Blaming Labour

[InsanityRocks]

Time and time again I see here that the only reason people voted for the tories was because 'anti-semite/terrorist/bad dresser Corbyn' AIBU to think that all these people voted for the racist/misogynist/self-serving Johnson knowing he is all these things as all his views come straight out his mouth, yet the anti Corbyn stuff is hearsay from the press/Russian bots/SM etc.

I don't think Corbyn would have made a good prime minister necessarily, he is too passionate, too idealistic. However, for all those saying he should have stepped down: he won more people to join the Labour Party than ever before, there was the beginning of a movement for change, real change. But members of Momentum joined to deliberately sabotage, along with the constant hum of how evil this man is, how dangerous from the right-wing big business and newspaper owners along with a growing feeling of mistrust manufactured by Russian social media destabilisation all conspired to make sure he failed.

We are all hating what is happening in this country now, but for the moment, the best way to tackle it is through socialism and inclusion. People seemed so scared of socialism, is it because it gets confused with communism? For covid and climate change and unemployment and mental health support and education and the NHS and all the other major issues that face us as a society at the moment, we need to work as a team, surely?

@TomMRiddle

"Where in the world has socialism actually worked?"

This is the question asked by those who confuse socialism with communism, after all socialism can involve the regulation of the factors of production by the state, not the outright ownership (look up the definition).

By that factor most states have some socialist provision, those in the Nordic economies who spend a far higher % of GDP on public spending, and have higher rates of progressive taxation can be considered social democracies.

Where has free market capitalism worked? Name me one country that operates on a free market basis?

Too late to the party, the nonsense about Scandivian countries being socialist has been done earlier in the thread. Next.

The Labour Party failed to learn from the past (Michael Foot) and so was doomed to repeat it (Jeremy Corbyn).

The reality is that politicians from the socialist left of the Labour Party will not be credible leaders to the electorate, regardless of their policies. This is because they generally have done and said things that are unpalatable to the centrist voters they need to win elections.

It looks like Labour are going to have to do the whole cycle before they get back to a centrist leader that people will vote for (bear in mind this took 18 years the last time). I think Starmer is too early in the cycle to have a hope of being PM. The momentum lot are still moping about over the "great leader" to pull together to create a unified Labour Party.

Not getting a majority twice is kind of the dictionary definition of being unelectable. Labour can win general elections and have done. He failed twice.

Commenting on a thumbnail picture of a mural is not praising it. He did say he should've looked closer. This was in 2012 too. Oh and the intention of the art work was not antisemitic- according to the artist himself. Did Jeremy forget his specs that day?

"Too late to the party, the nonsense about Scandivian countries being socialist has been done earlier in the thread. Next"

Except they are social democracies, as said, in order for your claims to be true you have to conflate socialism with communism. That isn't accurate.

Next.

I agree that there were horrible and dangerous members of Momentum

And yet so many Labour Party members - including a lot of those Corbyn "attracted" - allowed them to infest the party, and went on voting Corbyn leader even when he'd lost the confidence of MPs

As for "working as a team", are you aware of even a fraction of what Corbyn's attack dog Chris Williamson and his henchmen were capable of if a member diverged from the Momentum script? I worked alongside Williamson personally, and believe me it's not an experience I'd recommend

FWIW I'm no admirer of this Tory lot either - I can't abide any form of exgtremism - but when thinking it couldn't be much worse I'm willing to bet that Corbyn et al would have given it a pretty good try

"Not getting a majority twice is kind of the dictionary definition of being unelectable. Labour can win general elections and have done. He failed twice."

Except the first election, with the previously mentioned share of the vote facts allowed him the opportunity to go for the second.

It wasn't Corbyn that was the defining factor in the second election, it was that it was a one issue election. Which is why Labour lost more votes to the Lib Dems than they did Tories, because remainers went elsewhere.

I wouldn't have voted Tory if you'd paid me. I think I gritted my teeth and voted labour tactically, despite hating Corbyn and Momentum because no one else stood a chance in our constituency against the Conservatives. Otherwise I'd have voted Lib Dem.

Labour shot themselves in the foot long ago when they voted Ed Milliband in as leader. Times and attitudes change and in order to sway floating voters or disenfranchised Tory voters, Labour needs to have broader appeal. It's no good appeasing the old school party faithful if you don't win enough seats to overturn the opposition's majority. As it was, Corbyn was so unpopular and unpalatable for many that Boris increased the majority with a landslide victory. And look where we are now.

"Did Jeremy forget his specs that day?"

Did all of the mob that piled on about this just decide to ignore blatant antisemitism in a book authored by Boris Johnson? So directly coming from him, not from a comment on a picture ( the comment wasn't antisemitic). Or was it really not about antisemitism at all?

" As it was, Corbyn was so unpopular and unpalatable for many that Boris increased the majority with a landslide victory. And look where we are now."

This is the stuff that is just not factually true.

It was a one issue election

The seats that fell to the tories had overwhelmingly voted for that issue 3 years previously.

Labour lost more votes to the Lib Dems than Tories.

But yes, be revisionist if you like, there is no arguing with those who are willfully disingenuous.

He. didn't. Win.
Twice.
He was so arrogant that he stayed on after the first defeat.
I know his acolytes love to pretend that the first DEFEAT was some sort of victory but it wasn't. It was a DEFEAT.

