Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2024 11:27:01 GMT
I was out campaigning for the party in 2017. And whilst I found myself constantly encountering criticism of Corbyn, especially from older voters, as well as negativity towards Labour over the EU and Brexit, I never encountered anyone who didn't like the policies. There was of course a cohort of people who never vote because they don't believe anything politicians promise. But this takes more the form of a plague on all their houses. I never encountered anyone who said they like the policies but were not going to vote for us because they didnt believe we were serious. I did encounter people who liked the policies but weren't going to vote for us because Corbyn was a twat, or words to that effect. So people voting against the party because they thought our policies were pie in the sky was not a big thing on the ground. In fact it tended only to be party centrists who thought that, rather than the voters. 2019 was different. There was a sense that people thought we were promising the impossible, particularly with the free broadband idea, which very few people believed was ever going to be possible. But what kept coming up all the time on almost every doorstep in that election - much more so than in 2017 - was Brexit, and the widespread perception that Labour was trying to subvert the will of the people and prevent it. I knew we were going to lose that election very badly, in large part due to the Brexit issue I'm sure your experience on the ground is faithfully recounted. However, if the survey is accurately reported, it seems to suggest a large proportion of respondents did not believe the policies were deliverable. That is always the case. There is a widespread perception out there that politicians cannot be trusted to do what they say. This is not limited to the Labour party. And well over half believed that they were deliverable, but still could not vote Labour for a variety of other reasons. Anyway....this digression which I feel forced into by the need to challenge the constant false narrative that Labour lost because of unpopular policies, is well off topic for this thread. If the rest of you leave it alone, so will I.
|
|
|
Post by equivocal on May 29, 2024 11:50:51 GMT
I'm sure your experience on the ground is faithfully recounted. However, if the survey is accurately reported, it seems to suggest a large proportion of respondents did not believe the policies were deliverable. That is always the case. There is a widespread perception out there that politicians cannot be trusted to do what they say. This is not limited to the Labour party. And well over half believed that they were deliverable, but still could not vote Labour for a variety of other reasons. Anyway....this digression which I feel forced into by the need to challenge the constant false narrative that Labour lost because of unpopular policies, is well off topic for this thread. If the rest of you leave it alone, so will I. I think it's very interesting: very popular policies failing to attract sufficient votes.
Was the well over half from a different survey, or did I misread the report?
I have to say I think a substantial proportion of the electorate not believing the policies were deliverable is a more satisfactory explanation for Labour failing to get sufficient votes than other reasons. I think that's what the following suggests:
And despite backing Labour policies overall, 47% of respondents said they were "less likely to vote Labour" after hearing their policies than they had been before, as opposed to 34% who said the opposite.
That's not to say, of course, that the electorate did not form its view on deliverability based on their perception of Corbyn's views on other issues.
|
|
|
Post by patman post on May 29, 2024 14:29:42 GMT
All I get from the discussion is that the manifestos were irrelevant — the electorate distrusted Corbyn and Labour and wanted Brexit. Both were probably the result of incompetent campaigning by Labour and overwhelming amounts of sometimes factually dubious publicity and smears indulged in by the then Tory machine.
"National Service" is possibly an existing muse in a similar mould, now resurrected and brought forward by the current Tory election gurus...
|
|
|
Post by Zany on May 29, 2024 18:42:57 GMT
I'm afraid I can't remember much of Labour's 2017 manifesto. To save me the time of looking for things that may not be there; are you saying the manifesto was popular but "things" outside the manifesto persuaded many people to vote other than for Labour? Since some - not you - repeatedly insist that the unpopularity of Labour's policies lay behind their defeat, here is the polling evidence demonstrating the popularity of their policies at the time.... www.businessinsider.com/poll-huge-public-support-for-jeremy-corbyns-manifesto-promises-2017-5Those who ignore that and insist that the policy agenda was what lost it are effectively putting their fingers in their ears whilst singing "la, la, la I can't hear you." Clearly, policies that were liked by two thirds or three quarters of the electorate are not going to be what cost Labour the election. It is logically nonsensical to assume that it did. But centrists and Blairites insist on that having been so anyway, a victory of assumption over logic and evidence. Just because they want it to be true. The logic is in fact simple to those without an agenda that makes it inconvenient.. Labour lost, not because of the things people liked which included most of the 2017 policy agenda but because of the things they didn't. The 2017 manifesto was just about the only thing people liked about Labour. There were lots of other reasons why people turned away, not least of which was Brexit and mistrust of Corbyn personally. Thanks for the link. Did anyone believe any of these policies were costed? A poll might ask a simple question "Do you want conductors on renationalised railways" And get Yes. But when costed alongside freezing the pension age, building 100,000 council houses a year and abolishing tuition fees, they begin to smell a rat. I remember both at the time and on here asking for costings on these wonderous gifts.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2024 6:44:51 GMT
Since some - not you - repeatedly insist that the unpopularity of Labour's policies lay behind their defeat, here is the polling evidence demonstrating the popularity of their policies at the time.... www.businessinsider.com/poll-huge-public-support-for-jeremy-corbyns-manifesto-promises-2017-5Those who ignore that and insist that the policy agenda was what lost it are effectively putting their fingers in their ears whilst singing "la, la, la I can't hear you." Clearly, policies that were liked by two thirds or three quarters of the electorate are not going to be what cost Labour the election. It is logically nonsensical to assume that it did. But centrists and Blairites insist on that having been so anyway, a victory of assumption over logic and evidence. Just because they want it to be true. The logic is in fact simple to those without an agenda that makes it inconvenient.. Labour lost, not because of the things people liked which included most of the 2017 policy agenda but because of the things they didn't. The 2017 manifesto was just about the only thing people liked about Labour. There were lots of other reasons why people turned away, not least of which was Brexit and mistrust of Corbyn personally. Thanks for the link. Did anyone believe any of these policies were costed? A poll might ask a simple question "Do you want conductors on renationalised railways" And get Yes. But when costed alongside freezing the pension age, building 100,000 council houses a year and abolishing tuition fees, they begin to smell a rat. I remember both at the time and on here asking for costings on these wonderous gifts. In 2017 at least - unlike 2019 - they claimed that it was all costed but independent experts were dubious about the figures adding up I recall. But at the time Labour was able to claim that the Tory manifesto was not costed at all, which it wasnt. A fact which neutralised a lot of the criticism from them.
