmer had been allowed to engineer an unpopular policy on Brexit in an election where Brexit was the issue much more so than in 2017. Plus Labour slipped in too many additional unfunded promises in 2019. You said the country disliked my brand of socialism. But in policy terms my brand of socialism is much more the 2017 manifesto than the 2019 one. And that is the one whose policies were largely revealed to have wide public support. It wasnt them that the country rejected, but Corbyn himself, Labour's evident disunity, and it's position on Brexit. Yet still in 2017 it wasn't enough of the public to get Labour elected. No sweeping majority. Were the Tories still popular in 2017 in your opinion?
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on May 28, 2024 8:02:27 GMT
Well by 2019 the smear campaign against Corbyn had by then had maximum impact, and in part that is Corbyn's own fault for not fighting back. Also by then Starmer had been allowed to engineer an unpopular policy on Brexit in an election where Brexit was the issue much more so than in 2017. Plus Labour slipped in too many additional unfunded promises in 2019. You said the country disliked my brand of socialism. But in policy terms my brand of socialism is much more the 2017 manifesto than the 2019 one. And that is the one whose policies were largely revealed to have wide public support. It wasnt them that the country rejected, but Corbyn himself, Labour's evident disunity, and it's position on Brexit. Yet still in 2017 it wasn't enough of the public to get Labour elected. No sweeping majority. Were the Tories still popular in 2017 in your opinion? Not as popular as they thought, hence why Teresa May lost her majority and required the supply and demand of the DUP. Didn't end well. However the main issues were divisions in the Tory Party over... Europe. 🙄
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2024 8:11:13 GMT
Well by 2019 the smear campaign against Corbyn had by then had maximum impact, and in part that is Corbyn's own fault for not fighting back. Also by then Starmer had been allowed to engineer an unpopular policy on Brexit in an election where Brexit was the issue much more so than in 2017. Plus Labour slipped in too many additional unfunded promises in 2019. You said the country disliked my brand of socialism. But in policy terms my brand of socialism is much more the 2017 manifesto than the 2019 one. And that is the one whose policies were largely revealed to have wide public support. It wasnt them that the country rejected, but Corbyn himself, Labour's evident disunity, and it's position on Brexit. Yet still in 2017 it wasn't enough of the public to get Labour elected. No sweeping majority. Were the Tories still popular in 2017 in your opinion? No but neither was Corbyn or Labour's position on Brexit. The policies themselves when measured by polling were shown to be highly popular which is why the Tories and Tory media rarely attacked them on them. It included such stats as between two thirds and three quarters of people favouring public ownership of the utilities just as one example. Corbyn instead was attacked on areas where he personally was much weaker, eg antisemitism, national security, and Brexit. When between two thirds and three quarters of an electorate support certain policies but the party championing them still loses, it is highly illogical to assume such popular policies were the reason for the defeat. No one votes against a party because they like their policies. They vote against it for things they don't like. Your personal dislike of that popular policy agenda seems to be clouding your ability to understand such obvious logic. Something you have in common with Blairites and centrists. You may of course legitimately argue that the policies were bad for whatever reason, and that the public were therefore misguided in supporting them and that it was therefore fortunate that the party lost for other reasons. But in the face of polling evidence to the contrary you cannot legitimately argue that they lost because the public didnt like the policies, however much you would like that to be true.
|
|
Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 2,556
|
Post by Steve on May 28, 2024 9:36:08 GMT
earworm alert
|
|
|
Post by patman post on May 28, 2024 12:47:52 GMT
Yes it does feel like the Tories have completely imploded. All those idiots on the other forum can do is keep repeating Labour will be worse. It is all they have left. Starmer's biggest selling point is the Tories for it is difficult to imagine how anything or anyone can possibly be worse than them. That there remain millions of people who even now think the Tories are the best option for this country is itself a tribute to the stupidity of electorates. I think that's unfair. Many people form their views away from overt day-to-day politicking and find it difficult to accept that parties they've believed in for years can have really changed so fundamentally.