I'm not a revisionist or willfully disingenuous - how rude are you! My opinion differs from yours - that's how it is to me. I'd have just thought sod it and voted Lib Dem otherwise.

Corbyn was completely unelectable. Finally Labour has a leader who has some gravitas and likeability for those who aren't dyed in wool left wing Labour members.

It wasn’t just one election view

Labour most votes in many high remain areas too the swing to LD wasn’t that high

From early on many labour supporters were dissatisfied with him being leader who he appealed to most was the type of lefty who wants to talk for the working class but doesn’t actually want to engage with them and militant union representatives and students set on ideology

Many voters remember the 70’s they remember the strangle hold unions had and how for many working class made their lives more difficult

His appeal wasn’t to all Labour voters and as time went on he proved himself that one want up to the job of party leader

You are revisionist.

It wasn;t to do with Corbyn, it was brexit.

"He was so arrogant that he stayed on after the first defeat."

Yet he gained seats and the largest share of the vote since 2001? Denying the Tories a majority.

It was a defeat, but in the same way that others who have lost elections before get allowed to fight the next because it was felt that progress had been made.

Pretending that after this he should have resigned immediately rather than stay on to fight the next election is again, your prejudices showing rather than you using your knowledge and analytical skills. Did Kinnock resign after 88? Did Wilson resign after 1970?

Finally Labour has a leader who has some gravitas and likeability for those who aren't dyed in wool left wing Labour members

I'm slightly encouraged myself, but I do wonder how much of his gloss is down to simply "not being Corbyn"

After all, many say they voted Tory on an "anything but Corbyn" ticket, and look where that's got us

It wasn't Corbyn that was the defining factor in the second election, it was that it was a one issue election. Which is why Labour lost more votes to the Lib Dems than they did Tories, because remainers went elsewhere. If it was a one issue election then JC handled the issue appallingly. He was so bad that people trusted Jo Swinson with their vote rather than him. I repeat... Jo Swinson

"Revisionist " " You're a Tory" .
Waiting for "Reactionary" for the full Rik Mayall.
Or perhaps "Fake Noos" to bring it more up to date.
He lost the election. Because he couldn't appeal to anyone but his acolytes.

"Labour most votes in many high remain areas too the swing to LD wasn’t that high"

The overall swing to the Lib Dems was 4.2 %, and in many areas ( I've just checked North West Durham, Bishop Auckland, Blyth Valley) the Lib dem vote grew from where it was in 2017, and whilst the Tories took some votes, they took nowhere near what Labour lost in these areas.

In the end Blyth Valley and North West Durham the Tories won by just over 1,000 votes, in Don Valley the Tory vote stayed virtually the same on 19,000 and something whilst the Labour vote went to the Brexit party ( they lost 17%, Brexit P won 14%, the Tories increased by 1.5% UKIP didn't stand in 2017).

So in many, many cases, this wasn't the "Corbyn turning off the voters" it was the issue that turned off the voters in areas that had voted to leave, these are the areas which make up a huge swathe of the 80 seat majority. Going back and changing the narrative so that it wasn't a one issue election IS revisionist and incorrect, and the data shows that.

@TomMRiddle so in summary, why do you think that we have been left with an utterly crap government, when there should have been a perfectly good alternative? Why did that happen?

@Puzzledandpissedoff

Finally Labour has a leader who has some gravitas and likeability for those who aren't dyed in wool left wing Labour members

I'm slightly encouraged myself, but I do wonder how much of his gloss is down to simply "not being Corbyn"

After all, many say they voted Tory on an "anything but Corbyn" ticket, and look where that's got us

I like Keir and I say this as a centre right voter. The choice at the last election was horrific and scary. How could the three main parties came to have these three as their leaders?

Revisionist is the correct term to use.

Remind me of the main Tory party slogan? Remind me what way the red wall seats went in the referendum?

Constantly painting this as a Labour failure rather than a Tory Victory is an easy way to pin the blame for whatever mess is going on now on those who aren't in power, and absolve Tory voters and the Government themselves from responsibilities.

So in many, many cases, this wasn't the "Corbyn turning off the voters" it was the issue that turned off the voters in areas that had voted to leave, these are the areas which make up a huge swathe of the 80 seat majority. Going back and changing the narrative so that it wasn't a one issue election IS revisionist and incorrect, and the data shows that.
John Ashworth didn't agree with you.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50726592

Classic Corbynite whataboutery there.
"but Tories" "but Tories".
I don't expect them to be anything other than shite.

@KnightsofColumbusThatHurt I think that Brexit has become more of a dividing issue for people than party and this drove this one issue election. If the Tories and Labour had been fighting an election where Brexit wasn't an issue I think the outcome would have been different and there certainly wouldn't have been any landslide. But the ability of the Tories to win pro leave seats from Labour proved the difference.

As a note, if you look at all the claims about how we couldn't afford Labour's polciies and that they would bankrupt the country and compare that to the money thrown around now, then its easy to see that this was just false. Although lots of us knew it at the time. The Tories have also nationalised the rail service, something they said would be impossibly expensive back in November, and many more things.

Credible alternative? I don't think anyone watching what is going on now can claim Labour would have been worse.

@dexra lets see what happens next election

Although a recording given to the notoriously right wing guido site by a tory activist isn't really a good source now is it.