Labour did not lose election because they were too left-wing
In a boost for Jeremy Corbyn, Labour didn't lose the general election because it was seen as too left wing, according to new research. Take Labour left, it suggests, and the party will not suffer. Take it right, and it loses votes.
The research also suggests that Corbyn's Labour will have to win the economic argument, and drill home the fact that many, if not most, economists oppose the Conservatives' austerity measures, including the Nobel Prize-winning economists Amartya Sen, Joseph Stiglitz and Paul Krugman.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34278338
The research also suggests that Corbyn's Labour will have to win the economic argument, and drill home the fact that many, if not most, economists oppose the Conservatives' austerity measures, including the Nobel Prize-winning economists Amartya Sen, Joseph Stiglitz and Paul Krugman.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34278338
They lost a lot because of SNP scooping up all the Scottish votes and constituencies (where Labour usually does well), as well as the fact that people weren't in the mood to trust them after Blair's reign.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by Fango_Jett
They lost a lot because of SNP scooping up all the Scottish votes and constituencies (where Labour usually does well), as well as the fact that people weren't in the mood to trust them after Blair's reign.
True
people were sick of being lied to by what was once a 'labour' party but became 'Tory lite'
Next election will be the telling time but as you say with SNP taking votes in Scotland the future isn't going to get 'better' for them
Original post by BaconandSauce
True
people were sick of being lied to by what was once a 'labour' party but became 'Tory lite'
Next election will be the telling time but as you say with SNP taking votes in Scotland the future isn't going to get 'better' for them
people were sick of being lied to by what was once a 'labour' party but became 'Tory lite'
Next election will be the telling time but as you say with SNP taking votes in Scotland the future isn't going to get 'better' for them
That makes no sense whatsoever.
If Labour lost Scotland because they were not left-wing enough, then surely Corbyn and the new direction the Labour Party is heading in will win back Scotland?
They lost because Ed Miliband was simply not Prime Minister material.
Original post by Errm39
That makes no sense whatsoever.
If Labour lost Scotland because they were not left-wing enough, then surely Corbyn and the new direction the Labour Party is heading in will win back Scotland?
If Labour lost Scotland because they were not left-wing enough, then surely Corbyn and the new direction the Labour Party is heading in will win back Scotland?
That presupposes the love affair with the SNP cools, right now they are Teflon and Labour up here are a shambles.
You always have to remember with the SNP that they pull voters from across the left/right spectrum, they are a real mongrel party made up of many different aspirations.
The No vote up here was similar and the grumblings re a second referendum will play on how some vote. (There will be a lot of anyone but SNP votes) So which way will that vote split, Labour will get it maybe in seats they may be perceived as contenders but with the guts torn from the party I doubt they can be real comeback kids in just five years, and a national lurch to the left in Labour policy (still not clear how radical that will be/ be perceived) may see some NO voters ,who might have voted Labour, swerve elsewhere.
There will be a lot of musical chairs re voter movement I expect.
Original post by viddy9
In a boost for Jeremy Corbyn, Labour didn't lose the general election because it was seen as too left wing, according to new research. Take Labour left, it suggests, and the party will not suffer. Take it right, and it loses votes.
The research also suggests that Corbyn's Labour will have to win the economic argument, and drill home the fact that many, if not most, economists oppose the Conservatives' austerity measures, including the Nobel Prize-winning economists Amartya Sen, Joseph Stiglitz and Paul Krugman.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34278338
The research also suggests that Corbyn's Labour will have to win the economic argument, and drill home the fact that many, if not most, economists oppose the Conservatives' austerity measures, including the Nobel Prize-winning economists Amartya Sen, Joseph Stiglitz and Paul Krugman.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34278338
The aim of the game is to win seats though. More socialists and left-wingers voting Labour in urban safe seats they already have isn't going to help. I can't see socialist Corbyn with his IRA sympathising shadow chancellor and anti-farming super vegan shadow farms minister taking any affluent city seats or rural seats that make up the Tory core. Name dropping economists isn't going to help much either; your typical Middle England voter doesn't trust Labour with the economy, end of. They want low taxes and jobs, not high taxes and welfare state expansion. Areas that the electorate would support Corbyn in like renationalisation of the railways are generally lower priority than areas the electorate are generally centre-right in.
Original post by Errm39
That makes no sense whatsoever.
If Labour lost Scotland because they were not left-wing enough, then surely Corbyn and the new direction the Labour Party is heading in will win back Scotland?