Even Starmer is still battling hangovers from the Corbyn era, but Sunak hasn't even managed to start separating the Tory Party from the Europhobe hostility and party infighting that the Brexit campaign unleashed.
Hopefully, the bulk of the middle of the electorate that mainly decides general election outcomes will shift enough to Labour for it to form the next government...
|
|
|
Post by Zany on May 28, 2024 16:34:53 GMT
Yet still in 2017 it wasn't enough of the public to get Labour elected. No sweeping majority. Were the Tories still popular in 2017 in your opinion? No but neither was Corbyn or Labour's position on Brexit. The policies themselves when measured by polling were shown to be highly popular which is why the Tories and Tory media rarely attacked them on them. It included such stats as between two thirds and three quarters of people favouring public ownership of the utilities just as one example. Corbyn instead was attacked on areas where he personally was much weaker, eg antisemitism, national security, and Brexit. When between two thirds and three quarters of an electorate support certain policies but the party championing them still loses, it is highly illogical to assume such popular policies were the reason for the defeat. No one votes against a party because they like their policies. They vote against it for things they don't like. Your personal dislike of that popular policy agenda seems to be clouding your ability to understand such obvious logic. Something you have in common with Blairites and centrists. You may of course legitimately argue that the policies were bad for whatever reason, and that the public were therefore misguided in supporting them and that it was therefore fortunate that the party lost for other reasons. But in the face of polling evidence to the contrary you cannot legitimately argue that they lost because the public didnt like the policies, however much you would like that to be true. I think renationalisation is popular across the board and included in Kiers labour party. What made Corbyn unpopular were things like requiring union representation at board meetings and policies on employment. Basically a fear of return to the 1970's and 'poor man of Europe' I don't think you can just dismiss national security as a thing they attacked him on. It is something people feel very concerned about. Never really followed the stuff about antisemitism, I would be interested to know why there is that hatred of Jews in the party. What have Jews done that Corbyn and others object to?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2024 21:35:47 GMT
No but neither was Corbyn or Labour's position on Brexit. The policies themselves when measured by polling were shown to be highly popular which is why the Tories and Tory media rarely attacked them on them. It included such stats as between two thirds and three quarters of people favouring public ownership of the utilities just as one example. Corbyn instead was attacked on areas where he personally was much weaker, eg antisemitism, national security, and Brexit. When between two thirds and three quarters of an electorate support certain policies but the party championing them still loses, it is highly illogical to assume such popular policies were the reason for the defeat. No one votes against a party because they like their policies. They vote against it for things they don't like. Your personal dislike of that popular policy agenda seems to be clouding your ability to understand such obvious logic. Something you have in common with Blairites and centrists. You may of course legitimately argue that the policies were bad for whatever reason, and that the public were therefore misguided in supporting them and that it was therefore fortunate that the party lost for other reasons. But in the face of polling evidence to the contrary you cannot legitimately argue that they lost because the public didnt like the policies, however much you would like that to be true. I think renationalisation is popular across the board and included in Kiers labour party. What made Corbyn unpopular were things like requiring union representation at board meetings and policies on employment. Basically a fear of return to the 1970's and 'poor man of Europe' I don't think you can just dismiss national security as a thing they attacked him on. It is something people feel very concerned about. Never really followed the stuff about antisemitism, I would be interested to know why there is that hatred of Jews in the party. What have Jews done that Corbyn and others object to? I have just got home and have little time so will keep this brief. Most left wingers had nothing against Jews. What they objected to was the state of Israel oppressing Palestinians, and the use of Zionist ideology in support of that. This was wilfully and falsely equated with antisemitism as a way of weaponising the issue against the left. You centrists and most others fell for it. because it suited you to do so. That is not to say that there were no antisemites in the party, but the scale of the problem was grossly exaggerated for dubious political aims. I have seen it from the inside happening to people I know. I myself was falsely accused in the party of being an antisemite, but most of the false slurs of this nature were made against those who sought to win elected positions in the party. The issue was weaponised to use as a tool to wage a factional war against the left.
|
|