Jump to content

General Election 2015

MrBen

By MrBen
in The Lounge

 Share

Recommended Posts

Otta

Otta

Posted
Posted

rahrahrah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Blah Blah Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > "Why did we do so badly there? First, we spoke

> to

> > our core voters but not to aspirational,

> > middle-class ones. We talked about the bottom

> and

> > top of society, about the minimum wage and

> > zero-hour contracts, about mansions and

> non-doms.

> > But we had too little to say to the majority of

> > people in the middle."

> >

> > Spot on ????. To win an election in the UK you

> > have to win the support of this group of

> voters.

> > It is said that just 150 seats decide elections

> in

> > the UK (maybe more after the SNP tsunami) but

> > those 150 seats are definitely middle ground.

> And

> > Chuka is being tipped as a possible new leader

> for

> > Labour too.

>

> This assumes that those in the middle are only

> concerned with their own narrow self interest,

> "what are you going to do for ME".



I think a lot of them are to be honest. See MrBen's post about his mate. I don't judge the guy for wanting a bit of extra cash, so do I. But basically that was what made him decide who to vote for and he won't be alone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
KirstyH

KirstyH

Posted
Posted

Here's post-election ashcroft poll results (2-sides) about why people voted for the parties they did across UK (yes, a poll - but qualitative and post-fact): http://lordashcroftpolls.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/LORD-ASHCROFT-POLLS-Post-vote-poll-summary1.pdf


Holyrood.com highlight the very high score of the SNP vote on values/principles in their choice.


Another interesting one to me was Guardian's article about share price impacts of the election - banks, estate agents, bookies etc all going up. http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/may/08/general-election-2015-conservatives-win-city-reaction


If only we had a numeric barometer for public 'shares' - NHS, human rights, etc that we could compare it to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
????

????

Posted
Posted

rahrahrah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Yeah quids, I'm a Marxist. You've lost it. Read my

> post in the context of the comments I was replying

> too.



I didn't say you were a marxist, I said it was a 'Marxist framed' argument. Something that huge parts of the left don't seem to realise how much their arguments are effected by this.


Take the moral certainty for an example. For many (not all but a fuck of a lot) people on the left people who are opposed to 'progressiveness' do so because they are either acting in their own self interest (personal advantage) or because of their 'false concisousness' i.e. plebs acting against their own interest because they read the Sun. They seem completely unable to understand that plenty of rational, caring, truly liberal people look at the facts as they see them and take an alternative position that they think is best for society. This is a huge weakness in the left's ability to debate, move on and or 'learn' as it is based on a marxist framework. All tories/tory votersare thick or scum at the extreme. The left should do more listening and less shouting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Louisa

Louisa

Posted
Posted

Labour need to stop Union influence. For those of us old enough to remember the 70s, it was a pretty @&?# time to be around. That generation has broadly not forgiven Labour, and they sway elections. Labour only wins on the centre ground, like under Blair and the unions forced Miliband on the party, when his brother was clearly the better choice. As much as a swing to the left would be great for core vote, that don't play well in middle England. I would love Andy Burnham as leader but I fear he would isolate the south, just as Chukka would isolate the core vote IMO. They need someone who cuts through with everyone, another Blair.


Louisa.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jeremy

Jeremy

Posted
Posted

Chuka Umunna to run in 2020 blates. Surely just a question of whether he will be facing Cameron or Boris Johnson.


Meanwhile Johnson returning to parliament leaves a vacancy for London mayor soon... and I hear the Tories are pinning their hopes on their exciting new face... Sol Campbell. Sol Campbell??!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Loz

Loz

Posted
Posted

Jeremy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------


> Meanwhile Johnson returning to parliament leaves a vacancy for London mayor soon... and I hear the

> Tories are pinning their hopes on their exciting new face... Sol Campbell. Sol Campbell??!!


To be fair, Labour have been considering Eddie Izzard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Blah Blah

Blah Blah

Posted
Posted

Louisa Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Labour need to stop Union influence. For those of

> us old enough to remember the 70s, it was a pretty

> @&?# time to be around. That generation has

> broadly not forgiven Labour, and they sway

> elections. Labour only wins on the centre ground,

> like under Blair and the unions forced Miliband on

> the party, when his brother was clearly the better

> choice. As much as a swing to the left would be

> great for core vote, that don't play well in

> middle England. I would love Andy Burnham as

> leader but I fear he would isolate the south, just

> as Chukka would isolate the core vote IMO. They

> need someone who cuts through with everyone,

> another Blair.

>

> Louisa.