If Labour lost Scotland because they were not left-wing enough, then surely Corbyn and the new direction the Labour Party is heading in will win back Scotland?
They didn't lose Scotland for being not left wing enough, they lost it because of the way they approached the referendum
Posted from TSR Mobile
If Labour voters turned to Tories because apparently "Labour had a lesser enforcement of austerity" then why the **** would they go to a party with even more austerity? This is the argument from Labour and if it is true then it just shows how dumb Labour voters really are. They hate austerity and so vote for the party with the strictest austerity. No doubt if the Nazis were around and they hated nazism they would put 2 and 2 together and end up voting Nazis.
Original post by Gears265
If Labour voters turned to Tories because apparently "Labour had a lesser enforcement of austerity" then why the **** would they go to a party with even more austerity? This is the argument from Labour and if it is true then it just shows how dumb Labour voters really are. They hate austerity and so vote for the party with the strictest austerity. No doubt if the Nazis were around and they hated nazism they would put 2 and 2 together and end up voting Nazis.
Without the hyperbole at the end, you're right. Who the hell do people think these people voted for? The only party left of Labour in England - the Greens - only got a million votes. The Tories got a majority and UKIP got 4 million.
It makes no sense to say Labour weren't left enough. Especially when you consider that Scotland was won on nationalism.
If you're anti-austerity, are you going to prefer the party who who is going for more austerity or less austerity? You'd obviously pick the one with less, even if it's just slightly less.
Also consider that Milibands rhetoric in the campaign was all that guff about the undeserving rich that the left love. Then there's policies such as rent control, mansion tax, capping of energy prices etc. do these sound like the policies of a "Tory-lite" party? You've got to be an utter moron to think so.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by Stiff Little Fingers
They didn't lose Scotland for being not left wing enough, they lost it because of the way they approached the referendum
That was part of the issue. They were being seen as just another "Tory party" (i.e: a centre-ground party).
Labour's apathy in siding with the SNP or the Scottish people cost them them Scotland.
Ed Miliband tempered his overall policies so that it would appeal to Middle England.
In trying to get all the votes, he lost the ones that he already had.
"Corbyn's Labour will have to win the economic argument and drill it home"
*slow clap* did these people do much research? Pretty much anybody could tell you that much.
And the latest polling is pretty damning in that he really is not winning that fight, yet at least, with people having so little confidence is his management of the economy that they barely trust him with the NHS, pretty poor show for a labour leader to barely be trusted with the NHS.
Posted from TSR Mobile
*slow clap* did these people do much research? Pretty much anybody could tell you that much.
And the latest polling is pretty damning in that he really is not winning that fight, yet at least, with people having so little confidence is his management of the economy that they barely trust him with the NHS, pretty poor show for a labour leader to barely be trusted with the NHS.
Posted from TSR Mobile
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by Jammy Duel
"Corbyn's Labour will have to win the economic argument and drill it home"
*slow clap* did these people do much research? Pretty much anybody could tell you that much.
And the latest polling is pretty damning in that he really is not winning that fight, yet at least, with people having so little confidence is his management of the economy that they barely trust him with the NHS, pretty poor show for a labour leader to barely be trusted with the NHS.
*slow clap* did these people do much research? Pretty much anybody could tell you that much.
And the latest polling is pretty damning in that he really is not winning that fight, yet at least, with people having so little confidence is his management of the economy that they barely trust him with the NHS, pretty poor show for a labour leader to barely be trusted with the NHS.
A backbench MP of 32 years is propelled into one of the most visible roles in Parliament and within ONE week, we expect everyone in the land to suddenly trust him with a policy he probably hasn't even formulated or explained in detail?
The Conservatives haven't "won the economic argument".
All they have done is repeated "Labour can't be trusted on the economy" over and over again.
Their basic argument on the economy is:
- there was a recession in 2008/09, Labour were in charge so this is Labour's fault
- the economy took ages to recover between 2010 and 2013, but this is because we had to make tough decisions because of Labour's fault
- we are cutting spending because we have to make tough decisions because of Labour's fault
Now this argument is fine, until you reach the point where you say "Labour are now an irrelevance and this is Tory Britain", which the Conservatives are moving closer towards.
The next time there is a crash in the banking system or a recession due to global factors which are outside the Conservative government's control, which could easily happen in the next 5 years, the Conservatives have a problem, how do they argue it away? A recession would drive up the deficit and drive up unemployment so how do they argue against that?
They can't blame the bankers because those are key Conservative allies.
They can't say the recession was due to too much government spending, because then people will ask why did they spend so much.
