That is very much the problem, which will become apparent quite soon, as the summer deadline for extending the EU transition period, and the difficulty of arranging trade deals, make themselves obvious.
It's what the voters think. The project has failed, as it was always bound to, and the recreational middle-class student politicians have doubled down, blaming the electorate, and they will just lose bigger next time, because their own wanky doctrinal purity matters more than winning elections and making an actual difference.
That's what you think. I strongly disagree.
The policy direction is clearly easily popular enough to win elections.
I agree with Chezlaw, Labour policies/manifesto all poll high and the voters who want Brexit didn't abandon the party because they want to fund the NHS or tax amazon and other billionaires. Most of these voters couldn't even bring themselves to vote for the Tories and went for Brexit party instead, as mentioned earlier their was no real difference in Tory turnout this year.
Those voters will be back with Labour and Boris will have to own all of the Brexit fall out.
Of course they do. Ask someone in isolation if they want more money for the NHS, or better schools, or abolition of tuition fees, or cheaper rail fairs, or free broadband, then of course they are popular.
However, when these are grouped together with £82bn in tax rises, then support starts to wain somewhat.
Of course they do. Ask someone in isolation if they want more money for the NHS, or better schools, or abolition of tuition fees, or cheaper rail fairs, or free broadband, then of course they are popular.
However, when these are grouped together with £82bn in tax rises, then support starts to wain somewhat.
Only if the latter is also couched in abstract terms. In this yougov poll both the income and wealth tax changes in the manifesto also poll positively. Pretty much the only time a majority end up not saying that they support the policies is when presented with a bottom line spending figure in abstract - the specific policies and ways to fund them all poll well individually.
Slightly more complicated because the base mostly wanted to remain. The problem was a significant group who voted for brexit and are extremely annoyed that they have been ignored and constantly told by their own side that they didn't understand what they voted for (or even that they were right wing racists). This group deserted the party and so labour lost badly.
I'm not sure you have any analogy to this in the USA but even without brexit labour had a struggle for being left wing (and yes an unpopular leader) and we just have to keep fighting the good fight.
Main lesson to learn is don't treat your potential supporters like you're better than them. Don't tell them they didn't understand what they voted for and don't make personal attacks on them. Kinda unbelievable that any of this needs saying but apparently it does.
Thanks for laying it out for me. Ive come a long way in understanding your politics since 2017 when I thought, "wait... They don't vote directly for Corbyn in addition to the Parliament rep." Lol
Of course they do. Ask someone in isolation if they want more money for the NHS, or better schools, or abolition of tuition fees, or cheaper rail fairs, or free broadband, then of course they are popular.
However, when these are grouped together with £82bn in tax rises, then support starts to wain somewhat.
There's a lot of truth in this, and also in Labour generally winning elections during periods of growth when the electorate feel more comfortable with their spending plans (despite the Keynesian benefits of cheaper borrowing to do infrastructure projects when interest rates are very low), and the Tories winning during harsher economic times when the innate British (English) conservatism dominates through fear.
The best hope now is clearly that the Tories screw up wholesale with Brexit and the mask is pulled back to reveal what they are, which is a party of far right wing thugs and charlatans (I see that "Tommy Robinson" has joined the Conservative Party).
Of course they do. Ask someone in isolation if they want more money for the NHS, or better schools, or abolition of tuition fees, or cheaper rail fairs, or free broadband, then of course they are popular.
However, when these are grouped together with £82bn in tax rises, then support starts to wain somewhat.
The Labour manifesto wasn't in isolation it explains the tax ramifications and where the money to fund these policies comes from.
Only if the latter is also couched in abstract terms. In this yougov poll both the income and wealth tax changes in the manifesto also poll positively. Pretty much the only time a majority end up not saying that they support the policies is when presented with a bottom line spending figure in abstract - the specific policies and ways to fund them all poll well individually.
The only thing that really stuck out is there were a significant amount of people who thought Labour's spending plans were unaffordable and would require tax rises.
However, questions in isolation like this are sterile. You need to see the whole manifesto to make an informed judgement as to its credibility.
I do think the WASPI promise was a mistake, especially so soon after releasing the costed manifesto. The rail fare costs were part of the nationalisation plans though, which were always intended to be investments financed by borrowing rather than by tax increases.
Does anyone know if the manifesto forecasts were based on remaining in the EU or Labour's version of leaving?
Everything was based on the Office of Budget Responsibility reports from March. The summary of their report says this about their assumptions:
Quote:
So we continue to assume – consistent with government policy at the time we finalised our forecast–that the UK makes an orderly departure from the EU on 29 March into a transition period that lasts to the end of 2020.
Alternative outcomes, including a disorderly ‘no deal’ exit, remain the biggest short-term risks to the forecast.
So I guess that would make it closer to being based on Labour's version of leaving than on remaining in the EU.
WASPI and rail fair cuts were not costed in the manifesto - they were added when the initial proposal failed to cut through.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willd
I do think the WASPI promise was a mistake, especially so soon after releasing the costed manifesto. The rail fare costs were part of the nationalisation plans though, which were always intended to be investments financed by borrowing rather than by tax increases.
It seemed handled badly to me too.Like they thought the solution to getting policies discussed over brexit was to have lots of them. Maybe nothing would have worked but I'd have thought a few very well thought out more radical policies would cut through better than volume.
Also didn't get the idea of arguing a fully costed manifesto and then (the next day?) making a massive spending commitment. Made the little discussion there was on Labour's plans, predominantly about the fact it wasn't costed.
It seemed handled badly to me too.Like they thought the solution to getting policies discussed over brexit was to have lots of them. Maybe nothing would have worked but I'd have thought a few very well thought out more radical policies would cut through better than volume.
Also didn't get the idea of arguing a fully costed manifesto and then (the next day?) making a massive spending commitment. Made the little discussion there was on Labour's plans, predominantly about the fact it wasn't costed.
The WASPI move was very clever (tactically) and I'm almost certain it bought them a large number of votes.
It's harder to say how the move went down with the rest of the electorate. Handing £60bn to a relatively wealthy section of the population as an electoral bribe rather than poor people may not have played so well with Workington man.
Quote:
Originally Posted by micro dong
free unis are great when 4% of school leavers go to uni
ban courses with less than AAA A-level requirements and i'll be all for it
consider that not all teens do A-levels and I think that's acceptable if you want to go back to the good old days
This is the stark reality of no tuition fees. No fees would essentially mean higher standards of entry and less choice, which is most harmful to those from disadvantaged backgrounds who just manage to scrape in under the current system.
I agree with Chezlaw, Labour policies/manifesto all poll high and the voters who want Brexit didn't abandon the party because they want to fund the NHS or tax amazon and other billionaires. Most of these voters couldn't even bring themselves to vote for the Tories and went for Brexit party instead, as mentioned earlier their was no real difference in Tory turnout this year.
Those voters will be back with Labour and Boris will have to own all of the Brexit fall out.
i don’t think the individual policies are as important as the overall image you project. spending more money on something will often be pretty popular, but if the program and your candidates makes your party look radical then a lot of people will be turned off. you can’t scare people. they have to trust you to be responsible and not wanting to turn the country into venezuela or whatever.
Last edited by daca; 12-14-2019 at 06:23 AM.
Reason: honestly most people probably can’t name any concrete policies
also “blaming the electorate” is clearly correct. if you think bad people and ideas are getting votes (and we all think that sometimes) then at the end of the day it’s the fault of the people the voting