|
|
|
Post by Zany on May 30, 2024 6:56:13 GMT
Thanks for the link. Did anyone believe any of these policies were costed? A poll might ask a simple question "Do you want conductors on renationalised railways" And get Yes. But when costed alongside freezing the pension age, building 100,000 council houses a year and abolishing tuition fees, they begin to smell a rat. I remember both at the time and on here asking for costings on these wonderous gifts. In 2017 at least - unlike 2019 - they claimed that it was all costed but independent experts were dubious about the figures adding up I recall. But at the time Labour was able to claim that the Tory manifesto was not costed at all, which it wasnt. A fact which neutralised a lot of the criticism from them. And that was Corbyn problem. He was introducing ideas that were associated with UK being the sick man of Europe. It was critical we saw how they were funded. Same with business, if you're going to make employing people even harder than it is, we need to know what that actually means before we vote. Using Tory incompetence as a defence is not recommended when you look at the state of the country.
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on May 30, 2024 7:35:53 GMT
All I get from the discussion is that the manifestos were irrelevant — the electorate distrusted Corbyn and Labour and wanted Brexit. Well, your Brexit point is both true and not true. Whilst it was a big factor in Boris getting a majority, the majority of voters voted centre and left parties rather than Tory and Brexit Party. It was the FPTP system that got the Tory majority.
|
|
|
Post by patman post on Jun 3, 2024 13:47:52 GMT
All I get from the discussion is that the manifestos were irrelevant — the electorate distrusted Corbyn and Labour and wanted Brexit. Well, your Brexit point is both true and not true. Whilst it was a big factor in Boris getting a majority, the majority of voters voted centre and left parties rather than Tory and Brexit Party. It was the FPTP system that got the Tory majority. Not sure that matches the views generally put forward by psephologists.
About 32 million votes were cast in this election. The turnout was 67.3% of registered voters, which represents a 1.5% drop on the 2017 general election.
The Conservatives won the most seats - 365 - and also the biggest share of votes, 45%, or about 13.9 million.
Labour, who are in second place, have won 203 seats and a 32.2% share, or about 10.3 million votes.
The UK's first-past-the-post voting system means the parties with the most votes may not win the most seats.
That's because the candidate who gets the most votes in their local constituency wins a seat in the House of Commons. Coming a good second, for example, makes no difference to a party's success nationally.
There have been attempts to move the UK to other electoral systems. They include the alternative vote - in which voters rank candidates by order of preference instead of just voting for one. This was rejected by referendum in 2011.
The 2016 referendum showed voters' views on Brexit, and most parties had both Yes and No members...
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Jun 3, 2024 21:27:42 GMT
Well, your Brexit point is both true and not true. Whilst it was a big factor in Boris getting a majority, the majority of voters voted centre and left parties rather than Tory and Brexit Party. It was the FPTP system that got the Tory majority. Not sure that matches the views generally put forward by psephologists.
About 32 million votes were cast in this election. The turnout was 67.3% of registered voters, which represents a 1.5% drop on the 2017 general election.
The Conservatives won the most seats - 365 - and also the biggest share of votes, 45%, or about 13.9 million.
Labour, who are in second place, have won 203 seats and a 32.2% share, or about 10.3 million votes.
The UK's first-past-the-post voting system means the parties with the most votes may not win the most seats.
That's because the candidate who gets the most votes in their local constituency wins a seat in the House of Commons. Coming a good second, for example, makes no difference to a party's success nationally.
There have been attempts to move the UK to other electoral systems. They include the alternative vote - in which voters rank candidates by order of preference instead of just voting for one. This was rejected by referendum in 2011.
The 2016 referendum showed voters' views on Brexit, and most parties had both Yes and No members...
That doesn't contradict anything I said? I'll repeat, more voters voted left or centre in 2019 than voted right (Tory and Reform).
|
|
Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 2,556
|
Post by Steve on Jun 3, 2024 21:50:38 GMT
And more voters voted against Get Brexit Done than for it in 2019 but First Past the Post delivered a very different MPs set
|
|