They can't say the recession was due to Blair/Brown because they haven't been in power for ages.
This is the point where the Conservatives will start to struggle with their claim that they have "won the economic argument".
John Major came unstuck when the UK fell out of the Exchange Rate Mechanism in 1992, because even though Labour had supported ERM entry for a long time (longer than the Conservatives), it was ultimately the Conservative government that took the UK in to the ERM, and it was under the Conservatives that we crashed out at the cost of many billions and a lot of international credibility. They couldn't pin that on Labour. In the 1997 election campaign the Tories were trying to bring up the 1970s and talk about that as an argument against Labour but the electorate weren't listening, the buck stopped with the Tories and they wanted their pound of flesh from the Tories.
So the Conservatives need to be careful with their hubris. I've seen a lot of triumphalism recently, Labour is finished, Labour is an irrelevance, the Conservatives are the natural party of government. Once you take that line you have to accept accountability because the electorate are going to put every grievance at the Conservatives' door. Also if you pin the 2008/09 financial crisis on the Labour government rather than "global forces" then you can't claim that a subsequent recession was actually not due to a Conservative government but due to "global forces" as you have set the electorate up to blame the incumbent government.
All they have done is repeated "Labour can't be trusted on the economy" over and over again.
Their basic argument on the economy is:
- there was a recession in 2008/09, Labour were in charge so this is Labour's fault
- the economy took ages to recover between 2010 and 2013, but this is because we had to make tough decisions because of Labour's fault
- we are cutting spending because we have to make tough decisions because of Labour's fault
Now this argument is fine, until you reach the point where you say "Labour are now an irrelevance and this is Tory Britain", which the Conservatives are moving closer towards.
The next time there is a crash in the banking system or a recession due to global factors which are outside the Conservative government's control, which could easily happen in the next 5 years, the Conservatives have a problem, how do they argue it away? A recession would drive up the deficit and drive up unemployment so how do they argue against that?
They can't blame the bankers because those are key Conservative allies.
They can't say the recession was due to too much government spending, because then people will ask why did they spend so much.
They can't say the recession was due to Blair/Brown because they haven't been in power for ages.
This is the point where the Conservatives will start to struggle with their claim that they have "won the economic argument".
John Major came unstuck when the UK fell out of the Exchange Rate Mechanism in 1992, because even though Labour had supported ERM entry for a long time (longer than the Conservatives), it was ultimately the Conservative government that took the UK in to the ERM, and it was under the Conservatives that we crashed out at the cost of many billions and a lot of international credibility. They couldn't pin that on Labour. In the 1997 election campaign the Tories were trying to bring up the 1970s and talk about that as an argument against Labour but the electorate weren't listening, the buck stopped with the Tories and they wanted their pound of flesh from the Tories.
So the Conservatives need to be careful with their hubris. I've seen a lot of triumphalism recently, Labour is finished, Labour is an irrelevance, the Conservatives are the natural party of government. Once you take that line you have to accept accountability because the electorate are going to put every grievance at the Conservatives' door. Also if you pin the 2008/09 financial crisis on the Labour government rather than "global forces" then you can't claim that a subsequent recession was actually not due to a Conservative government but due to "global forces" as you have set the electorate up to blame the incumbent government.
A bit of denial here from biased sources, I feel
Original post by Errm41
A backbench MP of 32 years is propelled into one of the most visible roles in Parliament and within ONE week, we expect everyone in the land to suddenly trust him with a policy he probably hasn't even formulated or explained in detail?
We expect approval on the NHS greater than 8% simply by being a Labour leader... He should be solidly trusted on the NHS, if nothing else, as is he is barely trusted there, as said, almost certainly because of a very deep lack of trust in his economic policies, as the Tories keep shouting at us, you need a strong economy for a strong [insert other element of government/public sector here].
Original post by MagicNMedicine
The Conservatives haven't "won the economic argument".
All they have done is repeated "Labour can't be trusted on the economy" over and over again.
Their basic argument on the economy is:
- there was a recession in 2008/09, Labour were in charge so this is Labour's fault
- the economy took ages to recover between 2010 and 2013, but this is because we had to make tough decisions because of Labour's fault
- we are cutting spending because we have to make tough decisions because of Labour's fault
Now this argument is fine, until you reach the point where you say "Labour are now an irrelevance and this is Tory Britain", which the Conservatives are moving closer towards.
