Dec 2019
8:03pm, 23 Dec 2019
3,423 posts
|
mr d
Simbil I think the Lib Dems campaigned on a 2nd referendum in 2017. bbc.co.uk Labour pledged to respect the result but renegotiate the WA. bbc.co.uk |
Dec 2019
8:06pm, 23 Dec 2019
29,818 posts
|
SPR
Pretty sure Labour would have lost then if they had gone remain. Brexit was a none issue in the 2017 GE. |
Dec 2019
8:15pm, 23 Dec 2019
6,031 posts
|
jda
Mr d, I think Labour lost it (in this respect) by being so obviously split that neither side could trust them at all. Not just a matter of which side they were on, but whether they were actually going to act in the interests of the country versus as a result of some sort of internal party power struggle. Though Corbyn himself was also an issue of course. It all comes back to inadequate leadership IMO. |
Dec 2019
8:18pm, 23 Dec 2019
36,949 posts
|
Ding Derby merrily on Tup
Inadequate leadership is the understatement of the century so far . . . Corbyn was not only useless and ineffectual but also toxic to a large proportion of the electorate
|
Dec 2019
8:56pm, 23 Dec 2019
15,642 posts
|
Chrisull
In 2017 many Labour voters said they didn't really care where Labour stood on Brexit, that wasn't why they were voting for them. In 2019, that wasn't quite as true (fatigue with the issue rising), but Corbyn was the issue undoubtedly, over 70% ex voters said HE was the problem. (So much so that some voters, voted Tory then rejoined the Labour party the next time to get rid!!) So the question becomes why wasn't he that unpopular 2 years ago? I mean all the "unpatriotic" stuff happened before then and the Mail were screeching just as loudly. Well I maintain it takes 3 - 4 years for it to get through to politically disengaged/unengaged voters to form a full opinion - and they don't read papers (I heard interviews with people saying they didn't know who to vote for because they hadn't looked at the options and would only do that with a week or two to go, because the process just wasn't that interesting). In case you think disengaged is another synonym for not very bright, it isn't meant like that at all. I am unengaged by snooker and couldn't tell you who anyone was apart from Ronnie O'Sullivan. I don't blame voters choosing to disengage if something is dull. However I do have some agreement with Stander, I think when we say things like "voters voting against their economic interests" that is a synonym for dumb. It implies also we know better. Until we get away from that, people aren't going to listen to a word we say. And as one wag on Twitter said (not to me personally) "just because you don't say it anymore, doesn't mean you don't still think it"... |
|
Dec 2019
8:57pm, 23 Dec 2019
15,643 posts
|
Chrisull
Typo: the next day not next time!
|
Dec 2019
9:12pm, 23 Dec 2019
32,071 posts
|
LindsD
What would you say instead, Chris? The fact remains that going on the evidence we currently have, they were voting against their economic interests, weren't they?
|
|
Dec 2019
9:23pm, 23 Dec 2019
6,033 posts
|
jda
There is more to life than maximising economic growth. That is especially true if you aren't particularly vulnerable to a long-term decline. Which covers a fair proportion of brexit voters, especially the older ones. Not saying there aren't plenty of stupid/deluded brexit voters too 
|
Dec 2019
10:02pm, 23 Dec 2019
8,330 posts
|
simbil
Pretty sure Labour would have lost be they remain, leave or neutral. They just lacked believably on so many issues. To politics fans that was not such an issue as their manifesto was clearly aspirational and would have lost the radical elements if they had been sharing power with others. Thanks for the correction on the Lib Dems mr d. |
|
Dec 2019
10:29pm, 23 Dec 2019
15,644 posts
|
Chrisull
Linds - there is no easy answer, I'm as guilty of it myself (as I imply in my final line). I think partly it has been weaponised against us quite cleverly. The culture wars in the US are very much an example of this. It comes down to again to a form of zero sum thinking... so in the US, you have the whole BlackLivesMatter movement, which I 100% support. BUT you have the immediate kickback "you're implying white lives don't matter", which is of course bullshit, but has become quite a potent line of attack. (potent as in persuading some people of its validity) And it leads to massive online arguments in which no-one wins and everybody comes out looking dirty. You get it here with "International Women's day" and a load of predictable moaners go "What about international men's day" (which of course there is anyway). So the "weaponised" thinking here is that the white working class are "left behind", "victimised", "under threat", "sneered at as thick" "accused of being racist" - any time somebody sticks up for a minority such as refugee children (as promised protection in the now sadly jettisoned Dubs amendment). And it has passed into mainstream media narratives. It's like the two classes/ previously aligned sections of society have been turned against each other, gamed. (this sounds like conspiracy talk, but there is some evidence that via twitter bots, propaganda, attack ads from the right, this is exactly the intention). Add to this , deliberate attempts to make politics seem dull, or make all sides seem as bad as each other, is a long entrenched political tactic, and a highly effective one: opendemocracy.net The only way out I can see is to reframe the debate, refuse to engage on those lines. I abhor the way Stormzy's sensible comments that basically there is still some racism in Britain, have been recast as "Britain is 100% racist". I see it as people who share the same worries and aspirations as us, we are being encouraged to look down at them, they are being encouraged to us as sneering and condescending. I think back to the original line "voting against their economic interests", is that people do not believe the promises Labour have made to vote for their economic interests, would be a less charged way of putting it. If we don't escape this beartrap, the divisions just become more and more polarised as in the US. And ultimately it will require a large coalition of voters from different economic and the ethnic groups to elect another Labour government. |
Useful Links
FE accepts no responsibility for external links. Or anything, really.Related Threads
-
Fantasy General Election
Jul 2024
-
EU Referendum - In or Out? Vote here
Aug 2018
-
March to Parliament Against Brexit - Sat 2nd July
Jun 2016
-
EU Referendum
Feb 2016
-
Ads on Fetch - anyone else getting Leave and Remain?!
Feb 2017
-
The Environment Thread :-)
Jul 2025
-
Economics
Jan 2025
-
Dear Scottish Fetchies
Jan 2023
-
Any economists out there - question
Oct 2022
-
Power and exploitation - please check my sanity
Oct 2018
Report This Content
You can report any content you believe to be unsafe. Please let me know why you believe this content is unsafe by choosing a category below.
Thank you for your report. The content will be assessed as soon as possible.