The 2019 General Election Result and Aftermath

[Arglwydd Golau]

The lunatics are running the asylum in many places. The leadership of my former local party changed and was much more momentum.

Like I said if there was a strongly managed and led local party it is less likely to have been infiltrated.

Possibly more in some of the major urban areas then, and really 'much more momentum' doesn't necessarily mean a member of Momentum.

Nah, it’s all off the top of my head! There has to be more I’ve forgotten!

As for the Tory side, Theresa May’s dancing springs to mind! Johnson - prorogation of Parliament for partisan means while pretending otherwise is a more grievous sin, though less amusing than Corbyn’s many gaffes.

Have there been many really amusing Burgon-esque moments of comedy on the Government side? Jacob Rees-Mogg being photographed lying on the front bench was an extraordinary gaffe.

I think Theresa May's cough and the wonky letters at the party conference....still we digress!

 

[Starmill]

What was the relevance of it? I made no mention of Boris, nor do I support him. It is merely making the point that Corbyn lacked the credibility to win, whereas Boris somehow convinced swathes of people he was a good bet. The whataboutery that has followed my partly light-hearted post is epic!

I suppose that's the nature of the two figures then isn't it. Given the clear link between them, which was that the choice was presented as 'you can have one or the other' it's hard to see how it's not relevant.

 

[Starmill]

The constant name calling is a turn off and people stop listening.

Calling out uses of words which cross lines is the only way to stop them from becoming acceptable. It is also better to say that the Prime Minister is anti-Islamic because of his choices of words about Muslim people than to simply call him a ****, as many other people are doing in response to their loss.

 

[TrafficEng]

Yes. I did get very annoyed at Corbyn around 'Traingate'. There are so many properly ram-packed trains, and he chose one that wasn't too full to badly make a reasonable point. And then the focus (predictably) went on the "how busy was his train?" debate rather than the "our rail system is bursting, what can we do to solve it?" debate.

But his point wasn't even reasonable. He was claiming that the train was "ram packed" because it was run by a private company and renationalisation was the answer.

It is very easy to demonstrate that capacity constraints on the ECML can only be solved by quadrupling through Welwyn (and elsewhere) and upgrading power supplies (i.e. Network Rail= already nationalised), by replacing and adding rolling stock (already in hand, led by the Government), and by paying for more services to be operated within the revenue/costs/subsidy equation (controlled by the Government). The same factors come into play in most other cases of trains being "ram packed".

But the catastrophic error of judgement was compounded by picking on a rail company linked to a brand which firmly protects its reputation with hands-on involvement by a high-profile 'owner' who is not known for his support of the Conservative party.

As a potential plot line for "The Thick of It" it would have been dropped for being utterly implausible that anyone would do such a thing.

But months/years after the event there are Corbynites still trying to prove Jezza was right.

 

[Ferret]

I think Theresa May's cough and the wonky letters at the party conference....still we digress!

The cough I wouldn’t count, but the wonky letters was a corking faux pas.

Nigel Farage losing his rag with his aides after being milkshaked was kind of funny too.

Returning to Labour’s ills, I forgot McDonnell’s Little Red Book and Diane Abbott’s “Some would say Mao did more good than harm”. Damn it!

 

[Arglwydd Golau]

The cough I wouldn’t count, but the wonky letters was a corking faux pas.

Nigel Farage losing his rag with his aides after being milkshaked was kind of funny too.

Returning to Labour’s ills, I forgot McDonnell’s Little Red Book and Diane Abbott’s “Some would say Mao did more good than harm”. Damn it!

Humorous political odds and ends from the last few years....scope for another thread!

 

[TrafficEng]

Jacob Rees-Mogg being photographed lying on the front bench was an extraordinary gaffe.

Was it? Or was it part of a very carefully designed strategy to enrage the easily offended with the intention of getting the Conservatives what they wanted?

We will have to wait for the autobiographies to be written but I discerned various 'gaffes' as being carefully staged-managed strategic moves. That includes the excessive proroguing of Parliament.

It was obvious that Brexit wouldn't happen with the Government not having a majority, and not having the freedom to call a General Election. The opposition parties were refusing the election because they knew they would lose and Brexit would happen.