The next time there is a crash in the banking system or a recession due to global factors which are outside the Conservative government's control, which could easily happen in the next 5 years, the Conservatives have a problem, how do they argue it away? A recession would drive up the deficit and drive up unemployment so how do they argue against that?
They can't blame the bankers because those are key Conservative allies.
They can't say the recession was due to too much government spending, because then people will ask why did they spend so much.
They can't say the recession was due to Blair/Brown because they haven't been in power for ages.
This is the point where the Conservatives will start to struggle with their claim that they have "won the economic argument".
John Major came unstuck when the UK fell out of the Exchange Rate Mechanism in 1992, because even though Labour had supported ERM entry for a long time (longer than the Conservatives), it was ultimately the Conservative government that took the UK in to the ERM, and it was under the Conservatives that we crashed out at the cost of many billions and a lot of international credibility. They couldn't pin that on Labour. In the 1997 election campaign the Tories were trying to bring up the 1970s and talk about that as an argument against Labour but the electorate weren't listening, the buck stopped with the Tories and they wanted their pound of flesh from the Tories.
So the Conservatives need to be careful with their hubris. I've seen a lot of triumphalism recently, Labour is finished, Labour is an irrelevance, the Conservatives are the natural party of government. Once you take that line you have to accept accountability because the electorate are going to put every grievance at the Conservatives' door. Also if you pin the 2008/09 financial crisis on the Labour government rather than "global forces" then you can't claim that a subsequent recession was actually not due to a Conservative government but due to "global forces" as you have set the electorate up to blame the incumbent government.
All they have done is repeated "Labour can't be trusted on the economy" over and over again.
Their basic argument on the economy is:
- there was a recession in 2008/09, Labour were in charge so this is Labour's fault
- the economy took ages to recover between 2010 and 2013, but this is because we had to make tough decisions because of Labour's fault
- we are cutting spending because we have to make tough decisions because of Labour's fault
Now this argument is fine, until you reach the point where you say "Labour are now an irrelevance and this is Tory Britain", which the Conservatives are moving closer towards.
The next time there is a crash in the banking system or a recession due to global factors which are outside the Conservative government's control, which could easily happen in the next 5 years, the Conservatives have a problem, how do they argue it away? A recession would drive up the deficit and drive up unemployment so how do they argue against that?
They can't blame the bankers because those are key Conservative allies.
They can't say the recession was due to too much government spending, because then people will ask why did they spend so much.
They can't say the recession was due to Blair/Brown because they haven't been in power for ages.
This is the point where the Conservatives will start to struggle with their claim that they have "won the economic argument".
John Major came unstuck when the UK fell out of the Exchange Rate Mechanism in 1992, because even though Labour had supported ERM entry for a long time (longer than the Conservatives), it was ultimately the Conservative government that took the UK in to the ERM, and it was under the Conservatives that we crashed out at the cost of many billions and a lot of international credibility. They couldn't pin that on Labour. In the 1997 election campaign the Tories were trying to bring up the 1970s and talk about that as an argument against Labour but the electorate weren't listening, the buck stopped with the Tories and they wanted their pound of flesh from the Tories.
So the Conservatives need to be careful with their hubris. I've seen a lot of triumphalism recently, Labour is finished, Labour is an irrelevance, the Conservatives are the natural party of government. Once you take that line you have to accept accountability because the electorate are going to put every grievance at the Conservatives' door. Also if you pin the 2008/09 financial crisis on the Labour government rather than "global forces" then you can't claim that a subsequent recession was actually not due to a Conservative government but due to "global forces" as you have set the electorate up to blame the incumbent government.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- 2023–24 by-elections thread
- Lee Anderson defects to reform
- TSR opinion poll, Feb 2024: how would you vote in the general election?
- Working Class / Left wing football clubs?
- 2024 UK general election speculation and build-up thread
- Do you wish Johnson to return?
- who is donald trump
- Politics
- Cameron-comeback, opinions?
- Rethinking the nation state - what a Labour Government could do
- Jeremy Hunt to deliver budget on March 6 as election looms
- Have the Tories stopped being Conservative?
- Reshuffle: David Cameron is back and Braverman sacked
- Germany: Marches against the far right draw over 200,000
- Edexcel A-level Politics Paper 1 (9PL0 01) - 23rd May 2023 [Exam Chat]
- Rochdale By-election: George Galloway elected as new MP
- Which 2024 election will be most significant for the world?
- Was Jeremy Corbyn a Better Labour leader than Kier Starmer
- Should i vote Labour?
- How the radical left turned America's cities into slums.
Latest
Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