So Ted Heath was a Labour PM was he? Oh and the oil crisis had nothing to do with anything either did it? Complete and utter tosh to blame all the woes of the 70's on unions. The truth is that the 70's were the decade of decline. The wake up call from the post war boom, as the eastern economies rose. Unions did what they always do, in trying to protect jobs and livelihoods. Their only flaw was in not realising they were fighting for a declining economy that could never afford to go on as it had. By the 80's some unions had learned from this, which is why we always talk about the miners but never about the other countless state owned employers and their unions who negotiated agreements on redundancies with government instead. The outcome was the same both ways. Hundreds of thousands of jobs lost within transport, manufacturing, shipping, etc and nothing evolved to replace them.


Without unions, millions of workers would have NO access to employment rights and the legal system in taking on unscrupulous employers. Is that what you really want Louisa? A return to serfdom? Labour were established as the party of the working man. Their link with unions is perfectly logical and nothing to fear.


I completely agree though on the need to unite both the north and the middle classes of the south. That is why Blair was so successful. They need another Blair, minus the war missionary thing obviously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
maxxi

maxxi

Posted
Posted

Jeremy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

I hear the Tories are pinning their hopes on their exciting

> new face... Sol Campbell. Sol Campbell??!!



Maybe the Tories think being a rich buffoon is qualification enough; No wonder David Lammy and Sadiq Khan are so keen to stand - much easier task than a national Labour rebuild.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Earl Aelfheah

Earl Aelfheah

Posted
Posted

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> rahrahrah Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Yeah quids, I'm a Marxist. You've lost it. Read

> my

> > post in the context of the comments I was

> replying

> > too.

>

>

> I didn't say you were a marxist, I said it was a

> 'Marxist framed' argument. Something that huge

> parts of the left don't seem to realise how much

> their arguments are effected by this.

>

> Take the moral certainty for an example. For many

> (not all but a @#$%& of a lot) people on the left

> people who are opposed to 'progressiveness' do so

> because they are either acting in their own self

> interest (personal advantage) or because of their

> 'false concisousness' i.e. plebs acting against

> their own interest because they read the Sun. They

> seem completely unable to understand that plenty

> of rational, caring, truly liberal people look at

> the facts as they see them and take an alternative

> position that they think is best for society. This

> is a huge weakness in the left's ability to

> debate, move on and or 'learn' as it is based on a

> marxist framework. All tories/tory votersare thick

> or scum at the extreme. The left should do more

> listening and less shouting.


There are so many straw men in this post it's hard to know where to start. I haven't called anyone thick, plebs, or suggested that any one is extreme or 'scum'. Jeez. Apparently I'm the one not listening. I should do 'less shouting'. What are you talking about. Seriously?


I was responding to your assertion that Labour lost because they only talked about 'the bottom and top of society' and not to those in the middle. Like those 'in the middle' couldn't be interested in what happens outside of their direct experience, or that what goes on in one area of society doesn't directly effect another anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JohnL

JohnL

Posted
Posted

KirstyH Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Farage can't stay away; others want to get away:

> #takeuswithyouscotland (an antidote to all the

> disgusting divisiveness spouted around indyref and

> this election.


If UK became federal wit regions #takeuswithyouscotland might not

be a joke :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Green Goose

Green Goose

Posted
Posted

Blah Blah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Complete and utter tosh to blame all the

> woes of the 70's on unions. The truth is that the

> 70's were the decade of decline. The wake up call

> from the post war boom, as the eastern economies

> rose. Unions did what they always do, in trying to

> protect jobs and livelihoods.


What Louisa said was not tosh.

I'm not sure what vintage you are Blah Blah, but I started my career in the late 60's in the vehicle manufacturing sector. The 70's were an appalling period of union militancy- repeated strikes, disruption,absenteeism, and even deliberate sabotage. Shades of the Luddites!. Workers sleeping on the night shift etc etc. The result was abysmally low productivity, delayed deliveries which led to losses with resultant inability to re-invest in model development and more modern production facilities. UK manufacturing could not compete with the French, German and Japanese manufacturers - not on price, quality or design. We had the infamous Red Robbo who was worse than Fred Scargill at the miners.


The unions never learned from this and so British Leyland went bankrupt and Longbridge closed. So did many other good businesses. I know about it at first hand- I was made redundant.


Thankfully, the law was changed also to make it much more difficult to call wild-cat strikes.


> By the 80's some unions had learned

> from this, which is why we always talk about the

> miners


Wrong. They didn't learn from this. But the law was changed to make it much more difficult to call wild-cat strikes. This was the key to the whole problem.


>

> Without unions, millions of workers would have NO

> access to employment rights and the legal system

> in taking on unscrupulous employers.

>

Absolute tosh. If there are any unscrupulous employers they are a very rare breed because they would never last long.


You weren't a shop steward in the 70's were you by any chance???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

East Dulwich Forum

Established in 2006, we are an online community discussion forum for people who live, work in and visit SE22.

Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...