The only way Team Boris could win was by forcing the opposition into a position where they could not credibly block the election. A Government whose senior members were acting terribly badly (e.g. "Humbug" and the chaise longue moment) as well as the highest court in the land ruling the Prime Minister has acted illegally simply couldn't be ignored. Corbyn couldn't stand there day after day saying this was the worst government ever/acting illegally/contempt for parliament/etc but at the same time refuse demands for an election to get rid of them.

The more faux outrage Labour and the Remainers poured out, the more they backed themselves into a corner where the only result could be a General Election they would lose.

On the other side, it should always be remembered that what we think is not what someone else thinks. The people who felt it was a constitutional outrage that Parliament was prorogued almost certainly had no concept that people who might be minded to vote for Boris may well take the view that the MPs normally swan off for four weeks for their Autumn party season conferences, so it was more than slighty hypocritical of them to go on about the precious value of sitting time in the Commons.

The courts (especially courts in Scotland) getting involved in politics also had a fundamental effect. London Labour and the highly educated Liberals saw it as the sanctity of constitutional rights being protected (Lots of votes in London and university cities). But ask yourself what the typical Labour voter in a northern town felt about people arguing over silly details (at the taxpayer's expense) in the far away law courts of London. All they wanted to see was for someone to 'get Brexit done'.

I don't believe May's cough was part of the strategy, if it did exist. But we will have to wait for those autobiographies to be written to be sure.

 

[edwin_m]

With Brexit the remain campaign have been relentless in making it about young people's futures. It is a great tactic because it works on people of all ages (e.g. parents and grandparents). But when you analyse the risks of Brexit most of them occur in the short-term (and are harder to mitigate because of the lack of time to do anything).

I would be interested to see any such analysis, particularly any that shows upsides in either the short or long term. Because I've never seen any and I can't imagine how it can be of benefit to the UK in any timeframe. That, and the way it was mis-sold, is why while Remainers probably now accept it is inevitable, they will not accept that it is a good thing. And the downsides of Brexit make it much more difficult in several ways for this government to achieve the positive things it says it wants to do.

 

[DerekC]

But we will have to wait for those autobiographies to be written to be sure.

Hmm - do you think Boris's autobiography will be 100% solid gold truth?

 

[TrafficEng]

The constant name calling is a turn off and people stop listening.

Calling out uses of words which cross lines is the only way to stop them from becoming acceptable. It is also better to say that the Prime Minister is anti-Islamic because of his choices of words about Muslim people than to simply call him a ****, as many other people are doing in response to their loss.

The use of the words "calling out" is also a turn off and people stop listening.

When polticians do the calling out the thought process of many people leads to the word "hypocrite".

Take for example the rage-contorted face and finger-jabbing of Paula Sherriff as she lectured Johnson on the inappropriate use of language in the Commons. (Fun fact: Her Conservative replacement beat her by 1,500 votes)

 

[Gooner18]

Going by what I have heard on the news with labour refusing to blame Corbyn and momentum are the problem I reckon conservatives have at least another term in power if not more if labour to shift to a more central left position. Animal farm Was on earlier , momentum sprang straight to mind

 

[Starmill]

The use of the words "calling out" is also a turn off and people stop listening.

Just because a proportion of people choose something, doesn't mean that all of us are bound to accept it, or lose the right to call it wrong. I don't know what else I can add that would satisfy you.

Paula Sheriff stood up for what she believed in, she spoke out for what she thought was right and she was a good Labour MP who served her constituents and friends well. The Prime Minister didn't do that, regardless of who won.

 

[TrafficEng]

I would be interested to see any such analysis, particularly any that shows upsides in either the short or long term. Because I've never seen any and I can't imagine how it can be of benefit to the UK in any timeframe. That, and the way it was mis-sold, is why while Remainers probably now accept it is inevitable, they will not accept that it is a good thing. And the downsides of Brexit make it much more difficult in several ways for this government to achieve the positive things it says it wants to do.

The internet provides a wealth of Brexit risk assessments and analysis.

I made no claim of any upsides, either in the short or long term.

If you would like an example of what I meant by that comment then I'm happy to give one. The risk of medicine shortages is of great concern. The inability to get life-saving medicine to someone has, quite obviously, a risk to life. The risk is primarily due to the supply chain failing as a result of disturbance to normal transport routes. The risk is immediate on exiting the EU (if not before) as that is the most likely time when normal transport routes might start to be disrupted. Mitigation of the risk requires the planning of alternative transport routes, if required.

This risk is short-term because nobody would attempt to continue to use the normal routes if they continue to suffer from excessive disruption. The mitigation would involve a permanent migration to alternative arrangements.

Attention has quite rightly been drawn to the risk that life-saving medicines might be in short supply. Mitigation has been planned. The risk is short-term and subsides over time.

In terms of "the future" of young people this risk in itself is not one they need to oppose Brexit over.

 

[43066]

I would be interested to see any such analysis, particularly any that shows upsides in either the short or long term. Because I've never seen any and I can't imagine how it can be of benefit to the UK in any timeframe. That, and the way it was mis-sold, is why while Remainers probably now accept it is inevitable, they will not accept that it is a good thing. And the downsides of Brexit make it much more difficult in several ways for this government to achieve the positive things it says it wants to do.

But that assumes that leave voters voted as they did purely for economic self betterment. I rather suspect many of them didn’t.

 

[TrafficEng]

Just because a proportion of people choose something, doesn't mean that all of us are bound to accept it, or lose the right to call it wrong.

Think about what you've written there. If one of the people DarloRich was talking about in #530 said exactly those same words, would you agree with them?

I wouldn't. Like DarloRich it doesn't represent my view. But I accept there are people out there who have very different views to me, and simply telling them they are wrong won't make them change their mind. Labour's problem is trying to connect with people who have very diverse mindsets.

I don't know what else I can add that would satisfy you.

You don't need to satifsy me. You aren't the Labour party and I'm not a Labour voter.

Paula Sheriff stood up for what she believed in, she spoke out for what she thought was right and she was a good Labour MP who served her constituents and friends well. The Prime Minister didn't do that, regardless of who won.

She was lecturing Johnson on how to behave in the Commons whilst demonstrating how not to behave.

You can be an excellent Labour MP and serve your constituents extremely well. But that doesn't count for much if they see you acting in a way they don't like. (The same applies to MPs of all parties).

 

[43066]

The use of the words "calling out" is also a turn off and people stop listening.

When polticians do the calling out the thought process of many people leads to the word "hypocrite".

Take for example the rage-contorted face and finger-jabbing of Paula Sherriff as she lectured Johnson on the inappropriate use of language in the Commons. (Fun fact: Her Conservative replacement beat her by 1,500 votes)

Indeed, in relation to the infamous “letterbox” article, Johnson was actually making a (very liberal) argument against banning the burqua. A fact that is usually forgotten about! “Calling out” in this context really just means shutting down reasonable debate.

Ironically, by far the worst use of language in recent years has been by the hard left momentum clique: intolerant in the extreme and quite prepared to launch into the most appalling, abusive tirades to those who don’t agree with them, or are vaguely critical of their cause. Including many moderate labour MPs who have been hounded senseless.

 

[greyman42]

Hmph. The Tory win means I'm £11,250 better off than I was this time last night - my shares in a construction firm jumped over 10%. Trouble is the cloud's bigger than the silver lining.

No its not, your quids in. And so am I.

 

[AlterEgo]

But that assumes that leave voters voted as they did purely for economic self betterment. I rather suspect many of them didn’t.

Yes! When will people learn that the economy wasn't that significant a factor in the eyes of many a Leaver?

This is all about national identity, the role of the nation-state as the highest working echelon of real democracy, and social conservatism. Many of the things people are asking for aren't dissimilar to what many people in Norway want, yet I don't see Norwegians bandied around as Europe's bigots.

The contempt that many of the socially liberal middle classes have for people who think in the way that Leavers do is a real concern. The more contempt that is shown and the less understanding and respect there is, the more these people will lean back and stick two massive middle fingers up at what they consider the "liberal elite" at the ballot box. And to be honest we deserve the middle fingers.

 

[ainsworth74]

Many of the things people are asking for aren't dissimilar to what many people in Norway want, yet I don't see Norwegians bandied around as Europe's bigots.

And if a Norway style deal was on the table then I, as someone who voted remain, would be quite happy with that as an outcome for this whole sorry mess. But that's not what we're going to get is it?

 

[Senex]

This is all about national identity, the role of the nation-state as the highest working echelon of real democracy, and social conservatism. Many of the things people are asking for aren't dissimilar to what many people in Norway want, yet I don't see Norwegians bandied around as Europe's bigots.

But we aren't a nation-state, but rather a state of 3¼ nations, in one of which a good nineteenth-century nation-state movement is pressing for separation whilst in another a substantial portion of the population wants to be re-united with the other three-quarters of the nation it was cut off from by a twentieth-century thoroughly artifical border. And just to complicate things even more, we now have a situation where the election has produced a massive Tory majority in the English imperial parliament lording it over the whole state with the Tories (or their supporters) in a minority in the devolved assesmblies of Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland (if that one ever meets again). Why should the Scots feel any differently towards England than the English Brexiteers feel towards the EU?

 

[43066]

Yes! When will people learn that the economy wasn't that significant a factor in the eyes of many a Leaver?

This is all about national identity, the role of the nation-state as the highest working echelon of real democracy, and social conservatism. Many of the things people are asking for aren't dissimilar to what many people in Norway want, yet I don't see Norwegians bandied around as Europe's bigots.

The contempt that many of the socially liberal middle classes have for people who think in the way that Leavers do is a real concern. The more contempt that is shown and the less understanding and respect there is, the more these people will lean back and stick two massive middle fingers up at what they consider the "liberal elite" at the ballot box. And to be honest we deserve the middle fingers.

Indeed.

Living in London, it’s easy to form the impression that the “liberal elite” dominate politics, and our london centric media certainly fuels that impression. As a result, many Londoners live in an echo chamber, and are oblivious to the country outside the M25, which is a very, very different place.

The sneering contempt with which the working classes have come to be treated by the party that is supposed to represent them has been extraordinary to behold. In response, the silent majority have done their talking in the polling both, and the results are clear to see.

 

[AlterEgo]

But we aren't a nation-state, but rather a state of 3¼ nations

Which indeed adequately explains that a central driving force behind Brexit was English nationalism, not civic Britishness.

Why should the Scots feel any differently towards England than the English Brexiteers feel towards the EU?

A good question to ask Sturgeon, who seems to love being part of one Union but not another. SNP nationalism's starting point is being predominantly anti-English and it's amusing to hear English people wish the SNP stood candidates in England!

 

[bramling]

Indeed.

Living in London, it’s easy to form the impression that the “liberal elite” dominate politics, and our london centric media certainly fuels that impression. As a result, many Londoners live in an echo chamber, and are oblivious to the country outside the M25, which is a very, very different place.

The sneering contempt with which the working classes have come to be treated by the party that is supposed to represent them has been extraordinary to behold. In response, the silent majority have done their talking in the polling both, and the results are clear to see.

Absolutely. London is completely out of step from the rest of England. The more bile is directed outwards at middle England, the more the proverbial finger will be raised. As I was explaining to a friend, London won’t win that one simply due to the relative numbers of people. If anything London may well have screwed itself over at this election, as I can’t see much incentive for Boris to do much for London now he has little need for London votes - if anything the Conservatives seem to have more chance in Scotland!

 

[TrafficEng]

Which indeed adequately explains that a central driving force behind Brexit was English nationalism, not civic Britishness.

I hope you don't mind that I've suggested some added highlighting (but not otherwise amended) your post to avoid later confusion. Some people might read "the" instead of "a".

A good question to ask Sturgeon, who seems to love being part of one Union but not another. SNP nationalism's starting point is being predominantly anti-English and it's amusing to hear English people wish the SNP stood candidates in England!

I find it interesting that most of the arguments for/against Brexit can be mapped onto arguments for/against Scottish independence. But I've yet to hear the kind of derogatory language regularly used against Leavers being directed towards advocates of Scottish independence. Perhaps we will if Indyref2 goes ahead. I do hope not though. I think people have a right to a view, to vote according to what they believe in, and to have that vote respected.

Indyref2 also holds the tantalising prospect of an endless debate over the operation of a border between Scotland (in the EU) and England. Is it realistic for Scotland to rejoin the EU if it requires a "hard border" and border checks, with all the economic consequences that might pose? Where will the border checks be on the East and West Coast mainlines?

And furthermore, should IndyRef2 be a binary In/Out referendum (because we now know these are too simplistic for complex issues) or should it include multiple options such as allowing contiguous areas of lowland Scotland to remain in the UK if the people there vote 'In'. But maybe that is a discussion for another thread in the future.

 

[TrafficEng]

If anything London may well have screwed itself over at this election, as I can’t see much incentive for Boris to do much for London now he has little need for London votes - if anything the Conservatives seem to have more chance in Scotland!

I agree. Demographic changes in London are making it less and less winnable for the Conservatives. Even in areas like Harrow, Barnet and Enfield the densification going on is turning the character of the area into something more like inner London. Anyone who travels on Thameslink through Mill Hill and Colindale cannot avoid seeing the transformation happening on a daily basis.

Small flats, probably rented rather than owned, tend not to house Conservative voters in London.

As a 'populist' PM, Boris could do well to invest heavily in transport outside of London, if necessary by starving London of funds. As a former London Mayor his experience of transport issues and improvements may be valuable.

 

[Starmill]

But that assumes that leave voters voted as they did purely for economic self betterment. I rather suspect many of them didn’t.

This is certainly common "wisdom" now, but in 2016 I can remember very very clearly that the argument was that things would economically more prosperous when the UK was outside the European Union.

Any suggestion that this wasn't the case was immediately branded "project fear", called lies and discredited.

A question for me here is this: if your thinking is accurate here, and we're significantly poorer post-Brexit, was it right for 52% of the country to take resources away from the remainder, possibly lots of resources, in order to support their goals of national identity?

 

[edwin_m]

The internet provides a wealth of Brexit risk assessments and analysis.

I made no claim of any upsides, either in the short or long term.

There are plenty of long-term risks, such as the likely end of inward investment which has provided much of what little prosperity the Brexit-voting regions have had in the last few decades. If there are risks and no upsides (the international trade benefit is totally illusory) then we shouldn't be doing it.

But that assumes that leave voters voted as they did purely for economic self betterment. I rather suspect many of them didn’t.

No, it's basically taken on the status of a religion. However it's a religion a majority don't subscribe to (opinion has shifted since 2016) and a minority has no right to inflict on the rest of us. Maybe a deal staying close to the EU would satisfy many Remainers, but the Brexiter view of compromise seems to be "you compromise by agreeing to everything I want".

 

[Enthusiast]

as well as the highest court in the land ruling the Prime Minister has acted illegally simply couldn't be ignored.

The Supreme Court ruled that the PM had acted unlawfully. Quite a difference from illegally.

And if a Norway style deal was on the table then I, as someone who voted remain, would be quite happy with that as an outcome for this whole sorry mess. But that's not what we're going to get is it?

Hopefully not. Those who voted to leave did just that. They did not vote for an alternative version of membership. Your satisfaction with such an arrangement proves that it is not leaving at all.

Why should the Scots feel any differently towards England than the English Brexiteers feel towards the EU?

Because Scotland, along with England, is an integral part of the United Kingdom, a sovereign nation which the Scots voted to remain part of just five years ago. Brexiteers (who are by no means exclusively English) feel the way they do towards the EU because that institution is not a sovereign nation (as much as it would like to be seen as such) and is acting towards its member nations as if they are simply minor irritant provinces.

 

[edwin_m]

Those who voted to leave did just that. They did not vote for an alternative version of membership. Your satisfaction with such an arrangement proves that it is not leaving at all.

Thereby illustrating exactly the point I made in #567 about the Brexiter's view of compromise. If it's acceptable to the other half of the population, that automatically makes it unacceptable to you.

 

[43066]

No, it's basically taken on the status of a religion. However it's a religion a majority don't subscribe to (opinion has shifted since 2016) and a minority has no right to inflict on the rest of us. Maybe a deal staying close to the EU would satisfy many Remainers, but the Brexiter view of compromise seems to be "you compromise by agreeing to everything I want".

I disagree.

I don’t know a single person, on either side of the Brexit divide, who would vote differently if the 2016 referendum was rerun today. If anything, views have become more entrenched and polarised than ever.

As Jo Swinson just learned the hard way, 17.4million people are fed up of being talked down to, patronised and insulted. 3.5 years on, they’re most certainly fed up with rerunning the same arguments that were repeated ad nauseum in the run up to the referendum (the referendum which, as seems to be forgotten, the leave side won).

Had remain won the referendum, what compromise would have been offered to leavers, exactly? None! We would have been told to simply shut up and go away.